This has me curious. Not agreeing or disagreeing I want to explore this a bit.
Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
So, I am pretty sure they have found dinosaur bones from hundreds of millions of years ago. If so, and they were wiped out by the meteor in Yucatan, or some other global catastrophe, how did new life start? If not from micro or macro evolution, was there a placement event of all new species on earth? If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God? Alien drop-off? Or some other means?
It seems to me that life has an incredible desire to thrive and survive. Think of an embryo frozen on ice for years for IVF. Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Contrast life and growth with today's mRNA vaxx. I am convinced they want to change human DNA for control purposes. Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution, not even micro or macro. It can happen immediately with an mRNA shot.
I am truly curious to hear responses. I'm in the mood for mind expansion.
Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.
Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.
If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God?
All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.
Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.
Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution
Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.
u/1Markseeker I am so glad I asked some open ended questions to you and the board. I absolutely love to hear this sort of feedback and truly appreciate it.
One of the things that sets this community apart from so many others is the collection of minds with the ability to discern.
If readers here do not believe they are good at discerning or are surrounded by people that don't discern well, one of the best ways to develop a discerning mind is to ask open ended questions, seek opposing points of view, and, keeping an open mind, consider all perspectives.
If doctors around the world would have practiced this methodology, millions of lives would have been saved the last two years. It's an important ability to strengthen and protect.
I hope readers here take the same delight that I have in reading all these responses.
There is no millions of years. Go to ICR.org. Millions of years is given to us by the anti God portion of the scientific community. We’ve been lied to about everything.
They have tried for decades? to successfully document a genetic change in fruit flies, which have such a short life cycle that it allows what would be equivalent to 10s of thousands of years of life cycles of longer life cycle animals, after exposing them to radiation, chemicals, etc., with no success. Any mutation they have documented dies, or at least can't reproduce. You only have to go to the fantastically intricate and complex structure of individual cells to KNOW that there is no way that could have resulted from evolution.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Darwinian Gradualism (DG) went through some evolution itself when the Precambrian Explosion was discovered. The amount of complex life that literally exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian era - and then remained static (no change) in their "evolution" - forced Stephen J Gould to postulate Punctuated Equilibrium, which states the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.
Punctuated Equilibrium and Special Creation - from the Fossil record's point of view - looks almost exactly the same.
Even if it took millions of years, wouldn’t we still be in the middle of it somewhere? Wouldn’t some species somewhere have begun an evolution process? Wouldn’t there be half-formed and dying species? Why is every species finished?
All over the world there should be places where we can find even just one-celled objects combining together into two-celled objects. There should be trillions of such combinations happening. Let alone anything bigger than that
They’ve said before that evolution happens to combat constant changes in bacteria, but bacteria (like the flu) can change month to month, so why don’t cells merge together at this speed, to survive against it?
Macro vs Micro Evolution is pretty simple to explain, but you have to understand a few things and the theory presents itself.
What does all life have in common?
Cells and DNA.
What do all machines have in common?
Hardware and Software.
How do we use hardware and software to solve problems?
We are presented with a problem and either develop the hardware or rewrite the software.
The only aspect of this that changes is the problem.
Would dinosaurs like the Brontosaurs be able to exist today? Possibly, but not likely. Oxygen content in the atmosphere is far lower than it was when they existed. The same can be said for megafauna due to lower CO2 than when they existed.
Reptiles gain heat by conduction, convection and radiation. The earth was a far warmer place when they roamed the earth, with more abundant food sources freely available.
Mammals, conversely, are warm-blooded. A warmer planet would force them to be smaller in size due to the energy required to cool the core increasing proportional to it's size. When the planet cooled, these creatures were allowed to grow larger while reptiles shrunk.
What connects them are fungi. Fungi exist in almost any climate. Some are cold-tolerant (psychrotolerant) and are capable of growth near or below 0°C, while others are heat-tolerant (thermotolerant) and grow above 40°C.
Not much separates fungi and humans.
Events happen that rapidly change the environment in many ways. A notable one is sudden pole shift due to the galactic sheet involving many catastrophes like solar micronova, and such. Asteroid impact could be another. There are many.
Plants and animals evolve in the same manner than slime mold explores. Things are tried through randomized guesswork inherent in the software. Solutions are presented (species) that function appropriately, and become the norm. Outliers either die or fail to thrive unless they can better solve the problem of living efficiently.
When slime mold explores, it is random. Once it finds food, it begins to retract the random pathways and create efficient pathways to the food. If the food is taken away the pathway retracts. Slime molds are "single cellular organisms" due to a single cell wall with many nuclei inside.
A species is like a "single cellular organism" with many cell walls. The only thing that separates slime mold species is the programming. This is the same as to what separates all species.
Plants and Animals (and fungi) are different platforms (hardware). Like AMD vs Intel. However, chlorophyll and hemoglobin are not too dissimilar. Efficiencies can arise that are not mutually exclusive.
So, which came first: the Fungi or the Plant? The Fungi.
So, what created Fungi? Only theory from this point forward.
If you look at all life as basically the same in the above terms, where do you draw the line? Personally, I don't.
The earth created Fungi, because the Universe created the Galaxy and the Solar System. The Universe is connected and is a single cellular organism on the whole. The universe is not much different from a slime mold solving a different problem. A giant petri dish.
Life on earth is just an efficient solution to a problem that would naturally be solved. That begs the question: What is the problem that required life to exist on Earth?
Well, I think it's not the proper question. If the Universe is a living organism then life has always existed. The Universe IS life.
That's probably not a sufficient answer for most readers. Fortunately, I'll offer more.
Why does a black hole exist? Mathematics is the instruction manual for the universe. Math tells us it should exist, and we observe that it does. It is the most efficient solution to the problem in a Universe that operates on logic. There is no other solution to explain what happens when a series of conditions are present as such that a black hole is formed and continues to exist.
When those conditions change, the black hole reacts accordingly.
Not explaining every species on earth to have ever existed, each solves a problem. Humans had a complex problem. The earth is dying. It is going the way of Mars with an ever weakening magnetic field. Our challenge is to prolong the life of the planet by producing CO2 by extracting it from the earth at a higher rate than any other system or life form on the planet.
That was the beginning of our minor mission as a part of the whole, large and small.
Our continued mission is paid with precious energy the Universe organism spares to our existence to treat the Universe one day as a garden. To efficiently manage as an extension of the Universe itself the conditions on earth, and then beyond. That is the ultimate mission of all life, because that's what life is.
We are not the only ones. We will not be forever. We have competition.
When we graph a perfect mathematical problem, we draw a graph. Even our graph is an imperfect representation of the math. If we were to zoom in we would find a very jagged line, and at some point the line breaks down entirely. It's not precise enough.
When we graph nature, we see a similar pattern of imperfection. Rarely, if ever, does anything touch the calculus.
So, what is imperfection? We all have our ideas. In math, as a general rule (especially higher math) we estimate.
It requires less energy and processing power.
So, while the math doesn't allow any wiggle room the reality of the math does.
However, there are still answers that are clearly wrong.
That is greater than imperfection, and that is the species that dies out. Beyond that is where our concept of evil resides. Solutions far outside the graph that are clearly antagonistic to the math, rather than attempting an estimate.
Healthy competition is still considered "good" competition.
Humans face both good and evil competition.
Now you know what "evil" is, but what do you think the goal of "evil" is?
The planet's climate changes based on many factors, based on position of the sun and relative position in the galaxy/universe as well as the situation on the ground/core.
The software of the climate is not changing, it is simply running the same system based on a different state. The data input changes.
This gets into epigenetics, and how similar DNA is among all life on earth.
DNA is not software, it is the codebase. The expression of DNA is the software.
You can delete, edit and damage the physical DNA, but the code base is an expression of mathematics in system itself. That system may change, and thus DNA would no longer function (cease to be a solution). If the earth were irradiated, for instance.
How would it be unobservable? All you would need is for new DNA traits to show up. The opposite actually occurs. A given population when separated loses DNA possiblities over time because they die out if not condusive to survival.
Think short haired wolves in the artic. When a canine group migrated that way all the short hair dominant DNA carriers died out leaving on the long hair. There is not one single example of a lost genetic type coming back ones its out of the DNA sequence.
Secondly think about this. The first life according to evolution was single cell. Just a simple prokariotic organism. It just happened to not only appear from nowhere but it appeared with a fully functioning reproductive system and metabolism and it just happed to appear in a place where it could survive indefinately while surrounded by a replenishing viable food source....
There was no DNA to mutate into something else. There were no mitochondria producing energy for it (which opens a whole nuther can of worms!).
Evolution truly is a religion that requires much much faith.
We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Yes the chances of life evolving from rocks is similar to the chances of a print shop exploding and creating a dictionary. And that would be just one life form. Mind boggling to think about
Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."
A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.
Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.
Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.
If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.
Correct.
Micro is observable. Different breeds of dogs. White boy getting a tan from being in the sun. etc....
Macro has never been observed. Speciation (a new species evolving from an existing species) is a myth.
I dunno, the protein clots in the jabbed are looking like a new species..
Heh...I feel ya there.
Are they going to turn into that zombie mutant from Prometheus the movie?
Maybe, lol. That scene. What a way to go!
This has me curious. Not agreeing or disagreeing I want to explore this a bit.
Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
So, I am pretty sure they have found dinosaur bones from hundreds of millions of years ago. If so, and they were wiped out by the meteor in Yucatan, or some other global catastrophe, how did new life start? If not from micro or macro evolution, was there a placement event of all new species on earth? If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God? Alien drop-off? Or some other means?
It seems to me that life has an incredible desire to thrive and survive. Think of an embryo frozen on ice for years for IVF. Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Contrast life and growth with today's mRNA vaxx. I am convinced they want to change human DNA for control purposes. Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution, not even micro or macro. It can happen immediately with an mRNA shot.
I am truly curious to hear responses. I'm in the mood for mind expansion.
Thank you in advance to all who comment.
If the evolutionist do not incorporate millions & millions of years the theory is DOA. Imo
Impossibility is a massive understatement.
Darwinian Evolution is a "Time of the Gaps" argument
Just add Time and anything is possible!
Agreed 👍
Or just add enough universes and you get even more than anything being possible.
All good questions.
Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.
Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.
All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.
Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.
Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.
Just a few precursory thoughts for ya...
u/1Markseeker I am so glad I asked some open ended questions to you and the board. I absolutely love to hear this sort of feedback and truly appreciate it.
One of the things that sets this community apart from so many others is the collection of minds with the ability to discern.
If readers here do not believe they are good at discerning or are surrounded by people that don't discern well, one of the best ways to develop a discerning mind is to ask open ended questions, seek opposing points of view, and, keeping an open mind, consider all perspectives.
If doctors around the world would have practiced this methodology, millions of lives would have been saved the last two years. It's an important ability to strengthen and protect.
I hope readers here take the same delight that I have in reading all these responses.
Thank you one and all. 👏🏻
My pleasure!
The feeling is mutual
Be funny if an alien species were to laugh at our "laws of thermodynamics."
Man, talk about a forum/discussion slide.
Aliens = Fallen Angels
Interdimensional Beings
If Aliens exist and "seeded" our Planet (which I think is another fairy tale), then Darwinian Evolution is false.
There is no millions of years. Go to ICR.org. Millions of years is given to us by the anti God portion of the scientific community. We’ve been lied to about everything.
They have tried for decades? to successfully document a genetic change in fruit flies, which have such a short life cycle that it allows what would be equivalent to 10s of thousands of years of life cycles of longer life cycle animals, after exposing them to radiation, chemicals, etc., with no success. Any mutation they have documented dies, or at least can't reproduce. You only have to go to the fantastically intricate and complex structure of individual cells to KNOW that there is no way that could have resulted from evolution.
Great example of Mutations being deleterious and working against Darwinian Creation account.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Darwinian Gradualism (DG) went through some evolution itself when the Precambrian Explosion was discovered. The amount of complex life that literally exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian era - and then remained static (no change) in their "evolution" - forced Stephen J Gould to postulate Punctuated Equilibrium, which states the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.
Punctuated Equilibrium and Special Creation - from the Fossil record's point of view - looks almost exactly the same.
Even if it took millions of years, wouldn’t we still be in the middle of it somewhere? Wouldn’t some species somewhere have begun an evolution process? Wouldn’t there be half-formed and dying species? Why is every species finished?
All over the world there should be places where we can find even just one-celled objects combining together into two-celled objects. There should be trillions of such combinations happening. Let alone anything bigger than that
They’ve said before that evolution happens to combat constant changes in bacteria, but bacteria (like the flu) can change month to month, so why don’t cells merge together at this speed, to survive against it?
Macro vs Micro Evolution is pretty simple to explain, but you have to understand a few things and the theory presents itself.
What does all life have in common? Cells and DNA.
What do all machines have in common? Hardware and Software.
How do we use hardware and software to solve problems?
We are presented with a problem and either develop the hardware or rewrite the software.
The only aspect of this that changes is the problem.
Would dinosaurs like the Brontosaurs be able to exist today? Possibly, but not likely. Oxygen content in the atmosphere is far lower than it was when they existed. The same can be said for megafauna due to lower CO2 than when they existed.
Reptiles gain heat by conduction, convection and radiation. The earth was a far warmer place when they roamed the earth, with more abundant food sources freely available.
Mammals, conversely, are warm-blooded. A warmer planet would force them to be smaller in size due to the energy required to cool the core increasing proportional to it's size. When the planet cooled, these creatures were allowed to grow larger while reptiles shrunk.
What connects them are fungi. Fungi exist in almost any climate. Some are cold-tolerant (psychrotolerant) and are capable of growth near or below 0°C, while others are heat-tolerant (thermotolerant) and grow above 40°C.
Not much separates fungi and humans.
Events happen that rapidly change the environment in many ways. A notable one is sudden pole shift due to the galactic sheet involving many catastrophes like solar micronova, and such. Asteroid impact could be another. There are many.
Plants and animals evolve in the same manner than slime mold explores. Things are tried through randomized guesswork inherent in the software. Solutions are presented (species) that function appropriately, and become the norm. Outliers either die or fail to thrive unless they can better solve the problem of living efficiently.
When slime mold explores, it is random. Once it finds food, it begins to retract the random pathways and create efficient pathways to the food. If the food is taken away the pathway retracts. Slime molds are "single cellular organisms" due to a single cell wall with many nuclei inside.
A species is like a "single cellular organism" with many cell walls. The only thing that separates slime mold species is the programming. This is the same as to what separates all species.
Plants and Animals (and fungi) are different platforms (hardware). Like AMD vs Intel. However, chlorophyll and hemoglobin are not too dissimilar. Efficiencies can arise that are not mutually exclusive.
So, which came first: the Fungi or the Plant? The Fungi.
So, what created Fungi? Only theory from this point forward.
If you look at all life as basically the same in the above terms, where do you draw the line? Personally, I don't.
The earth created Fungi, because the Universe created the Galaxy and the Solar System. The Universe is connected and is a single cellular organism on the whole. The universe is not much different from a slime mold solving a different problem. A giant petri dish.
Life on earth is just an efficient solution to a problem that would naturally be solved. That begs the question: What is the problem that required life to exist on Earth?
Well, I think it's not the proper question. If the Universe is a living organism then life has always existed. The Universe IS life.
That's probably not a sufficient answer for most readers. Fortunately, I'll offer more.
Why does a black hole exist? Mathematics is the instruction manual for the universe. Math tells us it should exist, and we observe that it does. It is the most efficient solution to the problem in a Universe that operates on logic. There is no other solution to explain what happens when a series of conditions are present as such that a black hole is formed and continues to exist.
When those conditions change, the black hole reacts accordingly.
Not explaining every species on earth to have ever existed, each solves a problem. Humans had a complex problem. The earth is dying. It is going the way of Mars with an ever weakening magnetic field. Our challenge is to prolong the life of the planet by producing CO2 by extracting it from the earth at a higher rate than any other system or life form on the planet.
That was the beginning of our minor mission as a part of the whole, large and small.
Our continued mission is paid with precious energy the Universe organism spares to our existence to treat the Universe one day as a garden. To efficiently manage as an extension of the Universe itself the conditions on earth, and then beyond. That is the ultimate mission of all life, because that's what life is.
We are not the only ones. We will not be forever. We have competition.
On competition:
What is competition? It's in the calculus.
When we graph a perfect mathematical problem, we draw a graph. Even our graph is an imperfect representation of the math. If we were to zoom in we would find a very jagged line, and at some point the line breaks down entirely. It's not precise enough.
When we graph nature, we see a similar pattern of imperfection. Rarely, if ever, does anything touch the calculus.
So, what is imperfection? We all have our ideas. In math, as a general rule (especially higher math) we estimate.
It requires less energy and processing power.
So, while the math doesn't allow any wiggle room the reality of the math does.
However, there are still answers that are clearly wrong.
That is greater than imperfection, and that is the species that dies out. Beyond that is where our concept of evil resides. Solutions far outside the graph that are clearly antagonistic to the math, rather than attempting an estimate.
Healthy competition is still considered "good" competition.
Humans face both good and evil competition.
Now you know what "evil" is, but what do you think the goal of "evil" is?
On rewriting the software:
The planet's climate changes based on many factors, based on position of the sun and relative position in the galaxy/universe as well as the situation on the ground/core.
The software of the climate is not changing, it is simply running the same system based on a different state. The data input changes.
This gets into epigenetics, and how similar DNA is among all life on earth.
DNA is not software, it is the codebase. The expression of DNA is the software.
You can delete, edit and damage the physical DNA, but the code base is an expression of mathematics in system itself. That system may change, and thus DNA would no longer function (cease to be a solution). If the earth were irradiated, for instance.
How would it be unobservable? All you would need is for new DNA traits to show up. The opposite actually occurs. A given population when separated loses DNA possiblities over time because they die out if not condusive to survival.
Think short haired wolves in the artic. When a canine group migrated that way all the short hair dominant DNA carriers died out leaving on the long hair. There is not one single example of a lost genetic type coming back ones its out of the DNA sequence.
Secondly think about this. The first life according to evolution was single cell. Just a simple prokariotic organism. It just happened to not only appear from nowhere but it appeared with a fully functioning reproductive system and metabolism and it just happed to appear in a place where it could survive indefinately while surrounded by a replenishing viable food source....
There was no DNA to mutate into something else. There were no mitochondria producing energy for it (which opens a whole nuther can of worms!).
Evolution truly is a religion that requires much much faith.
https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm
We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Nothing created everything
Something created everything
My money is on #2
The probability of single cell forming through an unguided process is unbelievably small, beyond the point of probability into impossible.
I watch the work of Dr James Tour on YouTube, he is I'd say the leading champion of OoL research and really explains it in simplified layman terms.
He also exposes the false science the evolutionists use to propagandise the public and education system.
I highly recommend his channel and lectures
https://m.youtube.com/c/DrJamesTour
Thank you for this!
Yes the chances of life evolving from rocks is similar to the chances of a print shop exploding and creating a dictionary. And that would be just one life form. Mind boggling to think about
Codes are math, logic.
Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.
Therefore, a mind discovered a code.
That code has always existed in the math.
Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."
A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.
Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
Good discussion.
In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.
If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.
Theistic Creation = Mind Involved
Darwinian Evolution = Mind not involved.
Fantastic comment here ☝🏻👏🏻
Especially: