12-8-2007

Limits on Evolution.


Are there limits on Evolution? In reality, No. However, it depends of which side of the coin you want to look. Darwin for example assumed that there were in principle no limits on Evolution.
Modern Science partly supports this within limitations for the moment.
They believe just as we do, that the journey into the discovery and possibilities of Evolution is just standing at the beginning of that journey. It took Nature millions of years to develop to where we are now.
As there are no limitations, we can see in trust the scientific journey to develop and to create new possibilities. This journey forwards over an unknown path will show us what really did happen at the beginning of time in nature.

Opponents will state the obvious and say that because the path to go is unclear and not divined, their will be no real answer on the problem of Natural Evolution.

However, scientific revelations shows that variations can occur and still do occur although not completely understand scientifically yet, but seen as an act of Evolution. It is just from which point you view the problem.
It is from science point of view, a fact that Evolution did occur over the past million of years. However, science did not prove this point yet, maybe in time that will be changed, after all, it is not that long ago in science that we did not understand the sequence of molecules in DNA, but now accepted as a normal fact.

Sceptical opponents will never accept or believe that it will be possible as they count on the possibility that the scientific resolve will not come in their lifetime. They therefore propose that Evolution is not possible other a biological adjustment.
They are unscientific arrogant in making all kind of different statements, which in basics are exactly the same, negative. They even are going so far that they claim natural Evolution is not possible and never will not in a million years. Between them, there is a race to show who can be the most negative, and the inventions of excuses, mainly based on a single phrase and no explanation is given.
That they with this placing themselves to the back of the line of scientific explorers are obvious. What is less obvious but still a plausible fact is that they placing them selves at the level as the people in the Stone Age time, they did not bother with progress either as the daily must to survive was of outmost importance.

Most of them are also hampered by their religion, which is the main anchor what held them back. It is also one of the most unbelievable occurrences as the ones who do not believe in Evolution; do believe a folk story, told over and over again from generation to generation. By every generation, some was added some was left out until it arrived at the time someone decided to write them down. However, it is and was still a folk’s tale. That they believe, but the very occurrence in front of them they do not see or do not want to believe. Because of that, they fail the progress by imagination and fail to see the progress.

Science itself can only progress by imagination and investigation for the search to progress and development, they cannot been hold back by certain hang-up’s such as religion.
Those opponents of the Evolution limited themselves in their own view and imagination and progress.
If there are four apples and we want six apples but the other two are locked away, do we simple accept that we have only four apples or do we find a way to get the other two apples to make it the six we need.

The Evolutionist would try to find a way to get the two other apples to make it the six they need.
The opponents would not attempt to find a way by saying the two others are locked away that has to have a reason, we therefore have to be satisfied with the four we have.

The evolutionist would progress to the six apples but the opponents will be stuck with the four.
Nature is a creative force, it adapts, and change to the circumstances of that point in time, however, it will find the needed adaptation to the problem. A tree knows that if there is a draught it has to go deeper with his roots to get the water he needs, it also needs that if a storm comes his roots need to have a clear grip to stay upright, therefore create a holding root in the prevailing direction.
Natural Evolution has two forms in which they create the variation they need; the first one is the stabilizer to make sure it does not decline. The second one is the creator, a natural selector.
Natural selection explains how a biological line exists, and with thorough investigations, it can be possible to establish how the line came into existence. Natural selection point out the survival of the fittest. It shows that only the fittest survive a new creation or an alteration. Experiments have shown this over and over again.

The natural selection is extended to humans in such a way that medical science now has the knowledge and possibilities, to help to survive those who in a natural selection process would not have survived.
The natural selection clearly shows that what survives as the fittest is also the first of a new line in natural evolution.
It will be obvious for the critical observer that the new arrival of the fittest item in the natural selection can be a mutation of an existing item in the natural selection. However, it can be the creation of a new item in this selection. Opponents of the natural evolution will stress that mutation allows only limited changes.
We believe that if given time it can be established that the random mutations are the first step to a new item.
It will show how natural evolution progressed and show how it was possible for nature to develop as nature has done.
A scientist Dr. Walt Brown state in his book” all species appear fully developed, not partly, they show design, there are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes or any of thousands of other vital organs”
This makes it rather obvious for the critical reader that Dr. Walt Brown had never heard of the survival of the fittest, although nature shows that on regular bases. It means that all mutations, which cannot support itself, do not survive, hence the survival of the fittest, this has nothing to do with design but all with survival.

There is enough proof scientifically that nature has the ability to adapt and to correct and therewith shows the ability to generate new natural items.

Opponents of natural evolution, this is obvious, have to read their biology again with the latest revelations.
Obvious is also that were it concerns the genes, that we are just standing at the beginning of dawn with in front of us the endless possibilities and new discoveries. The opponents are convinced that even if it would take millions of years nothing will change, thereby conveniently forgetting the last million of years in which that could change did change.

Those opponents calling them selves scientist, although they have clearly abandoned the science for a status quo, would if livid into the 15th century still insisted that the world was flat and that not in a million years this could change. How wrong they were.

They lack the courage and the conviction that is needed to go forwards were nobody went before. They lack the imaginary vision needed to see into the future as a matter of speaking. They lack the progress needed to press forwards, they lack the progress to knowledge as they are stuck at that moment in time and do not want to move unless there is clear straight forwards proof of progress.

Opponents of natural evolution are also keen to point out that all spieces in the natural evolution are from the same kind. And then they point to the DNA structure and existing genes. For that reason they argue there cannot be an natural evolution as changes by chance can occur but that entirely new spieces are not possible. They point to the great designer who created all, although the point is did he?
It is simple to point out that the fact that all species are in principle the same point to a slow development over millions of years. Creationists do not believe the scientific proof of the evolution, not because it is incorrect but because it does not suit their vision, they want to bring forwards.
As they are not able to contradict the natural evolution, they using examples of the past to proof the present.
They pick what they can use and forget what is not suitable. They even include the bible to use what they can and see no harm to alter it when it suits them. When that is pointed out to them, they change the tactic.
The bible is right and should be accepted as right as God said so, there is no doubt that some actual believe that the bible is always right. However, the bible is a folk’s tale written down thousands of years after the tales were spun. To accept them as always right, is the same as believing that Shakespeare story of Hamlet was right and should be believed to be right.
However, they say, it is rather simple. There are no witnesses to the start of the natural evolution, no witnesses to the start of life. It is obvious it was not observed and if an occurrence cannot be observed then it cannot exist. It is obvious you cannot observe what is not there and it was not observed and witnesses when it came in existence therefore it cannot be thru.

This is also the case with the creation theory, nobody was there nobody did observe it. To use their own words, therefore it cannot be thru. This is a miscalculation the creationist will point out, there was a witness, and it was observed. God told us so in the bible.

Is this proof, can we see it can we speak to God, and more important can He explain how he did it.
Again the answer is a simple one, just read the bible, you will see Gods word.

From our point of view, we can read the bible, or any other book but it is not our intention to believe what is written in a book as a folk’s tale to accept as proof. No sensible scientist will ever.

In short, both sides have no proof of how it started. While the creationists clamping themselves on to the bible the natural evolutionist do search and do research to find out. There is physical geological evidence, which can point to evidence of its origin.

The Gnostic’s have the answer, that the creation did happen as mentioned in the bible, God told us so.
Now this is a clear point, God told them so. Let us dwell on this for a little. God told us so, did he come down to earth, took a chair next to Adam and then told his story while having a drink and a bite to eat.
Genesis mention several times that God spoke, problem is there are no witnesses no evidence other then the story told a story written and re-written many times in history to suit the purpose.

If we remember well, this is the same God who is All-Good, who decided to kill all living species on earth expect some selected ones. He did this by flooding the Earth with water, and to kill all that water must have reached at least 30.000 feet. And all that water was created in only 40 days, an unrealistic and
Mathematical impossibility. If he did not like the humans why kill all the animals this does not make sense.
However, this was the same God we presume who came down to Abram sat next to him behind a burning bush? And told Abram to kill his son, no reason given. This God must have been paranoid, as he also did not like that the people spoke the same language and created the Babylonian language disaster.
This God if we understand the bible right was still All-Good, but obvious not a friendly one.

That he did not trusted his creation from day one was obvious, that is why he created the tree of good and evil, this baffles us, if as he said in the bible he created looked at it and found it good. Why the tree of evil,
Why create something that could make something what was good, evil. Unless he was playing a game and had no intention to leave people in the Garden of Eden. If we look around the world to day, he still seems to be playing the same game over and over. All Good, complete Evil would be nearer to the point.

We do realise that the bible was just a folk’s tale and that those things did not really happen, but the one who wrote and re-wrote the bible and still re-writing it. They could make an effort to make it a little less violent,
less wars, less rapes, less killings and more all-good. However, we do think we did point out the obvious.

More of this in our second part.