Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Because we can observe that predator-prey ratios are not constant today, and we can observe that predator-prey ratios are not constant in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
How in the world do we know what the predator-prey ratios were millions or billions of years ago ?
 
vz71 said:
Indeed.
It would appear that a beneficial mutation would have to benefit within a single generation.
Click to expand...
Probably, but not necessarily. If the mutation was neutral, it might persist in for a few generations until something external happened that made the mutation be beneficial. For example, suppose the mutation made the creature better able to withstand drought. But there was no drought. So the mutation was not an immediate benefit. But it was not bad either. So it might persist. Then later there is a drought. That mutation suddenly becomes a benefit and dominates the species.

Or, the mutation might do nothing at all, and hang around for a few generations until another mutation came along and the two mutations together conferred a benefit. Then they would both dominate.

There are infinitely many ways this could play out.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Evolution is prompted to make changes to animals in order for it to survive in a new environment.
Click to expand...
Not strictly changes to the animals themselves. Changes to the overall DNA of the whole population. Each animal keeps its own DNA until it dies. As old animals die and new ones are born/hatch/whatever the DNA of the population changes. “Organisms reproduce; populations evolve.” It is an error to think that individual animals evolve.
Techno2000 said:
But how can a animal wait for evolution to make these changes when it needs to survive in its new environment immediately ?
Click to expand...
The animal’s parents were good enough to survive and reproduce in the environment. Thus the animal itself will likely also be good enough to survive and reproduce in that environment. If it has a deleterious mutation then it will not survive and reproduce quite as well. If it has a beneficial mutation then it will survive and reproduce a bit better.

If its parents survived and reproduced, then it is already within the boundaries of being able to survive and reproduce.

rossum
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of evolution jumping into action to provide the necessary adaptations for an animal to use for its survival in a new environment. Please be specific if you can.
 
I will have to hunt it down. Now that the Catholic Church has sold out to a fairy tale about billions of evolution, the date of Adam’s creation has been all but forgotten. But it’s there somewhere. It was mentioned in the previous thread, by edwest or buffalo, I think, and its very close to the Jewish calculation.
I’ve heard of Ussher, but I think the orthodox Jews would have a better understanding of it than he. There are no weird interpretations used to come to the figure- it’s based on a very straight-forward and literal reading of the genealogies recorded in the Bible, and I think the year the Septuagint was written is utilised as well.
 
Species are categories defined by mankind, reflecting our capacity to name things. There is a reality attached to the idea, and it has to do with the soul of the organism.

Single cell creatures will feel/taste/smell/see/hear some particle that they bump into within their environment and instinctively engulf or transfer a plasmid to it depending on its nature. This is all built in to what they are.

Those which multicellular, grow from one to become a matrix of many specialized cells that express the particular structure and functions that constitute that organism.

There is a different type of soul necessary for the wholeness that is a bacterium compared to a plant or animal. What needs to happen is for everything to work together within complex creatures. And, this wholeness must exist not only within the organism, but also within the environment if which it is an integral part.

There are jumps in the nature of the being that on a lowest level is an atom or molecule, to that which is a single cell organism, to that of a plant, and an animal. Within each ontological branch there are variations (cats, spiders, birds for examples of different types of animal) that differ greatly from one another. These jumps could have a number of possible causes. To say they have a common ancestry is not necessarily the case. That these result from random genetic mutation (systemic noise, radiation, toxins, viruses) is to me rationally absurd. Sickle cell and Mediterranean anemias would have resulted from such factors, and serendipitously have some survival value. The flounder, for all its weirdness has survived. These are the exceptions.

Think mathematics, or story telling, history, economics, everything we do by some miracle, in each moment of the day. How did what no animal can do, just happen by random? If the answer one comes up with is God, think how that happens. What is this spirit that I am? How does this all happen? Where do I come from? You will never find an answer through science, which must bow to the Truth.

You consider my opinion to be a prejudice. It’s actually a postjudice.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
We know from pure data that the earth and the universe are much, much older. This has nothing to do with evolution mind you.
Click to expand...
I am not a Younger Earther. The earth could be very much older than 5778 years. I believe the Scriptures allow for (maybe even suggest) a creation that existed before mankind appeared. The “six days” creation of Genesis 1 could have been a second creation, after the first creation was destroyed by a global flood (the result of which is described in Genesis 1:2).

As for “pure data”, that is a rather optimistic term. I’m sure the scientific community vastly exaggerates what the data suggests, in order to make lots of time for evolution to occur.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
All three of them had access to an inadequate fossil record. There is no need to explain anything away. We haven’t found all the intermediate fossils because we just haven’t found them.
Click to expand...
In a thousand years time, evolutionists will be resorting to exactly the same excuses.
 
There would also appear to be an infinite number of ways to reduce the odds of a random mutation combination actually being beneficial and lasting past a generation.

Given finite time, I am not so certain there is not some other mechanism involves them simply chance mutation.
 
Rau said:
Was every creature “kind” that has ever lived created in a literal 6x24 hour window?

Was that window several thousand (Glark would say 5778) years ago, or did this happen over millions of years?
Click to expand...
That’s not my position. I believe the Scriptures allow for the possibility of a creation that existed before the creation that occurred 5778 years ago.
 
rossum said:
What part of “in the fossil record” do you have a problem with?
Click to expand...
The one where scientists decide they have enough data to tell us the actual ratio of predator to prey.

I believe in this thread it has been shown that the record is not complete. But we need near completion to determine the ratio with any degree of certainty.
 
goout said:
Then you must show us the hammered dome in the sky. That’s what the bible says.
Click to expand...
If the six days can be read figuratively, then every other word in Genesis 1 can be read figuratively, in which case. it could mean just about anything. What is the figurative meaning of “earth” or “sun” or “the sea”? If the six days are not literal, then the reference to “days and years” in 1:14 is rendered meaningless. In Exodus 20:9-11, God directly compares the six literal days human work to the six days of creation - which is a rather odd thing to do,if billions of years of evolution is truth.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
Given finite time, I am not so certain there is not some other mechanism involves them simply chance mutation.
Click to expand...
There is another mechanism: natural selection. That heavily biases the odds in favour of spreading beneficial mutations and the disappearance of deleterious mutations.

rossum
 
A very good point. We are talking about a complex ecosystem, not just one animal.
 
We can be certain that the number of Ammonites as prey dropped to zero when they went extinct. We do not have the exact numbers, but we do have enough data to show that the numbers were not constant.

We do not know what Jesus had (if anything) for breakfast 22 days after His 17th birthday. The absence of complete and exact information does not mean that we have no information. Science is very used to working with error bars and approximate information.

rossum
 
vz71 said:
Natural selection does not mutate DNA.
Click to expand...
No it does not. Random mutation makes changes and natural selection selects the beneficial changes while suppressing the deleterious changes.

To understand evolution you need to understand random mutation, natural selection (and neutral drift for completeness).

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top