Evolution, directed or un-directed?

Tart · Post by **Tart** » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:49 am

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)?

For_The_Kingdom · Post by **For_The_Kingdom** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:20 pm

brunumb wrote:
No, they are not. Let's say you were shown a series of photographs of an animal you had never seen before. You are told it is definitely of the cat "kind" or the dog "kind". You already know that each has many features in common, examples of which I listed for you earlier. Now, what distinguishing features would you look for in order to determine exactly which one it belonged to?

I would take a look at those definitions I gave you, and compared what I saw to the definitions...and whichever definition closely mirrored what I saw, I would determine that the animal I saw was the same kind of animal as defined in the definition.

For_The_Kingdom · Post by **For_The_Kingdom** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:37 pm

benchwarmer wrote: This seems to be another common misconception about evolution. Just because you think something should appear because it's advantageous, does not mean it will.

Well, since you act as if you are the subject matter expert on this subject, you tell me. The same question you guys as me when I say "there are limits to the changes", and you ask me, "Well, what mechanism will stop it from changing to x, y, or z".

Well, I will ask you something similar, why do some animals get to change based on what is advantageous to them, and some don't?

benchwarmer wrote: Eyes did not appear because there was light, eyes appeared due to a mutation that survived and eventually became advantageous to the point that those without it were out breeded in environments where eyes are useful.

The initial beginnings of eyes were probably not advantageous at all. They simply had to not be a disadvantage for enough generations until finally some organism started gaining an advantage due to having a light sensitive patch.

You can preach a sermon with all of that faith going on there.

benchwarmer wrote: In other words, not every mutation has to be useful. It may remain useless for a very long time until something gains an advantage from it. It can easily go the other way too. Some mutation might be benign for a very long time and then as the environment changes it becomes a disadvantage and those with it can no longer survive long enough to breed. Natural selection in action.

Faith in action, too.

For_The_Kingdom · Post by **For_The_Kingdom** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:40 pm

[Replying to post 159 by DrNoGods]

Come to Christian theism. All of the energy/effort you put into defending the truth value of evolution, put all of that energy into defending Jesus Christ. Join me in doing just that.

brunumb · Post by **brunumb** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:55 pm

[Replying to post 161 by For_The_Kingdom]

I would take a look at those definitions I gave you, and compared what I saw to the definitions...and whichever definition closely mirrored what I saw, I would determine that the animal I saw was the same kind of animal as defined in the definition.

Well, I will ask you something similar, why do some animals get to change based on what is advantageous to them, and some don't?

The two quotes above demonstrate that you do not appreciate or understand animal morphology or evolution through natural selection. Your responses amount to nothing more than dismissal without presenting any valid arguments. It is pointless attempting to inform someone whose mind is clearly closed against anything which might challenge cherished beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.

You have shown that you are unable to provide any criteria for irrefutably distinguishing between cat "kind" and "dog" kind. Your response did not rise above the simplistic level that a child might give with no appreciation of what is involved in science. There is no faith involved in the scientific method. It is an approach to investigation aimed at eliminating the sort of nonsense that creeps in through the imagination and faith.

The main factors driving evolution are changes to the environmental niche of an organism and changes to their genetic composition. You have had it all explained here and you could also enhance your understanding by reading elsewhere. It appears that you would prefer not to understand.

Goodbye.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:10 pm

[Replying to post 163 by For_The_Kingdom]

Come to Christian theism. All of the energy/effort you put into defending the truth value of evolution, put all of that energy into defending Jesus Christ. Join me in doing just that.

No thanks ... I got enough of that during my first 18 years of life living in a very christian household and spending way too many hours in churches, bible camps, bible schools, etc.

A very good lawyer is what Jesus needed to defend him against the Romans, but it is amazing that his followers, well after he died (if he actually did exist as a real person), were able to build such a massive religion on stories of miracles and a resurrection that were never reported during the time they supposedly happened. Doesn't that make you question the entire basis of the religion just a little bit? It has far less evidence for probable truth than even abiogenesis.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:38 pm

For_The_Kingdom wrote: [Replying to post 159 by DrNoGods]

Come to Christian theism. All of the energy/effort you put into defending the truth value of evolution, put all of that energy into defending Jesus Christ. Join me in doing just that.

Why in the world would Jesus Christ need to be defended by anyone?

Did Jesus instruct his disciples to go out and defend him?

I don't think so.

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. He told them specifically to leave people who aren't interested in hearing what they have to say and simply walk away.

So how in the world did you twist Christian theism into being about defending Jesus Christ? That's not even what the religion is about.

benchwarmer · Post by **benchwarmer** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:56 pm

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
benchwarmer wrote: This seems to be another common misconception about evolution. Just because you think something should appear because it's advantageous, does not mean it will.
Well, since you act as if you are the subject matter expert on this subject, you tell me. The same question you guys as me when I say "there are limits to the changes", and you ask me, "Well, what mechanism will stop it from changing to x, y, or z".

Well, I will ask you something similar, why do some animals get to change based on what is advantageous to them, and some don't?

I never claimed to be a subject matter expert, but I have at least learned what the actual definition of the TOE is. If that makes me 'an expert' in your eyes, so be it.

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.

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.

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

That is natural selection. 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.

benchwarmer · Post by **benchwarmer** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:00 pm

For_The_Kingdom wrote: [Replying to post 159 by DrNoGods]

Come to Christian theism. All of the energy/effort you put into defending the truth value of evolution, put all of that energy into defending Jesus Christ. Join me in doing just that.

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

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

For_The_Kingdom · Post by **For_The_Kingdom** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:59 pm

DrNoGods wrote: No thanks ... I got enough of that during my first 18 years of life living in a very christian household and spending way too many hours in churches, bible camps, bible schools, etc.

None of which are requirements for salvation/faith in Jesus Christ.

DrNoGods wrote: A very good lawyer is what Jesus needed to defend him against the Romans

A lawyer? HAHAHAHAHA. Matthew 26:53.

"Lawyer" LMAO SMH.

DrNoGods wrote: , but it is amazing that his followers, well after he died

As if "when" matters in this context.

DrNoGods wrote: (if he actually did exist as a real person)

"If" any person in antiquity existed as real people.

DrNoGods wrote: , were able to build such a massive religion on stories of miracles and a resurrection that were never reported during the time they supposedly happened.

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.

DrNoGods wrote: Doesn't that make you question the entire basis of the religion just a little bit?

No.

DrNoGods wrote: It has far less evidence for probable truth than even abiogenesis.

We all have our opinions.

For_The_Kingdom · Post by **For_The_Kingdom** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:13 pm

Divine Insight wrote:
Why in the world would Jesus Christ need to be defended by anyone?

First of all, who said anything about "need". You said that, not me. I don't do it because Christ "needs" me to do it..I do it because I love him and I'd like to bring people to him through apologetics.

Divine Insight wrote: Did Jesus instruct his disciples to go out and defend him?

I don't think so.

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.

The rest is what I do out of my love for him.

Divine Insight wrote: 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".

Divine Insight wrote: He told them specifically to leave people who aren't interested in hearing what they have to say and simply walk away.

Well, when someone tells me "I'm not interested", I will walk away.

Divine Insight wrote: So how in the world did you twist Christian theism into being about defending Jesus Christ? That's not even what the religion is about.

My lane is one of apologetics. If Jesus has a problem with me and what I do, then I will let him tell me. Not you.