Evolution


#1

An argument of creationism mixed with evolution, outstepping the boundaries of current thought::

First off, I’ll say that I personally believe that Jesus Christ is God; but for the atheist’s sake let us say Jesus is not God.

Life is a mystery. All we truly know is that it came to be from the water. It has evolved, as far as we know, to the human being; of which in a human beings dimensions have sprung reason and creativity. Can we agree that a God would in fact take our form so that reason and creativity would be in this God? If a God took any shape, it would necessarily be human form or similar because of all we suggest as a God-being is that God would have reason and creativity. If we can agree that the form of God or an immortal is here already as God would take the human form then we can move on…

Where is life evolving to? It is evident that it has gotten more complex since it’s advent, striving for the human form; as far as we can assess. Thought is always evolving too; as what we knew and what we know will not be the same when we know more. However, what does thought have to do with evolution? Well, we can say that if a God took a form it would necessarily be the human form because as all we consider God to be is a being of reasoning and creativity–all that we currently possess.

Life exists only to exist–to be. Wouldn’t the final step in evolution be the production of an all powerful being. One that could exist forever without tasting death. Immortality is the ultimate goal, that I believe evolution is striving for. And why not? The whole point of life is to live–why would evolution disregard this fact in it’s pursuits.
Does anyone agree with what I’m trying to say–that immortality is the ultimate achievement of evolution?

Feel free to argue or disagree with the argument. Perhaps we can rationalize or come to a better understanding of what I am trying to say.


#2

(assuming that we did evolve)

To me one of the mysteries of evolution is that we *evolved *to a point that we can understand it.

It’s like the universe *does *have an intent for us

But of course the madness that is Darwinian evolution is that there is no purpose to evolution.


#3

The theory of evolution proves only one thing : the devil is into recycling. This theory ( evolution ) is just a repackaged version of the lie the serpent ( Satan ) told Eve in the garden of Eden. Remember the story from genesis; what did the serpent promise Eve if she ate the fruit; she would be like god.

Today Satan wants people to believe the theory of evolution and the promise ( lie ) is the same , you will be like god.

How so you might ask? Simple the theory of evolution teaches the man is the most evolved intelligent and powerful life form in the universe , and what do you call this
being : GOD

This theory was false back in the garden of Eden and is false today.

evolution can best be summed up with the following acronym

BYOG
Be Your Own God


#4

The scientific theory of evolution does teach this? I must have missed a few research papers. Citations, please?

:rotfl:


#5

For the purposes of this discussion, here is a definition of evolution. There is a difference in the scientific usage and what has become common usage.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

“Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.”

and

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_07
Under the heading “misconceptions:”
"It is important to remember that:

Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

Humans are not “higher” or “more evolved” than other living lineages. Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages. "

There is a lot more detail at evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01

Simply put, evolution is about the fact that genetic changes occur in living beings (plant or animal). Some of those changes are compatible with life and will be passed on to offspring, some will not. Some will give an advantage in a particular set of environmental conditions and be passed on, but will not give any advantage (or may be actively detrimental) if those conditions change and therefore the beings with those changes will die out over time as their offspring are less likely to survive to reproduce.

It is not surprising that life as we know it as the result of evolution fits our environment—if it didn’t, it would not be here.


#6

All I ask it that you provide one scientific source backing your accusations. Should be simple to do. If you can’t, I’ll patiently await your retraction.

Peace

Tim


#7

I’m one of those few Christians that do not completely reject the theory of Intelligent Design. I believe it is possible, but would not go so far as to call creationists, old earth theorists, etc wrong.

I believe it is a non-essential in Christian faith. Is my salvation threatened because I think it is possible that the omnipotent Lord our God may have used eras and stages to create this world and the life in it? I think not. Obviously, creationists and old earth theorists have a better leg to stand on, but that doesn’t make any sort of intelligent design evolution an impossibility.

Also, the theory of evolution doesn’t teach we are the most evolved intelligent and powerful life form in the universe. I’m pretty sure you just made that up.


#8

I believe in evolution. I know it is right. I just cannot prove it.

I have searched the world over looking for a naturally evolved aeroplane I know it is there I just cannot find it at the moment.


#9

Where is life evolving to? It is evident that it has gotten more complex since it’s advent, striving for the human form; as far as we can assess. Thought is always evolving too; as what we knew and what we know will not be the same when we know more.

I think we will eventually give way [or make way] for Artificial Intelligence. Intelligence occupying cyber-space.

I think the world will become such an inhospitable place for organic life, humanity will destroy the atomosphere so that it no longer supports life and all the life forms will then be Artificial Intelligence: Computers! They will not need air to breathe. Computers will inherit the earth!

Perhaps God is a super-computer evolved from all eternity :stuck_out_tongue:


#10

Where is life evolving to? It is evident that it has gotten more complex since it’s advent, striving for the human form; as far as we can assess. Thought is always evolving too; as what we knew and what we know will not be the same when we know more.

I think we will eventually give way [or make way] for Artificial Intelligence. Intelligence occupying cyber-space.

I think the world will become such an inhospitable place for organic life, humanity will destroy the atomosphere so that it no longer supports life and all the life forms will then be Artificial Intelligence: Computers! They will not need air to breathe. Computers will inherit the earth!

Perhaps God is a super-computer evolved from all eternity


#11

:Where is life evolving to? It is evident that it has gotten more complex since it’s advent, striving for the human form; as far as we can assess. Thought is always evolving too; as what we knew and what we know will not be the same when we know more.

I think we will eventually give way [or make way] for Artificial Intelligence. Intelligence occupying cyber-space.

I think the world will become such an inhospitable place for organic life, humanity will destroy the atomosphere so that it no longer supports life and all the life forms will then be Artificial Intelligence: Computers! They will not need air to breathe. Computers will inherit the earth!

Perhaps God is a super-computer evolved from all eternity :stuck_out_tongue:


#12

To those “experts” on evolution, your absolute certainty of evolution is a concern.

Evolution can mean so many different things, from adaptation to species change. There is no evidence that proves humans came from anything other than a human. That goes for apes, chimpanzees, bugs, flowers and more. There is NO evidence. Oh, someone will reply back with some “evidence” that some bug switched species or something. Adaptation is not legitimate.

Creation has more evidence than evolution will ever have. I frankly don’t waste much of my time with it but find the arrogance of so-called evolution experts to be bothersome. There are no Evolution experts because evolution still cannot be proved. It is only someone’s opinion. And the “evolution experts” believe them.


#13

Well, let’s see, evolution applies to living organisms as you know, so I suggest you take a look at “bird,” “bat,” flying insects such as the “bee,” “butterfly,” “moth,” “wasp,” etc., assuming “able to fly through the air under its own power” is the primary criteria.

If you are looking for some other criteria, then, of course, that search may go in a different direction. If it is “able to carry loads (including humans) over distances” you may be instead looking for “camel,” “horse,” “elephant,” “burro,” “donkey,” “mule,” etc.


#14

Well, I’m certainly no expert, but I am absolutely certain that evolution is a fact.

Evolution can mean so many different things, from adaptation to species change. There is no evidence that proves humans came from anything other than a human. That goes for apes, chimpanzees, bugs, flowers and more. There is NO evidence. Oh, someone will reply back with some “evidence” that some bug switched species or something.

If you search the forum for similar threads, you will find that people like me will point out to people like you that science doesn’t “prove” anything. Science gathers evidence (facts) and develops explanations for that evidence. Those explanations are called theories. Evolution is a fact. Descent with modification is a theory (explanation) of the observed facts. That theory is to date the best explanation for the evidence. In fact, the more evidence that we find, the better the theory looks.

Adaptation is not legitimate.

It’s not? How do any organisms survive when there is a change in the environment they live in?

Creation has more evidence than evolution will ever have. I frankly don’t waste much of my time with it

That last statement is certainly proved by your first statement.

but find the arrogance of so-called evolution experts to be bothersome. There are no Evolution experts because evolution still cannot be proved. It is only someone’s opinion. And the “evolution experts” believe them.

I would like you to read this link:talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html

Now tell me, why is it that you, who can’t be bothered to “waste your time” learning about that which you condemn, have the standing to make the statements you have?

Peace

Tim


#15

I disagree on several points.

  1. that evolution has an ultimate goal for which it is striving.

Evolution isn’t an “it” with a “goal” or “pursuits.” Evolution is the description of a process.

  1. that there can be a “final step” in evolution.

Evolution is “descent with modification.” There is no goal, no linear process, no “improvement” inherent in it. The process does not go from “worse” to “better.” It simply is.

The modifications of genetic material (mutations) are not necessarily desirable or undesirable, especially to a particular organism. The only issue is whether they are likely to allow the organism to live long enough to pass the mutations on to its offspring. What allows this in one environment may not allow it in another, even in the same organism. In the second environment, those mutations will not persist–will die out. There might well come a point in which creativity and reason are not advantageous to survival of the human species and we will die out.

If one looked at evolution during the Jurassic period, one would say that size was the most advantageous trait and giant reptiles were the highest animals in the food chain. Go a few million years further and the traits that led to dominance were quite different.

  1. The point of life.

the point of life in evolutionary terms is to pass on genetic material to the next generation, to perpetuate the species. The survival of the individual is entirely secondary to that goal in terms of evolution.There are many species whose individual members die immediately after reproduction or even simply after the laying and fertilization of the eggs. The maternal and paternal bond with a child in which the parents would willingly sacrifice themselves for the sake of the child is another example of this.

  1. Immortality.

This is more of a need for a definition of terms. What would determine immortality? Resistance to disease? Cessation of the aging process (and at what point in the process)? I am not sure how one could theorize an evolutionary process that would render an organism incapable of being killed by another of its kind, especially under the conditions that would quickly become problematic if the immortality was not coupled with sterility. A being who was immortal, but not entirely self-healing or self-repairing (say able to regenerate a limb like a starfish), could live forever with multiple disabilities from injuries, etc.–not all such are life threatening.

  1. that an immortal being would be all-powerful.

What would “all-powerful” mean and why would it necessarily go hand in hand with immortality? If there is more than one being who is immortal, how would all of them be “all-powerful?”

  1. that humans are the desired end product and ultimate example of evolution

Why would the end product of evolution only be something we recognize as human? If immortality is, as you propose, the ultimate goal of evolution, then there is as much drive toward an immortal toad, cockroach, sea slug or carrot as there is for an immortal human being. Actually, insects, bacterias or viruses are much better candidates for this than humans as things currently stand–they are adapted to survive much harsher and more varied environments and able to more efficiently pass on genetic material.


#16

Oregeny,

You are not getting my point. Certainly I believe in adaptation and certain forms of evolution. But, adaptation is certainly no indicator that we have developed from tiny beings.

If your statement of evolutionary fact is based on minor adaptation changes within a species, that is one thing. But, are you willing to say that all living organisms evolved from micro-organisms?

Just because someone believes that evolution makes the most sense, doesn’t make it fact.

I had the privilege of discussing evolution with one of the foremost botanists of our time. His answer to people like you are, “They see what happens on the outside, but they have no clue of how the inside works.” In other words, it is impossible for a rose to evolve into anything other than a rose. It might change color, smell, features, but it is still and will always be a rose.

You evolutionists jump from adaptation to complete organism evolution with no evidence or science to back it up.

Does the thought of evolution change my faith? No. If I found out some day that without a shadow of a doubt evolution of the human from micro-organisms occurred, then so be it. But don’t claim the theory of evolution in its entirety is fact when it is just a theory.

There are people who believe that evolution would discount scripture and God. If you convinced them on half-truths and opinion to search elsewhere for the truth, you better know that you are responsible for it.

Bottom line: I accept your belief as a theory and only that. Others have different theories. Treat them with respect and humility.


#17

If the color, smell, features, etc all changed, at what point in the process would it be no longer recognizable as the same flower as the rose that did not differentiate, especially for someone encountering the two flowers at the same time? At what point is it different enough to be considered a separate species of flower? If the offspring of one rose differentiated in a very different way from the way in which the offspring of another rose did and those differentiations continued to increase independently at what point is neither considered the same species of flower as their common ancestor, much less than each other, especially if they are no longer cross-fertile, nor are they found in similar habitats?


#18

Rather too simply; evolution equals change.

Tell me what is ‘advantage’? It is an advantage that I’m 182 cms tall?

I can tell you that one can only judge this retrospectively. If it survived, then it was ‘fit’ to survive. This is the uselessness of the theory of evolution

Circular logic. That life which is here is proof that that life is here, because evolution got it here, proven that it’s here!

That which survived survived!

I have other concerns with the theory including those who use un-natural methods of selection in order to demonstrate natural selection. For, just like the circular logic demonstrated above, supporters of evolution try all manner of mad methods to promote it.

One of the funniest is Dawkins who uses biomorphs in an effort to show how life might have evolved. Not only is Dawkins irreligious, he’s rabidly anti-religious. I have debated (on-line) people who support him. One of the silliest things he supports is the ‘biomorph’. It is a computer program one can use to ‘demonstrate’ the possibility of evolution. As a tool though, it’s a complete nonsense.

Here’s what I wrote, on-line concerning biomorphs…
BIOMORPHS
"Dawkins started from a conventional recursive algorithm: for each iteration, a new connection is generated. The aim was to generate tree
forms. Starting from a trunk, to any new iteration corresponds a sub-branch. The use of biomorph quickly showed the algorithm was absolutely not limited to the realization of different trees (apple trees, fir trees …) ; but could also generate many types of forms, biological or not. Dawkins was therefore quite surprised to discover an insect-looking biomorph followed by planes, bats, branched candlesticks?"
rennard.org/alife/english/biomintrgb.html

The funniest thing is… sorry, I’m going to have to write it again! “Dawkins was therefore quite surprised to discover an insect-looking
biomorph followed by planes, bats, branched candlesticks?”

So, this magical program that is supposed to represent life actually can also produce aeroplanes! I’d like to see DNA morph into such things!

The next bit is just as funny…
“The use of biomorph is very simple. The eye of the user plays the role of natural selection. Starting from a given form, the user will systematically select the biomorph whose resemblance -very subtle at the beginning - is closer to the wanted form. After a certain number of generations, the result will draw near to the aim.” (Ibid)

So, in other words, you an intelligent actor weed out the programs that don’t look like anything that resembles a living thing. Then you keep
building up on the programs that look most like life. You are the creator of this cyber-universe! So much for a model FOR ‘natural’ selection!

Here’s what Richard Milton says about computer modelling…granted this is referring to whole creatures like Dawkins did…but hopefully you’ll get the point…
"In his book “The Blind Watchmaker” Richard Dawkins describes a computer program he wrote which randomly generates symmetrical figures from dots and lines. These figures, to a human eye, have a resemblance to a variety of objects. Dawkins gives some of them insect and animal names…Dawkins calls these creations ‘biomorphs’ meaning life shapes or living shapes…He also refers to them as "quasi-biological’ forms and in a moment of excitement calls them ‘exquisite creatures’. He plainly believes that in some way they correspond to the real word of living animals

(Dawkins says of his biomorphs) “With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation… my incredulity grew in parallel with the
evolving resemblance… Admittedly they have like a spider…” (However) The only thing about the biomorphs that is biological is Richard Dawkins, their creator. The program Dawkins wrote and the computer he used have no analog at all in the real biological world…his program is not a true representation of random mutation coupled with natural selection. On the contrary it is dependent on artificial selections (conducted by Dawkins) in which he controls the rate of occurrence. There is also no failure in his program: his biomorphs are not subject to fatal consequences of degenerate mutations like real living things. And most important of all, he chooses which are the luck individuals to receive the next mutation." quoted from
"Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" pp168-9.


#19

And yet oddly enough it produced a being capable of accepting/understanding it.


#20

All these people seem convinced Evolution’s a fact, or it’s a lie…

I hate to tell y’all this, but Evolution is not science. See, evolution is not a theory about the way things work at present–it is a theory about the way they did happen.

And specific past events are not subject to direct experimental proof. You can scientifically demonstrate that a particular document referring to the battle of Waterloo is a forgery, you can examine forensic evidence of the casualties killed in the battle, you can even go to the area and see if the accounts match up with the actual terrain…but you cannot directly perform an experiment to test what happened in the final battle of Le Petite Empereur.

Even the best scientific proof is merely proof by preponderance of evidence (the second weakest proof in logic, after proof by authority). Proof of specific past events is even worse: it’s proof by preponderance of evidence about the validity of other evidence.

I personally think there is something to evolution, as a not-even-a-hypothesis model of the development of life (although I’ve seen some things that contradict it, too). But it is not, and never can be, even so established as a theory, let alone a fact.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.