Mutations, bad not good (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 22, 2011, 00:32 (4852 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem.
> -> TONY: I am searching for an answer to this just like everyone here. Fundamental creationist do take things too far with their 6 days and every single species created individually, I think. However, the 'according to their kind' statement does beg some investigation, in my opinion, even if it does not mean precisely what the fundamentalist think it does. 
> I do not claim to know how it was accomplished. I do not even necessarily see that there needs to be a disparity between creationism (even in a sense relatively close to the fundamentalist view) and evolution (in the sense of adaptation). I do not think that there is enough data or that we have enough understanding to categorically deny any eventuality at this point, other than that every single species, as we know them at this time, were not created individually.
> 
> It seems then that you are looking for a way to reconcile the biblical version of events with the evolutionary, and the compromise would be that some species evolved as per Darwin and Co, but some ... or possibly just one? ... was specially created by God. The one, of course, is man, because Genesis is unequivocal on this. Would I be wrong in inferring that your preoccupation with "species" centres on this particular point? The relationship between man and chimpanzee is already a problem, and that between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man really muddies the waters. If you can cast doubt on whatever links people think they have found, this will help the case that God created our particular form of human independently of all other forms of life.
> -
I believe in a God, a UI, a being greater than humanity or anything that we know of, whatever you like to call it. I do not deny nor apologize for that. The puzzle you think you found is no real puzzle at all. Whether the UI created the rules and let the chips fall where they may, or created the pro-generators of each phyla, or created every early creature directly, I do not know, nor make any claim as to which one I believe to be the case. This is why I say there is no direct conflict between evolution and creation. The direct conflict is actually between creationism and abiogenesis, which is another topic altogether. I am vastly curious about how the process occurred, what methods were used, what order things happened in, and why. The matter of adaptation is actually of little concern to me as far as defining my views. We all know adaptation occurs, and I see it is good forward thinking on the part of a designer. (Don't you wish your car could automatically adapt to the environment and available fuel?) The problem of innovation and speciation, however, which to me are separate but related issues, are far more relevant to, not only the creationism, but also to the definition of evolution and the progress of that scientific method. If scientist KNEW that speciation could or could not occur, they would be better able to focus their research.