Sexual selection and evolution - not so random

[ppp]

And you confirm how pointless it is to keep replying with the same old arguments yourself. I can only wonder why you bother...?

I suspect it is because you make a good object lesson for others. You argue smugly and confidently and with a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. You don't know what the claims of evolution actually are. You misuse terms. Misidentify scientific disciplines. Hell, Deeje, you don't even know the difference between logic and science. Most of my extended family is JW. Listening to them talk about science was hilarious and appalling - like listening to a bunch of tween boys boast about their authoritative knowledge of sex. Mmmm. Good times.

 

[Tambourine]

The human body is an amazing piece of engineering.....too amazing to be the by-product of undirected random forces.....but you can believe the evolutionists if you wish.

The 'God cocoon' is the safest place to be in these troubled times. You call getting out from under the wings of our Creator "courageous"? I'd actually call it something else.....

There is a rescue mission open to genuine God-believers that unbelievers do not have access to. But its an experiential thing....you wont know its unavailable, until you can't access it.

Think back to Noah and the flood.....They didn't think it could happen to them either....(Matthew 24:37-39)

You say that you "got over that problem"....but perhaps all you did was jump out of the frying pan and into the fire? Maybe you just swapped one falsehood for another.....but hey, its your choice.



There is religion and there is worship.....there is a big difference. I worship the true God whom I know on a personal basis, as he has guided me all my adult life. Apparently you were never introduced.

But isn't Hinduism a "religion"?

What you describe here is what I rejected decades ago. We have no 'snake oil, heaven, hell judgment' because it simply isn't taught in scripture. But "deliverance"...now that's a whole topic all by itself.

"Saved" is a word bandied about in Christendom, but if you ask people what they are being "saved" from, they can't really tell you. Jesus said that when we saw the events like those that are happening in the world right now.....with one monumental hit after another, he said that the world would observe some celestial phenomena that would let them know exactly what was was about to happen.....he said for his disciples to 'raise up our heads because our deliverance is getting near'. (Luke 21:28) What we expect in the future is not what the majority of people expect. In fact, many who imagine that they are "sheep" will be rejected as "goats". (Matthew 25:31)

Only when deliverance does not come, will "many" know that Christ "never knew" them. (Matthew 7:21-23)

So what enables people to confidently bury God more completely than anything else in this world right now? Evolution. No wonder Jesus said that "few" are on the road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14)

IMO it takes courage NOT to join the godless mob.....

There seems to be a point in any discussion of evolution when creationists just start vomiting Bible verses for no apparent reason.

I wonder if you designed the conversation to progress in this way from the start, or whether this habit evolved naturally.

 

[ppp]

There seems to be a point in any discussion of evolution when creationists just start vomiting Bible verses for no particular reason.

I wonder if you designed the conversation to progress in this way from the start, or whether this habit evolved naturally.

There are apologetics classes. They teach them things to recite to use in response to key words.

 

[Deeje]

I suspect it is because you make a good object lesson for others. You argue smugly and confidently and with a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. You don't know what the claims of evolution actually are. You misuse terms. Misidentify scientific disciplines. Hell, Deeje, you don't even know the difference between logic and science.

I have read everything provided to me here on RF by evolutionists to prove their claims that their "evidence" is convincing. The only thing I asked for was that the evidence be presented in simple understandable terms that everyone can understand. The reason why I asked for that is because of how much assumption is hidden in the jargon. When you strip all the high sounding terminology away, you are left with the bare bones....and that is where you see the difference between real science and what masquerades as it. It's actually quite funny. Whale evolution is my favorite.

Macro-evolution is like the Emperor's new clothes.....what he thinks he is wearing doesn't actually exist except in his own misinformed imagination....so he is basically walking around, naked....but he struts around like Dawkins spouting unprovable nonsense. I saw a debate with him and a clergyman once and many in the audience were Bible believers. When Dawkins stated some things about belief in God and how science was based on verifiable evidence, but creation isn't, a lot of people laughed.....he was genuinely shocked because he is used to his audiences hanging on his every word.....he turned to them and asked ..."why are you laughing?" It was a sobering moment for him.

Let me make the same request to you Joe W as I have to others.....please present "evidence" (real and substantiated by more than a "might have" or a "could have", which means just facts with no supposition and no assertions) to prove to us that the first single-celled organisms transformed themselves over millions of years into dinosaurs...or any other creature for that matter. I'll wait.....It shouldn't be that hard....should it? That real foundational evidence must be staring us all in the face.

Most of my extended family is JW. Listening to them talk about science was hilarious and appalling - like listening to a bunch of tween boys boast about their authoritative knowledge of sex. Mmmm. Good times.

Nuff said...... I see you science buffs in much the same way.....hilarious and appalling....but hey...we are all free to believe whatever we want.....to steer ourselves in whatever direction appeals to us.....right?

I can't help but wonder though.....isn't there just a little bit of doubt in the back of your mind as you see the world going down the gurgler, and you godless folks have no one to turn to but each other and your beloved science.....how does it feel to have nowhere to go? Are these "good times"....really?

Please don't mistake our confidence for arrogance because we see the same kind of confidence/arrogance on both sides of this story.....but we can't both be right....so one of us is going to be very disappointed, I feel....so let's just wait and see, shall we?

There are apologetics classes. They teach them things to recite to use in response to key words.

Hmmmm "apologetics classes" eh? Now that is hilarious. Why did no one tell me about these classes? I could have furthered my education......Dang!

 

[Deeje]

There seems to be a point in any discussion of evolution when creationists just start vomiting Bible verses for no apparent reason.

I wonder if you designed the conversation to progress in this way from the start, or whether this habit evolved naturally.

Well perhaps you should have looked at where this thread was posted......"Creation Vs Evolution".

Did you think if evolutionists can quote science, that we can't quote the Bible....?

We each have our textbooks after all.

And please don't think that because we don't believe in macro-evolution that we reject all science....we love what science is able to demonstrate in the natural world....what we reject is the theoretical stuff posing as scientific fact....it isn't and it never was. Science fiction is no foundation for truth....is it?

 

[gnostic]

The Biblical account of creation is pretty close to what science has come up with (not as detailed of course and with a God at work instead of time and chance).

No, the Bible - or more specifically Genesis 1 & 2, are wrong on so many different levels, including these 2 chapters contradicting each other concerning the orders of creation - they differed, which means 1 & 2 had two different authors composing them in different times, and the editors put them together as you see them today.

To give you examples of 2 different orders, in Genesis 1, vegetation, fishes and birds, land animals and then humans last.

But in Genesis 2, the order is as followed: human (first, male), vegetation, land animals and human again, female last.

Genesis clearly say there were no vegetation and no rain in verses 2:5-6, when god created man (Adam) from dust in 2:7. And only then, did god created vegetation, thus Garden of Eden, along with 4 rivers (2:8-14). Then god created land animals (no mention of marine animals and birds in Genesis 2) in 2:18-20.

Lastly, god created woman (Eve) in 2:21-23.

Like I said, there are 2 different written creation stories, written by authors in different times, and later editors sewed the 2 versions, leaving the contradictions between 1 & 2.

They can’t be both right.

And I have started where Genesis creation don’t match the orders of science, not only to order of life (biology), but also astronomy and Earth science.

But I will get to that, in my 2nd reply to you.

 

[Bear Wild]

Wrong!
Evolution is all about strengths and abilities.
Some birds choose partners on the basis of 'best best looking nest' . Other birds might choose partner on the basis of 'best placed nest'.
Yet other birds might choose a partner on 'best plumage', or biggest size, or fastest runner...... etc

Its all about strengths and abilities.

That's what evolution is all about.

So......... not much in the OP to see, ....

Correct!
it is not random but behavioral choices made by the female that influence the phenotype of the male.

 

[Bear Wild]

A design component no doubt....



Well, science does support evolution, but "good scientific research" is not always what it seems. The bus has broken down I'm afraid. No mechanic so far can fix it.



Let me put it this way....I can see that 'adaptation' plays a role in the diversity of species, but hard science does not support macro-evolution, which goes way beyond what science can test or demonstrate. Adaptation is not "evolution" but scientific sleight of hand makes the line between the two appear to be somewhat blurred. One does not "prove" the other...unless one uses a lot of wishful thinking.



Yes, this one is in New Guinea, very beautiful......but we here in Australia have Satin Bower Birds, whose bowers are quite large and decorated with lots of blue trinkets which are stolen if left unattended. They are jet black with piercing blue eyes.

Great video. Thanks. As I said at least we can appreciate them even from different view points. And i appreciate you at least considering adaptation playing a role in diversity of the species. We can work on the rest later but for now I just want to enjoy how amazing these birds are.


Have you never wondered how birds can operate by instinct that cannot be described as anything but pre-programming? What program operates without a programmer?

For example, how do birds know how to construct a nest that is the exact replica of the one their parents built before they were hatched? These babies never saw their parents construct a nest but will build one exactly as programmed for their species. Some will use twigs, or mud, or weave elaborate nests that are uniquely the same for all their species. How does evolution explain this?

Same with the mating displays. The male birds know how to woo their own ladies.....and they all do it the same way, with the same courtship ritual and vocals that no one taught them.

How do the various species that migrate, know how to do that? Some travel to different continents that they have never been to before. How do they know where to go, and what prompts them to leave and to return?

Too many unanswered questions for me. The Creator provides answers to all my questions.

 

[Bear Wild]

No the evidence is not sufficient! Current interpretations are filled with supposition and guesswork.
That’s why there exists so much disagreement among ‘experts’.

Yes there may be disagreement and some guesswork but that is the beauty of science. Always question what you know and open to new evidence. Can't say that is true for fundamentalists who are stuck in thinking thousands of years ago an never see or understand what is around them.

 

[oldbadger]

Correct!
it is not random but behavioral choices made by the female that influence the phenotype of the male.

Of course it is random! The female's (and the male's) choices and actions are as individual as their dna is. All 'random'.
Behavioural choices made by a female are unique to her. Everything is random.
Tomorrow she might have changed her mind. Today she didn't.

 

[Brian2]

Not even close to what science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. If what you say is true you would not have 40% plus of all the adults in the USA rejecting evolution, ancient earth billions of years old, and that Noah's world flood is a real event in history.

Genesis is a discription of the history of the earth, universe, life and humanity based on ancient mythology evolved from Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugarite and Canaanite older accounts.

Probably the earliest account of our physical existence that approaches our scientific view is Lucretius, a Roman philosopher who wrote De rerum natura including the views of earlier Greek atomists.

I don't know what you think science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't really care what many other Christians think of evolution. Genesis and other parts of the OT have descriptions of things that science seems to have demonstrated to be true. Billions of years is no problem when it comes to the Bible descriptions and science and history seems to have shown that a Noah's flood did happen even if it was not a complete submersion of all the land under water.
Some ancient myths seem similar to parts of the Genesis and I wonder why that would not be true if the Biblical account it true.

 

[Brian2]

That still sounds like god-type superstitions, not a falsifiable model that can be tested.

In order, to put Intelligent Design in the same league as the theory of Evolution, the “Designer” itself, must be testable, first.

And the only way it (Designer) can be testable, is through OBSERVATIONs - what scientists called evidence. The observable evidence must be also measurable, quantifiable, verifiable/refutable.

Can you observe the Designer? No.

Can you quantify the Designer? No.

Can you measure the Designer? No.

Can you test or verify the existence of this Designer? No.

Can you perform experiment on this Designer? No.​

With all this “No” to the above questions, this make the “Designer” itself, unfalsifiable, and since the Designer is the core premise of the whole Intelligent Design belief system, It would disqualify ID, as unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated speculation.

The Intelligent Design cannot even achieve the HYPOTHESIS status, because it is unfalsifiable belief.

Intelligent Design is simply, just another form of creationism. In another word, ID creationism “pretending to be” science...and failing miserably at it.

Even Michael Behe himself admitted that there are no evidence to support Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005):

No “original research and data”, and it has never been “peer-reviewed”, essentially mean that ID has never been tested because it is unscientific and untestable.

The scientific theories that want to tell us that life came from dead matter or that the universe sprang into existence from nothing or that the universe has had endless expansions and contractions all seem unsound logically and mathematically and yet are theories which also are not falsifiable and have not been observed. These are all part of science however and are premised on the notion that the existence of a Designer and Creator cannot be observed or tested, and so they must be true.
Sounds like circular thinking that leads to a dead end but has to push against the wall at the end of the dead end because there is no alternative.
Many scientists realise that the existence of a Designer is not a bad idea however and so believe in a Designer and try to find Him on His terms, just as others believe in the alternative and keep pushing against the wall at the end of the dead end.

 

[Brian2]

No, the Bible - or more specifically Genesis 1 & 2, are wrong on so many different levels, including these 2 chapters contradicting each other concerning the orders of creation - they differed, which means 1 & 2 had two different authors composing them in different times, and the editors put them together as you see them today.

No they don't contradict each other as far as I can see.

To give you examples of 2 different orders, in Genesis 1, vegetation, fishes and birds, land animals and then humans last.
But in Genesis 2, the order is as followed: human (first, male), vegetation, land animals and human again, female last.
Genesis clearly say there were no vegetation and no rain in verses 2:5-6, when god created man (Adam) from dust in 2:7. And only then, did god created vegetation, thus Garden of Eden, along with 4 rivers (2:8-14). Then god created land animals (no mention of marine animals and birds in Genesis 2) in 2:18-20.
Lastly, god created woman (Eve) in 2:21-23.

Your understanding seems messed up to me.

Like I said, there are 2 different written creation stories, written by authors in different times, and later editors sewed the 2 versions, leaving the contradictions between 1 & 2.
They can’t be both right.
And I have started where Genesis creation don’t match the orders of science, not only to order of life (biology), but also astronomy and Earth science.
But I will get to that, in my 2nd reply to you.

There admittedly things in science which are wrong and which do not match the Biblical description but science is changing all the time and understanding of the Bible changes to and over the years the understanding of the Biblical account seems to be linked to the science of the day,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and unfortunately sometimes the interpreters of the Bible are slow to change their ideas of what the Bible is telling us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you confirm how pointless it is to keep replying with the same old arguments yourself. I can only wonder why you bother...?

What I wonder is why you don't bother to update your knowledge base.

Calling something a "logical" fallacy proves at least that it's "logical"....and science is far from proving that our beliefs are a "fallacy". Perhaps it's you guys who entertain your own fallacy...?

No. A logical fallacy is NOT logical. That's my point.

You argument rests on a fallacious premise. Which means it is not logical, nor is it "common sense" as you assert.
You are most definitely the one entertaining your own fallacy. Please acknowledge that instead of attempting to project your actions onto others.

Like all proponents of macro-evolution, you cannot defend your theory with actual evidence, so no matter how much you protest, you can't smoke screen your way out of that fact by insulting those who have "beliefs", just like you do.....it's the pot calling the kettle black IMO.

I've given you mountains of evidence. Please don't even bother with this. You and I both know you've seen a ton of evidence from various different posters, many of them being actual scientists.

But instead of deflecting from the point at hand, perhaps you could explain why you think something that is illogical is actually logical.

Unless macro-evolution is provable, it will never be a fact. Since it will never be provable, it will never be anything more than a theory.

That's very inconvenient isn't it?

It's demonstrable, yes.

Evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution is the explanation that describes that fact. As you well know by now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are apologetics classes. They teach them things to recite to use in response to key words.

I just listened to an old Atheist Experience episode where two teenagers called in to try out the apologetics they learned in class on the hosts.
It was pretty enlightening, actually. Worth a listen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well perhaps you should have looked at where this thread was posted......"Creation Vs Evolution".

Did you think if evolutionists can quote science, that we can't quote the Bible....?

We each have our textbooks after all.

And please don't think that because we don't believe in macro-evolution that we reject all science....we love what science is able to demonstrate in the natural world....what we reject is the theoretical stuff posing as scientific fact....it isn't and it never was. Science fiction is no foundation for truth....is it?

How are the two even remotely comparable?

I don't know what you think science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't really care what many other Christians think of evolution. Genesis and other parts of the OT have descriptions of things that science seems to have demonstrated to be true. Billions of years is no problem when it comes to the Bible descriptions and science and history seems to have shown that a Noah's flood did happen even if it was not a complete submersion of all the land under water.
Some ancient myths seem similar to parts of the Genesis and I wonder why that would not be true if the Biblical account it true.

There is no evidence for Noah's flood. None.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The scientific theories that want to tell us that life came from dead matter or that the universe sprang into existence from nothing or that the universe has had endless expansions and contractions all seem unsound logically and mathematically and yet are theories which also are not falsifiable and have not been observed. These are all part of science however and are premised on the notion that the existence of a Designer and Creator cannot be observed or tested, and so they must be true.

Evolution makes no such assertions.

Those sound like religious beliefs, actually.

Sounds like circular thinking that leads to a dead end but has to push against the wall at the end of the dead end because there is no alternative.
Many scientists realise that the existence of a Designer is not a bad idea however and so believe in a Designer and try to find Him on His terms, just as others believe in the alternative and keep pushing against the wall at the end of the dead end.

Circular thinking, hmm? How so?
Let me ask you then, why do you think the Bible is true?

 

[ppp]

I just listened to an old Atheist Experience episode where two teenagers called in to try out the apologetics they learned in class on the hosts.
It was pretty enlightening, actually. Worth a listen.

Oh yeah. I think I remember that. Seems like there were two of those.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh yeah. I think I remember that. Seems like there were two of those.

I don't think it's that old. Maybe from last year.

If I can find it, I'll post it for ya.
Their arguments were torn apart, of course.

 

[ppp]

I don't think it's that old. Maybe from last year.

If I can find it, I'll post it for ya.
Their arguments were torn apart, of course.