Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

This would include Neandertals wouldnt it?

Revelation 5:9 KJV
And they sung a new song, saying , Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain , and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

If they chose to cloak their willful ignorance in a flag of Christianity, like you, then there is not much another can do about it except note it. But that is all that really need be done.

I'll bet you even use the US flag sometimes, right? Are you a "patriot" as much as you are a "Godly man"? Or do you use a Confederate flag?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If they chose to cloak their willful ignorance in a flag of Christianity, like you, then there is not much another can do about it except note it. But that is all that really need be done.

I'll bet you even use the US flag sometimes, right? Are you a "patriot" as much as you are a "Godly man"? Or do you use a Confederate flag?

I am not ignorant of your attempts to mix and match these categories of science to cling to your assumptions.
Its really quite predictable. :rain:

(The Five Categories of Knowledge are: Physical Sciences; Natural Sciences; Social [and Behavioral] Sciences; Arts & Humanities; Religion.)

 

[alwight]

Can you show that genetic information doesn't just evolve naturally over time without resorting to personal incredulity? :think:

Can we say that "useful information" does evolve by chance mutations?

No, that's just the usual old red herring Dave, individual mutations are perhaps random chance but natural selection isn't chance and nor is the thereby selected information. You disingenuously imo attempt to portray the process of Darwinian evolution as merely unlikely chance when in reality you probably know that just isn't true.

If I were to agree, for the sake of argument, that nature is selective, any mutation that occurs without purpose/chance would still fulfill a purpose which is a contradiction. It would be arguing that chance mutations serve a purpose. Any mutation that serves a purpose would not be by chance, and if not by chance then by design.

--Dave

Now you proceed to continue to miss the whole point of natural selection by presuming that there must be purpose. Mutations don't have a purpose, they are either selectable by natural selection each time or they're not. Those that are selected for will produce offspring that again are subject to the same process. Selection builds on selection depending on what works best, not by chance or deliberate intent.

 

[MichaelCadry]

No Alwight,

God makes the changes according to what He feels is right. That's why He gave hair to the wooly mammoth, the elephant no longer needs the warmth of the hair and so they are without hair. Same with many creatures. Look at giraffes, having an incredibly long neck so they can reach the trees. Don't be an ingrate buddy! Do you know of any live being has definitely evolved. I don't want just ideas. Facts, please.

In God's Words,

MichaelC

 

[alwight]

No Alwight,

God makes the changes according to what He feels is right.

If that is true Michael then He is using evolution by the means of natural selection to do it.

That's why He gave hair to the wooly mammoth, the elephant no longer needs the warmth of the hair and so they are without hair. Same with many creatures. Look at giraffes, having an incredibly long neck so they can reach the trees.

As I've already argued male giraffes use their long necks to fight off rivals so that their long-neck genes get passed on, while getting at higher leaves is perhaps a side benefit that is perhaps also a naturally selectable trait, no gods are apparently required.

Don't be an ingrate buddy! Do you know of any live being has definitely evolved. I don't want just ideas. Facts, please.

In God's Words,

MichaelC

My conclusion is that every living thing has evolved because that is what the evidence suggests. Has this been proven? No, Darwinian evolution is a theory that explains the evidence. Scientific theories never get proven that is not the intent, they exist to explain the evidence and to be falsified by it if it is wrong. If the ToE is wrong then I would have expected there to be plenty of falsifying evidence found in the past 150 years, which since that has not materialised rather allows for the reasonable conclusion that it is in fact true.
The case has already been well made from facts and evidence, it would be your job to falsify it with suitable facts and evidence of your own rather than simply special pleading for your God.

 

[DFT_Dave]

If a tree randomly falls over a ravine or river it would still fill a purpose as a "useful" bridge for animals. But this would be a contradiction, it would argue that chance tree falling serve a purpose. Any tree that falls would not be by chance, and if not by chance then by design.

Definitive proof of the intelligent tree tipper!


Please tell me you can figure out where this argument (and therefore your) goes wrong...

A fallen tree, regardless where it falls is not like a bridge.

A fallen tree would be like a fallen bridge in a proper analogy.

But even that would not really be a proper analogy.

Many trees would have to fall in proper place in order to be properly compared to a bridge.

Mutations are like fallen trees the product of chance, bridges are not like fallen trees they are not the product of chance. Are we like fallen trees or like bridges?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

I am not ignorant of your attempts to mix and match these categories of science to cling to your assumptions.
Its really quite predictable. :rain:

(The Five Categories of Knowledge are: Physical Sciences; Natural Sciences; Social [and Behavioral] Sciences; Arts & Humanities; Religion.)

What? Can you please explain this brilliant response? Can you please explain how what I do with these is any different than what you do? And then how that relates to my comments about you?

 

[noguru]

A fallen tree, regardless where it falls is not like a bridge.

A fallen tree would be like a fallen bridge in a proper analogy.

But even that would not really be a proper analogy.

Many trees would have to fall in proper place in order to be properly compared to a bridge.

Mutations are like fallen trees the product of chance, bridges are not like fallen trees they are not the product of chance. Are we like fallen trees or like bridges?

--Dave

If falling trees could reproduce that "falling part" biologically and it lead to reproductive advantage (for the tree) then we would end up with that. I bet you conveniently forgot that part of the equation.

 

[noguru]

Hey 0mind100spirits and Default_Dave, maybe you guys should get your big hero Sprite here to help you confuse reality even more. He can help you guys wipe up your drool at least.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, that's just the usual old red herring Dave, individual mutations are perhaps random chance but natural selection isn't chance and nor is the thereby selected information. You disingenuously imo attempt to portray the process of Darwinian evolution as merely unlikely chance when in reality you probably know that just isn't true.

Now you proceed to continue to miss the whole point of natural selection by presuming that there must be purpose. Mutations don't have a purpose, they are either selectable by natural selection each time or they're not. Those that are selected for will produce offspring that again are subject to the same process. Selection builds on selection depending on what works best, not by chance or deliberate intent.

And you are saying a mutation that works best in relation to environment and producing more offspring just happens to appear in the genetic code by chance.

And I said that any mutation that does this as opposed to all other mutations that don't would serve a purpose and that would negate purposeless chance for that particular mutation.

What is the ratio of helpful mutations to harmful mutations?

I would suppose you would agree that we did not go from the brain size of a common ancestor to apes over night. That process would have required many mutations, yes. You think the brain of that creature mutated by chance mutations into the brain we have today? Is our thinking merely the result of the chance appearance of mutation?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

And you are saying a mutation that works best in relation to environment and producing more offspring just happens to appear in the genetic code by chance.

At first they just happen, but the fact that they produce more offspring makes them multiply in future generations. :doh:

 

[noguru]

And I said that any mutation that does this as opposed to all other mutations that don't would serve a purpose and that would negate purposeless chance for that particular mutation.

What is the ratio of helpful mutations to harmful mutations?

Most genetic variations are neutral in regard to immediate reproductive advantage. If often takes many combined changes, and perhaps a change of environment for them to have an effect on reproductive advantage.

 

[alwight]

A fallen tree, regardless where it falls is not like a bridge.

A fallen tree would be like a fallen bridge in a proper analogy.

But even that would not really be a proper analogy.

Many trees would have to fall in proper place in order to be properly compared to a bridge.

When is a bridge not a bridge?
Are you really saying Dave that something that by chance happens to fulfil the role of a bridge actually isn't a bridge unless it meets your particular construction standards for a bridge? :liberals:

The British Isles were once a part of continental Europe until the sea levels rose and removed the "Land Bridge" that once existed, but that "bridge" wouldn't have met your construction standards either perhaps?

 

[noguru]

I would suppose you would agree that we did not go from the brain size of a common ancestor to apes over night.

--Dave

Yes, and as I pointed out several of these genetic changes happened way before the last two (or three if the vocal cords lowered in the throat first) of compete bipedalism and more directly opposing thumbs. But of course you always choose to ignore pertinent information when it undermines your absurd argument.

 

[bybee]

When is a bridge not a bridge?
Are you really saying Dave that something that by chance happens to fulfil the role of a bridge actually isn't a bridge unless it meets your particular construction standards for a bridge? :liberals:

The British Isles were once a part of continental Europe until the sea levels rose and removed the "Land Bridge" that once existed, but that "bridge" wouldn't have met your construction standards either perhaps?

It just might depend on who is doing the constructing?

 

[DFT_Dave]

If falling trees could reproduce that "falling part" biologically and it lead to reproductive advantage (for the tree) then we would end up with that. I bet you conveniently forgot that part of the equation.

If fallen trees could..., well, we know they can't

If fallen trees are of no use for producing bridges then chance mutations are no good for producing the human brain that informs us that fallen trees are no use for producing bridges.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Is our thinking merely the result of the chance appearance of mutation?

--Dave

No. Natural selection is not random. The process of evolution as a whole is stochastic, it has both random and predictable elements. This is the case with many things in the universe. But I'll bet you forget that the next time you need the information for a complete thought about evolution.

 

[noguru]

If fallen trees could..., well, we know they can't

If fallen trees are of no use for producing bridges then chance mutations are no good for producing the human brain that informs us that fallen trees are no use for producing bridges.

--Dave

Dave I was responding to your question of why we don't see "many", though I did not get you to define what you mean by "many". The reason is a tree falling over a river offers no reproductive advantage to the tree. Falling over a river helps other animals that come along, not the reproduction of that species of tree. Are you paying attention to the questions you ask? Or are you just this stupid regardless of effort?

 

[noguru]

It just might depend on who is doing the constructing?

The point being that a bridge (in function) can be found that was not designed by human hands (like a tree falling over a river), that's it. That was the challenge Default_Dave laid out. And it was answered. Now he wants to add another caveat to keep that conundrum alive in his head.

 

[DFT_Dave]

When is a bridge not a bridge?
Are you really saying Dave that something that by chance happens to fulfil the role of a bridge actually isn't a bridge unless it meets your particular construction standards for a bridge? :liberals:

The British Isles were once a part of continental Europe until the sea levels rose and removed the "Land Bridge" that once existed, but that "bridge" wouldn't have met your construction standards either perhaps?

Is there no difference in your thinking between a "land bridge" and a "man made bridge"?

--Dave