14 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipSome extinctions were due to catastrophe, some were not. The well known mass extinctions obviously were and science has never 'leaned' anywhere else in that regard. Nevertheless it remains the case that those extinct life forms were not that successful even if catastrophe was the cause of their lack of success.
The leaning of science seems to be that these extinctions were sudden and do to catastrophe.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo, that is not necessary at all. DNA carries along a large amount of extra baggage for a variety of reasons, but planning for the future is not one of them.
2.) There had to be some looking ahead. Somethings had to be held in place - static until other aspects formed. I think all the genetic algorithms that supposedly have a computer mimic this selection process, hold a positive result in place until all other changing features, one by one come into place.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor what is "successful" an intended goal?
Some extinctions were due to catastrophe, some were not. The well known mass extinctions obviously were and science has never 'leaned' anywhere else in that regard. Nevertheless it remains the case that those extinct life forms were not that successful even if catastrophe was the cause of their lack of success.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipWhile the "creation" of this process (abiogenesis) is an interesting topic, the process itself (evolution) requires no intelligence to work. It does what it does because there's nothing else that it can do. Like water flowing down a hill, dna replication within a cell appears to be a compulsary and completely unguided process.
[b] DNA Replication -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TxKoFU2Nw
My human conscience will not allow me to imagine that no intelligence was involved in the creation of this procedure.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayThe preserved changes are not randomly selected, no, but all mutations are generated through random chance. There's no pattern or law that we can use to predict mutations. They happen for all sorts of reasons, and those that are successful survive - what we call natural selection. Show me the pattern or natural law that allows me to predict what comes next in terms of mutations, and I will seriously consider the idea that mutations are not random.
A process that was designed to work, you are not looking at changes
that are random.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessThis video was put together by Evolutionists. I like it a lot.
While the "creation" of this process (abiogenesis) is an interesting topic, the process itself (evolution) requires no intelligence to work. It does what it does because there's nothing else that it can do. Like water flowing down a hill, dna replication within a cell appears to be a compulsary and completely unguided process.
Its called Our Secret Universe Inside The Cell.
I just believe this amazing factory of battery chargers and recycling devices and other molecular machines is the result of intelligent design.
But the Evolutionist video makers did a good job with the animation and describing various machine operations in the cell.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipJust to clarify, do you believe that evolution is or could be part of the design?
This video was put together by Evolutionists. I like it a lot.
Its called [b]Our Secret Universe Inside The Cell.
I just believe this amazing factory of battery chargers and recycling devices and other molecular machines is the result of intelligent design.
But the Evolutionist video makers did a good job with the animation and describing various machine operations in the cell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rTYUzdMd7o[/b]
I'm not talking about the current popular theory of evolution that involves "random" Godless variation, unless God made it so that some random variation could occur. I'm talking about God starting things off at some very basic level, and setting up the initial conditions and laws of nature by which life would evolve over billions of years, leading to the present day biodiversity. Theistic evolution, if you will.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Jan 15
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357I don't know very much about the subject of Theistic Evolution. I will withhold any comment right now.
Just to clarify, do you believe that evolution is or could be part of the design?
I'm not talking about the current popular theory of evolution that involves "random" Godless variation, unless God made it so that some random variation could occur. I'm talking about God starting things off at some very basic level, and setting up the initial conditions and l ...[text shortened]... ver billions of years, leading to the present day biodiversity. Theistic evolution, if you will.
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessNothing is selected, poor choice of words. It may survive over time due to
The preserved changes are not randomly selected, no, but all mutations are generated through random chance. There's no pattern or law that we can use to predict mutations. They happen for all sorts of reasons, and those that are successful survive - what we call natural selection. Show me the pattern or natural law that allows me to predict what comes next in terms of mutations, and I will seriously consider the idea that mutations are not random.
nothing about it harms the life form to the point of death, but nothing comes
in and says I want this or that.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayNatural selection refers to exactly that, yes. Call it bad choice of words, if you will. Darwin called it natural selection because he noticed how certain traits in a population of breeded animals can be selected for so that they spread throughout the population, and he realised that essentially the same thing happens in nature, with one difference: no one is consciously doing the selecting, but individual traits are selected for by what is beneficial for reproduction in the local environment.
Nothing is selected, poor choice of words. It may survive over time due to
nothing about it harms the life form to the point of death, but nothing comes
in and says I want this or that.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
15 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipAgain, I can understand if you find it a struggle to see how the cell could naturally form in the first place, in all its intricacy, and scientists still don't have a complete answer for this. But this is no challenge to the observed fact of evolution. All you need for new species to form is time, accumulated changes to DNA and natural selection. All you need to understand that evolution is happening (and has happened) is to look at the evidence. To me, the strongest evidence is that you can build phylogenetic trees using datasets from completely different branches of science, and get overlapping trees.
This video was put together by Evolutionists. I like it a lot.
Its called [b]Our Secret Universe Inside The Cell.
I just believe this amazing factory of battery chargers and recycling devices and other molecular machines is the result of intelligent design.
But the Evolutionist video makers did a good job with the animation and describing various machine operations in the cell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rTYUzdMd7o[/b]
Either no supernatural force has anything to do with evolution, or some kind of supernatural force is guiding evolution, or some kind of supernatural force created life to appear evolved even though it really isn't.
I'm sure there are other possibilities too, but of those three I'm gonna go with the first, for now.