Can evolution bring about nxt things!

[PetriFB]

I ask you all to answer honestly to the next thought!

How accident in other words evolution have the ability to next kind of things:.

How is possible, that evolution develops eye which sees, woods which hears, heart which upkeep body's life, person who has emotional life and ability understands many matters. Person which has been built extremely miraculously with all mechanism of his/her.

[Grumpy]

PetriFB

The short answer to your questions is"one step at a time"

Take the eye, for example. Almost all forms of animal life and even a few plants have some form of light detecting sensor. From simple "Eye patches" to the sophisticated eyes of mammals and octopuses, the eye has arisen in creatures many seperate times. Why? Because being able to detect light(or see) is of great value to any creature and any advance in that direction will be "selected" for and passed to following generations. Likewise, any improvement of that ability will also be selected and passed down. After thousands of these events the eye has become very advanced as in mammals, birds, fish and insects(Compound eyes are very good for small creatures and the jumping spider has four pairs of eyes, each optimized for different distances).

Small changes which convey advantages are selected by reproductive success. The accumulation of small changes leads to larger changes. Accumulation of larger changes leads to speciation and all the diversity of life.

Grumpy 8)

[micatala]

My first comment is that I would argue with the premise that evolution = accident. Evolution is not an 'accidental' process. Evolution proceeds through the principle of natural selection, among other things.

It is true that mutations occur 'at random', but these mutations are then selected for or against based on numerous factors.

Yes, it does, certainly in a subjective sense, seem miraculous that life as we know it exists the way it does. THis does not mean that it did not develop through evolution. One might even consider evolution as a sort of miraculous process. Certainly, if one believes God to be the source of the 'laws of the universe' then evolution as one of these processes based on these laws is, in a sense, miraculous.

I would also note that many things which were previously thought to be unexplainable or miraculous have been found to follow 'natural laws.' Also, ones subjective ideas about what is miraculous are not that reliable. For example, is it not truly astonishing that the sun, over 93 million miles, can exert a force on the earth (or warp space using Einstein's version of gravity) invisibly and imperceptibely with no detectable means of doing so? In a sense, although we can accurately describe the quantity of force applied by gravity, we really have no good explanation of how or why it works.

It seems to me that your questions along the lines of the possiblity of certain biological structures developing through evolution are of this kind.

In addition, if you look elsewhere on the forum, you will see that there are certainly quite plausible explanations of how these structures evolved.

[harvey1]

I ask you all to answer honestly to the next thought! How accident in other words evolution have the ability to next kind of things:. How is possible, that evolution develops eye which sees, woods which hears, heart which upkeep body's life, person who has emotional life and ability understands many matters. Person which has been built extremely miraculously with all mechanism of his/her.

I think Genesis itself answers these questions:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so (Gen. 1:24)

So, according to Genesis, God commanded the earth to naturally bring about life on land. Since it is God's word that earth is reacting to, earth complied accordingly.

This is the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

This verse ends chapter 1 of Genesis, or starts chapter 2 of Genesis. Either case, we see that there is multiple generations bringing forth life and the universe being referred to. The modern word for this is: evolution.

So, there you have your answer directly from the inspired author of Genesis. The miraculous things of evolution were commanded by God. In fact, Genesis doesn't even distinguish the acts of nature from the acts of God:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature... and God made... everything that creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:24)

Biblical creationism=Natural evolution

[Curious]

It is true that mutations occur 'at random', but these mutations are then selected for or against based on numerous factors.

A lot has been said previously about genetic mutation, but little has been mentioned regarding epigenesis. Now a mutation might well confer some advantage or disadvantage but the fact remains that the vast majority of genetic expression is already "inbuilt" into the genome and is simply "switched on" by environmental conditions. Strikes me that evolution isn't as simple as people would have us believe.

[Grumpy]

Curious

Strikes me that evolution isn't as simple as people would have us believe.

Boy, you said a mouthful there. Yes, evolution has many factors which contribute to changes in species. Viruses can cause change in genes, cells can transfer genetic sequences between themselves, mutations can occur due to exposure to chemicals, radiation, ultraviolet and many other sources, genes can be switched on or off during times of stress, transcription errors can occur, etc. etc.

On these forums we tend to stick to simple principles in our debates and we may give the erronious impression that that is all there is to it when nothing could be further from the truth. Nature has a habit of using previously developed structures in new and different ways, no thought is necessary, the only criteria is"does it work" and "does it help". If it does, it survives, if it does not it doesn't survive.

Grumpy 8)

[QED]

On these forums we tend to stick to simple principles in our debates and we may give the erronious impression that that is all there is to it when nothing could be further from the truth. Nature has a habit of using previously developed structures in new and different ways, no thought is necessary, the only criteria is"does it work" and "does it help". If it does, it survives, if it does not it doesn't survive.

Everything is contained within the last few lines of what Grumpy said. The world is constantly testing everything to destruction so the only things we see around us are those that can make it at least as far as reproducing themselves (with minor variations). This is the signature of evolved life -- it's pretty hard on the individuals concerned but there's no practical alternative.

If we were all immortal there would be no end of problems. Apart from a rapid depletion of resources (if immortals were to continue breeding) there would be no adaptation to changing environment or climate, no adaptation to disease. Sure Genesis can make up a fantasy world in which none of this is an issue, but that's not the world we're living in right now. Evolution is required in order to keep life going. If it was God making the changes to keep life going why would he be waging an arms race against himself in the first place?

[nikolayevich]

I think Genesis itself answers these questions:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so (Gen. 1:24)

So, according to Genesis, God commanded the earth to naturally bring about life on land. Since it is God's word that earth is reacting to, earth complied accordingly.

And...

Biblical creationism=Natural evolution

It's an interesting exegesis but I think the extrapolation involves a wholesale interpolation of unnecessary (and absent) data. God says, "Let the earth bring forth." This language is used of trees and other vegetation, as in a tree bringing forth fruit in its season (from Psalm 1:3) and many passages also in the New Testament where Jesus talks about trees bringing forth good or bad fruit, based on their inherent makeup. Let's go back to Genesis 1 for a moment and look at the text.

In Genesis 1:11 God says "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.

The key that I want to address is in the latter part, "...whose seed is in itself." The Scriptures are describing a chain of life, beginning in Genesis 1:1 with "God created" which if we remember from other conversations on the board is "Elohim bara [the form of "created" meaning "out of nothing"] the heavens and the earth". After this, he describes the order of how each thing brings forth its fruit- after its own kind, and... "whose seed is in itself," not out of nothing or out of something not originally intended to "bring forth" by a natural process.

Also, since the latter parts "trees bringing forth fruit, and fruit bringing forth..." If we know that these processes happen, not by evolution but by direct genetic processes without need of modification though change occurs, why do we have the need to inject some kind of evolution in the process? I'm speaking here from the text itself. Better yet, and more directly, why, if in the bulk of the chain of life God describes a process which involves direct descent, would we assume that he meant something different for "let the earth bring forth?" If we correctly applied Occam's Razor, would we not simply say that since the Author has assigned basic agricultural values to the bulk of the variables in the chain, that His intention for parts which fit the same pattern of the chain in every day life, should follow that same format? Further, if we look historically at most texts describing processes, we find that parts which follow a chain and a pattern but are not explicitly defined, generally don't need to be as they are a part of the greater pattern which is made clear. Those parts which differ (as in if we were to assume evolutionary processes) are virtually always explicated for us. We should expect to see something about the earth not having seed already and yet, bringing forth anyway.

In short, it is a wide and deep stretch to suggest that God between the lines of Genesis spoke of evolution. The text itself says "In the beginning God", and from the earth which He created, it brings forth fruit, after a process which He ordered, after its kind. Why should we think that he created the entire earth, but not the little seed to bring forth greens?

Just a footnote as evolutionists often assume if one does not believe in evolution, he doesn't believe in variation. "Brings forth after its kind" doesn't mean, "without any modification", it just means that the goo-to-you approach is questioned, since there are simpler explanations.

[nikolayevich]

How is possible, that evolution develops eye which sees, woods which hears, heart which upkeep body's life, person who has emotional life and ability understands many matters. Person which has been built extremely miraculously with all mechanism of his/her.

I think that simply put, both evolutionists and creationists believe in miracles or the "appearance" of the miraculous, as in, whatever one believes, it is amazing that it happened the way it did. This would describe my evolutionist friends who do believe that life is beautiful and mysterious.

The main difference is this: we differ on the cause of these amazing life-forms and the heavens themselves.
I won't pretend to know exactly how an evolutionist perceives his or her own position in the universe, but for myself, the difficult thing to believe about my universe-view is that someone actually chose to make us for His and our own happiness. Perhaps that's something I share with some evolutionists (perhaps even Christian ones). It is sometimes easier to believe that we are insignificant except in our own eyes.

[QED]

Just a footnote as evolutionists often assume if one does not believe in evolution, he doesn't believe in variation.

When you say: "does not believe in evolution" I assume that you mean does not believe that evolution by natural selection is the process responsible for the development and variety of all life on the planet. I say this because as a process for generating novel design, evolution is known to work very well. It is very important to understand that the principle itself is general: it can be set into motion by anyone with sufficient engineering skills. So it's not the case that we are free to believe that the principle itself is questionable, the principle is sound. The only valid question would be "is this principle busily at work in the development of life?".

So, armed with the certain knowledge that, as a general principle, evolution is capable of producing design without the intervention of intelligence, we can set about assessing if it is responsible for the apparent design we see in life. I think a big hint comes from the characteristic signature of evolution which is change. How can anyone look at the evidence of all the past and present forms taken on by life and not see a great deal of change?

The only way this can be denied is to deny the chronology given by modern Geology and believing that all the various life forms existed side-by-side right from the beginning. Either that or they were "designed" in waves with new waves replacing the old, but this looks exactly like evolution and doesn't fit in with the accounts of Genesis.

"Brings forth after its kind" doesn't mean, "without any modification", it just means that the goo-to-you approach is questioned, since there are simpler explanations.

I would strongly question whether "Simpler" is an appropriate description of the sort of alternative most people have in mind. It may take far fewer words to describe, but that hardly qualifies it as being a simple explanation. Again, if we talk about evolution as a general principle, it is extremely simple to explain. The only thing that renders it other than simple is the sheer quantity of individual events and the vast timescales over which these events have taken place in order to deliver the full richness of life on this planet.