Who Created Evolution?

[lewisnotmiller]

wow, total opposite reasoning to me. I find it necessary to prove why an unguided, blind chance cause is required and is responsible and needed for intelligence in living creatures to become.

From a scientific point of view, that really makes no sense. How would one go about finding 'unguided, blind chance cause' and replicating it in an experiment?
What you are talking about sounds more theological/philosophical. Which is fine, but not science.

 

[McBell]

wow, total opposite reasoning to me. I find it necessary to prove why an unguided, blind chance cause is required and is responsible and needed for intelligence in living creatures to become.

I have not made that claim.
You, however, made the claim that an "intelligent cause" is needed.

So, are you done diverting and ready to explain?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, not Darwin. God created evolution. Darwin may have noticed some things like cross breeding and adaptation, called it evolution, and after a few puffs of the wacky weed, decided people came from monkeys. But for whatever part of evolution is true, God created at the time of creation. God created both the visible and invisible. The systems of the life cycle are a part of the creation; adaptation, survival of the fittest, luck, winning. The things people call evolution.

Collosians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

It can mean many different things certainly, Genesis describes a progression where animal life begins in the ocean and culminates with mankind- lucky guess or not..

most would agree with you on 'evolution' as describing life merely changing as planned , but Darwin's particular Theory of Evolution generally requires belief in a purely random process as the primary driver of change, which is a far less common position.

 

[osgart]

From a scientific point of view, that really makes no sense. How would one go about finding 'unguided, blind chance cause' and replicating it in an experiment?
What you are talking about sounds more theological/philosophical. Which is fine, but not science.

So no intelligent cause remains a belief, in the face of DNA coding, and functional tools of living bodies existing.

intelligence is evident, why remove it from the reason for living creatures existing.

 

[osgart]

I have not made that claim.
You, however, made the claim that an "intelligent cause" is needed.

So, are you done diverting and ready to explain?

The existence of DNA, the tool parts of biological life.

why remove the obvious logic of evidence?

You simply can't get anything functional without intelligence behind it.

crude yet sophisticated intelligence.

 

[Mister Silver]

Evolution is a natural process that went into effect after the big bang.

 

[McBell]

The existence of DNA, the tool parts of biological life.

why remove the obvious logic of evidence?

You simply can't get anything functional without intelligence behind it.

crude yet sophisticated intelligence.

back to argument from incrudelity....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So no intelligent cause remains a belief, in the face of DNA coding, and functional tools of living bodies existing.

intelligence is evident, why remove it from the reason for living creatures existing.

Science isn't about unfalsifiable beliefs. Hence, methodological naturalist here.
You can argue whatever you like, I'm not even saying you are wrong (although I think you are). I am merely saying that it's not science.

 

[DavidFirth]

Who created evolution?

I think it was some guy named Darwin.

 

[McBell]

Who created evolution?

I think it was some guy named Darwin.

The idea of evolution has been around long before Darwin.

 

[DavidFirth]

The idea of evolution has been around long before Darwin.

Joke, dude. It was a joke.

 

[McBell]

Joke, dude. It was a joke.

My apologies.
I missed the emoji...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science isn't about unfalsifiable beliefs. Hence, methodological naturalist here.
You can argue whatever you like, I'm not even saying you are wrong (although I think you are). I am merely saying that it's not science.

[wholesale returns of conjecture, out of a trifling investment of fact]- was Mark Twain's characterisation of science

But how would you define it? what are the characteristics that you find most compelling?

 

[gnostic]

Have you any scientific data to demonstrate that your god exists and that he created something, or do you only have quotes from an old collection of stories? Otherwise, you are just spinning your wheels by posting this.

Kemoslaby is spinning something...perhaps he's high on LSD.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

well a multifunctional hand, and an eyeball is not incredulous evidence.

a simple knife has intelligent cause.

I thought an evolutionist would have explanation of evidence of no intelligent cause in evolution other than a blanket statement, and just saying no way. and that's it.

If there is no evidence of intelligence operating in evolution, that is all science can say. However, it can say something about unguided, natural causes and it does.

Natural selection is the cause.

Many people have the erroneous idea that evolution is completely blind and purely chance. I have read statements to that effect several times on this thread alone. This idea indicates that variation occurs randomly and the results expressed by the variation is random. Under that notion you would have just as good a chance to have eyes on your face as you do to have thumbs there. Or so it would go if the process were completely random.

The theory of evolution states that random variation is acted on by nonrandom selection to drive the evolution of living things. Because of the nonrandom action of natural selection, it appears as if there is the actions of an intelligence.

A mutation occurs in a bacteria that allows it to utilize a new food source that was previously unavailable to it. If that food source isn't in the environment, the bacteria with the mutation has no advantage and the mutation won't fix in the population. There is no selection. If that food source is available in the environment, then having the mutation can be an advantage and can be selected for. Examples of this have been demonstrated in the field with the discovery of bacteria that now exist to digest nylon--a man made substrate--and in the laboratory with E. coli with the evolution of citrate utilization in the experiments of Richard Lenski.

 

[YmirGF]

If there is no evidence of intelligence operating in evolution, that is all science can say. However, it can say something about unguided, natural causes and it does.

Natural selection is the cause.

Many people have the erroneous idea that evolution is completely blind and purely chance. I have read statements to that effect several times on this thread alone. This idea indicates that variation occurs randomly and the results expressed by the variation is random. Under that notion you would have just as good a chance to have eyes on your face as you do to have thumbs there. Or so it would go if the process were completely random.

The theory of evolution states that random variation is acted on by nonrandom selection to drive the evolution of living things. Because of the nonrandom action of natural selection, it appears as if there is the actions of an intelligence.

A mutation occurs in a bacteria that allows it to utilize a new food source that was previously unavailable to it. If that food source isn't in the environment, the bacteria with the mutation has no advantage and the mutation won't fix in the population. There is no selection. If that food source is available in the environment, then having the mutation can be an advantage and can be selected for. Examples of this have been demonstrated in the field with the discovery of bacteria that now exist to digest nylon--a man made substrate--and in the laboratory with E. coli with the evolution of citrate utilization in the experiments of Richard Lenski.

Dawkins covers the whole idea rather well in The Selfish Gene.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dawkins covers the whole idea rather well in The Selfish Gene.

I have had a copy of that book for over 10 years and I have yet to read it. I have so much to read and so little time to do it. Now I have another reason to bump it in the queue.

 

[YmirGF]

I have had a copy of that book for over 10 years and I have yet to read it. I have so much to read and so little time to do it. Now I have another reason to bump it in the queue.

It is perhaps his best book. It was well before his religious rants - if that helps.

 

[Sapiens]

The Selfish Gene is great as a technical work and a highly significant contribution, but the Ancestor's Tale is a more interesting and better written book.

 

[Jesuslightoftheworld]

Go

No, not Darwin. God created evolution. Darwin may have noticed some things like cross breeding and adaptation, called it evolution, and after a few puffs of the wacky weed, decided people came from monkeys. But for whatever part of evolution is true, God created at the time of creation. God created both the visible and invisible. The systems of the life cycle are a part of the creation; adaptation, survival of the fittest, luck, winning. The things people call evolution.

Collosians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

God created evolutionism seems like an oxymoron. But I agree that God created all the laws of physics a well as laws for himself. The universe, the earth, the planets, the moon, the sun; they were all created us. I don't believe in luck or coincidence. His Will be done.