… unless it has anything to do with the origins and “evolution” of life - in which case: Be afraid. Be very afraid.Leave it to the scientists do deal with science.
Quite so … except the writers of the Bible weren’t expressing their personal views - they were supernaturally inspired to record the thoughts of God Almighty.Their personal views are not eternal
And this pagan god is bleedin’ hopeless at science - he came up with that junk called Darwinism!The god of BUC (blind unguided chance) is the pagan god.
“Look, I’m a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982], that we don’t know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils that have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors, we haven’t the faintest idea whether they are ancestors … All you’ve got is Homo sapiens there, you’ve got that fossil there, you’ve got another fossil there … and it’s up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.”There is no concrete evidence that homosapiens evolved from any earlier hominid. The record is discontinuous and shows that homosapiens suddenly appear.
Mutations are random, so in any given population there are already random variations present. Tests, such as the Luria-Delbrück experiment show that useful mutations can arise before they become useful.The other alternative is that the variation is already in the population and nature favors those variation rather mutation.
Exactly. Nature is blind. Nature mutates stuff all the time relentlessly. A particular mutation may give an organism a trait eg antibiotic resistance regardless of whether the organism was exposed to the antibiotic or not. If by happenstance, that organism perhaps together with its other comrades without that protective trait were to be exposed to that antibiotic, those with the protection survives whereas the others will die off. The survivors would continue to reproduce and then the population would naturally consist of those with that protective trait. Some will jump onto that observed characteristic of the population claiming mutation/evolution at work. Looks like it but not in substance. To claim mutation at work, one has to show that the organism affected by the antibiotic, reacted to it by mutating and remaining alive and continue to reproduce with that altered mutation i.e. to fix the mutation in the population.But you can’t say something evolved into something else when it already has this resistance.
The number 7 is another instance of the DI lying to you. The change from standard HbA, which is susceptible to malaria, to HbC, which is resistant to malaria in a single base change: HbC; beta6 Glu → Lys. The Milano variant of Apolippoprotein A-I, which reduces furring of arteries is also a single base change ApoA-I M; 173 Arg → Cys.Biologist Ann Gauger and colleague Douglas Axe conducted a lab experiment in which they found that for a bacterial protein to evolve or mutate from performing one function to another function which is presumably what would need to happen according to the darwinian or neo-darwinian evolutionary paradigm would require at least 7 coordinated mutations.
The scientific explanation brings together the research into a plausible scenario describing what appears to have happened. In seeking within the description a further cause as to how it all happened, this being all that is given, it will consequently come across as if it happened by itself.It’s not as simple as saying “the Big Bang happened.”
The mutation works through plasmid transfer from resistant bacteria to those who lack the necessary genomic material, a trait that was created with the first bacteria, to ensure homeostasis within an environment shared with molds, and was not lost by all, through random mutations.To claim mutation at work, one has to show that the organism affected by the antibiotic, reacted to it by mutating and remaining alive and continue to reproduce with that altered mutation i.e. to fix the mutation in the population.
I’m not sure how these rather random ideas apply to my post; it’s not even clear whether they support it or not. A bit of deliberate obscurantism? Do clarify.No, we don’t risk God being a magician. A magician creates illusions.
Adam did not look as God had planned?
No, the flawed human reasoning of scientific observations is attacked and challenged as it should be. Science should be open to such scrutiny form outside the science community.