B
Bradskii
Guest
Are you now denying natural selection?Bradskii:
Uh no. We now know there are cell directed changes.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Read carefully. We now know there are cell directed changes.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Question still stands. Are you now denying natural selection occurs?Bradskii:
Read carefully. We now know there are cell directed changes.
B
buffalo
Guest
No. I have no idea why you would conclude that.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I know you had no choice. I just wanted you to say it. Because that process is what Monod was railing against. And you accept that God has designed it thus.Bradskii:
No. I have no idea why you would conclude that.
“The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God, more or less, set up in order to have evolution. — Jacques Monod, 1976”
How’s your foot?
B
buffalo
Guest
Very well thank you.
I do not agree that God designed devolution from the start. His creation started out “good” and became corrupted after the fall.
Adam and Eve possessed preternatural gifts include freedom from sickness and death. Devolution came after.
Nice try though. Theistic evo’s should take note of this exchange, though.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I have seen no plausible connection between evolution and anything theistic.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Why tell me? Tell Monod. He thinks that it’s ‘the process which God, more or less, set up in order to have evolution’. Which you admit happens.Bradskii:
Very well thank you.
I do not agree that God designed devolution from the start. His creation started out “good” and became corrupted after the fall.
You fool no-one. Except probably yourself.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, as the entire explanation.
The TE supporters here have to wrestle with Monod. I do not.
We have learned so much more that TE’s have to move away from NS and RM as showing the entire picture. In other words, they no longer have to stick with the blind unguided chance and move to ID.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Yes you do. He says that it’s inexplicable that Christians accept natural selection. You just said that you do.Bradskii:
Yes, as the entire explanation.
The TE supporters here have to wrestle with Monod. I do not.
B
buffalo
Guest
Natural selection is not the entire explanation. It is a conservative process not a creative one.
R
rossum
Guest
Evidence telling. Whales are mammals and every early mammal had the ability to walk on land.
Bats, seals and a few others have lost some ability to walk on and, but gained the ability to fly or to swim better.
Whales have taken is a step further and have completely lost the ability to walk on land but have gained a much enhanced ability to hold their breath for swimming.
You are not arguing against evolution here, buffalo, but against some strawman fantasy of what evolution isn’t.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Who cares? The guy said ‘it’s inexplicable that Christians accept natural selection.’Bradskii:
Natural selection is not the entire explanation.
And you do. You just said so. Beats me why you post quotes that show you in such a bad light. Must be habit forming. You’ve done it so often.
B
buffalo
Guest
The distinction is paramount. I will help you since you are hellbent on distortion.
The guy said ‘it’s inexplicable that Christians accept natural selection - as the entire explanation. Now TE’s no longer have to.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Whoops. Missed a quotation mark somewhere in there. If you want to move the goalposts then you need to put that in somewhere. So what was his exact quote again? Where was the bit about ‘as the entire explanation’?Bradskii:
The distinction is paramount. I will help you since you are hellbent on distortion.
The guy said ‘it’s inexplicable that Christians accept natural selection - as the entire explanation. Now TE’s no longer have to.
He thinks that it was a process ‘more or less’ set up by God. And is surprised that you support it.
Or did you just add that so it helps make you look less like a guy with a hole in his foot.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is what he believed when he wrote it many years ago and now TE’s no longer have to as we know more. Let me help you once again.
For the last few decades TE’s believed what evo scientists claimed about NS and RM. Monod was pointing out this was a conflict and I agree. Since we know so much more TE’s do not have to have this conflict any longer.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Natural Selection is its own concept. Alone - NS does not add new Genomic Information aka a New Mutation… Fact is, It reduces Genomic Information… A surprise indeed to many would be the Beak of The Finch story - often presented as Proof (it is not) of so-called “Macro Evolution” via Extrapolating the so-called Micro-Evolution event,. However. Nothing Evolved… Rather, There was call it Devolution… The new population temporarily lost call it Short-Beaked Finches due to drought which negatively impacted upon the food supply (seeds) of plants eaten by Finches, whereby shorter beak_ed Finches were at a disadvantage… . The averaged beak length of Populations increased by 0.4 mm… Reason? The Shorter Beaked Finches died… It’s really simple arithmetic. After the rains returned, the averaged beak lengths returned to their former call it Norm.
R
rossum
Guest
Correct. Random mutations add new information by introducing new variants into the population genome. Natural selection filters that new information, reducing the number of copies of deleterious variants and increasing the number of copies of beneficial variants in the population.
E
EndTimes
Guest
In
Correct. And very important to realize, In the case of the Galapagos Finches … no Mutations evidencing a definitive new move away from the species/genera aka “evolution in the macro sense” - occurred…- Fact is, those finches still stubbornly remain – finches.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Something of a complete fail here, I’m afraid. There doesn’t seem much traction in posting someone’s opinion that you thought might reflect well on your own (and having it shown that it doesn’t anyway) if you now say it doesn’t really apply.Bradskii:
That is what he believed when he wrote it many years ago…
I’d quit now. Stop digging for heaven’s sake. The hole is too deep already.
- Status