they can muster a violent response when under attack as everyone trimming a blackthorn hedge can tell you 
However considering that a plant like any animal is a symnbiotic entity between the plant and the plant microbiome I would say is is always successful symbiosis that is driving the outcome.
Thank you for the information.
This study seems to indicate that climate change or colder weather did not lead to adaption and new species, but the species who adapted creatively during warm weather were better able to adapt to cooler weather which drove less creative species to extinction.
Dr Neil Brocklehurst, a postdoc at the Museum fĂźr Naturkunde in Berlin, is the lead author of the paper. He said: âIt appears that these âkey innovationsâ do not promote massive increases in species richness, but instead buffer against extinction when times get tough.â
For instance the mammals and birds developed before the ecological change brought extinction to the dinosaurs. The extinction did not produce them, but allowed them to grow and flourish.
This makes it clear that ecological change and the ability to adapt are the keys to evolution with humans a prime example. Extinction is not violent, but phases species in and out of existence as needed.
1 Like
âEretsâ in the account of Noah refers to a particular land as well; not to the whole of the planet.
1 Like
I wish to thank you. It is very nice. Also, there is truth in what you say. Does science indicate this in ancient creation? It is possible; however, was it meant to be that way? That is the big question. As it is now, the answer must be yes.
You are correct, Nick.
Marvin,
That is a good response.
Ironically ⌠the first death that is recorded in the Genesis story of Eden is of animals⌠and it is God that killsâŚ
all before Adam and Eve are even expelled!
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake. . .
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wifeâs name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them [Adam and Eve].
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground . . .
Roger, you say again and again that âsurvival of the fittestâ and âselfish genesâ have NOT been proven to be true. What proof do you require? It is fairly common for a male lion to kill all the cubs in a pride he has taken over so he can impregnate the females and thus insure that his genes will be passed on to further generations To me, that is the epitome of âselfishnessâ in the genes that drive his behavior. Same for the firstborn bird who fights for survival when food is scarce by murdering his younger sibling so his parents will have fewer mouths to feed. Perhaps the term âselfishâ can, technically, be applied only to conscious creatures, but what better way is there to describe how genes drive the behavior that we humans see as âselfishâ? And should the human mind decide what is good and what is evil when it comes to creativity on a Universal scale? I see beauty (and therefore goodness) in an iridescent humming bird that feeds by my breakfast room window, and I marvel at the ferocity of the angry lion that snarls at me from my TV screen. I thank God for creating both of them, regardless of the way he chose to do so.
Al Leo
1 Like
Albert, Survival of the Fittest and the Selfish Gene are universal concepts. You point out a few isolated aspects to justify it. You specify that in times of scarcity the older birds will kill their younger siblings. I was not aware of this and do not know how well it has been documented, but if in extreme situations this way of adaption is practiced, I do not see it as a problem.
Lions are a center of interest because they seem to be an example of Survival of the Fittest. The Pride is not an institution based on the individual. The work of the pride is done by the females collectively. They do the hunting and child raising. The alpha Lion provides the unity of the pride. He expels all other mature males. The role of the Lion is the leader, who protects the rest of the pride and also scavenges to supplement their diet. The act of killing the offspring of his predecessor is seen more a a political move, rather an a sexual act.
When David took over the kingdom from Saul and his son Jonathan, the e3xpectation was that he wipe out the male offspring of the old regime. The opposition that resisted him formed around these people. He only preserved the life of the crippled son of Jonathan. The question was not one of genes, but of politics.
@Lynn_Munter,to make survival of the fittest into a strategy is to trivialize that concept. The same for the Selfish Gene. On the other hand if we say that the Selfish Gene is ânaturalâ then humans and nature are innately evil. Then what is happening in Syria is ânaturalâ as well as sinful. We must insist that Syria is not the natural or normal way for humans to exist.
Goodness is natural, not unnatural. That does not mean that goodness is easy, but it is normative.
Roger, arenât you dodging my point, just a little? The younger, stronger male lion may expel other mature lions from the pride and we may explain it as a âpolitical expediencyâ. But he also ruthlessly hunts down âinnocentâ cubs and kills them. Clearly he behaves this way because his genes tell him âif you donât, it will be your predecessorâs genes who will dominate the next generation in this prideânot yours.â
We humans see this as evil. If lions were guided by conscience, we would say they Sin. Before we say that a good God would not create this way, should we not heed the admonition in Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?"
Al Leo
1 Like
Without having read this entire thread, and with the understanding that Iâm not Christian but pantheist (the logical conclusion I come to if one posits an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent God) here would be my response to your argument:
I think you are confusing the concepts of good and evil into areas where they have no business. Legally, a person must be mentally sound in order to be considered guilty of a crime: he must have the ability to know that what he did was wrong. Biblically, this same concept shows up at the very beginning of the work of exploring what morality means: there is a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The natural world is neither good nor evil; it simply is what it is. Actions have consequences. The ability to weigh those consequences in moral terms, to say this SHOULD be, requires a fairly well-functioning thought process. This is the journey we, the human race, have set ourselves upon; itâs not easy or simple and whatâs happening in Syria is among our many, many failures along the way. Evil is the failure of Good: it is not its predecessor.
Iâve mentioned to you before how we tend to attribute more human desires to the natural world than we should. If I am eaten by a bear, it is upsetting and it might be tempting for other humans to say an evil thing happened; but the bear was not acting evilly, by its own standards. Only if a human ate me would it be an evil act, because a human would understand the consequences and context in ways the bear would not.
You use the word strategy, which we discussed the use of before, but since I am unsure of your purpose in using it here, may I ask if you are using it in the human or the biological sense of the word?
I agree with your overall point, but I also canât help pointing out that this is another example of our ascribing human-like thoughts and motivations to everything we talk about. The lionâs genes tell him no such thing, except in the most extraordinarily abstract sense. The lion wants to mate with the females and he wants them not to be distracted from him by other concerns â their own cubs naturally being high on the list of a lionessâs concerns. Evolutionarily, this has been a successful strategy (in the action-based rather than motivation-based sense of the word strategy) because itâs led to increased breeding success of the lion, so because it has worked, it is unlikely to change. Whether the lion or his genes expend any forethought on the subject is quite a different matter.
Sorry for being pedantic, but I think itâs a relevant distinction to make!
Actually, if the cubs are killed their mothers will come into heat, giving the new male a chance to mate with them.
Haha, yes, exactly â I was aware of this, but figured it was more detail than was required. Thanks for clarifying!
Thank you for your response and think you for clarifying your position. I agree that bears who are doing their own (natural) thing are not evil; or acting evilly. Evil came into being in the universe when humans came into being. That is the meaning of Sen 3.
However that does make nature good, not evil as some would theorize in view of the pain, suffering, and death in nature before the coming of humanity. What is the basis of this goodness.
The Bible says that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth and they were good. Now there is some disagreement as to whether God created the universe âout of nothingâ or by âbringing order out of chaos,â but really there is little difference because âchaosâ is ânothing.â
God is good because God creates order. The universe is good because it is orderly. Godâs creatures are good in that they maintain Godâs order. Humans are good when they maintain and further God good moral order.
Darwin decided that God was not responsible for the physical and moral order of the universe, because of the existence of natural evil. Dawkins, Dennett, and the New Atheists have decided that the universe is not good, because 1) it is not rationally ordered, since there is no rational Creator, 2) thus nature has no rational meaning or purpose, and 3) thus is evil.
The universe is what it is. If it is orderly in a positive way, it maintains life, it is good. If it does not it is bad. Science and philosophy are based on the view that the universe is a cosmos, is orderly and good. The New Atheism is denying that reality and saying that life is without purpose and meaning and in fact is evil. This is what Survival of the Fettest and the Selfish Gene are all about.
Huh? Orderly, yes; as a precondition for science and philosophy to operate. âGoodâ? Science says nothing about âgoodâ and philosophy hasnât gotten around to reliably defining what âgoodâ is, particularly in respect to the nature of the cosmos/universe.
Hmm. It may be a subtle distinction, but I would argue that the earth is not inherently good, because âgoodâ can only exist from the point of view of a thinking being. Thus God can view it as good, or humans can, but whether or not the universe is orderly or supports life are objective questions, while whether or not it is good or bad are subjective ones.
As for what Survival of the Fittest is all about, that has been the subject of much discussion, which winds up with much less claim to morality than I think you believe it has.
1 Like
This thread was made way before I joined the forum but from what I see, the discussion seems to be about theodicy and animal suffering, a subject I wrestled over a lot. I remember watching a video of a baby bird pushing down its weaker sibling into the water while the parent watched indifferently, and the crocodile ate the drowned sibling. It made me sad, especially when I recalled a verse about Godâs care for sparrows. I think it was Luke 12:6.
During the summer, I read Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering by Ronald E. Osborn, and well, the book didnât satisfy me, but the author was thoughtful enough. I heard a better book is called The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. I have not read that book, but I do want to check it out. Regardless of what explanations people try to think of, I know that there are many things I will never understand, but I have faith in God, and that helps me to keep moving on.
2 Likes
Thanks for your response! Itâs definitely not easy to look around at all the suffering we see in the world sometimes.
If youâre asking for me to wax philosophical on you, Iâd tell you that nature offers no guarantees. No living thing is guaranteed fairness, life, or a happy ending. Only change is constant.
If we want the world to be better, itâs on us to fight to make it better. And by fight, I donât mean to start throwing punches; I mean applying all our wisdom and all our will towards improvement. Having the technical knowledge alone of what is good and what is evil is not enough â knowing the right course of action is no guarantee that we will take it. Achievement of âgoodnessâ can only occur in a world with consequences, and only with the opposite possibility of âevil.â
I donât know if thatâs at all helpful to you. Thereâs a lot more to be said on the topic, obviously. But Iâll leave it with that much, for now. 
ď¸
Hi Lynn: To me, this says that the creation of the Universe is an ongoing process, and now that God has transformed our brains into something we call Mind/Soul, he has invited us to co-create with him some attributes that had not existed before: true compassion and love. Of course we see in other animals some aspects of love and compassionâmost notably in the care given to offspring by mothers (and less frequently by fathers)âbut that is mostly a gene-driven hormonal response. In a previous response to my earlier post you refer to the femalesâ response to a new male lionâs takeover of the pride âtheir own cubs naturally being high on the list of a lionessâs concerns.â Actually, using the term âconcernâ is anthropomorphic. The lionesses in the pride seem to make no effort in defending their offspring from the rampaging male. And as Thanh pointed out, a normally solicitous mother bird appears unconcerned when one of her stronger siblings âmurdersâ the other. @Relates maintains the it may not be technically correct to refer this behavior as âdriven by selfish genesâ but it is the most effective description I know of. Whenever humans express distaste for the way God has seen to create new forms of life on earth (i.e.via selfish genes) He can surely ask: âWell, can you do better?â With the new biological tools now available (e.g. CRISPR-Cas9), we may be ready to respond: âWe are surely going to try!â
Does that scare you?
Al Leo