Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Only because I am dealing with an unreasonable poster. An honest and reasonable one would have acknowledged their error immediately.uh subzie, your asking for an apology is unreasonable
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Only because I am dealing with an unreasonable poster. An honest and reasonable one would have acknowledged their error immediately.uh subzie, your asking for an apology is unreasonable
I was pointing out a dishonest argument by you. The proper action would have been to apologize for attempting to move the goal posts.
I see an "if". Did you accept* it that you were wrong?
If so, that is a point in your favour! Few can do it.
*I dont like "admit". It means, to "reluctantly confess"
It is always dishonest to try to change the goal posts. That is exactly what you did. If you really wanted to learn that would be different, but we both know that is not the case.In your mind it might look dishonest, but everybody else would agree that there is nothing wrong with accepting an argument, admiting that I was wrong, and asking another independent question.
Okay, so then the evolution of the eye should be no problem. Now you want a more specific question on how the eye patch arose. Those are merely specialized nerve cells. Here is an article that may help you to understand. It explains much better than I would be able to:Yes I was wrong, given the initial assumptions on who is the first organism was, it is possible to go from “organism 1” to “organism 2” trough Darwinian mechanisms.
My question would be,
How did an organism that is unable to detect / react to light evolved in to an organism that can react to light? Is there a path?
Only because I am dealing with an unreasonable poster. An honest and reasonable one would have acknowledged their error immediately.
Yes I was wrong, given the initial assumptions on who is the first organism was, it is possible to go from “organism 1” to “organism 2” trough Darwinian mechanisms.
Were we getting anywhere? And perhaps he sees his error now. At any rate both I and @Polymath257 answered his question on how eye patches would have come to be.Whatevs. But you get nowhere you really want to go,
that way. Do you?
Well, sorta. Depends on what you mean by
"Organism one".
And why do you insist on saying
"Darwinian"? That is like, so 19th century.
It is in a league with arguing "catastrophism"
v "gradulaism". Seriously, you look a bit silly
talking "darwinian". Take a hint?
Anyway, what we have been trying witih no evident
success to show you is that there is no such thing
as a "first" organism, never was, never could have been. Why? Because it is as undefinable as
t he exact line between night and day.
So there is no initial assumption as to the first organism.
Also, and this is quite important, there is nothing
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.
How would an organism that “could have not evolved” look like?
For clarification
“Organism 1 and 2” are hypothetical organisms described in this forum
I know that “Darwinism” has a negative connotation in USA but:
1 I am not from USA (I am from Mexico)
2 I honestly don’t know what word should I use instead of “Darwinism” what word should I use to describe “the idea that the diversity of life is mainly due to random variation and natural selection”
Go sit in the sun. Do you feel the heat on your arm? Do the cells in your arm have photo-receptors? Every cell comprising your skin can detect radiation.My question would be,
How did an organism that is unable to detect / react to light evolved in to an organism that can react to light? Is there a path?
Also, and this is quite important, there is nothing
known in all of biology that demonstrably could
not have evolved. Quite the contrary.
Sure, so my question is, how does an organism has to look like in order for you to conclude that evolution could have not done it? What potential characteristics would indicate that life was intelligently designed?
Well I accept universal common ancestry, descend with modification and natural selection, but I would also argue that the diversity of life is due to “guided” genetic variation as oppose to random genetic variation. I like to describe myself as someone who accepts evolution, but rejects Darwinism. The term Darwinism is necessary, because evolution and Darwinism don’t have the same meaning.
How silly. It is acknowledged that Darwin didn't get some of the details right. But the term Darwinism isn't necessary and rejecting it is nonsensical.... as someone who accepts evolution, but rejects Darwinism. The term Darwinism is necessary, because evolution and Darwinism don’t have the same meaning.
Thanks for the clarification. My understanding of natural selection is the whole of the abiotic and biotic environment, including the internal environment of the organisms other members of the population and all the predators, parasites, pathogens, etc.Natural selection is the driving force changing the frequency of alleles but it can be physical or biological
Two individuals would not be enough of a genetic basis to suscessfully sustain populations of most organisms.Evolution is process of change. Even if you assume the earth is 6000 year old, once the earth was in place, things change, with this process of change called evolution. If there was a forest fire and all the plants are burned and the animal are displaced, the forest is gradually restored, beginning as a meadow. The sequence of change draws in various species of bugs and animals, which help and harm some plants, further changing the landscape. Ecosystem eventually form, which are typically healthy and integrated as though nature has a plan; natural selection process. Evolution has nothing to do with the political divide between religion and atheism, although it is used like a weapon.
Where evolution gets a bad name is connected to the atheists fixating on evolution as a way to create a distinction based on politics, instead of trying to show the process of evolution was at work after 6000 years ago, unrelated to the religious or philosophical divide.
Noah's Ark is an example of how evolution could work. If there as a giant flood and we selected 2 of each animal, after the world wide destruction, life would begin again as the plants spout from the mud and the animals repopulate the earth, until new ecosystems appear. God does not have to direct this, personally, due to natural selective processes that are built into creation; potentials.
A change in a gene is a mutation, even if that change results from viral insertion. However, I don't know what the specific term would be for insertions into the non-coding regions of the genome.You could also suppose that gene-change has another factor involved instead of random mutations in the genome that are selected out.
I have my thoughts on that but it will not be easy to do experiments to prove it.
I was thinking of mutations to the genome through genetic information that comes from outside the organism in the form of virus-DNA which is added on the the genome of the "infected" organism.
This type of evolution would only be possible if certain viruses (perhaps also floating in space) are somehow attracted to the organism in need of the mutation.
Considering the present materialistic paradigm in scientific thought most scientist will not even consider such a possiblity.
But someone like biologist Rupert Sheldrake would consider it I'm sure.