Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That almost sounds as if you are arguing for a higher aspect of man. That is decidedly an anti-atheist sentiment. But make no mistake, it's the DNA that determines the uniqueness of every living creature. It's DNA which is evidence to identify one person from the next.I'd like to think a person is more than a set of genes. (Like how I looped back to the OP?)
It's DNA which is evidence to identify one person from the next.
That's not how genetics works.the spiritual content of the physiology is what determines the dna of each individual and their unique attributes.
now it just sounds like youre preaching,,It's called punctuated equilibrium. And whether you believe it or not is of little concern to me. My obligation is satisfied when I presented it.
See posts #134 and #137.now it just sounds like youre preaching,,
It's also DNA that shows the similarities between living things.That almost sounds as if you are arguing for a higher aspect of man. That is decidedly an anti-atheist sentiment. But make no mistake, it's the DNA that determines the uniqueness of every living creature. It's DNA which is evidence to identify one person from the next.
It is hard-wired into life from evolution. It is not hard-wired into the universe.Is it really a goal in the classic sense? Do you think most life consciously has that thought or is it hardwired into life as an attribute of life. Cause it kind of proves my point.
With exactly one example it is hard to make a such a rule.When it comes to the tree of life, it has been building towards intelligence. So I don't know how you can argue that nature hasn't been building towards intelligence. Case in point, the central nervous system of every mammal species has gotten larger as it evolved. I could walk you through the tree of life and explain to you how life has been building in complexity towards intelligence.
If life existed for billions of years before intelligence, could it have existed for another few billion years without intelligence?Yes, so what? You don't build a house all at once. It's built in a logical sequence where certain things must occur before other things. For instance intelligence was never going to evolve into beings that know and create in the sea. Intelligence was never going to evolve into beings that know and create from cold blooded animals. But each step was required to get to beings that know and create.
Sounds we're back to an individual of one species giving birth to offspring of another species. Something we both agree is impossible.Yes, individuals not only mature into adults from juveniles but the collection of individuals make up the species. When the juvenile is first born it is not obvious that it is a new species. As the juvenile matures the new species is revealed due to it maturing into what it is. For a new species to occur this must occur in enough individuals to make the new species take.
You are stuck on the DNA of a human being but IMHO, it is not our DNA that makes us special, it is our intellect, creativity, etc. that make us special and worth protecting. DNA uniqueness is not so valuable to me as it seems to be to you.That almost sounds as if you are arguing for a higher aspect of man. That is decidedly an anti-atheist sentiment. But make no mistake, it's the DNA that determines the uniqueness of every living creature. It's DNA which is evidence to identify one person from the next.
the spiritual content of the physiology is what determines the dna of each individual and their unique attributes.
That's not how genetics works.
Not everything is evolutionary. Many aspects of life are an artifact of life itself. For instance life is hardwired to survive. That's not evolutionary. That's a characteristic of life. But sure if you want to argue that evolution is what leads to complexification, I see no problem with that. That still falls under the umbrella that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create would arise given enough time and the right conditions.It is hard-wired into life from evolution. It is not hard-wired into the universe.
How can it be hard to say life hasn't been building to intelligence when life literally complexified to produce intelligence?With exactly one example it is hard to make a such a rule.
My point is that life evolved to intelligence because the source or matrix is intelligence. This is a life breeding intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.If life existed for billions of years before intelligence, could it have existed for another few billion years without intelligence?
No, that's what you are back to. I've already explained it. And the description you just provided wasn't close to my explanation. You are the one who has no explanation.Sounds we're back to an individual of one species giving birth to offspring of another species. Something we both agree is impossible.
And yet you keep dismissing intelligence as the source of existence. Yes, we are beings that know and create. Yes we are more than just matter. But it is the DNA which proves we are each a unique creation. DNA doesn't define who we are. DNA is the physical evidence of our uniqueness.You are stuck on the DNA of a human being but IMHO, it is not our DNA that makes us special, it is our intellect, creativity, etc. that make us special and worth protecting. DNA uniqueness is not so valuable to me as it seems to be to you.
I'd argue it is evolutionary. I can't imagine a stronger selection force than the desire to survive. Kind of takes the others out of the gene pool real fast.Not everything is evolutionary. Many aspects of life are an artifact of life itself. For instance life is hardwired to survive. That's not evolutionary.
Evolution leads to filling niches but that can be through either complexification or simplification. Viruses are examples of the later.That's a characteristic of life. But sure if you want to argue that evolution is what leads to complexification, I see no problem with that. That still falls under the umbrella that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create would arise given enough time and the right conditions.
Since I believe that for a new species to arise - especially ones that have different number of chromosomes from the species they descended from - genetic mutations must occur across the herd (at the same approximate time) in number sufficient for the new species to "take root," I have an explanation that makes sense.Something we both agree is impossible.
Can you walk me through how evolution hardwired life forms to survive? Were there life forms that weren't hardwired to survive? Is that what you believe? Wouldn't that be the case for every species? So in your mind every new species starts off having to weed out all the other in the species that doesn't want to live? Were they not passing on their genes too before they bit the dust?I'd argue it is evolutionary. I can't imagine a stronger selection force than the desire to survive. Kind of takes the others out of the gene pool real fast.
