News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I was debating evolution on youtube when these questions just popped into my head. So I decided to ask them here.

1) What are the laws of evolution that mutation, speacation, micro-evolution and macro evolution have to follow in order to work. This is not a question on what these things are. But a question on what makes the laws for these things to work within, and why do they have to stay within those laws?

2) How far can a life form evolve?

3) Does evolution have a stopping point?

4) Does evolution go on forever?

5) What happens to a life form when it evolves to it's highest point, reaches a peak and can evolve no more?

a) Does it de-evolve?
b) Does it remain the same?
c) Does it die and go extinct?

6) How can a scientific theory have a claimed process that is unobservable, and never will be observable. Yet maintain the scientific theory status?

7) There are several systems in the human body that rely on other systems in order to survive. How did these systems evolve and exist until the other system evolved to help it?

Note: Co-evolution (things evolving in the same amount of time) does not work because no part of the human body has the same complexity. The more complex a system or organ is, the more mutations are required to complete the evolution process of this.

a) Which came first and why? The eye, or the vision center of the brain?
b) Which came first and why? Blood, veins, or the heart?

The rest are just a list of questions I made that no ones been able to answer.

8) The heart is a very complicated organ. This organ has a very special type muscle that never gets tired of pumping blood until you are at lifes end (barring any disease). So how did this muscle evolve, and how did natural selection select it when not one offspring would have survived more than a day without such a muscle?

9) The heart communicates with the brain in four different ways. No other organ can do this.

a) Neurological communication (nervous system)
b) Biophysical communication (pulse wave)
c) Biochemical communication (hormones)
d) Energetic communication (electromagnetic fields)

Neurologically (through the transmission of nerve impulses), biochemically (via hormones and neurotransmitters), bio-physically (through pressure waves) and energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Communication along all these conduits significantly affects the brain's activity. Moreover, our research shows that messages the heart sends the brain can also affect performance.

Reference and detailed research: http://www.heartmath.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=51

It is now believed that the reason our heart hurts when we lose someone near and dear to us is because the heart is directly connected to our emotions.

How and why did this organ evolve this ability?

10) While the infant is still in the mother's womb. There are two sources of blood flow. The mother's heart, and the infant heart. The problem with this is that one cannot conflict with the other. So the Creator inserted a special vein, that actually has a muscle, that connects both arteries.

This vein allows the heart to pump in parallel with the mother's heart. Problem is, it cannot stay open after being born. Infant would die with in minutes. So when doctor slaps the baby on the rear to make it cry, the lungs are used for the very first time. This enriching the blood with a high percent of oxygen. When this highly enriched oxygen reaches this special connecting vein, the muscle around it constricts it shut, and it heals being shut for the rest of the infant's life. This turns the heart from being a parallel pumping mechanism, to a non-parallel pumping mechanism that is required to sustain life from that point forward. But this is not all that happens....

When the vein closes, it creates a high and low pressure side to the heart. This higher blood pressure makes a flap close that is normally open for the first nine months (like a door closing by itself do to air pressure being different from with in a building compared to outside) on the back side of the heart. Which completes the process in which the heart now can operate on it's own. If the second process does not work, this creates a problem called a "hole in the heart". If not detected in time, baby can suffer complete heart failure in just a few weeks. If bad enough, baby can die with in a few hours. But there's even more...

When the infant heart is working in parallel with the mother's heart. The open flap inside the heart acts as a separating device for oxygenated, and unoxygenated blood. This is important because you don't want the two mixing which lowers oxygen percent in the blood that flows to the babies vital organs. There is two veins that supply both types of blood to this section of the heart. The unoxygenated supply is located right next to this flap. While the oxygenated is on the other side. So the exact positioning actually makes the oxygenated blood push the unoxygenated blood into another chamber, which is where it departs back into the mother to become oxygenated again.

This flap not being open, or being obstructed would reduce oxygen getting to the babies vital organs. Which would affect the development of the child in the womb.

This not working the very minute the heart evolved, along with a non-tiring heart muscle. Would ensure extinction of said species. So how did all these things evolve for the heart, and why?

Added: What are we humans evolving into? In fact, if evolution is so predictable that we can tell where all life has come from. We should also be able to predict where all life is going in the evolution process as well. But guess what? There is not one model on even one life form where any future predictions of evolution even exist. So is evolution standing still? If not, where are the predictions?

I always wonder how matter becomes animated?

Animation is needed where evidence does not exist. This is why all evolution movies are more then 50% animated. Most of the claimed process are not observable. So the animation is used to make it look like they are observable and explainable.

I have a few quotes and verse here for those interesting in what the bible tell us.

(from 101 scientific facts and foreknowledge):

















I just want to add here, that we know if a person is reached quickly enough, they "can" be resucitated before it is too late. Beyond that, brain/body is starved of life giving oxygen for too long and tragedy results. There is of course some miraculous occurances! And that indeed does exist and can and has occured. There are some things science and medicine cannot always explain. But for the Christian, nothing is beyond God.

I'm going to ask if you both can leave it at that for now, because you have asked quite a lot of questions. If you carry on them some of them will probably get lost in the shuffle. And some require some detailed explanations.

Ikester, I'm beginning to wonder about these people you are debating with. They seem to be lacking some fundamental scientific knowledge. It would be interesting to read what you're talking about, would you like to link? Don't worry, talking here is time-consuming enough and I'm not going to take the discussion anywhere else myself.

I'll answer some of these questions with what I know, and leave others requiring more detail for later, or for someone else with more knowledge at their fingertips than me. I'm sure they will chime in about the specifics regarding the definition of evolution and speciation, for example.

2.) Life is always evolving because mutations happen, and in the natural world natural selection works on them. A more interesting question might be, are humans still evolving, given the fact that natural selection is not as big a factor in modern existence?

3.) I can only envisage evolution "stopping" if a species such as ourselves is able to stop mutations from occurring and being passed on to offspring, and also completely stop natural selection from being a factor. Were you aware that if we compare the skeletons of early modern humans and today's humans, you can see a trend toward the skeletons being more gracile and less robust? It would be interesting to speculate about what could be driving this.

4.) See above.

5.) See above. I'm not sure what you're asking here exactly. If an organism is supremely successful in its environment, it is unlikely that the organism will change very much unless its environment changes too. When the environment changes, then the organism has to adapt or it will become extinct. I believe that genetic drift can also occur to a degree, though others here will be able to tell you more about that than me.

I've never heard the term "de-evolve."

6.) We've just been talking about the "were you there" objection. Firstly, I said that we can learn about the past from clues -- by studying and comparing them. Secondly, I said that evolution has actually been observed, and I reminded you of Russ2's post about bacteria evolving from beneficial mutations.

Your other questions appear to be on the topic of "irreducible complexity." That's a bigger subject, which I'll put aside for now, though I'll come back to it later if no one else discusses it. RAZD knows quite a lot about this.

One other point here, which is of interest to me:



It gets stranger than that. It actually appears to be possible that the heart can contain aspects of human consciousness. There are reports of people having transplants and having very strange subsequent experiences which are later linked to the heart donor in some way.

We don't understand a lot about consciousness, and personally I think there's some good evidence that the mind is more than, and extends beyond, the brain. If we don't fully understand something, though, does that mean we have to say that God did it? Or might that mean that there's something interesting to study so that we can understand it better? There's evidence that animals have certain telepathic abilities just like humans do. One of the leading researchers in this field, himself a scientist, is an evolutionist, and he is quick to point out that these abilities could have evolved just like other traits, because they are advantageous for survival. If you're still wondering about what I debate scientists about, you can probably see now. The only way I get anywhere is by presenting evidence though. We've had some great conversations. The impossibility of anything evolving never enters into it though, because there is so much evidence for evolution being what actually happens.



Presumably we would have to be able to predict random mutations, which we can't, and we'd also have to be able to predict what selection pressures will be in the environment, which we can do to an extent. We can also study species in the fossil record, compare them to known climatic changes, and see how life responded to changes in the past. We can also observe how it is responding now to changes such as deforestation and global warming.

Sorry if I'm not supposed to post here, but I have to say on the first questions about "laws of evolution" that my thoughts were pretty much what LindaLou said. Obviously things change due to mutations, etc., and with our toxic environment - that's kind of a scary prospect. I think someone could make a great monster movie about it! (And they have). For instance, I could've created a monster baby (can't think off the top of my head what they're called) when I was pregnant and found out my thyroid was off after I lost it. I would never have aborted it...(and sometimes they are born but die after not long...)but it died at 6 weeks (and never had a heart beat). I have to say, though, even believing/knowing even those scientific facts are real, I don't know how anyone could think anyone but God created any of us...even lower beings. I could see an argument that it happened gradually...but it is intelligent and that doesn't just "happen." Evolution itself is of God! My husband always said, if we came from apes, why are they still here? I don't, either, see the problem with the genetic relationships we all have....(us with animals). We are still separate and distinct beings. I would say the reason some animals seem to have telepathic ability is because they have spirits, too! I've communicated telepathically a lot. My husband and I inter into each other's dreams sometimes. I use to pick up on where my mom hiding things. I have always been "sensitive." My husband dreams about horrible crashes and -this has happened over 10 times since I've known him - the next day AFTER he tells me about the dream, we find on the news there has been a bad airplane crash with casualties. I don't know why he tunes into that, but he does. He feels the horror of what is going on, smells the gas...really is weird.

And to think this earth just happens to be perfect to hold life... I've read before that, I think Jupiter?? (Mars??) acts like a vacuum cleaner for meteorites and pulls them away from us (for the most part). So that evolved spontaneously too? The heaven's themselves have been set up for our sakes. We've got our own universe and the galaxy we live in is set up so the planets work together!! It just is not random.

Mutation follows that laws that govern chemical reactions in aquaeous solutions. Changes in the DNA of the seed cells is what causes the next generation to be different than the parent. Those changes can be caused by the statistical recombination of the DNA. Since the splitting of the double helix and its recombination is a chemical reaction, the laws governing chemical reactions would apply.
As for the others: Micro and macro evolution follow the same "rules". Basically, they are changes in the dominant characteristics of individuals withing a population of organisms. If there are evironmental pressures that affect the ability of the individuals in the population to reach the point where they have offspring, those pressures will cause change if the individuals differ in characteristics that are affected by those pressures. The amount of change is determined by the extent to which the pressures act on the population, and the size of the population being affected.

Life form? Short answer: an individual life form cannot evolve. However, if you mean how far evolution can take life itself....as far as the physical limitations of the life chemistry will allow, but I don't know how far that is.

Evolution doesn't go in a particular direction so populations could evolve away from a particular niche in the web of life and later evolve to exploit that niche again.

As long as there is life.


There is no such thing as a "highest point" since evolution has no particular direction.

Assuming you mean the Theory of Evolution. Partly because evolution is observed in living populations now. Partly because the fossil record indicates that populations of organisms change over time. Partly because the theory accurately predicted the location in the geologic record in which paleontologists would find particular fossils. Partly because the theory of evolution accurately predicted that there is a mechanism of living organisms that is the instrument by which change between individuals can occur (DNA and chromosome mixing).

Perhaps this is too general of a question or is better left to a thread of its own. Then I could ask you to provide examples and we could discuss them one at a time.

Depends on what you mean by coevolution.



The ability to sense and react to the surrounding environment.
Light sensitive cells.
Nerve cells
Central Nervous system
Eye pouches
Liquid filled Enclosed Eye pouches
Light reactive "pupil" (this may have formed before the enclosed eye pouches)
Brain
Lens
Differentiated areas of the brain.

Why? Because each one of those changes gave a selective advantage to those creatures that had it over those of the same type/kind/species that did not have it in that particular environment.

[/quote]b) Which came first and why? Blood, veins, or the heart?
Blood, then blood vessels that functioned to move the blood, then a specialized blood vessel that function as a central pump. Why?...same as above.


Your question makes no sense because jellyfish have no heart and do just fine. Sponges have no heart and also seem to survive.


Your reference does not seem to state that the heart hurts when we lose someone near to us. Your chest hurts when under stress because that is an muscular reaction to anxiety. Unless you can show some medical reasearch that indicates the heart is directly connected to our emotions, I am inclined to believe that this is not so. Your whole body reacts to stress...in some situations people lose control of their bladder or rectum. I would not say that this means the bladder or rectum are directly attached to our emotions.

Short answer: Because the babies that didn't have that ability never grew up to make babies of their own. The real source of the answer to this lies in the parts of the animal kingdom that are closely related to our common ancestors (in evolutionary theory). Do those animals have the same capabilities or limited amounts of those capabilities?

Why do you think that seeing where something has been gives us the ability to tell where it is going to be? Also, this question implies that evolution has a "goal" or a direction. In reality, at this point in time, every extant organism is at the "peak" of the evolutionary tree. They're the ones that made it...the rest weren't "evolved" enough to make it. If the environment had been a little different at the right point in the past, then we might very well have big cats making cars instead of primates.

Now you know why Christ come into the heart of someone who is saved instead of the mind. And why God will be judging us by what is in our heart instead of our mind.

Also, why God said on several occasions in Genesis that he hardened Pharoa's heart instead of changing his mind, on several occassions concernining dealing with Moses.

The Bible once again was ahead of science, and science is having to play catch up. But I know you will try to deny this so take your best shot.

These are both non-answers. I like the second one better - it doesn't really pretend to be an answer.

The first only answers a question that wasn't asked: "Once the organ exists, what prevents it from dropping out of the population?" It doesn't answer the question of how the organ came to exist in the first place. Maybe the why, but not the how.

Nah, I don't need for someone to call the calvery in for help for this person. I already know how that works.



Does the aligator evolve? Or has it basically stayed the same for millions of years?



Evolution has supposetly already gone on for millions of years, what would make it stop now?



Ever heard of reverse adaptation? I'll be doing a thread on that later. It's where a life form can evolve a mechanism that can change it's surroundings to meet it's needs, instead of the other way around. So instead of the life form adapting to it's surrounding, it developes an ability to make it's surrounding change to serve it.



To have a mutation that henders more than helps. In other words it is a degression as far as evolution is concerned.



1) The Bible is the only known record of anything way back when. The rest is our unterpretation based on end game evidence about processes we cannot observe or condirm to happen.

2) A mutation is a small change. The bacteria life form still stays a bacteria life form. Which stays with in the laws if kind creation.

Not always. Disease and chemicals can alter this beyond those laws.



This is more of an explaination of the suruvival of the fittest. Where domanace rules the game, and only those genes get passed on. But that is not always true as it has been observed where non-dominant males have neen able to mate and pass on their genes.



A viable scientific theory should not only be able to show our past, present, but also make predictions on where we are headed. There are no existing models that even touch on making predictions the evolution of any life form to what it will become.

And we have yet to see any life form evolve into another kind of life form.



Then you guys don't know as much as you think you do. Answering questions with broad answers only shows how much less is actually known about evolution.



Has any life form become a different kind yet? I'm not speaking of speciation. Where a bird can become a different bird. Because kind creation allows this as long as it stays a bird. But when has a bird, or anything else, become a non-bird?

Co-evolution is a cop out god did it type answer.



This is a canned answer that basically is copy and paste because I have seen it more than once. So I take it a step further since you are implying this is the process.

Was this process actually observed? If so can this observation be provided so that the rest of us can see it? If not then this is an hypothesized answer. It's just like the video I saw on how the eye evolved. All speculation at best. What was more entertaining was how they some how could also say: This is the sight of each stage of the evolution of the eye. The variable the always forget is the vision center of the brain. If it processed sight the same way sense it started processes. Then this would be a feasible and likely conclusion for sight at each stage. But given that the vision center of the brain is evolving also, the processing of sight was probably much worse which left the life form mostly blind during the whole evolution process of the eye evolving.



So evolution is as easy as baking a pie? Poof there it is?



Oh,I forgot. All creationist lie unless an evolutionist confirms it. Most be why science only employs people who believe in their main theory. And fire anyone who may disagree.



Nice dodge. The wuestion has nothing to do with life forms being able to survive without a heart. It has to do with the heart being able to function properly on the exact day it is needed to sustain life. There are to many variables to the heart to say that it can.



Using your logic here. The gene that causes this should have already been eliminated, because all babies before the sugery existed to save them would have died. Keeping that gene from being passed on. But that is not what we see now is it?

And I noticed that you skipped the part about the babies heart working as a parallel pump. I guess you did not have an answer to that one.



That does not even work, and you know it. Evolution had nothing to do whether a life form could survive a meteor impact. Because if all of a certain type were to close to impact, they died and became extinct for another reason that has nothing to do with evolution. So your broad answer here does not work.

Selective pressure has obviously not been great enough for so-called living fossils to have changed much. However, claiming that "the" alligator (as opposed to different crocodilian species) has not changed at all is an oversimplification.

This article gives information about recently-discovered fossils which appear to be the most primitive yet discovered of modern crocodilians (crocodiles, alligators and gharials). There are features of this creature, such as the power of its bite, which would have given it an evolutionary advantage, as well as the fact that it would have had little competition or predation in its ecological niche. Other crocodilian species have become extinct, and the ones existing today are the ones which were obviously most successful in surviving selective pressure.

There is no "rule" that says that evolution has to proceed at the same pace for every species. Much depends on its environment.



You were asking where evolution stops. I said it would require mutations not being passed on to offspring, and the end of selective pressure from the environment. Can humans in the developed world eliminate both of these factors? To an extent maybe. It's a subject for debate.



Please do. While you're at it, it would be refreshing for you to state your claims without adding any ad hominem, as opposed to other threads you have started here.



"De-evolve" isn't a scientific term, but "harmful mutation" is. Natural selection works against these, which is where the term "survival of the fittest" comes in.



So the Chinese and Indians were doing what . . . painting pretty pictures which happen to look like language? Or do they not count for some reason?



What is "the rest"?

Are you claiming that the Bible is so unambiguous in every respect that it is beyond interpretation? What are Biblical scholars doing then? And why are there so many Christian sects, as well as three Abrahamic religions?

Still claiming that we can't learn anything from clues about the past? We'd better give up all hope that we can learn anything from the scene of a crime then.

You also seem to be ignoring reminders that Russ2 has posted here about bacteria which have been observed to evolve. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear, nor does claiming it doesn't exist.

Like when they don't count as humans and are stuck in zoos by evolutionists who are desperate to prove evolution at any cost.

Paint that one red and call it a herring.

Will you answer my questions above please?

By the way, writing did exist before the Bible was written. Egyptian writing dates back to almost 2,000 years b.c.e. This would seem to indicate that your statement, "the Bible is the only record of anything way back when," is . . . questionable.

LindaLou:

What is "the rest"?

Are you claiming that the Bible is so unambiguous in every respect that it is beyond interpretation? What are Biblical scholars doing then? And why are there so many Christian sects, as well as three Abrahamic religions?

I've given the explanation for that one.... Can you define what you mean by 3 Abrahamic religions LL? Haven't heard it put that way before. I think I understand what it is, but can you explain? What was the religion you grew up in, anyway?

I was referring to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The Old Testament is part of all of these faiths.

I grew up Catholic. I was really religious; I even wanted to be a nun when I grew up. When I got older I learned more about other religions and found some of the ideas interesting. It started with the comparative mythology studies of Joseph Campbell; for the first time, I saw parallels in different religions and thought that they were all aiming toward deeper truths, each in its own way. I couldn't join a single religion myself now because I would find its dogma and world view too limiting.

Having previously known nothing about other religions, I didn't know there were many ancient flood stories. I learned about the epic of Gilgamesh. That was one of the points where I began to question the Bible's monopoly on the truth. I saw the flood story as a myth that had been shared by other cultures, probably as a way of documenting a real event -- a local flood -- that had happened in the past. I saw the myth of the hero, and the the typical conventions of that (such as the descent to the underworld and rebirth in the world above) enacted in many religious stories. Campbell was particularly intrigued by the hero-myth and I can see why: it's very powerful, and it says something about what it is to be a human being. I don't use the term "myth" lightly, as a synonym with "lie"; myths are wonderful ways of getting to deeper truths through resonating with the collective unconscious and human experience.

It wasn't hard for me to radically shift my views like this. I'm not sure why. It sure upset my parents, and it upset me in a way too, because for quite a while afterwards I was quite atheistic in my thinking, and I found it an empty place to be. I've got some different ideas now, like I stated earlier.

This is probably horrific reading for the Christians here but I dont' see any reason not to be totally honest with you, since you asked. In a way, I think this makes me pretty tolerant. Like I said, religion is fine by me as long as it teaches people to love each other and do other good things. I'm not so keen when someone who thinks that their religion is the one and only true one tries to force it on me.

LL, are you referring to me with the forcing my religion on you? None of us are aupposedly doing any forcing on here. Just exchanging ideas, correct? Either something is true or not - isn't that you guy's mantra? Reality? Aren't we all trying to establish that?

I'm not judging you and your journey so to speak LL. I came to a point I almost decided against organized religion myself! I actually understand. Actually I believe some of the myths of the ages WERE associated with a kernel of truth as RAZD put it. But I woulld caution for humility here... Just found a reference that is rather humbling.

Abraham 3:25. “We Will Prove Them”
President Ezra Taft Benson succinctly restated the message
of Abraham 3:25 when he said: “The great test of life is
obedience to God” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1988, 3; or
Ensign, May 1988, 4). We are not here to test or “prove”
God, but to be tested and proved ourselves. We are on
trial, not God.
Elder Rex C. Reeve Sr., who was a member of the Seventy,
said: “This life is a time of testing. It is not the reward
time. That will come later. We are here being tested. The
test is going on now!” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1982,
37; or Ensign, Nov. 1982, 26).

LindaLou: By the way, writing did exist before the Bible was written. Egyptian writing dates back to almost 2,000 years b.c.e. This would seem to indicate that your statement, "the Bible is the only record of anything way back when," is . . . questionable.

Jeanie: Actually this is true especially when you consider that Moses actually wrote Genesis. (Through a vision and revelation... Abraham received some of the same information through visions concerning the creation).

No, no one here is (I should have qualified that). It was more of an observation about society. Some people, not just Christians, want the laws of a certain religion to be the laws of a land, and they believe so firmly that their religion is the one true one that they cannot comprehend anyone's objections apart from a tendency toward perceived wickedness. This would be a frightening state of affairs.

LL: I grew up Catholic. I was really religious; I even wanted to be a nun when I grew up. When I got older I learned more about other religions and found some of the ideas interesting. It started with the comparative mythology studies of Joseph Campbell; for the first time, I saw parallels in different religions and thought that they were all aiming toward deeper truths, each in its own way. I couldn't join a single religion myself now because I would find its dogma and world view too limiting.

Having previously known nothing about other religions, I didn't know there were many ancient flood stories. I learned about the epic of Gilgamesh. That was one of the points where I began to question the Bible's monopoly on the truth. I saw the flood story as a myth that had been shared by other cultures, probably as a way of documenting a real event -- a local flood -- that had happened in the past. I saw the myth of the hero, and the the typical conventions of that (such as the descent to the underworld and rebirth in the world above) enacted in many religious stories. Campbell was particularly intrigued by the hero-myth and I can see why: it's very powerful, and it says something about what it is to be a human being. I don't use the term "myth" lightly, as a synonym with "lie"; myths are wonderful ways of getting to deeper truths through resonating with the collective unconscious and human experience.


Jeanie: Not sure if you've caught what I've said, but I didn't grow up any certain way so was exposed to more earlier although was too young to really care much about particular doctrines till after my dad had died. Personally, though, I see the fact that so many people's had known about a world wide flood as evidence to the fact that it happened rather than a psychological insight. I can see what you mean, too, about myths, but the concept of a God had to come from somewhere, too. We all look up to our parents as children. It's not so far fetched. I worry you're losing faith altogether to be honest.

I'm glad you weren't referring to me....I hope I'm not coming off over bearing.

Faith in what?

Richard Dawkins (renowned evangelical atheist) believes that religion and faith in a god or gods are primitive paradigms that we should shift away from in this enlightened age of reason.

I don't agree. I think that spirituality is part of being human. Why this is I don't know, though a theist will answer that it's because there is a god who wants people to know him/her. Maybe we just instinctively realise that there's more to the world than what the 5 senses perceive. I'd have to know more about the unseen, myself, to be able to speculate much further. I do think that things are connected across time and space, and maybe one day quantum physics will bear this out. Maybe not. Agnosticism is a kicker at times.



On the contrary, I think you've shown yourself to be more open-minded than most.

LL: It wasn't hard for me to radically shift my views like this. I'm not sure why. It sure upset my parents, and it upset me in a way too, because for quite a while afterwards I was quite atheistic in my thinking, and I found it an empty place to be. I've got some different ideas now, like I stated earlier.


Jeanie: I think sometimes when we're young and full of faith and look at things more emotionally without questioning we then come to a place we do question. Its normal. I think of things like that as being like a pendulum. For instance my daughter knows a girl who was quite (QUITE) wild and then had a religious experience. Now she is....well - quite zealous and not all that realistic in some ways. At some point I imagine she'll get so she doesn't swing quite so strongly either way and settle more in the middle : ) For me, my faith is most definitely spiritually fulfilling but also makes sense.. Doesn't make it easy, though, still.

Some of my family gave me a hard time when I became a Mormon... Its always the religious ones who do.... I guess it is partly why I've had the attitude I do. I've needed to overcome that living here in the Bible belt south! But so far people have been pretty good about it here. To my face at least : )

Just a quibble ikester:

Please show that ...

Like when they don't count as humans and are stuck in zoos by racists who are desperate to prove racism at any cost.

... is not a more accurate comment.

Just as with Hitler's false use of evolution to support his antisemitism bias, this is just an example of racists using evolution to support racism, and it assumes that there is a different amount of evolution between living organisms.

Curious that you seem more outraged by the fact he was put in a zoo, than with the despicable behavior of the visiting (white) public (while blacks objected to it).

Enjoy

Just curious LindaLou and any other catholics....does that faith think that sex is unholy? Not to be too personal... I've been to services but don't know much about the doctrine. John taught a kid whose mom taught me a lot. She got to go to Italy when the new pope was put in. She brought us back some blessed miraculous medals. I think the history there is very fascinating. I've never seen a more devout Catholic. I know that the point of celibacy is to be "married" to Christ (if I understand right) but marriage is also instituted by God.... We're similar in that we're big on families and stand with the same issues the pope does pretty much. Except our leaders are most definitely married...

There's a lot here for Linear to address, so I hope he won't mind if I add something. I'm having a "day off" and feel like talking.



Can you explain please?



But you are making an assumption that the dominant male is the most well-adapted male in that environment. What would actually happen is that the offspring, regardless of the father, would be subject to selection pressures. Maybe a subordinate male has some good genes to pass on, such as a hair colour which offers better camouflage.



I've addressed this in reply to one of your claims in another thread: Post 39277.



That's because there are steps in between, which is what the fossil record shows. Evolution observes that birds evolved from dinosaurs; it does not say that one day we had a dinosaur and the next day it morphed into a bird.



I don't follow how your reply addresses Linear's comment. We don't observe that evolution has a direction or goal. How does this show ignorance of evolution?



We can see this in the fossil record. Since radical changes like what you are suggesting above typically take a very long time, we can't expect to see them in real time.

Before you claim again that we can't learn anything about the past from evidence in the present, you would need to explain how the geological record does not show very old rocks at the bottom and younger ones toward the top, with layers of fossils in faunal succession within.

This is an interesting conversation Jeanie, but I'm thinking that if we don't get back to the original questions in this thread, some people might think that distraction tactics are being employed.

Strict Catholics believe that sex should wait until marriage, as many devout Christians do. In my opinion this has a lot to do with cultural mores, and also the fact that when these rules were made, there was no birth control and no guarantee that a man's children were his own unless he had a wife he could be pretty sure was faithful to him.

There was a definite downside to being Catholic but maybe we can discuss these kinds of things in a more appropriate thread?

Lets review, ikester,

How does disease enter the picture? By producing chemicals? By changing what chemicals are produced in the body?

Are you saying that chemical reactions don't behave according to the laws of chemistry because chemicals can alter the chemical reactions?

Perhaps it is "not always true" because it is not the real truth? Evolution does not say that only the fittest survive and only the fittest reproduce in every generation, just that they tend to survive and reproduce more often than less fit organisms.

Of course "fitness" is a bit of a tautologically circular term when used this way - those that survive and reproduce are "fit" and those that do not survive or reproduce are "unfit" and the differential ability of the fit vs the unfit to survive and reproduce is then begged by the definition.

When used this way though, we can see that the "non-dominant males" that succeed in reproduction are fit and that dominance is not necessarily the only way to achieve fitness.

Actually there are. We can predict, for instance, that if a drought should occur in an area for an extended period of time, that then the organisms living there would adapt traits suitable to the dryer conditions or perish. Can anyone predict exactly what those traits are? No, because that would mean predicting random mutations. Can we predict a general trend that would show over time from generation to generation? Yes, because we would assume that natural selection would continue to operate and that this selection would then choose between which mutations that do occur by which ones offered a survival or reproductive advantage, so that over several generations you would see a shift towards traits better adapted to the dry conditions.

This is no different from probability theory, a mathematical theory that is incapable of predicting whether the next coin toss will be heads or tails, on any toss, while it is capable of predicting long term trends without predicting a single step along the way.

Are you saying probability theory is not scientific? That it cannot be tested?

Curiously this does not show that there is a "highest point" in evolution.

You also need to define what you (or what you think evolutionists think) "higher" means. What is the metric that is measured? Length of DNA? Number of segments that are not repeats? Amount of "information" carried by the DNA (and now you need to define what is meant by "information" and what metric is used to measure that)? Number of DNA changes from some (assumed) base common ancestor (and how do you count changes that are added and then deleted by intermediate steps)?

How do you define "kind" so that you can tell when this change has occurred? If you don't define a limit then there is none, and all life could be one "kind" descended from one common ancestor.

Several species have evolve to use their wings underwater instead of the air: if the definition of "bird" means flying through the air, then they have become a different kind. You can compare the behavior of penguins to seals - in and out of the water - have penguins become part of the "seal kind" (or is "penguin" a new kind?)? They no longer have flight feathers and they have evolved a layer of fat that does not exist in other birds:

And there are other adaptations to extreme cold living conditions.

When is change enough change? How do you know? Are cats and foxes different enough? What about sugar gliders and flying squirrels (cute eh?)?

With respect,
Enjoy.

LL:Faith in what?

Richard Dawkins (renowned evangelical atheist) believes that religion and faith in a god or gods are primitive paradigms that we should shift away from in this enlightened age of reason.

I don't agree. I think that spirituality is part of being human. Why this is I don't know, though a theist will answer that it's because there is a god who wants people to know him/her. Maybe we just instinctively realise that there's more to the world than what the 5 senses perceive. I'd have to know more about the unseen, myself, to be able to speculate much further. I do think that things are connected across time and space, and maybe one day quantum physics will bear this out. Maybe not. Agnosticism is a kicker at times.

Jeanie: I meant faith in God Linda. Concerning our spirituality it, to me, is because we have spirits inside us!! I found a good article...long but worth the read through. I'll send it separate. On a side note about that - I use to have a hard time grasping the concept of having a spirit. An Uncle who was an evangelist bought me a Scofied edition of the Bible when I was 14 after I'd gone to him for answers on how to correctly interpret the Bible. I read it and did find in the foot notes a place where it stated "the spirit is the part of us that knows." To me this was profound. (That Uncle ended up dying mad at me when I joined the LDS church).

An article about our spirits....

Barbara Lockhart, “The Body: A Burden or a Blessing?,” Ensign, Feb 1985, 57

Do you think of your body as a burden or a blessing? Do you identify your body as a part of yourself or rather as some object that you have? Is your true self spirit only, or is your true self both body and spirit?

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “we came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom.” Our spirits must be united with a body to attain that “great principle of happiness.” 1

As Latter-day Saints we are taught that the soul, our real self, consists of both the body and the spirit. (See D&C 88:15.) Neither part can be exalted without the other; both are necessary. Joseph Smith also taught that Satan’s punishment for his rebellion is that “he shall not have a tabernacle.” 2 Without a tabernacle, or a body, our spirits cannot progress.

Although we believe that we are both body and spirit, some of us identify ourselves only as our mind or personality—traits of the spirit. We see our body as some entity outside our “real” self, as something we “have” rather than something we are.

When we think this way, we show that we have been influenced by the theory called immaterialism. This theory says that the mortal body is less real and less important than the mind or spirit, that nothing made of matter is “real,” that reality is a spiritual something beyond matter. Therefore, the body, being made of matter, is regarded as less than real. Plato (428–348 b.c.) contended that the body was a prison house of the spirit, a detriment to perfection, a hindrance to wisdom and knowledge. “The body is a source of endless trouble to us,” Plato wrote. He felt that man could not become pure until death, when “the soul will be parted from the body and exist in herself alone.” Then, “having got rid of the foolishness of the body we shall be pure.” 3

Later philosophers—Aristotle (384–322 b.c.), St. Thomas Aquinas (a.d. 1225–1274), and Rene Descartes (1596–1650)—followed or built upon Plato’s thinking. Aristotle saw the soul or “actuality” of a person as being distinct from the body. 4 St. Thomas Aquinas felt that the body and spirit were opposites—the spirit incorruptible and the body corruptible. 5 Descartes, in his famous statement, “I think, therefore I am,” presents the mind as the only ultimate reality in human life. 6

The doctrines of many modern religions maintain that the spirit is immaterial and therefore only the spirit is immortal. At death, according to this view, the body ceases to be; the resurrection is of the spirit only. After death our immortal selves will be spirit only. The immaterialist view also purports that God is without body, parts, or passions.

People who are influenced unduly by these beliefs often assume that their body is a burden, a thing to be overcome. They see their mind or spirit as far more important than the body; that this life is designed for improving the mind and spirit. They may think attention to the body is important only to elevate the spirit.

Latter-day Saints are taught that both the body and the spirit are immortal and that the resurrection is a literal reuniting of body and spirit. We will then be like God in nature, for “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” (D&C 130:22.)

Ten years before section 130 was recorded, the Prophet received another revelation which speaks of the nature of beings: “Man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

“And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.” (D&C 93:33–34.)

This soul is the soul which rises in the resurrection.

Amulek taught that in the resurrection men are raised “from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; … they can no more see corruption.” (Alma 11:45.)

Immaterialism is not the only philosophy that incorrectly influences our feelings about ourselves. There are others, but perhaps foremost among them is existentialism. Early existential thinkers denied the spirit and claimed that we are only our bodies. “The identity of the body is not logically independent of the identity of the person whose body it is. … A person is his body.” 7

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) advanced this theory, “Body am I, and soul—thus speaks the child. And why should one not speak like children?

“But the awakened and knowing say: body am I entirely and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body.” 8

Proponents of this modern philosophy often make the following claims: There is no God and so no spirit. Man is his body. Human beings are physically capable of evolving beyond their present state. Human beings are not composed of different parts—such as spirit, mind, or body—but are one unified whole with various dispositions.

Existentialist attitudes toward the body may lead a person to believe that life’s main purpose is to feel pleasure, to experience all that one can with the body. An individual may prefer an irrational and spontaneous approach to life, deciding that if something feels good, then it is permissible. Right and wrong is a matter for personal interpretation, with no basis in an absolute truth. Therefore, the influence of existential thinking may also cause us to not want to identify with our Savior. The truth is that the body and the spirit both constitute our reality and identity.

“The spirit and the body are the soul of man,” recorded the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants. (D&C 88:15.)

Elder James E. Talmage wrote: “It is peculiar to the theology of the Latter-day Saints that we regard the body as an essential part of the soul. … Nowhere, outside of the Church of Jesus Christ, is the solemn and eternal truth taught that the soul of man is the body and the spirit combined.” 9

Gospel teachings such as these teach that our bodies are a blessing, a sacred part of our eternal happiness. There is only a perceived mind versus body dilemma. Although there is a distinction between the body and the spirit, these two entities are not opposites. The spirit is not immaterial but both body and spirit are material. We learn in the Doctrine and Covenants that “there is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.

“We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (D&C 131:7–8.)

This latter-day insight allows us to see that the spirit and the body are more alike than different and each is of great importance to the other. Paul spoke of the glory of the body when he asked the Corinthians, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?” (1 Cor. 3:16.) The Lord makes continual reference to our bodies as temples, perhaps to emphasize the holiness, the sanctity of the body.

“The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples.” (D&C 93:35.)

Having a body is a blessing. It is a gift we received because we kept our first estate in our premortal life. Because we have gained a body, we are now more like God than we were before coming to earth. People who understand these truths understand that the “real” self, or soul, is both body and spirit. They may feel a oneness, an inner satisfaction, as both parts work together in righteousness. They see their body as a blessing, as a reward for past righteousness. These people are grateful to have the privilege of being able to progress to this second estate to become more like God, and they want to prepare, both in body and in spirit, to live with their Heavenly Father again.

This process of preparation is called sanctification, and it centers in the atonement and resurrection of Christ. Sanctification begins as we repent of our sins, make covenants with the Father and the Son, and strive to keep the commandments. The Holy Ghost can then enter our lives and change us from our “carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness.” We are, in effect, “born of the Spirit.” (Mosiah 27:24–25.)

It is fundamental to our theology that this process of sanctification involves not only the spirit, but the body as well. As we give heed to the promptings of the Spirit and purify our lives, the Lord promises: “your whole bodies shall be filled with light, … and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.

“Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you.” (D&C 88:67–68.)

The sanctification of our souls will be complete when we “come forth in the resurrection of the just” with celestial bodies, to “dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever.” (See D&C 76:50–70.)

Thus, receiving a body gave us the power to continue our eternal progression, a power we must train to do good. In his classic discourse, The Three Degrees of Glory, Elder Melvin J. Ballard admonishes us to overcome all things in this life. We will not lose the tendencies of the flesh when we die and go to the spirit world. “They will be with us,” he says. “It is my judgment that any man or woman can do more to conform to the laws of God in one year in this life than they could in ten years when they are dead. … It is much easier to overcome and serve the Lord when both flesh and spirit are combined as one.” 10 The body is sacred and central to our progress. The spirit, however, must take the lead.

Brigham Young said, “Let the spirit, which God has put into your tabernacles, take the lead. If you do that, I will promise that you will overcome all evil, and obtain eternal lives. But many, very many, let the spirit yield to the body, and are overcome and destroyed.” (Journal of Discourses, 2:256.) Elder Theodore M. Burton in his April 1981 conference address stated, “There is no need to let the body and bodily appetites control our actions … some people have greater drives and appetites than others, but I say that a righteous God has given us minds and wills by means of which, if we desire, we can control and limit those passions and appetites … As we practice righteousness and approach ever closer to God, the easier it becomes to resist temptation and to live in accordance with that light and truth which emanates from Jesus Christ. (Ensign, May, 1981, p. 30.)

Elder Paul H. Dunn says that we prepare ourselves for sanctification by learning to bridle our passions. “Bridle,” he says, “is the word that wise father Alma used in counseling his son Shiblon, and the promise he attached is the key to understanding: ‘Bridle … your passions, that ye may be filled with love.’ (Alma 38:12.) Bridling increases strength, increases power, increases love. … Alma never said kill your passions. The implication is not that passions are evil, that we shouldn’t have them. On the contrary, we bridle something we love, something whose power we respect.” (Ensign, Nov. 1981, p. 72.)

Learning to unify the body and spirit and to subject both to the will of the Lord can be one of the greatest joys of life. “Full joy is felt when we are most aware of our bodies. In moments of spirituality and great inspiration men are not less but more aware of all that is around them and of their bodies themselves.” 11

I remember one experience in which I felt this great depth of joy, a feeling I describe as the “joy of effort.” It is the joy I believe we feel when the body and spirit work together in full harmony.

I was in Innsbruck, Austria, site of the 1964 Winter Olympic Games. It was a bright morning, with the sun’s rays bouncing lightly off the sleek, icy surface of the 400 meter speed skating oval. Nearly all the pairs had skated in the final women’s event—the 3000 meter race. Lydia Skoblikova had already won the first three races; two pairs after mine she would be going for her fourth gold medal of the Games.

The announcer called my number, 32, United States of America. As I approached the line, I felt confident that I could win the race. I was in fantastic condition. I had been training six to eight hours a day for eleven months a year for the past five years, and my times over the past two weeks had all been personal bests. The starter shot the gun, and we took off at the pace of a 500 meter instead of a 3000 meter race. I just flew. I felt as if my feet were barely touching the ice. My muscles were pulling and straining, yet it seemed so effortless. Although I was keenly aware of my environment, I was completely focused on the race. All of me, spirit and body, every ounce of my being contributed to this supreme effort. I sensed an amazing oneness of purpose, a harmony of being that I had never known before.

I did not win the race. I fell, and although I jumped to my feet, I lost fourteen seconds and dropped from a possible silver medal to twentieth place. However, that peak performance continues to be vivid even now. It was a moment of joy when I was fully aware of both body and spirit.

The knowledge of our identity as both body and spirit is crucial to our eternal progression, but the knowledge alone is not enough; we must act upon it.

When we accept our Heavenly Father’s unconditional love for our soul—spirit and body—we, too, can love our total selves, body and spirit, and feel grateful for the opportunity of progressing to become like him. When we see our bodies as a blessing and not a burden, we will rid ourselves of excuses, complaining, and procrastination. We will want to live the commandments, magnify our talents, and do all that we can to know and to overcome our weaknesses. We will learn to live with an eye single to the glory of God, that we may be among those “made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, … whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God.” (D&C 76:69–70.)

Let’s Talk about It
After reading “The Body: A Burden or a Blessing?” you may want to discuss the following ideas and questions:

1. Some of today’s advertisements, movies, literature, and entertainment promote the idea that man is just his body with no spirit. How does exposure to this philosophy affect your life?

2. What increased capacity or power do you have because you are embodied?

3. Turn to the Topical Guide in the LDS edition of the scriptures and look up the scriptures listed under “Holy Ghost, Baptism of.” How does the Gift of the Holy Ghost help us achieve “a fulness of joy” (D&C 93:33)? How does one obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost and allow it to have the greatest influence in his life?

4. Do you ever think of your body as an object, a thing, a burden? What would change if you considered your body a blessing to you and were grateful for it—honestly, completely liking your body?

[illustrations] Illustrated by Cary Henrie

Notes
1. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1938), p. 181.

2. Ibid., p. 297.

3. Robert M. Hutchins, ed. Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 7, Plato (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1952), pp. 224–25.

4. Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 8, Aristotle I, p. 642.

5. Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 19, Thomas Aquinas I, p. 381–84.

6. Stuart F. Spicker, The Philosophy of the Body (New York: Quadrangle, The New York Times Book Co., 1970), p. 22.

7. Ibid., p. 20.

8. Ibid., p. 21.

9. In Conference Report, Oct. 1913, p. 117.

10. Melvin J. Ballard, The Three Degrees of Glory (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1965), pp. 12–13; italics added.

11. Richard M. Eyre, The Discovery of Joy (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1974), p

While I believe in the transcendent, I think my version is quite different from yours. No problem there of course, as long as we're both happy with what works for us.

Do I have a spirit? Do animals have spirits? What has a spirit? What is a spirit? I don't know. A person who believes in something called materialistic reductionism would think that we are nothing more than biological parts working via chemical reactions and electrical impulses. I don't believe that either.

I'm hoping to meditate on this subject and see if I can get things more specific for myself. I've been too ill to do this. Which is why I sit and type on the computer instead LOL.

LL: This is an interesting conversation Jeanie, but I'm thinking that if we don't get back to the original questions in this thread, some people might think that distraction tactics are being employed.

Strict Catholics believe that sex should wait until marriage, as many devout Christians do. In my opinion this has a lot to do with cultural mores, and also the fact that when these rules were made, there was no birth control and no guarantee that a man's children were his own unless he had a wife he could be pretty sure was faithful to him.

There was a definite downside to being Catholic but maybe we can discuss these kinds of things in a more appropriate thread?


Jeanie: yes - off topic. I tend to be a bid ADD I think : ) I've just always wondered about the holy factor. I know priests, nuns and all that believe they are married to Christ... Just not sure if they think of sex itself as "unholy." If you care to address on a new threat that's fine - or if not fine, too. Just curious.

LL: I'm hoping to meditate on this subject and see if I can get things more specific for myself. I've been too ill to do this. Which is why I sit and type on the computer instead LOL.

Jeanie: Me too! : ) My husband is getting frustrated that I'm on here so much. But it's interesting and I'm enjoying the sociality.... I am not feeling well enough to venture out much lately. I've been holing up all summer, but that is going to end soon. I very much enjoyed going to work even for just the morning Friday. It was good to see everyone. I'm a people person, but at the same time, a bit reclusive.

No priests and nuns do not think sex is unholy. THey have in themselves decided to devote their lives to Christ and remain chaste. In fact, the Pope wrote a book on love and far from being against "sex", it was encouraging to married partners as God Himself created it. How then could it be unholy? God Himself told us to all be "fruitful and multiply" it is meant to be enjoyed, as well as for two people to take part in the incredible act of procreation (as well as bonding).

It is how it is used and outside of marriage, according to the bible is a sin (fornication). Since God created it, He knows best where it is best....well....exercised. But yes, perhaps this is better discussed on the other forum.

Hi Bex,



Why would they not have evolved, just like other parts of an organism evolve?

Animals seem to have emotions, though maybe not as varied as ours. Anyone who has had a pet would attest to that.

Speaking as someone who knows, when biochemistry is out of balance, so are emotions. I don't know what that says about the nature of whatever part of us may transcend the body, but it seems to be proof that emotions are tied to the body, and therefore that they can evolve too. Some effects of some neurotransmitters are well known.

I'm going to have to leave your protein and DNA statement to someone who knows more about these things; genetics isn't my strong point.



The first law of thermodynamics says that energy is conserved. Bear in mind that potential energy is negative for the purposes of this law, and the total energy of the universe could even be zero. But frankly, we don't know. Maybe you can clarify what you are claiming here?



Yet my colloidal mineral supplement, which is extracted from a deposit in the earth, contains over 70 trace elements.

I'm not sure what your statement above proves, other than that many of the elements in the universe can be found in living things. In fact, all baryonic matter in the known universe seems to be limited to the options on the periodic table.

It is also quite in keeping with the possibility that life formed on earth. This would include the theory of abiogenesis.



Would you please explain the intermediary steps between this quotation, and the conclusion that it is about DNA? Personally I can't see them.



This neglects the reality of self-replicating molecules which have been produced in the lab. You might want to have a look at the abiogenesis thread here to see what experiments have shown so far. There are some intriguing possibilities.

What's more, invalidating a theory does not mean that another one wins by default. If abiogenesis were invalidated, we would need to study other possibilities for how life on earth arose. For example there's exogenesis (which says that self-replicating molecules formed in space) and panspermia (which says that life came here from another world). Or for now we might have to say, "We don't know." In order to compete as a theory, creationism would have to present some scientific evidence of its own.



I'm not sure how this invalidates evolution, if that is the idea. Even if you believe in a soul which enters the body at birth and exits at death, there is ample evidence that the form of the body in which it lives has evolved.

I'm pretty sure that a person dies from anoxia because of the severe damage to organs, particularly the brain, that occurs when they are starved of oxygen. Though I don't think anyone claims to know what the ultimate nature of life and death are, and this is not covered by evolution either. Evolution is simply the change in heritable traits in a population over time.



See above.



True. And there are some things that science has helped us to understand pretty well.

This thread just reminded me of something alluded to earlier on. It is my belief that experiences, emotions, etc., can be handed down through genes. For instance, my husband had a dream of places in Europe - particular places he later saw in pictures - that he believed were in his ancestral past. I looked into reincarnation at one time due to people's statement's of past memory but the genetic connection makes sense to me. Or genetic memory.

That second quote you made, Bex, on matter has to do with what I've been stating about matter being eternal. (As are our spirits which are also composed of matter although more pure and fine). Eternal things are pretty hard for our finite minds to comprehend but its actually quite a mind opening experience which opens up all kinds of cool stuff.... (I love these little emoticons

It's actually energy which is neither created nor destroyed (matter is "frozen" energy). Does it carry something of its past incarnations along with it? I don't know. Maybe quantum physics will learn something about this one day, but I imagine most scientists would consider this notion to be profoundly unscientific.

It's cool to think that what makes "me" was once inside a star, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have much impact on my daily existence.

That makes sense if its true...light. (Matter being frozen energy). Perhaps intelligence is light.

Red herring? Would you care to prove it? I left my sources, it's up to you to discredit them if you can. Just calling it a red herring does not make it one just because you say so.

Of course this could be your attempt to avoid this like so many other things.

The zoo display was put up by Anthropologist W.J. McGee.
Story by Peter Jennings A century for young people (ABC).

Otta Benga: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5787947

If you want to discuss this, which answered my previous questions in no way, please address RAZD's comments. I would echo them. Thanks.

Nope, you have dodged enough of my questions. Don't think that you will force me to answer yours.

But nice dodge, but any readers here know that you cannot back up your claim. So no skin off my back. Oh, one more thing. I'm the thread starter, not you. So you don't dictate how the thread will proceed. Start your own if you want to do that.

Are you saying that disease organisms and chemicals don't follow the rules of chemistry? What rules do they follow, then?


Since the effect of changes in the environment on the distribution of physical traits within a population is micro or macro evolution, that is the correct explanation of the "rules". If you feel this does not adequately answer your question, please rephrase it so that I can understand what you want explained.

That's because we don't know what possible changes will occur in the physical traits of all the organisms on the earth. There are predictions about changes in the distribution of life, in a general sense, due to global warming. Basically, where the environment changes, those organisms with the traits that supply an advantage in the new environment...will survive. It's goodbye to the rest.

I cannot address this in it's present form. Please clarify:
1. By "life form", do you mean an individual organism or a population of organisms?
2. Please define the phrase "kind of life form" as you mean it in this sentence.

I don't see how your reply addresses my comment. Do you mean that there is a part of the Theory of Evolution that details the direction it is supposed to be going in? Please provide more details on what you know about this.

Please provide the defining characteristics of a "kind". I cannot provide the evidence that a new kind has evolved from a different kind unless you provide a description of the boundaries of a kind.

It's just that some people might wonder why you chose to completely ignore the previous post I had written and instead post more stuff which appeals to emotions.

RAZD asked you why those people would not simply be labelled "racists," epsecially since homo sapiens are one species and therefore evolution says absolutely nothing about anyone being superior to anyone else. It's been pointed out to you a number of times that people wishing to justify nefarious actions may claim any reasons they want. Religion has been used to justify many terrible deeds in the past, yet you don't see many claims that this means that religions are violent and evil -- because these people are not representative of what their religions actually teach.

I'd like to bump my original post here as a reminder of what I said. Feel free to respond in your own time.

Post as follows:



Selective pressure has obviously not been great enough for so-called living fossils to have changed much. However, claiming that "the" alligator (as opposed to different crocodilian species) has not changed at all is an oversimplification.

This article gives information about recently-discovered fossils which appear to be the most primitive yet discovered of modern crocodilians (crocodiles, alligators and gharials). There are features of this creature, such as the power of its bite, which would have given it an evolutionary advantage, as well as the fact that it would have had little competition or predation in its ecological niche. Other crocodilian species have become extinct, and the ones existing today are the ones which were obviously most successful in surviving selective pressure.

There is no "rule" that says that evolution has to proceed at the same pace for every species. Much depends on its environment.



You were asking where evolution stops. I said it would require mutations not being passed on to offspring, and the end of selective pressure from the environment. Can humans in the developed world eliminate both of these factors? To an extent maybe. It's a subject for debate.



Please do. While you're at it, it would be refreshing for you to state your claims without adding any ad hominem, as opposed to other threads you have started here.



"De-evolve" isn't a scientific term, but "harmful mutation" is. Natural selection works against these, which is where the term "survival of the fittest" comes in.



So the Chinese and Indians were doing what . . . painting pretty pictures which happen to look like language? Or do they not count for some reason?



What is "the rest"?

Are you claiming that the Bible is so unambiguous in every respect that it is beyond interpretation? What are Biblical scholars doing then? And why are there so many Christian sects, as well as three Abrahamic religions?

Still claiming that we can't learn anything from clues about the past? We'd better give up all hope that we can learn anything from the scene of a crime then.

You also seem to be ignoring reminders that Russ2 has posted here about bacteria which have been observed to evolve. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear, nor does claiming it doesn't exist.

LOL for "questions evolutionists can't answer," three of us have all addressed the same post. I think that's made things a bit tricky here though -- who is Ikester going to address when he answers?

Interesting comparing notes, anyway

Sorry for not being clear. I meant to request that you define co-evolution as you understand it, so I could adequately address your question.

No the process was not actually observed. It is deduced from a range of evidence not the least of which is the existence of these different levels of "vision" in living animals on this planet. Since these animals do quite well without all the vision capabilities of humans, it is reasonable to conclude that having a limited capability to distinguish light and shadow provides a survivability advantage over those organisms that are completely blind.

This seems to be an expression of your incredulity regarding the simple explanation I provided. Could you provide a response with a more applicable critique of what I wrote?

This also does not seem to be a substantive rebuttal to what I said. I never said that it was a lie. I had never heard anything about the heart hurting during emotion upheavals and I had heard (and experienced) the effects of stress on the chest area. So, I was not inclined to believe it out of hand. I would think a good rebuttal to my disbelief would be a link or reference to a study that provided evidence in support of this heart hurting effect of emotional down turns. Besides, even if your information was incorrect, it would not necessarily be a lie....a lie is incorrect information provided with the intent to deceive. I never said you intended to deceive me.

Your comment about the firing of creationist believers by evolutionists seems to be a non-sequitur with regards to this particular discussion.

I don't see it as a dodge. Your question implies that the heart can only function in the physical condition that we have in humans. You said, "So how did this muscle evolve, and how did natural selection select it when not one offspring would have survived more than a day without such a muscle?" I provided two examples of organisms, both animals, that do survive more than a day without a heart. This makes your question and qualifying requirements moot, since the heart could have evolved in the descendants of organisms that did not originally have hearts.


No, I wasn't specific about that particular mechanism or any of the others for that matter. Do you want me to go over the list of animals related to the possible ancestors of humans and show the variants of this mechanism in them? Should I then provide the conclusions of the biologists in regards to how this particular function likely evolved? It can be done but that would take some time. Additionally, I don't see how this is going to be worth the time. I doubt you would accept the detailed explanation since the biologists "weren't there to see it", and you could just rebut with another question about another "irreducibly complex" system like blood clotting or insulin manufacture. If this is to be an endless line of questioning then maybe you should open a thread on each question and wait until discussion on that is exhausted before opening another thread on another question.

First of all, the Theory of Evolution is all about the environmental changes' effects on the population of organisms. A meteor impact is an environmental change or causes one. Organism that have traits that help them survive the sweeping changes in the environment win the Meteor-Impact lottery and pass their genes to the next generation. You seem to want to divorce evolution from its driving force, the environment. I don't see how you can adequately discuss a theory if you must remove an element of that theory in order to debate it. From my point of view, it's like discussing gravitation theory without discussing mass.
Second, your mention of the meteor impact scenario had little to do with prediction of where evolution will take us except to maybe provide an example that could be explored.

It is interesting to me that all the data - scientific - is consistent with revelation about the last days... (Catastrophic change possibilities...watching a show on how global warming is theorized to possibly be bringing on another "little ice age." At the very least we are dealing with climate changes which are bringing on death and destruction and will continue to worsen. (Thermohaline circulation...the delicate balance within the ocean of salinity and warmth, as a result is the basis of the theory).
Stronger el nino's. Etc. etc. That doesn't even touch all the political issues.

If I were more worried about what people thought than finding truth, I would have stayed believing evolution then switching to creation. But since you are more worried about this than I am, you can keep to your ideas and stick your head in the sand because you are afraid someone might take a pot shot at you for thinking outside of the evolution box.

But if you look through history, all the greats were people who did stick their heads out of the box because they were not scared of critism. They had nothing to prove to no one. And most did not care.

To me evolution is like being in High school again. Evolution is like the group of cool kids on the block who you have to do and believe exactly as they do in order to belong to their group. And if you don't, then you are not welcome.

Most be the reason name calling and snide reamrks and insults are included. It's not really a scientific idea, it's more of a popularity group. And that is why it operates just like one. You believe and do as we say, your welcome with open arms. You don't, you are our enemy.

And popularity groups always stick together and defend each other. And support each others ideas whether right or wrong.

Seems all the actions I've seen so far at this forum hit every ear mark of evolution being more for social popularity than anything else. And an immature one at that.

Your post, Ikester, is 100% ad hominem.

You have had quite a few answers to your "questions evolutionists cannot answer." Would you like to start to address them? It's a lot of text so so take your time, and I look forward to reading thoughtful rebuttals supported by evidence.

Hey LinearAQ, just to amuse folks I'll pick a nit with you.

Strictly speaking a meteor strike is a stochastic event. It is also rapid compared to generation times. The organisms that happen to be in the impact area are usually wiped out, regardless of their adaptations, and those that are not in the impact area usually survive the impact event due to location rather than any adaptations. As such there is no selection by the meteor impact. Organisms that are killed by chance events don't directly affect evolution, what happens is that their removal can also result in certain alleles being lost to a population, and this is called genetic drift rather than selection.

The effect of a meteor beyond the impact event depends on the size of the meteor and the location of the impact. A small meteor can throw up a cloud of hot gases generated by the impact energy that then dissipate in the atmosphere in a matter of days. A large meteor can throw up such a large cloud that the sun is blocked for many weeks and change the climate (the "nuclear winter" scenario). This is where selection comes in, after the initial impact and during the secondary effects, and the effect on evolution would depend on how severe it was and how long it lasted.

Enjoy.

"(things evolving in the same amount of time)" was given once.

As some may be new to evolutionology (the study of evolutionists), I like to include tips occasionally which are intended to be helpful. Here's one:

I notice an excessive amount of requests for definitions being thrown in. This behaviour is consistent with stalling, just wasting time, & preparing to equivocate. It could hypothetically be legit, so one should wait & see what follows before classifying the actions.

I expect one could go into more detail, but I cannot imagine a more applicable critique.


Endless line of questioning? So says the one with the endless line of 'please defines'. So say the one who is introducing an endless line of "animals related to the possible ancestors of humans" to the conversation.

So the environment doesn't define a "goal"? How then can it be said that anything is better adapted than anything else?

Yet you go on to say

Easy. Things don't "evolve in the same amount of time" if you mean two different systems within an organism of a particular population. The changes in a particular organ through the generations of a population are somewhat independent of the changes to other organs unless the changes in interaction between those organs results in a change to survivability.

This does not address the reply I made to ikester, and seems to be an attempt to paint all evolutionists as disingenuous.


This appears to simply be an insult to me personally.



Perhaps my exasperation showed in my comment to ikester. For that I apologize. However, I consider this another attempt to imply that all those who believe in evolution engage in deceptive tactics.

Because the better adapted species are still alive. That's pretty much the Go/No-Go test for adaptive suitability.

The goal of life is to survive. Evolution is the means by which life continues in a changing world. Since evolution is a process, it cannot have a goal.

And my statement implies a goal for the process of evolution in what way? Please be specific in your answer.

Linear, I don't see you as being the brunt of anything on here. I don't subscribe to generalizations about evolutionists on a personal level. We can't know hearts.

Honestly even with LL, I think she is actually open minded about the spiritual aspect of things which is why she is asking questions even though its frustrating to not be able to get through or have our viewpoint seen as valid. But you apparently have a lot of knowledge of the Bible. It would seem you have some personal reasons for being disillusioned as apparently so does Linda. Now RAZD.... : ) ??????? He does not reveal himself on a personal level. But that is just my perspective. It ain't over till the fat lady sings...

I believe the Bible has a lot of truth in it, but that it is not the only truth. There is truth in other religions and in non-religious sources, which is why I said I can't confine myself to one.

Would "disillusioned" here equate with not reading the book of Genesis literally? If that's the case, then many Christians are disillusioned too, despite feeling quite content themselves with their faith.

LL: I believe the Bible has a lot of truth in it, but that it is not the only truth. There is truth in other religions and in non-religious sources, which is why I said I can't confine myself to one.

Jeanie: I don't argue that point...

LL: Would "disillusioned" here equate with not reading the book of Genesis literally?

Jeanie: No - not in my book. More in your statements about losing faith in your own religion growing up. I did too....

If you think co-evolution cannot take place, you'll get no argument from me. If Ikester is consistent, he won't argue in favour of it either.

It may be that nobody will champion this myth, and that's fine.
I mentioned that one observation is potentially consistent with disingenuous behaviour, and you have extrapolated this to mean all evolutionists employ disingenuous tactics. Oh if the rest of your mind could keep pace with your imagination, what we'd see!

What you wrote was the subject of the critique, according to... what you wrote (later).

No. That implication does not follow from what I said unless one employs logical fallacies liberally.

I can see you haven't studied much evolutionology. Deceptive tactics are a strong indicator of the advanced stages of evosickness.
Lemmings appear to disagree, as do many other lifeforms, including salmon and male black widow spiders.

And if "adaptive suitability" is involved, this implies some variable(s) to which the adaptiveness and the suitability thereof strive to match.

Writing is a process. Manufacturing is a process. These have goals.

How can anything be helped if it has no goal?

Now riddle me this: 1.)where/when has Ikester indicated that the environment is to be excluded from the discussion of evolution?

2.)If he hasn't indicated this, why do you pretend he has?

3.)What do the answers to these questions imply about ALL EVOLUTIONISTS?