Natural selection isn't random - it's based on whatever happens to be most advantageous in a given environment.
I'm not talking about natural selection though randomness is not necessarily indeterministic and Biology seems to understand that. I'm talking about human selection, which is extant in evolution today and paves the way for Divine selection. Also the are the factors which drive natural (and human) selection, such as environment which are not random.
Therefore, nothing in science precludes God from driving evolution.
Yes, it does. In order to drive evolution, god would have to, at minimum, be manipulating the physical environment - which includes climate and topography but also other species. Are you claiming god is putting his thumb in that pie?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Yes, it does. In order to drive evolution, god would have to, at minimum, be manipulating the physical environment - which includes climate and topography but also other species. Are you claiming god is putting his thumb in that pie?
Sure. Not a problem. We already know from the scriptures that God intervenes in this area. It's not a problem for random mutations either.
Yes, it does. In order to drive evolution, god would have to, at minimum, be manipulating the physical environment - which includes climate and topography but also other species. Are you claiming god is putting his thumb in that pie?
Sure. Not a problem. We already know from the scriptures that God intervenes in this area. It's not a problem for random mutations either.
There is no evidence that god has ever intervened. Furthermore, science could not function if that were the case. Nothing could be predicted because of the god wildcard.
Your world view is at odds with real science.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
So instead of saying that there is no conflict between science and Mormonism, perhaps you would be better off to say that there is no conflict between science as you understand it and Mormonism as fabricated by you as you go along - keeping in mind that the Mormonism that BKP makes up as he goes along is a Mormonism from a much more credible (to Mormons) source.
This is basically the problem here. Bcspace has to warp science and Mormonism in order to make them fit, but at the end you don't have real science, and you don't have what the church actually teaches. This is not all the unusual. I did it to some extent, and a number of members do it as well. Even those in other religions do it as well. It is not correct, but I guess it helps them feel that there really is no conflict with their beliefs and science, which is only true in their minds.
bcspace wrote:Sure. Not a problem. We already know from the scriptures that God intervenes in this area. It's not a problem for random mutations either.
Who do you mean by "We"?
If you mean a collective of all of us, "we" certainly don't know that. In fact any group you could define as "we" doesn't know that either. You don't KNOW that yourself. You're only speculating using your predefined religious beliefs as a basis.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Hmm? Let's see? I wonder how difficult it might be to kill this thread?
Satan needs to culture extreme human pride to defeat the gospel.
Making mankind believe that it is the center of the universe, the first cause, secures the most promise for keeping the pride of man spiked.
The earth is flat and all things revolve around us. Gee. We are SO it.
Telescopes prove otherwise. Faith increases for four hundred years until 'ding' LIFE EVOLVED UPON THIS PLANET. Gee. We are SO it.
The arrogance of man insist that this MUST be. Having maniacal motives to rid God from academia very plank must be nailed against allowing God back into rational discussion.
bcspace? What part of 'world's without number' do you fail to grasp about God and creation? We are not the center of the universe.
Evolution is just as irrationally absurd as was the idea of a flat earth. Imagine how much evidence needed to be ignored to hold up the idea that all things revolve around US? Same with evolution. The weight of evidence against its rationality is staggering huge. But man refuses to consider a pinch of it. Academia is literally FORCED to live and breathe it.
As some may have noticed, there is a profound disingenuity in this entire claim. The yeast cells in question did not evolute into multicellular organisms, or one big multicellular organism, in the manner implied by the headlines on many blogs and by the purveyor of this OP. The yeast cells stuck together in a large conglomerate "snowflake" structure that had "developed multicellular characteristics," but it did not become and did not evolve into a multicellular organism.
The discontinuity between a true multicellular organism and a clump of cells displaying certain features characteristic of a multucellular organism is vast, and no great macroevolutionary boundary was crossed.
The snowflake acquired some characteristics of a multicellular organism, but it patently is not a multicellular organism, but a compound of individual cells behaving that, when clumped together, take on some of the characteristics of a multicellular organism.
God 1, yet again, and atheism a big fat intellectually dishonest 0...yet again.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:As some may have noticed, there is a profound disingenuity in this entire claim. The yeast cells in question did not evolute into multicellular organisms, or one big multicellular organism, in the manner implied by the headlines on many blogs and by the purveyor of this OP. The yeast cells stuck together in a large conglomerate "snowflake" structure that had "developed multicellular characteristics," but it did not become and did not evolve into a multicellular organism.
The discontinuity between a true multicellular organism and a clump of cells displaying certain features characteristic of a multucellular organism is vast, and no great macroevolutionary boundary was crossed.
The snowflake acquired some characteristics of a multicellular organism, but it patently is not a multicellular organism, but a compound of individual cells behaving that, when clumped together, take on some of the characteristics of a multicellular organism.
God 1, yet again, and atheism a big fat intellectually dishonest 0...yet again.
Your scientific illiteracy aside, where did god score a point here?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I'm fairly certain you don't understand randomness at all and what seems random is often discovered later to be based on some deterministic principle.
Indeed, "randomness" may very possibly be little more than a term we use to denote processes and phenomena the initial conditions and causal linkages of which are simply too complex and interconnected for us to understand (or quantify).
"Random," in other words, is a kind of conceptual place holder for "its far to complex for us to understand at our present level of intellectual development."
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
I'm fairly certain you don't understand randomness at all and what seems random is often discovered later to be based on some deterministic principle.
Indeed, "randomness" may very possibly be little more than a term we use to denote processes and phenomena the initial conditions and causal linkages of which are simply too complex and interconnected for us to understand (or quantify).
"Random," in other words, is a kind of conceptual place holder for "its far to complex for us to understand at our present level of intellectual development."
The implication here being, of course, that once we understand randomness well enough, we'll come to understand, as you have, that's actually magic.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.