leibowde84
Veteran Member
Who has said this, and what exactly did they have an issue with?
-
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!
Why evolution did not comes like this ?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
He asked you a question, buddy. He didn't make any claims. He is asking you for your reasoning instead of just bare claims, devoid of any substantiation. You are the one making claims without supporting them. He did not once say that he "does not believe that freedom is real and relevant in the universe." You merely put words into his mouth.
You, however, certainly did make a claim about him personally, but he did nothing of the sort. Read before making incorrect judgments please.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Mutations, however, are completely random, as they are merely mistakes made by the RNA. Sometimes they are beneficial, but most of the time they are detrimental (and of course, sometimes they have no real effect). So, the best you could probably do is come up with the probability of when mutations happen over a period of time. To have any kind of real analysis, this would, of course, have to be over millions of years.
life forms is like algorithm .
Life is not just "amazing" it's infinity amazing,and indeed bigger than bacteria thoery , and one single cell ...etc
could bacteria creat a alive cell of meat, and male , female form of lifes ?
soon !!!! , so human science could not let the bacteria creat new cell (form of life) , who could did it before 3.5 million years ago ?
read my first post , why there is no fossils said that human body(our ancesters) missing parts (hands , fingers , eyes , heart ....etc ) while it's evoluting in timeline .
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Oh. I saw that, but it was debunked pretty seamlessly. If one understands evolution, they would understand that the theory does not say that eyes, for example, appeared suddenly. Our common ancestor with apes already had eyes, ears, mouths, etc. so I'm not sure why you would expect to find human beings without them. But, maybe I am having trouble understanding your argument. Why would you think that early humans would not have these things. I mean, the eye, for example, had developed in mammals long before even the first primate existed.
So your answer is "I don't like you"?
Nothing about why freedom is true? Or why it is relevant to evolution? Nothing at all?
You want to know why I don't believe religionists about the divine?
It's because I know that they will say things like this. Things that are obviously wrong.
Tom
leibowde84
Veteran Member
First, it was 3.5 billion years ago that evolution is thought to have begun. Second, you are assuming your conclusion in your question. We do not have enough scientific understanding as of yet to know what actually happened to cause amino acids to come together in such a way that life began. But, it is clear that it is not certain that an entity had anything to do with it.
Just because science doesn’t have an explanation for something now in no way signifies that something supernatural was involved. It simply indicates that we don’t know YET.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Not only wrong, just plain old mean. The one asking the question didn't even make a claim. He merely asked him for reasoning to support his view.
It's always obvious when someone does not have a valid argument when they attack the person personally speaking against their view.
Freedom is real to men but not relevant in the universe.
Evil is real to men but not relevant in the universe.
Your mind works in a different way because you're imagining and contriving the evil around you. Slap yourself out of it, man!
ok now you understand me , i will explain more :
ok ,let's suppose mammals developed ,my points is mammals with eyes , so first version of mammals without ....etc ?
so where is this in fossils ?
No, not directly. It happened after a whole lot of intermediary generations.
First multicellular organisms, then differentiated tissues, much later differentiated genders.
Bacteria have been shown to differentiate already. A variety of nylon-eating bacteria arose spontaneously a few years ago.
Not sure what you mean by science "letting" bacteria do anything, though.
Bacteria have extremely short lifespans, and reproduce in amazingly high numbers. They mutate correspondingly often, and once upon a time had very little competition for the planet's biomass.
It was all but unavoidable that they would eventually mutate enough to develop into non-bacterian lifeforms.
So what missing that human could similaire the evolution of bacteria to cell ...to new life?
if they know the path , why they could not make it ?
There were never mammals without eyes.
The eyes vertebrates have evolved before mammals did. So did bilateral symmetry, so there has always been two of most things like eyes and hands and kidneys and wings.
Tom
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Eyes most likely developed while our ancestors were still living under water. And there are certainly many fossils without eyes.
outhouse
Atheistically
Do you any evidence your mythology can do this?
David M
Well-Known Member
It makes no such predictions and no such maths exists.
Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance on a subject, this time its maths. There is a huge difference in the maths involved in calculating probabilities based on things that already exist and probabilities based on future events.
No one said that "calculations on mutations are impossible", what was said was that the SPECIFIC calculation that you were asking about was not possible.
Last edited:
David M
Well-Known Member
Eyes came well before mammals. The first mammals had eyes, just not the exact same eyes that humans have (current mammal species don't have exactly identical eyes).
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Random/somewhat related thoughts.....
It is not possible for humans to predict mutations -but all things (except, perhaps, choice) are predictable given enough information and ability to process it.
We simply lack the ability to know and keep up with all of the variables.
The overall definition of the term "evolution" changes as new things are learned -and many assumptions (or inferences) are made due to the lack of direct evidence of an initial designer, creator or creative influence over time.
If evidence of initial creativity or creative influence is found later, the overall definition of "evolution" might necessarily change -or the term itself might become insufficient or inaccurate.
It seems to me that the whole "VS" attitude is counterproductive.
It is not truly religious to refuse to consider a matter such as evolution. One does not have to reject God to consider what others are saying -nor must one completely accept what is said.
If one is to give answer for their faith as it relates to evolution, studying evolution can only be beneficial. It is wise to note what becomes known -but also to differentiate between what is known and what is inferred.
It is also not truly scientific to say with certainty that there is no God or creative influence. The possibility of initial creation or creative influence exists, so it would not be beneficial to reject the idea altogether.
There is no reason why God could not have given life forms the ability to adapt to various environments. He would be wise to do so.
However, "science" cannot simply accept that as true without proof.
It is said that God created all things, and -given enough power, information and ability to process it -he could very well have encoded the emergence of life into the initial creation of the universe or at any point afterward.
If you think about it -evolution -if designed -would keep God from having to make every last change directly as things went along.
This is not to say that he could not and has not created things instantaneously -but a God who has been around forever would certainly have learned to make less work form himself in order to accomplish more, or even to be able to relax and watch things unfold.
Perhaps we will eventually learn that the evolution from one type of life form to another was intended and initially encoded -that the evolution of life was quite intentional -as a seed which produced many different predetermined things over time, but also produces things which are able to adapt to their environment.
It would not be beyond God to shape life both internally and externally -by its own nature and its environment -controlling both toward a specific end result.
Life, overall, has moved from simple to complex -incapable to capable -so it does have a vector, if you will -a direction or inclination.
It is not simply that the most fit accidental configuration survives, but that life, overall, has a definite course toward increased fitness, complexity, ability and survivability.
Accidental, random -those words alone just don't adequately explain those things or the absence of more chaotic results.
I do not believe it was accidental or completely random, but I see anything that science can discover as something which can help me understand the ways of God.
Some say God created us in his image -others that we created God in our image, but, either way, life has become increasingly God-like, and, by whatever means it has happened, should be expected to continue to do so.
It is not possible for humans to predict mutations -but all things (except, perhaps, choice) are predictable given enough information and ability to process it.
We simply lack the ability to know and keep up with all of the variables.
The overall definition of the term "evolution" changes as new things are learned -and many assumptions (or inferences) are made due to the lack of direct evidence of an initial designer, creator or creative influence over time.
If evidence of initial creativity or creative influence is found later, the overall definition of "evolution" might necessarily change -or the term itself might become insufficient or inaccurate.
It seems to me that the whole "VS" attitude is counterproductive.
It is not truly religious to refuse to consider a matter such as evolution. One does not have to reject God to consider what others are saying -nor must one completely accept what is said.
If one is to give answer for their faith as it relates to evolution, studying evolution can only be beneficial. It is wise to note what becomes known -but also to differentiate between what is known and what is inferred.
It is also not truly scientific to say with certainty that there is no God or creative influence. The possibility of initial creation or creative influence exists, so it would not be beneficial to reject the idea altogether.
There is no reason why God could not have given life forms the ability to adapt to various environments. He would be wise to do so.
However, "science" cannot simply accept that as true without proof.
It is said that God created all things, and -given enough power, information and ability to process it -he could very well have encoded the emergence of life into the initial creation of the universe or at any point afterward.
If you think about it -evolution -if designed -would keep God from having to make every last change directly as things went along.
This is not to say that he could not and has not created things instantaneously -but a God who has been around forever would certainly have learned to make less work form himself in order to accomplish more, or even to be able to relax and watch things unfold.
Perhaps we will eventually learn that the evolution from one type of life form to another was intended and initially encoded -that the evolution of life was quite intentional -as a seed which produced many different predetermined things over time, but also produces things which are able to adapt to their environment.
It would not be beyond God to shape life both internally and externally -by its own nature and its environment -controlling both toward a specific end result.
Life, overall, has moved from simple to complex -incapable to capable -so it does have a vector, if you will -a direction or inclination.
It is not simply that the most fit accidental configuration survives, but that life, overall, has a definite course toward increased fitness, complexity, ability and survivability.
Accidental, random -those words alone just don't adequately explain those things or the absence of more chaotic results.
I do not believe it was accidental or completely random, but I see anything that science can discover as something which can help me understand the ways of God.
Some say God created us in his image -others that we created God in our image, but, either way, life has become increasingly God-like, and, by whatever means it has happened, should be expected to continue to do so.
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Its not 'your scientists." Its scientists.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
Scientists Create an Organism with a New Genetic Code
"
For the first time, scientists have fundamentally changed the genetic code of an organism, raising the possibility that researchers might be able to retool nature and create potent new forms of proteins to combat disease.
Scientists from Yale and Harvard have recoded the entire genome of an organism and improved a bacterium’s ability to resist viruses, a dramatic demonstration of the potential of rewriting an organism’s genetic code.
“This is the first time the genetic code has been fundamentally changed,” said Farren Isaacs, assistant professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale and co-senior author of the research published October 18 in the journal Science. “Creating an organism with a new genetic code has allowed us to expand the scope of biological function in a number of powerful ways.”
The creation of a genomically recoded organism raises the possibility that researchers might be able to retool nature and create potent new forms of proteins to accomplish a myriad purposes — from combating disease to generating new classes of materials.
Scientists Create an Organism with a New Genetic Code - SciTech Daily