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!
You can call it conjecture if you want but it is still a conclusion based on evidence. The evidence may not be complete but it is sufficient.
Bible. Science can't cover it either way.
Not when the question IS whether life was created or evolved. You are skirting the issue, and blowing smoke.
Science cannot evidence that life came to exist by adaption. That means any claim to the contrary is unsupported as well as in denial of tested and proven Scripture.
Your empty posts are not reliable evidence, God's word is fine, thanks.
Now dad, you were warned about breaking the Ninth. Do not make false claims about others. By the way, if you want to claim that the Bible is "God's word" (a mistake that even the Bible does not make) the burden of proof is upon you. The best you can do is to misinterpret some verses taken out of context. And that does not support your claims.
So no evidence at all, got it.
No, I am pointing out that you employed a logical fallacy.
I don;t understand that gibberish.
Scripture re: creation was tested and proven?
Hi.I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.
I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.
One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?
The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.
#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.
Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.
If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?
#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.
#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.
Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...
Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.
).
Babble.
No evidence at all aside from the bible either way, so make no claims for science as if it covered the issue, got it?
Thinking it was one is one actually.
Yes, the bible says try it and we will know. Millions tried Him and know. So Scripture, which includes things we can't test like creation, is tried and proven.
By Jesus as observed by many witnesses, by Israel who had a national record recording miracles of God, and by all people who tried and proved Him ever since.
Well, when we entered the current nature the bible records the different world/nature we lived in as compared to the former.
Hi.
I realise I'm a bit late to the game here. I've just read through your OP and I think you're doing a good job of pointing to the issues you have with some of this evolution malarkey (I have to admit that this was one of the threads I thought was a copy/paste job but I see that I was mistaken
You're quite right to say that scientists make assumptions. I can't think of any useful theory that isn't dependent upon an entire set of assumptions (that themselves depend upon other assumptions and so on). I'm not sure that making assumptions and sometimes having them shown to be incorrect is all that damaging for science in general or evolutionary theories in particular.
So you asked, does natural selection do the same? And in a word the answer is no, I believe. I think it is quite reasonable to look at all selection processes as having some unifying underlying structure however. Every thing that is selected (and I mean that very generally - things that aren't alive can undergo selection) from a population has features that make it more likely to replicate and increase the chances its copies/descendents will be found in the population at a later point. Nature selects by being nature - that is the set of circumstances that we find ourselves in. So nature can "carefully" select for things which do better than other things in higher temperature by providing a warmer environment. You don't have to assume that nature is really making choices about how it is, you just have to accept that different environmental conditions have different solutions. Does that make sense?
As for common descent, sometimes that is an assumption though I don't know that it's neccessary for any given study or theory of where a trait comes from in a particular lineage etc. It's often treated more liked a proposed jigsaw piece that makes the whole picture become clearer (and quite lovely imo). There is a good deal of evidence that everything alive at present shares a common ancestor but if you aren't convinced then you don't have to accept it.
I hope you're having a nice day.
I'm not a creationist so I can't speak for them.
I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.
I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.
One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?
The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.
#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.
Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.
If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?
#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.
#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.
Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...
Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.
Selecting species with desirable characteristics is domestication. Breeding them to increase the prevalence or magnitude of the desired features is selective breeding. Selective breeding is not natural selection, it's intentionally guided selection.
"Useful" doesn't necessarily imply intentionality, it just means something's helpful of functional. In a domestic animal or plant this may be intentionally promoted by the farmer, who wants it, but in the wild "useful" would only apply to or benefit the individual organism. Nor is the feature anything the organism "wants," the organism is probably unaware it's being differentially benefited.
Such as learning to read or drive then expecting your children to be born knowing this?
You already know the answer to this. It was covered in your own links and others, it was explained dozens of times in this and other threads:
See above.
Now I'm confused. You're answering what you previously asked.
What does "how they add us" mean?
Rhetorical quibbling. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
No, the evidence is evidence -- observation and test results. It may begin with a guess or assumption, but that's not the science. The science is in the testing and peer review. A dream or speculation may inspire the research, but that just initiates the scientific investigation.
What never ceases to amaze and amuse me about this thread, and others like it, is that it is only upon this one theory in science that many religious people focus. Nobody cares about plate tectonics, or about Newton's theories of light or motion, or about gravity -- not even Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
Seems like a reasonable illustration. What's the hand that shakes the sieve?
There you go again. This would have made it the fourth time you want to go in circles, not listen to what is said to you, but just say what you want to say.
Great. I'm no ape.
Wrong of course. Do you wish to learn how we know that?