variety in evolution?

[painted wolf]

i'm impressed, you had the courage to bring forward that there is no purpose to evolution and that the things that be are, or at least could quite possibly be, nothing more than random event...........this is helpful to me.

I also don't ascribe purpose to earthquakes or snowstorms. There are natural mechanisms behind both, but those mechanisms do not operate via purpose.

However, evolution isn't entirely random either. Natural selection is not a totally random process. Survival in the arctic isn't simply random chance, there are some general rules about biochemistry that must be obeyed in cold climates.

wa:do

 

[KennethM]

Evolution is simply chemistry playing itself out. Calling it random does no justice to the beauty or the magnitude to which occurs. Evolution is guided by laws, but they are not divine ones, they are simple chemical rules. Organisms which can survive and reproduce within an environmental niche do so, ones that cannot do not. The planet we live on is not static, environmental factors are constantly changing for myriad reasons. If an ecosystem changes rapidly we see vast extinction patterns, if it changes more slowly we see biological adaptations suited to the demands of the environment.

 

[Alceste]

To observe that creatures best adapted to their environment survive longer and reproduce more prolifically than poorly adapted creatures is not to recognize a "need", but to state an obvious fact. There's no "why" required - it's a simple cause and effect relationship: The fitter you are, the longer you will live and the more attractive you will be to the opposite sex.



No more intelligent thought is required to cause life to adapt to niches than is required to cause rainwater to pool in low ground. Again, it is a simple cause and effect relationship - just as gravity draws the rainwater ever downwards, evolution draws ever-adapting species into environments where it can thrive and survive.

gravity is a cause...........this is an example of what evolution exists for?? do you believe that evolution exists for no purpose and no ultimate goal?

I believe evolution is in the same category as gravity. They are not philosophical questions at all. Just as gravity explains why water pools in low ground, evolution explains life's diversity. Gravity and evolution, being ordinary facts of life rather than sentient beings with hopes and aspirations, do not have a goal or a purpose. They just are. What goes up comes down, the sky is blue, water boils at 100 degrees C and species adapt to their environment.

If you are interested in purpose and meaning, science is the last place you want to be looking. Science can explain how life works but it can't deduce the meaning of life. That is a personal question for each of us to address our own way.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, evolution is indeed not mere chance. Nor is it designed by a conscious will.

The third option, the one that does in fact happen in reality, is that evolution is guided by the environment.

Thanks. That is the clearest answer I got for my doubts.

...

 

[crocusj]

its good to hear those words, they are short and to the point and logical. do you have a belief system?

Born, breed, die...it's not much of a one I will grant you but there you go.

 

[jtartar]

anybody got any ideas about why evolution might have created so much variety of life ?

slowbreath,
I have no idea how we could have such variety by accident, oe evolution.
Science knows that there is a law in nature that cannot be denied or shortcircuited. The law is Prestabilism, which means that every living thing can ONLY reproduce after it's own kind. Any time a kind even gets close to the edge, the offspring cannot reproduce, such as mules, Tigons, Ligers. Mutations are always bad and cannot reproduce.
Scientists have tried for centuries to overcome this basic law of nature, trying invitro and invivo,but to no avail.
This law is even mentioned in Genesis, 1:24,25, everything according to it's kind.
As for evolution, there is not the slightest evidence of evolution, from a lower form of life to a higher form. What is so comical about evolutionists is: they are constantly searching for the Hopeful Monster, the link between man and the beast, but they don't seem to understand that there would actually ber millions of Hopeful Monsters, because after millions of fossils have been unearthed, there has not been found a link between any of the millions of animal types. Scientists can find a chip of a bone and can determine what the animal was, never concluding that the animal had too much of each kind to determine conclusively which animal kind it was.
There are some changes that can be caused within a kind, this is called Ontogeny, Ontogenesis, and has nothing to do with changing from one kind to another.
Stop and think a minute, and realize just how silly the Theory of Evolution is. Since there is no link between and kind and another, this means that an impossible series of Homoplasy has occurred for any animal kind to have progressed until they could reproduce. Imagine a female and a male evolving along for thousands of years, completely independent of the other, until they could reproduce. How did they live until they could reproduce???
Consider how the word of God condemns pseudoscience, Rom 1:18-22. True science agrees completely with the Holy Scriptures!!!

 

[tumbleweed41]

slowbreath,
I have no idea how we could have such variety by accident, oe evolution.
Science knows that there is a law in nature that cannot be denied or shortcircuited. The law is Prestabilism, which means that every living thing can ONLY reproduce after it's own kind. Any time a kind even gets close to the edge, the offspring cannot reproduce, such as mules, Tigons, Ligers. Mutations are always bad and cannot reproduce.
Scientists have tried for centuries to overcome this basic law of nature, trying invitro and invivo,but to no avail.
This law is even mentioned in Genesis, 1:24,25, everything according to it's kind.
As for evolution, there is not the slightest evidence of evolution, from a lower form of life to a higher form. What is so comical about evolutionists is: they are constantly searching for the Hopeful Monster, the link between man and the beast, but they don't seem to understand that there would actually ber millions of Hopeful Monsters, because after millions of fossils have been unearthed, there has not been found a link between any of the millions of animal types. Scientists can find a chip of a bone and can determine what the animal was, never concluding that the animal had too much of each kind to determine conclusively which animal kind it was.
There are some changes that can be caused within a kind, this is called Ontogeny, Ontogenesis, and has nothing to do with changing from one kind to another.
Stop and think a minute, and realize just how silly the Theory of Evolution is. Since there is no link between and kind and another, this means that an impossible series of Homoplasy has occurred for any animal kind to have progressed until they could reproduce. Imagine a female and a male evolving along for thousands of years, completely independent of the other, until they could reproduce. How did they live until they could reproduce???
Consider how the word of God condemns pseudoscience, Rom 1:18-22. True science agrees completely with the Holy Scriptures!!!

1. Define "kind", and its relation to evolutionary biology.
2. Define, in whole, your understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
3. Explain why your statements are in direct conflict with genomic and chromosomal research.
4. Explain your obscure theory of sexually divided evolution.
5. Define "Missing Link".
6. Define "Hopeful Monsters" and the relationship of that term to Goulds "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis.
7. Explain the natural sciences that do not agree with a literal reading of of the Bible, for example, genetics, geology, hydrology, mathematics, astrophysics, biology, animal husbandry, astronomy, etc, etc, etc....

 

[painted wolf]

Someone clearly has never bothered to study agriculture.... hybrids make the best crops and often very good animals too.

Wheat, Maize, Peppermint, Grapefruits and Beefalo are common fertile hybrids.

But hey, it's easier (and I'm sure more fun) to make up words and call them laws.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

slowbreath,
I have no idea how we could have such variety by accident, oe evolution.
Science knows that there is a law in nature that cannot be denied or shortcircuited. The law is Prestabilism, which means that every living thing can ONLY reproduce after it's own kind. Any time a kind even gets close to the edge, the offspring cannot reproduce, such as mules, Tigons, Ligers. Mutations are always bad and cannot reproduce.
Scientists have tried for centuries to overcome this basic law of nature, trying invitro and invivo,but to no avail.
This law is even mentioned in Genesis, 1:24,25, everything according to it's kind.
As for evolution, there is not the slightest evidence of evolution, from a lower form of life to a higher form. What is so comical about evolutionists is: they are constantly searching for the Hopeful Monster, the link between man and the beast, but they don't seem to understand that there would actually ber millions of Hopeful Monsters, because after millions of fossils have been unearthed, there has not been found a link between any of the millions of animal types. Scientists can find a chip of a bone and can determine what the animal was, never concluding that the animal had too much of each kind to determine conclusively which animal kind it was.
There are some changes that can be caused within a kind, this is called Ontogeny, Ontogenesis, and has nothing to do with changing from one kind to another.
Stop and think a minute, and realize just how silly the Theory of Evolution is. Since there is no link between and kind and another, this means that an impossible series of Homoplasy has occurred for any animal kind to have progressed until they could reproduce. Imagine a female and a male evolving along for thousands of years, completely independent of the other, until they could reproduce. How did they live until they could reproduce???
Consider how the word of God condemns pseudoscience, Rom 1:18-22. True science agrees completely with the Holy Scriptures!!!

What an astonishingly imaginative bit of fiction. I don't think I could come up with a notion of the natural world more detached from reality if I tried.

 

[slowbreath]

I believe evolution is in the same category as gravity. They are not philosophical questions at all. Just as gravity explains why water pools in low ground, evolution explains life's diversity. Gravity and evolution, being ordinary facts of life rather than sentient beings with hopes and aspirations, do not have a goal or a purpose. They just are. What goes up comes down, the sky is blue, water boils at 100 degrees C and species adapt to their environment.

If you are interested in purpose and meaning, science is the last place you want to be looking. Science can explain how life works but it can't deduce the meaning of life. That is a personal question for each of us to address our own way.

i like that reply.........this is helpful

 

[slowbreath]

Born, breed, die...it's not much of a one I will grant you but there you go.

oddly enough i have to say that i dont think i'm very far from this belief system, but i'm not happy where i am, i just cant seem to buy into most of evolution, but niether can i buy into a creating diety that will torture you if you dont believe in him and causes great hardship in life and says its because he loves you.
are you happy with your belief system?

 

[slowbreath]

slowbreath,
I have no idea how we could have such variety by accident, oe evolution.
Science knows that there is a law in nature that cannot be denied or shortcircuited. The law is Prestabilism, which means that every living thing can ONLY reproduce after it's own kind. Any time a kind even gets close to the edge, the offspring cannot reproduce, such as mules, Tigons, Ligers. Mutations are always bad and cannot reproduce.
Scientists have tried for centuries to overcome this basic law of nature, trying invitro and invivo,but to no avail.
This law is even mentioned in Genesis, 1:24,25, everything according to it's kind.
As for evolution, there is not the slightest evidence of evolution, from a lower form of life to a higher form. What is so comical about evolutionists is: they are constantly searching for the Hopeful Monster, the link between man and the beast, but they don't seem to understand that there would actually ber millions of Hopeful Monsters, because after millions of fossils have been unearthed, there has not been found a link between any of the millions of animal types. Scientists can find a chip of a bone and can determine what the animal was, never concluding that the animal had too much of each kind to determine conclusively which animal kind it was.
There are some changes that can be caused within a kind, this is called Ontogeny, Ontogenesis, and has nothing to do with changing from one kind to another.
Stop and think a minute, and realize just how silly the Theory of Evolution is. Since there is no link between and kind and another, this means that an impossible series of Homoplasy has occurred for any animal kind to have progressed until they could reproduce. Imagine a female and a male evolving along for thousands of years, completely independent of the other, until they could reproduce. How did they live until they could reproduce???
Consider how the word of God condemns pseudoscience, Rom 1:18-22. True science agrees completely with the Holy Scriptures!!!

i understand what youre saying, and i have no problem with it......the problem is, i cannot lend credibility to the bible because of all the nonsense it contains.

 

[slowbreath]

1. Define "kind", and its relation to evolutionary biology.
2. Define, in whole, your understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
3. Explain why your statements are in direct conflict with genomic and chromosomal research.
4. Explain your obscure theory of sexually divided evolution.
5. Define "Missing Link".
6. Define "Hopeful Monsters" and the relationship of that term to Goulds "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis.
7. Explain the natural sciences that do not agree with a literal reading of of the Bible, for example, genetics, geology, hydrology, mathematics, astrophysics, biology, animal husbandry, astronomy, etc, etc, etc....

and what would be your point in having this explained to you?....do you want to feed your ego ?

 

[painted wolf]

oddly enough i have to say that i dont think i'm very far from this belief system, but i'm not happy where i am, i just cant seem to buy into most of evolution, but niether can i buy into a creating diety that will torture you if you dont believe in him and causes great hardship in life and says its because he loves you.
are you happy with your belief system?

What aspects of evolution do you have problems with?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

if evolution has no goal, then why do things try to survive, why is there a need for the survival of the fittest?

those organisms that try to survive have a better chance of doing so, and therefore will tend to reproduce organisms with this tendency. In other words, evolution favors organisms that try to survive.

if filling niches is a process, then what intellegent thought, or whatever, put that process in motion?

If any? Is such a being necessary? In any case, it's a philosophical or theological question, not a scientific one.

 

[tumbleweed41]

and what would be your point in having this explained to you?....do you want to feed your ego ?

When one makes outlandish claims of certainty, one should be prepared to back up those claims.

If I claim the world is flat, would it be ego-building of you to ask me to back up such a far-fetched claim?

 

[Alceste]

oddly enough i have to say that i dont think i'm very far from this belief system, but i'm not happy where i am, i just cant seem to buy into most of evolution, but niether can i buy into a creating diety that will torture you if you dont believe in him and causes great hardship in life and says its because he loves you.
are you happy with your belief system?

Fortunately, the theory of evolution is not something anybody needs to "buy into". Most people, once they understand it and familiarize themselves with the evidence supporting it, are utterly persuaded without any effort. If you feel you need to "buy into" some idea of the mechanism that gives rise to life's diversity, it's probably not evolution you're thinking of. If your credulity is not strained by the statement "the fitter you are, the longer you will survive and the more attractive you will be to the opposite sex", accepting evolution should not pose any difficulty.

Many people have been exposed to a great deal of false information about what the theory of evolution actually says, what it predicts and the evidence that supports it. My guess is that if you are feeling like evolution is somehow implausible, you are probably contemplating a misrepresentation (for example, "life popped out of nothing and dogs can give birth to cats").

 

[slowbreath]

What aspects of evolution do you have problems with?

wa:do

let me think a bit upon your question, and i think i can give you something.

 

[slowbreath]

When one makes outlandish claims of certainty, one should be prepared to back up those claims.

If I claim the world is flat, would it be ego-building of you to ask me to back up such a far-fetched claim?

i was out of line, i was just playing with you....forget about it.

you mean to tell me that the world isnt flat?

 

[slowbreath]

Fortunately, the theory of evolution is not something anybody needs to "buy into". Most people, once they understand it and familiarize themselves with the evidence supporting it, are utterly persuaded without any effort. If you feel you need to "buy into" some idea of the mechanism that gives rise to life's diversity, it's probably not evolution you're thinking of. If your credulity is not strained by the statement "the fitter you are, the longer you will survive and the more attractive you will be to the opposite sex", accepting evolution should not pose any difficulty.


Many people have been exposed to a great deal of false information about what the theory of evolution actually says, what it predicts and the evidence that supports it. My guess is that if you are feeling like evolution is somehow implausible, you are probably contemplating a misrepresentation (for example, "life popped out of nothing and dogs can give birth to cats").

yeah i do need to buy into it because it claims to have produced me, and i have intellegent thought, and i need to know how it produced intellegent thought, and just randomly producing it doesnt cut it. theres also the origin of life thing too.