B
buffalo
Guest
Did Adam look as God planned?
- Status
R
ReapReason
Guest
Evolution as taught by science is fully compatible. There is no such thing as “some form of evolution” in the context of science. You might-as-well accept it in its entirety or not at all.
B
buffalo
Guest
No - there is a difference between adaptive abilities as a result of engineering and arrival of new features aided by blind unguided chance (god of BUC)
R
Richca
Guest
yes
R
Richca
Guest
This is correct!
R
Richca
Guest
I do not except it in its entirety for it’s unreasonable, faithless, and not backed by the fossil record or science. Google “Darwin’s Dilemma.” However, I do except some form or degree of evolution as the fossil record seems to indicate.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Our [human] understanding of the world in general is evolving. As I understand it scientific models are refined as more information and understanding comes about. So the modern theory (and definition) of evolution is different than the one composed before the discovery of DNA and the gene. Newtons theory of gravity is different than Einstein’s, and so on.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes indeed. Science is quickly leaving Darwinism behind…
Constructive neutral evolution: exploring evolutionary theory’s curious disconnect
Abstract
Constructive neutral evolution (CNE) suggests that neutral evolution may follow a stepwise
path to extravagance. Whether or not CNE is common, the mere possibility raises
provocative questions about causation: in classical neo-Darwinian thinking, selection is the
sole source of creativity and direction, the only force that can cause trends or build complex
features. However, much of contemporary evolutionary genetics departs from the conception
of evolution underlying neo-Darwinism, resulting in a widening gap between what formal
models allow, and what the prevailing view of the causes of evolution suggests. In particular,
a mutationist conception of evolution as a 2-step origin-fixation process has been a source of
theoretical innovation for 40 years, appearing not only in the Neutral Theory, but also in
recent breakthroughs in modeling adaptation (the ―mutational landscape‖ model), and in
practical software for sequence analysis. In this conception, mutation is not a source of raw
materials, but an agent that introduces novelty, while selection is not an agent that shapes
features, but a stochastic sieve. This view, which now lays claim to important theoretical,
experimental, and practical results, demands our attention. CNE provides a way to explore its
most significant implications about the role of variation in evolution.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Ummm, do you mean “Cambrian Explosion”?
Your point might be right, Richca, but if anything it proves that Darwin’s conception of macro evolution is false, not that naturalistic evolution is wrong. There are better arguments, I believe, that demonstrate quite reasonably how naturalistic evolution based on “chance” or genetic mutations is not a feasible hypothesis considering the short time span we are dealing with. This becomes especially relevant when considering how life emerged from non-life.
Jonathan
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
As far as I can tell “Darwinism” is a label that that seems expressive of a social-political disposition and is only loosely associated with the man Darwin himself (and there are indications in his writing that he would not have been supportive of it). For example, the phrase “survival of the fittest” was a phrase that was talking about an animals compatibility with it’s environment; it wasn’t something that has meaning independent of an environment. But there existed people that wanted to ride on the popularity of Darwin’s work and came up with the concept of “social Darwinism”; something that contains the phrase “survival of the fittest” which was more expressive of an assumed right to subjugate those that did not have as much power. It wasn’t related to descent with modification (Darwin’s original description of evolution) or to a change in allele frequency within a population over time (a modern description of evolution).
In speaking to people in non-scientific fields I’ve found that some thing that those that do research on evolution (in the sense of the allele frequency change) are also people that are supportive of social-Darwinism.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Of course.
The original thinking is over 100 years old We’ve learned so much since then, in so many fields. None of which contradicts the fact of evolution of course, rather confirms it 
Sarah x
B
buffalo
Guest
Uh no…Of course.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t youUh no…
But the facts, and the science, are against your ID, and that’s good enough for me
Sarah x
E
empther
Guest
Evolution has everything to do with the human body
and nothing to do with the human soul.
There is no conflict between evolution and religion.
and nothing to do with the human soul.
There is no conflict between evolution and religion.
B
buffalo
Guest
The recently discovered extraordinary complexity found in the cell machinery is a real problem for Darwin.Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you
But the facts, and the science, are against your ID, and that’s good enough for me
Sarah x
Let us assume that evo is true. You don’t have enough time. That is what the science is saying.
Therefore the best explanation is, you guessed it, cell machinery was front loaded.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Well, no, not really.
Darwin’s a long time dead and doesn’t much care.
It is. Not one credible scientist says it isn’t.
Nope. Sure we do. Just puzzling things out as we get to know more and more. We’ll get to the answer for sure and it will all make perfect sense without the invocation of any Deity, or any intelligent design.
Nope. Nothing was front loaded or designed. Just simple evolution over billions of years doing it’s thing.
Sarah x
R
Richca
Guest
Sarah, the facts, science, and intelligence are against the theory of evolution which says that all life evolved from one single cell organism, and where that single cell living organism came from cannot reasonably be explained by them.Well, no, not really.
Darwin’s a long time dead and doesn’t much care.
It is. Not one credible scientist says it isn’t.
Nope. Sure we do. Just puzzling things out as we get to know more and more. We’ll get to the answer for sure and it will all make perfect sense without the invocation of any Deity, or any intelligent design.
Nope. Nothing was front loaded or designed. Just simple evolution over billions of years doing it’s thing.
Sarah x
B
buffalo
Guest
Sounds like a Science of the Gaps argument. Your faith is great too.Well, no, not really.
Darwin’s a long time dead and doesn’t much care.
It is. Not one credible scientist says it isn’t.
Nope. Sure we do. Just puzzling things out as we get to know more and more. We’ll get to the answer for sure and it will all make perfect sense without the invocation of any Deity, or any intelligent design.
Nope. Nothing was front loaded or designed. Just simple evolution over billions of years doing it’s thing.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Sounds like a Science of the Gaps argument. Your faith is great too.
I’ll take the science every time
At the very least, it can be examined, verified, credited, discredited, and reworked and re-examined in the light of new knowledge.
Much better to make the story fit the facts than drown in the cognitive dissonance required to constantly twist and ignore the facts to make them fit the story.
Sarah x
B
buffalo
Guest
One who claims to be so open minded should not ignore history.
I’ll take the science every time
At the very least, it can be examined, verified, credited, discredited, and reworked and re-examined in the light of new knowledge.
Much better to make the story fit the facts than drown in the cognitive dissonance required to constantly twist and ignore the facts to make them fit the story.
Sarah x
Since science is provisional there are some that do end up trying to do scientism. My advice is to let science gyrate itself and wait, for faith and reason cannot be opposed.
In the end, properly reasoned observations will fit nicely with the truth of Revelation.
Is your claim evolutionists do not make the story fit the observations? Take the Cambrian Explosion. Let us make it fit…
- Status