Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[Bunyip]

But not everyone have to believe a lie, but of course some are free to believe whatever they wish.

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Adaptation is adaptation. Gaining a few digestive enzymes is hardly earth shattering. I know a lot of people who are dairy and wheat intolerant. They just have to watch their diet.

It is a huge deal in terms of survival. Today we can watch our diet because of modern convenience. If you were wheat intolerant in the middle ages where you more or less lived purely off grain then you would die. Natural selection at work there. Also there is no difference between adaptation and evolution in the genetic sense.

I have just watched a video on GMO's which is why I mentioned it. It's what is not told to the general public that is a worry. Treating people like mushrooms is not a good thing. When man messes with the genetic make-up of living organisms to "improve" something, you can bet your boots that there is profit on the other end of it.

When we have a plant that is actually engineered to kill insects and is legally classified as a pesticide, and we ingest that plant.....then I believe that we have to worry about what science is doing to the genes in our food and in the organisms that inhabit our bodies. Anti-biotics have caused a lot of harm as well as being useful. Killing good bacteria in the gut is a recipe for bad absorption of nutrients. We are what we eat......but more importantly, we are what we absorb. Ill health is a very lucrative industry.

There is no shortage of ill informed conspiracy videos on GMO's. I was once convinced as well. But then I actually got into the science. Every single food that you eat that is grown was at one time genetically modified. Your pets are all genetically modified. Do you know how it is done? Generally by selective breeding of plants. There is no gene splicing or mad scientists re-arranging DNA. It is simply controlled selective breeding done in the lab. The only difference between us now and 1,000 years ago is that we are simply better at it.

I have no problem with adaptation......but that does not make the leap to all living things coming from a single organism.

You are right. The existance alone of evolution is not enough to make that assumption. The rest of the evidence helps us with that.

As I said...that depends on who you ask.

It does not. If anyone tells you its a vital organ then they are simply wrong. Many many people live without it every day with no visible health defects. Is it possibly a useful organ? Maybe. But it is not vital to survival.

Yes I understand that immunity is built. We are not born immune to disease but build up antibodies to the diseases that are prevalent where we live. When we recover from a virus we should have enough antibodies in our blood to prevent reinfection as we have a defence to that virus already. Coming into contact with a virus from another land such as Ebola, is a scary prospect.

Indeed. But did you know that there are people with already built in immunities that come from their genes?

This was "pick a theory".....toss a coin to see who's right. Hardly facts there. Only conjecture.

You have confused the academic discussion of the different possibilities of why a process happened but there is no disagreement with any of the studies that it did or did not happen. Its not a coin flip for the point that matters.

Read the way it was written....."someone" just happened to mutate blue eyes? Seriously.

Well we don't know their name, date of birth, dental records or list of fears but we do know that a person in a specified area during a specified time mutated to have blue eyes, yes. Yes seriously.

I disagree. There is no one who tells me what to believe against my will. I am free to research whatever subjects interest me but I will not engage in Witness bashing sites. The Bible to us is what your science text books are to you. We look up to our teachers the way you look up to yours. We believe them because we have found their teachings to be in line with scripture. There is years of study on our side too, you know.

Just because they taught something and then that something was in the bible doesn't make it true. That is circular logic. But in the large scale of things it is religion that has historically looked down upon questioning. Christianity in the western world has gotten better about it in the recent centuries but take a look back a few hundred years. Or you can take a look at modern day Islam in the middle east.

It isn't so much the evidence or the amount of it...it's the interpretation of the evidence that seems to be the problem.
They throw around conjecture like its fact....that is what bugs me. They take for granted that people don't question what they say. I listen to every word and just shake my head. You ask how we can believe in the Bible....I ask the same of those who believe in evolution.

If you think it is pure conjecture then you haven't done the research. Everything that we know to be fact can be demonstrated why believe it to be a fact. It is not simply conjecture. We do not have to go to the surface of the sun and take its temperature to see how hot the surface is. We don't have to get a tape measure to see how far away the moon is. We don't need to have an eye witness that there was once a tree where a stump is now.

What part is conjecture to you and maybe I can help clear up why it is not conjecture.

I believe that the Bible is the same. JW's teach the Bible as a book of wisdom and practical advice on how to live, day to day. It tells of the pitfalls of fallen human nature and how to counteract them. It gives advice on how to handle conflict and how to treat our fellow man. It foretells events long before they happen and tells us what the Creator has done in the past, what he is doing right now and what he will do in the future. I like what it says and I like the future it maps out.
Science cannot predict the future, nor does it give us any hope for things to get better. All we see is man spiralling further and further into hatred and greed....polluting the air he berates, the water he drinks and the food he eats. Nothing that sustains life on this earth remains uncontaminated......who is the biggest offender? Science.

Sience is responsible for the heinous atomic weapons and the chemical poisons being unleashed on this planet. Science is responsible for the pollution that pours into oceans and rivers with little regard for the environment or its creatures. I don't like the kind of damage science is doing in this world. I would say it has caused more harm than religion ever knew how to.

I have studied the Bible like you have studied science.....I trust the Bible but I don't trust the agenda of men whose sole aim is to discredit the Bible as myth and dismiss the idea of an intelligent Creator as hogwash. Sorry.

People have done heinous crimes. Not science. Science has saved far more lives that it has killed over the years. I cannot say the same for religion. Science has bettered our lives beyond the craziest imagination of people just a few decades ago, I cannot say the same about religion. But you and I will not agree on this so lets stick to what we can discuss as facts rather than purely subjective opinion. I find that is the best way to discuss these things.

 

[`mud]

Another thought:
For millions of years un-counted millions of species went extinct,
and snowflakes fell.
As we write and tell, there are many more species about to go extinct,
and snowflakes fall.
And I'm pretty sure that there are no snowflakes the same as any other.
And the new species are different from one another also,
one can use our President as an example,
and my Afro-Korean neighbor,
or my barber who is a pigmentless midget,
and the snowflakes still fall.
Snowflakes don't have to created,
as humankind doesn't.
And the snowflakes fall.
~
'mud

 

[FearGod]

What makes the DNA amenable for adjustment ?

 

[outhouse]

Good honest Christians do not engage in dishonest research....

Nothing you will EVER prove.

I don't think your setting any kind of example.

 

[outhouse]

....nor do they sell out to the opposition under pressure

Quit lumping yourself into many good people. Many Christians find your position to be appalling.

In other words your saying SOME Christians will refuse facts and evidence no matter how solid, because their fanaticism is so deep, no credible education will ever penetrate their minds??????????????

 

[McBell]

Good honest Christians do not engage in dishonest research...

So by your own standards you are not a Good Honest Christian

 

[McBell]

Nothing can be evolved without being created first, it doesn't make any sense.

Bold empty claim supported by an appeal to incredulity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no desire to paw through any more material on a subject that I find to be ridiculous.....any more than I would expect you to paw through scripture to find the truth that I see there.

In other words, you have no wish to understand what it is that you are attempting to refute - your only interest is in desperately desiring it not to be true.

Here's the difference: while you wouldn't expect us to paw threw scripture to see the truth of what you believe in, we are not making specific claims about scripture in an attempt to disparage it. You, on the other hand, show increasing signs of having nearly zero understanding of how evolution works - beyond what some anti-evolution websites tell you - and yet you are arguing that it is false. Just as you wouldn't think it honest for someone who shows no understanding of scripture to claim that they can refute it, it is not honest of you to try and refute evolution when you so clearly no very little about it.

Also, I have yet to see any kind of response to the posts I made earlier. Since you find people not answering your questions "telling", I likewise cast that assumption on you.

 

[FearGod]

Bold empty claim supported by an appeal to incredulity.

No incredulity with science.
It's a fact that things should be created first before being evolved.

 

[Parsimony]

No incredulity with science.
It's a fact that things should be created first before being evolved.

True, but we don't currently know how the first organism was created (be it naturally or supernaturally). The evidence for evolution isn't harmed any either case.

 

[`mud]

There's a lot of "facts" being stated on this thread,
one could count them on a half a hand of fingers.
No-one here really knows any of these so called "facts".
Trimmed fingernails might be a "fact",
absent fingers would not be.
And that's a "fact".
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

No incredulity with science.
It's a fact that things should be created first before being evolved.

Until you can show that life was "created" it is a bold empty claim.
Every time you admit you disagree with something simply because you do not understand it...

 

[FearGod]

Until you can show that life was "created" it is a bold empty claim.
Every time you admit you disagree with something simply because you do not understand it...

Common sense, if i saw a tree, then i know there was a seed.

 

[outhouse]

There's a lot of "facts" being stated on this thread,

And evolution is fact. And it has been sources to credible academics.

The opposition here has nothing at all to bring to the table.

Their job is to interpret what they dont know, and force that interpretation where it doesn't go.

Basically they are not providing a replacement hypothesis, they are stating they don't like what is being taught as fact in every credible university in every civilized country.

 

[JayJayDee]

I apologise @ImmortalFlame for not responding to these posts. They got lost in the mix and I actually felt like I had addressed them sufficiently, though not specifically to you.

I will address the more significant points.....

No. There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to scientific theories - there is only evidence. One fact alone is never enough to demonstrate the certainty of a given scientific model beyond all reasonable doubt, especially when the theory is as broad and wide-reaching as evolution. Nobody here (that I can see) has claimed that "proof" exists, just evidence.

And this is where the problem begins. The "evidence" that you point to, as demonstrated by the videos provided by shawn101, are interpreted by those who have an agenda.....their "proof" is in their interpretation of the evidence. I challenge their interpretation. Since there is no real "proof" as you have admitted, then the subject is open for all to determine for themselves.

If you cannot see the supposition and suggestion in the language used to describe what "happened" when no one was there to record the data, then all you have is their opinion about what they "think" happened. True?

When you understand how the process occurs, you will see how and why evolutionary theory makes infinitely more sense than any potential competing hypothesis. Just because you don't see how it can be possible, doesn't mean it isn't. Since you believe in Biblical miracles, you can hardly claim not to be willing to believe seemingly impossible things.

That's an odd thing to say.......you believe in "seemingly impossible things" except the ones that involve a Creator?
Isn't that just pure bias?

Sure - if you ignore all the millions of years BEFORE then when they apparently branched-off from other mammals.

Ah, now we are getting to the hub of the argument. When you say "apparently branched off" you yourself are indicating an assumption. Either something is fact or it is an assumption.....which?

I do not see "proof" for this 'apparent branching off' to have ever occurred. It is based on assumptions and interpretation of "evidence"....yet the evidence is not enough to convict. Circumstantial evidence can be very misleading. How many innocent people have spent years in jail because of circumstantial evidence?

That is a claim that you have to demonstrate. As far as I can see, all DNA is subject to change. For your claim to be true, there would need to be two different kinds of DNA - the DNA that was subject to change and would allow for variation within "kinds"; and the DNA that cannot be changed, which prevents variation outside of "kinds".

The Bible says that all living "kinds" are designed and created. Their physical structure I believe is proof of intelligent design. Their ability to adapt to changing environments is inbuilt. It does not need God's intervention or direction....it is programmed like all the instincts of living things to perpetuate their own species. Even varieties within species do not crossbreed in nature, keeping them separate and distinct. And since mutations are usually defective, the rate of beneficial mutations would be a rarity. The rate of detrimental mutations resulting in the defect dying out is more in line with reality. Adaptation is not just a beneficial mutation...it is an inbuilt ability programmed into the creature's DNA.

There is no such distinction - all DNA is merely DNA. There is no "genetic barrier" that prevents above-species level evolution.

There is no substantial proof that one species ever evolved into a completely different species altogether though is there? If the horse did not change from a four legged, furred animal in 55 million years, where is the proof that anything else did? Science throws millions of years around like its the explanation for everything. I don't see it.

But since Darwin's time, we HAVE seen one species evolve into multiple other species. Above species-level evolution has already been well documented.

Documented by whom? Men of science who wish to interpret the "evidence" to suit their own beliefs. What is their agenda? There is no Creator! How do you think they are going to interpret the "evidence" they have?

I believe that the Bible is well documented too. It names places and people whose existence is verifiable in history. That will not make you believe what it says though, will it?

This is perhaps only because "kind" is an ambiguous word that you can make mean whatever you want. If it meant "species", we would show you above species-level evolution, but then you could simply say "they may be different species, but they're not the same kind".

To solve this dilemma, I would like to propose the following question that I would like you to answer as concisely as you can, if you'd be so kind:

Imagine I brought to you two animals. You have never seen these types of animals before. They appear artificially similar in some respects, but are also have individually distinct features. Now, how would you go about explaining or demonstrating to me whether these two animals belong in the same or different kinds? Keep in mind, the appearance of the animals can be entirely up to you to decide - what's important is that you explain precisely how you may determine two animals as belonging to different or similar kinds.

I would leave it up to those who are familiar with the animals biology to determine their species.
Kolibri has provided the Bible's definition of a "kind".

When we take this kind of approach, what is achieved?

The issue as I see it is that micro-evolution is being used to prove macro-evolution. The evidence does not support that conclusion from what I have read. Adaptation is a creature's ability to make small changes in its appearance or physiology to facilitate changing food supplies or camouflage as a defence mechanism. The creature stays within its genetically programmed "kind".

Macro-evolution goes way beyond adaptation to suggest that a single called organism that somehow popped into existence millions of years ago somehow made itself into all that we have seen as life on this planet.
Now tell me that is not a stretch of anyone's imagination? Yet you dismiss the idea of a supernatural Creator as if that is a stretch. You can have your stretch...I will have mine.

Because why should we assume design when there is no evidence for it?

Do you assume that the computer that you are using at the moment had no designer....no one to actually design and manufacture the various components and purposefully assemble them in the correct order to produce a fully functioning instrument? Any parts missing or defective would fail to see it operate correctly.

If you had no power source, how useful would that device be? And if no one designed and built the towers and the infrastructure for the Internet to function, how useful would your computer be on forums such as this?

The human brain is more efficient and complex than any computer designed by man and yet you say there is no evidence of design....are you serious? How blind can people be?

The evidence, and the theory that explains the evidence, and the test that confirm the explanation.

You have to have an inordinate amount of trust in the interpretation of their evidence to believe that.
I have that kind of trust in my Creator......not in flawed humans who can make the evidence suggest whatever they like.

Part of the confusion is that a "transitional" form doesn't literally mean "a point between A and B". Every life form is a transitional life form; you are a transition between your parents and your children, your children are a transition between you and your grandchildren.

That is a meaningless statement.

What is it that you expect to see that is missing? We have thousands of transitional fossils.

No you have someone's opinion about those fossils.

Evolution is an observed and well-explained fact. It's not a stretch to believe something that has mountains of evidence supporting it.

The "mountains of evidence" have been interpreted by men who believe there is no Creator, so how do you think they are going to present their findings? Weight of numbers is hardly a gauge for truth. If all have the same agenda, all will influence one another to produce the desired conclusions.

Intelligent design, by contrast, requires us to believe things that have never been tested, evidenced or observed in any manner.

You could not be more wrong. No evidence provided by believers in the Bible would be enough for those who want God to be dead. If you have never experienced God in your life, you will never know what I am talking about.

Because anything that can be shown for convenience through computer generated images MUST be false? You don't appear to be conducting your research in an even-handed and respectful manner.

As long as it's presented as suggestion rather than fact, there would be no problem at all. Computer graphics today are very convincing to those easily influenced by images. I think the scientists rely on that very heavily to sway their arguments. Heaven knows the advertising industry does.

 

[JayJayDee]

I'm finding your attitude to this subject quite jarring. If you honestly think that a suitable argument for oveturning the leading scientific theory in biology, which stands on over 100 years of testing, revision, and evidence gathering, is nothing more than "But why are but why are caterpillars pretty?" then I seriously think you need to readjust your perspective on this issue. You have no cause to laugh at the evidence put in front of you when you when every single one of your refutations amounts to either a misunderstanding of the biology or not knowing some extremely specific and vague aspect of biological life.

And for all your huffing and puffing....my house is still standing.

I can laugh at the "evidence" because it is all contrived. It is gathered and studied by men who have a desire to interpret the evidence to suit their own agenda. Not possible? I believe it is, especially when there are powerful forces out there pushing people in a single direction. (1 John 5:19) This, of course, you will deny. So be it.

But can you answer why caterpillars exhibit such infinite color, variety and "design" if it serves no purpose other than to be "pretty". How does evolution explain "pretty" outside of survival? How do so many caterpillars evolve so many different forms of "pretty" when they are not attracting mates?

Why do we even find "pretty" to be appealing? How is pretty a survival advantage? Why do we like to look at "pretty" things?

A colorful sunset?....a waterfall?.....a rainbow?....the mist in a stately mountain forest?.....pristine beaches?....Beautiful people?

How does evolution explain this.....or art or music or poetry? No other animal but man is an artist or a composer or a poet. No cave paintings of any other species have ever been found. No music or literary compositions either.

I need an explanation for things that does not require me to give up every vestige of my own intelligence and hand it over to someone who tells me there is no reason for anything....they just ARE. That there is no intelligence demonstrated in nature...no design....it's all just the product of a series of fortunate accidents.

Sorry, you are welcome to that view but I can't buy it.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry, you are welcome to that view

No need to be sorry for what every credible university teaches in every civilized country as fact, just because you reuse education and knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

my house is still standing

Ya but he ground its built on holds no credibility.

 

[McBell]

I need an explanation for things that does not require me to give up every vestige of my own intelligence and hand it over to someone who tells me there is no reason for anything....they just ARE.

Ouch.
That is most revealing coming from a JW...

Just saying