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)?

[H.sapiens]

...

We all have our opinions.

Yes, but you insist on having your own facts also.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I never claimed to be a subject matter expert

I said "act as if you are", didn't I?

, but I have at least learned what the actual definition of the TOE is.

I've learned it too..which is why I can confidently not agree that it occurred.

Your question is nonsensical. Why do some animals GET to change? What does that even mean? It sounds like you think the animals are deciding to change or are allowed by something to change. Clearly you aren't listening to anything we are telling you.

It is a pretty straight-forward question...an honest, genuine, straight-forward question. You are telling me that certain animals evolved wings...and I am simply asking you why did those animals evolve wings, while other animals didn't?

I really would like to know. I mean, there has to be a natural answer to this, shouldn't there be?

Mutations happen. You have already agreed on this. Are you suggesting the parent organisms are choosing what mutations happen? That's what your question sounds like.

Why did birds evolve to have wings, and other animals didn't. What was so special about birds that they got the wings? Do tell.

Let's take an example. A fox pup is born with a mutation that renders one of it's legs useless. Clearly this makes it slower than all the other 'normal' foxes who do not have this mutation. Did the foxes choose this situation? No. It just happens.

Nonsense. Because even with the one "useless" leg, the fox still isn't changing into a fundamentally different animal than the rest of the foxes. That is a completely different concept than a crocodile evolving into an ostrich (in 5 minutes or a million years, doesn't matter).

So, that is a false equivalency. An obvious one, at that.

Do you think maybe this fox might have a harder time surviving?

Maybe. But then again, I think a rabbit would have a BETTER TIME SURVIVING if it evolved wings to escape from predators. Yet, no wings. So it works both ways.

How might that affect it's chances to reproduce? Do you think that if this fox manages to reproduce, it's pups with the same mutation will also have a harder time to survive?

That is irrelevant. We are talking about the "changing of a kind". If the fox with the useless leg will have trouble surviving, along with mating..then the fox may very well die off....but nevertheless, it would die off as a FOX, not as an animal who was in a mid-morph change into a different kind of animal. It was born a fox, it lived as a fox, and it will die as a fox.

Again, false equivalency.

In other words, do you think this mutation will eventually spread to a large part of the population or will it likely die out due to the issues these foxes will have surviving?

As long as I keep seeing "fox" in your analogy, it has no equivalency to what I am against, and that is the whole reptile-bird thing...something of which you, I, or anyone else have ever observed in nature.

That is something that you simply accept and believe by faith.

That is natural selection.

Natural selection "selects"..and you can only "select" something if there is something already there to "select" from. So obviously, in your analogy, "useless" legs was already in the fox' gene pool, which would probably make the hunting and mating difficult, therefore decreasing the foxs' chances of survival.

So once that fox died off, and only the "useful" legged foxes existed, then you will have even more generations of "useful" legged foxes...because all of the useless legged foxes would have died off, along with their gene pools of "useless legged" traits.

However, either way, whether we are talking about useful or useless, the animal was still a fox. It isn't changing into a bird or a snake (or any other fundamentally different non-fox)....so that analogy has NOTHING to do with what I am picketing against...and natural selection has NOTHING to do with macroevolution.

SMH.

A very simple concept which I'm sure you actually understand, but can't bring yourself to admit as it somehow (not sure how) destroys your religious beliefs.

Continually harping on science and observable reality as 'faith' is not winning you any arguments.

And you harping on science instead of Jesus Christ isn't winning you any salvation.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Sorry, but I really have to LOL and SMH at that one

Making a choice as to where you'd like to spend eternity is no laughing matter.

You are suggesting we stop explaining what is observable and start making stuff up based on ancient stories with no physical evidence to back them up?

Have you observed any kind of reptile-bird transformations in nature? No, you haven't. So much for observable stuff being explained.

That will take a lot more energy and is doomed to failure under any real scrutiny. There's a reason it's called apologetics.

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Christianity

That is the reason.

You have to continually apologize for the stories making no sense and make some stuff up to make it work. I don't have the energy for that.

Okey dokey.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 169 by For_The_Kingdom]

A lawyer? HAHAHAHAHA. Matthew 26:53.

"Lawyer" LMAO SMH.

Of course ... if you are able to summon up twelve legions of angels who needs lawyers?:

Matthew 26:53 New International Version (NIV)

53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

I'd like to see any christian pull that one in a court of law. And why didn't Jesus use that trump card at the time ... sure would have been a better alternative than being crucified don't you think?

It was reported. Certain women followers found the tomb empty, and "reported" it to the apostles, who "reported" it to everyone else...and when Jesus appeared to a select few disciples on one occasion, not all of the disciples were there...so they "reported" it to the others, specifically, Thomas (John 20:15-28).

So it was "reported" during the time it supposedly happened.

No it wasn't. These "reports" were not written down until decades after the event, by people who weren't there (and BTW, you are quick to use that kind of fact when refuting evolution ... ie. that no one was there to see it happen). There were no descriptions of all these miracles, or a resurrection, during the time Jesus supposedly lived. They are stories told long after the events supposedly took place.

SMH indeed.

[Bust Nak]

It is a pretty straight-forward question...an honest, genuine, straight-forward question. You are telling me that certain animals evolved wings...and I am simply asking you why did those animals evolve wings, while other animals didn't?

Some evolved wings because wings worked for them, while others didn't because not having wings worked for them.

Why did birds evolve to have wings, and other animals didn't. What was so special about birds that they got the wings? Do tell.

Why treat birds as the special ones? Why not ask us what is so special about non-winged organisms that we don't have wings? You need to stop looking at nature with the "there is a grand plan" goggles on if you are searching for, or wanting to understand the natural explanation.

Nonsense. Because even with the one "useless" leg, the fox still isn't changing into a fundamentally different animal than the rest of the foxes.

What makes one crocodile fundamentally different to an ostrich? Sure there are differences, and it's obvious that a fox is more similar to a dog than an ostrich or crocodile, but how are you drawing the line in the sand and say this is similar enough but this is too different?

Maybe. But then again, I think a rabbit would have a BETTER TIME SURVIVING if it evolved wings to escape from predators. Yet, no wings. So it works both ways.

Right, because legs for rabbit are good enough. Do you think it is surprising that rabbits don't have wings?

Natural selection "selects"..and you can only "select" something if there is something already there to "select" from...

Right, now consider this supposedly useless leg gene turned out to be very useful in a neighbouring forest, and is selected for in that forest, over time you would have two kinds of animals, the orignal field fox kind, and the new forest fox kind - i.e. a non-field fox kind coming from a field fox kind. A change which can be considered "fundament" if you were to draw the line for "similar enough" very narrowly.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 169 by For_The_Kingdom]

A lawyer? HAHAHAHAHA. Matthew 26:53.

"Lawyer" LMAO SMH.

Of course ... if you are able to summon up twelve legions of angels who needs lawyers?:

Matthew 26:53 New International Version (NIV)

53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

I mean, not only that, though. If you prefer a less combative route; heck, lawyer? Ok, well God (The Father) would be Jesus' lawyer, then. What better lawyer than that?

So still. SMH.

I'd like to see any christian pull that one in a court of law. And why didn't Jesus use that trump card at the time ... sure would have been a better alternative than being crucified don't you think?

SMH. I know I get a lot of flack for "SMH" on here. But seriously, what more can I do in situations like this? Is it even worth explaining?

No it wasn't. These "reports" were not written down until decades after the event, by people who weren't there

The argument is that the given story/narratives were ORIGINATED by those who were there...and if that is the case, when the stories were written becomes irrelevant.

(and BTW, you are quick to use that kind of fact when refuting evolution ... ie. that no one was there to see it happen).

First off, I make the case that there were those around to see it happen...and second, the case for the Resurrection is based on historical methodology, not scientific methodology.

You do understand the difference, don't you?

There were no descriptions of all these miracles, or a resurrection, during the time Jesus supposedly lived.

Before the written accounts, there were oral accounts. This was long before television, radio, telegrams, internet, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter...and the vast majority of the population couldn't read or write anyway.

Information was passed down through word of mouth. You make it seem as if there wasn't a mention about Jesus/Christianity until decades after his crucifixion...which the exact opposite is true..according to Paul's testimony..and Paul was a contemporary to both Jesus, AND the original apostles.

They are stories told long after the events supposedly took place.

Christianity originated shortly after Jesus' death, sir. The BELIEF in Jesus was held shortly after his death. The written accounts, of course, appeared later, which is irrelevant to when the stories originated.

[Divine Insight]

In fact, to the contrary Jesus actually instructed his disciples to not even bother with people who aren't interested in what they have to say.

And if you are in discussions with people who demand evidence for Christianity, I would say that those people who are demanding evidence are "interested in what you have to say".

Who's demanding evidence for Christianity?

I simply point out why the religion is clearly false.

You're the one who gets all bent out of shape feeling that you need to come up with apologies and defense for an indefensible religion simply because other people have recognized that it's nothing more than a clearly false ancient social mythology.

And after failing miserably to provide any meaningful apologies for this failed religion you resort to the following tactic.

He instructed his disciples and others to accept him as Lord and Savior and that he alone is the way to salvation. Have you done that? No? Well, I have.

It's so easy to recognize when an apologist has run out of gas.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 176 by For_The_Kingdom]

Before the written accounts, there were oral accounts. This was long before television, radio, telegrams, internet, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter...and the vast majority of the population couldn't read or write anyway.

And I'm sure you appreciate that oral transmission of stories over time very often results in embellishment and exaggeration. What may have been a simple, everyday event when witnessed live can easily turn into a fantastic miracle after the story has been told and retold many times through many people, all orally.

That is the big problem with oral transmissions, but there were scribes and other people who did have the ability write down things during Roman times. If there was a guy walking around healing people and performing miracles, then being crucified and resurrected, and (especially!) graveyards emptying when news spread of this event to dance in the streets, someone at the time would have written this stuff down. But that never happened. Why restrict news of these events to oral transmission only during the actual times they were happening, and only see written descriptions decades later? You don't find that hard to believe? Or impossible to take literally?

You make it seem as if there wasn't a mention about Jesus/Christianity until decades after his crucifixion...which the exact opposite is true..according to Paul's testimony..and Paul was a contemporary to both Jesus, AND the original apostles.

Did Paul write any of this down while he was alive and breaking bread with his buddy Jesus? He had his revelation in 37 CE on the road to Damascus, and according to his writings, he "saw a blinding light, fell to the ground unconscious, heard voices, and became temporarily blinded" (from link below). During this episode, Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him. He didn't pen his first Epistle until 52 CE ... 15 years later. He never actually saw Jesus in the flesh as far as anyone knows, so I don't think you can claim that he was hanging around with Jesus or wrote anything down at the time of the events. Apparently no one else did either.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Jesus- ... es-No-Clue

The written accounts, of course, appeared later, which is irrelevant to when the stories originated.

Unless the oral accounts were embellished as they were told and retold, which is by far the most common thing that happens when humans are involved. That is my point ... that these after-the-fact stories were likely heavily embellished and exaggerated, or outright fabricated to support the new religion and create a divine aspect to the Jesus character.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Some evolved wings because wings worked for them, while others didn't because not having wings worked for them.

Obviously, every animal that has a trait/characteristic; they have it because it "works for them". The horns on the ram "works for it", but that doesn't explain why the ram has it and other animals don't...unless something/someone is selectively choosing which animals gets what.

And I don't think such selections are "natural".

Why treat birds as the special ones? Why not ask us what is so special about non-winged organisms that we don't have wings?

Sure, you can name any arbitrary trait/characteristic an animal has and ask the same question. No problems there.

You need to stop looking at nature with the "there is a grand plan" goggles on if you are searching for, or wanting to understand the natural explanation.

A digestive system to digest food...an immune system to fight diseases...a circulatory system for blood flow, etc. Those systems are specified systems with specified parts for specified functions of the anatomy.

I will call such specified complexity a "grand plan/design", and so would you in any other circumstance in nature except for the one circumstance at which if you believe otherwise, it will shatter your worldview.

What makes one crocodile fundamentally different to an ostrich?

SMH. I'm not gonna even answer this..

Sure there are differences, and it's obvious that a fox is more similar to a dog than an ostrich or crocodile, but how are you drawing the line in the sand and say this is similar enough but this is too different?

And as I said, foxes are in the "dog" category, obviously.

Right, because legs for rabbit are good enough.

And legs are good enough for birds, too. *cough* ostrich. If it works for ostriches, why can't it work for all birds.

Do you think it is surprising that rabbits don't have wings?

If you are a rabbit and you have this giant wolf coming after you...would you rather run away from it, or fly away from it? I don't know about you, but I choose the latter. Just sayin'.

Right, now consider this supposedly useless leg gene turned out to be very useful in a neighbouring forest, and is selected for in that forest, over time you would have two kinds of animals, the orignal field fox kind, and the new forest fox kind - i.e. a non-field fox kind coming from a field fox kind. A change which can be considered "fundament" if you were to draw the line for "similar enough" very narrowly.

It is still a fox, though...isn't it? There can be as many different varieties within the fox/dog kind you like...but it is still a fox.

You think you are slick by making the distinction between a "field fox" and a "forest fox". LOL.

Bruh..it is still a fox..but that has no equivalency to a reptile-bird type of transformation.

I wish you guys knock it off with these false equivalencies.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Who's demanding evidence for Christianity?

I simply point out why the religion is clearly false.

I was speaking in general.

You're the one who gets all bent out of shape feeling that you need to come up with apologies and defense

In a way I feel like I "need to". That is another story.

for an indefensible religion simply because other people have recognized that it's nothing more than a clearly false ancient social mythology.

And it is my belief that abiogenesis followed by macroevolution is a indefensible position that most believers recognize as nothing more than voodoo science and bio-technical babble.

It's so easy to recognize when an apologist has run out of gas.

It is also easy to tell who gets in..and who gets left out.