by nicolaou 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I will try to be civil Nicolau. :-)
I believe evolution explains common descent and the relationships between living things and how different species adapt to their environment through natural selection and gene drift.
That said, in my mind this does not preclude divine intervention at any point in the history of the universe.
I am very happy to be a eukaryote.
Thanks be to God.
Burn
Vaccines are produced via evolution in the laboratory
LOL. Care to explain that? I know they use genetic manipulation to create inert strains that still provoke an immune response in humans, but genetic manipulation is not "evolution". In fact, an ID proponent would call that "intelligent design".
Burn
"Think about the old example of an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of type writers. Yes the odds of them completing the script to Hamlet seems astronomical, but consider that the paper has a memory. So when the right letter happens to land in the right place the paper remembers it and always puts that letter there. Then once a complete script has been written, it is easy to duplicate over and over. Now think about it this way. Instead of typing the monkeys are throwing simple machines into a pile. When the right simple machine finds a way to join with another one in a useful way it sticks and gets repeated."
IMustBreakAway,
In this case, the "paper" (DNA) doesn't have any moralistic way of determining a right letter from a wrong letter, a good one from a bad one. Unlike the script to Hamlet, there is no existent end product toward which DNA is seeking in the evolutionary model except "survival" but the evolutionary model produces no reason why life should seek to survive in the first place. Rocks don't show any desire to do so. In fact, among all known examples of configuration of matter, only life seeks to survive (as far as we can determine).
Getting the initial script for a single celled organism to replicate has been a trick scientists cannot duplicate even with their best efforts.
I have seen the analogy used before and I have a hard time applying it to what science has demonstrated about evolutionary theory.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
LOL. Care to explain that? I know they use genetic manipulation to create inert strains that still provoke an immune response in humans, but genetic manipulation is not "evolution". In fact, an ID proponent would call that "intelligent design".
Burn
Which shows how much you don't understand about vaccine prodution. Vaccines are grown to fight diseases in the wild. Which those viruses evolve freely.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
Relevance of evolution: medicine
by the Understanding Evolution team
 A researcher examines a gel used in DNA analysis. |  | Medical science is continually making rapid advances: new medications and treatments are developed and introduced at a rapid pace, but we can better take advantage of these advances by taking evolution into account. Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases. The case studies in this section illuminate how evolutionary approaches can make a difference in the world of medicine. |
From previous posts, you seem to accept it's been millions of years. Where then, do humans fit in?
I see three choices, maybe you have another:
1. Humans have been around since the start of life millions of years ago.
2. A designer created humans thousands of years ago, after designing animal life millions of years ago.
I assumed you must have hastily pidgeonholed me, from the way some of your responses read.
I'll choose option #4, provisionally, and using an underlying hypothesis which, like evolution, is subject to modification to better fit the body of evidence upon introduction of new data.
4. Designer intelligently approached the problem of terraforming a largely molten water-bearing planet so that it would be conducive to animal life by introducing plant life billions of years ago (various chemical consuming bacteria along with, most notably, cyanophyta). Designer modified (engineered) modern humans from existing material circa 40 to 50 thousand years ago.
I predict that humans will eventually attempt further intelligent modifications on the human design in the future.
Humans have shown no capability to create brand new designs, as yet, but have shown a great capacity for remodeling existing design. The considerable consistency across the designs themselves lend to such modifications being a relatively easy acheivement. Just imagine if evolution theory were entirely correct how divergent life would have gotten from those initial split points billions of years ago. It is beyond belief that only one singular path would be taken from plant to animal life, or that only a single kind of SUPERPARENT species would have emerged to which all animal life owed its heritage, thus accounting for the remarkable underlying consistencies observable between very distinctive animal genomes.
TGAC and UGAC, two simple 64 command sets of base code from which all this diversity and all this replication came from.
—AuldSoul
Let us also look at evolution's part in fish and game.
Fish populations are getting smaller not just population wise but also size wise too. Why because fisherman favor larger fish. Which means smaller adults live to pass on their genes to the next generation making fish smaller.
Fish populations are getting smaller not just population wise but also size wise too. Why because fisherman favor larger fish. Which means smaller adults live to pass on their genes to the next generation making fish smaller.
I believe you are confusing selection with evolution. The fish remain the same fish, the genome remains capable of producing larger specimen. A selection stressor is favoring survival among smaller specimen thus reinforcing that inherent trait in the gene pool.
Only if original genesis of all life is the issue. Take that need for a genesis explanation out of the equation and there is a real argument on the side of design. Evolution theory doesn't attempt to answer the genesis question, why should ID be compelled to do so?
But if you're arguing for design, at what point do you separate the designer from the designed?
I believe you are confusing selection with evolution. The fish remain the same fish, the genome remains capable of producing larger specimen. A selection stress-or is favoring survival among smaller specimen thus reinforcing that inherent trait in the gene pool.
And over time if the pressure remains the species has a harder time going back.
Red Queens race you must adapt continually to remain a viable species.
There are three pressures for evolution food, predator, and parasite. The specie, or species that can adapt to the surroundings will survive.
A great example of this is happening near where I live. A species of plant has invaded the area and the local flora and fauna are having a hard time dealing with it, for now. Over time the local species will adapt to it and produce new species of animals and plants adapted to handle that plants presence. Some may look the same, some may look and be totally different.
BTW if god created that plant why is so destructive to this new environment that has no defence against it. why doesn't he create a vector to deal with it.
DanTheMan: But if you're arguing for design, at what point do you separate the designer from the designed?
Designers aren't the design and aren't necessarily even bound by the same rules as the design. There are many examples of this from known design. I'll bet you thought of a few as soon as you read that statement.
You separate the design from the designer as easily as you separate a robot from its inventor, the one is not the other and the two do not share all the same paradigms of origin, or existence, or perception, or even interaction.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
