The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[rafi]

All sciences will eventually fall under one universal theory and all else will just be symptoms.Its the human intellect that complicates all that falls under the beauty of simplicity!

What are you trying to say here? That you think the myriad of plant and animal species on Earth to be simple and only complicated by the human mind, or that you believe there to be a supreme answer that solves all the riddles of our planet and its occupants? If it's the latter, are you implying that supreme answer is a god, or energy? Because both seem unlikely when dwarfed by the amount of evidence to support evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

Does gain of function mean the same thing as gain of information. Can a mutation cause you to lose information and yet gain a function?

The term "information" is not really relevant or helpful to understanding what's going on. What is going on is that DNA = long strings of proteins in a certain order. It gets copied during reproduction. Sometimes there is a copying error, like when you're trying to copy your credit card number into a computer to buy something. Proteins can get repeated, deleted or switched. Sometimes these switches have no effect. Sometimes they are harmful, so tend to die out. Sometimes they do something that helps the organism, and so get preserved and passed on.

They could effect function, anatomy, any part of the organism.

 

[Autodidact]

But what exactly is the "way" that evolution puts forth? Are you talking about the mechanisms that drive speciation (essentially natural selection), or are you talking about everything coming from a single ancestor on the tree, bush, or web of life? Or both?

I'm happy to explain this at length for anyone who needs it. However, I thought it might be helpful to clarify what we all agree on, to avoid unnecessary posts. IIRC, you agree that speciation happens, and in the way ToE describes, right? Descent with modification + natural selection? IIRC MoF also agrees with this. Danmac, master of evasion, do you also agree that that new species emerge from existing species via descent with modification plus natural selection? (just ask if you're not clear on what any of this means.) My understanding with most of the YECs here is that we do not dispute any of this, and the only dispute is whether all organisms share a single common ancestor, or some unspecified number of ancestors, each one representing an undefined group called a "kind."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that the thread is more aptly titled "The theory of evolution as supported by the evidence."

 

[Walkntune]

Are you going for something like this? Because while it's true that evolution must follow the laws of physics it would be kind of silly to expect all science ever to be done by physicists and mathematicians. Yes, mutations involve chemical reactions which involve the exchange of electrons between atoms and blah blah blah. It doesn't matter. The emergent results of those reactions are significant enough and varied enough to create a unique field of study that abstracts out the physics.

Well actually I am working toward a point to where I believe their is a creative force of energy that permeates all through existence and sustains all and holds all together.I don't believe materialism exists except as vibrating strings of energy.I feel to understand creation at its roots and work out the details is a much better way then trimming branches to understand how and why things work.
Medical science could learn how energies can become resistant to each other and cause dieseases instead of always treating symptoms.
Mental health would understand how emotions are energy trapped in the body and that its not a chemical imbalance that is the cause but the undealt with emotions.Chemical imbalances result from the brain becoming irrational trying to line reality up to how one feels because they choose to deny the trapped emotions.
The same all the way down to evolution. Evolution is caused by forces acting on organisms and mutations are a result, not a cause.
If scientists treated energy as a cause instead of a result they would come and understand the cosmic order that Einstein and Tesla have come to face with and would take off from where they left off instead of trading reality for math formulas.

 

[Walkntune]

What are you trying to say here? That you think the myriad of plant and animal species on Earth to be simple and only complicated by the human mind, or that you believe there to be a supreme answer that solves all the riddles of our planet and its occupants? If it's the latter, are you implying that supreme answer is a god, or energy? Because both seem unlikely when dwarfed by the amount of evidence to support evolution.

You could call it the God of spinoza, or Einstein.
In other words ToE will not explain how life got here. It will just show effects of life being here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You could call it the God of spinoza, or Einstein.

 

[rafi]

You could call it the God of spinoza, or Einstein.
In other words ToE will not explain how life got here. It will just show effects of life being here.

I think what you're saying here is your personal interpretation of what Spinoza said, and not literally what he said. "Spinoza's God" doesn't necessarily denounce evolution.

 

[Gunfingers]

Well actually I am working toward a point to where I believe their is a creative force of energy that permeates all through existence and sustains all and holds all together.I don't believe materialism exists except as vibrating strings of energy.I feel to understand creation at its roots and work out the details is a much better way then trimming branches to understand how and why things work.
Medical science could learn how energies can become resistant to each other and cause dieseases instead of always treating symptoms.
Mental health would understand how emotions are energy trapped in the body and that its not a chemical imbalance that is the cause but the undealt with emotions.Chemical imbalances result from the brain becoming irrational trying to line reality up to how one feels because they choose to deny the trapped emotions.
The same all the way down to evolution. Evolution is caused by forces acting on organisms and mutations are a result, not a cause.
If scientists treated energy as a cause instead of a result they would come and understand the cosmic order that Einstein and Tesla have come to face with and would take off from where they left off instead of trading reality for math formulas.

Ah. So you're a crazy person.

Where are these energies? How might they be detected? Why have they never been detected despite repeated attempts to do so?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm going to consider WalknTune's concerns as veering OT, and suggest he start a thread to discuss them. Thanks.

 

[Walkntune]

I think what you're saying here is your personal interpretation of what Spinoza said, and not literally what he said. "Spinoza's God" doesn't necessarily denounce evolution.

I am not necessarily denouncing it either.I believe the answer to existence of life lies in a force of energy itself.
I will be simple here with thoughts but just off the top of my head.
Possibly in the beginning energy becomes trapped in resistance to itself and causes explosion.Through explosion repelling energies are trapped together in matter.
As they repel matter changes form to a substance it can more easily move in. It becomes gasses and water. As it still tries to escape it(Because two opposing energies trapped together) becomes life where it can move even more free.Now the matter itself is more easily movable.
As humans we have a sense of good and bad ,positive and negative,. We are conscious energy trapped inside of body( materialism.)
Who is really controlling who?
We are always finding ways of controlling energy through scientific technology to make life easier,communication unlimited,get to our destinations faster etc. As this technology increases so does our pace of life!
I am really curious as to how we know who is in control. We use energy through material objects to control it , manipulate and come out with a desired effect but what (energy force) is driving us to do this!
Is it possible that energy has a natural course to travel the path with least resistance so wanting to travel in and out of form as easily as possible , knowledge evolves as energy tries to make its way?
Can everything fall up under a law of nature.
You ask me to describe energy in definition and all I can say is anything you possible can observe is energy in it's state of least resistance in that particular instance!
Is it possible that all of the complexities we know of in life with all of it's laws of logic can fall under such a law of nature as the beauty of simplicity?
I know its out here because I thought of it off the top of my head but my point is that all existence is the result of energy that got trapped against itself and through repelling forces from each other all forces of nature were created as it works its way free and always takes the path of least resistance.
I don't believe the magnetic field of the earth effecting animals is coincidence but may play a role in all of life.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This thread is to discuss the Theory of Evolution. It is NOT about atheism or whether God created all things. In fact, for the purposes of this thread, let's all participants agree that God exists and created all things. The question we are addressing here, and the only question, is whether God created all living creatures and plants on earth in the way set out in the Theory of Evolution (ToE.) Even more, we're going to talk about the evidence for that theory, and why modern Biology accepts it and is based on it.

I've got a dollar that says you don't go two pages before the concept of your thread is derailed. Badly.

 

[Gunfingers]

I've got a dollar that says you don't go two pages before the concept of your thread is derailed. Badly.

Well i've got a dollar that says Truman beats Dewey in the election!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I've got a dollar that says you don't go two pages before the concept of your thread is derailed. Badly.

I'm going to consider WalknTune's concerns as veering OT, and suggest he start a thread to discuss them. Thanks.

Dang! Looks like I overshot it by one page.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well i've got a dollar that says Truman beats Dewey in the election!

No fair. Now you're shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, I guess that, technically speaking, I was too.

 

[Autodidact]

It would be helpful if anyone here who does not agree with ToE would clarify his or her position--what parts do you agree with, and where do you disagree?

Or, is there anyone here who does not have a clear understanding of what ToE actually says, so you can respond to the above question? I'll be happy to explain it, although it may take a few posts.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It would be helpful if anyone here who does not agree with ToE would clarify his or her position--what parts do you agree with, and where do you disagree?

Are you going to limit them to the actual precepts in the theory of evolution, or can they use the version that they find at Answers in Genesis?

Or, is there anyone here who does not have a clear understanding of what ToE actually says, so you can respond to the above question? I'll be happy to explain it, although it may take a few posts.

May the Lord be with you in this endeavor.

I can't remember where I read it, but there is a famous saying that goes something like this:
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to teach a fundamentalist the Theory of Evolution".


Come to think of it, that would look pretty good on a T-shirt.

 

[Walkntune]

It would be helpful if anyone here who does not agree with ToE would clarify his or her position--what parts do you agree with, and where do you disagree?

Or, is there anyone here who does not have a clear understanding of what ToE actually says, so you can respond to the above question? I'll be happy to explain it, although it may take a few posts.

OK to simplify. I don't believe in natural selection and random chance.I believe energy itself wants to keep going and can never be created or destroyed.
IF you don't feed your self your body will start eating foreign objects in itself to survive. After it has eaten all of the foreign matter it will turn to the vital organs and this is when starvation sets in. Energy itself wants to keep going on and will feed of the very materialism embodied in to do so. There is no randomness and the universe is all about balance of energy.
If an animal can't reach the trees then eventually the energy conformed to the animal will change the body in anyway possible in order to survive. If a tree can't get sunlight the energy in the tree will twist the tree anyway necessary in order to reach the source.This is cause of any evolution and not natural selection.
Energy is never created not destroyed and does what it needs to to keep balance.
This is why I say the conclusion of evolution will be found in physics and not biology.

 

[Autodidact]

OK to simplify. I don't believe in natural selection and random chance.I believe energy itself wants to keep going and can never be created or destroyed.
IF you don't feed your self your body will start eating foreign objects in itself to survive. After it has eaten all of the foreign matter it will turn to the vital organs and this is when starvation sets in. Energy itself wants to keep going on and will feed of the very materialism embodied in to do so. There is no randomness and the universe is all about balance of energy.
If an animal can't reach the trees then eventually the energy conformed to the animal will change the body in anyway possible in order to survive. If a tree can't get sunlight the energy in the tree will twist the tree anyway necessary in order to reach the source.This is cause of any evolution and not natural selection.
Energy is never created not destroyed and does what it needs to to keep balance.
This is why I say the conclusion of evolution will be found in physics and not biology.

Yes, well I suggest you start a thread about that.

 

[Walkntune]

Yes, well I suggest you start a thread about that.

That's fine. No reason to debate a theory based on false presumptions.