How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution is random or should I say- undriven with no purpose for end result. For evolution not to be random it would have to planned. Random doesnt mean its outside of law, it just means there isnt purpose or design in its mutation and selection. Evolutionists are under the false premise that the cycle of mutations in genetic information lead to more complex design elements making species more adept for their environment. This is not true. Countless experiments have shown that mutation and copy errors do not lead to new and more complex information. Evolutionists drawoff of fantasy and magic to explain how things such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and land animals into whales. On the basic genetic microbiologic level there is no map that works. Its easy to make drawings and computer aided cartoons of their theories but anyone can write fantasy novels and make science fiction movies. Thats all evolution is at this point- science fiction

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

[thesometimesaint]

He seems he was hated by both the higher ups in the church and the scientists of his day.

Not sure what Galileo has to do with anything in this thread.

 

Thankfully we live in an age four centuries removed from that time.

 

His is about the quest for knowledge. He was also a creature of his time, and calling the Pope a simpleton over a theological dispute probably wasn't the best way to win friends and influence people. Science itself is dispassionate. It either works or it doesn't work. OTOH scientists are just as passionate in discussing their ideas as anyone else.

[danielwoods]

Evolution is random or should I say- undriven with no purpose for end result. For evolution not to be random it would have to planned. Random doesnt mean its outside of law, it just means there isnt purpose or design in its mutation and selection. Evolutionists are under the false premise that the cycle of mutations in genetic information lead to more complex design elements making species more adept for their environment. This is not true. Countless experiments have shown that mutation and copy errors do not lead to new and more complex information. Evolutionists drawoff of fantasy and magic to explain how things such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and land animals into whales. On the basic genetic microbiologic level there is no map that works. Its easy to make drawings and computer aided cartoons of their theories but anyone can write fantasy novels and make science fiction movies. Thats all evolution is at this point- science fiction.

 

So you disagree with the historian that was quoted in the article, yet don't provide any facts to support your view.

 

He seems he was hated by both the higher ups in the church and the scientists of his day.

Not sure what Galileo has to do with anything in this thread.

It's quite an interesting parallel with evolution. The Church at the time bought into the prevailing scientific view of the time (geocentric), and interpreted scripture in light of that view. Instead of reading and interpreting scripture as the author intended.

[Rob Osborn]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

The mechanism of evolution is random

From the site and I quote- " Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly..."

This is the entire point I was making. How species evolve is a random process, none of it is planned nor is it directed. This from another site. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

[Gray]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

The mechanism of evolution is random

From the site and I quote- " Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly..."

This is the entire point I was making. How species evolve is a random process, none of it is planned nor is it directed. This from another site. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

 

It's part random, part non-random. The randomness is genetic mutation and recombination. What is not random per se are environmental pressures that select which organisms survive long enough to successfully mate and which do not  

[Rob Osborn]

It's part random, part non-random. The randomness is genetic mutation and recombination. What is not random per se are environmental pressures that select which organisms survive long enough to successfully mate and which do not

The mechanism of evolution- that which drives change is neither controlled nor selected. Its entirely random. A species ability to adapt in an environment is left entirely up to the random process of mutations/errors. Variation within species or should we say "genetic drift" has its limits as we see in species having infinite varieties but yet still remain locked in with their species. Darwinian evolution goes beyond the observable and makes claims that are unproven. They paint this picture that environments direct and guide evolution over vast time periods. This all remains unproven

[Gray]

The mechanism of evolution- that which drives change is neither controlled nor selected. Its entirely random. A species ability to adapt in an environment is left entirely up to the random process of mutations/errors. Variation within species or should we say "genetic drift" has its limits as we see in species having infinite varieties but yet still remain locked in with their species. Darwinian evolution goes beyond the observable and makes claims that are unproven. They paint this picture that environments direct and guide evolution over vast time periods. This all remains unproven

 

Environmental pressures are providing the non-random direction.

 

"This all remains unproven"

 

Proof is for math. What we have outside of math is evidence, and plenty of it for evolution. 

[thesometimesaint]

The mechanism of evolution- that which drives change is neither controlled nor selected. Its entirely random. A species ability to adapt in an environment is left entirely up to the random process of mutations/errors. Variation within species or should we say "genetic drift" has its limits as we see in species having infinite varieties but yet still remain locked in with their species. Darwinian evolution goes beyond the observable and makes claims that are unproven. They paint this picture that environments direct and guide evolution over vast time periods. This all remains unproven

 

One of the mechanisms of evolution is mutation that is passed down to offspring.

 

Mutations are not necessarily errors.

 

The mechanism is still the same whether it is natural selection(Not controlled by man) or artificial selection(Controlled by man).

 

Of course it is not limitless. Only variations that are passed down can be passed down.

 

We have abundant evidence that species diverge over time to the point where they can no longer produce offspring of the parent population.

 

Evolution claims that the further back in time we look the more similar traits will appear. And guess what we have the bones to prove it.

 

Changes in the environment are just one factor in evolution.

 

With an earth that is about 4.5 billions of years old time is relative to the observer. IE; Bacteria don't live very long when compared to people. Yet we see bacteria evolve.

 

For an easy to understand response about evolution SEE

[Rob Osborn]

Environmental pressures are providing the non-random direction.

 

"This all remains unproven"

 

Proof is for math. What we have outside of math is evidence, and plenty of it for evolution. 

Which environmental pressures were atwork for land animal to whale evolution? Did the environment favor seadwelling creatures over land creatures?

[thesometimesaint]

Which environmental pressures were atwork for land animal to whale evolution? Did the environment favor seadwelling creatures over land creatures?

The availability of food. The adaptive pressures to swim faster and longer to get that food.

For whale evolution see.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

[Rob Osborn]

The availability of food. The adaptive pressures to swim faster and longer to get that food.

For whale evolution see.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Not really seeing nothing there too convincing.

[thesometimesaint]

Not really seeing nothing there too convincing.

 

"And yet it moves".

Galileo

[Gray]

Which environmental pressures were atwork for land animal to whale evolution? Did the environment favor seadwelling creatures over land creatures?

 

Something motivated them to take to the waters - perhaps a plentiful food source in the shallows, or a lack of it on their land habitat. If a random mutation producing webbed feet it would have given a survival advantage. Any variation that made them more streamlined would have given them an advantage over those without such variation.  Environment is like a filter that only lets certain size particles through. 

[Rob Osborn]

Something motivated them to take to the waters - perhaps a plentiful food source in the shallows, or a lack of it on their land habitat. If a random mutation producing webbed feet it would have given a survival advantage. Any variation that made them more streamlined would have given them an advantage over those without such variation.  Environment is like a filter that only lets certain size particles through. 

Conjecture doesn't hold up in court and certainly shouldn't in science.

[Gray]

Conjecture doesn't hold up in court and certainly shouldn't in science.

 

I thought you were looking for conjecture about how it could have happened. We know for sure that it did happen, even if the details are lost. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

So you disagree with the historian that was quoted in the article, yet don't provide any facts to support your view.

 

It's quite an interesting parallel with evolution. The Church at the time bought into the prevailing scientific view of the time (geocentric), and interpreted scripture in light of that view. Instead of reading and interpreting scripture as the author intended.

Ok. Carry on.