Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Natural selection is one of the factors that drives evolution and therefore does not take place after evolution.
That's just plain wrong.
If the beetle's environment changes, the beetle will either die off, or it will adapt to its new environment.
Adaptation to a new environment is not Evolution; it is adaptation. Notice the difference in spelling between "adaptation" and "evolution." There is no change in the beetle's DNA and thus no change in the beetle's internal or external structure or function.
If we drink your Kool-Aid® then I could take a beetle out of the forest and stick it in a desert and if it survives it "evolved" when in fact there were no changes to the beetle's DNA.
It's the same beetle. All it did was adapt.
According to the morons at Berkley, rats climbed up trees and adapted and because they did the wonderful god-thing came down and granted them the gift of the opposable thumb.
If the beetle's environment changes, the beetle will either die off, or it will adapt to its new environment.
Adaptation to a new environment is not Evolution; it is adaptation. Notice the difference in spelling between "adaptation" and "evolution." There is no change in the beetle's DNA and thus no change in the beetle's internal or external structure or function.
If we drink your Kool-Aid® then I could take a beetle out of the forest and stick it in a desert and if it survives it "evolved" when in fact there were no changes to the beetle's DNA.
It's the same beetle. All it did was adapt.
According to the morons at Berkley, rats climbed up trees and adapted and because they did the wonderful god-thing came down and granted them the gift of the opposable thumb.
That's not how it works.
I think you're a little off here.
Adaption (as related to evolution) isn't about an individual adapting. It's about a species adapting due to some variation making the species more able to survive...or die off.
So, you never knew chemicals can produce electricity after all.
The US should have entered the 5th Level Economy -- Research & Development -- in the late 1990s.
If you had, about 15%-20% of your GDP would be R&D instead of Barista.
I wonder who we should pick to be the poster child for the reason you'll never make it?
It's people with hostile, pompous and privileged attitudes like yours that's turning the U.S. into barbarianism...your aggressive attitude is unprovoked and unwarranted.
Contrary to your presumption that design requires ANY particular level of perfection, design simply means a structure that is non-chaotic. Our consciousness is capable of seeing designs in all manner of things, but conflating the many ways designs get formed serves only to confuse the designs that are actually functional. I am not so cynical as to assume that is deliberate obfuscation by the anti-design crowd.
Design is not a noun that simply mean a structure that is non-chaotic (which would include crystals). Design usually means the verb to design something, as you can see when any idiot claims x designed y.
No one is deliberately obfuscating anything except to get sneak in intelligent design.
At about the 54min mark Cronin talks about information
And shortly after he says the simple information is formed naturally. Your original point was he was asking if this is possible, here he is saying it is.
Well I have not been trying to show a God hypothesis Harry but all you guys keep equating the mind behind it all to the Christian God.
No, I am referring to any first cause creator god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So I guess I will point out something to you here abut the Christian God that anyone who has read the scripture should already be aware of.
God is spirit or immaterial according to the scriptures and as He is spirit or immaterial why would you think God would have a material brain?
Because we only have evidence for physical brains. Almost 8 billion data points. If you want to argue for an immaterial being just knowing things, you need to be able to explain how that would work.
Clearly there are those who prefer to consider and address the topic of this thread, and some of those people will do so in a variety of ways, at least contributing SOMETHING along those lines, while others prefer to do little else but wait for what to complain about, a lot, rather than address the topic of the thread at all.
It is best to just follow the posts and users with clear, valid responses.
There are too many people just throwing out science terms to pretend they are intellectuals; or try to psychoanalyze people; or post the usual straw man attacks because there agenda is not to have a honest discussion; or are just yanking chains.
Most religions and spiritual paths divide man into at least 2 categories: carnal and spiritual.
Materialism/concrete thinking, like the carnal man, tends to focus on the here and now, 'the bird in the hand'..."why worry about any birds in the bush when we have these birds in hand?!" YOLO, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
