Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
My belief--completely unscientific and purely philosophical--is that God chooses to make it look random, so as to not leave His fingerprints all over the place. He does this for one purpose, and one purpose only--to not interfere with our free will.
If God were to leave definitive evidence of non-random evolution, then our ability to freely choose to serve him would not exist.
It's like this: suppose there is an elephant in the room with you. Theoretically, one has free will to say that the elephant isn't there. However, no matter how sincerely one holds the belief that there isn't an elephant in the room, the room is STILL going to be extremely crowded.
1. Genetic Drift - chance changes in the gene pool of a small population. This includes something called the Founder Effect where a new colony is established in a new habitat by only a few individuals and is not representative of the original population, and the Bottleneck Effect where a small number of individuals of a species survive, but again are not representative of the original population.
2. Gene Flow - a gain or loss of alleles by migration of fertile individuals between populations.
3. Mutations - changes in an organisms DNA, a relatively rare event occurring once per every 10e5 or 10e6 gametes.
4. Non-Random Mating - including inbreeding and assortative mating (based on phenotype).
5. Natural Selection - differential success in reproduction (often due to changes in environment).
An excellent point. Thank you! :)
Say what?
Didn't evolution lead to the behaviorist--culture craze...B F Skinner---Dr. Liberalism/Brave New World...
create the perfect environment and we would have spontaneous happiness?
He raised his daughter in a box---she killed herself!
putting saw dust in the drive train is a good way to unload a piece of junk...
in the paradigm shift that junk gets paved over--put in a museum--out to pasture!
If by "not mutually exclusive" you mean that the human psyche is capable of affirming two logically mutual-exclusives without being troubled by the contradiction, you of course are correct. Human mentality is capable of that, and a host of other evils. That is like saying, "It is possible to be a fiscal and social conservative who feels that a totalitarian state controlling all of human life and commerce, and crushing out every last vestige of human freedom, is the best form of government."
If, however, you mean that it can be done consistently with one's professed faith — that is, with the Bible — then you are mistaken.
I'm responsible for loading the bases--one out!
That's microevolution. I don't believe there is any disagreement between evolutionists and creationists of the existence of such microevolution.
To Sabertooth's point about reshuffling genes, humans contain genes for gills and probably some other stuff (wings would be cool, but I don't think we could fly). Look at human embryonic developmental characteristics. But genes are added and destroyed. There are simple viral vectors for some activity and bacteria can swap DNA readily. There are also situations where DNA can become truncated. Again the processes are not well understood.
Technology has reached the point where these mechanisms can be described over the next several hundred years or less. There's a lot of data, but the procedures are becoming automated and computer power and memory are no longer a constraint. This is a key point in history where this technology can benefit us in the hands of a free people or create God knows what suffering in the hands of people like x42. As a Christian, I'm saying we're better off having this technology in the hands of people who have moral values and who value life.
‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)
If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately triumph over evil.
I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense.
The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it.
If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The... future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him.
This is very interesting...I wasn't aware that Creationists acknowledged any form of evolution.
Another point: if it can occur in a small, isolated society, it can occur on a larger scale as well.
Then I am indeed a "cracked pot", because I find no contradiction between my faith and my science (and yes, I do actually read my Bible with great regularity).
This is true, but it doesn't mean that a scientist has to be irreligious. It means that a scientist has to keep his religion out of his science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.