V
Vonsalza
Guest
Buff, you keep posting that thing about modern synthesis, you realize the scientific community started moving away from it around the time KISS was a still new band, right?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Alright, one last post, because… wow…
That is an assertion about the physical machinations of our universe. It is therefore completely within the bounds of the sciences to make observations and determinations about. I want you, using scientific evidence, to prove that scientific assertion.
My arguments have to do with how He gave them that form, not that he gave them.
Evolution is the physical process whereby a species adopts qualities and traits which, over the course of time, result in an iteration which is no longer biologically compatible with it progenitors, and would therefore be considered a separate species.
Prove it.
That is an assertion about the physical machinations of our universe. It is therefore completely within the bounds of the sciences to make observations and determinations about. I want you, using scientific evidence, to prove that scientific assertion.
I agree with the bolded. Every last species is the result of God’s will. God gave every last one of them exactly the form and abilities they were intended to have at any given point in time throughout the whole of universal history. I do not dispute this. I have never once tried to dispute this.
My arguments have to do with how He gave them that form, not that he gave them.
I once again agree, and differ only in the means by which His progeny were given physical form. I also don’t discount the possibility that humanity is a spontaneous creation completely distinct from previous species. I do, however, think it would be very odd for Him to create so many species which are human-like, seemingly showing evolutionary development, and then turn around and create the final form through some other process. it’s possible, but I don’t think it’s a reasonable conclusion given what we see in the fossil record. If I’m wrong, then I look forward to learning so, because that means I am in Heaven and get to see the whole of God’s plan.
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
We are a body soul composite, as is every last living thing in existence. However, that does not have any impact on the question of evolution. If God created us as we are, then He also created our souls as they are. Fine, no issue. If He used evolution, then every step along the way, whatever life there was was imbued with a soul proper to its form. When He got to humanity, He imbued us with a rational soul, rather than an animal or plant soul, which separates us from all that came before. That is also perfectly fine.
I am only “separating” them in so far as the question of how is concerned. Either way, whether our physical forms were created instantaneously or allowed to develop over 13 billion years, every living thing in our reality has a spiritual and physical dimension to it.
I agree with this. You do understand that, don’t you? Everything in creation is under God, regardless of the physical mechanics by which that creation occurred. I really don’t think I put it any clearer than that. Yet, despite repeating this ad nauseum, you still seem to think that I reject this fact.
Whatever, like I said, last post for a while. I’ve already spent too much time on this discussion today.
E
edwest
Guest
Thank you.
B
buffalo
Guest
Aka - devolution.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I’m still trying to understand how first life supported itself without no ecosystem or food chain in place, in the beginning, there was nothing .Vonsalza:
No one would dispute that sight is a selective advantage, the question is how did it happen? Single cell life managed for about 2.5 to 3 billion years with just a light detector. There does not seem to be that enormous positive pressure for an eye to evolve.
Like Nilsson you have omitted to say how the brain evolved 1800 times to process the extra information. And how did the limbs evolve 1800 times to respond more accurately to what is seen?
When you watch the short video by Nilsson he keeps saying what needs to happen, so he is setting goals each time. Yet the ToE is not goal driven. His explanation does not seem to fit in with ToE.
I probably have to disagree with you on that.
A
Aloysium
Guest
To my way of thinking the variety species have arisen from different kinds of organisms originally created whole. The potential for their particular expression of the kind of thing they are, was built into the original form. Species did not arise from information being gradually added to some prokaryotic genome, but rather as a result of self-expression of a first creature, through epigenetic processes linked to the psychophysical structure of their environment, in short the relationship each individual being has with its world. If one considers the variety of canines the world over, it is possible to understand how differently an original creature has manifested itself psychosocially and morphologically, while ever being an expression of its kind of being.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
At that level you should think of it more as microscopic chemical reactions rather than food.
The earliest life likely “fed” on hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide. Which naturally occur.
The earliest life likely “fed” on hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide. Which naturally occur.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Life that devours other life didn’t exist until 1.2 billion years ago.
Yes, this means that for the first two thirds of the history of life, all life was exclusively vegan.
Yes, this means that for the first two thirds of the history of life, all life was exclusively vegan.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You’re so close to the truth…
Instead of God creating life with a fixed wardrobe - “You can change into this when you need to”…
He created life and gave it a needle and thread - “Sew whatever outfit you need and alter it when you need”.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
“I Am Who Am” will start this whole thing going by creating the archetypes. Excellent!
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sound delicious :crazy_face:
A
Aloysium
Guest
We differ in how He gave the various kinds of living beings their form, because we differ on what it is that God brings into being. The fundamental nature of anything in creation, I hold to be existential, grounded in Existence itself, who brings everything forth from nothing. The “soul” of anything, what it is in itself as itself, known by God, that is what is primary. What is created in all its moments is an individual expression of the kind of thing it is. it’s constituent structure consists of lesser forms of being united in that thing that it is. It begins with the creation of “light” and the subsequent formation of subatomic and atomic forms of being that relate in the simplest of ways and were used to form this material universe. The creation of the first living beings utilized that structure in their formation. The appearance of the successive layers in the hierarchy of existence would be represented by the six days of Genesis. On each day something new was brought into being, utilizing the information that constitutes was had previously been created. That God created mankind through one first man pretty much dictates that He did not do so within the womb of an animal, the female which you apparently would believe contributed half her genome to produce a human body. The genome is one with its environment in the cell, which is one with the body that originates from a first cell, and one with the psychological nature that makes all this communication possible, made so by the order imposed on this totality by the spirit, making it all one unity of being -the person in the world.
R
rossum
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
rossum, you can’t extrapolate what happens now in a rich oceanic ecosystem to what might of happen so-called billions years ago when there was absolutely nothing there. It like comparing the Moon’s ecosystem to the Earth’s ecosystem.
B
buffalo
Guest
Highlights:
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me , because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this , and get that . I mean, ab initio , I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me , because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this , and get that . I mean, ab initio , I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question?
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Also, those random mutations odds have to be doubled, because evolution has to come up with the DNA code for both male and female.
W
Wozza
Guest
This is one sad thread…
- Status