17 Apr 11
Originally posted by finneganEven a mono cellular organism has the will to survive,I think you will agree with this statement. It tries to search for food and when it senses it, it ingests it and lives on etc.
[b]Natural selection is just another term for adaptation.... The theory of evolution
supposes that creatures will change (evolve) over time to a more
complex and advanced creature without any help from the Designer.
Natural Selection explains evolution without any reference to a plan for improvement, while Lamarckism was the theory that there is a ...[text shortened]... think they are supremely intelligent and merit absolute loyalty. What is ever really new?[/b]
Where is this desire/will to live coming from ? After all, the will to live is the basic difference between the dead and the living beings. Once the living being senses that it has to obtain food for further survival,it will try its utmost to obtain that food. Why is this urge to live on ? On the other hand,Salmon go to extraordinary troubles to breed in their "home waters" and after laying eggs the female dies and after fertilising the eggs the male dies. How is this great sense to pass on one's offsprings in this otherwise incomprehensible and hostile( to Salmons ) world comes to Salmons ?
17 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI understand a little science. When I went to college I planned to
“....Adoption, mutation, and God creating would
work just fine. ….”
Adoption and mutation combined is, in effect, evolution; no god required.
“...I have done just fine without using the
theory of evolution. ...”
that's because you evidently don't understand much about science nor do you make much use of science.
I suppose you could do j ...[text shortened]... nd and not flat is also not required to solve differential equations; so is the Earth flat?
be an electrical engineer. Along with all the mathematical and
engineering courses I took. I took physics for students of science
and engineering. Gravity was included as important to know about.
We did many calculations on free falling bodies, I remember. And
many other things like the kinetic theory, but no mention of the
theory of evolution at all. This may have been because it was
physics that concentrated on what could be used in a practical way
in engineering and science. The college chemistry I took mentioned
the Bohr theory for atoms and a few gas theories, but no mention
of the theory of evolution. It appears to me it was not needed to
learn either Physics or Chemistry. However, you are right that I do
not make much use of science today. After I got my Associate Degree,
I quit college to work and make a living. College wasn't free like High
School. And of course I do not believe the earh is flat. Even the Holy
Bible seems to refer to the earth as circular in Isaiah 40:22 which
says, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a
curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Authorised
King James Version).
17 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHinds“...I remember. And
I understand a little science. When I went to college I planned to
be an electrical engineer. Along with all the mathematical and
engineering courses I took. I took physics for students of science
and engineering. Gravity was included as important to know about.
We did many calculations on free falling bodies, I remember. And
many other things like th ...[text shortened]... s a
curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Authorised
King James Version).
many other things like the kinetic theory, but no mention of the
theory of evolution at all. ...”
that's because those things don't require evolution. What about those fields of science that cannot be fully explained without evolution? -they still exist! Geology and the science of fossils and genetics and biology being some of the main ones. Nobody here is suggesting that ALL sciences require evolution -just several important ones.
17 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI was responding earlier to finnegan who did.
“...I remember. And
many other things like the kinetic theory, but no mention of the
theory of evolution at all. ...”
that's because those things don't require evolution. What about those fields of science that cannot be fully explained without evolution? -they still exist! Geology and the science of fossils and genetics and biology being some ...[text shortened]... s. Nobody here is suggesting that ALL sciences require evolution -just several important ones.
17 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHe didn't say what RJHinds is alleging. This is what he said -
what, that that ALL sciences require evolution, not just a large important load of it?
Point being if you want to throw out evolution you have to throw out geology, chemistry, genetics, the whole package hangs together, you even have to throw out mathematics. (My daughter's partner is a mathematician and working on the evolution and spread of the flue virus entirely using mathematical tools.)
17 Apr 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThanks. I thought he hadn't but couldn’t remember that far back clearly.
He didn't say what RJHinds is alleging. This is what he said -
Point being if you want to throw out evolution you have to throw out geology, chemistry, genetics, the whole package hangs together, you even have to throw out mathematics. (My daughter's partner is a mathematician and working on the evolution and spread of the flue virus entirely using mathematical tools.)
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOkay, we have elemenated mathematics, physics, and chemistry
Thanks. I thought he hadn't but couldn’t remember that far back clearly.
at the least. I was going for electrical engineering so I did not
need to know geology or genetics. But I don't see what is so
important about the theory of evolution that it should even concern
you. What kind of work do you do that can't do without it?
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHinds“....But I don't see what is so
Okay, we have elemenated mathematics, physics, and chemistry
at the least. I was going for electrical engineering so I did not
need to know geology or genetics. But I don't see what is so
important about the theory of evolution that it should even concern
you. What kind of work do you do that can't do without it?
important about the theory of evolution that it should even concern
you. ...”
It doesn't “concern” me in particular. It is “ important” in that it explains many things that would otherwise be extremely hard (if not impossible) to explain.
“...I was going for electrical engineering so I did not
need to know geology or genetics. ….”
and if you do geology or genetics then you will need to know evolution.
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by karoly aczel“...I interpret "evolution" to mean "spiritual evolution", (which also contains all physical evolution that scientists refer to). ...”
I interpret "evolution" to mean "spiritual evolution", (which also contains all physical evolution that scientists refer to).
I guess the difference is that physical evolution postulates that evolution has no goal, whereas spiritual evolution has a goal.
what are you talking about?
The evolution scientists normally talk about is “biological evolution” ( http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm ) that has nothing to do with “ spiritual”.
What do you mean by “physical” evolution and how would its meaning differ, if at all, from “biological” evolution ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelGoal driven behavior might not be a crucial distinction between biological and spiritual evolution. Just as with intentional biological variations, the variations that occur in spiritual evolution could be partly intentional, with some non-intended elements (e.g., a "chance encounter" with someone who affects our journey).
I interpret "evolution" to mean "spiritual evolution", (which also contains all physical evolution that scientists refer to).
I guess the difference is that physical evolution postulates that evolution has no goal, whereas spiritual evolution has a goal.
If spirituality exists in the realm of ideas, there is (somewhat controversial) meme theory, applied here for example, to explain how the spiritual path of an individual or small group becomes a world religion, and how changes that occur along the way that contribute to the success of the religion, become incorporated in it. For example, some Bible scholars see in the 4 Gospels, a progression from a reform movement internal to Judaism, to a conversion movement applicable to the world's population.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
"Memetics is a theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, originating from Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene. It purports to be an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. A meme, analogous to a gene, is essentially a "unit of culture"—an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc. which is "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and which can reproduce itself from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen memetically as a meme reproducing itself. As with genetics, particularly under Dawkins's interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host. Memetics is notable for sidestepping the traditional concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs."
18 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonJust like I said: my version of the word " evolution" includes all that evolutionary theory contains but it also has a spiritual aspect. A direction, if you will.
“...I interpret "evolution" to mean "spiritual evolution", (which also contains all physical evolution that scientists refer to). ...”
what are you talking about?
The evolution scientists normally talk about is “biological evolution” ( http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm ) that has nothing to do with “ spiritual”.
What do you m ...[text shortened]... ysical” evolution and how would its meaning differ, if at all, from “biological” evolution ?
You know what I'm talking about.
edit:when I said "physical" , I meant biological. Same thing, no? more or less.
But if your more comfortable with "biological" , then I will go with that.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by karoly aczel“....Just like I said: my version of the word " evolution" includes all that evolutionary theory contains but it also has a spiritual aspect. A direction, if you will. ...”
Just like I said: my version of the word " evolution" includes all that evolutionary theory contains but it also has a spiritual aspect. A direction, if you will.
You know what I'm talking about.
edit:when I said "physical" , I meant biological. Same thing, no? more or less.
But if your more comfortable with "biological" , then I will go with that.
but it doesn't need a “direction” ( let alone something “spiritual” ) in the sense that it explains what it does just fine without any sort of “direction”.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence nor logical reason to believe that it has some kind of “direction” -especially the part mutations have to play for they are random (and there is no evidence that they are non-random) . The natural selection part is non-random but still mindless for it is the mindless environment that selects ( just like a mindless gust of wind selects the smaller grains of sand to move them etc ) .
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolution is part of Biology, not physical science like Physics and Chemistry.
I understand a little science. When I went to college I planned to
be an electrical engineer. Along with all the mathematical and
engineering courses I took. I took physics for students of science
and engineering. Gravity was included as important to know about.
We did many calculations on free falling bodies, I remember. And
many other things like th ...[text shortened]... s a
curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Authorised
King James Version).