The assumptions behind evolution?

[Parsimony]

Real life.

Anyone can claim real life supports their claims. If real life actually does support your claims, then you can post a source that documents it.

 

[shawn001]

That's selection, That can be done now in the hen house or the garden. Would that corn turn into a fish or dog?

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

"Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility."

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist


Your Inner Fish

How did your body become the complicated, quirky, amazing machine it is today? Anatomist Neil Shubin uncovers the answers in this new look at human evolution. Using fossils, embryos and genes, he reveals how our bodies are the legacy of ancient fish, reptiles and primates — the ancestors you never knew were in your family tree.

Your Inner Fish | Watch Online | PBS Video

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dr. John Sanford says that the conclusions he has will not be taken up by others. It needs ongoing work. I am not buying his book.

I know God is the creator and is immediate. The experience of God was not sought after but occurred in a quiet time. The difference between my mind and the mind of an immortal was shown within the mind that does not measure up. (the word sin means "to not measure up")

The human consciousness or mind has attachments within it that prompt and tempt. These are in the personality with strong self belief and are learned traits and determine responses in the emphasis placed on speech and also body language. These are read by another person who has to mostly defend in the mind to maintain own self belief. There are imbalances of course, as shown when some one is gullible or uses their mental strength to dominate. It can be subtle.

Most know how this works but is natural and taken for granted, but the problem comes with conflict.

The attachments within the mind are mostly hidden but they hijack the will some what. They shape the way a person learns responses and also how a person behaves when the opportunity is there.

The religion isn't meant to be religious as it is known now but is a way of over riding the natural responses with its mind and renewing it. Religiousness creates as many barriers in the learned responses as any other human endeavor.

I get that this is your belief but are you proposing it as a fact?

The benefits are for a future and it is explained as a dimensional technology where an unruly and biologically trained mind is vulnerable and will not survive.

Why? and how did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Secularism does not exclude religion. Secularism means that there are no religious requirements. It is just an activity like washing the dishes, which either religious or non religious can do. Secular societies can be 100 percent religious.

So long as they don't invoke religion or base laws off of religion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"]It's a case of not caring about evolution theory. Evolution theory is found to be boring, regardless if it is true or not."

LOL, That one is funny and shows a total lack of understanding on evolution.

“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”
― Richard P. Feynman

You cannot see any beauty without the spirit. Subjectivity does not function without the acceptance of the existence of some things (love, hate the spirit etc.) as a matter of opinion.

Sorry Feynman does not make it for having emotional depth, neither does Einsten. But Newton does, a real human being, and not a materialist freak of science. It is so awful to watch these modern scientists torture themselves, in having such a difficult time of it to simply accept the spirit is real on a subjective basis. To simply accept subjectivity is valid.

 

[AllanV]

I get that this is your belief but are you proposing it as a fact?

Why? and how did you come to this conclusion?

What is understood is fact and experienced. There is a way to purify the self and take up a different nature.

It is entirely probable a dimensional technology will be built. The human mind that will not let go of the predatory biological disposition will not survive in the generated forces. It is a bit like the body not able to stand radioactivity.
The link between mind and body and how illness and death are held in them is not understood.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is understood is fact and experienced. There is a way to purify the self and take up a different nature.

It is entirely probable a dimensional technology will be built. The human mind that will not let go of the predatory biological disposition will not survive in the generated forces. It is a bit like the body not able to stand radioactivity.
The link between mind and body and how illness and death are held in them is not understood.

Hmm. I think I"ll have to disagree on the second portion. I'm still trying to figure out what you are trying to say on the first portion.

 

[AllanV]

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information

"Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility."

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

The article relates an extra chamber in a heart is developed as though it is evolution and then later there is genetic material that is duplicated with in the genome.

An environmental pressure has provided a switch.

Humans are basically predatory and this is reflected in mental ability therefore it would be expected that there would be shared information.

 

[Sapiens]

The article relates an extra chamber in a heart is developed as though it is evolution and then later there is genetic material that is duplicated with in the genome.

An environmental pressure has provided a switch.

Humans are basically predatory and this is reflected in mental ability therefore it would be expected that there would be shared information.

No, no, no. Selective pressures shift and can turn a negative mutation into a positive one, that's all. if you want to call that a "switch" go right ahead, but don't misunderstand the process.