You all accept evolution, correct? If not, what is your problem with it? The bible has plenty of metaphors, and the idea that God created us through evolution is perfectly compatible WITH evolution. Discuss!
Evolution
by DonExodus 50 Replies latest members adult
-
-
deaconbluez
You're absolutely right! With your post 1 of 1, you've been able to convince me that we all came about by a process of random mutation through a combination of law and chance! And you managed to do it in just one sentence!
-
darkuncle29
Evolution is like religion, everybody's got their own spin. My spin is that I am open to the possibility that evolution may have been a guided process, guided by minute quantum fluctuations, Van der waals forces or hydrogen bonding. Don't know, am not too concerned about it. I do not think it was random. But I also do not believe in a trademark God.
-
monophonic
i'm skeptical of god, jesus, darwin, allah, etc.
anyone who suggests they have the truth, whether it be evolutionism or creationism, i'm equally skeptical of.
darwinists can be as irritating as jws if they're preaching it the same way.
-
oompa
New tonight about a mutated germ that is causing problems. Most mutations are negitive changes not positive for the creature. I dont see them around me. The whole concept that if a lizard realy want to fly, he can not WILL himself to fly. God could have guided the process so it resulted in his desired changes though...oompa
-
funkyderek
DonExodus:
The bible has plenty of metaphors, and the idea that God created us through evolution is perfectly compatible WITH evolution. Discuss!
OK then. The problem with this is that evolution doesn't leave very much for a god to do. The principle of natural selection ensures that those organisms best equipped to survive are those that actually survive. All a god could add here is interference. He might like a particular colour and so artificially select for that, or throw in a non-random mutation when things aren't going the way he'd like. It's a lazy, cruel way of creating and further, it leaves no trace. All known life forms appear to have evolved completely naturally, there is no evidence anywhere of outside interference, but then the cosmic tinkerer may be too modest to leave a calling card. Such an entity, in the unlikely event that it exists, would have nothing at all to do with the god of the bible.
darkuncle29:
Evolution is like religion, everybody's got their own spin.
In a sense, but no more than, for example, relativity is like politics.
My spin is that I am open to the possibility that evolution may have been a guided process, guided by minute quantum fluctuations, Van der waals forces or hydrogen bonding.
I don't see how any of those effects could have a guiding influence but maybe you mean merely that they are contributory factors to the mutations that drive evolution.
I do not think it was random.
Nobody does (except creationists). Natural selection, the most widely accepted explanation for evolution is the exact opposite of randomness.
monophonic:
i'm skeptical of god, jesus, darwin, allah, etc.
Spot the odd one out! Three of those are imaginary beings, and one is a nineteenth century naturalist. Why group them together at all?
It's like saying: "I'm skeptical of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Einstein and the Tooth Fairy."
anyone who suggests they have the truth, whether it be evolutionism or creationism, i'm equally skeptical of.
Well, there's no point being skeptical of those who don't make any claims: ("I don't know anything." - "Well, I don't believe you!")
But not all claims to truth are equal. Some are based on wishful thinking or tradition, while some are based on evidence.
darwinists can be as irritating as jws if they're preaching it the same way.
Sure. If someone called to your house to share a thought from The Origin of Species, I can see how it might annoy you, but I've never heard of that actually happening.
oompa:
New tonight about a mutated germ that is causing problems. Most mutations are negitive changes not positive for the creature.
Undoubtedly that particular mutation is positive for the germ or it would not be a cause for concern. If it was a "negative change" (for the germ) it would have died out very quickly.
I dont see them around me.
Germs or mutations? For various reasons, both are normally invisible.
The whole concept that if a lizard realy want to fly, he can not WILL himself to fly.
I'm not sure what concept that is. It's certainly nothing to do with evolution.
God could have guided the process so it resulted in his desired changes though.
Of course he could. A lazy, cruel, incompetent god.
-
darkuncle29
Hi funkyD, I've always admired your blunt post style.
darkuncle29:
Evolution is like religion, everybody's got their own spin.
In a sense, but no more than, for example, relativity is like politics.
My spin is that I am open to the possibility that evolution may have been a guided process, guided by minute quantum fluctuations, Van der waals forces or hydrogen bonding.
I don't see how any of those effects could have a guiding influence but maybe you mean merely that they are contributory factors to the mutations that drive evolution.
I do not think it was random.
Nobody does (except creationists). Natural selection, the most widely accepted explanation for evolution is the exact opposite of randomness.
I'm curious, why do you say relativity is like politics?
I don't see how any of those effects could have a guiding influence but maybe you mean merely that they are contributory factors to the mutations that drive evolution.
ok, chalk this up to my sloppy american english, sorry. would you say that guiding influence denotes an inteligent awareness or being, while contributory factors are just that?
I don't know why, but the term "natural selection" bugs me, maybe the term selection seems to me to be similiar to "guiding influences" in pointing at an awareness or sentient being.
I also don't understand your last line about creationists--they think that evolution is taught as being random? It's not? I think where I'm getting hung up is in the nuances of language.
Don't think of me as a complete goddess-hippy-new-agey-fag; I loved science and especially chemistry and physics, I took three years of chemistry in HS, and a year and a half in colledge, I loved mathematics, but failed calculus twice. Anyway, I'm interested in knowing what you think.
-
funkyderek
darkuncle29:
Hi funkyD, I've always admired your blunt post style.
Thank you.
I'm curious, why do you say relativity is like politics?
I was being flippant, as is my wont. Relativity is like politics in the same way that evolution is like religion. One is a scientific theory, the other a nonscientific human endeavour. They're not really that alike at all.
ok, chalk this up to my sloppy american english, sorry. would you say that guiding influence denotes an inteligent awareness or being, while contributory factors are just that?
Sort of. As far as I can see, the factors you mentioned could really only have a random influence (if any) so while they may generate mutations, they wouldn't really push evolution in any particular direction.
I don't know why, but the term "natural selection" bugs me, maybe the term selection seems to me to be similiar to "guiding influences" in pointing at an awareness or sentient being.
Selection normally implies a selector, and we are all familiar with the sort of artificial selection that has given us hundreds of different breeds of dogs, and such aberrations as dairy cows. The process is relatively simple; the farmer or breeder looks for what he considers desirable traits, and breeds only those animals who express those traits. Due to heredity, their offspring are more likely to have those traits and if only those who do are bred, successive generations will approach the breeder's ideal. Well, natural selection works as if there is a master breeder but the trait he is selecting for is the ability to survive and reproduce. This may seem like it would take an awful lot of intelligence and hard work (which is possibly why so many people feel the need to invent gods) but in reality, it works very well without any outside interference. The animals that are better at surviving and reproducing will automatically survive longer and reproduce more than others. The particular abilities or behaviours that tend to result will depend largely on the environment.
I also don't understand your last line about creationists--they think that evolution is taught as being random? It's not? I think where I'm getting hung up is in the nuances of language.
One of the most common objections to evolution goes something along the lines of: "Look at all this beauty and complexity. I can't believe it came about by chance (or randomly)." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, which is all about non-random survival. There is nothing random about, for example, the shape of a fish. And nobody (except creationists) believes that it attained that shape suddenly and without precursors. Evolutionary theory predicts that over time, organisms will tend towards a maximum level of fitness for the environment in which they find themselves. Fish that closely approximate a streamlined shape have a higher rate of survival than their less hydrodynamic rivals and thus, tend to breed more, and pass on the genes that give them the survival advantage.
Randomness really only comes into evolution in the initial generation of mutations, most of which are negative or neutral. The negative ones don't proliferate because they confer a survival disadvantage on individuals who have them, the neutral ones spread randomly while the rare positive ones spread like wildfire.
-
marmot
People really shouldn't get their hackles up about evolution so much. If you want to believe in a God, it makes perfect sense that he would use evolution to bring about humans.
To illustrate:
A baker wants to make bread, he must first plant, grow, and harvest wheat. Next he has to winnow the grain, mill it to produce flour, and mix it in the proper proportions to make dough. Finally, he puts it into an oven to allow heat to cook the dough and make it rise into bread.
All of you arguing against evolution are tantamount to saying that if God were a baker he would wiggle his finger and *ZAP* we've got cupcakes.
Just like water finding the most efficient path around an object will eventually carve a channel into stone, evolution is life using the most efficient means of surviving in a given environment. I see no problem with evolution being a natural process set in motion by God, just like the slow action of wind and water are what carved up the inhospitable stone of our planet to make sediment amenable to our current plethora of terrestrial plant life. Is it wrong to say that God didn't magically "create" topsoil but allowed it to come about through natural processes?
And Oompa, I've got to disagree with what you said about mutations in viruses or bacteria being detrimental and therefore mutations in general being bad. You're misapplying the result that those mutations are detrimental to humans, when in fact they are incredibly beneficial to the survival of that virus or bacteria. -
jeminijad
Im new, but I've lurked for some time- been away from the JWs for 7 years.
To address the topic:
It is terribly difficult to deny evolution outright when the developing human embryo passes through distinctly amphibian, reptilian, and finally primate stages- we have GILLS in utero, for crying out loud- "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."
And to funkyderrick's earlier comment: labelling Jesus as imaginary is... well... I have to hope its an oversight, referring to your denial of his having any religious significance, rather than ignorance of his existance. He's not like God or Allah- he was a charismatic leader whose life is as well documented as many secular kings, and changed history more than any.