Transitional fossils and observed evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter awfulthings9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll have to say that I’m really disappointed that nobody from the other side of the argument has jumped in here. That would have been most helpful as I could see a more immediate exchange of ideas and information. As it is, I can go someplace like Answers in Genesis and relay the information to you for feedback, but I don’t get to see the dialogue I had hoped for.
Since I discovered AIG had altered the statements of scientists to make it appear that they believed things they did not, I have no respect for that group. If they consider the truth to be the enemy, then they are not with God.
You’ve presented a very strong case (at least in absence of an opponent in the discussion) for the transitional fossils that indicate evolutionary change, even from one kind to another.
You’ve also made a strong case (in this most recent post) for the very probable role that random mutations, along with the impersonal (though certainly not random) force of natural selection (along with other impersonal factors, I would guess, such as genetic drift) turning those random mutations into an orderly progression from simple life to human life.
So, where does this leave God?
Still the Creator. As the Pope says, even contingency can be used by God. If He made the world, wouldn’t it work the way He intended?
I understand that evolution explains the physical body, but not the creation of the soul, but as to how this particular body - the shape and characteristics of a human - came about, rather than having the soul of man end up in a body that looked more like an antelope?
In other words, if we looked different, would it matter? I don’t think so.
Do you personally believe that God had a hand in guiding which mutations should arise in order to give man his final form?
God has a hand in guiding the spin of subatomic particles. The hand of God is a lot more basic than jiggling the rules to make mutations.
Or do you believe that God knew that random mutation through natural selection would ultimately result in the most “perfect” biological form, into which he would place the soul of man (and with his omniscience, he knew from the beginning what that biological form would be)?
If He is omniscient, then I don’t see how anyone can say otherwise.
Or perhaps God enginered nature in such a way that the natural forces would “naturally” select the appropriate mutations to result in the first man?
“Engineering” would be the wrong word. That’s what creatures do. God creates.
Or other options???
Possibly. I know He’s behind it. Precisely how, I don’t know. But I trust He’s doing it right.
 
Not all animals are fossilized. We don’t have every T-Rex that has walked the earth on display. Also, evolution takes million of years to take hold of a species. A transitional species may only be in existence for 20,000 years, with just a minor, minor variance in the DNA. Since fossils are hard to come by, the chances of finding this minute difference is extremely hard to find, mathematically speaking. For example, let’s observe a species of frogs. A frog is born with a genetic mutation. We compare this frog with a “control frog” (we use this control frog as a representative of the original frog species). They look exactly the same. Over the years, this mutated gene spreads to the whole species. This new species is so similar to the control that we don’t know the difference. Over millions of years, genetic mutation after another come up, and only after those millions of years can we see the difference.
 
Not all animals are fossilized. We don’t have every T-Rex that has walked the earth on display. Also, evolution takes million of years to take hold of a species. A transitional species may only be in existence for 20,000 years, with just a minor, minor variance in the DNA. Since fossils are hard to come by, the chances of finding this minute difference is extremely hard to find, mathematically speaking. For example, let’s observe a species of frogs. A frog is born with a genetic mutation. We compare this frog with a “control frog” (we use this control frog as a representative of the original frog species). They look exactly the same. Over the years, this mutated gene spreads to the whole species. This new species is so similar to the control that we don’t know the difference. Over millions of years, genetic mutation after another come up, and only after those millions of years can we see the difference.
Thanks. So, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Barbarian - Is it lack of information on the other side (creationists)? Semantics? Dishonesty?

By the way, I see in your profile that you are aspiring for the priesthood. I’ll pray for you.
 
Thanks. So, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Barbarian - Is it lack of information on the other side (creationists)? Semantics? Dishonesty?
Ignorance is usually a component. I can’t believe some of the professional creationists would use that stuff, if they knew how absurd it is.

On the other hand, there are demonstrated instances of outright dishonesty (most commonly editing statements to change the meaning).

I think the motivation is the fear that if they discover that their beliefs are wrong in any way, all is lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top