Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Random mutations are caused but we don't know the cause. .

Tricky, when we talk about evolution, because random mutation happens in stages. How did millions or billions of cells become three percent of a skull. How did millions more cells randomly become five percent of a skull, etc? What benefit is five percent of a skull for natural selection to work on?

When you keep asking these types of questions, random mutation seems less probable as an answer.

It is unlikely that mutated genes are miraculous

Agreed, if God made it so, they would be planned and within God's power to do.

Natural selection is not driven by random changes in tissues or organs: natural selection is driven by random changes in genes. Cells are not genes, genes are not cells.

Genes are on chromosomes and chromosomes are on cells. One sort of cells (genetic cells) make babies, other cells make tissues and organs.
Your tissues and your organs don't affect what your baby will be like: your genes do affect what your baby will be like.

Philosophers define miracles as supernatural interventions. In popular language people say, for example " The miracle of Spring has arrived" or " It's a miracle she survived the car crash". Some of us do philosophy and when we do philosophy we speak in more exact and more explicit language.

You wrote "If God made it so-----". But there is sufficient explanation for natural selection without also supposing God intervenes against His own laws of creation. You would serve God better if you could understand how how His creation works. God made us to be reasoning beings. Use the reason you have and try to understand science.

[Charlemagne]

Random mutations are caused but we don't know the cause. .

Tricky, when we talk about evolution, because random mutation happens in stages. How did millions or billions of cells become three percent of a skull. How did millions more cells randomly become five percent of a skull, etc? What benefit is five percent of a skull for natural selection to work on?

When you keep asking these types of questions, random mutation seems less probable as an answer.

It is unlikely that mutated genes are miraculous

Agreed, if God made it so, they would be planned and within God's power to do.

Natural selection is not driven by random changes in tissues or organs: natural selection is driven by random changes in genes. Cells are not genes, genes are not cells.

Genes are on chromosomes and chromosomes are on cells. One sort of cells (genetic cells) make babies, other cells make tissues and organs.
Your tissues and your organs don't affect what your baby will be like: your genes do affect what your baby will be like.

Philosophers define miracles as supernatural interventions. In popular language people say, for example " The miracle of Spring has arrived" or " It's a miracle she survived the car crash". Some of us do philosophy and when we do philosophy we speak in more exact and more explicit language.

You wrote "If God made it so-----". But there is sufficient explanation for natural selection without also supposing God intervenes against His own laws of creation. You would serve God better if you could understand how how His creation works. God made us to be reasoning beings. Use the reason you have and try to understand science.

Francis Crick, who certainly knew a lot more about DNA than you or I could ever know, said this.

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Unfortunately, because he was an evangelical atheist, he could not get beyond the "almost."

[EricPH]

Natural selection is not driven by random changes in tissues or organs: natural selection is driven by random changes in genes. Cells are not genes, genes are not cells.

If you have to organise and sort a trillion of anything out, that's a mammoth task. Our bodies have over thirty trillion cells, imagine a system that can organise a trillion and a half cells every year for twenty years.

Genes are on chromosomes and chromosomes are on cells. One sort of cells (genetic cells) make babies, other cells make tissues and organs.
Your tissues and your organs don't affect what your baby will be like: your genes do affect what your baby will be like.

An organising system for trillions of cells would have to take all these things into account.

You would serve God better if you could understand how how His creation works. God made us to be reasoning beings. Use the reason you have and try to understand science.

Trying to understand science, is trying to understand how God created the universe and life. God created the universe and life somehow; the more I search for an understanding of evolution, the closer it brings me to God.

[Belindi]

Natural selection is not driven by random changes in tissues or organs: natural selection is driven by random changes in genes. Cells are not genes, genes are not cells.

If you have to organise and sort a trillion of anything out, that's a mammoth task. Our bodies have over thirty trillion cells, imagine a system that can organise a trillion and a half cells every year for twenty years.

Genes are on chromosomes and chromosomes are on cells. One sort of cells (genetic cells) make babies, other cells make tissues and organs.
Your tissues and your organs don't affect what your baby will be like: your genes do affect what your baby will be like.

An organising system for trillions of cells would have to take all these things into account.

You would serve God better if you could understand how how His creation works. God made us to be reasoning beings. Use the reason you have and try to understand science.

Trying to understand science, is trying to understand how God created the universe and life. God created the universe and life somehow; the more I search for an understanding of evolution, the closer it brings me to God.

That is how it should be! I have only been trying to persuade you to do science and THEN relate to God the science you have learned.

[Charlemagne]

Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

[Stoppelmann]

“Intelligent design could be explained as well by an advanced alien creature seeding the earth with life as it can be explained by a deity doing as much. Indeed, intelligent design was the first supposition of Francis Crick when he discovered DNA and suggested that, based on its complexity, life could not have arose from inanimate matter without being designed and possibly left on earth by aliens from outer space." Crick, being an evangelical atheist, of course could not imagine the alien creator might be God. But Crick only pushed the diellma farther back to who designed the intelligent design of the aliens themselves.

This is really the problem, because to perceive of God as another like of extraterrestrial being is really making a mockery of reality. The most fascinating theory of God is that he is the source of consciousness, out of which all things emerge. Cosmic consciousness brings all “things” into existence including us, but we are partakers in consciousness, and therefore we should participate with God, but have become distracted and lost that ability.

[Belindi]

“Intelligent design could be explained as well by an advanced alien creature seeding the earth with life as it can be explained by a deity doing as much. Indeed, intelligent design was the first supposition of Francis Crick when he discovered DNA and suggested that, based on its complexity, life could not have arose from inanimate matter without being designed and possibly left on earth by aliens from outer space." Crick, being an evangelical atheist, of course could not imagine the alien creator might be God. But Crick only pushed the diellma farther back to who designed the intelligent design of the aliens themselves.

This is really the problem, because to perceive of God as another like of extraterrestrial being is really making a mockery of reality. The most fascinating theory of God is that he is the source of consciousness, out of which all things emerge. Cosmic consciousness brings all “things” into existence including us, but we are partakers in consciousness, and therefore we should participate with God, but have become distracted and lost that ability.

God may be the source of consciousness, or consciousness may be the source of God.
What is cosmic consciousness? Does CC do anything besides bringing all things into existence?

Why should we "participate" with pancreator? Would not pancreator prefer that we take responsibility for our own thoughts, words, beliefs, and actions? After all, we are not domesticated animals who have been designed by some breeder to be docile.

[Stoppelmann]

God may be the source of consciousness, or consciousness may be the source of God.
What is cosmic consciousness? Does CC do anything besides bringing all things into existence?

Why should we "participate" with pancreator? Would not pancreator prefer that we take responsibility for our own thoughts, words, beliefs, and actions? After all, we are not domesticated animals who have been designed by some breeder to be docile.

I'm sad to see you oversimplifying my answer here. What do you believe participation means? Sharing or having in common with another is hardly relinquishing responsibility, and it certainly doesn't suggest that we are domesticated animals. In fact, you are not just oversimplifying but instead taking it out of context. I'll be more wary of you in future.

[Belindi]

God may be the source of consciousness, or consciousness may be the source of God.
What is cosmic consciousness? Does CC do anything besides bringing all things into existence?

Why should we "participate" with pancreator? Would not pancreator prefer that we take responsibility for our own thoughts, words, beliefs, and actions? After all, we are not domesticated animals who have been designed by some breeder to be docile.

I'm sad to see you oversimplifying my answer here. What do you believe participation means? Sharing or having in common with another is hardly relinquishing responsibility, and it certainly doesn't suggest that we are domesticated animals. In fact, you are not just oversimplifying but instead taking it out of context. I'll be more wary of you in future.

Human nature today is largely shaped by culture not biology. Our task as moral beings is to respect our biology while changing our culture so it's kinder to individuals.

Today's culture is consumerism. If we are to participate in the good we need to stop consuming so much and care for life on Earth.

If your theory of so-called 'intelligent design' helps to care for life on Earth and stop it being extinguished then ID is a good theory.

[Stoppelmann]

Human nature today is largely shaped by culture not biology. Our task as moral beings is to respect our biology while changing our culture so it's kinder to individuals.

Today's culture is consumerism. If we are to participate in the good we need to stop consuming so much and care for life on Earth.

If your theory of so-called 'intelligent design' helps to care for life on Earth and stop it being extinguished then ID is a good theory.

Okay, that's your agenda, and I agree with it to a certain degree, but have reservations about how to "stop consuming."

Above all, stop labelling me for saying that a certain idea is fascinating, I have nothing to do with "intelligent design" and find your application of the term to me insulting.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics :

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

The following is the best scientific evidence ever of Intelligent Design :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19198