Survival of the fittest? Overlooking something obvious Mr. Darwin?

wow idol, good to see you back!

i did not read this thread, so if this has been posted already, it is worth reading twice then

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin

Yes and surviving the end of Satan's reign of terror at Armageddon will only be by those meeting divine qualifications, "I saw and look a great crowd... out of all nations and tribes and poeples and tounges... standing before the throne.. these are the ones that come out of the great tribulation.." Rv7:9-14 Not something Darwin would know about.

I have posted questions and answers. I have not posted smiley's or changed the subject on the issue raised, so much for being credible when you can't even get who did what right.

I brought up the NDE thing, not to change the topic, but to intimate that through this experience, it showed me that evolution (evolution as defined by is what got us here is a complete lie simply because I was witness to something that showed me otherwise. If anything, science proves there is a God not that there isn't. The theory of evolution is falsified by the evidence. You will never comprehend that until it happens to yourselves, hence why you skeptics denounce what I am saying. That's why I see evolution as FALSE, for I witnessed something greater.

You guys put out your conclusions on evolution but claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain like the theory of evolution.

Either way... you will obviously continue to believe that this world exists by forces of randomness and chance, I however do not due to my personal experiences and in my opinion, overwhelming proof otherwise. This will be an age old argument until you die. You guys are in for a surprise when you die man.

Either way... you will obviously continue to believe that this world exists by forces of randomness and chance, I however do not due to my personal experiences and in my opinion, overwhelming proof otherwise. This will be an age old argument until you die. You guys are in for a surprise when you die man.

really?

omg i love surprises! that is sooo cool, i think i will off myself now , i just can't wait for my surprise

Yeah, WHO said that? The ability to develope spiritual qualities IS inherited from ancestors, tracing back ot Adam, because man is created in God's image. Those qualities must be developed in accordance with an accurate knowledge however, they don't come naturally."And this is what I continue praying, that YOUR love may abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that YOU may make sure of the more important things, so that YOU may be flawless and not be stumbling others up to the day of Christ, 11 and may be filled with righteous fruit, which is through Jesus Christ, to God’s glory and praise". Php1:9 (and me too)

Evolution CAN select for qualities such as love, quite easily. Looking at genes as the unit of selection, the offspring of parents shares many of the same genes, and so emotions such as love for ones children evolve so the parents are more likely to protect their offspring, increasing the survival chances of the genes. But just because something was selected for in these cold ways does not mean that love is empty - we're not slaves to our genes.

You seem to misunderstand "survival of the fittest" as well - as Charles Darwin said "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, but the ones most responsive to change". Fitness in evolutionary terms means most adapted to the environment, and most likely to survive to pass on genes.

Did Darwin recant his theories on the deathbed? I'm pretty sure that's a myth, but even if he did, how would that alter the truth value of them?

I do not understand one bit how some people think that evolution and spirituality can't coexist. I'm not a spiritual person myself, but evolution does not rule out a god or gods existing by any means.

If you believe an omnipotent being to exist, why should he not have created the environment to direct evolution to "create man in his own image"?

uote:DrPostman]
Yes I can, the fact that he grew up as a JEW refutes it immediately, for Judaism doesn't agree with evolution.


You really should do more research about Einstein because
he's been quoted as saying:
"I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews
believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own
life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."


First things first, why did you delete my other post where I actually finished the ending properly instead of keeping the one that wasn't finished?

Seriously though I would love to know at what point in Einsteins career he said that at for the man himself wasn't pleased at all with his own incomplete theories when he passed away, so who knows, he may of thought different at the time of his death with the quote you quoted.

Determinist:
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

To me, all he is saying is that 'in that respect' he does not consider himself a Jew. That still does not mean he isn't a jew or thats the determining/defining factor of what makes a Jew a Jew or that he is any less of Jew because he chooses to not believe in free will. He is simply a Jew who choses not to use the doctrine of free will to define his Jew-nicity (if there is such a word). There may be certain controverial doctrines I may not agree with according to the Roman Catholic Church but that doesn't mean I am not a Christian. Is that the defining factor/trait that makes a Christian a Christian? Their beliefs on free will or is it not whether they believe in Yeshua Mashiach and what he did to liberate us from the bondage of sin through his resurecction and to pick up your cross and live as he did? A mechanic may disagree with the doctrine of putting a car on a hoist to be worked on and instead opt for drop pits so he can still work under the car without fear of the hoist dropping, does that mean now he isn't a mechanic? If a bus driver decides to take an alternate route on his journey to his destination due to a traffic accident blocking his way, does that mean now he is not a true bus driver in that respect? Because a mathematician decides to work out his equations in a different manner than how it is usually done, does it mean now he isn't a mathematician in that respect? Because my Sony Handcam has a aftermarket power cord that is not made by Sony, does that mean now that my VideoCamera is not a Sony? These comparisons can be endless.. but I am sure you get the message Postman, to me he is still a Jew regardless and though he may not believe in free will, it still doesn't mean that he believes in evolution as Darwin believed it. Einstein compared to Darwin is like German Engineering in a Mercedes compared to American Domestic Pontiac garbage. Just not on the same level. Even Einstein at least admitted to a higher force responsible for intelligent design (maybe because of his upbringing, brains, insight, brilliance and wisdom) where Darwin didn't even get that far in his thinking, studies or conclusions perhaps either because he didn't have the same scientific discoveries at his disposal to affect his hypothesis' since he was around earlier than Einstein or perhaps simply because he had no where near the insight or brilliance as Einstein and was later Anti-God (though he was a Christian early in his life) because of his incredible arrogance in thinking he was correct in his assumptions. Either way.. I feel Einstein knew what he was talking about MUCH more than Darwin and his limited views. Even the story of how he came up with his theory and how he twisted it later on to try and substantiate his claim is hilariously a lie. He took some examples of creatures and used that as a basis for the rest of life on the planet... what a mistake.



I checked out the site. Pretty interesting. Yet I still don't believe primates and prehistoric man are my ancestors simply because I would rather believe we are the culmination of God's incredible creation abilities created from dust of the earth right there on spot as I have stated earlier in my lengthy post.



That explains so much about me? Oh really? Whoa your name is Dr. Postman, that explains so much about you. So should I be ignorant like yourself at this time and think that because your psuedonym is Dr. Postman that means you incapable of handling stress/pressure therefore leading you to go postal and all because you are not cut out to do your job right and your afraid of dogs? I list one guy I listen to and now that means that describes my whole character or that means AJ is paranoid and religious fanatic and therefore I am one also? You do know that he does his show from a secular POV deliberatly don't you though he is Christian? Oh yeah but you knew that. Labels are for kids, so stop trying to label me. So because I listen to AJ I am paranoid now? I am not denying that I CAN get paranoid every now and then but then again who wouldn't as it is bound to happen to any human being at one time or another, but AJ has nothing to do with it, it what's really going on in this world which makes me paranoid sometimes, like chemtrails in the air, fluoride in the public water supply, mercury in vaccines, you know, stuff that can cause Paranoia. If you didn't get a little paranoid at one time in their life or another, it wouldn't be normal. Plus you would be freaked out also if you found out first hand what the guy does every day and if you did half the work that courageous man does for so many people to try and wake them out of their illuminati induced trance you might deliver more mail successfully. Oh yeah, I forgot, it was you who has been warning millions and waking people up to the atrocities of our governments and to take action, it's you who has taken the initiative like Alex to go incredibly out of your way to help people recoginize their human diginity an worth and to teach them what is going on inorder for them to learn how to stop it from happneing in the first place or at least doing something about it to better the situation, your the one making documentaries that are known in the alternative news community, WHOOPS my bad.

It is an erroneous assumption that I am a religious fanatic and again its a 'label'. I do not appreciate you attempting to try and put me into a 'class' and 'classify' me just because you are unable to grasp my views by your own lack of awareness and inabilities of comprehending the concepts I put forward based on other documented evidence void of your approval because they don't fit your limited paradigm of life. Say what you will and so be it, but I will not limit God's power/abilities as you do.

If your ever lying paralyzed, left for dead from 2 would be crooks, from their 9mm Hollowtip gunshots, bleeding to death internally w/ a transected/disentegrated spinal cord, and wondering if your going to die right there choking on your own blood due 2 one of your lungs being punctured and filling with blood causing you to lose your volume of air with every breathe with that remaining lung for the other has collapsed, I will love to see who your going to call on, God or Man to save you, maybe you will call on Darwin because he has taught that 'whichever organsim adapts the best, survives', see if adapting then will make a difference? No, you need something else than evolution there...Maybe its just that you suffer from servere myopia and its difficult for you to wrap your mind around the metaphysical and spiritual as best as you could because of your post-modern attitude towards the bible as authortative proof of the beginnings of man. I know you may have not experienced what I have in this sense nor haven't experienced it like I have. You obviously know its not your fault, but you do have control over how ignorant you choose to be on something... so therefore... in conclusion finally, IMO every creature on this planet was given the genetic programming and the ability by God (not by natural selection) to 'adapt' to its environment (like the bacteria at underwater sea vents of 3000 degree water) but to me that does not mean it proves that there was a progression in the species starting from an amoeba as Darwin theorized.

Check out this link [link to www.carm.org]
Seems to be according to this article that he INDEED did recant though you say there are creationist's who say he didn't (which personally I think is an unsubstantiated claim).



According to your transcedent expertise on this, but oh yeah! I forgot God does not have the ability to use even sin-loving, corrupt, bad people to accomplish his supreme good will now? (Like Saul for e.g.) Becaise God is limited right? After the 1611 KJ version started getting translated by so many people in english, I can see what your saying how people used different translations to further their dark agenda but that doesn't mean that's what God intended, it was man who obviously misinterpreted. Let me see.. originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic, then greek (septuagint), then english and yes they are copies of copies of copies 70 times removed since the first version, trust me I know, I've taken college theological/biblical courses/lectures which was taught by a renown professor on religious studies (Professor Bart D. Erhman). Unlike you, I will not deny that God has the power to make sure that what he wants to continue being around will be no matter how 'adapatable' or "unadapatable" an organism may be.



No I don't think whales are dumb. Actually I think the fact of Cetacean intelligence being shown to humans (dolphins showing humans new tricks w/o humans teaching them for e.g.) proves they are quite smart.

From the above link I posted you, it is my understanding Darwin DID recant according to the sound and logical information presented. Contrary to popular post-modern belief, the evidence speaks for itself of Darwin's recant according to this site I linked, which seems convincingly plausable. People who say he didn't, either obviously are not as well informed as they could be OR they have personal agendas, are Anti-God, or IN DENIAL or anything of the sort or haven't done enough digging/research/critical analyzing on all fronts, in my opinion, and haven't weighed out the FACTS vs the HERESAY from CREDIBLE and VERIFIABLE, DOCUMENTABLE sources....

So Mr Darwin, can your 'survival of the fittest' explain... self sacrafice?

One note that often goes unstated. Something has to survive just long enough to reproduce, and not any longer. So why do nearly all critters have a life span beyond their reproduction period?

This is an out and out lie. This is a discredited lie and repeating it makes you a bearer of false witness.

And Darwin's theory was only the start of what has been observed and tested. It's called science, not faith or myth.

You can beleive what ever you want. Please don't present your book of myths as fact unless you are wiling to have it picked apart.

Science can be tested and will adapt. Religion relies on dogma and fear to rule.

I'll take thought and reason, thanks. fear of a boogie mand who made things only to get pissed off when the things he made are fucked up is more a human excuse for shit the primative minds don't want to learn about.

Go hide in your myths.

Primative man means "people who haven't developed certian technological means", like writting, metal working. It does NOT mean a different species.

Learn what you are arguing about before ranting. You make yourself look really stupid talking about things you obviously haven't even bother to look into enough to enough to argue about them.

Primative = lower on the technological scale, NOT that they were any different physically than you.

It'l be interesting to see just how many of you
"Love children" will be left after a good old
fashioned carnivorous depression and war.

Please go ahead and prove that assertion of your opinion, with verifiable facts to please, not the regurgitated renditions of rehashed reports condensing some supposedly superior scientists assertions as fact. Show us the evidence, not the supposition presented as conclusive argument. TIA.

man made god in the image of Santa Claus.

The majority of the young among the higher organisms can not fend for themselves at birth. Birds care for the chicks until they can fly. Dogs care for pups until they can make it on their own.

Going beyond your question to answer another, though, not all animals are solitary. Many are social animals; the herd, the pack, the troupe, the tribe is the functional unit of forage, defense, and procreation. In a large social unit, even an individual animal who is no longer a fit hunter, or a fit parent (due to say age or injury) is still of use to the group, and thus, to the genetic population.

What i find constantly amazing about you Deborah, is the disconnect, you have a fairly incisive mind, and can logically support a lot of your scientific opinion, but then you are into spiritualism, and that is an area, especially if you are into communicating with spirits or your so called "higher self" which really makes me wonder about your attacks on others here with similar or related fringing thoughts/beliefs?
Your response?

You only reinforce why people like you are to be avoided for advice on spiritual matters. So, no.

No work at all, this is really all to easy. Darwin's theory of life without design was superceded 3,000 years ago. "I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.

15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them." Ps139:16 "For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Ro1:18 So, yes, science is way ahead of the mortal speculation.

Self sacrifice for children of ALL animals including humans does fit in with survival of the fittest, saving their children ensures that their genes carry forward. The biggest difference here is that in the wild, animals will KILL young that do not fit in or leave them to starve, that is one way they keep their gene pool clean as it were.

Drop the religion aspect as a base of science please? When you attempt to use religion as a scientific foundation, it fails. The root of science is observation and empirical data which you cannot get via religion. A cat DOES need to purr, please do some research before stating things like this as fact. A cat evolved it's purr for many reasons, one of them is to help guide their kittens to feeding. Another purpose of the purr is to promote calmness and healing in themselves. An injured cat WILL purr because it is trying to promote not only calmness but also healing in itself. Your take on a dog and fetch, that is just a human adaptation of a dog's NATURAL EVOLVED instinct for hunting, in this case the capture of prey. A dog will play fetch no matter if it is taught or not, it plays off of the prey drive in them.

No one "designed" domestic animals, dogs and cats were BRED for domestic use by playing off of evolution. Instead of evolving naturally, we forced it by our own selection process. By choosing the traits we wanted to have, we bred those with the traits until the traits we wanted became commonplace. Many domestic animals will return to their natural ways if left without human contact for too long. pigs is a primary example of this, leave a "domesticated" pig in the wild too long and it WILL revert back to it's natural state. If humans vanished at once for good, the domestic cats and dogs would run feral for a while but they would DIE off for good because they NEED humans to survive, the same really goes for city rats.

I feel bad that you are an established person, but I would rather be emergent.

Mike

Good question ... "for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short." Mt24:21 How many will survive, and how? "After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." Rv7:9

Would you download the cellular blueprints the cat devised to creat the purring mechanism, and explain how it the data was transfered from the cats research and development department to each cells DNA, and how the DNA was able to received and translate the new data. Are you sure cats are that scientificaly advanced? How about a demo from your own self, make yourself 1/4 inch taller and send me the new cellular instructions you wrote.

Share your spiritual advice.

Darwin has been outed as a cospirator and a faker already half a century ago by many honest scientists who showed proofs of his scam about the origin of man, and they way he manipulated the bones of the supposed Piltdown man, just to confirm a theory that had no proof and still dont.

But mainstream science keep perpetuating these lies, and they are still made for kids to learn in school, so when they are still young they will learn they are nothing more than a evolute sort of chimp, what a nice way to destroy and domesticate the spirit of these young peoples, to make them just what this society need, little obediant robots.

This is the evil roots of this sad society, that is going to an end.

In other words,we should observe the animals and try to become like them and mimic their spiritual qualities.

If you're going to quote famous people of great intellect - the shoulders upon who other's stand to this day - then give them the respect of quoting them accurately instead of deliberately distorting and knowingly misquoting them for your own slanderous religious agendas.

Darwin rocked our world forever. You can't deny it. Pwned.

:niksch:

Really! Thats the first I've ever heard of it. The fact remains that he has unleashed a great deal of evil into the world. Big Daddy?...

[link to www.chick.com]

Psyshological features.... are not research and development labratories, without scientific knowledge, nothing can be recreated to a higher leved of effiency

Weather Darwin finally eigured it out, or not, became irrevelant with the creation of the electron michroscope. This enables one to see living proof that life does not form by "random chance", but is constructed by DNA blueprints, their equations are written by the hand of God. "Sorry Charlie", but your tuna brain theory remains obsucred in depths of scientific darkness.

Sorry, Charlie. Sunkist says it was the other way around; when Darwin came up the Natural Selection, heredity was observed but the actual mechanism was unknown.

When Watson and Crick did their work, the primary recording mechanism that allowed heredity was observed, but it was many years after that before the first direct linkage of a trait and a gene was made.

But, remember, the monk Gregor Mendel, working before and without any of this equipment, was still able to describe the alleles in a pea. It is a bit like driving a car; you can use one without understanding how an engine works.

To carry the analogy further, you can work on an engine without understanding what happens at an atomic level when gasoline burns. This is akin to what is going on now; following from what is in the strand of DNA through the complex of interactions of various proteins until something is expressed that we can see.

The additional thing that DNA gave us was a better idea of the primary mutations. When Darwin was writing, he simply had to assume mutations would occur in a population. (Well, he could observe genetic variation, and he could observe the birth of genetic "sports," so it wasn't that far off.)

With DNA, we see that the grist for the mill of Natural Selection is not external radiation-prompted breakage of DNA strands, but transcription errors; transpositions, duplications, and so forth during the copy process.

(The above is all horribly simplified, so take it with a grain of sodium chloride!)