Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
It was old school lawyers’ advice: when you make this point, raise your voice, pound your fist on the table, blow spittle, and show yourself angry. Why? It’s your weakest point.
You mean beyond your(and others) observation of the bibles text..
What if I see some things spoken of in the bible deeper than you do?..
or even not deeper but differently than you..
What I see of the bibles message(s) NOW is quite different than what I saw when I was first "born again".. My vision GREW.. Hey, it could happen.. NO, it DOES happen..
LoL.......
Actually, that's not true at all. Directed evolution is explored all the time in the laboratory, and animal breeding produces changes in body form that are greater than the differences between many natural species.
What mechanism prevents (in the words of Wallace) varieties from departing indefinitely from the original type?
Your objection to chance assumes that evolution has a goal, or in the words of Dembski, a specified outcome that it is required to reach. But this is not the case. Evolution is a drunkard's walk, constrained only by the fact that some steps terminate the walk for a particular individual.
In order to argue that a random walk will not produce a branching tree, you have to ignore several things that are observed to happen.
First, genetic change does occur and is passed down to offspring. Second, the process of reproduction creates far more offspring than survive to reproduce. Third, the selection of which offspring survive is not completely random; it is biased. Some traits are statistically better than others at surviving and reproducing. Fourth, populations are occasionally divided by barriers the result in two non-interbreeding populations.
The sequence of change, followed by differential reproductive success, constitutes an algorithm, which combined with barriers that divide populations, produces a branching tree.
You asked me what natural processes required for evolution have yet to be observed through scientific methods. The answer is...chance.
This statement is so silly that I have to assume it is a typo. First of all, chance is not a requirement for evolution. Evolution could occur if genetic change followed a sequence rather than occurring randomly. It is not the source or cause of change that shapes populations; it is the outcome of change that shapes populations. This has, in fact, been demonstrated in the laboratory.
But you know all this, because you have a degree in biology.
When you join a thread.. WABBIT SEASON, IS OPEN...
"I HATES that rabbit"- Yosemite Sam...
These are all true statements. Do you have a point in posting them?
True especially since "What is life?.." has not been determined yet, BY ANYBODY I know of..
What IS life?.. of a microbe?, carrot?, a dog?, an Ape, a man?
Is LIFE spiritual? Are there various qualitys/levels/kinds of spirit?..
If humans evolved from animals, then they evolved to mostly believe/search for/seek/or pine for some kind of "GOD"(history tells us).. That is if there is even a thing called evolution in the broader sense.. Could also be that animals evolve but humans do not.. But that would make humans "special".. a special case.. separate from "nature"..
Witness(Evos tearing their clothing and throwing dust in the air)
Jeese, I didn't mean to cause all that uproar.. (shineing fingernails)
Evolution is change that survives. It doesn’t occur “in order to...”
Human populations change, Some known adaptations include degree of skin melanin, tolerance for lactose, blood types, sickle cell trait.
"- § 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States."
This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.
Good morning tpaine!
The way I interpret these lines from Justice Story: The “no religious test” underpins the idea that there is to be no “alliance” between any particular religious sect and the federal government. This is not to say that the federal government is hostile to religion; just that the duties and powers of the federal government are not those of a religious authority. The idea here is “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” That is a clear separation. The authority backing up the federal government is the “We the People” – whom the Framers hoped would be moral, virtuous, even godly people. Recall what George Washington had to say on these matters….
Interestingly, though there is to be no religious test, there sort of is one anyway: All senior officers of the federal government swear an Oath of Office, and it is customary that such oaths are sworn on the Bible. This shows that the federal government is not “hostile” to that book, nor to JudeoChristian theology.
Don’t forget that the Declaration of Independence presents the idea of the Creator, from whom all men derive their unalienable rights equally. This is so important, tpaine: For if we ever began to believe we obtain our rights, not from God, but from the State, the State would be effectively unrestrained in what it can do. If we understand that God is superior to the State, and is the source of the moral authority of the sovereign people of which the State is the agent, then this means that the State has limited, not plenipotential powers (such as tyrants forever lust after).
The traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution is God – Man – State (in descending order). Compare this with a totalitarian State: Tyrant – State – Man (also in descending order). You need God in there, to keep the totalitarians at bay. :^)
Please share your thoughts with me?
I see.. You mean like domestic dogs.. Whether its a Toy Poodle or a Great Dane a dog is a dog.. or a Wolf, Coyote or Fox.. but NOT a Cat..
Humans could be special.. a special case.. separate from nature..
One of intelligent design.. guided and molded into those that seek God and those that rebel and are abnormal.. flawed and dysfunctional.. basically spiritual duds..
“survives” is also an “in order to”
"-- It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.
If we understand that God is superior to the State, and is the source of the moral authority of the sovereign people of which the State is the agent, then this means that the State has limited, not plenipotential powers (such as tyrants forever lust after).
The traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution is God – Man – State (in descending order).
Typically Betty, you are simply ignoring the gist of what Story says.
There is no understanding of "any alliance between church and state" in our Constitution; - no "traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution" of "God – Man – State".
- As Story points out, "The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers" of such authority.
Please share your thoughts with me?
I think the question posed; - "Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?" is divisive, and that the real issue we should all address is how to get government to obey our Constitution.
Saying that ' evolutionary humanists' are causing gov't socialism is a ludicrous nonproductive generalization.
Weak how? Go ahead and read it for yourself. I'll post it again, from -YYZ-'s #17 (emphasis added):
We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?
Obviously -YYZ-'s, "does that mean creationism is responsible," is rhetorical/sarcastic. Obviously -YYZ- was affirming that creationism is NOT responsible for "their murderous creed". Obviously -YYZ- was affirming that such an argument is completely invalid.
That was my point: That several creationists became outrageously upset with this comment, even though the comment was saying it would be WRONG to impute to creationism generally the bad creed of SOME who happened to be creationists.
I think I have a very strong point in that not a single creationist here picked up on what was actually said, instead took great umbrage, played the victim, while never denouncing, and in many cases approving, an actual and affirmative guilt-by-association smear against evolution comprised by the article at the top of the thread.
By airily dismissing this point, instead of engaging it, you tacitly endorse this hypocritical double standard yourself. That only further strengthens my point.
I thought philosophical subtlety was your specialty.
The difference lies in whether it is possible to know the future in detail, and make advantageous changes in advance.
Sometimes it is. You can lead a moving target with a shotgun, so the swing of the gun would be and example of change "in order to" hit a target.
But ecosystems are not a smoothly moving target. Nor is climate. These factors are complex and chaotic. There is no strategy that can always successfully anticipate need. The strategy that living things have devised is to make small changes in many offspring, anticipating that most will die before reproducing.
This is, in fact, what happens. Even in humans. Most sperm are defective, and the majority of fertilized zygotes are spontaneously aborted. There are species in which the percentage of individuals born alive, but which die before reproducing, is close to one hundred percent. (The word "anticipating" is, of course, a figure of speech. It makes no difference whether the change is directed or whether it is stochastic. The outcome is not affected by the cause of the change.)
Yes. I did in fact consider it. That's why I went back through the thread to discover and/or remind myself how this whole Islamists/creationists thing began. In my post just before this one (#434) and in #393, and I think also maybe in one other post, I give my reason for believing that the problem IS with the three of you.
What you interpreted as an attack on creationism wasn't (and isn't) and yet you have no apparent problem when actual attacks, of the exact type you erroneously thought were being made against creationism, are made instead against evolution.
As casuistry is all yours!
Very good. Then rest your case.
I am not surprised there is faulty reasoning with both parties. You are welcome to agree with me on this, too.
“....Actually, that’s not true at all. Directed evolution is explored all the time in the laboratory, and animal breeding produces changes in body form that are greater than the differences between many natural species....”
I never said that there wasn’t an active effort underway to explore evolution in the lab. I know that. What I said was that we’ve tried to reproduce certain aspects of evolution — in the lab — and have not succeeded.
“Evolution” must account for common descent of all life across all time. Considering the complexity of just one single organism, never mind the complexity of the natural — and purposeful — systems in which living thing reside, that’s a pretty tall order for something as small as chance to explain.
Animal breeding is hardly a worthy bit of evidence to throw up to support an endeavor of that magnitude. Now...interestingly...while the ability of intelligent human beings to deliberately breed a cow with sturdier conformity is unworthy to support the “evolution by chance and totally without purpose” argument, it does show that with purpose and design in mind a knowledgeable designer can successfully create variation that serves a goal.
“...Your objection to chance assumes that evolution has a goal, [...] Evolution is a drunkard’s walk, ....”
No, I object to evolution because it is a notion that necessarily assumes no goal, when I believe creation clearly speaks to “goals”. Despite the fact that all of the earth’s living and nonliving systems (including the organisms that live in them) have been clearly organized to function in complex (not chaotic) systems and cycles, evolutionary theorists continue to stubbornly assert that “chance” is responsible for everything and that the way things are today is really...nothing more than a happy set of accidents.
Or, I suppose, to extend your own analogy...The drunkard, despite not being in possession of his faculties and unable to avoid falling off the sidewalk and be hit by a car at any given moment, has still somehow managed to paint a set of beautiful masterpieces, build an amazing series of complex architectural features that are uniquely well-suited in both form and function, and design a vast array of complementary and supplementary systems and networks...all while wearing a blindfold.
It’s the blind watchmaker explanation, recast with a bottle of Thunderbolt. It just doesn’t work.
“First of all, chance is not a requirement for evolution. Evolution could occur if genetic change followed a sequence rather than occurring randomly. ...”
But we’re NOT talking about genetic change following a sequence - that diverts the discussion down a philosophical rabbit trail. Despite your restatement of the 4 mechanisms of change using more technical jargon, you didn’t say anything I hadn’t already covered. Nor does anything there really diminish the role of mutation as the implicit or explicit starting point for evolutionary change.
Mutation remains the first mechanism of evolution - followed by some combination of genetic drift, migration, and natural selection. Mutation, as I have already said...rather patiently...is about chance. Evolution is premised upon chance.
“...But you know all this, because you have a degree in biology. ...”
Oh. Look. A potshot. Again.
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.