Where is Evolution Headed??? (page 4)

drwtsn32

Who's to say God's plan for creation was not evolution?

Exactly... if God exists, he/she/it used evolution to create all of the species we see today.

drwtsn32

When did that happen? Never has the evolution of a new species of plant or animal "already been demonstrated". What hogwash!!!

Enlighten yourself: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Phantom Stranger

I tend, with pretty theory but no proof, towards some woo-woo. I used to go straight pool-ball... but now I don't, quite.

Given that, if one were to take the woo-woo theory to its conclusion, one would see a human population which progresses in its social and emotional relationships in an evolutionary fashion... but not using the laws of evolution described by biologists (as this would only be an analogy). It depends on if you see evolution as a biological process or as an example of other universal forces that result in progress in biology and other areas (no, I am not referring to an angry old man in a white robe, so don't even go there).

That's why I suggested Wilber's book. I also am influenced by Pirsig's discussion of quality, and Watt's discussions of the cosmos are fascinating.

drwtsn32

Humanity is starting to reach the point of controlling evolutionary processes.

I've thought the same thing. Humans now have the capability to render many evolutionary pressures "neutral". Before, climatic changes would have driven evolution in humans. Today with our climate-controlled environments it probably wouldn't... at least not to the same degree (no pun intended).

Phantom Stranger

Exactly, doc. That's one of the reasons that we have cancer - not just due to longer life spans... but cancer (most types, anyway) typically strikes us after we are old enough to have rasied our kids to be self-sufficient - so natural selection is done with us.

Love_Truth

drwtsn32,

OK, I looked at that page and read it. First, it attempts to redefine (or at least re-examine, raising doubts as to the generally accepted definition) the definition of "species", an academically dishonest approach. When you can't make the evidence fit the conclusion without gaping holes, then you attempt to change the definition. "Speciation", the article goes on to report, can be observed in two areas:

1)- Hybridization or polyploidism (I'm very familiar with this subject matter) of plants that results in a subspecies, not a new species.

2)- Adaptation of species into subspecies, not species, by the generally accepted definition.

A few excerpts from the article:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. "

"There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC (Biological Species Concept )."

"Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined. "

Fortunately for the writer, he did not come to any conclusion other than the above statement. Again, attempting to redefine "species" so that it will now fit a pre-conceived conclusion is academically dishonest. The writer clearly knows that, so stopped short of doing so.

Love_Truth- Comprehends what he reads.

stillajwexelder

E = mc^2 so m = E/c^2 and also Delta G (The Gibbs Free Energy) = Delta H (Enthalpy another form of heat energy - actually bond energy) - T delta S so therefore (delta G - delta H) / - T (thermodynamic temperature) must equal delta S --- so mathematically all evolution is eventually headed back to good old ENTROPY

Phantom Stranger

sajwxe, that would be accurate if we knew that physics accurately describes life. Since we do not know that... we're not sure. There is certainly an opportunity for reality to demonstrate entropy in the physical realm and increasing order in the biological realm.

Have you read Tipler's The Omega Point? I think it's entertaining and instructive (but not the last word, so to speak).

logansrun

Loves_Truth,

Have you read any books written by biologists (of which 99.99% are evolutionists) that explains why evolution is accepted as having happened? Might I suggest anything by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould or Ernst Mayr?

A quick perusal of www.talkorigins.com is always good.

B.

LittleToe

Loves_Truth:
I agree that it's hardly a salvation issue, hence even to Christians it's open for speculation, yes?

First, it attempts to redefine (or at least re-examine, raising doubts as to the generally accepted definition) the definition of "species", an academically dishonest approach. When you can't make the evidence fit the conclusion without gaping holes, then you attempt to change the definition.

No, that's part scientific method.
If you disprove a theory you use your imagination to create another one, and then attempt to discredit that, until you distill out a working hypothesis.

(Now I'm getting scared - I'm finding myself siding with some of the boards atheists )

I though "woo" was something you did to da ladies .

Where is Evolution Headed???

Share this