Creation vs. Evolution II

[gcthomas]

Start here in TOL. Greg Jennings was the most recent.

You want to answer by me searching for another person's post? I can't be bothered, since the theory of evolution does not give a creative role to natural selection. You are tilting at windmills here.

 

[redfern]

It seems evolutionists don't know what quote mining is. By including more of the statement, it only helps confirm the statement and the quote that Dave used. Selection can cause organisms to adapt. Natural selection by isteself is not creative...it can't change a trilobote into a triceratops... nor the reverse.

It looks like you are getting almost silly at how precise someone must be in the way they express an idea. I don’t see where Gould’s statement implies a creative role for natural selection.

Your distant ancestral progenitor that you mention is quite disappointed at how desperately you try to deny her matriarchal role in your lineage. She loves you anyway, and wants you to know she was actually considered to be a fine looking trilobite in her day.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Russell said that Nature is our "unthinking mother",

Gould said nature is not "cosmically rational,

so I ask how could nature produce it's antithesis?

Rationally speaking nature cannot produce what it is not.

The theory of evolution is based on a self contradiction that mindless nature can construct what requires a mind to accomplish.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The first proposition of the theory of evolution:

Everything is nature and nature is mindless.

What is "natural selection"? What does it select from?

--Dave

 

[Greg Jennings]

Start here in TOL. Greg Jennings was the most recent.

Feel free to prove that

 

[6days]

*It looks like you are getting almost silly at how precise someone must be in the way they express an idea. I don’t see where Gould’s statement implies a creative role for natural selection.

Haha... I'm sorry, but either you...or me...or both of us, has lost our way on this. I'm agreeing with you. Gould called natural selection an inefficient process; he didn't suggest it played a creative role.*

Apologies if I misunderstood what DFT, GC or you were arguing.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

The first proposition of the theory of evolution:

Everything is nature and nature is mindless.

What is "natural selection"? What does it select from?

--Dave

It's simple.

There are three rabbits that are the same EXCEPT one is white and two are black. They live in the snow. The white rabbit blends in and survives. The two black rabbits stand out and are eaten by predators.

That's natural selection. Nature is "selecting" who lives and reproduces

 

[6days]

Feel free to prove that

I can't prove it...I was wrong. I'm sorry... I said you, but it was Silent Hunter. I apologize. 40 lashes to me... please and thanks.

 

[6days]

Do you know any that actually say that? ( That selection creates) Really? A quote would be nice.

From the thread 'Creationist Wins...'

6DAYS: "Natural selection is a process that eliminates...it does not create.*

SILENT HUNTER: " You just can't seem to get over the fact that this canard has been refuted, can you.
6DAYS: "Natural selection does not create. Selection SELECTS from what is already there..... and sometimes eliminates. (I think need to claim that mutations are your creative mechanism)


Silent Hunter continued to argue claiming his medical doctor Christian wife was helping him.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's simple.

There are three rabbits that are the same EXCEPT one is white and two are black. They live in the snow. The white rabbit blends in and survives. The two black rabbits stand out and are eaten by predators.

That's natural selection. Nature is "selecting" who lives and reproduces

And what created the white rabbit?

--Dave

 

[6days]

And what created the white rabbit?

--Dave

Exactly! As one early geneticist said "natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

 

[Greg Jennings]

And what created the white rabbit?

--Dave

In our scenario, the three rabbits are from the same source, their parents. Their color difference is why selection is acting upon them.

Am I to understand that you are saying that a rabbit can only create a rabbit, and likewise with all animal "types"?

That might be so with rabbits. I have no idea what the geologic record says about rabbit evolution. But I have personally seen what it has to say about fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, and reptile to mammal transitions. And within each of these groups, we see evolution: for example, we see horses go from small, three-toed critters to the large, hoofed species of today.

Perhaps there is similar data about rabbit evolution. But that is not something I've ever looked for

 

[gcthomas]

From the thread 'Creationist Wins...'

6DAYS: "Natural selection is a process that eliminates...it does not create.*

SILENT HUNTER: " You just can't seem to get over the fact that this canard has been refuted, can you.
6DAYS: "Natural selection does not create. Selection SELECTS from what is already there..... and sometimes eliminates. (I think need to claim that mutations are your creative mechanism)


Silent Hunter continued to argue claiming his medical doctor Christian wife was helping him.

I was hoping for some reference to the theory, and quotes from scientists. I'm sorry that you felt that a paraphrased series of partial quotes from anonymous forum posters would be sufficient.

As you know, selection picks which allele combinations increase their frequencies. The actual alleles are generated by another method, and you will not find a text book that disagrees. Your claim that 'evolutionists' believe something else is odd. (An evolutionist, incidentally, is someone who believes in the gradual change of species, but the mechanism is not specified. That would make those YECs who need rapid speciation from kinds also evolutionists. Perhaps you should use the term neo-darwinist?)

 

[MichaelCadry]

A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind..has brought forth at last a child...with the capacity of judging all the works of his "unthinking Mother". --Bertrand Russell

This is not a mystery, it's an absolute contradictory impossibility.

--Dave

Dear Dave,

There is no Mother Nature. God is in charge of all of those things we call Mother Nature. If God wants an animal to change a bit, then He changes the genome, molecules, RNA, atoms, protons, etc. of His creations, man or animal, or plant, etc. It really is that simple. God still nurtures His Creations. What would He do all day otherwise?? It'd be pretty boring for Him otherwise. I mean, He created each thing and said it was good. So after that, He rests for a day. Well then, what does He do with the rest of His life. He does every change in every creature: man or animal, or plant. God is a Master Chemist and Biologist! He has quite an incredible imagination, which is so pleasing that we Praise God for all that He has given us to witness and enjoy. If there is any tweaking needed, He takes care of it. Such splendor is all of the things He has made for us to be thankful for and for us to enjoy. You might remember that the Lord God made man out of the dirt of the earth. Well, if God can isolate this mineral or element from the dirt, He does. And if He needs water for His creation, then He adds to them 2 Hydrogen and one Oxygen. He makes it all as He wishes. Didn't Jesus tell us that God could make children to Abraham from these rocks.

God also makes the storms and tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, thunder, rain, sleet and snow, etc. Every bit of it is under His control. It is no lady called Mother Nature. That's man summarizing all that happens. Who do you think makes the high pressure and low pressure come together and cause 'weather.' Who do you think even makes the high or low pressure?? God does it all, and you sell Him short! He has many angels to do the work, plus Himself, and His Spirit is within the angels. God also has the help of His Son, Jesus. I know what I'm talking about here, so don't be upset. It's All True!!

I will go for now and you all think about it.

Warmest Regards And Godspeed!!

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

In our scenario, the three rabbits are from the same source, their parents. Their color difference is why selection is acting upon them.

Am I to understand that you are saying that a rabbit can only create a rabbit, and likewise with all animal "types"?

That might be so with rabbits. I have no idea what the geologic record says about rabbit evolution. But I have personally seen what it has to say about fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, and reptile to mammal transitions. And within each of these groups, we see evolution: for example, we see horses go from small, three-toed critters to the large, hoofed species of today.

Perhaps there is similar data about rabbit evolution. But that is not something I've ever looked for

The white hare is a mutant. All new and added characteristics in any species is the result of mutations in the theory of evolution.

What causes the mutation? Nature!

Nature is the cause of everything in nature. Nature is the cause of the mutations that it later selects for survival in the climate change it also is the cause of. A little pre planning I'd say.

Nature selected everything according to the theory of evolution and that makes nature God. Nature has finally created itself human beings with a mind capable of thought. I would call that an act of self expression and willful intent with a plan and a purpose. And yet, the very people who believe everything is nature don't seem to realize they have contradicted themselves by declaring the nature they worship to be an impersonal, mindless, machine.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I was hoping for some reference to the theory, and quotes from scientists. I'm sorry that you felt that a paraphrased series of partial quotes from anonymous forum posters would be sufficient.

As you know, selection picks which allele combinations increase their frequencies. The actual alleles are generated by another method, and you will not find a text book that disagrees. Your claim that 'evolutionists' believe something else is odd. (An evolutionist, incidentally, is someone who believes in the gradual change of species, but the mechanism is not specified. That would make those YECs who need rapid speciation from kinds also evolutionists. Perhaps you should use the term neo-darwinist?)

Perhaps you should call yourself's neo-creationists.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Perhaps you should call yourself's neo-creationists.

--Dave

Neo-darwinist is a standard term, indicating a fusion between Darwinism (evolution) and modern genetics (mechanisms), and is more accurate than using the rather wide evolutionist term. 6Days and others seem to use evolutionist to mean 'scientist' quite often, but also 'biologist' or 'geneticist' or astrophysicist' as the mood takes them, so it is hard to know what they mean sometimes.

What does neo-creationist offer that creationist does not?

 

[6days]

I*was hoping for some reference to the theory, and quotes from scientists.

But that isn't what you asked for. I showed that right here in TOL, some argue for evolution without understanding it.

As you know, selection picks which allele combinations increase their frequencies.

Selection eliminates...sometimes. When selection eliminates too much, a population can become fragile leading to extintion.

However, selection is incapable of detecting allele combinations, allowing harmful mutations to accumulate in the population.

The actual alleles are generated by another method

...Yes, from the pre-existing genome, mutations can alter a gene . Mutations can't create a gene

 

[6days]

*6Days and others seem to use evolutionist to mean 'scientist' quite often

Nope... not even once.

Many scientists are evolutionists.

Many evolutionists are not scientists.*

 

[gcthomas]

6Days and others seem to use evolutionist to mean 'scientist' quite often, but also 'biologist' or 'geneticist' or astrophysicist' as the mood takes them, so it is hard to know what they mean sometimes.

Nope... not even once.

Not even once, you say. But read here:

There is opposing views even amongst evolutionists. (Chemical, biological, stellar). *Students benefit when they are challenged to explore and compare competing ideas.

Honesty is to be valued, even amongst YECs, 6Days. Give it a go. You might like it.