The assumptions behind evolution?

[AllanV]

All you have done with the above was to avoid answering what I asked.

Sorry can not remember what you are asking.

We also have tales of cyclopes and giants. However those turned out to be false. We currently have tales of bigfoot and the chupacabra. Doesn't make them true.

And yes the dating methods are correct. The chances that several different independently done readings of different methods coming to the same conclusion is verification that it is correct. Do you know the chances of having several different independently done different methods all coming to the same conclusion would be? Near infinite. Without a single one that was done correctly having a different answer. That is just mind boggling. But several creationist like to use the few cases where the sample was contaminated or the test was done incorrectly as some kind of proof it doesn't work but in the face of the actual evidence it rarely convinces anyone who wasn't either ignorant of the evidence or wanting to be convinced otherwise.

This is not my area of interest but why would those with experience in different fields, who can see anomalies go out on a limb with a saw. I do other projects and do not want to get into an extensive diversion, because these individuals lean on a lifetimes work including qualification.

 

[AllanV]

I had a similar experience, but in my case, I found that it meant that God is within us, around us, we are part of God, not separate. And that God and Nature is also one, and the means that this Nature-God uses to produce reality and life is through the world as it is, and that we can understand God's Nature by studying it. And that means that what we've discovered about God's Nature is that God is using Evolution to produce life forms. Nature is the witness and true Bible. Ancient men's opinions are not the truth. They only speak their views. The truth lies beyond and behind the words, not in the literalism. Paul or Jesus talked about how some read the words of the scriptures but didn't understand the spirit behind them, which suggests that literalism is the dead form of faith. Understanding God beyond words is the real faith, not locking in God's power in Nature to what Genesis says. Genesis isn't a scientific report. It's not a historical description. It's an allegory, and should be understood as such. So one of the first assumptions of Evolution theory is that holy scriptures and ancient texts are not science books, but that we as humans can study and understand nature to some degree based on nature itself.

On another note, in Genesis 1, it says that God commanded the seas to produce life. He commanded the sky to produce life. He commanded the land to produce life. So how is this incompatible with nature producing life? If you really want to be a literalist, evolution fits well with that part of Genesis, don't you think?

It becomes obvious that as the scripture says we have our, being and presence in God.
God wears light as with a garment.
I take the Bible as neither science or allegory, just read it the way it is, keeping it all to the moment and the Spirit does the rest. The Spirit reveals the truth and it energizes from the inside.
I do not keep photos and perhaps most people use the scriptures in a similar way to them. Their focus is wrong. Over intellectualizing is a problem because it keeps the old mind with the nature of Adam in place and this shows in the personality and actions.

 

[AllanV]

On another note, in Genesis 1, it says that God commanded the seas to produce life. He commanded the sky to produce life. He commanded the land to produce life. So how is this incompatible with nature producing life? If you really want to be a literalist, evolution fits well with that part of Genesis, don't you think?

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I think there is some misinformation as to what is written in scriptures. This has been a bit of a study for me mainly because the Christian religion claims so much.

An over view without being too specific or getting caught up in expecting exact references is needed. Language has changed.

The following was written in 2011

I was listening to one of the American astronauts and he pointed out that the day by day genesis creation story was almost word for word the description of the progressing periods of the Big Bang theory.

A 60 minutes report showed how there were genetic indications that an African Ape had moved north into the middle eastern area and mated with man.

The scriptures read that
God said "let the earth bring forth the living creature each after its own kind."

If a dictionary is used to open up the meaning this could be describing what science has observed as evolution.
The "earth" could be environment or the actual dirt that is made up of minerals. But of course it is both.
"Bring forth the living creature" is to actually make appear out of the earth. The earth produced animate beings. There is also a measure of time when bringing forth.
"after his kind" is separate species.

Therefore, The earth produced over time, living animate beings of separate species. A dictionary can be used to open up the full meaning of the words.

What evolutionary science does is test what the earth has done not what God is doing.
God is letting the earth bring into existence and develop species.

Ape man may have been already existing before Adam a Son of God was installed in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden is said to have been in the Middle East.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Man is actually an ape and the sons of God interbred with them producing a hybrid that God realized wasn't working. It was wiped out and modern man comes from the remaining few that escaped through favor with God.
This confirmed the species we now see as human. This species has God like qualities in the power of the will and belief and the spoken word. But perhaps it has interbred since.

The whole story could be a bit of both creation and evolution. I know the creation is immediate, that is right now, but most Christians can not comprehend this therefore is their conversion true because mine is and experience suggests something isn't right in the churches. I would think as you explain it, yours would be a true conversion as well.

The important part though is the next step for man. Is there a way of separating the mind from the influence of a biology.

 

[Midnight Rain]

At 26 years I was living on some purchased rural bush covered land with my wife and baby son. While working at some woodwork during the day in my workshop a dream from the previous night came to mind. At that moment and over 5 seconds my body became energized to the point breathing was difficult and my knees buckled.

The realization occurred that there is a God and it is immediate and He is like an observer just beyond and a little deeper than the mind that is usually thought from. My own mind was shown the mind of an immortal as a comparison and what could be attained. The immortal mind holds much knowledge and many concepts were shown from it in just 5 seconds.

I composed myself and walked the distance to the dwelling and told my wife what had happened. I thought perhaps this is what Christians believed and it happened that my wife had a small pocket Bible. It was read constantly until it fell apart. We went to a Church but what had been experienced and then read wasn't what was expected it is something different. But the Bible is interesting and is easy and accessible if an over view is taken.

I have a practical background and get on well with most people until the subjects from the immortal mind are talked about. They tend to confront personality and the motivating influences in it. It is difficult to keep it as a science experiment that develops evidence without it appearing and being taken as character assassination. When people open up they are actually very defensive to the point of self destruction. This may explain wars.

My own family have been difficult even though it is never talked about. They have their own belief and live there own lives as people should.

But it is interesting.

So no evidence but your personal belief. why did you assume it was the Christian god that energized you? I have had several experiences almost on command with Wicca.

 

[AllanV]

So no evidence but your personal belief. why did you assume it was the Christian god that energized you? I have had several experiences almost on command with Wicca.

I have a personal belief that is developed from life experience. Family, friends, school, work engineering, invention, electricity, electronics, motor mechanic, marriage, children, house building, recreation, tramping, self sufficient life style, animal husbandry, gardening, my brain and memory is full of it. My whole life is seeing and believing, a practical working ability.

Then one day something drew me beyond and deeper than the mind that I thought from.
I went from having a life that worked from evidence to one that needed a rational explanation. The search began and many tests have been made and the experience of God stands. It can not be let go but it must not remain a memory only it must be acted out. Are you ready.

 

[McBell]

I have a personal belief that is developed from life experience. Family, friends, school, work engineering, invention, electricity, electronics, motor mechanic, marriage, children, house building, recreation, tramping, self sufficient life style, animal husbandry, gardening, my brain and memory is full of it. My whole life is seeing and believing, a practical working ability.

Then one day something drew me beyond and deeper than the mind that I thought from.
I went from having a life that worked from evidence to one that needed a rational explanation. The search began and many tests have been made and the experience of God stands. It can not be let go but it must not remain a memory only it must be acted out. Are you ready.

 

[AllanV]

why did you assume it was the Christian god that energized you? I have had several experiences almost on command with Wicca.

There is a test and that is there should be an immeasurable energy from the heart and the whole body is energized. The spirit other than human spirit should present nothing sinister or dangerous or predatory toward another person in the mind.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have a personal belief that is developed from life experience. Family, friends, school, work engineering, invention, electricity, electronics, motor mechanic, marriage, children, house building, recreation, tramping, self sufficient life style, animal husbandry, gardening, my brain and memory is full of it. My whole life is seeing and believing, a practical working ability.

Then one day something drew me beyond and deeper than the mind that I thought from.
I went from having a life that worked from evidence to one that needed a rational explanation. The search began and many tests have been made and the experience of God stands. It can not be let go but it must not remain a memory only it must be acted out. Are you ready.

Ready for what?

 

[Midnight Rain]

There is a test and that is there should be an immeasurable energy from the heart and the whole body is energized. The spirit other than human spirit should present nothing sinister or dangerous or predatory toward another person in the mind.

And I think that the same experience applies to wicca. I've had spiritual experiences as a Christian but whith Wicca I had them far stronger.

 

[AllanV]

And I think that the same experience applies to wicca. I've had spiritual experiences as a Christian but whith Wicca I had them far stronger.

The Modern Christian Church doesn't go as deep as they are meant to. I went to some churches to see what it was about.
There is a way to partake of the divine nature to be holy and perfect.
There were some local people that were met who were practicing Wicca but they were also taking drugs.

 

[HiEv]

You have staked some position about how choosing works,

I have? And what position would that be? Please show me where I staked out any specific position on "choosing".

without any discussion about what works best.

Reality doesn't have to work the way things "work best". Reality works however it actually works.

I don't decide to believe things work a certain way because I believe that's how things would best work, I let the evidence lead me to the most likely conclusion about how things actually work, regardless of what I would like to believe.

Your concept of choosing....simply does not function,

There is no way for you to come to this conclusion, because you have no idea what my "concept of choosing" is.

In other words, you're a liar. Making up whatever you want to believe is true.

As I pointed out earlier, you shouldn't believe things merely because you want them to be true. That's not a pathway to truth.

which is why.....you have no theory whatsoever about how anything in the universe is chosen.

I've asked you repeatedly what you mean by "chosen" and you have yet to give a coherent answer. I've pointed out over and over how vague you're being and pointed you to various definitions of "free will", and still you haven't clarified what version of free will you're talking about.

Honestly, sir, as long as you insist on being this unclear there really is little point in discussing this with you, because I can neither confirm nor deny ideas which you refuse to give any coherent shape that I could accept or refute.

You just staked some position in order to do away with all knowledge about how things are chosen, and in a week you will not even remember what your own position is, and you sink back to total ignorance about how the universe actually operates in freedom.

So far, you haven't even shown the ability to explain your own position. If you couldn't remember your position in a week, I couldn't tell, because you haven't actually specified what you mean well enough to tell if you'd changed it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't decide to believe things work a certain way because I believe that's how things would best work, I let the evidence lead me to the most likely conclusion about how things actually work, regardless of what I would like to believe.

So we can see that all these assertions to follow the evidence are vacuous. You do not follow evidence in any conceivable way.

 

[Sapiens]

So we can see that all these assertions to follow the evidence are vacuous. You do not follow evidence in any conceivable way.

Is your reading ability impaired? What he said was: "I don't decide to believe things work a certain way because I believe that's how things would best work, I let the evidence lead me to the most likely conclusion about how things actually work, regardless of what I would like to believe."

 

[HiEv]

(Note: I read this post after my previous reply.)

Evolution is proposed as a fact, and contains many verified facts.

However there is a big problem with natural selection theory, in that it uses emotive terminology, which is really more suitable for matters of opinion. Differential reproductive "succes", "beneficial"mutations, which provide an "advantage". Most professional biologists are confused by the terminology of natural selection theory, which is shown by their opposition to creationism, but also in other ways, that they have no clear understanding where the line is between fact and opinion.

This is what you're complaining about?!?

I'm sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand the difference between fact and opinion, and you're confusing words and phrases that are true by definition for "emotive terminology", when they aren't related to emotions at all.

A beneficial mutation is one that demonstrably makes an organism with that mutation more likely to survive and reproduce. The mutation is, demonstrably, a benefit to the organism in achieving those two things. This isn't an "opinion" or related to emotion, this is a fact as demonstrated by its greater ability to survive and reproduce. It is true by the definition of the word "beneficial".

It's the same for "successful", in that it succeeds to survive and reproduce, and "advantage", in that the organism with that beneficial trait tends to do better than, thus have an advantage over, others of its species which don't have that trait.

If the trait didn't help it survive or reproduce, then by definition it's not beneficial or an advantage.

For example, if creatures with Trait X tended to survive and reproduce to an average of 4.3 offspring, while those without Trait X tended to have an average of 4.1 offspring, and the environment could support either rate, then Trait X can, objectively be determined to be beneficial and an advantage in that those with that trait tended to be more successful (i.e. survive to reproduce more). Make sense?

These are simply definitions and objective evaluations, not "opinions" or "emotive" in the least.

That line is between what chooses and what is chosen, the first is a matter of opinion, the second a matter of fact.

Utter gibberish. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Whether a trait is beneficial is a matter of objectively measurable fact. If you think that opinion somehow enters into this, please, do provide some evidence.

When biologists propose that organisms "like" to survive, as fact, then either this is false social darwinism, or we have to interpret it metaphorically. Like or dislike is properly a matter of opinion, and is properly no part of any science.

I don't know any biologist who uses such clumsy wording, but if they did then it's obviously metaphorical. Even if it wasn't metaphorical, that has nothing to do with social Darwinism at all.

Social Darwinism is about manufacturing a claim about who is "weak" or "strong" and then trying to enforce that opinion by oppressing or killing the supposedly "weak". It's a position which utterly fails to understand the point of evolution. Suggesting life "likes" to survive is nothing like that.

Aside from that many proposed facts in evolution theory may be false. And I think the timeline is generally false.

What "facts" are you referring to? And the timeline is generally so heavily tested and verified against so many other measurements which have only reinforced it, that I have to ask, why on Earth you would believe that?

Also the scientific merit of evolution theory is exaggerated, the theory does not describe origins, only creationism can describe origins.

And are you mad at math for not explaining ice cream?

Of course evolution doesn't explain origins. Scientists don't claim it does. Evolution was never meant to explain origins, only what happened afterwards. Abiogenesis is the explanation of origins.

Furthermore, creationism doesn't explain anything. It merely makes untestable assertions that explain nothing. I could say, "Pixies did it," and it would have just as much explanatory power, since now you simply have a bigger mystery of where the pixies came from and how they work. Nothing's actually explained at all, it's simply pushed onto something which itself isn't explained or even objectively verified to exist.

Anyone is "exaggerating" the claims of evolution, it's primarily creationists who create straw man versions of evolution so they can attack evolution for claims it never actually makes.

And organisms are chosen in the DNA world, as a whole.

So what? Nobody is arguing otherwise.

But if you have a species with 100 members, 50 of which have Trait X and 50 of which do not, and several generations down the line of that species we see that there are now more which have Trait X and less which don't, it's pretty likely that Trait X confers some benefit, thus making those with it more successful, which is why it has become more common.

You can select organisms as a whole and still affect the frequency of individual genes within a population.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a model of what is evidenced. Facts are always about chosen things. The rules for obtaining a fact are totally different from the rules for arriving at an opinion.

"Forcing to a model" is an odd choice of words, but basically right there. However, facts are NOT always about chosen things. The speed of light is a fact. It snowing a bit here this morning is a fact. The Earth orbiting the Sun is a fact. There is no evidence that anyone "chose" these facts.

Comments you make like that are why I still have no idea what you mean by "choosing".

Validating subjectivity is something you do before you can begin to do science.

Ugh. What terrible wording. No wonder you're so hard to understand.

You don't mean "validating subjectivity", you mean "using objective measures".

Science is about avoiding subjectivity, not validating it. This is why you need objective evidence (i.e. facts) to build a scientific hypothesis.

A social-darwinist is the anti-thesis of a scientist IMO.

It's not "anti-thesis" (an-ty-thee-sis), it's "antithesis" (an-tith-uh-sis). And yes, social Darwinism is a pathetic attempt to use science to justify bigotry, when the actual science points out that if they were actually right about who is weak or strong, they wouldn't have to do anything. Attempting to enforce social Darwinism of any sort is just admitting that you're not actually strong enough to get ahead on your own.

 

[Sapiens]

...

A beneficial mutation is one that demonstrably makes an organism with that mutation more likely to survive and reproduce. The mutation is, demonstrably, a benefit to the organism in achieving those two things. This isn't an "opinion" or related to emotion, this is a fact as demonstrated by its greater ability to survive and reproduce. It is true by the definition of the word "beneficial".

Good post, one minor correction: A beneficial mutation is one that demonstrably makes an organism's offspring with that mutation more likely to survive and reproduce.

Since the environment is ever-changing it is quite possible to have a negative mutation that becomes a positive one in future generations, e.g., sickle cell anemia.

 

[HiEv]

It is actually one piece of evidence that genetically from Adam entropy is operating in the cells and evolution will not work as a theory.

First of all, there is no objective evidence that the Biblical "Adam" ever existed. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that he didn't exist as described in the Bible. The evidence rather robustly points to humans evolving from other earlier ape species (yes, humans are a species of ape) and so on back to some common ancestor of all life.

Second of all, the existence of deleterious mutations in no way disproves evolution. In fact, the fact that they tend to be selected against is just more evidence for evolution.

Mutations occur but most are not seen but a genetic line will only last a set number of generations.

Where is your evidence for this?

So far, all of the genetic evidence points to all current life having a single ancestor dating back to around 3.8 million years ago, so all life on Earth has existed for countless generations.

If a mutation is beneficial, then it will most likely be conserved, thus can remain for any number of generations.

The mind is a sum total of the whole organism. There is a potential to live forever non biologically but Adam brought sin into the world.

There is no evidence that biological life could ever live forever.

Heck, even the Bible refutes that claim. The reason they (yes, plural) kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden is because they were afraid that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Life and thus become immortal like they were (Genesis 3:22). If Adam and Eve were immortal to begin with, then what was the point of the Tree of Life?

The power is available to heal but there are very few practitioners because of unbelief.

Baloney. There has not been a single objectively verifiable case of belief healing people. Merely unverifiable anecdotes which are just as "valuable" for determining reality as the anecdotes from people who claim aliens anal probed them.

Show me one faith healer who has ever verifiably healed an amputee. I dare you.

The Bible claims that faith can literally make mountains jump into the sea. So far I haven't even seen it move a pebble.

Are you saying mutations are the gaining of information.

Actually, he never used the phrase "gaining information". You're just putting words in his mouth.

That is not true. Where is your evidence to be able to say it is?

It's demonstrably true. "Information" is simply data. One kind of mutation is a duplication error. If the same piece of data is repeated, then new information is created.

Typically I see BS claims that it isn't "new" information, but that's both wrong and irrelevant. Under information theory, even duplicated information is an increase in information, because the amount of data increases. Furthermore the relative positions of the data change, thus that data is new.

Creationism often tries to abuse information theory, but even the actual founder of information theory, Claude E. Shannon, has pointed out that creationists have to totally misrepresent information theory to make it sound like it refutes evolution. If you're actually interested in this topic, please read this: Talk.Origins: Information Theory and Creationism.

Entropy is active in the human genetic code and the human species is at the end of its existence.

This is false. Entropy applies to closed systems, and an organism isn't a closed system.

If entropy applied to life, then babies would never be born, because life has to become more organized and more complex in order to go from two cells to a full human being.

One can only determine whether or not the human species is at the end of its existence after it's actually gone. Otherwise it's just speculation, and in your case, speculation without objective evidence.

There is evidence in behavior and invention that suggests the destructive processes in the cells is being played out in mankind's reality.

No, there isn't any evidence which is not better explained by evolutionary processes.

Furthermore, human behavior is objectively getting better. Crime rates in the US have plummeted since the 1990s (source), and average human IQ increases by an average of 3 points every 10 years worldwide (see the Flynn effect). What "evidence in behavior and invention" could you possibly be referring to that indicates that humans are getting worse?

Human mythology brings evolution and scientific evidence is adjusted.

Mythology doesn't bring evolution, nature does. And scientific evidence isn't adjusted, scientific hypotheses are adjusted (if need be) to better match the latest scientific evidence.

There is a community of scientists who see a design that cannot be ignored.

Actually, they can quite safely be ignored. They are tiny and publish no scientific articles supporting their claims in reputable peer-reviewed science journals that have survived replication and the criticisms of their peers.

If they want their claim to be respected they'll have to do some actual objectively verifiable science to back it up.

Until then, as I said earlier, they can and should be ignored.

 

[HiEv]

Good post, one minor correction: A beneficial mutation is one that demonstrably makes an organism's offspring with that mutation more likely to survive and reproduce.

Yeah, that's probably more accurate in most cases for multicellular organisms, since the mutation would likely occur in a gamete (sperm or an egg) in order to exist throughout the organism. However, the mutation could also occur early in fetal development as well, in which case it would exist in much of the organism.

In the case of single celled organisms though, it usually affects that organism itself.

Since the environment is ever-changing it is quite possible to have a negative mutation that becomes a positive one in future generations, e.g., sickle cell anemia.

Actually, that was most likely originally a positive mutation, which is why it spread. It then became a negative mutation when in situations where the positive benefit of immunity to malaria wasn't necessary.

Yeah, many mutations are situationally positive or negative. For another example, we can't produce our own vitamin C, which many other animals can do. This is beneficial as long as we get enough vitamin C in our diet, because then we don't have to waste resources making it which could be used for other things. However, this mutation also means it's possible to get scurvy if we don't get enough vitamin C in our diet.

Flexible organisms tend to survive better in changing environments, while carefully tuned organisms tend to do better in stable environments. A lot of the directions of evolution is down to the environments that happen to exist at the time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sorry can not remember what you are asking.


This is not my area of interest but why would those with experience in different fields, who can see anomalies go out on a limb with a saw. I do other projects and do not want to get into an extensive diversion, because these individuals lean on a lifetimes work including qualification.

Such as?

 

[HiEv]

I don't decide to believe things work a certain way because I believe that's how things would best work, I let the evidence lead me to the most likely conclusion about how things actually work, regardless of what I would like to believe.

So we can see that all these assertions to follow the evidence are vacuous. You do not follow evidence in any conceivable way.

Considering that I made no assertions there other than that I believe that letting the evidence lead you to a conclusion is the best way to come to the most likely conclusions about how things work, I have to say that your conclusion shows that you didn't understand what I said in the least.

So, you've utterly failed to understand the one point you replied to, and you failed to reply to the rest, so thank you for conceding the whole argument to me.

 

[AllanV]

At some point man produced a consciousness. And that came from the Son of God, Adam.
That consciousness with mind is a producer of conflict. It is bound in with a predatory biological organism that degrades and ages and dies. The mind is in a corruptible body where the cells can oxidize and mutate.

This is active in everyone now at this time.

The personality is empowered to place emphasis on words to make a point or even force a view or to make some other person feel a certain way. Another mind will develop skills to counter any threat or it responds to place emphasis on the words in replies to make its own point.

Overall the energy behind the words show a lack of purity or good intentions because they reflect a selfish desire. The personality is seen with all faults by others but they are difficult if not impossible to be seen by ones own self.

The mind is influenced by the biology and this shows when a person is lazy, procrastinating or finds most things an effort. Any sharpness of mind comes when the body is at rest. Any hidden traits held in the mind and consciousness are attachments that have a strong hold and are difficult to let go because they are bound up in self belief and personality.

With age the mind ability is impaired because the cells have degraded.

There is a potential future of a hope where the corruptible form will take on an incorruptible one in immortality leaving the biological form behind forever.

In the mean time there is an exercise to do where a different nature can be tried out that is not affected by the biological form. The influence of the biology is only covered and after the exercise the old selfish personality will return.

The new nature is real and it must be emphasized there is nothing sinister or threatening in it. It is good to retain the new nature as long as possible as an exercise.