Evolution and Genesis

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But if someone set this all in motion can they really be considered random mutations?

DNA copy machines make random mutations. It's not a guided process. The frequency of the occurrence of certain mutations in organisms that survive and reproduce is determined by the environment. (For example, if I had a mutation that made me inclined to walk on the freeway all day, then I wouldn't survive and reproduce. Most mutations cause problems or have no effect. Then again, if you were to transplant me to the south pole, this particular mutation would be of no consequence. But if I didn't have a second mutation that made me super hairy, then I might die.)

Selection for certain mutations is guided by the environment.

One might reconcile his or her belief that God created humans through evolution by claiming that God controlled the environment which selected certain mutations.

I believe that human beings appeared as a result of a chain of events for which God knew the outcome in advance. I personally believe that God created us and the earth through completely natural means, and that the "time" required and methods were essentially natural. I don't see a necessity for a God-controlled environment. I only see a necessity for God to know the eventual outcome.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Perhaps, depends on what youmean by rpoof and what you mean by other than observed phenomenon.



Same answer




It's not a retreat as I ahve already made this point. Have you carefully considered the evidence supporting evolution? I have read a fair amount about it and I find the evidence to be rather overwhelming in support of natural selctiona as the mechanism leading to the diversity of life, especially when one rolls the DNA materials into the discussion. There is no other viable theory out there. None. Name one that is based on observed eivdence as opposed to faith or belief. For a biologist, I think Nat slection is pretty much on the sdame footing as Gravity is to a physicist. All real scientists feel free to tell me why I am wrong, however.

But therein lies the problem -the absence of other viable theories (at this point in time) does not render the current theory correct. It simply makes it the theory that seems to make the most sense, and mostly because it's the ONLY theory being championed at this time and NOT because of the overwhelming evidence.

To date no single 'missing link' for ANY species has be unearthed or discovered to prove the theory valid on the same level that the law of gravity has been proved valid ... the law of gravity can be reproduced in a 'lab' -evolution cannot and not merely because of time constraints.

I prefer to look at the current theories on evolution as a bechmark or even land mark on a long path to discovery. The land mark is current reality, up until adventurous steps are taken to move beyond it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But if someone set this all in motion can they really be considered random mutations?

The prime mover.

If one truly believes God is omnisicent then it would be rather simple for him to set conditions that would lead to his desired result through a mutative process. This may lead to other intersting discussions about agency, but that is for another thread.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

DNA copy machines make random mutations. It's not a guided process. The frequency of the occurrence of certain mutations in organisms that survive and reproduce is determined by the environment. (For example, if I had a mutation that made me inclined to walk on the freeway all day, then I wouldn't survive and reproduce. Most mutations cause problems or have no effect. Then again, if you were to transplant me to the south pole, this particular mutation would be of no consequence.) But if I didn't have a mutation that made me super hairy, then I might die.

Selection for certain mutations is guided by the environment.

One might reconcile his or her belief that God created humans through evolution by claiming that God controlled the environment which selected certain mutations.

I believe that human beings appeared as a result of a chain of events for which God knew the outcome in advance. I personally believe that God created us and the earth through completely natural means, and that the "time" required and methods were essentially random. I don't see a necessity for a God-controlled environment. I only see a necessity for God to know the eventual outcome.

Would the mutations have occured had the elements involved not been placed in a machine?

The randomness is a byproduct -the creation of omnipotentence.

We are saying the same thing. I do not see it as a God-controlled environment, I see it as God's universe. Without him it would not exist and vice versa. I believe the chicken and the egg are simultaneous. Hence no begining or end.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I prefer to look at the current theories on evolution as a bechmark or even land mark on a long path to discovery. The land mark is current reality, up until adventurous steps are taken to move beyond it.

The problem with this (in my eyes) is that it suggests that species haven't evolved. Species have evolved, and species do evolve. Did you have to have your wisdom teeth removed?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But therein lies the problem -the absence of other viable theories (at this point in time) does not render the current theory correct. It simply makes it the theory that seems to make the most sense, and mostly because it's the ONLY theory being championed at this time and NOT because of the overwhelming evidence.

To date no single 'missing link' for ANY species has be unearthed or discovered to prove the theory valid on the same level that the law of gravity has been proved valid ... the law of gravity can be reproduced in a 'lab' -evolution cannot and not merely because of time constraints.

I prefer to look at the current theories on evolution as a bechmark or even land mark on a long path to discovery. The land mark is current reality, up until adventurous steps are taken to move beyond it.

That is inaccurate. The fossil record is replete with missing links, as you call them (and what does that mean, anyway?) Most of the links are missing, as in not currently alive, becasue they have evolved. IOW, we have met the missing link, and he is us. Further, mutations leading to adaptations have been observed especially in the lab among simple organisams and mutations leading to changes have been induced in the lab. Plus, the DNA evidence is perhaps the most compelling. Long stretches of unused DNA code that is the same in animals in related lines, etc. There is, in fact, significant observed evidecne supporting evolution.

Also, consider this, the notion of evolution has bveen artound for centuries. Darwin ex-palined it differently and almost certainly correctly, but the thought that evolution leads to species differentiation has a long history.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

The prime mover.

If one truly believes God is omnisicent then it would be rather simple for him to set conditions that would lead to his desired result through a mutative process. This may lead to other intersting discussions about agency, but that is for another thread.

Agency is not in peril if as an element of his universe progression is eternal.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

The problem with this (in my eyes) is that it suggests that species haven't evolved. Species have evolved, and species do evolve. Did you have to have your wisdom teeth removed?

By Dr. Ira D. Cheifetz
Oral Surgeon, The Medical Center at Princeton
Friday, Oct. 25, 1996

What are wisdom teeth?
Normally, the wisdom teeth are the third molars and the last to erupt through the gums. They most often appear on X-rays around age 14, when traditionally a child passed into the world of adults and acquired their wise ways.
Like the first and second molars, wisdom teeth evolved in early humans to grind food to a texture that made it safe to swallow. The three molars created a large, effective chewing table that suited the diet and lifestyle of 20,000 BC.
Our ancestors had very little brain space and a large, powerful jaw. Over tens of thousands of years, the cranial proportions changed. The growing human brain needed more space, so the brain cavity expanded while the jaws diminished accordingly. But in all this time, the number of teeth in the normal human jaw has remained the same: 32.
Of course, there are individual exceptions - some people have fewer teeth, some have more, and extra molars are not an unusual feature. With further evolution, wisdom teeth may disappear altogether, but for now this vestige of prehistoric life is very much with us.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Would the mutations have occured had the elements involved not been placed in a machine?

The randomness is a byproduct -the creation of omnipotentence.

We are saying the same thing. I do not see it as a God-controlled environment, I see it as God's universe. Without him it would not exist and vice versa. I believe the chicken and the egg are simultaneous. Hence no begining or end.

I don't think this is the same thing. Is it possible that od simply used DNA as the mechanism for creating this world all at once? perhaps, but if so he left NO EVIDENCE that this is how it happened. Remove your belief and what evidecen is there that God had anything to do with it? Zero. If you live forever and and know everything, how inconvenient is it to use evolution as your mechanism for creating the world? Not very. It would be no more than a weekend gardening job for us, and probably even less.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

By Dr. Ira D. Cheifetz
Oral Surgeon, The Medical Center at Princeton
Friday, Oct. 25, 1996

What are wisdom teeth?
Normally, the wisdom teeth are the third molars and the last to erupt through the gums. They most often appear on X-rays around age 14, when traditionally a child passed into the world of adults and acquired their wise ways.
Like the first and second molars, wisdom teeth evolved in early humans to grind food to a texture that made it safe to swallow. The three molars created a large, effective chewing table that suited the diet and lifestyle of 20,000 BC.
Our ancestors had very little brain space and a large, powerful jaw. Over tens of thousands of years, the cranial proportions changed. The growing human brain needed more space, so the brain cavity expanded while the jaws diminished accordingly. But in all this time, the number of teeth in the normal human jaw has remained the same: 32.
Of course, there are individual exceptions - some people have fewer teeth, some have more, and extra molars are not an unusual feature. With further evolution, wisdom teeth may disappear altogether, but for now this vestige of prehistoric life is very much with us.

I see a lot of micro-evolution stuff here.