Basically God/s exist/s as part of a contractual arrangement for the individual to obtain whatever it is they feel they lack or want.
eg Eternal life, health or wealth, reassurance that acquired wealth is acceptable and possibly even retained in the afterlife, acquisition of land or prestige, victories,vengeance on their enemies etc
So as individuals change their requirements, God/s must evolve to suit.
When a God no longer meets the requirements set by the worshipper, they are neglected in favor of alternatives till they become extinct, as in the Gods of the Romans and Greeks. That is why all Gods demand constant worship, without it they die.
Id consider design a possibility - lets just make sure we have a fundamental grasp of what design means in context, and update our rather primitive understanding of God!.
Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!
Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...
Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.
Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...
Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.
Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not direct the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!
I'm not sure how you get that. They literally don't know what actually happened yet, and the article explicitly states that. It will be fascinating to see how this story progresses.
What they do know is that this is a gain of function that could not have happened due to one simple point mutation, or as you so eloquently put it "OMG! A mutation!"
Great article. Best laugh I've had in weeks. 'Course I'm embarrassed to live in Missouri with folk of that type, but so far I have survived with some reasonable sense of logic intact.
"intelligent falling"....
"secular gravity" .....
"Evangelical physicists" ....
"Anti-falling physicists" ....
I really do need to find out where these type of people find their drugs.
Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...
Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.
No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.
Quote:
Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.
And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment?
Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.
That's directly contradicted by this:
Quote:
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
dmz:
The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).
Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.
If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.[/QUOTE]
Comments
I consider intelligent design a real possibility, provided it is in its truest form.
You're literally the only one.
Like I said, the creationists have abandoned intelligent design and moved on to "strengths and weaknesses."
dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.
Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.
I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities.
Oh, and man made god in his own image.
Question: Did god evolve?
Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.
dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.
Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.
I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities,
Oh, and man made god in his own image,
Question: Did god evolve?
Funny you should ask.
Question: Did god evolve?
Yes He/She did.
Basically God/s exist/s as part of a contractual arrangement for the individual to obtain whatever it is they feel they lack or want.
eg Eternal life, health or wealth, reassurance that acquired wealth is acceptable and possibly even retained in the afterlife, acquisition of land or prestige, victories,vengeance on their enemies etc
So as individuals change their requirements, God/s must evolve to suit.
When a God no longer meets the requirements set by the worshipper, they are neglected in favor of alternatives till they become extinct, as in the Gods of the Romans and Greeks. That is why all Gods demand constant worship, without it they die.
Evolution and Christianity are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.
That is all.
Ironically, the best example is the very experiment to which you linked. An intelligent creature, that being a man, began the experiment. The bacteria didn't show up in the lab on their own. They didn't throw a shitload of proteins and amino acids and what not into a jar and voila! Life!
Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...
Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.
Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...
Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.
Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not direct the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
++
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I also think that the article overstates what actually happened. OMG! A mutation!
I'm not sure how you get that. They literally don't know what actually happened yet, and the article explicitly states that. It will be fascinating to see how this story progresses.
What they do know is that this is a gain of function that could not have happened due to one simple point mutation, or as you so eloquently put it "OMG! A mutation!"
When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
That's beautiful.
That's beautiful.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion
"intelligent falling"....
"secular gravity" .....
"Evangelical physicists" ....
"Anti-falling physicists" ....
I really do need to find out where these type of people find their drugs.
Hiro, MarcUK, Hassan i Sabbah, and groverat pass this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.
dmz and SDW2001 fail this evolutionary quiz with flying colors.
Nature acting in an unconstrained environment (relatively speaking) versus a single bacterium acting in a controlled environment.
I'd rather deal with possible probabilities than with impossible improbabilities.
Oh, and man made god in his own image.
Question: Did god evolve?
The reason why you need to act like this really escapes me.
Dear god, my first post in AO in months, and I know I'm going to regret it, but...
Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does it try to. You're conflating two topics, but that's beside the point.
No, you're right. I realize they are essentially separate issues.
Yes, an intelligent being did begin the experiment. However, they did not actively interfere with, induce, or direct the mutations during the experiment to produce a particular outcome, which would be intelligent *design*. When a physicist sets up an experiment with a falling bowling ball, is that proof of intelligent gravity?
The experiment was set up to observe natural processes that already exist.
That's true. Then again, we know that "things like this" happen already. It doesn't disprove that there may well be or have been something/someone guiding our own evolutionary processes.
And...just to throw a wrench into things here: Who is to say that a higher power didn't guide this particular experiment?
Not just a mutation, but a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success in a given environment; which is what evolution is.
That's directly contradicted by this:
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
dmz:
The sheer number of generations here should not be surprising given the fact that these E.Coli had virtually no environmental pressures put on them at all. Only a handful of things in their given environment were "worth" reacting to reproductively, and you'll notice that the big change noticed involved one of those few things (an ability to "eat" a nutrient they previously had not been able to, but had been around).
Compare that one specific environment (a petri dish in a fridge in a uniform culture) vs. the practically-infinite different ecologies and weather systems across the universe over time.
If you don't understand what I mean, just let me know and I'll clarify further.[/QUOTE]
I said that what they observed a beneficial mutation that led to reproductive success, which is what evolution is.
What you quoted says that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome.
I cannot see the contradiction.
Please, he falsified his research so RDU could be approved and Devlin MacGregor could give you Provasic.
He was the only one who had access after Lentz died. He switched the samples and the pathology reports.
Nobody appreciated the quote from the Fugitive.
Tough crowd.
Nobody appreciated the quote from the Fugitive.
Tough crowd.
I just figured you were rambling.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I&feature=related