Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brittany said:
So what do you have to say about the science supporting evolution? Is here any evidence to support anything else?
Click to expand...
Thousands of years of intensive animal and plant breeding by human beings suggests there are genetic limitations to how much any species can change.

Gould and Elfredge admitted that the fossil record is characterised by two things: sudden appearance and stasis. Sudden appearance and stasis are exactly what one would expect if creation is true.

A fertile imagination and a good story are all you need to invent a “transitional” fossil.
 
Last edited:
Brittany said:
So what do you have to say about the science supporting evolution? Is here any evidence to support anything else?
Click to expand...
You asked, so don’t complain about the wall of words. I enjoyed writing this, even if no one reads it.

The science supports more than what is described by the standard theory of evolution. Throw in a bit of common sense, especially if we can free ourselves from the constraints imposed by how we’ve been taught to see the world by secular society, and the theory sounds a bit ridiculous.

Since you have said that God is involved in the formation of life on earth, I believe you too see that it fails to provide an good account of what constitutes the nature of life.

Here are some basics:

Most people agree that the universe has existed for some thirteen billion years, based on some very fancy science. Life on earth seems to have been here for a couple of billion, and during that time it has changed.

When most people say that evolution is a fact, that is what they mean. What is argued about are the details, how and why it all happened. When I hear that evolution is a fact, I go back to the standard theory of evolution, Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, what is said to happen in terms of genetics. While I would agree with the first statement, I most assuredly do not agree with the theories that have been proposed to explain it.

However, not everyone agrees with the first statement. Evolution is not a thing we can directly perceive by the senses. It is a set of concepts which reason constructs and ties together as a reflection of the underlying order of the universe. Different evidence has a different value for different people as they cognitively structure their world in order to connect with it, to know and act within it. It is interesting to see how much it matters what other people believe with respect to an esoteric branch of science. But, it does because it is all about our philosophical and religious underpinnings. And, our connection to reality, ultimately to God, is of foremost importance.

The evidence for anything comes from what we have in that present moment. We bring together what we see of the remnants of the past and how things are happening now.

Of great importance to evolutionary theory is the fossil record. It is analyzed in terms of homologies - shared similarities. We are able to name animals because they come in very distinct species: cats, dogs, giraffes. We also note that there exist similarities between different species - the three mentioned have spinal columns and four legs, and so on.

It is also looked at in time, where it fits in the geological strata and by means of radioactive dating, and also in terms of the spatial distribution in parts of the world that would have been together before undergoing tectonic shifts. Information from different sources is fit together. Again, we are talking about things that we put together from what evidence we have and how it feels right to us - sort of like a mosaic, not quite a jigsaw puzzle. And, behind what feels right has to do with grace, inspiration and illusion.

To be continued . . .
 
Last edited:
The assumption is that species that bear similar physical characteristics are linked to a common ancestor as they are within the same species. There would have been a creature with fur, four legs, fed its babies with its milk, etc. , whose offspring over time changed in different directions. It is at that point that people also diverge - in their thinking.

You will read people saying it was random genetic change - the effect of glitches in the system, viruses, radiation, toxins or some other physical influence. You might say it was the work of God. If one considers that there is a lot more to becoming a zebra or dog than just the outward appearance, that there are very significant alterations in the internal organs, how they work individually and come together, it is clear to many that there is more required than random genetic change. And, this is supported by the evidence.

When one also considers that along with the physical changes there are even greater instinctual differences, the idea of mere genetic mutation being responsible for the complex diversity we see in nature, becomes less convincing. These psychological differences are accompanied by what we find in their brains, but have to do with more than just matter. One’s pet is not a person, but they are pretty close to being little people, with their particular likes, dislikes and quirks. It makes more sense at this point to think of the soul as primary and expressed through the body.

In addition to comparing the gross anatomies of different living things, we can study them at a cellular level. Plant cells and animal cells have much in common and only a few things that are different. While this is seen as clear evidence that all life has a common ancestor, it makes more sense that God used what works to create all life.

We also compare the embryological development of animals looking for similarities. Additionally, there are vestigial structures within individual organisms and transitional forms that appeared between species existing at different times. Some think that adaptation and evolution are one and the same. Others feel that they are separate, and that the actual reality of species, not necessarily how we divide them up into categories, was created by God as something new and different as part of, and with the potential to change with their environment.

Evidence is also drawn from genetic experimentation. While it may be automatically taken into the theory of evolution, there is nothing there revealed that conflicts with understandings that involve creation or design, which to me to provide a more comprehensive picture of our existence.

What may be termed artificial selection, the breeding of horses and dogs is sometimes touted as evidence for evolution. Again, it is adaptation and it more demonstrates God’s creativity in how He might bring a peacock into existence, His angels entering the peahen’s dream of the perfect male.

This is sounding very non-scientific. Pity.
 
Last edited:
I Don’t understand how this works.Lets take the second creature for a example, I will call him w2-r. If it takes about 15 million years for the whale to evolve.Then it would mean w2-r should have been around for at least a couple thousand years.

During this time thousands more w2-r are being reproduced. At some point in time a mutation causes w2-r to upgrade and become w2-r1.0 …BUT …w2-r are still out there reproducing offspring and surviving why should they die out ?
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
BUT …w2-r are still out there reproducing offspring and surviving why should they die out ?
Click to expand...
Does w3-r hunt the same prey as w2-r? If they do, then the earlier model will eventually die out because the efficient new model is reducing their food supply.

If they do not hunt the same prey, then there is no direct competition between them and w2-r is just another mammal species. On average a mammal species will last about one million years before it goes extinct. Given that it had already been around for some time before w3-r evolved then on average it would have disappeared less than a million years after the appearance of w3-r.

General causes of extinction include a new predator, a new disease and environmental change reducing the food supply.

rossum
 
Last edited:
Of course it is. The word “theory” here does not have the same meaning as “hypothesis”, it’s treated as fact for which abundant evidence, such as convergent evolution (the reason why hyenas look like dogs despite being closely related to feline species), exists. Theory has the same meaning here as “game theory” or “systems theory”, i.e theoretical fact put forward with the help of reasoning and empirical evidence. Catholics should be proud that the theory of evolution is so widely accepted as fact, as the modern theory is a synthesis of Darwin’s work, which builds on foundations left by catholic scientist Jean Baptise Lamarck, and Mendel, a catholic priest whose work on genetic inheritance is the reason we know what a gene is today.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
BUT …w2-r are still out there reproducing offspring and surviving why should they die out ?
Click to expand...
Does w3-r hunt the same prey as w2-r? If they do, then the earlier model will eventually die out because the efficient new model is reducing their food supply.

If they do not hunt the same prey, then there is no direct competition between them and w2-r is just another mammal species. On average a mammal species will last about one million years before it goes extinct. Given that it had already been around for some time before w3-r evolved then on average it would have disappeared less than a million years after the appearance of w3-r.

General causes of extinction include a new predator, a new disease and environmental change reducing the food supply.

rossum
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about w2-r making a big evolutionary jump to creature #3. I’m just talking about a tiny little change to w2-r so that now he becomes w2-r1.0

Why would w2-r upgrading to w2-r1.0 cause w2-r to die out ?
 
Last edited:
Mendel’s work was found after Darwin published his theory. The theory of darwinian evolution was published prior to the modern understanding of genetics.
 
Last edited:
I know, our modern theory of evolution combines both. Darwin’s natural selection and Mendel’s mechanism for passing on characteristics favorable for survival to offspring (genes)
 
Last edited:
Catholics should be questioning. No emotion words. Just good questions.
 
Last edited:
But Darwin’s work was not founded on Mendel’s work.
One would hope that modern scientists would synthesize both, but sadly many are neo Darwinists and stuck in a mindset that doesn’t extend beyond the basics of Darwinism beyond what was originally posted by the man himself (this is especially true of the mass populace).
Sadly, microbiology and evolutionary biology are both too complex for one to have a great study in both (indeed, the days of the men who knew everything are sadly over as fields grow into increasingly complicated and complex realms of study).

I personally think epigenetics is doing things to help Lamarck’s ideas, which is interesting.

Like all things in science, it is good to approach it with healthy skepticism, so as to improve the theory with modern findings.
 
Healthy skepticism yes, but one cannot deny that, no matter what version of the theory is followed, Darwin’s certainly on to something. Not including Mendel in the picture does not disprove him, it just leaves it more incomplete
 
Is the theory of evolution true? Yes, it makes the most sense of the physical data.
 
I have a question for the Catholics:

If ID is true and evolution is not, then why are some animal species capable of breeding, but their offspring are non-viable? Why can a tiger and a lion make a liger? Why can a horse and a donkey make a mule? Why can a zebra and a horse make a zorse? But a chimp can’t mate with a gorilla and there are no humanzees. Why are there no tiger-horse “torses” or whale-fish “whishes”?

The evolutionary explanation is simple: the species diverged only recently from a common ancestor, and their genetic makeup is similar enough that they can interbreed; but their genetic makeup is not so similar that their offspring will be viable. They are, in fact, different species of the cat family, the horse family, etc.

I’d very much like to see how the Bible or church teachings edifies us on the crossbreeding of near species.
 
Last edited:
Same reasons. If the x.1 version is an improvement then it will catch more of the available prey. Being the x.1 version then t almost certainly hunts the same prey. Standard natural selection will ensure that the more efficient predator has more offspring, so those genes will overwhelm the earlier genes by, effectively, compound interest.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top