God isn't good enough to invent evolution? I never have understood why religion and evolution have to be in opposition to each other.
Because evolution is random. It is the epitome of throwing all kinds of shait at the wall and seeing what sticks. It's sort of the opposite of intelligent design. You don't get a flower that looks like it's pollinating butterfly because anything intends a flower to look like a butterfly. In millions of generations with millions of incremental mutations the flower that tends to look more like the butterfly (and the butterfly that looks more like the flower) tends to be more successful and propagate more widely becoming the more predominate version of the species. People have a hard time with the concept because they live in the human scale of reference where 70 years or 200,000 years seems like a long time. But it's just a heartbeat of geologic time or astronomical time.
No it's not. Genetic variation is random, but evolution is determined by environmental variables (natural selection).
This video is so pertinent to this topic of evolution. The believers are so arrogant and vain to believe we've all been created in the image of some god and to believe we are not descendant or related to other animals. We share well over 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees. To see this reaction from these animals being allowed into the sunlight for the first time after being held captive for thirty years. Would a human react any differently? <iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TorybZYrHIo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Nope, it' s just statistical. There is no value judgement other than survival. Will we live longer than a cockroach? Maybe the cockroach is the goal and people were the benign environment. Somebody had to here sometime. You just drew this lucky straw. This time this place
That's not random. Genes persist over time in a population ONLY IF they provide some some survival advantage to the organism.
Well, the biggest problem is calling people like Perry idiots when they are obviously not. We don't elect idiots. We elect candidates that are good at BS and get people riled up. And yes, it's possible to elect the "correct" president based on their charisma and campaign. I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive. Just like in basketball, using ppg may get you the best player. But that doesn't mean it's the method GMs should use to judge players.
No offense. But I could written about a giant phallus, ejaculating on a soy bean and causing humans to sprout out from it. Its just as believable as the "bible". Science is more of a justification than "God's word". In all honesty, I think all of "God's disciples" were just tripping on ACID or LSD, when they wrote.
Apropos of nothing: be careful if you do a Google Image search for "Almighty Phallus". The results are...interesting at best. Such as...https://lauriekendrick.wordpress.com/2009/04/ Link NSFW Unless your boss is really open-minded.
Do you know what a theory means in the scientific process. It isn't the same thing as it is in colloquial speech. A theory means there is evidence to prove it is true. Germs causing disease is only a theory. Gravity is only a theory. Do you not believe in those scientific theories as well? I am a Christian, believe in the bible, and have read it. Nothing in the bible proves creation to be true. Try again. I'm sure you mean well, but you misspeak about both the bible and evolution. I'll admit there is a lot I don't know about everything including the bible and evolution, or science in general. But I hope to not misrepresent any of it as much as you've done in this thread.
nope, not true. Mutations are just changes in the genetic code. The cause of the changes varies widely, cross breeding, environmental stresses, even cosmic rays chipping off a nucleotide or just plain ol' random mistakes. That number of variables, possible in any individual member of any size population, of any species or sub-species, occurring anywhere on the genetic code, anytime, with any kind of resulting physiological change is pretty random. And, whether a mutation persists or not can have many 'explanations' as well. It doesn't have to have a survival advantage in and of itself. You couldn't even judge IF a trait was a survival advantage without comparing it over a very long term in a very controlled experiment, when no other genetic mutations occuring; which by the explanation above is next to impossible. I'll give you the same absurd example again. We believe that the human brain is the height of evolutionary development, the ultimate survival tool. But the human brain has developed with the capacity to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. If we use them and every human ends up extinct, our later judgement of the mutated strain of humanoids would change. By definition the human brain would then be an evolutionary failure. Our 200,000 year existence would be a pittance compared to the cockroaches' 200 million years. But there really is no value system to judge evolution because it is never stable; there are changes within whatever time scale you want to try to apply. It is so complex that to humans it appears random. It's just entropy. (you could argue of course that entropy is not random; that any big bang event occurring to any singularity would yield me typing this 14.28 billion billion years later. It is at least statistically probable because we know it has happened at least once and we do not know of any time it didn't) We are here today because the physics of the big bang fell this way; the result every fused hydrogen atom, every gravitational aggregation of matter, of uncountable trillions of chemical reactions on of trillions of planetary bodies, over billions of years that at least one of produced a self replicating set of DNA that mutated to make us. God, randomness or the only way it can happen; you and I will never know.
