Evolution - A serious question.

[PearlWatson]

At any rate, when you said "if God is involved then the process is not undirected", you didn't really mean it. Cool.

The ape didn't understand so I will clarify with bolded words:

It is entirely compatible to say God used undirected processes to create humans. Therefore, merely saying God used evolution to create humans is not sufficients to say the belief is in intellegent design.

An ape probably wouldn't understand this but if God is involved IN CREATING HUMANS then the process is not undirected.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think that God sets the wheels in motion and may even intervene at times but he does not micro-manage the entire process. Ever hear of free agency? It's kind of a big deal in the Bible regarding God's, Jesus' and Lucifer's relationship.

How does the concept of free agency have anything to do with evolution?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This gives a bit more depth on the human taxonomy.

People have such an incorrect assumption on what evolution means. It's simply the change in gene frequencies in a population over time. A population is defined as a group of organisms that are willing and able to reproduce. Once a group of organisms that previously could create reproducing children with the rest of the population lose that ability, you have a new species. That's called speciation.

It has come to amaze me how people dismiss a concept without even knowing the core concept behind it.

And we're talking about science here. Belief has NOTHING to do with science. Even science doesn't believe science since you're ALWAYS testing and replacing concepts and proving null hypotheses false.

 

[PearlWatson]

Random doesn't mean ineffective... like everyother species had 5 noses and 3 legs. Random mutation is subtle, and occurs 1 in a Million based pairs, but when you add up all our base pairs it occurs a good amount of times. Sometimes mutation was beneficial, sometimes it wasn't. The ones it wasn't beneficial for died out, which is why we didn't see those bad mutations juxtaposed against good mutations when adaptation occurs.

Consider evolution like a game of blackjack where you have 1 billion players, each with 1 billion dollars and each player is consistently betting 1% of their worth. Each player represents a species. Each hand represents a new generation of that player. Every player starts the same, but overtime you would get players who are extremely poor and eliminated, and players who are extremely rich and doing quite well. This wouldn't occur because of a god-determined fate, this simply occurred because of probability.

You could liken an "environmental" change to the "casino" setting a cap floor of 50 Billion dollars , where all players without 50 billion dollars were eliminated. In this you would have some players who would scrape by barely and others who have no problem meeting the cap., but most would be eliminated. These players who met the cap, weren't determined by god, they were determined by probability (randomly) which was how well they did in each previous million hands.

Maybe you make an argument that god's plan was the casino and the blackjack dealer was god... but still ostensibly everything occurred randomly.

It's hard to look at the advancements of humans and say it occured randomly, but we're not talking about one blackjack hand that made everything work out. We're talking about literally billions of hands which determined anything from our height to our chemical reaction to a hormone.

Why do you start out with a billion players?

 

[PearlWatson]

People have such an incorrect assumption on what evolution means. It's simply the change in gene frequencies in a population over time.

If that were really what the theory of evolution was all about no one would care.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

If that were really what the theory of evolution was all about no one would care.

And people use incorrect notions of evolution to try to argue against the theory of evolution, which is why I stopped reading Trout's first post at "humans descended from apes" line. There are many others that I've seen in this thread so far, which doesn't surprise me, and why I generally don't want to get dragged into these because all I get in return is faulty information and argumentative diatribe, which isn't conducive to actual debate on scientific issues, or any issue for that matter.

 

[TroutBum]

And people use incorrect notions of evolution to try to argue against the theory of evolution, which is why I stopped reading Trout's first post at "humans descended from apes" line. There are many others that I've seen in this thread so far, which doesn't surprise me, and why I generally don't want to get dragged into these because all I get in return is faulty information and argumentative diatribe, which isn't conducive to actual debate on scientific issues, or any issue for that matter.

Nice DWD, if you were trying to come off like a pompous know-it-all prick, then you succeeded.

And since you stopped reading my initial post and refuse to get 'dragged' into the thread, you don't realize that the purpose of this thread was to hopefully get educated. (as much as possible for an internet message board) So far, so good, at least in my opinion. Instead of being an *** fudge, why don't you educate us idiots?

 

[PearlWatson]

And people use incorrect notions of evolution to try to argue against the theory of evolution, which is why I stopped reading Trout's first post at "humans descended from apes" line. There are many others that I've seen in this thread so far, which doesn't surprise me, and why I generally don't want to get dragged into these because all I get in return is faulty information and argumentative diatribe, which isn't conducive to actual debate on scientific issues, or any issue for that matter.

Why do you have a problem with the descended from "ape-like ancestor" part? That's what your chart indicates.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Why do you have a problem with the descended from "ape-like ancestor" part? That's what your chart indicates.

"Descended from 'ape-like ancestor'" does not equal "descended from apes." The appropriate way to look at it is "current apes and humans descend from the same ancestor."

 

[One Brow]

The ape didn't understand so I will clarify with bolded words:

Your "clarification" adds nothing. You've acknowledged God can create with an undirected process, and there is no reaso to exclude humans from that.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Nice DWD, if you were trying to come off like a pompous know-it-all prick, then you succeeded.

And since you stopped reading my initial post and refuse to get 'dragged' into the thread, you don't realize that the purpose of this thread was to hopefully get educated. (as much as possible for an internet message board) So far, so good, at least in my opinion. Instead of being an *** fudge, why don't you educate us idiots?

I should come across as a pompous, know-it-more prick.

And I have tried in threads like this. And then, a year later, the same thread pops up. So what is the point then if someone else, or in some of the cases the same people, just under different usernames, keep using the same defunctive argument no matter how many times you show him/her the fallacy to his/her crowing?

 

[PearlWatson]

"Descended from 'ape-like ancestor'" does not equal "descended from apes." The appropriate way to look at it is "current apes and humans descend from the same ancestor."

But I have One Brow telling me that humans are apes. Marcus saying we are Greater Apes. Are you guys part of different Darwin sects or something?