Evolutionary establishment tactics (page 14)

rem

I'm referring to Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. This theory is not concerned with the ultimate origins of life.

rem

Jeffro

You ask why God made the ville predators and I hate those wiley alligators. Your question is part of the divine mystery life, in time our knowledge of the world past and present will increase and we will understand much that is now beyond us. Such intellectual questions are part of life's wondrous journey. In the Garden of Eden such predatory behaviour did not exist but became manifest after the Fall with man and beast living in a now cursed earth present with sin, evil and death. Scholar should have a Bible Study with you in newly released book on Bible Teachings and then I can explain many things to you.

Scholar alleges that animals became predatory after Adam and Eve's 'fall'. However, according to the Society, it is man that sinned and was cursed, not the animals. According to the Society's 'pattern of healthful words', animals died even in paradise, so apparently they were pretty much cursed from the beginning anyway; there is no reason why some of them would not be predatory. (Awake, 22 March 1976, page 17 - "it is clear that the Creator never purposed that individual animals live forever. For them death was natural.") Apparently then, death was always an intrinsic part of god's plan anyway, irrespective of what people did. Feel the love!

What is more likely? That a system developed through biological processes that results in animals dying, or a 'loving' god came up with the idea of killing animals because there was no other possible way that an all-powerful god could manage things.

Abaddon

Jeffro - nice quote to pull out!

In the Garden of Eden such predatory behaviour did not exist but became manifest after the Fall with man and beast living in a now cursed earth present with sin, evil and death.

To say someone believing such nonsense is brain dead is an insult to those in PVS For example; great program I saw recently about dinosausr. In it they examined 'hollywood dinosaurs' - popular depictions of dinosaurs in films etc., and found that T Rex DEFINATELY predated upon live Triceratops. They approached it from various angles; could it catch one, given its speed and that of Tricertops? Could it damage it given the stregth of its jaws? Answer, yes, T-Rex was c. twice as fast, and its bite was strong enough to tear a car apart... which they did with a mock-up. Fun. Oh, there are Triceratops fossils with healed marks on their bones that match T-Rex teeth - conclusive proof of predation of live Tri-C's by T-Rex. That's without the mass of other evidence that animals have been eating animals since the dawn of time that such deliberately blind individuals ignore in order to maintain their egocentric beliefs. The same program did Voliciraptor vs. Protoceratops and V-Rap vs. Anklesaur (not the right spelling) This showed that the V-Rap was not 6' high and deadly, but about the size of a turkey, all-be-it a turkey that hunted in packs. Rather than a disembowling slash with the famours claw, it seems it would have (for example with the Anklesaur) grappled with the harmless head end, kicking upwards to the comparatively lightly armour neck regions of youngsters, with the claw acting as a penetrating weapon, not a slashing one. Smaller dinosaurs like the Protoceratops it may have taken on single handed (or single clawed). This is rather nicely proved by a fossil of a V-Rap and a Protoceratops locked in combat.

hooberus

I'm referring to Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. This theory is not concerned with the ultimate origins of life.

The problem with this argument is that evolution is not limited to the "Neo-Darwinian Theory" (a mechanism theory) - thus even if the NDT does not include the ultimate origins of life it does not mean that such a thing is therefore to be excluded from evolution.

Even more problematic is attempting to exclude the origin of life from evolution using the previous "alle-frequency definition": (ie:" . . . evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."). Such a definition does not even necessarily attempt to explain the origin of anything- hense the lack of "the origin of life" in it isn't much of an argument.

Evolution certainly can include the origin of life, and appealing to technical theories than may not specifically include it does not change this - since evolution never has been limited to these theories.

tetrapod.sapien

The problem with this argument is that evolution is not limited to the "Neo-Darwinian Theory" (a mechanism theory) - thus even if the NDT does not include the ultimate origins of life it does not mean that such a thing is therefore to be excluded from evolution.

your point is really not clear, or well formulated. evolution, of whatever school, accounts for biological diversity from the moment after origins. what more do you want?

Even more problematic is attempting to exclude the origin of life from evolution using the previous "alle-frequency definition": (ie:" . . . evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."). Such a definition does not even necessarily attempt to explain the origin of anything- hense the lack of "the origin of life" in it isn't much of an argument.

again, evolution is not concerned with origins. do you want it to be? sorry, too bad.

Evolution certainly can include the origin of life, and appealing to technical theories than may not specifically include it does not change this - since evolution never has been limited to these theories.

again, evolution is not concerned with origins, nor should it be. saying that it can or should, is asinine. it's like saying that the theory of relativity should also include a section on biochemistry.

so do you subscribe to a particular theory of origins? the bible you say? do you subscribe to a theory for biological diversity? genesis you say? do you not see that for all your feeble criticism of the theory of evolution, that the rhetoric you subscribe to personally is woefully lacking in explanative power in comparison to the theory of evolution?

or are you a deist? what is your motive? it can't be truth because there's a plethora of intelligent people who subscribe to evolution for better reasons than you subscribe to creation or ID-ocy for.

TS

rem

Hooberus,

>> The problem with this argument is that evolution is not limited to the "Neo-Darwinian Theory" (a mechanism theory) - thus even if the NDT does not include the ultimate origins of life it does not mean that such a thing is therefore to be excluded from evolution.

What do you think the Theory of Evolution is if not a machanism theory of the diversity of life? Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life as many of us have been trying to explain to you for years now. Is there a specific origin theory within the framework of the Theory of Evolution that you would like to demonstrate?

Evolution is agonostic when it comes to origins. Magic elves could have created the first biological organisms for all Evolution cares. Yes, that means that Evolution is compatible with certain origin scenarios that include a creator such as one or many gods. Evolution is not an intrinsically atheistic theory, just as the theory of gravity is not atheistic. There is no anti-god bias... god(s) are just not important for the theory.

If you don't want to talk about the theory as scientists use it, then what is the point of talking about it? If you just want to make up your own version of the Theory of Evolution, then you are really only arguing with yourself.

rem

Midget-Sasquatch

Maybe what hooberus might be thinking about is the experiment where RNA molecules were shown to undergo natural selection?

The researchers made the inference that it was highly likely then for natural selection to have been involved very early on in the formation of life itself. Maybe thats why hooberus wishes to link evolution with abiogenesis. If I'm wrong hooberus, let me know. In either case, natural selection as we all know isn't evolution, and evolution is a different natural process from abiogenesis.

I think the ID camp needs to couple origins (abiogenesis) to evolution, so they can then bank on the paucity of data in that area. Possibly to be able to say its all a non-starter and then choose to ignore evolution on those grounds. But if the Intelligent Designer could have no beginning and has always been, why not just keep it a step simpler and say that cellular life has always been?

hooberus

Hooberus,

>> The problem with this argument is that evolution is not limited to the "Neo-Darwinian Theory" (a mechanism theory) - thus even if the NDT does not include the ultimate origins of life it does not mean that such a thing is therefore to be excluded from evolution.

What do you think the Theory of Evolution is if not a machanism theory of the diversity of life?

Do you think that "the Theory of Evolution" is limited specifically to theories of mechanisms to explain how evolution has supposedly occurred?, or do you realize that the term can include much more than that*?

*Generally from what I have seen (such as in treatment by evolutionist F.J.A. in the Macropaedia encyclopedia) the term "the theory of Evolution" usually refers to the overall evolutionary scenario including proposed mechanisms (plural), as well as several other things such as the so-called fact of evolution, evolutionary history, universal common ancestry, etc. Therefore, accordingly something can be included in "the theory of evolution" besides specific mechanism theories.

And as I have explained Evolution can include the origin of life, as George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of Evolution" 1949)

hooberus

Maybe what hooberus might be thinking about is the experiment where RNA molecules were shown to undergo natural selection?

The researchers made the inference that it was highly likely then for natural selection to have been involved very early on in the formation of life itself. Maybe thats why hooberus wishes to link evolution with abiogenesis. If I'm wrong hooberus, let me know. In either case, natural selection as we all know isn't evolution, and evolution is a different natural process from abiogenesis.

In wasn't referring to RNA selection experiments.

I think the ID camp needs to couple origins (abiogenesis) to evolution, so they can then bank on the paucity of data in that area. Possibly to be able to say its all a non-starter and then choose to ignore evolution on those grounds.

I disagree. Firstly, there are some in the ID camp that accept much of evolution. Secondly, the severe problems with abiogenesis are not merely because of a "paucity of data", but instead are based on a considerable amount of known data and chemistry. Finally, those that do reject evolution do not just merely point to problems with the origin of life (and based on this alone) choose to ignore evolution, but also use many other valid arguments as well. In reality it is the Evolutionists who have seen the need to insist on the decoupling of origins from evolution, in order to protect (firewall) evolution from some potentailly very powerful points. This is why (despite the fact that some older references included it) they are loathe to include it today.

But if the Intelligent Designer could have no beginning and has always been, why not just keep it a step simpler and say that cellular life has always been?

Actually this has been proposed, however since it would seem to require an infinitely old universe it is rejected.

OldSoul

"And the beat goes on...and the beat goes on"

Evolutionary establishment tactics

Share this