reply to post by edmc^2
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
1) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the origin of life. Check.
2) Evolution has no satisfactory answer to the meaning of life. Check.
Repeating things we're not in dispute over doesn't change anything. I've told you dozens of times that these are irrelevant to the truth of
Now, evolution not answering either of these questions doesn't change its validity.
Of course it does, because the “evolution theory” can only occur/happen unless it has a foundation.
We're back where we started months ago. I've gone over this with you already. The theory does have a foundation, it's called genetics
Philosophical questions aren't a foundation for any
scientific theory. Or did Newton have to ponder sexual morality before coming up with the
laws of motion?
Be it “abiogenesis” or whatever theory you use to support it.
Abiogenesis doesn't support evolution, it supports abiogenesis. If a magical space-donkey threw up the first living things onto Earth evolution would
still be valid. All evolution needs for its validity to hold is a set of living things that reproduce with genetic codes that don't copy
If the foundation is weak or even non-existent then the “evolution theory” has NO validity.
Again, the foundation for evolution is genetics. Magical space-donkey through life up on Earth still allows for evolution.
Alright, I'm going to repeat this yet again, as I've already told you this many, many times. Evolution is a scientific theory relating to
biodiversity. There is a separate theory in science relating to the origin of life, it is called abiogenesis, but it is a relatively new
Of course – the much revered philosophy of “Spontaneous Generation Theory” to the rescue.
Abiogenesis isn't 'spontaneous generation'. Spontaneous generation held that life arose from non-life regularly and in incredibly complex manners.
Such as maggots coming from rotting meat. Abiogenesis only occurs in certain environments, like the early Earth and it gives rise to incredibly
simple organisms, the most simple possible self-replicating, self-contained systems
Do you subscribe to this THEORY too?
I read and studied this theory a while back – and it is indeed a pseudo-science, a fanciful philosophy based on unscientific analysis and
Indeed it is, that's why it's nothing like abiogenesis
What about these theories – which one do you think fit the puzzle best?
>The deep sea vent theory.
> Fox's experiments.
> Eigen's hypothesis.
> Wächtershäuser's hypothesis.
> Radioactive beach hypothesis
I'm not certain. I'm not an organic chemist or molecular biologist and the field is still developing. Of course, you can't simply state that
science not being certain to an answer makes your answer better. That's a classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
But I’d like to hear your take on 'abiogeneses'– explain please how life came to be through 'abiogeneses'? Just to confirm my suspicion.
I'm not 100% certain, as I'm not a trained organic chemist or molecular biologist I'm not exactly absorbed in this sort of study. Nor do I
particularly have time for it. My personal lack of scientific grounding on an issue isn't necessarily against my argument. Now, if we were debating
this properly I'd research it a hell of a lot more. But since you've yet to acknowledge my invitation to the debate forum, I'll just stay away from
the scientific literature for now.
So my take, if the 'unguided evolution process' is such a powerful cause/force that a 'simple organism' is able to 'evolve' into a higher life
form like present day humans – then why is it NOT able to eradicate these parasites?
I already explained it and you're relying on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn't go from "higher" to "lower", it just
goes. Evolution is about survival, not perfection.
As for why we can't eradicate the parasites? They're evolving too
Unless you're saying that it is part of the plan all along – you know “arms race”- the fittest will survive? Yes/No?
...there's no 'plan'. Parasites adapt at the same time as their host organisms. Adaptation occurs much faster in organisms that have shorter
lifespans, shorter reproductive cycles, and larger offspring 'litters'. Parasites tend to adapt faster due to the above. We reproduce between 1-8
times in an 50-80 year lifetime. We don't keep up as well.
And who do you think is winning this “arms race” of yours, who will be eradicated if things continue the way they are?
I can't predict the next few million years of biodiversity. I don't know who will win the arms race of evolution. However, I think humanity might
prevail against parasitic organisms through scientific means.
Notice just a sampling:
(snip excerpt on cancer)
There's also been a massive rise in carcinogens, particularly in the developing world.
Here are just a few list of viruses that plague mankind.
Q. Guanarito, VEE, monkeypox,
Chikungunya, Mokola, Duvenhage, LeDantec,
the Kyasanur Forest brain virus, the Semliki Forest agent,
Ebola, add to the list AIDS virus.
...yes, all of the above also adapt. And they do so at a much faster rate than humans do. Of course viral and bacterial organisms also have the added
advantage of horizontal gene transfer, in which they can exchange DNA with other organisms.
Really, with these ever increasing threat from an ever stronger viruses, does man stand any chance? In another words – will human “evolution”
win this “arms race” of yours?
If it were left to just evolution? Possibly. We can actually trace blood typing to human evolution to combat small pox. The O blood type is found very
rarely in indigenous Western populations but found highly in Europeans and Asians. Why? Small pox. There's a connection.
Of course, if it were left to just evolution without advanced human technology we'd be knocked down to a much smaller population pool. This smaller
population would have to deal with far less in terms of disease and worldwide pandemics.
If yes, then how could that be since according to your statement:
Genetic code doesn't always copy perfectly, that's why things evolve in the first place.
...um...because the parts that don't copy perfectly are mutations. You and I both have somewhere around 180 genes unique from both of our parents.
And since according to the laws of genetics, if the source gene is defective then it follows that whenever or whatever is copied from it will also
contain the defective gene/DNA.
"Imperfect copy" and "defective" are two entirely different things. I have had a bit of my DNA sequenced due to a personal medical issue I'd
rather not discuss. I know that I have a marker that's different from both of my parents that relates to eye color. It's not a defect, it's just a
difference in coloration. Sometimes imperfect copies can actually be better.
Thus since ALL HUMANS are IMPERFECT (Romans 5:12) thus all that comes out of them MUST also be IMPERFECT. Correct?
Um..I never claimed perfection. And the imperfection of biological entities doesn't have anything to do with original sin, it has to do with
survival. The imperfect copying of DNA is what allows us to evolve. Without it we'd have gone the way of the dodo...actually, the dodo wouldn't have
even ever have existed, we'd just have a bunch of the exact same organism.
The more imperfect the parent gene the more imperfect the daughter gene will be, more susceptible to pathogens. Correct?
What? Okay, what do 'pathogens' have to do with DNA copying? And with DNA there isn't a level of 'perfection' for a gene. And you're
extrapolating all sorts of things. For one thing not all of the genetic code relates to the immune system. My eye coloring mutation has nothing to do
with my ability to fend off disease (which is quite good thank you very much).
Now, I'm not saying that the genetic code decays over time. Stop using straw man arguments.
About 180 genes per human are different from parents. These are our mutations. Some of them are significant advantages (better resistance to disease,
more resistance to solar radiation, the redhead gene which relates to the metabolic process with regard to certain chemicals etc). Some of them are
neutral in terms of survival but may increase chances of reproduction (my eye color gene, at least according to some women I've met), some of them
are harmful (various examples of human genetic abnormalities can be inserted here).
If this is the case (which it is)
Hey look, you just stated something and then claimed it as fact without any evidence and based entirely in ignorance
. Some imperfections in the
copying of DNA are beneficial.
mankind then IS – devolving, becoming more imperfect – getting weaker and sicker.
Nope. We're actually getting smarter, taller, and slightly stronger.
Correct? Unless you are saying that evolution is 'intelligent' able to filter out the bad genes?
Another logical fallacy, a false dilemma. There is a factor to sort out the problems, and it's not 'intelligent'. It's called natural selection.
The mutations that cause disadvantages like greater susceptibility to disease, are more likely to be sorted out.
Of course, humanity is altering natural selection with modern medical technology. We allow people who would have otherwise not survived in the wild to
survive. I personally wouldn't have made it in the wild because I have absolutely horrible
Now, most creationists can't seem to wrap their heads around this, but humans aren't the most important species on this planet and shouldn't be
used as a test case for evolution. We're the only species that uses technology (like glasses) to alter our survival chances in incredibly significant
But this couldn't be, because you said in a matter of FACT way: EVOLUTION is
“an unguided process”.
It's an unguided process but it's nonrandom. And stop shouting individual words. Use bold
to emphasize words rather than caps. It's both
easier to read and less associated with shouting.
Any hope for the future according to evolution theory?
Of course. However, it's hard for you to understand when you have such a distorted view of both evolution and genetics.
Will man evolve to another species in the future in order to survive its ultimate demise?
Of course. Eventually our allele frequency will change to the point where humanity will no longer be considered homo sapiens sapiens. This may be due
to genetic drift or possibly due to our own intervention into DNA through genetic experimentation.
Evolve into what?
I can't predict what's going to happen tomorrow with my own day, how am I supposed to predict something that will happen with human biology when
I'm long dead?
Death is a more complicated issue.
No it's not – to believers of creation it's an enemy that will someday be eradicated by a loving God. (Rev 21:1-3, John 3:16).
Hey look! You're taking the word of a book that gets science incredibly wrong
! It states that the Sun and Moon were created the day after
, that the sun goes around the Earth, and that the Earth is flat.
In fact the Creator of life already told us how and why old age, sickness and death occurred: here's the key - Rom 5: 12 (if you're interested)
You know, Bible passages don't impress me. It's a book that doesn't have a single scientifically accurate passage.
With regards to death from external causes like disease, injury, oxygen deprivation, etc the issue is that the necessary minimum amount of a
certain system required for the body to function has not been met for enough time for the entire thing to finally die.
So are saying then that these “external causes” of death are “necessary” in order for the “for the entire thing to finally die” so that
the fittest will survive??
No, it's just unavoidable. If I take humpty-dumpty and smash him up enough it won't matter how much work the king's horses and king's men put into
it. He'll just be a pile of broken egg.
Humans are machines. If you break a machine badly enough it won't function anymore.
With regard to ageing it has to deal with how the cells in the body reproduce. They don't copy themselves perfectly after between 20 and 35
years, so the body starts to go into a small decline.
Which leads me to this simple Q: what caused the telomeres to die off/fail to reproduce once it becomes an adult?
I never mentioned telomeres, did I? I was trying to keep this as non-technical as possible since you've thrown a dozen questions at me.
Honest answer? I don't know and I don't feel like reading up on it by now. I'm guessing it's just because the process would be incredibly
difficult to keep sustained in a perfect way indefinitely.
Did 'evolution' somehow forgot to consider this?
Evolution doesn't consider anything. It isn't a thing, it's a process of change in allele frequency over generations. Though there are organisms
that don't senescence (you're the one that brought technical terms into this)
Or did 'evolution' intended it to be SO, in order to fulfill it's grand blind design/plan, that is, as you said:
Evolution works towards survival, not perfection
Hey look, you're starting to snip my quotes into pieces to take out of context, how cute. And you keep using straw men. I'm not saying there's a
grand design or plan. It just happens. Period.
Thus a death of a person due to a virus infection is “evolution's”:
in other words “survival of the fittest ”not perfection” - is that what you mean? Please correct me
if I'm wrong.
...works towards survival...
Survival of the fittest is true. And there's really no such thing as 'perfection'. Both 'fitness' and 'perfection' are relative terms. Humans
aren't more or less fit than sharks because we don't live in the same environment.
If so, then what you're saying imho is that the death of millions or even billions of humans (since their evolution/conception) were necessary in
order for evolution to move forward. Correct?
We simply die because there's nothing in our DNA to prevent senescence
And on this imho 'evolution' do not care one bit:
Because it's an unguided process. Evolution works towards survival, not perfection. If the organism survives and passes on its DNA then the
DNA will continue. But there's nothing in evolution that requires the organism to become perfect.
So an inferior gene begets an inferior gene
Did I mention inferior genes? Evolution is all about finding the best
genes for survival. But there's no such thing as 'perfection' because
it's a relative term.
– down the road, this gene will finally deteriorate to such a degree that the resulting organ is a mutant – unless you're saying otherwise.
I'm a mutant, you're a mutant, and every single organism on this planet is a mutant
. We all have DNA that didn't copy properly. You're
displaying such a monumental ignorance of biological science, particularly genetics and evolution, that I find it overwhelming to try and educate you
on the proper points.
Genetics don't copy perfectly, but the imperfect copies can generate benefits
for an organism.
Which brings me to this point.
Which was the point of all of these stupid leading questions that demonstrated cyclopean levels of ignorance. I mean 'cyclopean' in the sense of
, not in the sense of "one-eyed Greek mythological beast", I just wanted to switch things up.
That is, “DEATH” is part of the 'human evolution'.
It's not something specific to us. It's not an end result. We exist as a species rather than as individuals with regards to evolution. Evolution is
a phenomenon that occurs at the species level.
Death isn't a part of evolution, it's just a factor of biological life.
If so, does this mean then that death is a normal part of life?
Yes. Of course it is. You'd have to be sort of silly to not guess that. Unless of course you subscribe to the silly story in the Bible that has death
not existing until a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat a fruit from a magic tree.
Now, here's a question for you, did that plants that Adam and Eve ate die? Or were there little gardens growing in their stomachs?
If so evolution's end game then is imperfection and finally death?
...no. Evolution is a species-wide phenomenon. Now, there's no such thing as 'perfection' in the biological world. All organisms are 'imperfect'
in some way or another. Hammerhead sharks can't wear glasses or tap dance, that's an imperfection....except I abhor tap dancing so that might not be
Perfection is a subjective issue, not an objective one, so it's an irrelevant point. And death isn't an end game for evolution because..well...it
has no end game. It has no game. It's just a process.
Correct? Or maybe an endless devolution/evolution, an ongoing cycle of life and death – just like what the Hindu's believe – reincarnation.
Please, don't bring up more religion. And don't use the word 'devolution', it's a popular fiction concept, not an actual scientific one. Nothing
devolves. Any change in a species is evolution. You're just demonstrating such brobdingnagian (another word for "really big") levels of
misunderstanding of evolution that it's just not funny anymore.
Evolution is simply change. It's not good change, it's not bad change, it's any change. The only relative values of 'good' and 'bad' for this
change are whether or not they change the survivability of a species.
If this is true, then a pity for those who believe in it (evolution that is), (specially for those who abandoned Creation).
Creation's goal on the other hand is PERFECTION! Both in body and mind (Rom 8:20-21)! Should we not reach for that goal?
Um..how is that scientific? How is that based in observed evidence? How is that based in genetics or any other biological discipline? Why are you
moving on to concepts of mind when you haven't even addressed the basic biological concepts that evolution has an explanation for (which you don't
seem to understand anyway) while putting forward subjective, philosophical notions like 'perfection'?
Question: What is a perfect body? Can it lift a mountain? Is it incredibly beautiful? Does it not stink? Does a perfect body poop?
Of course, to proponents of evolution, it's an unattainable goal for
“Evolution works towards survival, not perfection”.
Well, it is
an unattainable goal. You cannot have a perfect body because there's no way to define a perfect body.
Thanks for confirming what I've been saying for a while now.
That is: EVOLUTION is
– in other words IT'S A BLIND PROCESS! It's more like a game of CHANCE – and
CHANCE is the CAUSAL force.
“an unguided process”.
...now we're getting into physics and philosophy. Stop drifting off into random areas. I'm not going to get into an argument about determinism vs
indeterminism because we're veering into so many different topics.
Evolution is the nonrandom selection of random mutations by means of natural selection. It's a blind process. So what?
Next I said:
Why 'evolution' if it's a fact (as some are fond of saying) is not able to remove/filter out these detrimental factors of life (I.e:
disease, sickness and death) while evolving? Will it be able to in the future?
No, it won't. Of course, human intervention will be able to handle those things.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that “human intervention will be able to handle those things.” - meaning, man will eventually
eliminate “those things” -i.e. disease, sickness and death?
Of course that's what I mean. That's how pronouns are used. Don't make me have to teach you grammar alongside science. Though I'm far more
comfortable teaching English than I am science. Hell, I even get paid to teach English.
But anyway, evolutionary theory doesn't posit that solution for disease and death will miraculously evolve. Stop creating straw men. Seriously, you
could conquer a small nation with the army of evolution straw men you've created in this thread.
I came to this conclusion because of what you said below:
Next – I said:
(Do you think 'evolution' will be able to eliminate these painful facts of life soon - that is, before man destroys himself from a nuclear
explosion/reaction or from the forces of nature? )
your response to what I said above:
No, evolution won't. The medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory, on the other hand,
...so...your argument was that since a theory concerning biodiversity doesn't put forth an ending for human suffering...it's false. Even though we
have a mountain of evidence in support of this which you refuse to acknowledge, let alone address, it doesn't matter because it won't cure all
So Madness, since you stated that “evolution” will NOT be able to ELIMINATE these painful facts of life soon, what convinced you that the
“medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” is able to ELIMINATE these ever growing problems soon?
Well, I can do it as a logical proof:
Medicine and biology are science
Medicine and biology will work to fix problems
Also, an opportunity to speak about awesome science. Well, I mentioned horizontal gene transfer before. And it's important in immunology.
You see, you have a lot of bacteria live in our body as part of our natural system in our digestive track. We refer to them as our natural 'flora'.
These bacteria are killed off whenever we use an antibiotic, except for the ones that have mutated a resistance to antibiotics. Now, this is an
example of an imperfect gene copy that is beneficial
These bacteria then begin to reproduce, passing on this mutation to successive generations. Now, eventually you'll get another bacterial
infection...and that bacteria may get into your digestive tract, where it can copy some of the evolved genetic code from your natural flora and gain a
natural resistance to some antibiotics.
An understanding of these evolutionary and genetic processes are helpful in saving millions of lives around the world each year.
When was the last time 'creation science' saved a life?
What makes you believe that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory” (not evolution) is
able to ELIMINATE DESEASES, VIRUSES,
Because it has and will continue to. Small pox is no longer the menace it once was due to medical science. Influenza is no longer the scourge it once
was. Polio is a thing of the past.
Our understanding of how diseases evolves helps us combat them.
And cut the childish behavior. "evolutionary theory" = human understanding of evolution. Evolution is the process that we observe in nature,
"evolutionary theory" is how humanity describes it and the scientific base of knowledge that we apply it to.
and may I add to these, WARS, FAMINES, GREED, CORRUPTION and his own bad tendencies?
Well, war, greed, and corruption
aren't the problems that medicine and biology deal with. Wars are an issue of diplomacy, so I don't expect
any biological theory to deal with those. Greed and corruption are issues of morality, transparency, and several other issues that are also
non-biological so it's also ridiculous to ask evolution to address those.
But famine? Well, evolutionary biology and genetics are helping us understand the novel mutations that allows crops to survive in adverse conditions.
GMO crops might allow us to actually prevent famine.
And most of all – what makes you believe that the “medical and biological science that we've built upon a foundation of evolutionary theory”
(not evolution) have SUCH power against NATURE – “able to handle” it's awesome forces?
Again, I have to tell you to cut the childish behavior. "evolutionary theory" = human understanding of evolution. Evolution is the process that we
observe in nature, "evolutionary theory" is how humanity describes it and the scientific base of knowledge that we apply it to.
Moving on. Medical and biological science aren't all we have in the face of nature. We have the entire compendium of scientific knowledge, which is a
lot more important to human survival than any religious text.
Fact is, in the face of such destructive forces humans are powerless. Do you agree?
Nope. Science is greater than many destructive forces. Antibiotics, nutrition, etc. We've doubled human life expectancy in a century.
So, to sum it up, imho proponents of evolution PUT THEIR TRUST on MAN – on imperfect sinful man, on man's own words and works – evolution
theory, that is!
...no, proponents of evolution put our trust in the evidence, which I've provided to you before and can provide you with some more. I can provide you
with evidence until I've worn my fingers down to the bone. But you won't accept it because it doesn't matter to you.
This reminds me of a wise king who once said:
“Do not put YOUR trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.
His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish.” – Ps 146: 3, 4.
I'll put my trust in the evidence.
Is it wise then to trust ones own life to someone who can't even save himself from death?
Um...I'm not trusting my life to evolutionary biology, I'm trusting my understanding of biodiversity.
Of course, that statement isn't going to stop you from your prosthelytizing and carrying on. I mean, you did quote Bible verse relating to sin in a
thread where I offered a chance to debate science
Really, which “human” entity/government do you think has the power of “intervention” and “will be able to handle those things.”?
Which things? Aside from veering off topic immensely, you've gotten subsequently more vague.
Is it the US government? Russia, China or is it the UN? The scientific community who came up with this idea/theory?
It's the human species. We've been getting better, more moral, more insightful, more educated with each generation. I have some level of trust in
Of course God is out of the question since you don't believe he exist.
Not enough evidence. But this isn't about any deity, it's about science
But really, are we like gods possessing super natural powers able to battle nature and able go against the Creator of Life?
Yet another straw man. You've got a sizable army of them and I'm starting to get scared. Not by the army but by the detachment from reality.
1: I do not believe in a creator of life
2: I never said we had supernatural powers...though I'm sure my laptop and the internet would have been thought to be greater than any miracle
performed in the first century.
3: We're doing a pretty damn good job against nature.
I must say, this is indeed MADNESS, if you believe it to be so!
But hey, prolly – evolution will get there someday – hopefully though before nature or man destroys himself of course.
I don't know why you're sticking to this straw man. I'm not saying that the process of evolution isn't going to solve all of our problems and
I've never had. I don't think anyone with any understanding of the theory ever has.
Bottom line imho, the “EVOLUTION Theory” as (“an unguided process”)is based on MAN's own flawed, imperfect thinking. Thus having FAITH
on it will only lead to a meaningless existence.
Evolution doesn't concern itself with existence. It's science. It's the same as the science that allows our computers to work. It's awesome and it
may not be perfect but it works all the time
. Of course, nothing is perfect.
And now comes more prosthelytizing!
To believers of Creation – the Loving Creator has a wonderful plan for obedient and humble mankind in the future. After all he is the Creator of
Life (Gen 1:1)!
Just read all of Genesis 1, it shows that the people that wrote the Bible didn't understand the first thing about science. The sun and moon
come after the plants
in the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis 1. Of course, there's the second, contradictory account found in
Genesis 2. It seems that the Bible is worse than Hollywood when it comes to reboots.
Will your sacred 'evolution theory' be able to create/evolve a perfect system out of an imperfect system?
Define a 'perfect system'. I don't think you can because there's no such thing as a biologically perfect system.