Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Skywalker]

Bacteria did not "become archae and Eukarya. Look at the image I provided again.

So bacteria, archae and Eukarya all came from different branches of primordial soup?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So bacteria, archae and Eukarya all came from different branches of primordial soup?

Poorly phrased, so no.

 

[Skywalker]

No, not at their base they are not well defined. You are looking at life now, not life in the past.

I don't think the lines between humans and plants were blurred in the past. They was always a clear distinction. Trees having many gray areas and intermediates, but there is still a clear distinction between a tree and any other plant, and even if i give the benefit of the doubt to the other view on that, a tree, or a human and an animal. I can't imagine a time period where the line between humans and animals, plants and animals, and bacteria and animals or plants, was not well-defined and distinctly defined.

 

[Skywalker]

If you go by that standard then "change of kind" has been observed and there is no doubt about it. The problem is that you are not using that defintion.

Changes of kinds have been observed in lab settings, but that is genetic engineering and artificial and not spontaneous.

 

[QuestioningMind]

ah the chemical.
I did not take it into consideration.

A chemical that leads people to think that there are beautiful landscapes. As a hypothesis. And I am not supposed to think that the God proposition is more likely to cut it than that chemical. The number of assumptions necessary involved in this explanation model: 1.
as was for the God proposition.

Ok. You're a gifted thinker. Well done. You know very well what evidence is.

Now, beauty was just one phenomenon.
Actually, there are more, in my opinion, that all point to God as a loving being:
Good scent, for instance.
You walk into the forest after the rain... and it smells good.
You taste the air at the sea side... it is good.

Same game, in my opinion.

One assumption for the loving force, many for evolution.... ah I forgot: the other chemical in the air, the one for perceiving good scent.
However this would be two assumptions now: the chemical accounts for a) perception of beauty and b) the perception of a good smell.

So, in my opinion, we need to apply the principle of parsimony again.
But I appreciate chatting with you, lets see what comes next.... I appreciate the fact that you're willing to follow my line of thought. Thank you very much.

I'm always happy to chat with people who claim to have evidence of a god. Unfortunately you don't happen to have any.

However this would be two assumptions now: the chemical accounts for a) perception of beauty and b) the perception of a good smell.

And you have now ALSO made two assumptions about your proposed loving god. a) perception of beauty b) perception of good smell.

The ONLY way you can conclude that it works for your god but not the for the chemical is if you decided before hand that god was the answer you wanted to get.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think the lines between humans and plants were blurred in the past. They was always a clear distinction. Trees having many gray areas and intermediates, but there is still a clear distinction between a tree and any other plant, and even if i give the benefit of the doubt to the other view on that, a tree, or a human and an animal. I can't imagine a time period where the line between humans and animals, plants and animals, and bacteria and animals or plants, was not well-defined and distinctly defined.

There were no "humans" at that time. Or trees, or animals even. When we shared a common ancestor with plants our far remote ancestors were single celled life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Changes of kinds have been observed in lab settings, but that is genetic engineering and artificial and not spontaneous.

Nope. Not genetic engineering. You do not understand the terms that you use. And a change of kinds has been observed in nature too. We can actually see it in progress right now.

 

[Skywalker]

Bacteria did not "become archae and Eukarya. Look at the image I provided again.

Do you think bacteria and archae and Eukarya existed as different kingdoms and domains before they are what they are today?

 

[Valjean]

Natural selection doesn't make most mutations beneficial. Beneficial mutations real or imaginary part 1 - creation.com[/QUOTE]
The beneficial traits -- mutations, reproductive variants, epigenetic switches, &c. -- must already exist in one or more individuals for natural selection to have anything to work with.

There are beneficial mutations, which were selected for in local populations by local conditions. Examples:

An Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano gene alteration blocks athersclerosis -- you can eat Big Macs all day with no heart worries.
A PPARA gene alteration allows Himalayan Sherpas to utilize oxygen more efficiently at the high altitudes.
On the other side of the world, variations of BRINP3, NOS2 and TBX5 genes produce several other, completely different high altitude adaptations.
An individual with a mutation in a CCR-5 Delta32 gene is resistant to both plague and HIV (interesting story there), if homozygous, he's essentially immune.
Sometimes the benefit is mixed. A heterozygous HBB gene mutation confers some resistance to malaria, but a homozygous variation will cause sicke-cell disease.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think bacteria and archae and Eukarya existed as different kingdoms and domains before they are what they are today?

I am sorry but this does not make much sense. Once again "kingdoms" are just human tags that we put on modern life. Once again, go back and look at the image of the base of the "tree of life". It is very complex with material traded rather freely between what eventually became bacteria etc..

 

[Valjean]

But they demonstrate that there is a limit on a species becoming another one because they are what happens when there is enough change within the DNA of descendants to create a new species. They are also an example of mutations not being favorable.

I'm flummoxed. How can you not see this? You keep flailing about, apparently not grasping the simple concept you're so desperately objecting to.
Changes accumulate. There's nothing to stop them.

Plants that changed into new species didn't do so spontaneously, it was genetic engineering.

Not in the modern sense of engineered gene manipulation, used to create golden rice, for example.
In nature plants change through the same, natural, automatic mechanisms any other organism does.

A farmer may hijack the mechanism of natural selection by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits, artificially selecting the same way nature does naturally, but this isn't what's usually understood as "genetic engineering."

 

[Valjean]

Kinds means at kingdom and domain levels.

If that's your definition of "kind" it leaves an awful lot of room for evolution. Fish could evolve into men without changing kingdoms, for example.
Are you sure you understand these taxonomic categories?

 

[Valjean]

The flagellum would have to exist in all of its parts to function.

How many times do we have to tell you that this has been debunked? The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
Scroll to ~3 minutes:

An intermediate is what existed between the first dna that developed, and humans.

I'm not sure I'm following. An intermediate is a form or organism recognizably different from both its forbears and its progeny. The degree of difference is arbitrary, depending on what features are being researched, but it's essentially a link in a genetic chain; part of a family lineage, so to speak.

 

[Skywalker]

How many times do we have to tell you that this has been debunked? The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
Scroll to ~3 minutes:

I'm not sure I'm following. An intermediate is a form or organism recognizably different from both its forbears and its progeny. The degree of difference is arbitrary, depending on what features are being researched, but it's essentially a link in a genetic chain; part of a family lineage, so to speak.

But it also has a similarity.

People say that I looked like a girl when I had long blond hair as a kid. Looked like means I was clearly different from a girl, but there was a similarity.

 

[Skywalker]

If that's your definition of "kind" it leaves an awful lot of room for evolution. Fish could evolve into men without changing kingdoms, for example.
Are you sure you understand these taxonomic categories?

Order and phyla are also types of kinds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it also has a similarity.

People say that I looked like a girl when I had long blond hair as a kid. Looked like means I was clearly different from a girl, but there was a similarity.

WTF?

 

[Skywalker]

I'm flummoxed. How can you not see this? You keep flailing about, apparently not grasping the simple concept you're so desperately objecting to.
Changes accumulate. There's nothing to stop them.

Plants that changed into new species didn't do so spontaneously, it was genetic engineering.

Not in the modern sense of engineered gene manipulation, used to create golden rice, for example.
In nature plants change through the same, natural, automatic mechanisms any other organism does.

A farmer may hijack the mechanism of natural selection by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits, artificially selecting the same way nature does naturally, but this isn't what's usually understood as "genetic engineering."[/QUOTE]

That doesn't mean macroevolution necessarily exists.

But it was still in a controlled environment.

There is no example in nature of plants changing into non plants or becoming a different kingdom or domain of plants.

A farmer selectively breeding plants is not evidence of macroevolution, because its not natural and it's not what would evolve in nature.

 

[Skywalker]

I am sorry but this does not make much sense. Once again "kingdoms" are just human tags that we put on modern life. Once again, go back and look at the image of the base of the "tree of life". It is very complex with material traded rather freely between what eventually became bacteria etc..

There can't be a tree of life without a change of kinds. If we evolved from bacteria and DNA, I would have to have non human ancestors somewhere in my ancestry.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope. Not genetic engineering. You do not understand the terms that you use. And a change of kinds has been observed in nature too. We can actually see it in progress right now.

What kindgoms, domains, phyla, are changing in nature or have we seen make degrees of change in nature? Degrees of change means I understand that people believe evolution takes billions of years.

 

[Skywalker]

There were no "humans" at that time. Or trees, or animals even. When we shared a common ancestor with plants our far remote ancestors were single celled life.

For single-celled life to become human beings, there was a change of kinds of some sorts.

If there were no humans in the past, there were other kingdom or domain of beings that existed in our ancestors. The same is true for trees and animals.