What's so hard about evolution?

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Imperfect copy MUST result in evolution. There is no other outcome. Why do the 'others' believe otherwise?

So each copy is getting less and less perfect then? At one point in time everything was perfect, and as evolution occurred it became more and more specialized until it is only capable of surviving in one particular environment? Sounds like decline to me.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I am a theist and I do believe it is bad Science. I do not believe Macro-evolution disproves God in anyway. I just dont accept it because i think its statistically unlikely.

.....sure......you're just a critical thinker right?............apart from the fact that you believe that the universe and everything in it was designed and created by an invisible space Jew because...........a 2000 yr old book of stories about stories from a agroup of illiterate, superstitious, hysterical desert dwelling goat herders says so?

Show that your own explanation for the diversity of life on earth is statistically likely and maybe people will take you seriously.

Because as it is right now, you and other creationists have the same level of credibility as those crazy end-of-the-world types.

Oh wait....

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

You've only explained what an instinctual behavior is. You've not explained how an acquired behavior, specific to a species, can become hard wired into its DNA to be passed down to offspring.

I'm not sure I understand your question. The behavior isn't something that is acquired during one individual's lifetime, it is coded into the DNA along with everything else and originated via genetic mutation, just like fur color, height range, weight range, etc. It was already there before it became a survival mechanism, it just became a dominant trait over time like everything else because it was useful. Instinct isn't some external thing separate from genetics. It also wasn't something that suddenly happened where the offspring is suddenly drastically different from the parent. DNA defines everything about an organism, instincts included. I think it's more related to humans not giving creatures enough intellectual credit. How does a human know to laugh when something is funny? It's the same concept. It probably led to better mental health over time for humans so it slowly became a dominant trait.

a reply to: Prezbo369

This is the problem with a lot of atheist. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't agree with Science. So the Big Bang is well accepted by the majority of cosmologist. Yet, science for 2500 years insisted that the universe was eternal. The Bible said there was a creation point that came from nothing. Now, Science agrees with the Bible. The Big Bang has some implications about it. Whatever started it, rather it be random supernatural forces we know nothing of(the Singularity), or an omniscient being it stands that it is a space-less timeless and immaterial substance.

Big Bang=Space-less timeless and immaterial creation point.
Common DNA=Common designer(why rewrite a code for specific parts of animals when they have already been written)
Semiotic Dimension of DNA= Points to a sign of intelligence as its creator
Big bang rules out idea of material aliens creating life as something would have had to start them as well.

The Bible has aspects about it that show its development came from outside the realm of space-time. That is obviously a very brief description of why I believe what I believe, but I believe all of it can be backed up with either Science or Philosophy.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Don't you miss the days when you could manipulate the BBcode to reply to several people at once?

You're playing word games and debating tricks, but all you're really doing is kicking up as much noise as you can so you don't have to hear what people are saying. I invite you to try with genuine good will to understand and make reasonable reply. At the moment you are communicating nothing but your own distress.

You posted a mudskipper as though it proves that animals change kinds. I am asking you to show me what it was before because I cannot find it.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

This is the problem with a lot of atheist. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't agree with Science. So the Big Bang is well accepted by the majority of cosmologist. Yet, science for 2500 years insisted that the universe was eternal.

Yes because unlike the bible, science changes as new information is presented.

And what does this have to do with evolution? stop attempting to move the goalposts....

The Bible said there was a creation point that came from nothing.

It doesn't say anything like that, this is another creationist fallacy which earns you even less credibility...

Now, Science agrees with the Bible. The Big Bang has some implications about it. Whatever started it, rather it be random supernatural forces we know nothing of(the Singularity), or an omniscient being it stands that it is a space-less timeless and immaterial substance.

So your god can only hide now in the remaining balls of ignorance? where will it hide if we completely uncover the event known as 'the big bang'?

And again no your bible gives nothing to science and has nothing worthy of science within.

Big Bang=Space-less timeless and immaterial creation point.

More nonsensical claims that have no basis in reality.

Common DNA=Common designer(why rewrite a code for specific parts of animals when they have already been written)

Yeah because a all knowing/powerful god would go the easy route and make everything basically the same way.....a lazy programmer?

Semiotic Dimension of DNA= Points to a sign of intelligence as its creator

No it doesn't, it points to an entirely natural origin for all biodiversity.

Big bang rules out idea of material aliens creating life as something would have had to start them as well.

Pretty much, the same goes for gods and all manner of specters...

The Bible has aspects about it that show its development came from outside the realm of space-time. That is obviously a very brief description of why I believe what I believe, but I believe all of it can be backed up with either Science or Philosophy.

That must be why it comes across as a collection of bronze age superstitions.....

You still haven't given your own statistically possible explanation for the diversity of life on earth....instead you attempt to change the subject (shocking!)........is it because you don't have one?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yes because unlike the bible, science changes as new information is presented. And what does this have to do with evolution? stop attempting to move the goalposts....

Ah but you see everytime so far that Science tries to say something in the Bible is wrong, it always loses. The Bible describes the earth as a sphere even though at the time it was thought of as flat.

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

It doesn't say anything like that, this is another creationist fallacy which earns you even less credibility...

John 1
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Genesis 1
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

What was that about my credibility? What does this do to yours?

So your god can only hide now in the remaining balls of ignorance? where will it hide if we completely uncover the event known as 'the big bang'? And again no your bible gives nothing to science and has nothing worthy of science within.

Nothing to Science?

What we need to do now is take a deep breath, and take a step out of today's overwhelmingly secularized intellectual climate, and consider this: Modern science arose among avowedly Christian clerics, theologians, monks, and professors of medieval and renaissance Catholic universities and monasteries. Normally, the Middle Ages are regarded as having a world view very opposed to that of science by atheists and agnostics similar to the manner Leonard Peikoff, the literary and philosophical heir of novelist Ayn Rand, expressed himself: "For centuries, nature had been regarded as a realm of miracles manipulated by a personal deity, a realm whose significance lay the clues it offered to the purposes of its author." Yet, if science gradually ar ose during the medieval and Renaissance periods, but Christianity and science are seen as totally incompatible, how did this occur? After all, neither Galileo nor Copernicus (1473 - 1543), who maintained the sun was at the center of the solar system, not the earth, were skeptics or unbelievers, unlike such medieval predecessors as the Islamic poet and astronomer Omar Khayyam (1048? - 1122) or Frederick II (1194 - 1250), Holy Roman Emperor? The remarkable truth is that the world view of Christianity was absolutely necessary for the rise of modern science, as shown by the Duhem - Jaki and (only secondarily) Merton theses

www.rae.org...

I'd say history disagrees.

More nonsensical claims that have no basis in reality.

You obviously don't know what the Big Bang states then. Lawrence Krauss (an atheist and cosmologist) says that space, time and matter all came into existence from nothing and that all of the physical universe came into existence after the first planck time. If space time and matter were its creation how does one not logically conclude that its cause was space-less timeless and immaterial ? Its not nonsensical you just dont understand the Science.

Yeah because a all knowing/powerful god would go the easy route and make everything basically the same way.....a lazy programmer?

Thats not lazy its intelligent. My brother used to be a hacker for the military. When you hack you download a program and run for specific things. They don't go to a new code every time they need a similar code hacked, but rather use a base program.

No it doesn't, it points to an entirely natural origin for all biodiversity.

Do you even know what a semiotic dimension is? It means that DNA carries a message for an interpreter(not us but the cell) . It works exactly as language or computer code. The only other place aside from DNA that you find semiotic dimensions is from language and computer code, all of which are creations of intelligence. So no it actually points to a sign of intelligence. In order for you to state that semiotic dimensions can arise from natural causes you need to show me another instance in nature where you can fine a semiotic dimension...

Pretty much, the same goes for gods and all manner of specters...

Christians don't believe in a material God so not really.

I don't need a statistical explanation for the diversity of life on Earth simply because lifes code points to a sign of intelligence behind it.

'evolution' is the only thing that persists/exists on a cosmic level.
It is a most elegant creative continuum, not limited to life alone.

the pantheistic 'organism' is most spiritually profound, even without specific purpose.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This could also be evidence of a common designer. If God is a computer programmer of unmatched proportions and he wrote a computer code for lungs why would he change it for every living animal? A code for a heart? Hopefully, that make my point.

So... you think DNA basically has a code that say make the fur this color, lungs this big the heart so strong?

Its just chemical reactions, gene X produces protein y that reacts with compound z. That's the "information" in DNA.
No gene has the information to make a protein it just makes them because those kind of chemical reactions happen do to the laws of chemistry.
We are the ones that assign information to DNA for simplicity sake we say gene xyz increases the likelihood of cancer or whatever.

What is needed is not an argument for the code, but an argument for an invisible man making the DNA by magic.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Also Micro-evolution is something I think is well proven. I believe variation and species limitation are what account for the diversity of life .

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This could also be evidence of a common designer. If God is a computer programmer of unmatched proportions and he wrote a computer code for lungs why would he change it for every living animal? A code for a heart? Hopefully, that make my point.

So... you think DNA basically has a code that say make the fur this color, lungs this big the heart so strong?

Its just chemical reactions, gene X produces protein y that reacts with compound z. That's the "information" in DNA.
No gene has the information to make a protein it just makes them because those kind of chemical reactions happen do to the laws of chemistry.
We are the ones that assign information to DNA for simplicity sake we say gene xyz increases the likelihood of cancer or whatever.

What is needed is not an argument for the code, but an argument for an invisible man making the DNA by magic.

You misunderstand the argument sir. Look at protein synthesis, mRNA copies DNA and carries it to a ribosome who then translates the mRNA code to make a specific protein. Each Codon codes for specific proteins and carries the information(info is abstract not material) needed for that particular protein. Look at you, you are an expression of the abstract information carried within DNA. You prove that DNA has a semiotic dimension.

A semiotic dimension comes from a signifier a sign vehicle and interpreter. As far as we know these only come into existence from intelligence. It is therefore logical to assume the same with DNA. You don't have to agree, but you cannot say i am wrong.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

but you cannot say i am wrong.

Your wrong..

Systems can and do arisen by biological means..
NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O

That describes a real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. That we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain, i.e. intelligent designer..

When you mix an acid and a base, its makes a salt. That just happens. The only code to explain is the one we invented to talk about the reaction.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

but you cannot say i am wrong.

Your wrong..

Systems can and do arisen by biological means..
NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O

That describes a real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. That we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain, i.e. intelligent designer..

When you mix an acid and a base, its makes a salt. That just happens. The only code to explain is the one we invented to talk about the reaction.

We are talking about DNA, not acids and salts. You have specific nucleotide bases that pair up, and their is no chemical means for them to do so. Scientist say right now that they believe the base pairs match up based on spatial reasons, but they are presupposing that DNA wants to fit into a double-helix without stating why. When they pair up in a specific way they code for a specific protein not just a random one. I am not talking about the code that we give to the substances. Their is a code independent of our perceptions we are just blessed with the ability to recognize and describe it. For example, even before we knew of the microscopic world our bodies still functioned as we describe them functioning today. THe Human Genome still expresses the information needed to express that individual.

I can't wait until our understanding things like DNA increases 10 fold and we are able to perfectly describe every aspect of how DNA replicates and why exactly everything happens the way it does and how it evolved. I just wonder what creationists will cling to after that. "I don't understand why DNA functions as it does or how it could arise" isn't an argument for creation. It may be a complex process, but so is nuclear fusion and it happens constantly all over the universe.

a reply to: flyingfish

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Your not a creationist? It's odd your trying to learn about Instinctual behavior in a such a silly none scientific thread.

No, I'm not a creationist, and I'd ask that if you're going to address me again you quit your incessant labeling of me as such. Why are so unable to just answer a question like a normal human being without injecting your baseless anti-creationist preamble every time?

You know what's unfortunate, flyingfish, despite you being a person of seemingly sound intelligence, your repeated display of condescension and prejudice hints at someone dealing with a world of insecurities.

You must forget any one can read your past posts, and see you come off as a creationist no matter what flavor you call yourself.

Oh well aren't you the Dick Tracy. As if I'm trying to hide something? Get over yourself man.
Unless you're a person who is as quick to pass judgement as you are, you won't find in any of my posts, references to God, Religion, The bible, Jesus, creation myths, or a great flood; nor will you find any reference to a creationist site.

My drive is to find a deeper understanding of the roles of intelligence, mind, and consciousness; and how these are inherent properties of life and possibly the universe.

All found here on earth.
No God necessary.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks for taking the time to post those links. I'll definitely go through them, although a lot of the material is stuff I've already been reading about.

The point about the above mechanisms is that they all result in heritable genomic changes, and are therefore grist to the mill of natural selection.

Yeah, well my view on Natural Selection is that it is just as imaginary a "force" as the creationist god.
There quite literally is nothing physically selecting which organisms get to live on and which must die out. Nothing. I don't get it, in all the material I read about NS, scientists always refer to it in this humanistic sense, as if all variations of organisms must face the thumbs up or thumbs down from the ultimate judge: NATURAL SELECTION... It's really taken on a god-like aura.

I for one don't understand the need for it, and trust me, I realize how alone I am on that feeling. But I don't consider evolution as an outside force acting on life. I see life as a force from within that acts on itself. Life mutates itself, edits itself, diversifies itself, adapts itself, reproduces itself, transforms itself. Life is self-assembling and self-regulating. Life gives rise to complex forms of matter, intelligence, and consciousness, and thus has an ability to experience and interact with itself and the outside world. Life on all levels exhibits cognition. And Life almost certainly has a self imposed purpose, if nothing else, to keep on L-I-V-I-N. It's been doing it for over 3.5 billion years and we still have no real idea why.

So why waste our time on a Theory of Evolution when what we really should be focusing on is a Theory of Life?

Life evolves and diversifies because that's what it does- it's an inherent property, just like metabolism. But does this property really need its own theory?

What current research is finding to be the true "driving forces" are the mutations and actions taking place at the molecular level. We're beginning to realize the important and meaningful roles that viruses, bacteria, and microbes play on the development and survival of the host organism. In other words, life on all levels, with all of its properties at work is what's driving its evolution. There's a deeper implication here which I won't get into right now...

But Natural Selection? What is that, really? Is there anything physically happening there?

By the way, are we going to debate dualism versus materialism or are we not? I'm going to have to start that thread myself.

Sure, I'm in, but I probably won't be the one to initiate the thread, since you've been the one lobbying for it.

a reply to: Barcs
Ok- so what I'm wondering is- if a novel behavior is driven by a single initial mutation- how do the same types of instincts, say nest building, appear across various species? Is this the result of the same mutation occurring across all of these species?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Astyanax
You're playing word games and debating tricks... I invite you to try with genuine good will to understand and make reasonable reply. At the moment you are communicating nothing but your own distress.

You posted a mudskipper as though it proves that animals change kinds. I am asking you to show me what it was before because I cannot find it.

That is not why I posted it. I posted it to show Chr0naut that a fish with leg-like fins can survive and reproduce successfully.

If you are as curious about evolution as you make out, why don't you study it honestly, instead of letting yourself be misinformed about it by people who hate and fear it? Or are you the same as they? And if you are, why should I waste my time explaining anything to you? Why should I continue to beat you up in an argument you have already lost and closed your mind to?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Your not a creationist? Didn't we already have this argument some time ago?
A deeper understanding, eh?

Okay Mr. philosopher I'll let you get back to your coloring books.

a reply to: PhotonEffect
Darwin called natural selection 'the winnow of nature.' Obviously it is not a god. It is not an objective entity of any kind. It is more akin to tidal action or nuclear fusion: the shaping of matter by energy according to normal physical laws.

Your conception of a soul inherent in living matter that shapes it according to some mysterious inner impulse to diversify and evolve makes you (I am sorry to say) a creationist. I know you're not calling it a soul, but that is what it is. George Bernard Shaw touted it; the Jesuit fabulator Teilhard de Chardin made a career out of it. Believe it by all means, but our conversation about evolution must end here. You have dealt yourself out of the discussion at this table. I'm sure your fellow creationists will be happy to accommodate you at theirs, though I fear you will find their views about the viability of crocoducks and the age of the Earth rather tiresome.