Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

How about;

The mutation functions in a way that increases survival, in the same way that a fallen tree can function as a bridge without any initial human purpose for the fallen tree.

That leads me to a question;

If a tree falls across a river and no one is there to use it, does it have any function?

Does your brain have a function?

Does your brain have a purposeless function, or does it function for a purpose?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yup. But things can function by chance.

What things function by chance without a purpose?

func·tion [fuhngk-shuhn]

noun

1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Can anyone...

...give me an example of a change, that you know of as a fact of science, in the evolution of man that made it possible to produce more offspring?

--Dave

 

[alwight]

The point is that a bridge is still a bridge whether there was design and intent involved or not.

Not the comparison I made. Taking the definition I used is not the same thing as using another definition. I used the understanding, and pictured it, of a man made bridge.

--Dave

It seems to me Dave that you are either back-peddling or trying to re-define the word "bridge".

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

Why could it not nevertheless be a simple bridge that came about by sheer chance?

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

Surely a fallen tree could become a simple bridge simply because it did fall?

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.

Perhaps your difficulty Dave is that you are rather expecting that all bridges need to be designed and have clear purpose in the construction, or it was perhaps just a poor analogy?

However not all bridges are designed and since unlike living things bridges don't self-replicate then without a designer and creator the simplest accidental bridge will never evolve into London Bridge however long we give it.

 

[alwight]

Can anyone...

...give me an example of a change, that you know of as a fact of science, in the evolution of man that made it possible to produce more offspring?

--Dave

But everything man has, has adapted and evolved for the specific "purpose" of self replication. Unsuccessful individuals simply don't contribute to the next generation while the others do, that's natural selection in action.

 

[6days]

....... unlike living things bridges don't self-replicate then without a designer and creator the simplest accidental bridge will never evolve into London Bridge however long we give it.

Exactly!
Non living things never self-replicate.....
..... Living things do... Evidence of the Designer.

Accidental bridges always appear accidental
The London Bridge appears designed.

We see the evidence of design in all living things.
Evolutionists often try dismiss this by saying its the "appearance of design"

 

[6days]

But everything man has, has adapted and evolved for the specific "purpose" of self replication. Unsuccessful individuals simply don't contribute to the next generation while the others do, that's natural selection in action.

That's sort of what God says in Genesis 1, that everything will self replicate.
Adaptation and natural selection support the Biblical model.

 

[6days]

Can anyone...

...give me an example of a change, that you know of as a fact of science, in the evolution of man that made it possible to produce more offspring?

--Dave

This question will be avoided.... Tap danced around; same as the previous question when you asked if they would concede the facts regarding frauds and human fossils.

For your current question... we know that genetic problems are increasing ... fertility problems increasing...
In fact there are some geneticists who are concerned that the human Y chromosome is "crumbling before our eyes". Its another example of ToE in reverse

 

[DFT_Dave]

It seems to me Dave that you are either back-peddling or trying to re-define the word "bridge".
Why could it not nevertheless be a simple bridge that came about by sheer chance?

Surely a fallen tree could become a simple bridge simply because it did fall?

Perhaps your difficulty Dave is that you are rather expecting that all bridges need to be designed and have clear purpose in the construction, or it was perhaps just a poor analogy?

However not all bridges are designed and since unlike living things bridges don't self-replicate then without a designer and creator the simplest accidental bridge will never evolve into London Bridge however long we give it.

Altering my explicit definition of a bridge as used in my analogy you are guilty of the straw man fallacy.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

That's sort of what God says in Genesis 1, that everything will self replicate.
Adaptation and natural selection support the Biblical model.

Really? Is that what AiG and ICR tell you 6days, since that seems to be where most your "information" is to be found it seems.

 

[DFT_Dave]

But everything man has, has adapted and evolved for the specific "purpose" of self replication. Unsuccessful individuals simply don't contribute to the next generation while the others do, that's natural selection in action.

That does not answer my question.

Your response is clearly circular reasoning.

If you claim that a certain mutation/change gives a member in the herd an advantage in producing more offspring then the other members give me some examples from the many such mutations/changes that did this for human evolution.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Altering my explicit definition of a bridge as used in my analogy you are guilty of the straw man fallacy.

--Dave

I simply quoted your words Dave and you didn't seem to specify only a designed and purposely constructed bridge or have I missed it?
However maybe we can agree that a bridge can be either designed or accidental?
Either way bridges don't self-replicate or are naturally selected.

 

[alwight]

That does not answer my question.

Your response is clearly circular reasoning.

If you claim that a certain mutation/change gives a member in the herd an advantage in producing more offspring then the other members give me some examples from the many such mutations/changes that did this for human evolution.

--Dave

Your question was imo unanswerable as framed, which is probably why you asked it.
The real question is about survivability of a whole species. Those individuals who survive produce the next generation. Small advantages and traits simply tend toward gradually becoming dominant features within a species, there is no "one shining moment" when a brand new trait suddenly kills off the opposition. Evolution is about what gradually happens to whole species not individual members.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I simply quoted your words Dave and you didn't seem to specify only a designed and purposely constructed bridge or have I missed it?
However maybe we can agree that a bridge can be either designed or accidental?
Either way bridges don't self-replicate or are naturally selected.

I showed a big pic of a big bridge, how did you miss that?

And you still are not stating correctly my analogy. Why?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Your question was imo unanswerable as framed, which is probably why you asked it.
The real question is about survivability of a whole species. Those individuals who survive produce the next generation. Small advantages and traits simply tend toward gradually becoming dominant features within a species, there is no "one shining moment" when a brand new trait suddenly kills off the opposition. Evolution is about what gradually happens to whole species not individual members.

No! You can't have a whole species evolve with the same mutation and say a member of it has a mutation that enables it to produce more offspring than the other members with out that mutation. You can't have it both ways.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

I showed a big pic of a big bridge, how did you miss that?

And you still are not stating correctly my analogy. Why?

--Dave

Dave, can you state your analogy for me again, so I can see what I might be missing?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No! You can't have a whole species evolve with the same mutation and say a member of it has a mutation that enables it to produce more offspring than the other members with out that mutation. You can't have it both ways.

--Dave

:up:
thats like sayin the tree which by chance fell and made it easier to get accross the creek was actually the only way ever devised to get there and the cause of everything that happened once an animal got to the other side.

More fanciful daydreaming.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 1Mind,

It's not like that tree analogy at all. That explanation is too vague and unreal. More fanciful daydreaming. What would the animal cause once he got to the other side? What's wrong with an animal swimming or walking across? Everything that could be caused on the other side of the creek would have happened on either side of the creek.

Praise God, Our Father,

Michael

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Dear 1Mind,

It's not like that tree analogy at all. That explanation is too vague and unreal. More fanciful daydreaming. What would the animal cause once he got to the other side? What's wrong with an animal swimming or walking across? Everything that could be caused on the other side of the creek would have happened on either side of the creek.

Praise God, Our Father,

Michael

Reckon they will see it?

I swear doc, it was a one in a million shot.

 

[alwight]

I showed a big pic of a big bridge, how did you miss that?

And you still are not stating correctly my analogy. Why?

--Dave

I quoted your words from this post Dave, and yes despite that you did show a nice picture of a purpose-built bridge, you seemed to me and perhaps to others too, to suggest that the term "bridge" couldn't be applied to a tree that had simply fallen and bridged a gap accidentally.

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

To remove any confusion and doubt why don't you explain with different words what your analogy was again?