Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

[Glark]

That second creature must have really knew how to dog paddle fast to avoid the sharks all those millions of years.

Good point. I reckon the hole in the top of the head might have come about by the creature being struck by a very small meteorite. From there it evolved into an airway for breathing.

 

[rossum]

Just consider all genus and let’s assume that one organism came into being by random chances.

That is a false assumption. Chemistry is not “random chance”, chemistry has some very definite rules on how different chemicals can, and cannot, combine.

For the origin of sexual reproduction, Google Scholar gives me over 950,000 hits.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Scriptures must be lying when it says God ceased his creative work on the seventh Day. If God used evolution to create, and evolution is still happening, then the creative process hasn’t ceased, but is still in progress.

Erm… Didn’t God create the physical body of Jesus after the seventh day? At the very least He must have created a Y-chromosome to impart to Mary in order for her to have a male child. Or have I missed some abstruse theological point here?

rossum

 

[FiveLinden]

Erm… Didn’t God create the physical body of Jesus after the seventh day? At the very least He must have created a Y-chromosome to impart to Mary in order for her to have a male child. Or have I missed some abstruse theological point here?

rossum

Why would God not have made Jesus as a clone of Mary and made him appear male to others? That would make the best biological sense and is less complex than creating a Y-chromosone. So Jesus may have been a woman, made to appear male. Why not?

 

[IWantGod]

No - micro evolution is adaptation or variation within. Natural Selection

And that involves changes in the organism, changes to its nature. These incremental changes clearly involve the potential for macro evolution.

Evolution accounts for the difference between the creatures of today and creatures existing millions of years ago.

 

[rossum]

Why would God not have made Jesus as a clone of Mary and made him appear male to others? That would make the best biological sense and is less complex than creating a Y-chromosone. So Jesus may have been a woman, made to appear male. Why not?

Why not? Because Glark assures us that God stopped creating things after day six and your scenario requires God to create an appearance of maleness.

Remember that Glark’s God is no longer omnipotent, He lost the power to create 144 hours after He created the universe.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

A change in the environment – the arrival of poachers in significant numbers – drives a change in the DNA of animals living in that environment – fewer genes for large tusks.

Another change in the environment will drive another change in the DNA of animals in that environment. Evolution tracks changes in the environment and changes DNA to match those changes. In one environment large tusks are deleterious on average and so the genes for large tusks are disappearing from the population. If, later, large tusks become advantageous then those genes will increase in the population.

That is what evolution does: adjusts DNA to fit the environment.

rossum

This doesn’t reflect how evolution works.

Also, the example you provide of the elephant’s tusk is an adaptation, a capacity that is built-in to living organisms, and of which we take advantage in breeding animals. There is absolutely no proof for your claim of mutations driving the observed change.

Animals exist as parts of their environment. It is a relationship. The individual animal’s adaptability to its environment allows for its either reproducing or not. On the other hand, the environment chooses, albeit blindly. “Evolution” does not track anything. Evolution is a concept that represents what appears to have happened as the world changed in time.

Actually, Darwinism does not explain evolution, the appearance of a growing complexity of organisms over long periods of time.

There do occur mutations and the phenotype must be in sync with the organisms environment in order for it to survive until it produces offspring. We use the term reproduces, but according to Darwinism it would be a misnomer, since the organisms do not reproduce themselves if the offspring are of a different genetic make-up. As one example of a mutation that worked out, we observe that asymmetry may not necessarily be a detriment in the case of the founder. A story about its origins would include its ability to survive feeding on the bottom of the ocean, which also gives it some protection from predators. Looking at nature in general, such phenomena are rare.

Darwinism is in vogue because it fits the agenda of modern society in its worldly pursuits. It is easily adopted and propagated because the terms are poorly defined, it misuses the authority and power of science, and provides an interesting, although superficial story that links us to all creation. Unlike religions which draw on the Truth, it is more of a delusion, consisting of unproved assumptions are presented as justification for the belief.

 

[Aloysium]

Evolution accounts for the difference between the creatures of today and creatures existing millions of years ago.

Please provide proof for this, defining exactly what you mean when you use the term evolution.

 

[Aloysium]

We are each a new creation at the time of our conception.
The fundamental structure of the universe was created in the first six “days”.
The universe is maintained, that is it is brought into existence, each and every moment, each and every place, each here and now from eternity, the absolute Here and Now that is the Triune Godhead.

 

[rossum]

There is absolutely no proof for your claim of mutations driving the observed change.

Please read what I posted, not what you think I posted. The change in genes was driven by poachers eliminating some genes via artificial selection. It was not driven by mutations.

If you cannot differentiate between the two different processes of mutation and selection then you will have a very difficult time understanding how evolution woks.

Mutation increases the amount of variation in a population; selection reduces the amount of variation. The dynamic tension between the two processes keeps the population close to a local optimum for the environment. As with the presence of poachers, a change in the environment will shift the optimum and the population will track that change.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We are each a new creation at the time of our conception.

No we are not. My Cytochrome-C is the same as my parents’ and the same as all my ancestors back until before those ancestors split from chimpanzees’ ancestors. Both ourselves and chimps have identical Cytochrome-Cs.

If you are talking about a soul, then you need to realise that Buddhism does not recognise a semi-immortal soul as Christianity does.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

That is the story they push.

 

[PickyPicky]

A trivial side issue: do you think it’s really accurate to call it artificial selection? I would have thought AS is where humans are deliberately selecting which organisms mate or reproduce in order to reduce the chance of traits ‘a’ dominating a population and increase the chance of traits ‘b’ doing so. The poachers aren’t doing this; their actions are devoid of selective intent. The arrival of poachers is the same as the arrival of any other predator (I would have thought) and results in natural selection being brought to bear. You think?

 

[Aloysium]

Prove genetic mutation. The mechanism you describe is a hypothesis.

 

[Aloysium]

There exists a similarity between the Cytochrome-C in my body and your body and that of chimpanzees. This isn’t some startling, earth-shattering discovery. We all have brains, livers, spleens, blood and so on. One does not have to appeal to chemicals to note a similarity of physical structure. This does not mean we are apes. We are a new creation, having a physical structure that is like other organisms in order for us to exist in time and space. We have bigger brains in order to be able to appreciate the structure that underlies appearance, the beauty of creation, to have a sense of reality and to ulimately exercise a free will that is not possessed by other creatures, who perceive, feel and act on instinct alone.

Your Cytochrome-C is created from compounds external to you. It is not the same as your ancestors. There is nothing now physically left of what was once a part of your parents’ bodies. What you call yours is in fact predominantly the remnants of creatures that once were. To whom does it belong?

If one doesn’t immediately grasp the truth to which the word “soul” points, it can get confusing. One might consider asking the squirrel sitting outside the window what it thinks of reason, beauty, goodness, death, love and God. It will prove to be a very enlightening dialogue, that will teach much about what is life.

 

[buffalo]

Sure, everything came from no-thing is better, that way there is not a moral standard one has to adhere to.

 

[buffalo]

Rules? Rules are made by a rule maker.

 

[buffalo]

Lewontin is the guy who says " we cannot let the divine foot in the door".

 

[Techno2000]

I reckon the hole in the top of the head might have come about by the creature being struck by a very small meteorite.

Yes, the meteorite was guided by the hand of evolution.

 

[rossum]

There exists a similarity between the Cytochrome-C in my body and your body and that of chimpanzees.

Not “similar”, identical. No difference. There is a 1 in 2.3 x 1093 chance of that. A Rhesus monkey has one amino acid difference from the human/chimp version. That is the sort of detailed underlying evidence supporting the tree of descent.

This does not mean we are apes.

We are Hominidae along with Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. The word “ape” is ambiguous, having different meanings in standard English (humans not included) and in biology (humans included).

There is nothing now physically left of what was once a part of your parents’ bodies.

False. All of the atoms that made up their bodies still exist. My mother is still using all her current set of atoms at this moment.

As to soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

rossum