You’re not arguing against reason, you’re arguing against feeling and belief (which arguments have little power to change). As such, you should probably do something more productive like watch paint dry.
Ideally people reading might learn something. But yeah I’m done at this point probably.
Valid point. I tend to forget the gallery.
In light, carry on.
I prefer references in written form because they are easier to peruse and one more quickly can get to the meat of the matter. On my way to Haiti, I don’t and won’t have time to spend going through all the videos. In fact, I stopped at about 30 seconds into the first where they discuss how they began with a number of virtual creatures having the randomly distributed trait. That describes the current situation where climate change among other factors generated by the presence of human beings on earth is wreaking havoc on species. In short, it does not describe the reality of how all the diversity of life has come to be. At some other point in time I may go more into the matter in a necessarily long, but not long enough, post no one will read.
Sitting quietly contemplating the slow passage of time as we sit in eternity would be more productive in terms of approaching reality than trying to convince others of our illusions.
We’ll make a Buddhist of you yet.
It isn’t meant to be a perfect analogy for biological evolution, it is meant to show that an efficient and ordered creature can be created using natural selection and mutation. Because you said " If a living being does not fit within the larger system, it dies. It may not be able absorb and transform matter (oxygen, water and nutrients) that is external to itself, into its bodily form. It may not be able to procreate. In any event that genetic lineage dies off. This is hardly a creative process." I have used evolutionary algorithms in my own work as a creative process.
Starting off with a random distribution or starting off with seeded distribution makes no difference, really. Funny how you say randomness can’t produce order but then the example I use to illustrate the concept is “too random”.
An environmental change isn’t only going to affect one creature. It’s going to affect the entire ecosystem that its connected to, and needs for its support. You need to go back to the drawing board and calculate the whole ecosystem needing to evolve also.
So is your assertion that if the environment in an area changed gradually, every living thing in that environment would go extinct?
Been there; done that.
There’s nothing to calculate.
But if you’re alluding to the notion that entire ecosystems evolve, that’s entirely correct.
Oh dear, I’ve engaged and broken my own advice…
Could the creatures and plants of the Amazon jungle gradually evolve into the creatures and plants of a Canadian environment?
You know we’ve had a few ice ages, right?
If the selective pressure was mild enough to give them time, absolutely.
A word of caution though; evolution never stops. Those plants the the “Canadian environment” are evolving today. So it’s never a fixed point. Canada’s flora and fauna change too.
For everyone who does believe in evolution, I’d just like to make a short segue and direct you to PBS Eons on Youtube. It’s a pretty awesome channel that examines the development of the physical world. They don’t try to apply anything to theological issues, and focus only on the science and the fossil record, so it’s friendly for both the theist and non-theist.
And, things die and went extinct end of story, so-called evolution couldn’t save them.
I’m taking about piranha morphing into rainbow trout like fish that can live in ice water.
So everything went extinct in the last ice age? Or was there some sort of “survival of the fittest” thing that happened?
Sure, why not?
I mean, we’ve seen this in human development. There are people who live int eh northern reaches of our planet fairly comfortably. They are built for it, whereas I would probably freeze to death in my first year. Plan skin vs. dark skin, light vs dark eyes, more fat vs less… all of these are climate-based changed in human genetics which are specific to their lineage. Why would it be any different for a fish?
PBS automatically assume everyone believes Darwinism .