SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Bingo!
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
.
Do you think this will help? I'm not ure of what changes has been made except the merging of Lamarckian inheritance, with the Darwinian idea.
The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis
¨Speciation is predominantly allopatric or parapatric. Sympatric speciation requires special ecological mechanisms or random events.
¨Macroevolution, i. e. the origin of higher taxa, adaptive radiations, adaptive shifts of higher taxa etc. is gradual and does not require special mechanisms (e. g. Bock 1979; Dudley 1991).
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation.
Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).
Perhaps the posters here don't understand what you are saying.Funny, I feel the same way about you guys....no matter how much I stress the fact that adaptation can never produce anything but a new variety of an existing species, all I get is silence....not science.
Speciation is the creation of a new variety of a creature that already exists. No matter how much time elapses or how many adaptations take place, they will always remain within their own taxonomy.
What a load !....you have no real evidence for evolution, except for adaptation, which we have no problem with at all. You can't make adaptation = to macro-evolution without a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.
Oh, if only that were true.....that is what you assume to have. Your skepticism is only exercised outside of your own acceptable parameters.
Now that is funny....How do you test assumptions when you have no facts to provide proof for them? Just add a generous helping of suggestion and voila! You can believe anything that is assumed as if it was established fact.
Trouble is....it could all change in a heartbeat and what you argued about today could be shown to utter nonsense tomorrow.
Creation is tangible...it didn't just popup out of nowhere. My belief is based on communication from the Creator himself. You don't have to believe him....I choose to because creation is the only logical explanation that leaves no unanswered questions....no gaps in the story. It solves the mystery of abiogenesis as well.
He is perfectly capable...but we are not. We are in the throes of a valuable life lesson so that abuse of free will can never be tolerated or excused in the future. We learn more from experience than we ever do from just being told. We are designed to be educated by the one who made us. This life is our classroom. But some students are not interested in the curriculum and want to disrupt others from learning as well.
I actually sometimes wonder how people with supposedly superior intelligence can be so gullible.
I could fill pages.....these are not genetic accidents.
There is, but you just don't believe he exists because you can't 'test' for him. The test for God does not require instrumentation.....it requires communication with the human spirit. Science has no test for that.
You assume that none are needed because you have convinced yourself of it. No one could 'unconvince' me....
Straight from the source. Preserved through thousands of years, and still as reliable today as when it was written. Believers have a two way communication with the Creator that needs no words....but their relationship is enhanced by them.
Now there's another odd statement, since scientists disagree about things all the time. And since 'empirical evidence' is obtained through the senses and by observation and experimentation.....how can science claim to observe and experiment with things that took place millions of years ago when no one was around to document or observe anything?
I can guarantee you that there are 99.9% of religions that are are in error......because there is but one truth....I believe that God will guide the right people to draw the right conclusions.
Do you think this will help? I'm not ure of what changes has been made except the merging of Lamarckian inheritance, with the Darwinian idea.
The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis
¨Speciation is predominantly allopatric or parapatric. Sympatric speciation requires special ecological mechanisms or random events.
¨Macroevolution, i. e. the origin of higher taxa, adaptive radiations, adaptive shifts of higher taxa etc. is gradual and does not require special mechanisms (e. g. Bock 1979; Dudley 1991).
The Synthetic Theory rejects:
1) Concepts refuted by many geneticists:
¨Macromutations (ªsystemic mutationsº, as claimed by Goldschmidt1927, 1935, 1940; see Goldschmidt 1959, Diedrich 1995 and Piternick1980 for further information)¨
Lamarckian inheritance and Geoffroyan mechanisms
2) Macroevolutionary notions:
¨Progressive evolution as an inherent trend¨
Teleology (goal oriented evolution)¨
Cyclic evolution (evolution of higher taxa in strict analogy to the lifecycle of an individual: rapid youthful origin, stable adult phase, dete-riorating old age)¨
The autonomous evolution and unfolding of higher taxa¨
Orthogenesis (rectilinear evolution = ªorthogenesis Aº and internally driven evolution = ªorthogenesis Bº)¨
Autogenesis = autonomous evolution of taxa without interaction withthe environment¨
ªRacial senescenceº = ageing of the genome¨
ªBauplaÈneº or types as actors in evolution¨
Saltations: jumps from an ancestral taxon to a descendant taxon
1) Concepts refuted by many geneticists:
¨Macromutations (ªsystemic mutationsº, as claimed by Goldschmidt1927, 1935, 1940; see Goldschmidt 1959, Diedrich 1995 and Piternick1980 for further information)¨Lamarckian inheritance and Geoffroyan mechanisms2) Macroevolutionary notions:
¨Progressive evolution as an inherent trend¨Teleology (goal oriented evolution)¨Cyclic evolution (evolution of higher taxa in strict analogy to the lifecycle of an individual: rapid youthful origin, stable adult phase, dete-riorating old age)¨The autonomous evolution and unfolding of higher taxa¨Orthogenesis (rectilinear evolution = ªorthogenesis Aº and internally driven evolution = ªorthogenesis Bº)¨Autogenesis = autonomous evolution of taxa without interaction withthe environment¨ªRacial senescenceº = ageing of the genome¨ªBauplaÈneº or types as actors in evolution¨Saltations: jumps from an ancestral taxon to a descendant taxonIs a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation.
Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
???????????????? Anyone have the slightest clue what nPeace is getting at?.
Perhaps the posters here don't understand what you are saying.
Do you think this will help? I'm not ure of what changes has been made except the merging of Lamarckian inheritance, with the Darwinian idea.
The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis
¨Speciation is predominantly allopatric or parapatric. Sympatric speciation requires special ecological mechanisms or random events.
¨Macroevolution, i. e. the origin of higher taxa, adaptive radiations, adaptive shifts of higher taxa etc. is gradual and does not require special mechanisms (e. g. Bock 1979; Dudley 1991).
The Synthetic Theory rejects:
1) Concepts refuted by many geneticists:
2) Macroevolutionary notions:
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation.
Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).
"Creation good, Evolution bad" I think.???????????????? Anyone have the slightest clue what nPeace is getting at?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A human exists first as a natural being, after the life of an animal.
Is the same natural human as everyone else.
Then there is human egotism.....the status of Mr know it all.....a group male coercive owned/ taught and male group enforced human history.
A human can talk about any topic of discussion as a human without it being real to any condition at all.
Which seemingly male egotism has somehow forgotten.
We are all a human, being a human.
We are as a human consciousness, as a human.
A human in self human status says I know it all...and then reasons about conditions where their own life, body, mind and bio status, consciousness does not even exist with or live as a self in that past. As information use to being DATA inferred to pre existing life forms.
For they own no condition or self presence to argue and ask that male self, who really do you think you are male human, to be speaking about my existence, when you were not even formed then!!!!!!!!!! Yet you do.
So then you would ask that male teaching group status, science, what are you all truly reasoning as a male?
And it does in fact own a male historic self realization as a human, a long time they used to live on a higher Earth body and did science and destroyed all life.
And all artefact archaeological and geological proof, as researched by the humans who caused it, prove it real.
Human memory is therefore involved today in the conditions of why science thinks itself Mr know it all...….just because he lived a long time ago, as that same human in a higher form of bio life in Nature.
Says I was a human, destroyed my self, transformed via all these newly given life forms, then returned, as a human, as if you were living their life bodies.
Just because human memory is true to a self lying condition.....male, machine, and invented life recording......voice and vision.
A proven male human science invention that was involved in a pre history.....the machine itself that destroyed all life on Earth.
The atmospheric condition proves that human voice and image is recorded, as a non bio owned living status.
And it is all because a human being male, as a choice, a natural life, living as a natural life, in self human presence changed his life natural past as that human self.
Now if that science self wants to argue.....what sort of information factually do you personally own as a thinker that is real to your thoughts?
For all the physical forms that you study exist in their physical forms, for you to talk about them......when if they did not exist with you in physical form, what would you have to talk about?
Actually, as that egotist?
Natural humanity, who do not pretend to be know it all....live with and commune with the conditions that support natural life. Fresh and clean air, water to drink to live, food to eat to live, sexual human intercourse for life continuance.
And you all live owning that exact same life condition, as a reference, origin and natural.
You should all ask, why science thinks itself correct, when it first owns the exact same natural life that other humans accept as a rational reason for their own survival....yet in science you contradict that living condition by all of your invention causes?
Paraphrase and clarify, please. What are you trying to say?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A human is just a human.
We look at animals and know that we are a higher species, a separate self, as a human, yet we talk about a life before us, when we are not living that life before us.
Males talk about conditions in history when a male as a human does not even exist.
So males as humans taught males as humans that those thinking conditions are called egotism, to discuss other presence as if they owned no purpose other than a human to talk about them.
What spirituality was, to honour self life human and the life and natural bodies of all other presence.
If a human logically said as a speaking assessment, for it is only talking, talking does not own reality or natural, it is only belief and an ability to speak a belief.
Which science is, as the status, males in a group, a group enforced practice, as chosen by males as humans their own self.
Does not meant that the scientist is correct in that natural review of a human and a male. Yet groups in life enforce their beliefs upon others, as a history that says the beginnings of science is the evil in human life. Coercive reasoning.
For a male does not need to discuss other bodies unless he owns a condition that is stated to either assist their life when it is hurt....being medical science. Or to state to other male humans male reasoning in science statements to not believe that self as consciousness exists as a human in an animal living presence.
When science makes human statements, spiritual males told stories for factual evidence against self. If a male says an animal is such and such in a bio life and chemical status, life form...and then says but a human is such and such and such, extra information, it was to demonstrate that we are supported in natural life conditions by the presence of those animal life forms...so do no harm to them.
Science, as the occult owns the reasons why males made those stories about where a human is in a self applied status. Yet you have to be self present, living in that owned status to be enabled to talk about it.
Why they introduced the status that a higher being told them....when the information, about natural is higher than the science that forces and attacks natural.
For humans should realize that if you were not living as a human family, then there would not be any speaking voice applying information...for it would be unnecessary, when it is already existing naturally in natural form living a natural living condition.
Thinking and the telling of stories therefore owns a 2 purpose in a human life....to allow self to exist and be self supported naturally and spiritually or to allow the use of information to be used against our existence....by humans who claim that they are talking, taking action on behalf of a being that created us.....which makes no common sense.
For that sort of scientist is a male human with a machine owning a machine reaction.
The human living experience as an argument is argued for the sake of human life continuance, as a detailed expression of information. It never was really used to imply I know how everything exists....for you would not be honest to imply that statement. When your human consciousness does not exist anywhere else.
We look at animals and know that we are a higher species, a separate self, as a human, yet we talk about a life before us, when we are not living that life before us.
Males talk about conditions in history when a male as a human does not even exist.
So males as humans taught males as humans that those thinking conditions are called egotism, to discuss other presence as if they owned no purpose other than a human to talk about them.
What spirituality was, to honour self life human and the life and natural bodies of all other presence.
If a human logically said as a speaking assessment, for it is only talking, talking does not own reality or natural, it is only belief and an ability to speak a belief.
Which science is, as the status, males in a group, a group enforced practice, as chosen by males as humans their own self.
Does not meant that the scientist is correct in that natural review of a human and a male. Yet groups in life enforce their beliefs upon others, as a history that says the beginnings of science is the evil in human life. Coercive reasoning.
For a male does not need to discuss other bodies unless he owns a condition that is stated to either assist their life when it is hurt....being medical science. Or to state to other male humans male reasoning in science statements to not believe that self as consciousness exists as a human in an animal living presence.
When science makes human statements, spiritual males told stories for factual evidence against self. If a male says an animal is such and such in a bio life and chemical status, life form...and then says but a human is such and such and such, extra information, it was to demonstrate that we are supported in natural life conditions by the presence of those animal life forms...so do no harm to them.
Science, as the occult owns the reasons why males made those stories about where a human is in a self applied status. Yet you have to be self present, living in that owned status to be enabled to talk about it.
Why they introduced the status that a higher being told them....when the information, about natural is higher than the science that forces and attacks natural.
For humans should realize that if you were not living as a human family, then there would not be any speaking voice applying information...for it would be unnecessary, when it is already existing naturally in natural form living a natural living condition.
Thinking and the telling of stories therefore owns a 2 purpose in a human life....to allow self to exist and be self supported naturally and spiritually or to allow the use of information to be used against our existence....by humans who claim that they are talking, taking action on behalf of a being that created us.....which makes no common sense.
For that sort of scientist is a male human with a machine owning a machine reaction.
The human living experience as an argument is argued for the sake of human life continuance, as a detailed expression of information. It never was really used to imply I know how everything exists....for you would not be honest to imply that statement. When your human consciousness does not exist anywhere else.
We don't know that, and how are you defining a "higher" species?
{quote]a separate self, as a human, yet we talk about a life before us, when we are not living that life before us.[/quote]What does this mean?
Huh?
This is gibberish.
Not even English.
Amazing -- this makes even less sense.
Gobbledygook!
OK. I give up.
R.E, no-one can make heads or tails of your posts. Are you able to make your points clearly and grammatically; as premises and conclusions?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
A human says science is a human male chosen thought condition to look back from where he is personally living, as a human thinking.
Says in science quotes I am a higher life body than an animal and animals lived before my own human life, just as the Nature of animals.
And I was not living then, with those animals in the use of the information, when no human being existed.
Which as he lives today with animals he is contradicting his own living life presence by making those quotes.
If a male as a human says my own bio life form and chemical body is human.
Looks and defines what each animal body is, as just an animal, he is not there in that life/body or animal presence as the living self presence, an animal life.
If you apply a self assessment, as a human thinking as a human about a human, it is called a spiritual assessment, self reality. If a human can talk about another human without being that other human.....then that definition is a human pretending that they are a God who by use of information/words created the other human.....which is actually a scientific lie.
Yet his thoughts studying the life and body of an animal pretends that he owns the rights to do so....claiming he is a higher being, the intelligent self, describing the animal bio history as if he is the God self, namer/word user and speaker of the creator of the animal. As he studies it as a human male.
How the God inference was given to self, scientist.
Playing make believe that I know how that animal life and body got created...as if he was living and existing before its owned form. Yet if that animal was not existing and living, he would have no information to discuss to talk about its non presence, for he would not even know it.
Playing a fake termed self male reference I am God the Creator by his thinking capabilities.
User of the words, inform self, a human and a male by using words, as only used, expressed and applied in the living life of a human being male.
Who by that imposed science conditions, places his own self, life mind and body as if he personally is a God talking before the life of animal describing it....by word usage.
Says in science quotes I am a higher life body than an animal and animals lived before my own human life, just as the Nature of animals.
And I was not living then, with those animals in the use of the information, when no human being existed.
Which as he lives today with animals he is contradicting his own living life presence by making those quotes.
If a male as a human says my own bio life form and chemical body is human.
Looks and defines what each animal body is, as just an animal, he is not there in that life/body or animal presence as the living self presence, an animal life.
If you apply a self assessment, as a human thinking as a human about a human, it is called a spiritual assessment, self reality. If a human can talk about another human without being that other human.....then that definition is a human pretending that they are a God who by use of information/words created the other human.....which is actually a scientific lie.
Yet his thoughts studying the life and body of an animal pretends that he owns the rights to do so....claiming he is a higher being, the intelligent self, describing the animal bio history as if he is the God self, namer/word user and speaker of the creator of the animal. As he studies it as a human male.
How the God inference was given to self, scientist.
Playing make believe that I know how that animal life and body got created...as if he was living and existing before its owned form. Yet if that animal was not existing and living, he would have no information to discuss to talk about its non presence, for he would not even know it.
Playing a fake termed self male reference I am God the Creator by his thinking capabilities.
User of the words, inform self, a human and a male by using words, as only used, expressed and applied in the living life of a human being male.
Who by that imposed science conditions, places his own self, life mind and body as if he personally is a God talking before the life of animal describing it....by word usage.
Audie
Veteran Member
In general, what we have is there the Gish, elsewhere???????????????? Anyone have the slightest clue what nPeace is getting at?
known as document dump.
nP, like all ceros, is without the one thing that would
lend authority and credence to their efforts- data
contrary to ToE.
Consequentemente, they do what they can.
Distort, misrepresent, trot out straw men, lie,
falsify, lay smokescreens, Gish, etc.
Or slightly more subtle and clever, they will
point to things unknown and unknowable
like “what first cell looked like”.
One could similarly defeat any theory in chemistry
by saying nobody has ever seen a atom.
Deliver up even one fact contrary to ToE?
Never have, never will.
Audie
Veteran Member
Pick one idea, take your time, and choose your words carefully.
As it is nobody has a clue what you are attempting to say.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
If you look at the story of Adam and Eve, they had to leave paradise because they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That tree was connected to Satan.
Before they ate, Adam, Eve and Satan was all part of paradise. This was based on an old tradition. Satan was originally called Lucifer or the morning star. He symbolized ego consciousness and the precursor of willpower and choice. Lucifer was accepted as a positive principle, connected to creative choice and change, such as needed for civilization, that were not part of the natural creation.
Lucifer had evolved to where choice became based on the tree of law of good and evil, which is law. The evolved Lucifer was now called Satan. Law is where humans define reality into good and evil, playing the role of god defining right and wrong for each other. However, like in Washington DC, politicians often make laws for their own benefit and the benefit of their donors, regardless of fairness to all. Law has many pitfalls and can be used for evil; Congress and Schiff.
When Adam and Eve are expelled from paradise, Satan was assigned to be the CEO of the humans. This entire topic is not exactly connected to God and humans, but to Satan and humans, since Satan was the CEO of the humans after the fall, when change occurs apart from paradise.
In the book of Job, Satan is able to coax God into punishing Job. Satan as the CEO is reporting to the board of directors and requests policies from the Chairman; God, so he can implement his initiatives. This is not the first choice of God, but he goes along with his CEO.
The reason Gd goes along with Satan, to do evil, can be understood with an analogy. Say you were a computer scientist working on AI or artificial intelligence. You have a simulation program that needs a super computer to run. You are given time on the computer. One day the AI manifests itself in a simple way, by flashing the lights; morning star. This is a willful act, that was not in the program. It is simple like a child but it proves the concept.
In the scenario, the AI is getting more evolved and decides to delete the files of another researcher who also uses the super computer. Although this is very destructive, and the other scientists complain, to the creator of the AI, this is also amazing. Although destructive, he knows the AI is new, and this is part of its learning curve. The little child can more easily destroy the puzzle than he can build it. Building comes later so you need to have patience. Hopefully, one day it will change to a more constructive form of AI.
When God created free will and choice, omniscience would know that the brain AI, will need to crawl before it can run. The early phenomena, although imperfect and often destructive, is still greater than the perfect automaton. One has to have patient as it grows, evolves and gains control over its AI power. Unit then it give it freedom to learn and grow. Omniscience plays long ball and not short ball.
Before they ate, Adam, Eve and Satan was all part of paradise. This was based on an old tradition. Satan was originally called Lucifer or the morning star. He symbolized ego consciousness and the precursor of willpower and choice. Lucifer was accepted as a positive principle, connected to creative choice and change, such as needed for civilization, that were not part of the natural creation.
Lucifer had evolved to where choice became based on the tree of law of good and evil, which is law. The evolved Lucifer was now called Satan. Law is where humans define reality into good and evil, playing the role of god defining right and wrong for each other. However, like in Washington DC, politicians often make laws for their own benefit and the benefit of their donors, regardless of fairness to all. Law has many pitfalls and can be used for evil; Congress and Schiff.
When Adam and Eve are expelled from paradise, Satan was assigned to be the CEO of the humans. This entire topic is not exactly connected to God and humans, but to Satan and humans, since Satan was the CEO of the humans after the fall, when change occurs apart from paradise.
In the book of Job, Satan is able to coax God into punishing Job. Satan as the CEO is reporting to the board of directors and requests policies from the Chairman; God, so he can implement his initiatives. This is not the first choice of God, but he goes along with his CEO.
The reason Gd goes along with Satan, to do evil, can be understood with an analogy. Say you were a computer scientist working on AI or artificial intelligence. You have a simulation program that needs a super computer to run. You are given time on the computer. One day the AI manifests itself in a simple way, by flashing the lights; morning star. This is a willful act, that was not in the program. It is simple like a child but it proves the concept.
In the scenario, the AI is getting more evolved and decides to delete the files of another researcher who also uses the super computer. Although this is very destructive, and the other scientists complain, to the creator of the AI, this is also amazing. Although destructive, he knows the AI is new, and this is part of its learning curve. The little child can more easily destroy the puzzle than he can build it. Building comes later so you need to have patience. Hopefully, one day it will change to a more constructive form of AI.
When God created free will and choice, omniscience would know that the brain AI, will need to crawl before it can run. The early phenomena, although imperfect and often destructive, is still greater than the perfect automaton. One has to have patient as it grows, evolves and gains control over its AI power. Unit then it give it freedom to learn and grow. Omniscience plays long ball and not short ball.
Audie
Veteran Member
Not much of a game if one party makes all the rules and knows exactly what will happen