Except illness does not affect all equally. There are diseases caused by genetics, such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. There are also mutations that work in both directions, such as sickle cell anemia being caused by the same alleles that help to prevent malaria. Then there are beneficial mutations that are spreading at a fast rate through the human population, such as lactase persistence. These are exactly the mechanisms that are found in the ToE, so if you don’t object to how the modern world works then I don’t see how you can object to the ToE which proposes nothing different than what we observe now.
No, because you do not attempt to understand my view.
You look at details, not concepts.
Richard
I look at the facts around me. The very types of selection we observe happening in the world around us are the same types of selection found in the ToE. There is no difference between the two.
If your concepts don’t match up to the facts, then what good are the concepts?
Only if you extrapolate, but then, that is what ToE does. It sees a small local example and says “that must apply to this, or that as well.”
That is the difference between the proven evolution and ToE.
You do not seem to see the concepts you are extolling.
Richard
Right, the same mechanisms we observe in nature are the same ones in the theory. Are you saying scientists shouldn’t apply observed mechanisms in scientific theories? If this is what you object to, then you should object to every single scientific theory because they all operate the same way.
Again, the same mechanisms of selection we see operating in nature are the same ones in the theory. If you object to the theory because of natural selection then you must also object to reality itself.
1 Like
Like I said. You do not understand the concepts you ae applying.
Non sequitur. They are not comparable.
Fale conclusion.
You are making assumptions on the past that you cannot verify.
There are more variables than you can see or diagnose.
Scientific arrogance.
Richard
How are they not comparable?
We can verify them, so they aren’t assumptions. We can easily demonstrate patterns of sequence conservation in genomes that verifies the action of natural selection in the past. We can correlate that with the observation of sequence conservation in living species due to natural selection.
We observe natural selection occurring in the present. It is the very same natural selection that is proposed for the past, and the very same natural selection that can be verified in genetic data.
Why do you object to natural selection occurring in the past when it is happening right now?
Stubborn as ever Rigid as ever.
It is not just about natural selection. It is the whole package. Natural Selection cannot work if the changes do not occur. Your data is limited to minor adjustments. You have no evidence that evolution can generate the diversity or specialisms needed for ToE to work.
If you did not know, you could not tell the difference between a creature who has been bred by man, or one that has developed naturally. Therefore you cannot know if there are any outside factors in the development (evolution) of any creature.
Richard
We do have the evidence:
Once again, if you think organisms being born with mutations runs counter to God’s nature then biology as we know it right now runs counter to God’s nature.
Both are natural processes, be it by man or not by man. What humans do is as natural as anything else in nature. Do you think what humans do is supernatural?
If you are instead referring to species that have been genetically modified by humans, then we would actually be able to tell the difference quite easily since humans often copy and paste genes from one species into a distantly related species, and those insertions stick out like a sore thumb. For example, humans have modified mice to carry a fluorescent protein from jellyfish.
If, instead, you are arguing that we couldn’t tell the difference between God guiding mutations and the natural processes we see occurring in species right now then this defeats the entire foundation of your argument that the ToE goes against the nature of God. If God’s actions are indistinguishable from the processes you say go against God’s nature then you have a serious dilemma on your hands.
I have never said that/
That is not the point.
False reasoning and false understanding.
You clearly have no idea what i think or why. (You might try reading and understanding instead of jumping at certain words or phrases)
Richard
That’s what you say when you are caught saying contradictory things.
All of the mechanisms in evolution are observable now in living populations (e.g. natural selection, speciation, mutation). If you object to the ToE because it goes against God’s nature then you would also need to object to nature as it is observed right now.