Evolution and life in the future

[Balthazzar]

God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin. It was a possibility. We (you and I) are disposed to sin from birth even in the womb since we are conceived with infirmities and mental pushing. Meaning brains and physical propensities adverse from the start. Not so Adam and Eve.

I'll respectfully disagree. We're too ignorant of too many things not to fall short, including Adam and Eve - The very act itself clues us in on this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I used to believe in the theory of evolution. But now I do not. Because I studied and believe in the Bible as the word of God. And it makes sense to me, a lot of sense. Despite what others may say about it.
It seems to me that if a person realizes the theory doesn't hold water, so to speak, then what? Is there a God? Is there not a God? Are gods and goddesses why life exists? See, those are questions to be coped with for some if they realize the theory just doesn't fill in the 'holes' that are ever so apparent to me now anyway.

What Bible believers think is of no concern to me. I wonder how Bible makes sense. Holes in knowledge have always been there, and science tries to fill these. Not believing in existence of God for me has cleared a very dirty slate (i.e., rejection of soul, heaven and hell, rebirth/reincarnation/resurrection, end of days, final judgment, deliverance, etc.), all unnecessary unproved superstitions.

As for future, today's news says that an Israeli scientist has created a synthetic embryo. Science will continue to tinker with that technology, and we may get some very strange results by manipulation of DNA.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll respectfully disagree. We're too ignorant of too many things not to fall short, including Adam and Eve - The very act itself clues us in on this.

Not really. Eve did not believe her maker. She believed the serpent, identified later as Satan the Devil and original manslayer. And Adam was not deceived, the Bible says. They knew, and were held accountable.

 

[YoursTrue]

What Bible believers think is of no concern to me. I wonder how Bible makes sense. Holes in knowledge have always been there, and science tries to fill these. Not believing in existence of God for me has cleared a very dirty slate (i.e., rejection of soul, heaven and hell, rebirth/reincarnation/resurrection, end of days, final judgment, deliverance, etc.), all unnecessary unproved superstitions.

As for future, today's news says that an Israeli scientist has created a synthetic embryo. Science will continue to tinker with that technology, and we may get some very strange results by manipulation of DNA.

Since what I believe is of no interest to you, I find massive holes in what you believe. anyway. Regardless of whether you care about what I believe. A synthetic embryo does not create itself, by the way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since what I believe is of no interest to you, I find massive holes in what you believe. anyway. .. A synthetic embryo does not create itself, by the way.

Ah, you don't see a super massive black hole in your own theory!
Yeah, it is a first news paper report. Let it be peer-reviewed. That is how science works. Check, check again.

 

[Balthazzar]

Not really. Eve did not believe her maker. She believed the serpent, identified later as Satan the Devil and original manslayer. And Adam was not deceived, the Bible says. They knew, and were held accountable.

Was God incompetent? So incompetent to not know that they would disobey the rule? I thought God was all knowing. I likely have a different take on this than you. As far as I can tell, Adam and Eve were bound to leave the comforts of "Eden" or "home to them. Or ... maybe if not them, another couple who came of age, did the deed, and the woman became impregnated. I figure they were ashamed for a reason when mom or pops came walking through. Adam most definitely, and Eve likely snickering behind his back. Ok, so "God" seemed pissed. Told Eve that when she had the baby, it would multiply her pain. Cursed the "serpent", and then wished them well with a goodbye be fruitful and multiply. Oh, don't forget how easy you had it here. You will be working and you're gonna sweat A LOT! Rasing a family isn't easy. Don't forget it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was God incompetent? So incompetent to not know that they would disobey the rule? I thought God was all knowing. I likely have a different take on this than you. As far as I can tell, Adam and Eve were bound to leave the comforts of "Eden" or "home to them. Or ... maybe if not them, another couple who came of age, did the deed, and the woman became impregnated. I figure they were ashamed for a reason when mom or pops came walking through. Adam most definitely, and Eve likely snickering behind his back. Ok, so "God" seemed pissed. Told Eve that when she had the baby, it would multiply her pain. Cursed the "serpent", and then wished them well with a goodbye be fruitful and multiply. Oh, don't forget how easy you had it here. You will be working and you're gonna sweat A LOT! Rasing a family isn't easy. Don't forget it.

I think you're mixing up the word incompetent a lot.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah, you don't see a super massive black hole in your own theory!
Yeah, it is a first news paper report. Let it be peer-reviewed. That is how science works. Check, check again.

Scientists continue to argue about what happened, especially how to categorize things. So obviously they don't know. While many scientists believe that evolution is what happened, and by evolution I mean the Darwinian kind, I wonder how you feel about the following statement about humans ("homo sapiens") starting an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct."
THE ONLY ONE THAT IS NOT EXTINCT, it says. The only one. I'm particularly interested in the term "species" there. The only "species" of several species, they say, grouped into the genus Homo that is not extinct. Where is the proof of that?

 

[rational experiences]

What Bible believers think is of no concern to me. I wonder how Bible makes sense. Holes in knowledge have always been there, and science tries to fill these. Not believing in existence of God for me has cleared a very dirty slate (i.e., rejection of soul, heaven and hell, rebirth/reincarnation/resurrection, end of days, final judgment, deliverance, etc.), all unnecessary unproved superstitions.

As for future, today's news says that an Israeli scientist has created a synthetic embryo. Science will continue to tinker with that technology, and we may get some very strange results by manipulation of DNA.

Once any scientist thinking of playing around with life was considered life's destroyer. As the thought of human baby consciousness aborted bodily is abhorrent.

Then came medication from science. Take the pill women to stop being pregnant.

Then women couldn't conceive.

So the satanic science community gained the position it wanted. To be allowed to play around with human and animal genetics.

As science gave itself permission.

So putting the evil thinker egotist in his place.

You are a baby yourself first innocent of being an evil adult thinker.

You seem to forget your own natural position.

If no human existed and a man only lived as his God concept self human.... would you find a need to be a scientist?

No.

Would you experiment with machines on bodies naturally present first in a status that a human quotes as God given?
No.

I'd be too busy surviving.

Is the true human only answer.

Take a human away from its true nature you become an evil thinker.

A man supposedly believes he is the creator of all things. Even says his human only words owns why anything created exists now.

So he's trying to prove to himself his own human belief. He created everything. Acting it out as roleplay in his mind.

That outside of himself his own human body life had formed.

But without any woman human.

Yet no woman no genetic study either. As medical science was before any occult machine science. In any type I use machines.

So then you go back in time and see a man human theist. Who theories space womb maths science. Pretending no human woman existed.

And today it's who you are seeing again. Intention.

That theme was pre told as alien choice. Artificial thinking.

As he says as that human man is proving an alien being....self pun intended the life of a human being was created outside of his owned ownership.

It's really true what human science men think.

 

[rational experiences]

Scientists continue to argue about what happened, especially how to categorize things. So obviously they don't know. While many scientists believe that evolution is what happened, and by evolution I mean the Darwinian kind, I wonder how you feel about the following statement about humans ("homo sapiens") starting an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct."
THE ONLY ONE THAT IS NOT EXTINCT, it says. The only one. I'm particularly interested in the term "species" there. The only "species" of several species, they say, grouped into the genus Homo that is not extinct. Where is the proof of that?

The extremes of bad men human science behaviour.

Place your position in natural order no human whatsoever as biological. No self human presence. As he doesn't.

As you are in fact pretending you personally are a God as a scientist. As you are not bio present in the order yourself.

A biologist God man says the apes had intercourse. Not outer course.

A human emerged. As new type baby ape by human data. Exact. Use of man's science data is exact.

As I'm pretending I've added on human detail to the two apes I've looked at in biology by human sciences.

Sex act.

Scientist doesn't want it to be a sex act.

He says I pretend a human was created in the environment first. Seeking gods power.

By environmental changes only in the heavens.

Okay youre not there. No human studies thinking or any human built machines. Exact data.

So how is your theory correct versus a biologist?

Real answer.

Some men think if a human baby can identify God as their reason of bio change they'll understand what mass really is.

And it's who you argue against as his want.

So you compare man's mass studies. To human baby.

Ask him why is he doing the comparing in reality.

Real answer he's trying to calculate total bio lifes destruction by mass release.

As mass fused supports bio life.

He's not discussing mass remaining fused.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Scientists continue to argue about what happened, especially how to categorize things. "Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) the species to which all modern human beings belong. Homo sapiens is one of several species grouped into the genus Homo, but it is the only one that is not extinct."
THE ONLY ONE THAT IS NOT EXTINCT, it says. The only one. I'm particularly interested in the term "species" there. The only "species" of several species, they say, grouped into the genus Homo that is not extinct. Where is the proof of that?

Well, they know more than what is available in the scriptures.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica mention is not correct or has been copied wrongly. The only surviving sub-species of Homo sapiens is "Homo sapiens sapiens", (i.e., us).
The proof is in fossils and you can get information on that in Wikipedia, if you would care to see that. What, in that, you find strange?
The only species of Asiatic lions or one horned rhino are found in India. That is how the things are.
However, "Monkeys are broadly divided into Old World species - 160 species, and New World species - 174 species." (Google Search)
That again is how the things are. What is your peeve about that?

 

[Balthazzar]

I think you're mixing up the word incompetent a lot.

Not incontinent but incompetent...I this isnt the case. They were gonna fall short. It was known. We make mistakes. It was known. I dont see how it could be any other way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've stated life as we know it more than once in this thread alone. Your assumptions of how you think I view things either alludes to gross incompetence in comprehension skills or a contrary demeanor, which I assumed was the case.

Read the post I was replying to.
Read the quotes I replied to.

No offense intended, but keep up with my posts, at least try to comprehend what's written, or I'll assume you're just being argumentative, which I think at this point is an accurate assessment of your posting style.

You can think what you like.
Meanwhile, your main point in this thread that I'm objecting to, is your bare declaration that life would evolve to survive being engulfed by the freaking sun and even survive being sucked into a black hole.

I'm sorry, but both notions are simply absurd.

Life is ultimately, at bottom, chemistry. For chemical processes to be possible, certain physical conditions need to be met. Chemical reactions typically only occur under rather specific circumstances. Chemical bonds also require certain conditions and criteria to hold.
When the environment changes to a point that such chemistry is no longer possible, then life can not survive.

It's that simple.

Life has a way of continuing, developing, sustaining, dying off, - rinse repeat x infinitum. That's the crux of my views.

Your views ignore the basic rules of chemistry and physics.

 

[Balthazzar]

Read the post I was replying to.
Read the quotes I replied to.



You can think what you like.
Meanwhile, your main point in this thread that I'm objecting to, is your bare declaration that life would evolve to survive being engulfed by the freaking sun and even survive being sucked into a black hole.

I'm sorry, but both notions are simply absurd.

Life is ultimately, at bottom, chemistry. For chemical processes to be possible, certain physical conditions need to be met. Chemical reactions typically only occur under rather specific circumstances. Chemical bonds also require certain conditions and criteria to hold.
When the environment changes to a point that such chemistry is no longer possible, then life can not survive.

It's that simple.



Your views ignore the basic rules of chemistry and physics.

We're able to identify only objects we have the ability to identify. We likewise see larger, can observe larger objects. Our ability to identify life is limited by our awarenenss of and how, at present, we understand it. I see life as being ongoing. We live we die, transform through other living entities, they live, die, change, evolve, etc. The universe is no less subject to these changes, and life is not necessarily reserved for entities like ourselves. I'm fairly certain life exists beyond our knowing. You may disagree. You may see our evolutionary processes ending with the fervent heat, and journey through the black hole, but I think differently. Life has a way of adapting to changes, evolving, and persevering. Life as we know it...well, that changes as a constant. So yes, I see life continuing even after the sun engulfs us and even after we make our journey through the black hole. I'm certain we'll be going through a new birth of sorts, entering into an entirely new field of existence.

 

[wellwisher]

How does this question make logical sense? How is the fact that Earth could be destroyed by the Sun in 5 billion years a relevant factor in the disproval of evolution and step by step natural selection?

One of the problems with the current version of evolution, is it cannot predict the future. The current model is more based on 20/20 hindsight approach; empirical model. The model does not help us see the future, but rather can only compare the past to the present, to see that evolution happened. This is not exactly the most advanced type of science. This is expected since it uses the same math used by factories, gambling casinos, pollsters and politicians; fortune telling approach for the future.

Fossil evidence gives us old bones so we can compare these with modern bones. Based on these comparisons we can see a change we call evolution. The DNA evidence works the same way. But what will be the future of modern life is not possible using that empirical strategy. This is because the theory, as is, is not fully rational. A patron to the casino has more hope than logic but can tell you every lottery winner over the past year.

We can send a rocket to the moon, anytime in the future, since the math of projectile motion, allows us to draw the curve from the past to the present and into the future. Only a rational model can do this. A semi-rational model breaks down when the direct data is lacking. This is typically the future. The biology is weak when it comes to a rational explanation of the future of evolution. It is more like wait and see, since the future is beyond the capacity of the theory. It assumes the future is like playing the lottery. We can wish and pretend to spend the money, but it may not pan out that way. This is not bad for 19th century science, but it needs an update to be called 21st century science. The tools are there, but the theory is not quite there.

As an applied scientist, that uses pure science as a foundation for developing new ideas, the current approach to evolution is not a useful foundation to build upon. An applied scientists needs to make things that can function in the future and not just the past or present. People do not want another Model T. I can use projectile motion equations, since these are more advanced; rational. Pure scientists may not see this, but an applied scientists knows that you should not to build on a swamp that ebbs and flows, unless you can figure out how to set the footings much deeper than the bottom of that swamp. We need to hit ledge which is beyond current theory. I did find what I needed, which is life and water.

In the 1950's, science was interested in how life formed on earth and other planets. All types of research appeared to that end. One area research tested cells, with the variety of solvents, that had been postulated to be able to support life on other planets; the solvent lottery. What they found was only water allowed life to appear from these cells. All the other solvents were disruptive, that nothing worked in any cell; DNA to enzymes, and no life was evident. This data showed life was not a lottery, but rather there was a cause and affect between water and life on earth. Unfortunately, common sense reason was ignored for casino math. Here we are 60 years later and still playing dice and cards.

The data from those experiments showed that since life on earth had evolved in water, all the organic components in the cells, were tuned to water. None of the cells or their internal components worked in other solvents, because they had all evolved in water. Water set the chemical stage, from day one, so everything will forever remain specific to water. Like in evolution, the desert or the polar tundra will determine how life needs to change to be optimized in that setting. There is a cause and affect. Water did and does the same thing at the nanoscale.

Biology is very organic-centric, but the data showed that water was leading the organics from day one; natural selection in water, so everything could and world forever be tuned to water. I expect this to hold true today and the future. This is the deeper footing below the swamp, on which to build. Water does not move in the ebb and flow of the organic cards. Water is persistent and does not change like the organics. Dinosaurs drank the same water as us and the future of life will use the same water on earth to make their cells work properly. And water will continue to be the selective referee for all evolutionary change. If we ran the 1950's experiments today or tomorrow it will end the same way in spite of any organic evolution. Water marks the cards and loads the dice.

 

[Scolopendra]

One of the problems with the current version of evolution, is it cannot predict the future.

You seem to have a very gross understanding of what evolution is. First of all it is not "the current model" like it's some sort of brand someone decided to produce, and second of course it doesn't predict the future that's a banality that even a child understands. Evolution explains in detail how and with witch steps life developed on Earth and as you said it is based on physical proofs like any scientific theory.
You can speculate how an organism might evolve but also you can force and decide which evolutionary adaptation an organism has to endure by accelerating it through genome editing or in a slow fashioned way through domestication, in both processes you are applying artificial selection as opposed to natural selection which stands on individuals fitness values.