You avoided the question. And the answer to the question is vital this time. Do you think that I am saying God created a single - that is 1 ONE - genome out of which sprang both humans and great apes?
The answer is vital because only if he had done it that exact way, would humans and great apes be related. If he used different, but similar genomes on which to build each created kind, then no, they would not at all be related.
So survival of living organisms is just as easy as two objects with mass falling toward each other in warped spacetime. Correct?
Oh, definitely! But then again, ‘some sort of sense of smell’ is an extremely easy thing to develop, the particular system used in olfactorids, combining as it did expression patterns of existing olfaction genes in the novel centralized respiratory structure, is a bit more complex. Also, I didn’t want the comment to go on too long.
Chemistry is messier than physics so it isn’t ‘as easy’, but it is analogous.
I don’t think it is analogous in the least. And I completely fail to see any similarity whatsoever. Until you divorce the two and form an argument about survival all its own, I will be unable to discuss.
I am still a Christian, but I am strongly leaning towards atheism now. Being a Christian or not does not override the fact that much of the bible content that touches on aspects of the natural world are flawed or don’t make sense (if taken literally in most cases).
At the onset, I thought evolutionary biology was in full conflict with Christianity, because I thought YECism represented most of Christianity. Knowing the side with a history of winning, I decided to go with the science and reject the pseudoscientific claims of YECism. On learning of theistic evolution, that view changed and I got to see that one can accept evolutionary theory and remain a Christian. However, theistic evolution was deeply unsatisfactory to me. My current view now is that Christianity and other religions are man-made constructs developed when mankind was ignorant about the natural world and other aspects of reality.
If Christianity was really divine, we wouldn’t have over 30,000 denominations, each claiming to be true and others false, or Dr Swamidass positing a hypothetical genealogical Adam and Eve in the bid to allow YECs and OECs keep the genesis accounts as literal and accept evolutionary theory, as God would have somehow revealed the real history to all Christians (correct me if this is a misrepresentation). Jesus promised the holy spirit to teach us after he returned to heaven, but what exactly has this spirit taught us in the last 2000 years? Nothing in my opinion. This is off-topic though.
all I see so far is that we have one computer programmer who is running one program. He decides to turn off and on certain parts of the program.
Are you referring to the GULO pseudogene here as the turned off program? That’s sick you know, if that’s what you mean.
Yes, you just don’t realize it. Let me explain: God had a genome in mind, he modified it to make humans, and modified a different way to make the other apes. This is God making all great apes out of one genome. That is the only possible sane description of events a creationist could give. You might think something different, but whatever it might be just makes things worse for you.
Then you’re wrong.
I’ve gathered you’re unable to understand simple concepts, this isn’t my problem.
Couple issues here. You are bringing up the macro level where organism intelligence is required. Could that be where Darwin made an error in his thinking? Because anybody knows that reproduction and the fight to survive erupts from a brain, an intelligence.
2nd issue. What happens to the discussion when we take it to the molecular level? Darwin could not see that level.
No, there are human then there are apes. Two separate but similar templates requires this.
So you still think both kinds erupted from a single genetic template that God made. Until you understand the specifics of the discussion, you will only see your biased point of view.
I am not wrong. I will be glad to rejoin the discussion when you cease conflating gravity and survival of living organisms.
The notion that survival requires intention is a persistent and beguiling misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.
Survival requires surviving.
That is literally the only sane possibility. If you don’t understand why, I’d recommend you look into classes on genetics and logic.
You can’t rejoin the discussion, you haven’t been in it. You are so far out of your depth you don’t even know the meanings of 90% of the words you’ve been using. But do continue to blame me for your inability to understand things.
Your understanding of evolution is pretty bad even by the standards of a fellow layman like me.
Reproduction and surviving do not necessarily need a brain to actualize them. Brainless bacteria and tumors are staring at you in the face.
Sure let’s go to the molecular level. We see much better than Darwin now.
I never said they did. I am a creationist remember? God gives life to all living things. On the macro level and microscopic level.
What are you accusing me of exactly?
Aha, can’t argue with a bias as strong as yours. Apparently, you feel you are the only one in the discussion who is correct.
@r_speir you said you wanted a civil discussion. Part of having a civil discussion is answering direct questions. Could you do that for me, please?
The same idea still applies. Do you think fungi or plants make the conscious effort to grow, survive, and reproduce? Even if we move to animals, with various levels of intelligence. Do you think any animals, other than humans, consider altering evolution (when defined as heritable change over time) to achieve maximum survivorship? The obvious answer to both of these questions is no. Survival is an outcome of the probabilities afforded by evolution that allows certain members of a population a greater likelihood to survive and reproduce.
How is this issue relevant to the discussion of whether or not the “struggle to survive belongs exclusively to the science of Creationism, not evolution”, as you asserted earlier.
Ok, what did I fail to answer. I will answer it.
Where is the evidence to show that God gives life to all organisms?
In the Bible. Since you are Nigerian, I am going to think that you were brought up with a belief in the Bible. Were you?
Do you feel we’re both right? Obviously only one of us is right, and obviously I think it’s me. And I’ve provided reasons for that view, accessible to any that might read this thread at a later date.
But yeah, you’re obviously wrong about nearly everything you’ve ever said, and refuse to accept correction on even the simplest conceptual errors because of your commitment to a peculiar misinterpretation of your religious text. As I’ve been saying, this is your problem, not mine.
Have fun with that.
The Bible is not evidence. The Koran also states that Allah gives life to all organisms. Which book is right?
Being a Nigerian is irrelevant here. Stop playing with that red herring in the pond.