Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
The difference:

Adaptation - micro-evolution - ability to adapt to pressures.

Macro - new novel features.

Big difference.
Click to expand...
You are using your own personal definition of Macro-evolution here. The generally accepted scientific definition is: “Evolution at or above the level of species.”

That scientific macro-evolution can happen either quickly or slowly, and I have posted examples of it in these threads, such as the Marbled Shrimp.

Your ideas will not get much scientific traction if you do not use the standard, accepted scientific definitions.

rossum
 
What do you think that the double layer of red blobs with tails is? Yes, modern bacteria have extra bits added, but the original proto-cell was a lot simpler. Take away the blue parts, and you have the simple original lipid bilayer.

Now go and study how lipid bilayers can form naturally.

rossum
 
rossum said:
What do you think that the double layer of red blobs with tails is? Yes, modern bacteria have extra bits added, but the original proto-cell was a lot simpler. Take away the blue parts, and you have the simple original lipid bilayer.

Now go and study how lipid bilayers can form naturally.

rossum
Click to expand...
So it was so simple that it evolved from random chemicals naturally ?
 
Is the anti-evolutionary argument really so poor?

Either they make up something nobody believes in anyway and shoot it down
Or they grab something from the internet and wave it madly, hoping it supports their cause?

Meanwhile, it’s like squeezing blood from a stone trying to find out what they actual believe about spontaneous creation. No wonder it is difficult to refute - there’s nothing there to disagree with!

So far, insofar as our creationist colleagues have any kind of consensus, I seem to have established that they think God created, either from nothing or from earth (atoms), a number of living organisms, or groups of living organisms, sufficiently different from each other as to be called separate species. Subsequent generations of these species were not spontaneously created, but appeared by normal biological processes, and, within the space of a few thousand years (any advance on fifty thousand years?), diversified into the millions of species we recognise today, plus, of course, the even more millions which have gone extinct. Is that correct? If not, is there any creationist out there bold enough to correct it?
 
Techno2000 said:
So it was so simple that it evolved from random chemicals naturally ?
Click to expand...
It developed naturally from chemicals. Chemistry is not “random”, it is highly constrained. If chemistry were random, then there would be as much HO2 as there is H2O. You appear to need to learn more about how chemistry works.

rossum
 
If one is not convinced the moment one opens one’s eyes in the morning there is nothing that will. But, thank you for sharing the tiniest bit of the mystery of creation, demonstrating the glory of its Creator.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
difference between adaptation and evolution at organism level I should like to know what it is.
Click to expand...
It’s best to use an example; let’s say you and me vs one cell creatures.

First of all there is this dialogue. A unicellular organism most likely has the simplest of thoughts - ouch and nice. These would relate to perceptual experiences, lighting up in in a different manner to let’s say, temperature and substances that it can digest through the release of enzymes and absorb through its membrane. All this instinctive activity in one simple psychophysical being. This is in contrast to the complexity of our perceptual experiences and cognitive capacities. No adaptations can bridge that gap.

Adaptation and much of what we call speciation involves variations in gene expression, much of it related to environment circumstances. Random glitches in the genome also cause speciation through the deletion of genes. The mutated form may survive and its offspring continue. The loss of resistance to penicillin, which was built into bacteria as penecillin was given to molds, to provide homeostasis with their mutually shared environment is something we have exploited to cure infections.

What we have ontologically and temporally is a hierarchy of life built from the dust of the earth. Where one does not know God, it appears that it just happened. The label random is given because it has no other cause. To go from bacteria to human beings would require a series of errors that is naturally intuited as being impossible except to hardcore believers.

What makes sense is the creation of perfect “kinds”, which respond to their environment in their expression through individual offspring, thereby producing the greater diversity we find in nature - perhaps peacocks and wrens. The disruptions that occur in this fallen world are an additional cause of diversity; what is called “evolution” is actually devolution - random mutations mopped up by natural selection.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Is the anti-evolutionary argument really so poor
Click to expand...
An argument involves two people who see things differently. When its basis is a world-view, agreement involves entry into the other person’s mind set. No easy task given how it involves letting go of the beliefs that bind one’s own together. It boils down to mutual understanding. The argument may appear poor for numerous reasons, a not uncommon one being, the automatic framing of the opposing argument within a preconceived model of one’s own making. If you think my anti-evolution arguments are poor, the fault does not lie in their validity, since it is perfectly clear to me, but my capacity to firstly understand what specifically you mean by evolution (I go by what I have learned in almost a decade of postgraduate studies and a lifetime of work doing applied science), as well as my ability to express those views within this limited framework, which at that same time impedes your capacity to understand them. For what it’s worth here, face to face, one to one in real life, people do listen.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
To go from bacteria to human beings would require a series of errors that is naturally intuited as being impossible except to hardcore believers.
Click to expand...
When it comes to evolution, they can suspend the laws of nature, but they can’t do the same for creation . 🤔
 
Last edited:
Aloysium: “No adaptations can bridge that gap.” I keep being told what can’t happen, on no evidence other than hope, and not enough about what did happen. However, thank you for the next bit. So is this (below) right?

God created a few thousand kinds of living things, all with their individual DNA. The emergence of every subsequent living species has been due solely to changes in gene expression and the deletion of genes.

“To go from bacteria to human beings would require a series of errors that is naturally intuited as being impossible except to hardcore believers.” Well again, I’m being told what can’t be done rather than what did happen, but since you mention it, that’s exactly what I, and almost every other biologist on the planet, believes, not just “hardcore believers”.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I, and almost every other biologist on the planet, believes, not just “hardcore believers”.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to dredge up the studies, but suffice to say everyone is a believer of something, and what you believe, which I have not yet read a coherent explanation, is not what most would believe. Many biologists are atheists, more are what one might call naturalists, a humanist/pantheistic/agnostic blend of unformed beliefs. At any rate evolution never comes up in practical science. It has no value except for these arenas. If addressed at all in the applied sciences, it is as an aside, like sex talk which happens far, far more frequently. It’s a distraction and it’s back to business. No one really cares except in this kind of dialogue, which is philosophical and religious, having nothing of practical value.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Meanwhile, it’s like squeezing blood from a stone trying to find out what they actual believe about spontaneous creation.
Click to expand...
Did God have to use evolution to evolve the fish that he used to feed the multitude ?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
God created a few thousand kinds of living things, all with their individual DNA. The emergence of every subsequent living species has been due solely to changes in gene expression and the deletion of genes.
Click to expand...
The automated message is telling me to stop replying to you. It may have a point. This is sort of like converting a jpg file into png. Too much information is likely to be lost, making it not worthwhile.

But here goes: Yes and no.

The way I see it, through the darkness of my ignorance and the limits of whatever grace of counsel I may possess:
  • DNA is just one component of the physical totality of the cell, which acts as one - DNA by itself is useless. The DNA codes for the formation of the organism’s body. It is stuff carrying information for the natural, nonrandom processes of chemical interaction that are necessary for life.
  • the unity that is a living organism exists on three ontological dimensions - the physical, the psychological and the spiritual (the structure of its existence, which includes the other two).
  • each organism appears to be an expression of its kind, as we are of the one humanity that became broken in Adam and is healed in Christ (Love).
  • each organism is individual and a part of a larger environment
  • each organism is a unique expression of its kind, taking its particular form as a work of art and in accordance with its place in the environment
  • with original sin, creation changed, from its beginning - what should have otherwise been, did not happen with the fall.
  • today we witness how things should have been and how they have been transformed from their destined form
Something like that. I might get back to this later.
 
Last edited:
Adaptation can vary traits that already exist. New and novel features might be something the organism never had, like an elephant gets wings.
 
Evos don’t know the origin of life. They just know it was through the god of BUC.

At the end of the day, the Christian God is a much better explanation than your god of BUC. The god of BUC scenario gets less plausible each and every day. Remember, the evo a priori position is to not “let the Divine foot in the door” no matter how ridiculous the machinations are to keep the pagan creation story alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top