It's irrelevant now that I figured out the animals evolved naturally while Adam was created separate from the animals, complete, no evolution of man involved. Only until after Adam became mortal like the animals did any changes occur.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
It's irrelevant now that I figured out the animals evolved naturally while Adam was created separate from the animals, complete, no evolution of man involved. Only until after Adam became mortal like the animals did any changes occur.
McBell
Unbound
it is always comical to hear people talk about how something cannot be possible because it was not seen when they believe in creation that was not seen.Could you possibly mean me Jose Fly? You know the difficulty I have with responding to you is that you become your avatar.
I think this could possibly be why I have trouble taking you seriously. You just become Mr Grumblebum Cranky Face.
So we begin with the usual putdown just to set the scene....Make sure you reduce the opposition to K-12 status.
I think we understand perception management here.
So........
Evolution is a theory based on an imagined hypothesis. It is suggested to occur when a series of imagined beneficial mutations take place for no apparent reason, or natural selection drives a species to develop into another species of creature altogether (again for no apparent reason) and supposedly takes place via imaginary processes which can never be duplicated in a lab. Examples of evolution would be suggested processes that make it possible for amoebas to eventually turn into dinosaurs, despite the fact that no one has ever seen a single part of the process take place. Gaps in knowledge or evidence can be filled in by speculation, assumption and misinterpreting evidence.
Adaptation on the other hand are minor changes that can occur only within a species. e.g. the length of a bird's beak or the color of an animal's coat or the ability of a plant to survive in a desert. It occurs when a change of environment or an alteration in food sources cause small changes in the animals or bird's ability to survive in a change of circumstance and takes place via small, mostly cosmetic changes driven by that alteration in the creature's living conditions. Examples of adaptation observed by man would be the hawthorn fly, stickleback fish, bacteria and the Galapagos species that Darwin observed.....none of which showed any alteration in the creature's natural structure, but merely minor changes to facilitate survival in a different, more marine oriented environment.
In all cases, the fish remained fish.....the flies remained flies....and the bacteria remained bacteria. The Galapagos species also remained true to their "kind" with small alterations in their appearance due to natural adaptations to their marine environment.
1.Minor adaptive changes within a single species, as opposed to one creature morphing into a series of completely different creatures over millions of years.
2. Small adaptations that facilitate survival within a species produce variety but remain true to their kind. Ability to adapt does not support a long series of beneficial mutations e.g. eventually turning land animals into whales. Most mutations are not beneficial, but detrimental to an organism.
Common ancestry is assumed but not provable. It is not evidence based. It is suggested.
3. Plants can adapt but remain plants. Insects can adapt but remain insects. Marine creatures can adapt but remain marine creatures and land animals can adapt but remain true to their kind.
The difference between the the two is vast, but the line is so blurred by science that most supporters of macro-evolution cannot even see it.
Will there be anything else?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Do you have any idea when that occurred? Because the fossil record doesn't show a long period of stasis followed by the sudden appearance of change - it shows nothing but change going back to the origin of life.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
That does not tell us there is no relation, only that the genetic drift has put too much distance between the two species for mating to produce offspring.
It isn't just about not being seen...it is about the possibility of something being incredibly and purposefully designed, yet needing no designer, when everything in human experience says it must.
What thing designed for a specific purpose in your life was not designed by someone with intelligence? From the most sophisticated computer system to a simple mouse trap.....all needed a concept, design and manufacture in a set sequence to achieve the finished, working product. Why is creation any different?
This argument makes no sense in logical terms alone: You are assuming a premise that everything is designed. By that criteria, there must be a designer. However, the underlying problem is that you haven't shown that anything is designed except those designed by humans.
Your premise remains unsubstantiated so to speak. You haven't shown that things in nature are designed in any way except posting some pictures and using subjective reasoning as the basis for your argument: "How could something so beautiful not be designed?"
Subjective assessments taken as objective fact. That is your underlying property in a debate. You've actually made the argument that scientists are using too advanced language to obscure facts and to distract people like yourself. As you can see, it's not a fair debate: People who do understand the text arguing with a person who doesn't understand the text. I don't think i need to point out the implications of this.
Your post.
It isn't just about not being seen...it is about the possibility of something being incredibly and purposefully designed, yet needing no designer, when everything in human experience says it must.
What thing designed for a specific purpose in your life was not designed by someone with intelligence? From the most sophisticated computer system to a simple mouse trap.....all needed a concept, design and manufacture in a set sequence to achieve the finished, working product. Why is creation any different?
Because it isn't a technology developed by and for humans? Instead, it is a natural process dependent on physical laws?
McBell
Unbound
Your claim of "incredibly and purposefully designed" is nothing more than a bold empty claim you cannot substantiate with anything other than more bold empty claims.
There are many more hard facts in support of evolution than in support of god existing, let alone doing anything.
Yet you dismiss evolution over YOU not seeing it happen.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Because creation has not been shown to be designed.What thing designed for a specific purpose in your life was not designed by someone with intelligence? From the most sophisticated computer system to a simple mouse trap.....all needed a concept, design and manufacture in a set sequence to achieve the finished, working product. Why is creation any different?
In fact, the verifiable facts all lead to not being designed.
Please substantiate this bold empty claim.
That's really funny of you. Firstly, your claims are not verifiable by definition, so his statement is factually true. But you wouldn't see that with your misunderstanding of advanced language.
Second, it's factually correct to also make the claim that it hasn't been shown that the universe is designed. Because it hasn't been shown. You willfully refuse to show it.
Thirdly, until it is within the purview of the scientific method, namely in that it should be verifiable and falsifiable, your claims cannot be verified or falsified. You are trying to use the context of science to make your inane silly claims. You can't be selective. The other side has to use the scientific method to show you the evidence, and they have to ALSO dumb it down more for you to understand it. You can just use your Superior Judgement and everyone should accept it at face value.
Fourth, well, actually this is basically me saying this to you for the millionth time like a lot of people have been doing: You use subjective reasoning and observations and present them as compelling evidence. Which highlights the fact that you are incapable of understanding the meaning of the word "evidence". And "proof" as well...
I'm sure you believe yourself to be right in all the matters you argue. But try to imagine it from the perspective of those who aren't you. From that perspective your crusade seems rather silly and kind of pathetic in its ignorance. There aren't many people who make claims that they can't understand the technical jargon in science, yet at the same time consider themselves more correct than those who do understand English.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
They are the same---evolution is just adaptation over much longer time periods, so it produces much more dramatic results.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Now if we could just get Deeje to understand that.
When I first saw the thread title, I though "what's the difference between sand and a beach?"
Humans are a type of great ape biologically. We even have an evolutionary sequence linking modern humans to the ancestors of modern apes. So, you are simply wrong.
McBell
Unbound
Until such time as creation can be shown to be something other than the wishful thinking of the believers, it has not been shown to be anything other than the wishful thinking of the believersPlease substantiate this bold empty claim.
McBell
Unbound
I have an aunt who believes that evolution is not true.It isn't just about not being seen...it is about the possibility of something being incredibly and purposefully designed, yet needing no designer, when everything in human experience says it must.
What thing designed for a specific purpose in your life was not designed by someone with intelligence? From the most sophisticated computer system to a simple mouse trap.....all needed a concept, design and manufacture in a set sequence to achieve the finished, working product. Why is creation any different?
She says "If evolution were true, women would have more than two arms so to better take care of children."
It is nonsense.
But it makes more sense than what you have presented.
It isn't just about not being seen...it is about the possibility of something being incredibly and purposefully designed, yet needing no designer, when everything in human experience says it must.
What thing designed for a specific purpose in your life was not designed by someone with intelligence? From the most sophisticated computer system to a simple mouse trap.....all needed a concept, design and manufacture in a set sequence to achieve the finished, working product. Why is creation any different?
Was the HIV virus designed? Or the Ebola virus? They seem to be pretty effective machines able to take down other designed machines.
So, things like lions seem to be designed to capture and eat antelopes, while antelopes seem to be designed to escape lions.
Does the designer like to play games against Himself to see who wins? You know, like those guys playing solitaire chess.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Well, he was not so separate form the animals. His resemblance with hairless orangutans and gorillas is stunning, if we compare it with the rest. Even a child would prefer to have a teddy orangutan with his two big sweet eyes, than a teddy spider with his weird eight eyes and legs, as his best friend.
Do you think that God was so proud of His design, or natural evolution of apes to make the pinnacle of His creation, and the form that His son will ultimately take, being one of them?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Jesus didn't stick around very long in the mortal body, mortal like the animals. Sown in weakness and raised in glory, Jesus took on an immortal body with eyes like fire, hair and clothes whiter than any launderer could bleach them. So, no, The Son of man/ Son of God, did not stick around to pick fleas off each other and eat them like the humans and orangutan do.