Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[Escéptico]

It is not hard to see some guiding principles at work here when you see the similarities which came down different evolutionary paths. If God designed evolution then the rules would all work in a similar fashion. Is this ID? Not quite as is being preached today, and it is definitely not verifiable through science (so don't put it in a class devoted to science), but to me it demonstrates the oh-so-subtle hand of God in the whole process.

The hand only seems subtle if you ignore the fact that the entire process creates local fitness at the expense of a vast amount of suffering, predation, death, and extinction.

If this hand belongs to your God, perhaps He's not as worthy of admiration as you think.

 

[Scuba Pete]

There you go, trying to put God in a human box. He is not like you or me. He sees beyond the "momentary afflictions" to the greater glory. Look at the Rocky Mountains... can you imagine the hundreds or thousands of violent quakes that took to form it? Think of all the deaths that occurred because of those quakes. Are you better off for it happening? I sure am: they are GORGEOUS. But if you only have hope in your current physical existence, then I can see your point. I am glad I am in touch with my spiritual side as well as the physical. I can see the benefits of pain, death and sorrow especially when they are contrasted with their opposites of pleasure, life and joy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I do not understand this post. What does it mean to say that "evolution is ALL up to chance" and who would suggest such a thing?

Good to see you don't fall in that category Jay... you too Spinks!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Just remember, looks aren't everything. The Ichthyosaurs Blog » Ichthyosaurs Versus Dolphins: Different But The Same?

Yeah, that was kinda the whole point. Quite often people say that you can't repeat in evolution, but apparently here we have it. Kinda cool to me.

Do we know of any other phenotypes that match this closely?

 

[Sunstone]

Good to see you don't fall in that category Jay... you too Spinks!

I'm curious what you had in mind when you wrote the line Jay and Spinks asked about, Pete.

 

[Escéptico]

I am glad I am in touch with my spiritual side as well as the physical. I can see the benefits of pain, death and sorrow especially when they are contrasted with their opposites of pleasure, life and joy.

Stay with me, Pete.

I'm sure you weren't putting God in a human box when you said, "If God designed evolution then the rules would all work in a similar fashion." You were more likely just affirming the consequent. But I had to question whether a much more obvious feature of the evolutionary process - its indifferent brutality - seemed like what we'd expect from an almighty God who loves His creations.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm curious what you had in mind when you wrote the line Jay and Spinks asked about, Pete.

I am as well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is not hard to see some guiding principles at work here when you see the similarities which came down different evolutionary paths.

Nor is it 'hard' to erroneously invest these "guiding principles" with intentionality when what we're seeing is the 'guidance' imposed by common constraits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not hard to see some guiding principles at work here when you see the similarities which came down different evolutionary paths.

Yes... and that "guiding principle" is natural selection.

Organisms that are well-adapted to their environment survive and thrive. Similar environments produce similar sets of "ideal" characteristics for an organism to be well-adapted.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm curious what you had in mind when you wrote the line Jay and Spinks asked about, Pete.

I am certain that I meant precisely what I wrote. These types of parallel evolutionary organisms show that they are follow some of structure or rules. Evolution does not answer the question "Who designed these rules?" or even "Are these rules just an accident?"

Trying to paint that evolution is devoid of God is equally as fallacious and/or true as the statement that God designed evolution. There is no basis for either tenet except your personal belief. Trying to prove that "God is not needed" is as lame as trying to somehow show that God took an active role in any part of evolution. They are as logical or illogical as you make them out to be.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am certain that I meant precisely what I wrote. These types of parallel evolutionary organisms show that they are follow some of structure or rules. Evolution does not answer the question "Who designed these rules?" or even "Are these rules just an accident?"

I think this is a reification fallacy, Pete. Rules are derivative; they describe, not define.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But I had to question whether a much more obvious feature of the evolutionary process - its indifferent brutality - seemed like what we'd expect from an almighty God who loves His creations.

I am not sure brutality should ever be referred to as "indifferent". It's makes a difference to some one or thing.

Evolution is the ultimate bio-feedback mechanism ever designed. If you only look at it from a temporal perspective, then your criticisms might have some merit. If you look at creation as a whole: the incredibly diverse interaction of billions of species is fierce, barbaric and wonderfully fascinating. I guess I just don't view that as a negative when compared to the current results!

Last year I was diving off of Boynton Beach and doing my five minute safety stop. When all of a sudden a SWARM of ballyhoo literally engulfed me. As they swam by I saw a sailfish know the crap out of two with it's bill. In a quick gobble they were both gone. As the ballyhoo tried to escape, two other sailfish came in and herded them back towards me as another sliced through the bait ball knocking a few more unconscious. My five minute safety stop turned into twenty as I watched this underwater ballet between the ballyhoo and the three sailfish. Barbaric? I guess! Incredibly moving and beautiful? You betcha! I saw the death of these ballyhoo as an affirmation of life for the sailfish.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think this is a reification fallacy, Pete. Rules are derivative; they describe, not define.

That's a simplistic view of rules jay. Rules not only can define, but they will govern a process. These rules can be physical or physiological in nature but are not restricted to such. These rules can be defined in many ways, and it appears that since the ichthyosaur and the dolphin had to deal with the rules for an air breathing animal moving through water trying to eat the same types of food. Consequently, they closely resemble each other with either having some oddities that might make it more or less successful as a species.

You say these rules are derived, but derived from what? At the very base of our approach is the difference in our beliefs. Those beliefs are very personal and derived from our life experiences.

 

[painted wolf]

yet a seal, pliosaur, turtle, penguin is not like either... the 'rules' describe the forces acting on the animals, they do not predetermine the result.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

yet a seal, pliosaur, turtle, penguin is not like either... the 'rules' describe the forces acting on the animals, they do not predetermine the result.

wa:do

Neither are fish, but it doesn't appear that they all are after the same grocery list. That's yet another "rule".

So, how do you account for the amazing similarities? Luck?

 

[Sunstone]

So, how do you account for the amazing similarities? Luck?

Don't nobody tell Pete about Natural Selection!!! He thinks it's luck!!! :angel2:

 

[Scuba Pete]

Don't nobody tell Pete about Natural Selection!!! He thinks it's luck!!! :angel2:

Quite the contrary and I am not certain why people want to not only put me in some sort of box, but into the wrong one at that!

It's all in the design of this massive bio-feedback mechanism. I think it's wonderful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's a simplistic view of rules jay. Rules not only can define, but they will govern a process.

Rules are derivative. They describe. They do not govern.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You can keep saying that, but what real evidence or even proof that this is so.

The "law" of gravity may be derived from our observations of an apple, but try to suspend that law for a few moments. The apple will still fall.

Human observation is always incomplete. Regardless of what we may call something, it exists independently of our feeble senses.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The apple will still fall.

The law serves the apple - not the other way around.