-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution: Do you see the resemblence
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
ericmurphy
Member
Well, perhaps your inebriated state is reason for why you simply cannot be made to understand that fruit-fly experiments are not intended to demonstrate macroevolution. They are intended to study the effects of mutation. Macroevolution cannot be demonstrated in the lab, any more than gravitational collapse can demonstrated in the lab.
Can you get your mind around the fact that just because something cannot be demonstrated in the lab does not mean it doesn't happen?
Or know what a myth is.
No, because it's essentially you. It's okay to put your faith in that.Something you don't put your faith in.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Why don't you understand that names don't define a species? Just because we still call them fruit flies doesn't mean they are the same species. The commonly accepted dividing line between species is the ability to interbreed. As long as two groups of fruit flies are unable to interbreed, then they are different species, regardless of what we call them.
"Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?"
This is a classical philosophical paradox, the answer is no, beginning with the premise that god exists we have to hold it to its own standards of creation meaning it can not break the laws of physics in which it works.
It is more likely that square circles exist than the God of Abraham. I don't mind having intelligent discussions about religion (which is why I joined this form) but you must back up your charges with intellect and reason not by waving a religious book and saying "because god said". Unless god said it to you directly you do not know for sure and the modern rational mind would be inclined to think you mentally ill should you have personal conversations with god. Good science starts with the premise "I don't know" and works forward ie. Origin of Species, to wave that religious book and say I know because god said is just ludicrous and irrational.
I think if you have a point and you are trying to prove something it is best to try proving it by NOT poking fun at something you obviously don't understand; rather start with the object you are trying to prove and form a rational objective view point that can be reasoned and test it among your peers.
This is a classical philosophical paradox, the answer is no, beginning with the premise that god exists we have to hold it to its own standards of creation meaning it can not break the laws of physics in which it works.
It is more likely that square circles exist than the God of Abraham. I don't mind having intelligent discussions about religion (which is why I joined this form) but you must back up your charges with intellect and reason not by waving a religious book and saying "because god said". Unless god said it to you directly you do not know for sure and the modern rational mind would be inclined to think you mentally ill should you have personal conversations with god. Good science starts with the premise "I don't know" and works forward ie. Origin of Species, to wave that religious book and say I know because god said is just ludicrous and irrational.
I think if you have a point and you are trying to prove something it is best to try proving it by NOT poking fun at something you obviously don't understand; rather start with the object you are trying to prove and form a rational objective view point that can be reasoned and test it among your peers.
Very well, using intellect and reason show that "it is more likely that square circles exist than the God of Abraham".
Draka
Wonder Woman
Ooh ooh...can I try?
One of the definitions of a circle is:
A group of people sharing an interest, activity, or achievement: [SIZE=+0]well-known in artistic circles.[/SIZE]
One of the definitions of a square is:
Slang A person who is regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends.
Therefore you could have a group of people who are regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends who share an interest, activity, or achievement.
Voila...a square circle
I stand defeated. :bow:... Voila ... a square circle
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Sorry, i dont see the resemblance
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Ooh ooh...can I try?
One of the definitions of a circle is:
A group of people sharing an interest, activity, or achievement: [SIZE=-0]well-known in artistic circles.[/SIZE]
One of the definitions of a square is:
Slang A person who is regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends.
Therefore you could have a group of people who are regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends who share an interest, activity, or achievement.
Voila...a square circle
This is a good demonstration of why definitions are important in evaluating the truth of a statement. Definitions like: information. And: kind.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
England... you asked me about speciation.. I gave you a list of examples.
You asked me about transitional species... I showed you the fossils.
I asked you about kinds (what are they and what kind the fossils are)... you have not answerd
I asked you to define "information" in genetics.... I know its not your field but if you are going to argue no new information, then I need to know what you are talking about... You havent answered.
I think I have answered your questions... dispite your attmepts to tell me I havent.
It is your turn.
Answer my questions.... please.
wa:do
You asked me about transitional species... I showed you the fossils.
I asked you about kinds (what are they and what kind the fossils are)... you have not answerd
I asked you to define "information" in genetics.... I know its not your field but if you are going to argue no new information, then I need to know what you are talking about... You havent answered.
I think I have answered your questions... dispite your attmepts to tell me I havent.
It is your turn.
Answer my questions.... please.
wa:do
Not necessarily.
By the way, my wife and I found Chiang Mai very enjoyable and its flower festival quite lovely. Thanks ...
Yerda
Veteran Member
Wouldn't that be a circle of squares?Ooh ooh...can I try?
One of the definitions of a circle is:
A group of people sharing an interest, activity, or achievement: [SIZE=+0]well-known in artistic circles.[/SIZE]
One of the definitions of a square is:
Slang A person who is regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends.
Therefore you could have a group of people who are regarded as dull, rigidly conventional, and out of touch with current trends who share an interest, activity, or achievement.
Voila...a square circle
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
As I was saying about this extremely important evidence, DNA, not only did ToE predict that just such a thing must exist, but now that we know about it, we can use it to learn important details about organisms, and explore and confirm many, many other specific predictions.
To begin with, and this is easy, ToE says that all organisms on earth derive from a single common ancestor. Therefore the way that creatures pass on their key information about how to reproduce themselves must be the same for every single living thing. Wow, that's a gutzy prediction. Really goes out on a limb. And it's correct. Bingo. That alone is huge, and probably enough to confirm the theory without anything else.
Could God have decided to use DNA in this way? I guess so, the whole thing about God is that He can do anything however He wants. However, if you really think this through, if God designed DNA to transmit how to create new generations of organisms, I think you have to get to Theistic Evolution--you can't avoid it. Because we know that when you copy DNA, it's so long and so complicated, that you can't avoid copying errors. It's like typing out the Encyclopedia Britannica--you're going to get typos. Every organism on earth, including you, has a few mutations. We know this for a fact. And then of course, if any of those mutations happen to be beneficial, you're going to get a slightly changed new creature with a slightly better chance of survival and reproduction, and that species is now changed. So there you have a God who designed evolution, which is what I'm saying.
To counter this, creationists just assert, with no supporting evidence, that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. I think this is what 4pillars is saying with "no new information," except that he doesn't have the intellectual integrity to even admit this. But we know that mutations can occasionally be beneficial, and we know of specific beneficial mutations. The nylon bug is a good example of this; obviously the mutation that allowed it to digest nylon helped it thrive in that specific environment. When TB bacteria mutate so that they are no longer killed by a specific anti-biotic (which takes about ten years) the mutation benefits the TB--not so great for us.
Really, it's a misunderstanding to call a mutation either beneficial or harmful, because it completely depends on the environment. A mutations that will help survive one thing may make it harder to survive another.
To begin with, and this is easy, ToE says that all organisms on earth derive from a single common ancestor. Therefore the way that creatures pass on their key information about how to reproduce themselves must be the same for every single living thing. Wow, that's a gutzy prediction. Really goes out on a limb. And it's correct. Bingo. That alone is huge, and probably enough to confirm the theory without anything else.
Could God have decided to use DNA in this way? I guess so, the whole thing about God is that He can do anything however He wants. However, if you really think this through, if God designed DNA to transmit how to create new generations of organisms, I think you have to get to Theistic Evolution--you can't avoid it. Because we know that when you copy DNA, it's so long and so complicated, that you can't avoid copying errors. It's like typing out the Encyclopedia Britannica--you're going to get typos. Every organism on earth, including you, has a few mutations. We know this for a fact. And then of course, if any of those mutations happen to be beneficial, you're going to get a slightly changed new creature with a slightly better chance of survival and reproduction, and that species is now changed. So there you have a God who designed evolution, which is what I'm saying.
To counter this, creationists just assert, with no supporting evidence, that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. I think this is what 4pillars is saying with "no new information," except that he doesn't have the intellectual integrity to even admit this. But we know that mutations can occasionally be beneficial, and we know of specific beneficial mutations. The nylon bug is a good example of this; obviously the mutation that allowed it to digest nylon helped it thrive in that specific environment. When TB bacteria mutate so that they are no longer killed by a specific anti-biotic (which takes about ten years) the mutation benefits the TB--not so great for us.
Really, it's a misunderstanding to call a mutation either beneficial or harmful, because it completely depends on the environment. A mutations that will help survive one thing may make it harder to survive another.