Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We see different kinds of animals. The Serengeti, is one big niche that fits all sorts of creatures. But, what we have are distinct species that would have taken a very long time according to the evolution model, given the complexity that arises from each modification on how the whole organism works. I’m sorry but even though everyone is fed this same story, if you try to tease out what it involves, it just makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I’m agnostic, and not atheist, is that there is currently a complete lack of good scientific theories of mind-- not so much how brain affects content of experience in detail, because that’s well known. But why is it that any physical system, including the brain, would be conscious rather than not? So far science has almost nothing to say, and psychogony is a philosophical problem rather than a scintific one.

I’m also down with challenges to material monism. QM research shows that the building blocks of nature are so far from our normal view of things oriented in space behaving consistently, that I think it’s near a philosophical crisis point.

I don’t have a problem with the idea of evolution in general though. It’s pretty obvious to me that traits are inherited, and I see no reason why given enough time, inherited traits wouldn’t accumulate into massive changes to a species.

In the end, I feel both sides are a bit in error: I think (atheist) scientists are too unwilling to admit that there are a LOT of gaps in which you could find God actually influencing the Universe, and I think Christians (especially Catholics?) are much to obsessed with the Bible as the word OF God rather than as ancient people’s attempts to put into words the inexpressible. If God is real, God is living, and I don’t think dwelling in ancient texts is the best way to connect with that; nor do I think it’s possible for science, if done sincerely, to be against God or religion.
 
When the Garden spider ( Argiope aurantia) reach the point of knowing how to make a web,was there other Garden spiders ( Argiope aurantia) that did not have the ability to make a web ?
 
benjamin1973 said:
One of the reasons I’m agnostic, and not atheist, is that there is currently a complete lack of good scientific theories of mind-- not so much how brain affects content of experience in detail, because that’s well known. But why is it that any physical system, including the brain, would be conscious rather than not? So far science has almost nothing to say, and psychogony is a philosophical problem rather than a scintific one.

I’m also down with challenges to material monism. QM research shows that the building blocks of nature are so far from our normal view of things oriented in space behaving consistently, that I think it’s near a philosophical crisis point.

I don’t have a problem with the idea of evolution in general though. It’s pretty obvious to me that traits are inherited, and I see no reason why given enough time, inherited traits wouldn’t accumulate into massive changes to a species.

In the end, I feel both sides are a bit in error: I think (atheist) scientists are too unwilling to admit that there are a LOT of gaps in which you could find God actually influencing the Universe, and I think Christians (especially Catholics?) are much to obsessed with the Bible as the word OF God rather than as ancient people’s attempts to put into words the inexpressible. If God is real, God is living, and I don’t think dwelling in ancient texts is the best way to connect with that; nor do I think it’s possible for science, if done sincerely, to be against God or religion.
Click to expand...
Have you read the four Gospels ?
 
I have read this objection to the Bible many times. Yes, it does contain parables, poems and other things but it is quite definitive about certain things, especially Jesus Christ who established the Catholic (meaning Universal) Church. I was talking with an atheist in the 1970s, and he said, “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” Now science cannot invite God to visit a lab for some blood work and some demonstrations of miraculous, non-science based, powers. You know, like wheeling in a corpse and having God bring him back to life.

Various Popes have asked ‘science’ for a working relationship but that’s not going anywhere. As far as the Old Testament, Jesus makes references to it in the New Testament. However, even the best examples can be ignored. And raising the dead? “You got any evidence for that?” Fair enough.

For a very long time, intellectuals have talked about the “leap of faith” since it was felt like it was jumping onto a cloud and falling right through. Some did take that leap and ended up with the Church.
 
Let’s say there’s one species: the Benjaminosaurus. Some will be smarter than others; their survival advantage will come from that. Some will be strong than others; their survival advantage will come from that. Some will require less food or water than others; their survival advantage will come from that.

Please get this point, as it’s important: individual members of a species vary in different ways. Look at people for an example, and specifically mate selection. Some females will choose the strongest most aggressive man. Some will choose the smartest, the most socially skilled, the most loyal, etc. These are different traits that all affect reproductive fitness in humans.

Now, if you separated human populations so that they were isolated for a long time, what would happen? In hot places, people would get increasingly black skin (this has happened). In cold places, people would get increasingly white skin (this has also happened). That’s because due to the physics of sunlight and how coloration affects heat transfer, darker or lighter-skinned people do well in different climates.
 
Yes, I have read the New Testament from front to back maybe ten times, and the entire Bible, including the Behoozeboo begat Jehasebahs, at least once (I think twice, but I can’t exactly remember).
 
Rau said:
40.png
Aloysium:
It’s inconsistent with reason.
Click to expand...
Right, no way could spiders evolve a better web! Ridiculous!!
Click to expand...
Yeah, they probably started out with a little line of web on the ground to try and trip up their prey.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Yes, I have read the New Testament from front to back maybe ten times, and the entire Bible, including the Behoozeboo begat Jehasebahs, at least once (I think twice, but I can’t exactly remember).
Click to expand...
You have to WANT to believe.
 
I don’t object to the Bible itself. I object to forced interpretations of the Bible that seem to be politically based, and to an overemphasis on Scripture rather than on a search for evidence of a living God. If there are things in the Bible which are contradictory, instead of spinning some yarn about why this guys’ cubit was different from that guy’s cubit or whatever, I really think it’s better to say, “Well, those were obviously estimates, so they were slightly different. No biggy.” But some Christians will say, “Blasphemy. The Bible is infallible!” and so on.

For non-Christians, that kind of rabid adherence to Biblical infallibility is a bit of a turn off.
 
If God wants me to want to believe, then I’m sure I will. I have in the past, and may again in the future, but I doubt very much that it will be in response to religious institutions (like the Catholic church), and I’m quite sure it won’t be because I’m convinced of the accuracy of the Bible as a historical reference and an expression of literal truth about cosmogony.

I’m much more likely to see the face of God in quantum mechanics, in dreams, or in philosophical insight, I think. None of these really require me to accept a doctrine on faith.
 
Last edited:
That in fact probably is pretty close. But they wouldn’t trip their prey, they might catch it in in a sticky line of goo.
 
Last edited:
No species ever reaches for anything. That’s not what evolution means. A species is just a label for a group of animals which have certain characteristics: physically or behaviorally.
 
Nothing ever “bothers.” Creatures have different traits, either through natural variation or mutation, and some traits benefit the creatures and some don’t. If they do, the creatures will reproduce, and the successful traits will be reproduced along with them.

Let’s look at say a slug. Slimy! Well, maybe some slug slime is more toxic than others, and ends up with trails of little dead bugs on it. If the slug can eat those bugs, it now has a real winning advantage. But the slug wasn’t waiting around for slime so it could become what it is.
 
Last edited:
That’s my problem with it. Existing traits I get, but complete transformations?
 
benjamin1973 said:
Let’s look at say a slug. Slimy! Well, maybe some slug slime is more toxic than others, and ends up with trails of little dead bugs on it.
Click to expand...
But, less toxic slugs would still be out there too… surviving and reproducing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top