Recent peer reviewed paper overturns Neo Darwinian mathematical model

  • Thread starter Thread starter crai7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rabbi said:
Yes, I don’t have the sources on top of my head, but there are places in the Talmud and Zohar which speak of evolution, long before Darwin was born.
Click to expand...
So, you believe Adam and Eve were born from animal creatures?
 
No, the Talmud just says that G-d made Him with a tail until he managed the dignity (Erubin 18a, B.T.).

I don’t have the original text in front of me, and some disagree as to what it says, but one reading found in Bereshis Rabbah 23:9, is, “Up to the generation of Enoch the faces of people resembled those of monkeys.”

Also note Rav Avraham Kook’s letter in 1905 in response to a question concerning evolution and the geological age of the world:

“Even to the ancients, it was well known that there were many periods that preceded our counting of nearly six thousand years for the current era. According to the Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah 3:7), ‘G-d built worlds and destroyed them,’ before He created the universe as we know it. Even more astonishing, the Zohar (Vayikra 10a) states that there existed other species of human beings besides the ‘Adam’ who is mentioned in the Written Torah.”
 
niceatheist said:
Populations evolve to survive and take advantage of ecological niches.
Click to expand...
So, if the Amazon jungle climate changed slowly into a climate like that of the Arctic, would evolution transform the jungle organisms into Arctic organisms?
 
Last edited:
Evolution doesn’t transform organisms; it’s just a description of the gradual change in organisms throughout generations.

Yes, if the Amazon jungle climate changed slowly into a very cold climate, you’d see a few things happen:
Other species move in
Current species move out
Current species adapt and change
Current species die off
 
Do you not think that existing species adapt and change? Look at dogs. We have bred dogs so that they barely resemble their source material. We have, through selected breeding, caused dogs to adapt and change so that a giant Newfoundland can thrive moving heavy things in frigid, wet places while a rat terrier can thrive in warmer climates, chasing rats around and into small spaces.

There were no chihuahuas or great Danes 4,000 years ago; that species has changed.
 
HopkinsReb said:
Do you not think that existing species adapt and change? Look at dogs. We have bred dogs so that they barely resemble their source material. We have, through selected breeding, caused dogs to adapt and change so that a giant Newfoundland can thrive moving heavy things in frigid, wet places while a rat terrier can thrive in warmer climates, chasing rats around and into small spaces.

There were no chihuahuas or great Danes 4,000 years ago; that species has changed.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they are still dogs, and can go no further than that.
 
They were just wolves when they first started getting chummy with humans. Now they’re no longer wolves and cannot breed with wolves.

At what year exactly did evolution stop happening?

Also, see post above about scientists inducing speciation in fruit flies. Evolution has been produced in the laboratory.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Not as such, no. It’s just the nature of living populations.
Click to expand...
LOL. …
Click to expand...
Curious how you left out the contextual bit at the end. So this really isn’t about evolution as science, but about you trying to reassure yourself through the exercise of mockery.
 
HopkinsReb said:
At what year exactly did evolution stop happening?
Click to expand...
Evolution must of stop recently, because absolutely nothing can be seen morphing into something new, the clock started ticking so-called 4 billion years ago. :roll_eyes:
 
I believe that you can breed dogs with wolves…
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
because absolutely nothing can be seen morphing into something new
Click to expand...
Source?

Evolution is a really slow process, and it’s also quite stochastic. It’s only observable in retrospect, because it’s not something that we can mathematically predict the way that we can predict the trajectory of a projectile. Four million years is a blink of an eye in evolutionary time.
 
Last edited:
I seriously wonder if some of these dine and dash threads (the OP seems long gone) aren’t started by people who just want to bring the fundies out and make Catholicism look bad.
 
It is vague. Some species remain basically identical for hundreds of millions of years (so-called living fossils, like cockroaches) and others have made pretty substantial changes over the course of just a few million years. Partly dependent on the lifespan of the organism in question (flies have millions of generations in one sea turtle generation), partly dependent on environmental factors (cockroaches pretty much have reproduction and survival figured out, so natural selection doesn’t change them much).
 
HopkinsReb said:
It is vague. Some species remain basically identical for hundreds of millions of years (so-called living fossils, like cockroaches) and others have made pretty substantial changes over the course of just a few million years. Partly dependent on the lifespan of the organism in question (flies have millions of generations in one sea turtle generation), partly dependent on environmental factors (cockroaches pretty much have reproduction and survival figured out, so natural selection doesn’t change them much).
Click to expand...
When an environmental change comes along, a organism needs to be fit immediately, not millions of years down the road.
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
It is vague. Some species remain basically identical for hundreds of millions of years (so-called living fossils, like cockroaches) and others have made pretty substantial changes over the course of just a few million years. Partly dependent on the lifespan of the organism in question (flies have millions of generations in one sea turtle generation), partly dependent on environmental factors (cockroaches pretty much have reproduction and survival figured out, so natural selection doesn’t change them much).
Click to expand...
When an environmental change comes along, a organism needs to be fit immediately, not millions of years down the road.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by this, and I’m not sure how this supposedly disproves evolution.

If I’m reading you right, you’re suggesting that evolution can’t be right because an environmental change would kill off a species entirely basically immediately because they’re not already fit for it, so they wouldn’t have time to evolve?

Of course, this is how evolution works. Animals with traits that enable them to survive in an environment do so, and pass on those traits. Animals without them don’t survive and pass them on. Evolution is simply the word for fit organisms reproducing and unfit organisms dying off over millions of years.

Let’s be careful not to think of evolution as a driving force. It’s not “environmental change causes change in species’ traits.” It’s “environmental change changes which members of a population survive, which, over time, leads to a change in the population’s traits.” It is a descriptive term, not prescriptive.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top