Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Eric_Hyom]

A computer model of evolution

The nearest I have seen is the Nilsson Pelger evolution of the eye lens. This only works because eight goals have been set and the computer is programmed to work towards these goals. As we know, mutation and natural selection are not goal driven.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So we have a theory which is based on the evidence and yet you will reject it without having an alternative.

You said, I’ll go with the one that best matches the evidence until something better comes up.

So if the evidence was really convincing, why would you think something better could turn up

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If the evidence was truly convincing, then we would not be having all these arguments.

That’s like saying there’s no compelling evidence of the Earth’s shape. Evidence exists. Some people refuse to accept it. That doesn’t make it any less true.

The nearest I have seen is the Nilsson Pelger evolution of the eye lens. This only works because eight goals have been set and the computer is programmed to work towards these goals. As we know, mutation and natural selection are not goal driven.

Like I said, there are so many factors that have to be added to a simulation that we simply can’t achieve it at this moment in time. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it just means we can’t do it right now.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So we have a theory which is based on the evidence and yet you will reject it without having an alternative.

You said, I’ll go with the one that best matches the evidence until something better comes up.

So if the evidence was really convincing, why would you think something better could turn up

That was partly toungue in cheek. But science always gets better. We always learn more. We build on our knowledge base. Evolution today has moved on in leaps and bounds since Darwin’s day. We know things now that he could never envisage.

But you don’t have anything on which to build. You have nothing else to offer. Your ideas as to what ocurred will never become more accurate. They won’t improve. They will never in fact be challenged. Because you don’t have an alternative to challenge.

You bring nothing to the table. Nobody can disagree with you because you aren’t offering anything to argue against.

 

[buffalo]

A computer model of evolution wouldn’t operate at levels where chance is a concept.

A computer model has programmed (name removed by moderator)uts and is intelligently designed.

 

[buffalo]

What is clear is that at some stage(s) the instinct(s) to survive and reproduce arose. Having arisen, they carried substantial evolutionary advantages. They are today among the most powerful instincts of humanity.

I would call that the animating principle, the soul.

 

[buffalo]

until something better comes up.

It is here, it is called intelligent design.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Nobody can disagree with you because you aren’t offering anything to argue against.

I believe the first sentence in the Bible to be an absolute truth, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

The whole of this argument questions the existence of God. If Evolution happened as Darwin explained, then Genesis is wrong. I believe that God made Adam from the dust of the ground so we don’t share any common ancestors, even though our DNA is nearly identical.

All the above rests on faith and trust in God, we have some evidence, and we use logic and reason.

The creation of the universe and life is history, and we can’t change history. Either at least one God created the universe, or there is no creator God. If God the creator of all that is seen and unseen exists, then we should search for him.

Have a good day,
Eric

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Like I said, there are so many factors that have to be added to a simulation that we simply can’t achieve it at this moment in time. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it just means we can’t do it right now.

Does that mean that the Nilsson Pelger paper on the evolution of the eye lens; can’t be treated as real evidence?

 

[PickyPicky]

I would call that the animating principle, the soul.

Right. Part of the animating principle, though, presumably. So the soul, which as I understand it is in humans not bounded by death, includes the flight/fight response and the desire to procreate. Does it contain other what I would call instincts? Presumably some impulse that seeks God? Perhaps what we call the conscience?

I’d be interested to know which of our instinctive motivations in your view have their seat in the soul.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Does that mean that the Nilsson Pelger paper on the evolution of the eye lens; can’t be treated as real evidence?

Kinda, yeah. It’s not a real model of evolution. It shows the mechanism leads to results, but the mechanism is used in the wrong way. It’s not a full proof, but it proves something.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I believe the first sentence in the Bible to be an absolute truth, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

So do I, but your interpretation of this phrase is obviously different than mine.

 

[buffalo]

Right. Part of the animating principle, though, presumably. So the soul, which as I understand it is in humans not bounded by death, includes the flight/fight response and the desire to procreate. Does it contain other what I would call instincts? Presumably some impulse that seeks God? Perhaps what we call the conscience?

I’d be interested to know which of our instinctive motivations in your view have their seat in the soul.

All life has the basic animating principle and when it is removed the organism dies. The fact life tries to survive and strives to reproduce is a result of this animating principle. This is a supernatural force.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

until something better comes up.

It is here, it is called intelligent design.

I’d give it a shot but…I did say ‘best matches the evidence’.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Nobody can disagree with you because you aren’t offering anything to argue against.

I believe the first sentence in the Bible to be an absolute truth, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

The whole of this argument questions the existence of God. If Evolution happened as Darwin explained, then Genesis is wrong.

I asked for your idea as to how it happened and your answer is…Genesis. There really is no more to be discussed. I don’t know why some on this forum are so reticent about admitting that they read the bible literally. If that was explained at the outset then these threads would be about a half dozen posts long at best.

Why on earth cast doubt on the science when, from where you stand, the evidence on which it is based is nonexistant in any case.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I asked for your idea as to how it happened and your answer is…Genesis.

This is a Catholic forum so you shouldn’t be too surprised.

There really is no more to be discussed. I don’t know why some on this forum are so reticent about admitting that they read the bible literally.

Some on this forum have said that random mutation and natural selection offers the complete answer to the complexities of life we see today. They give evolution the same kind of power as God. Yet we do not have the evidence that evolution could happen purely by natural causes.

If evolution happened, I truthfully believe that it could not happen without God to guide it; life is too complex. The skeletal system is just a bunch of levers connected together for movement. Our best robotic engineers struggle to replicate the versatile movements of our bodies. Which has to mean that the mechanics of our bodies are more complex than any other structure we have engineered so far.

Once God had created everything according to its kind, then natural selection makes a lot of sense.

We are all stuck with inconclusive evidence that we interpret; so for us; it is more a matter of faith.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I asked for your idea as to how it happened and your answer is…Genesis.

This is a Catholic forum so you shouldn’t be too surprised.

It’s not a surpise. It’s simply confirmation of your position. Others hold to it as well and reject the science because of that. It’s simply not possible to hold to two conflicting versions of how we came to this point. You have to reject one or the other.

I’m pretty certain that you haven’t declared your position previously. Holding to it is not surprising. That you haven’t admitted to it until now is.

 

[Buzzard3]

What is clear is that at some stage(s) the instinct(s) to survive and reproduce arose.

How? Wait … I’m guessing a “mutation” for the instinct to survive popped into existence.

Yep, Darwinism can explain everything … but what a pity theories that can’t be tested don’t qualify as science - there just stories (aka, Darwinist folklore).

Having arisen, they carried substantial evolutionary advantages. They are today among the most powerful instincts of humanity.

The instinct to survive carried substantial evolutionary advantages … no kidding?

So what is your alternative?

My alternative is to admit that at this stage, science has no convincing explanation for the Cambrian explosion. A supernatural Creator is a pretty good alternative.

 

[Buzzard3]

The process is evolution.

Prove to me that the process that allowed a bird to allegedly evolve from a reptile is neo-Darwinism, aka the modern synthesis. You can’t … so your claim to “know” what process was involved is baloney.

Then you have no explanation for the origin of birds

My explanation for the origin of birds is …. God. No one can know possibly know the origin of birds.

while evolution does have an explanation as well as evidence supporting that explanation.

Big deal … an explanation that can’t be tested isn’t science, buy just a story … blowing smoke.

Then your God is not omnipotent, because His inability to use evolution renders Him unable to do something that humans can do. Humans have caused the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as MRSA, by their use of antibiotics.

… except I didn’t say God didn’t use ‘evolution’.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, you don’t seem to have any ideas. And if you don’t have any other explanation I guess there are just the two options. I’ll go with the one that best matches the evidence until something better comes up.

Darwinism is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but it’s a rather poor explanation. If you ask me, the explanation that fits the evidence the best is God.

As an atheist, you have no choice but to go with the scientific explanation … so your judgement is just a tad biased.

I am also waiting for something better than the ToE to turn up. If the evidence was truly convincing, then we would not be having all these arguments.

Freddy is an atheist, and an atheist doesn’t need much convincing when it comes to the Darwinian explanation for the history of life … in fact, an atheist really has no choice but to believe that all life on earth evolved from a bug via a natural process … in which case the evidence (or lack of it) is secondary and of little concern.

The whole of this argument questions the existence of God. If Evolution happened as Darwin explained, then Genesis is wrong. I believe that God made Adam from the dust of the ground so we don’t share any common ancestors, even though our DNA is nearly identical.

What about the idea of God taking the DNA from a pre-existing creature and creating Adam from it. That original DNA could be the “dust/clay” described in Genesis 2:7, from which Adam was created. That scenario seems to satisfy both scripture and science.

If life on earth began with God creating a prokaryote, he could have used the process of taking DNA from a pre-existing creature to create a ‘new model’ to create all life on earth, including Adam.

I would call that the animating principle, the soul.

Complete and utter nonsense. Everyone knows that even rocks possess a survival instinct - how do you think they survive? Oceans - obviously - also possess a survival instinct. The first life-forms came from the ocean (with probably a little bit of rock thrown in), so the first-life forms would have had a survival instinct as well. Think!!