Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[Pipiripi]

[Replying to post 139 by Pipiripi]

Don't you know that Charles Darwin, looks like an ape?

Of course he does. That's because all humans are apes, including you.

That's why he came with this evolution theory.

No. He came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection because that was where the evidence took him. He was not alone in coming to that conclusion. Alfred Russell Wallace was beaten to publication by Darwin. Otherwise we would be talking about Wallace's theory of evolution. But they were not alone. Going back over the centuries there were others who had the same ideas. They did not have the benefit of observation and evidence to formulate a cohesive theory of the mechanism involved. Try this book:

Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution - Rebecca Stott

I don't look like apes, apes looks like me. My teaching has a beginning and an end. Still waiting who was first the writer of the beginning, of the beginning of the writter?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Correction: The koala is not a bear.

Oh, my bad. The whole "bear" thing threw me off. SMH.

How did you determine which animals were dogs and which animals were cats?

Because each one of them are producing after their kinds.

Obviously there are certain characteristics that distinguish the two genera.

I agree, there are certain characteristics that distinguish the dog "kind" from the bear "kind".

Can you list the features that all cats and dogs have in common? Here is a starter: they are mammals, quadripeds, have two eyes, two ears, heart, liver, kidneys, brain, hair, jaw with teeth, ....

Now, your turn. List the features that clearly distinguish one genus from the other.

Do you have young children/grandchildren? Or how about any young nieces/nephews? Get urself pictures of a husky, wolf, coyote, and tiger...and show each of the children these pictures...and ask them "which animal is different than the rest".

If the children say "tiger", then they will know the "distinguishing" factors...and if those children can know it, why can't adults? I will tell you why; because the children aren't looking at the pictures with presuppositions...adults are.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 135 by For_The_Kingdom]

That is all fine and dandy...but the problem is; you are 100% on board with an unproven scientific theory (abiogenesis). I will leave you to that.

I'm 100% on board with abiogenesis remaining on the table as a possibility until it can be shown to be wrong. It is one of several hypotheses, and may well prove to be wrong in the end. But until then ... it can remain a hypothesis.

If abiogenesis is false, and God is negated, how can "evolution still operate exactly the same way"?

Because evolution has zero dependence on, or correlation with, HOW life came into existence. This is the one point me and others have been trying to hammer home but obviously aren't succeeding. If god is negated, and abiogenesis is false, then the origin of life simply has another explanation (naturalistic). But evolution isn't impacted one way or the other ... because it has NO dependence on HOW life arose in the first place.

Because if you don't have a viable theory for how life began, you don't have a viable theory about how life evolved.

Nope ... this is where you are wrong. The current ToE describes how life diversified on this planet, but it assumes some population of reproducing life forms existed to start with. HOW they came into existence is of no concern to ToE, and your insistence that there is a dependence is at odds with the very definition of ToE.

Wait a minute; that is the whole point..if God is out of the equation, then abiogenesis MUST BE TRUE. But it COULD..BE..FALSE.

And there is no way that abiogenesis could be false, and evolution could be true...you are gonna need God in there somewhere.

Abiogenesis could be completely false meaning some other mechanism is responsible for the origin of life. If that something isn't a god, then it is something besides god and abiogenesis. But .... again ... evolution does not care because it has no dependence on HOW life began.

So there are no other mechanisms. We only have two choices; naturalism, or supernaturalism.

No problem there.

So, if God is out of the equation, evolution isn't dependent upon abiogenesis being true? Is that what you are saying?

Bingo! Evolution isn't dependent on ANY mechanism for the origin of life, natural or supernatural. That is the fundamental point "us people" have been trying to make.

And the fact of the matter is, if God doesn't exist, then evolution is dependent upon the truth value of abiogenesis. There is just no other way around it.

See above, and above that, and prior posts ... evolution has no dependence on the mechanism for the origin of life.

Yes it does...because if abiogenesis is false, then evolution is false (without God).

See above.

So explain to me how life can evolve if God doesn't exist and evolution is false.

What ... did you mean abiogenesis there instead of evolution? I'll assume that was a typo or we're way off the rails.

So if abiogenesis is false and life fails to originate, then life can still begin to evolve? Ridiculous.

Yes ... that's ridiculous. Life must come into being SOMEHOW. The point (again) is that the mechanism by which this occurs has no dependence on evolution working, because evolution only requires SOME mechanism for the origin of life so it has material to work with. If it isn't a god, or abiogenesis, then it is something else. But ToE doesn't care.

[benchwarmer]

We have proof how the airplane fly.

Sorry, I don't follow this. It seems English is not your first language. No insult or slight intended, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

We have proof THAT airplanes fly, that is true. However, the proof of them flying does not explain HOW they fly.

It has a BEGIN. And we known how many tried the did before the have fly one. You see you tried to bring logic. And it have a beginning.

This makes no sense.

We already knew things could fly, they are called birds. Man decided to try and emulate them long before fully understanding exactly how they manage to fly.

That right there is the explanation of how airplanes came into existence. Man decided to build something that looked sort of like a bird and hoped for the best. Trial and error eventually found something that works. If they knew right from the start what was required, there wouldn't have been so many failed attempts.

So, as you can see, the explanation of how something came to be does absolutely nothing to explain how something works.

Same principal with how life began (how airplanes get built) and how life evolves (understanding how airplanes fly).

My friend the most scientists now, are searching proof from the Bible.

Now you are just making stuff up. Scientists are most definitely not searching for proof from the Bible. That isn't science, that's religion.

I'm sure many scientists READ the Bible and many are probably also Christians, but that doesn't mean they figure out how things work by reading the Bible. If they do, they are terrible scientists and won't get very far with peer review.

And who you will think that has find Babylonian?

? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything...

They have found the arc of Noah.

No, they haven't. A few people claim to have found it (in different spots), but every claim has been found to either be a fraud or not really an ark.

Ain't peer review great? It stops people from spreading lies as truth.

The have discover where Eden was. And I can tell you many more discovery. So we have proofs that there is God.

No, they haven't discovered that either. Again, more claims, no solid evidence. If there was proof that there is a god, someone would be claiming a nobel prize and the entire world would be converting en masse at the sight of this undeniable proof.

An other question. Why the monkeys is still alive and all the others who has evolutioned becam a man? If the monkys are still alive, and you first parents pass away?

This is like asking why your cousin Mark is still alive after your parents have both died. Do you expect your relatives to die when your parents die? That's an odd belief.

[Pipiripi]

Correction: The koala is not a bear.

Oh, my bad. The whole "bear" thing threw me off. SMH.

How did you determine which animals were dogs and which animals were cats?

Because each one of them are producing after their kinds.

Obviously there are certain characteristics that distinguish the two genera.

I agree, there are certain characteristics that distinguish the dog "kind" from the bear "kind".

Can you list the features that all cats and dogs have in common? Here is a starter: they are mammals, quadripeds, have two eyes, two ears, heart, liver, kidneys, brain, hair, jaw with teeth, ....

Now, your turn. List the features that clearly distinguish one genus from the other.

Do you have young children/grandchildren? Or how about any young nieces/nephews? Get urself pictures of a husky, wolf, coyote, and tiger...and show each of the children these pictures...and ask them "which animal is different than the rest".

If the children say "tiger", then they will know the "distinguishing" factors...and if those children can know it, why can't adults? I will tell you why; because the children aren't looking at the pictures with presuppositions...adults are.

I have seen fish with no eyes. Something went wrong with his evolution. That poor fish. I think he have to wait some couples of billion years for his eyes opened. What do you think?

[brunumb]

Can you list the features that all cats and dogs have in common? Here is a starter: they are mammals, quadripeds, have two eyes, two ears, heart, liver, kidneys, brain, hair, jaw with teeth, ....

Now, your turn. List the features that clearly distinguish one genus from the other.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Do you have young children/grandchildren? Or how about any young nieces/nephews? Get urself pictures of a husky, wolf, coyote, and tiger...and show each of the children these pictures...and ask them "which animal is different than the rest".

If the children say "tiger", then they will know the "distinguishing" factors...and if those children can know it, why can't adults? I will tell you why; because the children aren't looking at the pictures with presuppositions...adults are.

Asking someone to pick the odd one out is hardly a test for the the identification of animal genera. Are you unable to list the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs? Or is it because you can see where this is going and prefer to dodge?

Try listing the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I have seen fish with no eyes. Something went wrong with his evolution. That poor fish. I think he have to wait some couples of billion years for his eyes opened. What do you think?

LOL. Good point. I guess natural selection was very "selective" on the day that it was handing out eyes.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 145 by Pipiripi]

I have seen fish with no eyes. Something went wrong with his evolution. That poor fish. I think he have to wait some couples of billion years for his eyes opened. What do you think?

Nothing went wrong. In a permanently dark environment where sight is not an advantage offspring that do not have eyes may be favoured. This is because it costs energy to build and use eyes in an organism and that energy is wasted if the eyes serve no useful purpose. Over many generations the eyes can lose their function as offspring with diminished sight use their energy for other survival traits.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Asking someone to pick the odd one out is hardly a test for the the identification of animal genera. Are you unable to list the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs? Or is it because you can see where this is going and prefer to dodge?

Try listing the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs.

Who is dodging? The point is; a husky, a wolf, and a coyote are clearly the same "kind" of animal. Clearly. But since you want specifics, we can make this fairly simple..

Dog: a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.

Cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.

Two different definitions, right? Well, there you go. That is your distinction.

[brunumb]

Asking someone to pick the odd one out is hardly a test for the the identification of animal genera. Are you unable to list the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs? Or is it because you can see where this is going and prefer to dodge?

Try listing the features that clearly distinguish between cats and dogs.

Who is dodging? The point is; a husky, a wolf, and a coyote are clearly the same "kind" of animal. Clearly. But since you want specifics, we can make this fairly simple..

Dog: a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.

Cat: a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.

Two different definitions, right? Well, there you go. That is your distinction.

Some of the features mentioned in your definitions can be regarded as quite variable and also common. But, I didn't ask for definitions. I asked you to list the features that clearly distinguish between them. Can you do that?