Just Accidental?

[Sapiens]

But evolution teaches that all life evolved from single celled organisms and transformed themselves

NO! organisms do not "transform themselves." You've had this explained to you dozens of times.

into all living things both past and present. You think that does not involve morphing?

What is "morphing?" Please define.

I have see many examples of morphing presented as evidence of evolution......look at whale evolution as a classic example.......from small land animals to gigantic sea creature, through morphing.

No, through natural selection of random mutations. I've never seen the word "morphing" used in this context.

I have read what I could of those links, but none of them really explain in simple terms,

Still proud that you are, by your own claim, too ill educated in the field to competently review an average scientific journal?

anything about how an insect could 'morph' into a leaf of exactly the right color in the first place.

What's this "morph?" Do you mean "change?"

How does a plant know to mimic a female wasp by producing a replica of it on the cusp of its flower,

Your question is malformed ... plants do not "know."

and also give off the right pheromone to attract a male pollinator?

Similarly, your question is malformed ... plants do not "know."

You really think that is just an accident?

No I do not, and neither should you, this has also been explained to you numerous times.

You all take so much for granted.

You know too little and pretend to not have been told too much.

 

[Deeje]

NO! organisms do not "transform themselves."

No, of course they didn't.......whatever gave us that idea?

No morphing involved whatsoever......whales used to walk on land.....65 million years ago or, that is the suggestion.

 

[Deeje]

Your question is malformed ... plants do not "know."

How perceptive of you Sapiens......plants cannot "know" anything. Its profound, right up there with.....

In order for this particular plant to facilitate pollination, they had to have demonstrated intent to lure the pollinators. You're saying that by some stroke of extreme luck, they managed to form a replica of a female wasp on the cusp of their flower and by another stroke of luck, they managed to throw in the pheromone of the female wasp to trick the male into mating with the fake female. Seems planned to me. Planning requires intelligence.

Look how successful the ploy is......how many fortunate random mutations did it take to make this happen?

I personally think that evolutionists have had their reasoning ability tampered with.

They are so busy denying God that their perceptions have been altered to reject logic. Pity really.

 

[Deeje]

You know too little and pretend to not have been told too much.

I know enough to identify empty rhetoric when I hear it....but if it floats your boat, then what is left to say?

 

[Sapiens]

No, of course they didn't.......whatever gave us that idea?

No morphing involved whatsoever......whales used to walk on land.....65 million years ago or, that is the suggestion.

They do not "transform themselves." Your command of English is poorly applied.

How perceptive of you Sapiens......plants cannot "know" anything. Its profound, right up there with.....

You are the one who suggested plants could know, not me. Now is a bit late to change your mind.

In order for this particular plant to facilitate pollination, they had to have demonstrated intent to lure the pollinators. You're saying that by some stroke of extreme luck, they managed to form a replica of a female wasp on the cusp of their flower and by another stroke of luck, they managed to throw in the pheromone of the female wasp to trick the male into mating with the fake female. Seems planned to me. Planning requires intelligence.

Look how successful the ploy is......how many fortunate random mutations did it take to make this happen?

As usual you are insisting that everything happens in one swell foop, which is abject foolishness (as you have been repeatedly told in the past).

I personally think that evolutionists have had their reasoning ability tampered with.

They are so busy denying God that their perceptions have been altered to reject logic. Pity really.

I'm glad to find out that you actually attempt to think about something, no matter how wrong your conclusion.

I know enough to identify empty rhetoric when I hear it....but if it floats your boat, then what is left to say?

If you can't understand the journal articles how do you have the gall to claim the ability to correctly identify "empty rhetoric?"

 

[Looncall]

I know that you are not a god metis......

My beliefs are the result of many years of careful study......just as yours no doubt have been. The difference between you and me is that I found my truth and have stuck to it without wavering for over 45 years, whereas you seem to have shifted between beliefs as though you were not really sure of any of them. Was there no conviction for you at any stage?

I have no doubts about what I believe and never did.....I am totally convinced of its validity and knew in my gut that I had found what I was looking for all my life. For the first time I had answers to all my questions. That was truly liberating.

My connection to my God is personal. I have all the evidence I need to know that he is real and that his word is the best wisdom that humans could ever follow. When I follow his recommendations, things just work out as they should. When things go wrong, as they inevitably will at times, implementing the Bible's advice makes everything better. It never makes a bad situation worse. I feel God's hand in my life and have since I was a child.



I believe that the evidence is all around us that creation was intelligently designed and the Bible says that two individuals were involved in the process.......but some will remain unconvinced no matter how much evidence you supply. It is hearts that respond to the truth, not just minds. God says that he is involved in that process as well. (John 6:44)



That is called faith. I have bucket loads of it, built up over time into an impenetrable wall. There is nothing of an external nature that can separate me from my Creator or make him any less than what what he is in my heart. He is someone I love and respect above all others. He has earned that place for me just by my own experiences.



I have no more direct evidence for my Creator than you do for macro-evolution....so what is the point?
Faith does not require "evidence" that is above and beyond what we already see all around us. Its is enough for millions of us, but it will never be enough for billions more. Who knows why? It is what separates us.



Free Smileys, Emoticons, Emojis, to use in forums, websites / weblogs and mobile apps | Page 1

No worries.....

What you describe looks to me like intellectual atrophy.

The con artists have you just where they want you: firmly committed to their scams.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no intelligent answer, so any wonder it makes no sense to you.

Yes, it's hard to come up with intelligent answers to questions that don't make sense.

How would creatures that have evolved in an environment similar to one another, where one becomes a replica of a leaf, whilst others look nothing like one? Examine the creatures and see that their mimicry is no accident of nature.....artists mimic nature with a brush. No canvas can evolve a photographic imitation of nature without intelligent direction...can they?

You have only examined these creatures on a superficial level. As far as I can tell, you're just looking at pictures on the internet. That's not going to tell you anything about them.
So how would you know anything about them? Read some science texts and/or papers from people educated on such subjects who have directly studied them if you want answers to your questions. Be curious. Read and learn. I even provided you with some links on the subject and here you are asking questions that you could have found in those links.

But you don't seem to want to do anything like that. All you want to do is take a cursory look at things, declare you can't think of any other way they came to be, and credit a creator you can't demonstrate the existence of. It's a darn good thing scientists don't practice science in that way. You should be grateful that they don't, because the scientific method is the reason we know anything about anything in this world. We certainly didn't learn all this from ancient holy books.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Back up what you say with proof. Show us the evidence that adaptation and macro-evolution are the same thing.

The only difference between macroevolution and microevolution (I assume this is what you are referring to as "adaptation?") is time. This is obvious if one understands how evolution works. Some of us have been waiting since almost the beginning of the thread for you to point out what and where the barrier is that separates the two and stops micro changes from becoming macro changes. And here we are still waiting, as you continue to make your unsubstantiated assertions.

I know you've been given this evidence before, many times - remember ring species? And please take note that not only are there many different types of evidence, but that they also come from many different fields of science:

High-Resolution Genome-Wide Dissection of the Two Rules of Speciation in Drosophila
Evidence for ecological speciation and its alternative. - PubMed - NCBI
ENSI/SENSI Papers & Articles:Macroevolution Lessons
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-epic-evolution-species.html
The Caribbean slipper spurge Euphorbia tithymaloides: the first example of a ring species in plants. - PubMed - NCBI
Evolution and stability of ring species
The speed of ecological speciation
Genomic evidence for divergence with gene flow in host races of the larch budmoth.





Please note that this alone is far more evidence than you have produced for your God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you serious? The end goal is obvious when you observe the mimicry that is designed to facilitate the security of the ones who use camouflage to avoid predators.

Yes, I'm serious. Anyone who actually understands evolution will tell you there is no "end goal" that any particular organism is working toward. This is about survival and reproduction. The ones that aren't camouflaged get eaten more often than those that are. They're not consciously willing themselves to change their outward appearance.

You see an "end goal" because you are looking at things at a certain point in time, after many million/billion years of evolutionary changes. And also you assume there is some divine purpose, (though you cannot seem to demonstrate that).

Now explain how a creature ends up resembling a leaf so perfectly when no such process takes place in their biology.

Can you re-phrase your question in a way that makes sense? What creature are you talking about?

You know how to Google, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But evolution teaches that all life evolved from single celled organisms and transformed themselves into all living things both past and present. You think that does not involve morphing? I have see many examples of morphing presented as evidence of evolution......look at whale evolution as a classic example.......from small land animals to gigantic sea creature, through morphing.

It does not involve "morphing." No creature turns into some other creature in its lifetime or gives birth to something other than it's own species. It's simply small changes building up over long periods of time depending on what selective pressures (e.g. climate, predation, food and energy sources, etc.) are present. A small land animal didn't one day give birth to a whale that then waddled into the ocean and swam away.

Maybe you should define what you mean by "morphing." Maybe we're talking about different things.

I have read what I could of those links, but none of them really explain in simple terms, anything about how an insect could 'morph' into a leaf of exactly the right color in the first place. How does a plant know to mimic a female wasp by producing a replica of it on the cusp of its flower, and also give off the right pheromone to attract a male pollinator? You really think that is just an accident? You all take so much for granted.

Try Wikipedia then.
Coevolution - Wikipedia
Mimicry - Wikipedia

No, I don't think it's an "accident." Natural selection is no accident.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know that you are not a god metis......

My beliefs are the result of many years of careful study......just as yours no doubt have been. The difference between you and me is that I found my truth and have stuck to it without wavering for over 45 years, whereas you seem to have shifted between beliefs as though you were not really sure of any of them. Was there no conviction for you at any stage?
I have no doubts about what I believe and never did.....I am totally convinced of its validity and knew in my gut that I had found what I was looking for all my life. For the first time I had answers to all my questions. That was truly liberating.

I see the ability to change our views based on new evidence as a GOOD, reasonable and rational thing. Why you don't, is confusing to me.

I guess this is the major difference between religious thinking and scientific thinking.

My connection to my God is personal. I have all the evidence I need to know that he is real and that his word is the best wisdom that humans could ever follow. When I follow his recommendations, things just work out as they should. When things go wrong, as they inevitably will at times, implementing the Bible's advice makes everything better. It never makes a bad situation worse. I feel God's hand in my life and have since I was a child.

I believe that the evidence is all around us that creation was intelligently designed and the Bible says that two individuals were involved in the process.......but some will remain unconvinced no matter how much evidence you supply. It is hearts that respond to the truth, not just minds. God says that he is involved in that process as well. (John 6:44)

That is called faith. I have bucket loads of it, built up over time into an impenetrable wall. There is nothing of an external nature that can separate me from my Creator or make him any less than what what he is in my heart. He is someone I love and respect above all others. He has earned that place for me just by my own experiences.

Faith does not require "evidence" that is above and beyond what we already see all around us. Its is enough for millions of us, but it will never be enough for billions more. Who knows why? It is what separates us.

There is nothing that cannot be believed on faith. You say yourself that faith doesn't require evidence. So it doesn't lead us to truth or knowledge. Therefore I find faith to be a useless thing. I find "impenetrable" faith to be unreasonable and even dangerous.

I have no more direct evidence for my Creator than you do for macro-evolution....so what is the point?

It's a wonder you haven't presented any of this direct evidence then. "I see pretty things" isn't direct evidence of anything meaningful in a conversation about evidence.

 

[Deeje]

What you describe looks to me like intellectual atrophy.

The con artists have you just where they want you: firmly committed to their scams.

Ditto.

You know the funny thing about delusion....? 'You' (us individually) are the last one to know that it isn't true. You do understand that this applies equally to evolutionists as it does to those who believe in Intelligent Design? Time will tell.....so who do you think has the most to lose if they are wrong? Popular opinion was never a good indicator of truth in my experience.

 

[Sapiens]

Ditto.

You know the funny thing about delusion....? 'You' (us individually) are the last one to know that it isn't true. You do understand that this applies equally to evolutionists as it does to those who believe in Intelligent Design? Time will tell.....so who do you think has the most to lose if they are wrong? Popular opinion was never a good indicator of truth in my experience.

Time has already told.

 

[metis]

I have no more direct evidence for my Creator than you do for macro-evolution....so what is the point?
Free Smileys, Emoticons, Emojis, to use in forums, websites / weblogs and mobile apps | Page 1

No worries.....

Thanks for the link, thanks for your explanation of where you're coming from, and let me finish off by saying there's more than ample enough evidence for "macro-evolution" as any biologist, paleontologist, or anthropologist will tell you. But as a scientist, I simply cannot jump to the kind of faith assumptions that so many others have.

Take care & thanks.

 

[Deeje]

They do not "transform themselves." Your command of English is poorly applied.

And I believe that your command of common logic is completely overshadowed by your strong desire for evolution to be true. Since you cannot produce any solid evidence that does not rely on faith and belief, you are not in any superior position to us believers in Intelligent Design.

As I mentioned in connection with the orchid wasp...."In order for this particular plant to facilitate pollination, they had to have demonstrated intent to lure the pollinators. You're saying that by some stroke of extreme luck, they managed to form a replica of a female wasp on the cusp of their flower and by another stroke of luck, they managed to throw in the pheromone of the female wasp to trick the male into mating with the fake female. Seems planned to me. Planning requires intelligence. "

Please address this statement. How can something with no intelligence of its own and devoid of intelligent direction from any other source, end up with something that seems so deliberate....planned...and calculated?

"Natural selection" is a 'band aid' applied by science to all things in nature that cannot be explained away as accidental random chance.

If all the billions of beneficial mutations took place that science claims in the past......Google beneficial mutations and see how many come up.....? They are lucky to name four....none of which would produce a great amount of change in any organism, let alone in humans.

"A beneficial mutation is exactly what it says it is: a mutation in an organism's genome that produces a beneficial effect. Specifically, it affects the organism in some way as to increase its chances of reproductive success, and therefore the chance of the mutation in question being passed along. It is safe to say that the vast majority of mutations in an organism are not beneficial. Often a mutation is neutral, producing neither a beneficial effect nor a negative effect, although it could be a potentiating mutation (see above). Many are negative mutations - producing a disorder in the organism that significantly lowers its survival and reproductive capabilities. In the case of species depending on sexual reproduction, a negative mutation can prevent the embryo being correctly conceived or even the gametes being functional."

"Despite the odds against an individual mutation being beneficial, the driving force of natural selection means that when one does appear, it can quickly dominate a population. This is the entire point of natural selection, which invalidates any argument that "beneficial mutations" are too rare to ever have any effect."

Mutation - RationalWiki

If you read over this description (in plain English) you can assume a lot of things, but if you concentrate on what it is really saying, you will see what I see....a whole lot of suggestion with nothing but wishful thinking to back it up. In the face of all those odds against beneficial mutations ever taking place....somehow it all went well......

good grief!

As usual you are insisting that everything happens in one swell foop, which is abject foolishness (as you have been repeatedly told in the past).

I don't remember ever saying that changes had to happen in one fell swoop (or foop, whichever you prefer) Adaptation has to take place over many generations. What is not, and cannot, be observed is a gradual change that would lead an amoeba to eventually become a dinosaur no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.

When you question this ludicrous notion, you get confronted with grown men and women throwing

and questioning other people's intelligence......

If you can't understand the journal articles how do you have the gall to claim the ability to correctly identify "empty rhetoric?"

The rhetoric becomes very clear when science can't hide behind their specialized jargon. If you strip away the terminology and have the theory explained in plain English, then it becomes obvious that it is laughable to say the least.

As I have said many times....your belief is way more dependent on faith than mine.

 

[Deeje]

Time has already told.

You ain't seen nothin' yet......

 

[Deeje]

let me finish off by saying there's more than ample enough evidence for "macro-evolution" as any biologist, paleontologist, or anthropologist will tell you. But as a scientist, I simply cannot jump to the kind of faith assumptions that so many others have.

The "evidence" relies on its interpretation by those who have a theory to promote. I don't accept their interpretation, but people are free to make up their own minds. According to the Bible, God's adversary has a very advantageous ability when it comes to those who don't want to believe in a Creator......it says:

2 Corinthians 4:3-4:
"If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."

If 'minds' can be blinded, then nothing will be illuminated......no process of the mind can be relied upon to furnish a clear picture of anything.....and it only happens to "unbelievers". That is what I believe I see when people blindly promote evolution as a fact....when it is nothing close to being a fact by any true scientific method of testing. It defies all logic to me and because it engenders anger when anyone questions its validity, it seems to me to be supported more by egos more than by provable facts.

I wish you well in your own search for the truth metis.....wherever that takes you.

 

[metis]

I wish you well in your own search for the truth metis.....wherever that takes you.

Ditto, and I believe I found it as my faith statement below indicates. In science, we're used to having some questions that we just cannot answer with any certainty because of insufficient evidence, and i can live with that as I have for 72 years.

Take care.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How perceptive of you Sapiens......plants cannot "know" anything. Its profound, right up there with.....

In order for this particular plant to facilitate pollination, they had to have demonstrated intent to lure the pollinators. You're saying that by some stroke of extreme luck, they managed to form a replica of a female wasp on the cusp of their flower and by another stroke of luck, they managed to throw in the pheromone of the female wasp to trick the male into mating with the fake female. Seems planned to me. Planning requires intelligence.

Look how successful the ploy is......how many fortunate random mutations did it take to make this happen?

I personally think that evolutionists have had their reasoning ability tampered with.

They are so busy denying God that their perceptions have been altered to reject logic. Pity really.

For many atheists, how logic is applied depends entirely on the implication..

The simplest mathematical pattern caught drifting across interstellar radio waves, represents compelling evidence of intelligent design (alien) thus satisfying the atheist prediction of humanity being insignificant.. 'what other explanation could there possibly be?' to quote someone talking about the 'WOW' signal

But the vast array of specific universal constants, instructions, algorithms- literal digital code and nano-machines permeating the entire universe... can be safely assumed, by default, to have blundered into existence for no particular reason.

Putting all preferences aside, the math proposed by ToE is objective- and applying it in models, supports your position 100%, creating something like your example by random mutation, is so mathematically improbable as to be practically impossible, unless the end result is specified one way or another

 

[Looncall]

For many atheists, how logic is applied depends entirely on the implication..

The simplest mathematical pattern caught drifting across interstellar radio waves, represents compelling evidence of intelligent design (alien) thus satisfying the atheist prediction of humanity being insignificant.. 'what other explanation could there possibly be?' to quote someone talking about the 'WOW' signal

But the vast array of specific universal constants, instructions, algorithms- literal digital code and nano-machines permeating the entire universe... can be safely assumed, by default, to have blundered into existence for no particular reason.

Putting all preferences aside, the math proposed by ToE is objective- and applying it in models, supports your position 100%, creating something like your example by random mutation, is so mathematically improbable as to be practically impossible, unless the end result is specified one way or another

Did your models take account of progressive accumulation of changes, or did they assume things arise "all at once".
"All at once" models are popular among con artists out to fleece the gullible.