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 209 by Pipiripi]

My existence : CREATOR -- THE GOD -- JEHOVAH.
HIS SON : JESUS OF NAZARETH.
MY STORY BEGIN: IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATES.
IN THE BIBLE: NAMES OF THE FIRST HUMANS.
MY NAME IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIVE.
I WILL LIVE FOR ETERNITY.
IF I DIE, I HAVE HOPE.
EVOLUTION: IF YOU DIE THERE IS NO HOPE.
ISN'T IT BETTER TO BELIEVE IN GOD?

Unfortunately you have simply stated that you believe that the bible is an accurate historical document, then concluded that everything in it is therefore true. None of the items in your list above has any basis in science or observation ... you are simply preaching.

There is no evidence or other reason to believe that humans have some kind of life after death. Evolution is based on scientific observation, and the most probable fate of humans who die is that their existence in the universe ends apart from whatever is done with the corpse that remains.

It is fantasy and wishful thinking to believe anything else (because there is no evidence for any other alternative), and different religions describe different scenarios which cannot all be correct. You just happen to have chosen one popular religion and believe what it teaches, and I expect you would discard the descriptions from other religions as far as life after death scenarios simply because they don't agree with the description in your chosen holy book ... just like you discard evolution without any legitimate reason for doing so other than that it is not consistent with your religious beliefs.

Go see on you tube. Muslim converted to Christianity, and see for yourself of these people who don't accept Jesus, listen what they say about their encounters with Jesus. Not by a missionary. Go see before we talk again. See for you to believe. We believed and see everything spiritual.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 211 by Pipiripi]

Go see on you tube. Muslim converted to Christianity, and see for yourself of these people who don't accept Jesus...

Not sure what the point was there ... a search on YouTube of "Muslim converted to Christianity" just produces random links to videos on the general subject. If there is one in particular you are referencing please provide the link.

However, this may be a better reference for who is converting to which religions:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

As a percentage of global population, Islam is growing far faster than Christianity or any other religion. What does this say about views towards Jesus, who muslims believe was just another prophet? If you scroll down a little farther in the above article, it is predicted that 10 people will switch out of Christianity for every 4 people switching in, while for Islam there are more people switching in than out.

But none of this has anything to do with your stance on evolution and whether it is a valid scientific theory operating in the real world. Evolutionary theory is based on observations and analysis, independent of any religious viewpoints, so has nothing to do with who believes what religion any more than the theory of tectonic plate movement or the theory of Relativity.

[benchwarmer]

Go see on you tube. Muslim converted to Christianity, and see for yourself of these people who don't accept Jesus, listen what they say about their encounters with Jesus. Not by a missionary. Go see before we talk again. See for you to believe. We believed and see everything spiritual.

Is it possible for you to please stay on topic? In the evolution thread you are preaching about conversion and in apologetics threads you are complaining about evolution.

It's hard for us to take you seriously if you are going to keep spinning wildly off topic.

To try to pull this back on topic, you want us to watch videos on youtube and expect us to believe this is hard evidence for something when you yourself fail to go search out the actual hard evidence for evolution? I suggest a biology class in genetics with lab work.

[Pipiripi]

[Replying to post 211 by Pipiripi]

Go see on you tube. Muslim converted to Christianity, and see for yourself of these people who don't accept Jesus...

Not sure what the point was there ... a search on YouTube of "Muslim converted to Christianity" just produces random links to videos on the general subject. If there is one in particular you are referencing please provide the link.

However, this may be a better reference for who is converting to which religions:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

As a percentage of global population, Islam is growing far faster than Christianity or any other religion. What does this say about views towards Jesus, who muslims believe was just another prophet? If you scroll down a little farther in the above article, it is predicted that 10 people will switch out of Christianity for every 4 people switching in, while for Islam there are more people switching in than out.

But none of this has anything to do with your stance on evolution and whether it is a valid scientific theory operating in the real world. Evolutionary theory is based on observations and analysis, independent of any religious viewpoints, so has nothing to do with who believes what religion any more than the theory of tectonic plate movement or the theory of Relativity.

My bible teached that a FEW ENTERED GOD'S KINGDOM, SO JUST LIKE YOU ALSO MANY WHO BELIEVED ADON'T ALSO ENTER.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 211 by Pipiripi]

Go see on you tube. Muslim converted to Christianity, and see for yourself of these people who don't accept Jesus...

Not sure what the point was there ... a search on YouTube of "Muslim converted to Christianity" just produces random links to videos on the general subject. If there is one in particular you are referencing please provide the link.

However, this may be a better reference for who is converting to which religions:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

As a percentage of global population, Islam is growing far faster than Christianity or any other religion. What does this say about views towards Jesus, who muslims believe was just another prophet? If you scroll down a little farther in the above article, it is predicted that 10 people will switch out of Christianity for every 4 people switching in, while for Islam there are more people switching in than out.

But none of this has anything to do with your stance on evolution and whether it is a valid scientific theory operating in the real world. Evolutionary theory is based on observations and analysis, independent of any religious viewpoints, so has nothing to do with who believes what religion any more than the theory of tectonic plate movement or the theory of Relativity.

My bible teached that a FEW ENTERED GOD'S KINGDOM, SO JUST LIKE YOU ALSO MANY WHO BELIEVED ADON'T ALSO ENTER.

Your Bible was written by ignorant iron age sheep herders who had no real idea of the workings of the world around them, so they made up stories and then contrived to believe them. Just as every other religion has done.

[Pipiripi]

[Replying to post 211 by Pipiripi]

Go see on you tube. Muslim converted to Christianity, and see for yourself of these people who don't accept Jesus...

Not sure what the point was there ... a search on YouTube of "Muslim converted to Christianity" just produces random links to videos on the general subject. If there is one in particular you are referencing please provide the link.

However, this may be a better reference for who is converting to which religions:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/reli ... 2010-2050/

As a percentage of global population, Islam is growing far faster than Christianity or any other religion. What does this say about views towards Jesus, who muslims believe was just another prophet? If you scroll down a little farther in the above article, it is predicted that 10 people will switch out of Christianity for every 4 people switching in, while for Islam there are more people switching in than out.

But none of this has anything to do with your stance on evolution and whether it is a valid scientific theory operating in the real world. Evolutionary theory is based on observations and analysis, independent of any religious viewpoints, so has nothing to do with who believes what religion any more than the theory of tectonic plate movement or the theory of Relativity.

My bible teached that a FEW ENTERED GOD'S KINGDOM, SO JUST LIKE YOU ALSO MANY WHO BELIEVED ADON'T ALSO ENTER.

Your Bible was written by ignorant iron age sheep herders who had no real idea of the workings of the world around them, so they made up stories and then contrived to believe them. Just as every other religion has done.

We have proofs and till today miracles happened before your face. In that monkeys business of you there's any evidence. your great great great mom and dad is in the zoo. Helpt them come out and take them home with you. Ask they how many years they are here, and all the others manapes died before them. And also ask grandma why the evolution stop. Because you want to talk to them. Tel you grand ma, I think her name is CHITA, she was a movie star. Making movie with Tarzan in the jungle. All Tarzan died, but grand ma Chita is still alive. 😨😨😨 AMAZING MONKEY BUSINESS.

[For_The_Kingdom]

SMH. So this is the price of atheism^.

It's a bonus, a perk.

I will leave you to your absurdities.

The record shows otherwise, and I quote "and since it is false and being passed off as true, that makes the answer; dishonest."

That depends on whether you "know" it to be false but is passing it off as true. I personally don't know whether you know it is false or not...but either way, a lie is a lie no matter how sincere you are in telling it.

That it is demonstrably true is a good reason.

LOL.

Only because you asked nicely, "Hey! Dead mouse! Legs are good enough for your species survival!" Eaten mouse don't read internet posts, as expected. Now what?

SMH. Moving along..

No need, what they have are good enough.

If what they had was good enough, they wouldn't be eaten...at least not at the same rate that they are eaten now.

Okay, but I am not interested in religious reasons.

Ok, then I will just give you non-observational/non-experimental/non-predictional* reasons.

Your conclusion does not follow: simple does not imply quick, nor would complexity imply slow.

Then I guess we have our differences on what is considered "simple" or otherwise complex.

The answer is still the same, wing works fine for some, legs works fine for others.

If being at the bottom of the food chain is what you mean by "working fine", then I guess we disagree with what "working fine" means.

It's takes more step to draw a good painting than a stick figure, but how does that mean there is deeper meaning?

Because if drawing a stick figure of a person requires intelligence, then drawing a painting of a person (Mona Lisa) requires even more intelligence.

The same answer would work, "no particular reason, I just ran out of cup cakes."

You say "no particular reason", and then proceed to give a "particular reason"..literally contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

"I am not currently married, but right now I am married to Beyonce" LOL.

If running out of cupcakes counts as "particular" then what's wrong with the particular reason you were already given: Wings work for birds and legs work for hamsters.

Again, we have different definition of "works".

I meant other than theology.

Sorry, can't do it. We talked about "what works" in this discussion, and I am convinced that theology "works"...or at least has more explanatory power than any naturalistic answer you can provide.

You conclusion that macro evolution isn't science, does not follow from the premise that I have not any experience with reptile-bird transformation.

If you believe in any of those things despite answering "no" to those three questions, then you are not believing in science.

Try asking if I or other scientist have observed a macro-scale transformation in nature?

Try asking if I or other scientists have ever conducted an experiment in nature that will get you a macro-scale transformation?

Try asking if I or other scientists can make any educated prediction regarding macro-scale transformation?

Had you asked that instead you'd get 3 for 3.

Practically the same thing I asked. I still got you down 0-3.

So too is Macroevolution...we can see it, we conduct experiments, and we can make predictions. SCIENCE!!!

You, I, nor anyone else have ever seen a a reptile-bird kind of transformation in nature. To claim otherwise is being disingenuous, if not flat out lying.

I am talking specifically about a reptile-bird kind of transformation in nature...which is what I call macroevolution. But regardless of what we "label" the change as, the fact of the matter is; we've never seen it.

Request noted and denied. I will say fossils.

"I see the fossilized remains of a long-dead animal. Therefore, reptiles evolved into birds".

Non sequitur. See, I knew fossils wouldn't work..I tried to prevent you from giving a fallacious answer, but hey..your desire to give a fallacious answer outweighed my attempt to prevent it.

That's good to hear. One fewer objection to evolution.

Jesus Christ <---one reason evolution isn't needed as a theory...when you have an agent of creation who can get the job done on the first try..and not depend on a trial/error process.

Facts are not things for you to agree or disagree on: reptile and bird are both vertebrates.

So what? That doesn't mean that one vertebrate evolved into the other, doesn't it? At least not in that way..nope. The evolutionist just simply have to assume that it happened that way...because that is the only way it could have happened according to their naturalistic worldview.

Sure, it could. But unless you are implying that genetics cannot mean evolution,your response here brings nothing to the table.

And unless you are implying that genetics cannot mean common designer , then your mentioning of genetics brings nothing to the table.

But since you already admitted that it could mean common designer, then you are also admitting that evolution cannot be a brute fact without intelligent design.

You asked for evidence, not proofs.

You are splitting hairs again. Proof is backed with good evidence. I am asking for "evidence which proves the absolute truth value (brute fact) of evolution without the existence of God".

You guys are claiming it is a brute fact with/without the existence of God...and I am asking for proof of such a demonstrably absolute statement. And so far, I have none.

And if by "prove" you meant scientific evidence, then you are simply incorrect. Fossils does indeed "prove" macroevolution.

"Because I discovered the fossilized remains of this long, dead animal; therefore, a reptile evolved into a bird".

Again, the conclusion does not (necessarily) follow from the discovery. Thus, non sequitur.

Incorrect. Speciation is the one most important aspect of macroevolution.

Nonsense. A "dog", a wolf, and a coyote are all different "species", but they are clearly the same kind of animal.

Tell me you give up and will never say one word about evolution ever again. Just a suggestion, I will accept that in lieu of you accepting the obvious.

You tell me that evolution cannot be a brute fact if abiogenesis is false and God does not exist...and we won't ever have to discuss the subject of evolution again.

And please don't waste any more of my time by mentioning "panspermia" in this context again.

Incorrect. The comparison here is to highlight whether they are the same kind or not. No one has ever implied that iphones evolved naturally form buses.

Then it is a faulty comparison...if you take out the "evolutionary process" in your example, then you aren't comparing it to what the subject is about...which is evolution.

So it is a false equivalency. It is fallacious reasoning, is what I am saying

Why yes, assuming by "prove" you meant provide scientific evidence.

The Big 3 (observation, experiment, prediction). That is what makes it scientific...not your Big 3, which is (faith, speculation, assumption).

But you are evoking things beyond the kinds, which is beyond observation, experiment, and prediction...or what I'd like to call; The Big Three.

Incorrect. I am evoking things within the kinds (vertebrates,) confirmed by observation, experiment, and prediction.

Foxes regularly catches birds you know.

Sure they do...no one is saying the system is perfect...but you guys are the ones making it seem like every thing is for survival...well, a bird relying on its wings will have a better chance of survival than one relying on its feet.

But after all, evolution is all about progress, not perfection, right?

I don't see where you are getting that impression from. Everything we have seen tells us rabbit can't evolve wings by preferring to fly.

You missed the point.

You've already stated the answer: For those animals with wings, it is because they've found it useful for survival. For those that don't have wings, it is because it just didn't "work for them."

Oh, so the hamsters had their "wing trial" already? How does that work? Evolution gives them a 30 day free trial with wings and if they don't like it, they return the wings...no obligations?

I disagree...they aren't the same kind.

So which one isn't a kind of vehicle, the motocycle or the Honda?

So which one isn't a kind of vertebrate? The crocodile or the ostrich?

So, "because crocodiles and ostriches are both vertebrates, that means one evolved into the other, or they both evolved from a common, distant relative".

Non sequitur.

Well there you go, vertebrate evolved into another vertebrate, proven!

There is a difference is a dog vertebrate evolving into another dog vertebrate...and a dog vertebrate evolving into a bird vertebrate.

Again, if you can't see the difference there, then I can't help you, old friend.

Easy enough to understand. Your turn, understand what I am telling you; which is that Macroevolution is what we can observe in nature. It is not beyond nature and hence that is not religion or faith. It is relying solely on the seen.

LOL. Forgive me, but that was funny.

The problem between us is hardly worth mentioning when you have a problem with science.

Voodoo science*

You say that, yet you insist it is a different kind to birds.

A fox is a different kind of animal than any kind of bird. I would think that anyone without an axe to grind would agree with me there.

A fox doesn't have to be a bird to be the same kind as birds.

Same kind of what?

Lets start by the obvious similarity between crocs and ostriches, both lay eggs

Crickets lay eggs, too. Point?

, 4 limbs

If an ostriches' wings were on its head, it can still be said to have "4 limbs", and just because they have that in common does not necessarily imply macroevolution.

, and since we are talking about vertebrates, their bone structures.

One has a long stout, and one has a beak...yeah, identical twins.

No, you are never going to get that.

I understand, gotta keep the religion alive.

But I am still hopeful you'd eventually drop the "kinds" argument against evolution.

"No, you are never going to get that".

Right, but my point was, the existence of theistic evolutionists is surely enough to show that evolution isn't something that is trivially false.

Yeah, but the theistic evolutionists recognize that even if evolution does happen, it happens because of the divine hand that is driving it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If I had to put money on it, my money is on OEC, all day. But no, I just don't accept that micro evolution has been occurring nonstop, generation, from beginning to present.

From what I can tell, OEC is consistent with long, micro evolutionary changes from beginning to end.

What is OEC, if not another name for theistic evolution?

Exactly what it is...OEC with microevolution...without the additional, non-observant, non-experimental, and non-predictive phenomena of macroevolution.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, great. So billions of years , countless millions of generational mutations in an organism's ancestry from the earliest life to present day, yes?

Billions of years with countless of millions of generational mutations, each mutation limited to its own kind.

[benchwarmer]

If being at the bottom of the food chain is what you mean by "working fine", then I guess we disagree with what "working fine" means.

"Working fine" in this context means that they are surviving long enough to reproduce, not that FtK thinks too many are getting eaten for his/her tastes.

You have this warped idea about evolution that it should be causing everything to survive and escape getting eaten. This is just your straw man view of the actual theory.

If legs weren't "working fine" there would be no more mice. Clearly there are tons of them, so it is indeed "working fine". Perhaps if they were intelligently designed by an all loving god, then none of them would be getting eaten and they would all have wings. I guess that proves there's no god huh?