Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Except it would really be interesting (and as far as I am concerned a waste of time for scientists because there are so many better things people can with their educated time, I suppose -- but -- that's another story) to continue the experiment with fruit flies to see what they evolved to over decades I suppose, and more. Maybe decades just isn't enough time, but I might enjoy reading about it. Take care, metis.
So fruit flies remain fruit flies even though they produce various species of -- fruit flies. So far as has been observed. Thank you.
Dishonest? Might as well discuss evolution and what some would imagine is the "myth" or maybe magic of Jesus born to a virgin? On topic. about evolution and creation == myths or magic --
Wait a minute.what were the questions again?
The birth stories of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are so different as to be irreconcilable. There is no reason to believe that either is true. It seems to me to be unreasonable to base a belief in the virgin birth of Jesus on two stories that differ on almost every other point. Haven't you ever read the two birth stories and compared them and seen how different they are?
Natural selection isn't random either.The conceptual problem, that the current theory of evolution makes, is the black box math, due to the very nature of its random assumption, does not allow a goal to occur; math bias. If you assume random, so you can properly apply the statistical model, no goal is possible by the default, due to your base math assumptions. This puts the cart before the horse. The life science are vested in black box assumptions and they are stuck in a self fulfilling prophesy; defaults to no goal is possible. Has to have side effects.
I look at evolution, as connected to the 2nd law and entropy. This 2nd law states that entropy has to increase. This term, " increase" is not random since if entropy was random, it could spontaneously decrease or increase. But the 2nd law says it has to increase, which implies a sense of a single direction. This law; sense of positive direction, supersedes any black box assumption. Black box is not a law of science but a math tool assumption. I am comfortable following the laws of science.
Entropy is also what is called a state variable. This means any state of matter has a fixed measurable amount of measured entropy; constant, that characterizes that state, sort of like a finger print. For entropy to increase, these state values also have to increase, forming a new state of higher fixed entropy.
In the chat below of entropy value, water going from liquid to gas increases its entropy constant; new state. Notice diamond; right top, has the lowest entropy, since it is so simple being a uniform matrix of tetrahedrally bonded carbon; perfectly simple and not complex. Graphite is more uniform in 2-D simple and a higher entropy due to the slight increase in complexity its z-variable, brings. Graphite is slippery due to the easier z-axis shear planes.
A cell can also be considered an integrated entropic state, and evolution, driven by an entropy increase, that will form a new state of higher entropy constant; evolution means an increase in the entropy state. If we add O2 and CO2 gases to liquid water, the average entropy of this state solution of water, will increase. Metabolism has an extended entropy affect; O2 and CO2 in water. If we were to metabolizes iso-octane down to CO2, we increase entropy, drastically, due to the entropy state weight of all the CO2 molecules we will make. Such goals could be anticipated by evolution.
The water and oil effect causes water to pack and fold protein lowering their entropy; lower complexity. The protein would be more complex all stretched out wiggling like worms. Water packs, folds and squeezes them into a little ball state. That creates entropic potential or creates a state of lowered entropy, opposite the 2nd law. The hydrogen bonding of water is strong enough to do this. With all protein treated this way by water, the cell becomes a zone/state of lowered structural entropy constant, due to the structural deficit created by water. This gives the cell; zone/state, an extra natural push to evolve; extra push to increase protein entropy. But it will still remain under the constraint that water will continue to pack the protein toward lower entropy.
Since water will continue to ball up the proteins, the only good ways to increase protein entropy is to modify the protein, so the final state is higher in entropy; add a reactive site, and/or slight structural improvements; amino acid sequence change. This will not form a new species, but adds the potential for directed change on the various parts, until the entire cellular state, increases entropy; quantum step upward to a new state; species.
Yes, as I have been explaining to you for over 3 years now.
I understand how you might have missed them. I only copy paste them about 10 times or so.
Over generations, there are little changes.
What is so irreconcilable about them?
hundreds of religions talk of how a beast moves the sun across the sky. The fact that so many talk about this don't you think that it is possible that the sun really is moved across the sky by an animal?
No because the sun does not move across the sky The sun spins at the equator.
It does neither.
You really didn't pay attention in school did you?
you just said that because two sources make the same claim it has to be considered as fact. well more than two sources have the same idea about how the sun transverses the sky therefore their claim should be given the same consideration of being a fact as the virgin birth.
actually genetic studies of drosophila melanogaster the fruit fly evolved about 66 million years ago in the late cretaceous period from a carrion eating fly. They could not have existed earlier as before that time there was no fruit.
ITs the fact that it is unable to mate with a member of its parent species that marks it as a new species
No, you missed the point that new species can and sometimes do evolve to form new species, which by definition cannot procreate with the original species. IOW, they are of different "kinds" biologically.