On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

But the woman was not given a command that if she ate the fruit she would die, and she was not around as God had not formed her from a bone from the man at that time. So, she did not sin by breaking Gods Law.

If she sinned and brought sin into the world why did Paul say:

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If the woman had sinned she would have brought sin into the world not the man.

Then Paul would have to say: "as by one woman sin entered into the world, and death by sin..."

Enjoy,

Because Adam came first. The woman came from Adam. Adam knew Eve was going to die. She listened to the serpent without first checking with her husband. Adam knew she was going to die and so he decided to die along with her instead of trusting in God to give him another wife.

 

[Astrophile]

Let's try to settle one thing if possible at a time. The thousands of species of fruit flies isn't considered evolution? Why not?

I think that I must have misunderstood you. You said that fruit flies have not become anything but fruit flies, from which I inferred (wrongly, as it now seems) that you were saying that this fact meant that fruit flies had not evolved, and that they would have to change into something completely different, such as beetles or spiders, before you would accept it as a genuine example of evolution.

Do you, in fact, accept that the thousands of species of fruit flies evolved (= are descended) from a common ancestor, which belonged to a species that no longer exists?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that I must have misunderstood you. You said that fruit flies have not become anything but fruit flies, from which I inferred (wrongly, as it now seems) that you were saying that this fact meant that fruit flies had not evolved, and that they would have to change into something completely different, such as beetles or spiders, before you would accept it as a genuine example of evolution.

Do you, in fact, accept that the thousands of species of fruit flies evolved (= are descended) from a common ancestor, which belonged to a species that no longer exists?

I can't say if the present thousands of species of fruit flies evolved (descended) from a common ancestor. That no longer exists. All I know now is that evidently fruit flies remain as fruit flies and despite the many varieties (I'll call them that) of fruit flies, they are nevertheless still fruit flies.

 

[Argentbear]

I can't say if the present thousands of species of fruit flies evolved (descended) from a common ancestor. That no longer exists. All I know now is that evidently fruit flies remain as fruit flies and despite the many varieties (I'll call them that) of fruit flies, they are nevertheless still fruit flies.

why do you assume that a particular species of fruit fly will not evolve into something that is not a fruit fly?

 

[icant]

why do you assume that a particular species of fruit fly will not evolve into something that is not a fruit fly?

Because it is impossible.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Because Adam came first. The woman came from Adam. Adam knew Eve was going to die. She listened to the serpent without first checking with her husband. Adam knew she was going to die and so he decided to die along with her instead of trusting in God to give him another wife.

The man formed from the dust of the ground and the woman formed from the bone from the man died in the same light period (day) they ate the fruit

Enjoy,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is impossible.

Enjoy,

You are actually right for once. As you know people are still apes. If you claim that you are a human being you are also claiming to be an ape.

 

[Argentbear]

Because it is impossible.

Enjoy,

Not that long ago a species that wasn't a fruit fly evolved into a fruit fly, so it is very possible

 

[Argentbear]

You are actually right for once. As you know people are still apes. If you claim that you are a human being you are also claiming to be an ape.

Where did apes come from?

 

[Valjean]

Because it is impossible.

Enjoy,

And yet the experts in the relevant fields don't think so, and your opinion is entirely religion-based.
Does magic poofing really sound like a reasonable mechanism?

 

[Valjean]

The man formed from the dust of the ground and the woman formed from the bone from the man died in the same light period (day) they ate the fruit

Enjoy,

This is based on virtually no actual evidence. It's unsupported mythology.

 

[metis]

why do you assume that a particular species of fruit fly will not evolve into something that is not a fruit fly?

Because it is impossible.

Enjoy,

Icant, where your supposed evidence?

 

[wellwisher]

False equivalence.

1. automobiles are an intended end-design. Biology has no intended end-designs

2. automobiles, furthermore, aren't self-replicating entities that reproduce with variation and aren't in a struggle for survival while competing over finite resources. So why would they be subject to an evolutionary process?

Why is it that ever post you make about the topic, consists of arguing strawmen?

Biology has no intended end-design is a math assumption. How would you prove that? Statistical models, which are very common to biology, use a black box with random assumptions, which, by default, can have no intended end designs. It like assuming infinite lives in video games, and than building that into the game, so it become part of the game reality. If you assumed an end design, you could not use statistics. You would need to stick to logic, since dice and cards would not work as well as it does for no intended end design.

Statistical modeling is a tool and it makes no sense to mold reality, to the needs of the tool. It would be like having a small hammer and then building with soft wood, so the hammer works better. Or we can evolve the hammer, with logic, so we can use hard woods.

I work under the assumption of a logical evolution, which has milestones and goals. The single cell was a milestone as was multicellular. You cannot use random assumptions to get there and stay there. Entropy appears to have quantum states, which for life are called species. The most likely variable I found, was entropy, since entropy is a law of science; better than theory, and it has to increase. Entropy has an unusual sense of direction to the future; increases and gets more complex. Energy wants to lower. Dice and cards want to repeat over time, which is not observed in evolution. We do not see new life appear from scratch; throw another one, or see dinosaurs appearing again, like another two, etc. repeating previous steps like throwing dice or flipping cards.

Entropy is what is called a state variable, meaning any given state of matter, has a fixed measurable entropy value. Entropy is not a theory but a measurable value; law. Evolution would come down to its many parts and its wholes increasing their entropy value over time. Below is a table of common entropy values. Each value is like a finger print of given states, even atoms. It can finger print life states since we are made of matter.

A cell ls like an integrated state, similar to all the integrated atoms of a molecule, albeit far more complex. Water as a liquid has a value of 70, while water as a gas has a higher value at 188.8. Like humans and apes, gas and liquid water have many similarities, but define different states with different properties, with humans a higher state like water vapor is to liquid water. This is like evolution. We can share common DNA, but human are a higher entropy state, driven to that state, by the 2nd law.

An interesting one is diamond. Notice diamond on the upper right has the lowest value in the table. This low value or fingerprint is because diamond is a very simple 3-D repeating matrix of carbon atoms bonded to four other carbon atoms that forms a single giant molecule. Its beauty is in its simplicity; very low entropy.

But the second laws says, entropy has to increase, even for diamond. Humans are attracted to diamonds. We help the 2nd law by adding entropy or complexity to diamonds, by forming them into intricate shapes. Even consciousness is driven by entropy, and helps to add complexity to nature and the universe. Entropy is that call of the wild to increase; internal selection process along with external selection.

 

[Astrophile]

You are actually right for once. As you know people are still apes. If you claim that you are a human being you are also claiming to be an ape.

And a primate, and a mammal, and a vertebrate, and an animal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did apes come from?

Monkeys, and we are still monkeys too. And monkeys came from earlier primates. We are still primates. And primates came from mammals, and we are still mammals.

There is no "change of kinds" in evolution. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. Ironically creationists are right when they say that "a dog will always give birth to a dog". A dog giving birth to a cat would refute the theory of evolution. That is the creationist strawman version of it. New speciation is an emergent process and nature is full of emergent processes. Though people often use the term "ape" as a derogative it is technically correct. Man is a member of the great apes, and the great apes are a member of apes in general, and apes are a subset of African monkeys and monkeys are a subset of all monkeys, etc. and so on until we get to LUCA with the group that we are part of getting larger and larger until we get to the point where we say "We are alive so therefore we belong to the group called "life". "

 

[Argentbear]

Monkeys, and we are still monkeys too. And monkeys came from earlier primates. We are still primates. And primates came from mammals, and we are still mammals.

There is no "change of kinds" in evolution. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. Ironically creationists are right when they say that "a dog will always give birth to a dog". A dog giving birth to a cat would refute the theory of evolution. That is the creationist strawman version of it. New speciation is an emergent process and nature is full of emergent processes. Though people often use the term "ape" as a derogative it is technically correct. Man is a member of the great apes, and the great apes are a member of apes in general, and apes are a subset of African monkeys and monkeys are a subset of all monkeys, etc. and so on until we get to LUCA with the group that we are part of getting larger and larger until we get to the point where we say "We are alive so therefore we belong to the group called "life". "

Apes are not a subset of monkeys. Apes and monkeys are separate groups within the primate order, This separation is called branching. Branching in evolution, also known as cladogenesis or lineage splitting, is when a lineage splits into two and then evolves independently. The shape of an evolutionary tree, or its topology, is determined by the sequence of lineage splits. Each branch represents the independent evolution of a lineage after it diverges from a common ancestor.

 

[Pogo]

Monkeys, and we are still monkeys too. And monkeys came from earlier primates. We are still primates. And primates came from mammals, and we are still mammals.

There is no "change of kinds" in evolution. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. Ironically creationists are right when they say that "a dog will always give birth to a dog". A dog giving birth to a cat would refute the theory of evolution. That is the creationist strawman version of it. New speciation is an emergent process and nature is full of emergent processes. Though people often use the term "ape" as a derogative it is technically correct. Man is a member of the great apes, and the great apes are a member of apes in general, and apes are a subset of African monkeys and monkeys are a subset of all monkeys, etc. and so on until we get to LUCA with the group that we are part of getting larger and larger until we get to the point where we say "We are alive so therefore we belong to the group called "life". "

Technically catarhinnes, if we found that ancestor today, we would colloquially call it a monkey and in that sense it is correct, but in talking to the obstructive it only serves to confuse them or give them ammunition for their strawmen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apes are not a subset of monkeys. Apes and monkeys are separate groups within the primate order, This separation is called branching. Branching in evolution, also known as cladogenesis or lineage splitting, is when a lineage splits into two and then evolves independently. The shape of an evolutionary tree, or its topology, is determined by the sequence of lineage splits. Each branch represents the independent evolution of a lineage after it diverges from a common ancestor.

No, that is just modern nomenclature. By cladistics, which is replacing Linnaeus's old binomial nomenclature we are monkeys. Here is why. Monkeys with the old system are not a monophyletic group. Old world monkeys and new world monkeys split before apes split off from old world monkeys. That means by cladistics the ancestor that we share with modern old world monkeys was also an old world monkey. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. Since our ancestor was clearly a monkey we are monkeys too.

Also this is a language problem. This problem does not exist in all languages. There are no "monkeys' in Spanish. Or perhaps I should say that there are no "apes". They call the whole group "monos". So embrace your inner monkey. Our ancestors were monkeys we are still monkeys. And if you saw that distant ancestor you would say "That is a monkey".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Technically catarhinnes, if we found that ancestor today, we would colloquially call it a monkey and in that sense it is correct, but in talking to the obstructive it only serves to confuse them or give them ammunition for their strawmen.

Well technically since we have to include New World Monkeys to the scientific term is "simians". There is no controversy when using that, but I have no problem in explaining to a creationist how he or she is a monkey. In fact I find it quite enjoyable.

 

[Argentbear]

No, that is just modern nomenclature. By cladistics, which is replacing Linnaeus's old binomial nomenclature we are monkeys. Here is why. Monkeys with the old system are not a monophyletic group. Old world monkeys and new world monkeys split before apes split off from old world monkeys. That means by cladistics the ancestor that we share with modern old world monkeys was also an old world monkey. One cannot evolve out of one's heritage. Since our ancestor was clearly a monkey we are monkeys too.

Also this is a language problem. This problem does not exist in all languages. There are no "monkeys' in Spanish. Or perhaps I should say that there are no "apes". They call the whole group "monos". So embrace your inner monkey. Our ancestors were monkeys we are still monkeys. And if you saw that distant ancestor you would say "That is a monkey".

That is ridiculous. But why stop at monkey. why not say we are little squirrel like creatures that hid in trees from dinosaurs?
or that we are a bony jawed fish? or why just call us simple bacteria?