lucky80 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wow, dude. You can accept that a computer built by a man can do millions of calculations a second, but an all powerful God (if he/she exists) that created man by an act of will can't handle "judging" one.whatever people a second?
I thought it was going to be, 'another one of those posts' until I read it all; well written post my friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Christian doctrine (basic scriptural "truth") says that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He knows all, is everywhere, and can do anything. When you die, there is no "time" taken to judge you, He knows what is in your heart.
And that's the point of my thread; how is it realistic to think, even on omni-terms that any deity could judge 150k people per day, create these so-called miracles thousands of times per day, and be everywhere everyone, all 6.5 billion people are at all times. This blows way past Twilight Zone stuff. Not saying it isn't real, just that the further we get into this concept, the logistical end, the further I am skeptical of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as Adam/Eve incest with yourself discussion, consider that God destroyed man with the flood except for Noah, his sons and their wives. So we're all related to them, who were also all related to adam & eve......(yeah I didn't help myself there).
Oh well, the Mormons fit right into this theory!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's still fairly easy to believe that God's perfect design corrupted over X generations since the garden of eden to the point where your sister or cousin having your baby is not cool on very many levels. (That should be a poll: If your sister was the only woman in existence besides your mom, would you do your sister?)
I guess it depends upon what she looks like :puke: Naw, not gonna happen, but if we were still 'uncivilized,' primordial animals w/o the social structures we have today, no problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's much more believable than the hindu flood myth that god destroyed the earth with water, except for 1 man who god sent a giant turtle to carry through the flood. After the water receded he fashioned a woman out of butter and replenished the earth through her.
But being much more believable is still generally unbelievable IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I did not say any source said "proof" of anything. I said evolution is taught as if it were fact.
What we're talking here is strength of language and I find that people who use more absolute language, not saying you, but venues, organizations that use absolute language do so because their argument is weak. I see it in court, I see it in church as well as in casual arguments out of these venues. The law uses a standard of proof:
- Reasonable suspicion = 10%ish
- Probable Cause = 25%ish
- Preponderance = >50%
- Beyond a reasonable doubt = 80%ish (the more $ you have, the higher this is)
Trying to apportion proof is like trying to proportion pregnancy.
The church/religion speaks in the concept that there is no question that there is a god and he has a son named Jesus. This is patently incorrect, even if there is a God/Jesus, since there is no direct evidence, we must think of God/Jesus as a theory, unless we want to be irrational/illogical. Evidence I exist is all too present, Evidence the people I know is very present, evidence that we evolved from ape or some other animals isn't complete, hence we must look at it as a theory. Evidence that there is a God/Jesus is only present in tortillas and screen door images (just a joke, take a Ritalin folks!). The presence of God/Jesus is only present in writings that are >2k years old, interpreted for language and revised, as well, reinterpreted differently by different sects. Take all of it for what it's worth, but when I see any oft these entities project an agenda, I doubt I will ever believe a thing they say, which is why science draws me the most near; they beg anyone to disprove their theories.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In 99% of the classrooms that the average american might actually pay attention through, evolution is the only theory on the origin of man that is presented with ANY kind of emphasis.
Agreed. Why is this? Does science own academia? Is it a political thing and that the gov hates Christianity? They give them tax-free organization, so that's hard to believe. Could it be that Christianity has only one piece of paper that supports it; the Bible. Again, all religions I’ve ever encountered are irrational, not based upon logic but hope, which is subjective and intangible. This is why there is the occasional Koreshian-type group that spins off Christianity. I can think of the Hale-bop Comet folks who committed suicide, but who else did nutty things in the name of science? Religion, Christianity is intangible, how would a school teach it? There are Bible colleges, but they just teach stories of the Bible I imagine. Oh well, now the Christians can plead religious persecution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again it may be semantics, but there is a big difference between breeding certain qualities, and a rat giving birth to a bat, or an ape giving birth to homo-erectus (I know there were other "steps").
Evolution doesn't work in 1 generation. Come on, quit trivializing it for the sake of argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as I'm concerned, natural selection does not constitute evolution, although the chinese tigers whose habitat got flooded and now have webbed paws intrigues me.
Don't know of that incident, but it couldn't have occurred with the same tigers, they don't mutate to adapt. If you look at a cat's claw, there is a sort of web anyway. Post this story, be interested to read it.
As for you not accepting that natural selection is a component of evolution, that brings me back to a thread where I posted that the USA is an Imperialist nation, posted a definition of Imperialism, Will shot back saying he didn't like that definition of Imperialism. Well, sorry, I didn't write the dictionary, I just read it. Same here, if you want to draw up your own definition, have a great time, meanwhile the rest of us will be back here in reality. Please don't take that as an insult, but let's use the common definitions of various elements.
Natural selection is present when a heard of gazelles are being chased by a tiger and the tiger catches the slowest one. This is not an exact science, as the fastest one may be injured and therefore slower that day, but science works off the concept of probability and any of them could be injured at any given time, so the fastest one will usually survive and reproduce. How about bulls, the dominant male has his own harem of cows, so he passes on dominant traits. Natural selection is all around us, occurs everyday, to deny it is as errant as denying the Holocaust, which is a crime that can be sentenced by up to 10 years in Austria, Hitler's home country. Thought I would throw that in since you use a Hitler reference. Again, is it intelligent to deny a simple concept of natural selection, one that is present all around us today? I understand that since it is the foundational block of the theory of evolution, that if you can disprove the foundation, the rest of the theory crumbles, a very typical way to attack a belief. But is it intelligent to think that Jesus decides which tiger gets to eat which gazelle based on luck, based on Jesus making the tiger attack which gazelle? I mean, itis simple reasoning that the slowest will get eaten, furthermore, if a tiger isn't fast enough to catch anything, it will die as well and not reproduce: if you don't call that natural selection, what do you call it?
__________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
_____________________________________________________
"In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution
may take place in a population of a specific organism."
Like the language? Not absolute, therefore not with an agenda. But natural selection isn't really in question as we can find examples al around us, other than not liking the definition of the term, can debunk what NS states? Can you find another reason why the slowest gazelle gets caught and doesn't pass on its traits at all or as frequently as the survivors? Is it Jesus imposing his will? What is your explanation?
_____________________________________________________
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
_______________________________________________________
I need to read more Darwin:
[edit] Darwin's hypothesis
Between 1842 and 1844, Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved".[34] The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce.[35] As long as there is some variation between them, there will be an inevitable selection of individuals with the most advantageous variations. If the variations are inherited, then differential reproductive success will lead to a progressive evolution of particular populations of a species, and populations that evolve to be sufficiently different might eventually become different species.
_____________________________________________________
To me, that is solid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as natural selection and the human species goes, I said it in a rant on my website last september: "Survival of the fittest went out the window when the TV dinner walked in the front door."
Altho is it true that contemporary humans have bastardized NS, our alpha males are Bill Gates and everyone here’s favorite, G Bush, it is still present today. But phenotype genes are replaced by $$$. If you are born into a rich family, you are born with a great phenotype. However reproduction isn’t dependent upon this and often the worst traits end up being reproduced more often than are desirable traits. Survival in a contemporary human society revolves around the ability to create capital, so those who are genetically the most able to create capital will survive, but will they reproduce.
But evolution from the start of time or the start of man occurred how many millions of years ago? When Darwin speaks of human evolution there were no TV dinners, no cars, no other distractions or luxuries. And Darwin referred to times before civilization with his theories of human evolution, so to bring in TV dinners is cute, but not in context with Darwin’s theory of evolution and/or NS. But yes, human NS and evolution have changed with modernity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Who knows what vestigial organs did in the past? Who's to say they are in fact vestigial? We learn more about our bodies daily.
Whales have leg bones, were they on the way out or the way in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_organs
Vestigial structures are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,[1] and tend to be much more variable than similar parts. Although structures usually called "vestigial" are largely or entirely functionless, a vestigial structure may retain lesser functions or develop minor new ones.[2] However, care must be taken not to apply the label of vestigiality to exaptation, in which a structure originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one. For example, the wings of penguin would not be vestigial, as they have been modified for a substantial new purpose (underwater locomotion), while those of an emu would be, as they have no major purpose anymore (not even for display as in ostriches).
All we have to go from is that there are tissues or organs that are no longer needed, there is a genetic passing of these tissues/structures along, structure = function, so we can just surmise that there was a reason at some point that we needed them. No fact, just evidence that can be selectively ignored or try to reason them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ya I got nothin on the tailbone.
We can’t intelligently ignore it, is it on the way out or the way in? It does lead one to believe we could have evolved from some creature that had a tail - pretty strong evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your moth story was not an example of evolution.
It’s adaptation to an environmental change. You don’t have to like it, but it fits every definition of NS.
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.
It is more favorable to have a color that disguises with the environment. A chameleon would not eat all the time if it didn’t change color. I understand your desire to throw out NS so you can then claim the T.of E. is all BS, I do understand your tactic, but to claim NS, a phenomenon that is clear all around us today in most/all species is void is just dishonest. To claim the theory that we evolved from apes, well, you could make a reasonable claim there.
So yes, the moth adapting to its changing environment IS an example of natural selection, since the most desirable traits have been passed along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's exactly what would have happened if Hitler had succeeded in eliminating all the non-Aryans; the human species would have appeared different, but all that really changed was the moths lost a dominant pigment trait, because those who had it were easy targets. The species is still the same.
Exactly the same, but entirely different in regard to color, the only thing that changed in their environment. So they are very different. Appearance is an element of adaptation and NS. Here we go:
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.
Observable characteristics are color, do we agree?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If Nazi's ruled the world, still today there'd be kids born all the time who weren't blond and blue eyed.
You’re assuming what a madman might have done in a given situation, let’s not get too far out there. Sure, recessive genetics would bear differing characteristics, but they might have been exterminated until all non-blue/blond recessives were washed from the cycle. But yes, if both the mother and the father have 1 recessive and 1 dominant, the recessives get selected for the offspring, that recessive trait will be evident in the offspring, a 1:4 long shot. NS isn’t an exact science, as most science, it deals with probability. If you’re looking for some grease ball peddling an absolute, go to court and listen to a lawyer or go to church and listen to the used car salesman peddling religion. Science doesn’t pretend to know it all, unlike the other 2. BTW, GW Bush is the president, are we sure Nazis don’t rule the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hell I've got 3 cousins who all share obvious family facial features with their parents, except that their father is blonde/blue, their mother is dirtyblonde/grey, and the girls are blonde/blue, red/green, and brown/brown. My aunt is french/polish/irish, my uncle is french/polish/lithuanian, it happens.
What did the mailman look like? JK….No, it is simple recessive genetics, via Mendel, the father of genetics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Moths reproduce fast, and birds eat fast too, so the "bad" pigment traits were lost quickly.
Right, which establishes why a moth can evolve in a few generation cycles, whereas human evolution takes waaaaaaaaaay longer. But it’s still the same NS platform.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as all the problems in the world and where is God when people suffer.
Consider it this way: God gave us free will. Freedom to follow His rules or to not follow His rules. Freedom to love and worship Him, or to turn our backs and walk away. If we didn't have free will, there would be no point to existence, we would just be mindless slaves to an unloving creator. Those who don't follow the rules cause most of the suffering in the world by their actions, when God destroyed man in the flood.
Well, that’s nice Christian philosophy that people should live by with or w/o believing in a god, any god, but it doesn’t explain our origin in any kind of complex form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As far as listening to someone in a robe, I think anyone who blindly follows what they are spoon fed is a prime example of what is wrong with this country, religious or not. The church I was raised in was not led by ignorant men. The preachers were educated individuals, who believed what they taught, and there was a clear line between tradition and scripture. I have had conversations in the past with devout catholics and Jehovah's witnesses where they could not refute my logic and understanding of "their" religion. A couple of my favorite points:
1. The Bible says, IIRC 2nd Corinthians, that priests do not need to be celibate. That is a decision that is for the individual to make, and is between that individual and God. Why does catholicism force it upon clergy 'creating' so many pedophiles?
2. Jehovah's believe that only 144,000 people will get into heaven. Considering that there are currently millions of members in their church, and probably also millions of believers already dead, the odds of getting struck by lightning are better than getting into heaven if they're the ones who are right. I'll go practice Voodoo before I join their church; if the odds say I end up in hell anyway, might as well have fun getting there.
This is kinda my point: Christianity is so dividing within that it grenades itself in many ways. People get tired of following their cult, so they diverge - the Mormons are worst IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Before anyone goes there, I use Hitler as a correlation to those moth hating bastards who built those factories only. I am french, polish, and lithuanian, three countries that all got royally f#cked during WWII. Also let it be noted that I have no sisters, yes 2 of those cousins are hot, and I walked away from the church I was raised in and currently aren't quite sure what I believe, but "The Art of Happiness" by The Dalai Lama changed my life.
It’s an analogy, no need to qualify yourself. I’m Irish, so I can talk all the trash about drunks that I want to.
. 
