Originally posted by josephw
Yes. But my post is in direct reply to PK who is an atheist/evolutionist, and not to the other misguided types you refered to. 😉

But do you know for sure he is type (2) not type (1)? I for example am definitely a (1).

Originally posted by twhitehead
But do you know for sure he is type (2) not type (1)? I for example am definitely a (1).

Personally, I think of myself as atypical. 😀

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's not random chance. It's the 'non-random selection of random variants'.

Let's for a moment accept God created animals according to their 'kinds' and micro evolution gives us variation. What's stopping 'macro evolution' from happening?

It's not random chance. It's the 'non-random selection of random variants'.

I just cannot see how the 'non-random selection of random variants' can occur without some form of intelligent mechanism driving the process.

Let's for a moment accept God created animals according to their 'kinds' and micro evolution gives us variation. What's stopping 'macro evolution' from happening?

Depends what exactly you mean with 'macro evolution'? Do you mean a frog growing wings and flying, for example?

Originally posted by josephw
Personally, I think of myself as atypical. 😀

So you won't answer my question?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]It's not random chance. It's the 'non-random selection of random variants'.

I just cannot see how the 'non-random selection of random variants' can occur [/b]
without some form of intelligent mechanism driving the process.

Let's for a moment accept God created animals according to their 'kinds' and micro evolution gives us variation. Wha ...[text shortened]... t with 'macro evolution'? Do you mean a frog growing wings and flying, for example?

I just cannot see how the 'non-random selection of random variants' can occur without some form of intelligent mechanism driving the process.

How hard have you looked? Richard Lenski's 20yr ecoli expermiment show just that.

Depends what exactly you mean with 'macro evolution'? Do you mean a frog growing wings and flying, for example?

How would a frog grow wings and fly? By macro evolution i mean speciation occurring. For example cetaceans, mammals that have evolved back into the water.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I just cannot see how the 'non-random selection of random variants' can occur without some form of intelligent mechanism driving the process.

How hard have you looked? Richard Lenski's 20yr ecoli expermiment show just that.

Depends what exactly you mean with 'macro evolution'? Do you mean a frog growing wings and flying, for example? ...[text shortened]... speciation occurring. For example cetaceans, mammals that have evolved back into the water.[/b]

So what exactly does Lenski's experiment prove? First, most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the organism, which therefore is not evolving, but devolving. Granted, on occasion a mutation may improve the immediate chance of survival, but it always involves a loss of genetic information—which in the long run is not helpful, but harmful. The late Hermann J. Muller, Nobel laureate in genetics, said: “Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences” (1950, 38:35, emp. added). Evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky candidly admitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur (see Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Dr. Dobzhansky even remarked that “most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors...” (1955, p. 105). C.P. Martin, also an evolutionist, wrote in the American Scientist: “Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?” (1953, p. 102, emp. added).

Neither mutations nor DNA transposition has altered the fact that bacteria remain exactly what they have always been—down to their very genus and species. No true (organic) evolution has occurred, or been proved. Mutations result in a loss of genetic information in the organism. And the loss of genetic information cannot be used as evidence for the ascendance of a “lowly” creature to a “higher” creature—something that, by definition, would require an increase of information. Scientists like Lenski, Rice, and Salt (to whom Quammen referred in his National Geographic article) have not produced anything “new.” E. coli still remains E. coli, and Drosophila still remains Drosophila. The organisms may be mutated strains of E. coli or Drosophila, but they are still E. coli and Drosophila nevertheless. As Sarfati noted: “If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one” (2002a, emp. in orig.).

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what exactly does Lenski's experiment prove? First, most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the organism, which therefore is not evolving, but devolving. Granted, on occasion a mutation may improve the immediate chance of survival, but it always involves a loss of genetic information—which in the long run is not helpful, but harmful. The la ...[text shortened]... ut we have not even found one” (2002a, emp. in orig.).

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

So how, in your words, because remember what you posted to Andrew Hamilton -

Maybe you can save me the agony and for once demonstrate some independent thought instead of regurgitating other people’s ideas....

does the Lenski experiment not show 'non-random selection of random variants'?

(edit - posting quotes from the 1950's on evolution?)

Originally posted by Seitse
Let's make a deal: you try it and if it doesn't work in a few
years let me know and I will give you a full refund. Mmmkay?

“... and IF it doesn't work ...” (my emphasis)

that should be “when” not “IF”.
Does the bible explain how, say, how the variation of the anatomy of microscopic worms came about? -answer no (and just “God did it” is not an explanation of how or why ) .
Obviously I am not going to stupidly waste years of my life reading scriptures for answers that I know it hasn't got.
Can I have my refund now?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I am not going to stupidly waste years of my life

Don't worry, son, you already did.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is as impossible for me to tell you the details in how God did it as it is for you
to tell me where everything came from. If you want the details beyond, "God said,
Let there be..." You will have to ask God. My views if that is what you care about
than by all means fire away, I'll give you my opinion on what I think God did. It
will be limited to my opinion and faith.
Kelly

“...It is as impossible for me to tell you the details in how God did ...”

...and yet you demand that science say how it happened in every detail -that is the point.
You basically seem to imply in some threads that science is wrong because it cannot explain origins of something in every detail and yet, using this same erroneous logic, that would make you and your Bible wrong for not explaining origins of something in every detail .

There is an avalanche of snow on a mountain.
I didn't see it start because nobody was there to witness its start.
I can make scientific hypotheses about how it probably started.
Lets say there was an earthquake at the time of its start.
Then I may hypothesise that the earthquake probably started it.
But, even if this perfectly reasonable hypotheses is correct, because I wasn't there, I cannot explain it in every detail right down to which particular snowflakes were the first to budge and exactly where and in which direction each crack in the snow expanded.
So does that mean the earthquake probably didn't started it?

Originally posted by Seitse
Don't worry, son, you already did.

I said “I am not going to stupidly waste years of my life reading scriptures for answers that I know it hasn't got.”
it is not me that is wasting his life.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...It is as impossible for me to tell you the details in how God did ...”

...and yet you demand that science say how it happened in every detail -that is the point.
You basically seem to imply in some threads that science is wrong because it cannot explain origins of something in every detail and yet, using this same erroneous logic, that ...[text shortened]... ach crack in the snow expanded.
So does that mean the earthquake probably didn't started it?

Yes, I do demand from science that it shows me why.
I hear it all the time science isn't about beliefs or faith, but when it comes to things
like this, that is all I see beliefs and faith. I'm perfectly fine having someone tell
me their religion says X and they believe it. I'm not okay with a methodolgy that
is suppose to shun faith and belief wallow in it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know you think God is responsible, i want the finer details.

Maybe a useful way to narrow this question would be to ask what is the difference between the stuff God is responsible for and the stuff He is not responsible for? Like when it goes wrong apparently He is not responsible unless He is but had a higher purpose in which case maybe it did not go wrong in which case .... Or maybe I'm just getting tired.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]It's not random chance. It's the 'non-random selection of random variants'.

I just cannot see how the 'non-random selection of random variants' can occur without some form of intelligent mechanism driving the process.

Let's for a moment accept God created animals according to their 'kinds' and micro evolution gives us variation. What's st ...[text shortened]... with 'macro evolution'? Do you mean a frog growing wings and flying, for example?

Quote: I just cannot see how the 'non-random selection of random variants' can occur without some form of intelligent mechanism driving the process."

For example, the atomic structures, that came to be, resulted in constraints in how atoms can combine to make molecules. If random events happened later, like krypton 79 atoms decaying to form bromine atoms, the bromine atoms would be constrained like any other atom of bromine. For example it takes four bromine atoms to make a neutral covalent molecule with a carbon atom. That randomly occurring bromine atom has constraints on its actions.

You can say that the atomic structures. were designed, and I'm not arguing that point, but at least now maybe you can see how there can be constraints on the outcomes of later random events, due to prior events.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I said “I am not going to stupidly waste years of my life reading scriptures for answers that I know it hasn't got.”
it is not me that is wasting his life.

Today is April 5th.

Which means... you just wasted one more day, son.