Why Does God allow Suffering if he Loves us?

[the_bob_delusion]

Discuss. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

---

But we know that human organs can regenerate.

And we know that the ultimate human organ can be "added" - an embyro.

---

there is a VAST difference in an organ regenerating from a tiny part of that organ with scientific intervention AND the spontaneous generation of a TOTALLY NEW organ.

an embryo is generated from a combination of egg and sperm in a preprepared environment - it just doesn't happen from NOTHING.

---

No scientific intervention required to regenerate a liver. And brain masses and funtioning can change change is NOT generation just through different types of use. Skin is another organ that repairs and grows. regeneration IS NOT generation. Repair / growth of an existing organ (eg skin) is NOT generation from nothing.

And a pre-prepared environmen can be anything. In the same way that mould grows from nothing in the right environment, mould doesn't grow from nothing. in any environment or other microbes, then idea of something growing from nothing and then regenerating itself into something over millions of years is an absolute possibility.

---

They used to think maggots that grew on meat left in the pantry was proof of evolution (something from nothing) - until someone spotted a fly laying it's eggs on the piece of meat.

[the_great_she_elephant]

They used to think maggots that grew on meat left in the pantry was proof of evolution (something from nothing) - until someone spotted a fly laying it's eggs on the piece of meat

Who used to and how long ago?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

what about a discussion on why did evolution cheat us humans out of a proper spine? {ala she ele}. I did ask but she hasn't answered so far.

---

I did explain. It's because evolution, being a process, not  a creator, cannot go back to the drawing board to make "improvements" Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there and there always has to be a compromise. For example. cheetahs developed a light and agile frame to make them more efficient at running down their prey - if their legs were a bit longer and a bit lighter they would be able to run even faster but it would increase the danger of them breaking those legs and dying of starvation. So there came a point where the optimum compromise was reached. they are also unable to brether while running flat out, and that is another evolutionary compromise.

Humans evolved from quadrupeds - the changes to their pelvic structure which enabled them to walk upright were obviously beneficial, and I imagine there may also have been a certain amount of change in the structure of the spine, but it may well be that any further changes - while they might have  have made the spine more suited to a  bipedal stance, might have been detrimental in other ways.

It is possible of course that if homosapiens is still around in another million years other changes may have occurred - though with modern medicine natural selection no longer applies. 

---

so, can you explain to me, just what is bad about the human spine? and WHAT dictated that any further changes would be detrimental? ie that an optimum compromise had been reached?

It originated as a "suspension bridge" - ideal for quadrupeds. it is long and not very robust and the pressure put on the veribrae from walking upright is what causes them to crumble as we get older  and gives so many of us slipped discs. 

HOW did it originate? Where did the quadropeds get that first 'suspension bridge' ?

The reason we get so many back problems / slipped discs etc is because of our lifestyle. If we lived and exercised as we should, I would think that the muscular support around our backs, necks etc would be sufficient to stop all of those problems.

and ... with the cheetah - 'developed a light and agile frame ....'  so WHAT dictated to the cheetah that any further developments would have been detrimental?

Nothing 'dictated' it to them, as they evolved animals with longer legs were marginally better at catching their prey and therefore marginally more likely to survive and pass on their longer leg genes to their offspring. Once the optimum balance between speed and fragility had been reached those who whose legs went on getting marginally longer , became marginally more prone to injury and therefore marginally less likely to survive and pass on their genes.

also, you say "Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there" - I can handle that. In other words organs can be slightly modified - BUT NEW ORGANS CANNOT BE ADDED, so where did the organs come from in the first place - let's take the first kidney, where did the first kidney come from - how did it evolve?

They evolved,in the same way that the wings of birds evolved from legs and legs evolved from fins. I am not a biologist so I can't explain the scientific details but there are books that can - Richard Dawkins would be an author to read.

That's just it - I could ALMOST swallow that legs evolved from fins BUT what did the fins evolve from? There had to be a point in between single cell lifeforms > multicell lifeforms > ????? > the first finned fish > the first legged animal. And please don't just say 'billions of years of selection'.

Because evolution or some animal decided that it would be better off with a kidneyt?

Nothing 'decides' anything in evolution, Some tiny random mutations become beneficial so those creatures which have those tiny mutations are marginally likely to do better than those who don't. Other tiny mutations are detrimental so those creatures who have them are marginally less likely to survive and pass on their genes. 

---

---

You suggested Origin of the Species to me - I read it. ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of anything except that his pigeons changed minutely over several generations but they didn't grow anything new or change into a new type of bird. All the rest was assumption UPON ASSUMPTION.

I am sorry, I cannot see how random mutation can produce anything NEW like new organs. Mutation is a downward spiral NOT an upward one.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@*pepe wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

what about a discussion on why did evolution cheat us humans out of a proper spine? {ala she ele}. I did ask but she hasn't answered so far.

---

I did explain. It's because evolution, being a process, not  a creator, cannot go back to the drawing board to make "improvements" Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there and there always has to be a compromise. For example. cheetahs developed a light and agile frame to make them more efficient at running down their prey - if their legs were a bit longer and a bit lighter they would be able to run even faster but it would increase the danger of them breaking those legs and dying of starvation. So there came a point where the optimum compromise was reached. they are also unable to brether while running flat out, and that is another evolutionary compromise.

Humans evolved from quadrupeds - the changes to their pelvic structure which enabled them to walk upright were obviously beneficial, and I imagine there may also have been a certain amount of change in the structure of the spine, but it may well be that any further changes - while they might have  have made the spine more suited to a  bipedal stance, might have been detrimental in other ways.

It is possible of course that if homosapiens is still around in another million years other changes may have occurred - though with modern medicine natural selection no longer applies. 

---

so, can you explain to me, just what is bad about the human spine? and WHAT dictated that any further changes would be detrimental? ie that an optimum compromise had been reached?

and ... with the cheetah - 'developed a light and agile frame ....'  so WHAT dictated to the cheetah that any further developments would have been detrimental?

also, you say "Evolutionary changes occur in miniscule steps to whatever is already there" - I can handle that. In other words organs can be slightly modified - BUT NEW ORGANS CANNOT BE ADDED, so where did the organs come from in the first place - let's take the first kidney, where did the first kidney come from - how did it evolve? Because evolution or some animal decided that it would be better off with a kidneyt?

---

But we know that human organs can regenerate.

And we know that the ultimate human organ can be "added" - an embyro.

---

there is a VAST difference in an organ regenerating from a tiny part of that organ with scientific intervention AND the spontaneous generation of a TOTALLY NEW organ.

an embryo is generated from a combination of egg and sperm in a preprepared environment - it just doesn't happen from NOTHING.

---

yet some woud have us believe a woman was made from a rib....

---

I would be more prone to believe a living organism fashioned from another living organism - not talking about adam and eve here. I believe they can make organs now out of pigs organs - but AGAIN it requires a starting point and lots and lots of science..

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am sorry, I cannot see how random mutation can produce anything NEW like new organs. Mutation is a downward spiral NOT an upward one.

I suspect that is because you can't really get your head around the timescale involved. Most mutations probably are detrimental, but every now and then one will come along that gives one individual a slight advantage over the rest.We are not talking about obvious, noticeable mutations, we are talking about differences so small that they may not even be observable to the naked eye.

For example, I am one of seven sisters. I am the tallest, therefore there is a marginal likelihood  that at least one of my daughters is going to be taller than any of my sisters' daughters. If being tall gave me an evolutionary advantage then there is the possibility that over thousands of years my female descendants would continue to grow taller until the advantage gained by tallness was outweighed by the disadvantage of having to carry the extra weight. 

(this is an analogy only I'm not saying tallness in humans is necessarily an advantage.)

[myoclon1cjerk]

Read Richard Dawkins The Ancestors Tale.An excellent book in which Dawkins traces our (and other animals etc) evolution from the present going back in time instead of vice versa.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

I am sorry, I cannot see how random mutation can produce anything NEW like new organs. Mutation is a downward spiral NOT an upward one.

I suspect that is because you can't really get your head around the timescale involved. Most mutations probably are detrimental, but every now and then one will come along that gives one individual a slight advantage over the rest.We are not talking about obvious, noticeable mutations, we are talking about differences so small that they may not even be observable to the naked eye.

For example, I am one of seven sisters. I am the tallest, therefore there is a marginal likelihood  that at least one of my daughters is going to be taller than any of my sisters' daughters. If being tall gave me an evolutionary advantage then there is the possibility that over thousands of years my female descendants would continue to grow taller until the advantage gained by tallness was outweighed by the disadvantage of having to carry the extra weight. 

(this is an analogy only I'm not saying tallness in humans is necessarily an advantage.)

---

 I can understand atributes like tallness, eye colour even skin colour changes etc. But, evolution of new ORGANS is totally different.  I would go as far as saying, using your analogy, that no matter how many millions of years hence, your descendants will always be human - they can NEVER become something else.

I can get my head around the immense timescale but no matter how hard I try, how much I read I cannot see how the first lifeform (even leaving out the argument of HOW that first lifeform eventuated) evolved into the millions of life forms we have today.

Yes, I can understand how once we had mammoths and they are now extinct but we have something that looks like them in elephants albeit 2 different types / species.

I can  understand how the many varieties of dogs we now have may have evolved from one dog type. The same with cats, horses and so on, I CANNOT understand how new lifeforms / species / groups evolved and how NEW ORGANS can have developed.

I am 65 years old, failing eyesight - so I don't have a lot of time left to read / study to satisfy myself either way about what is loosely called evolution.  All I know is, it defies everything logical in me, that that first little lifeform can have developed into all we have today no matter how many BILLIONS of years passed.

[wilk1149]

Evolution also makes leaps via mutations. If a certain species has a descendant that via some mutation makes it easier to survive and maybe a more successful breeder then with time the mutated species will over run the non mutated one. My appendix ruptured and my surgeon Saud that I'd wake up with a small scar but u awoke ti a huge one. My appendix wasn't in the usual place. If we are all created to a specific plan then there would be no mutations because our design would be set by our creator

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am 65 years old, failing eyesight - so I don't have a lot of time left to read / study to satisfy myself either way about what is loosely called evolution.  All I know is, it defies everything logical in me, that that first little lifeform can have developed into all we have today no matter how many BILLIONS of years passed.

Rabbit, in the end it doesn't really matter what any of us believe.It's how we live that is important.  Live your life with honesty,  integrity and love for your fellow beings (as I am sure you always have)  and when you die, if you are right you will have a wonderful eternity to look forward to and if you are wrong you will never know it.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

I am 65 years old, failing eyesight - so I don't have a lot of time left to read / study to satisfy myself either way about what is loosely called evolution.  All I know is, it defies everything logical in me, that that first little lifeform can have developed into all we have today no matter how many BILLIONS of years passed.

Rabbit, in the end it doesn't really matter what any of us believe.It's how we live that is important.  Live your life with honesty,  integrity and love for your fellow beings (as I am sure you always have)  and when you die, if you are right you will have a wonderful eternity to look forward to and if you are wrong you will never know it.

---

Thank you ele, of course you are right. I am not sure though of that wonderful eternity applying to me, I think maybe I fall short of the mark quite considerably..