Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

Okay, never mind defining desirability in the limited way of personal preference. Rather, let it be defined as a trait which would increase the capacity of the species to survive.

Separate Gen 1 from Gen 2. In Gen 1, God claims to have done something to a group of "people." If there is one gene change that made people fully conscious, such as the one controlling the self aware neuron, then what would stop God from making the change in the whole group instead of being limited to a "lucky" genetic change in one person.

Do you understand the objection that has been raised? Just because you find some mechanism or process to be efficient, desireable, or advantageous in propagating evolved traits does not mean that the mechanism or process is even possible, let alone that it actually occurred. It's not that no one understands your argument. Your argument simply is not persuasive.

Forgive me if you've already explained this, but, how are you defining "free will"?

Animals have souls- scriptural. The parts/functions of sould are: Mind, emotion, and will. Animals choose according either of 2 criteria (flight or flight): namely their choices are made as a result of instinct or logic. Man, having a 'free will' is not bound to this and can come up with decisions which are not strictly the result of either influence.

Okay: X trait genetically appears in species Y, by whatever process (mutation, natural selection, environmental change- whatever. In order for this acquired trait to be inherited by 100% of X's offspring, his mate must have the identical chromosomal makeup that X has. But this is a first, unique trait to X's species. Only way for a mate to X to likewise have the identical chromosomal makeup is cloning. And only opposite gender cloning is possible if it is a woman cloned from a man. (Take his X chromosome and duplicate/double it. Women do not have Y chromosomes).

We are all descendants of, and genetically contained in, Adam. What he did, and its results in effect on human nature, are passed to all od his decendents. Pick up a newspaper: is man's basic nature good? Hardly. Could that be a result of what happened because of the Fall, which is written allegorically?

As a Christian I need to point out to you that there is no Biblical support for a Fall and that there is overwhelming evidence that "Adam" exists only in fiction.

As Jar has pointed out, Adam is an old tribal myth, as is "the fall."Both are just as historically accurate as Romeo, i.e., not at all.And as I pointed out many posts above, the idea of "the fall" and "original sin" and the inherently evil nature of mankind are themselves evil ideas, probably the most evil ideas ever conceived and foisted upon us by the fevered imaginations of our shaman class.

Look, we know it would be convenient, but that is NOT a reason to think that it happened. Now, do you have any evidence that such an event actually occurred ?

quote:

---

We are all descendants of, and genetically contained in, Adam. What he did, and its results in effect on human nature, are passed to all od his decendents.

---

The psychological effects of actions are not passed on genetically.

quote:

---

Pick up a newspaper: is man's basic nature good? Hardly. Could that be a result of what happened because of the Fall, which is written allegorically?

---

It's not exactly likely. It's far more likely to be the natural state of humanity.

We are not. In fact, genetics tells us that we are descended from ape-like ancestors. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the bible also fails to mention genetics. Actions can't be passed to your descendants. Obviously. Or could it be that man's nature is such that man wrote stories to explain it?

There is no need for the trait to show up in 100 percent of the offspring. You require this only because you favor some allegory based on your interpretation of Genesis.But evolution does not require all offspring to have trait X. If trait X is advantageous, offspring having the trait will have an advantage that leads to the trait propagating.That is the objection that has been raised several times. I don't see any attempt on your part to address it.

Did this thread ever get to the alleged Red Herring?

So.. If I understand this correct, you are defining 'free will' as the ability to (or that which grants us the ability to) make decisions unbound by the influence of logic (rationality/reason) or instinct (fight/flight responce). Am I correct in my understanding?