Why is it that you have problems finishing a thought?
You write: “I am having trouble understanding how this forum works.”
But instead of explaining what you mean, you go right back into a sentence from an earlier posting: "The phrase “gift of faith” came up because someone suggested that the Resurrection of Jesus was a “supernatural process.”
Is English your native language? I’m not being sarcastic. Your syntax doesn’t seem native to me.
And your logic about the Resurrection makes zero sense to me:
Your Intro: "… someone suggested that the Resurrection of Jesus was a “supernatural process.”
Your Response: “I said it was an historical event.”
Your Amplification: “The faith response to the Resurrection is a gift from God.”
You Conclusion: “This is not a supernatural process.”
My questions for you: 1) Can’t the resurrection of Jesus be both a supernatural process and a historical event?
You specifically say that a human’s faith response to the resurrection is a gift from God. And then you conclude that the human response to this “gift from God” is not a supernatural process. What?!
2) So are you suggesting that the human faith response, a gift from God, is more comparable to the human response to a Sun Shower? … rather than the human response to a miracle?
3) Why is this even an important issue in this discussion about Evolution?
4) If you could convince one person here of one thing, what thing would you most want to convince him/her of?
Why? It was written by a rabid ID supporter which makes it suspect in the first place. And then there is this from wikipedia.
“Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report nor is the report an official report of the committee.”
Why does this matter to YOU? It was a decade ago.
You have been told several times that this isn’t true.
If you just look at the BioLogos mission statement you would see the vast majority of regulars here would not agree with this. We all start with God is in control. Are you saying God couldn’t create an elephant using evolution?
@gbrooks9
I agree with A) and C). I don’t understand B. Do you mean that speciation is caused by an accumulation of genetic changes or are you defining speciation to be the accumulation of genetic changes. If you are simply defining speciation, this raises the question of what caused the accumulation of genetic changes? You seem to think biologists understand speciation. Not according to the Sternberg article ("The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington).
My original statements:
A] Common Descent results from a repeated sequence of speciation.
B] Speciation results from an accumulation of genetic changes in a sub-population that once interbred with members of the original species.
C] Adaptation is a term that can apply to Speciation, or just changes in the ratios of alleles in a population (without triggering speciation) in response to Natural Selection.
Speciation is not the “path to a new species” … Speciation is the establishment, the fruition, of a new species. So in [B] I’m saying that Speciation is caused by an accumulation of genetic changes. If you don’t have enough changes, you don’t have a new species.
So you say “… this raises the question of what caused the … the genetic changes…” Bingo! my good Sir! That is the question to ask!
I am not so bold as to say “[All] biologists understand speciation.” But biologists who specialize in Evolution certainly do!
You say that an article says “biologists do not understand”. Fine. And because you do not quote the article, your discussion comes to an abrupt end.
Here’s a tip for “how this forum works”: If you want people to discuss your ideas, give them the information they need to discuss them! Why would you intentionally “troll” this list with a provocative statement about the general competencies of Biologists at large - - and then not quote us what the article actually says on the matter?
As to your question about what causes genetic changes (assuming that it was not just a rhetorical question), the list is a very long one for what causes genetic changes:
stray water molecules;
heat inputs in the intra-cellular fluid;
cold inputs in the intra-cellular fluid;
radiation;
random mistakes to replicate DNA or RNA exactly - perhaps due to molecular geometries and configurations;
toxins;
and so on and so on and so on.
One brave soul on this list tries to convince readers that genetic mutations are impossible because there are cellular mechanisms that repair damage to DNA sequences. And yet, we still have mutations, do we not? Obviously, these repair mechanisms are not perfect.
David, what is it that you really really really want to prove here on this list? You didn’t come all the way here just to “sass” biologists, right? Or did you come here to “sass” Sternberg for saying what you say he said about biologists?
My good Sir, when will you ever get to your point?
Errata: David, I have concluded that even your description of "the Sternberg article ("The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) is flawed - - the writer of the article is not Sternberg, but Stephen C. Meyer; it is customary to name the author of the article - along with its title - not to name the protagonist who looms so large in your mind even 13 years after the article was published!.
Further, from the bio available on S.C. Meyer, he is pretty solidly an Intelligent Design partisan - - which leads me to wonder why you are quoting from a pro-ID source when you yourself say you do not agree with the I.D. position. Is there anything you have written which has any promise of making sense out of this jumble?
QUOTE FROM BIO:
"In his first book on intelligent design, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) Meyer examined the mystery of the origin of the first life. With Darwin’s Doubt, he has expanded the scope of the case for intelligent design to the whole sweep of life’s history. Meyer’s research addresses the deepest mystery surrounding the origin of life and the origin of animal life: the origin of biological information necessary to produce it. "
I’m closing this thread, as it very clear that @davidroemer is not able to put together coherent thoughts, for whatever reason. I appreciate those who have engaged with him, but this is just an exercise in frustration.