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

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But, Buff assures us that scientists are going to throw out evolution any minute now! I’ve only been here two years so not long enough to see the eureka moment yet, I guess. :hugs:

Hang in there, Buff. Please don’t ask us to hold our breath, though…
I’ve been reading about evolution ever since The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris came out some time back in the late 60’s (sheesh, that seems like a long time back). And there is always something either on the shelf or in my Kindle that’s half read or just finished (Behave by Robert Sapolski at the moment).

Which doesn’t make me an expert. Very far from it. But it does keep me up to date with anything new. It does keep me informed as to new ideas. I read a lot of Steven J Gould’s stuff when it came out in the 70’s for example (punctuated equilibrium). Dawkins’ Selfish Gene and many others in the 80’s then Tooby and Cosmides take on evolutionary psychology in the nineties.

And what have I seen? Well, I’ve seen new ideas. I’ve seen new proposals. I’ve seen some theories fine tuned. I’ve seen aspects of others gradually lose traction. I’ve seen science in action. And my understanding of what evolution entails is a lot richer.

But what I most definitely have not seen is any refutation of the theory itself. Not at any time. By anyone. Except…by creationists and their buddies the ID mob. Except…by people like Buff in forums like this. And they’ll tell you that it’s all a-coming! That major changes are just around the corner! That a great unveiling of this monstrous fallacy will be upon us!

But it’s not. It never has been. And it never will. It’s all smoke and mirrors. But it’s entertaining up to a point. Just like Pen and Teller convincing you that what they do is impossible. But then they tell you that it is just smoke and mirrors. Part of their schtick is to tell you that they’re fooling you and how they are doing it. They want you to know you’re being fooled.

And when it comes to ID, people use the smoke and mirrors to try to convince you. But they themselves think the trick is real. They fool themselves.
 
Buffs God isn’t as smart. His God seems to have to be involved in all the design processes. He hasn’t the ability to foresee His plan evolve from start to finish (assuming we’re finished).
This is IDvolution, different from what you posted. Read slowly and reflect.

God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.
 
I rather think I’ve asked this before but without success. How many of these kinds would there have been, and when were they created? And one more: was Man one of these kinds?
 
I rather think I’ve asked this before but without success. How many of these kinds would there have been, and when were they created? And one more: was Man one of these kinds?
They were created in the beginning. Mankind is one of them.

How many? Genetic research is sorting that out.

The tree of life has fallen. The tangled bush contains much HGT and this must be filtered out to get the answer.
 
Where is your evidence of any deity directly creating even a single species?
One does not evidence that which is known by faith. If they could then the knowledge would not require faith.

Where is your evidence of any macroevolution event creating even a single species? Nada. You take that such an event occurred on faith.

And exactly what is a “species”?
 
Last edited:
How many of these kinds would there have been, and when were they created?
OK, let’s get fundamental.

How many kinds of laws govern the material universe? When did those laws come into being? How did those laws (w/o which there could be no science) come into being?
 
Last edited:
OK, let’s get fundamental.

How many kinds of laws govern the material universe? When did those laws come into being? How did those laws (w/o which there could be no science) come into being?
I was asking for information to try to understand what Buffalo is proposing. You, I suspect, are doing something altogether different.
 
Is it possible to get any closer to a timescale?
We run up against two issues. The mitochondrial clock is in need of recalibration. We need more refinement on this clock.

Suppose we narrow this down, we still will not know how long God waited until He created a specific archetype. The only one who could tell us is God Himself.

St Augustine’s prime matter thinking is all the potentiality was thought of in a single instant.
 
We run up against two issues. The mitochondrial clock is in need of recalibration. We need more refinement on this clock.
Presumably you would need to know quite what the archetype was for each kind before the clock could give you anything like a start date?
 
Presumably you would need to know quite what the archetype was for each kind before the clock could give you anything like a start date?
Yes. Filtered genetics should be able to tell us that. When? We will still depend on the clock accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to get any closer to a timescale?
Of course not. Buffalo rejects all modern methods of dating species, and hopes for a magical solution to the very prominent issue of Earth’s and life’s age.
 
40.png
PickyPicky:
Is it possible to get any closer to a timescale?
Of course not. Buffalo rejects all modern methods of dating species, and hopes for a magical solution to the very prominent issue of Earth’s and life’s age.
We actually did get some indication waaay back in this thread I think. It was some tens of thousands of years. So Buff considers himself as more enlightened as regards the planet’s age compared to young earthers who think it’s a few years less.

Which is like a flat earther denying he’s a flat earther because there is actually a slight curve if you look really, really closely.

And o_mlly thinks it’s a few thousand years I believe. But you definitely won’t get verification one way or the other there.
 
40.png
PickyPicky:
I rather think I’ve asked this before but without success. How many of these kinds would there have been, and when were they created? And one more: was Man one of these kinds?
They were created in the beginning. Mankind is one of them.

How many? Genetic research is sorting that out.
These are two of the most important questions that need to be answered in regard to your position. And the answer to both of them is ‘I don’t know’?

How about an educated guess? A ball park figure. Take a swing. Have a shot. Pick a number.
 
OK, at some time (tbd) God created a number (tbd) of kinds of creature (and, no doubt, plant). Congratulations, by the way, on not equivocating about the name of the Designer.

You agree with the consensus that the dna of some of the creatures descending from these archetypes has, by a number of means, been altered, resulting in new varieties and lineage splitting. Some of these varieties have not survived, but enough have, and by further changes and more lineage splitting, have resulted in the great panoply of life we see today.

But if I have it right you diverge from the consensus by holding that there is some limit to the possible changes these varieties can make, and this limit, this scope for change, is inherent in the dna of the archetypes.

Can you say how we know there is such a limit, and by what mechanism it could be effective?
 
OK, at some time (tbd) God created a number (tbd) of kinds of creature (and, no doubt, plant). Congratulations, by the way, on not equivocating about the name of the Designer.

You agree with the consensus that the dna of some of the creatures descending from these archetypes has, by a number of means, been altered, resulting in new varieties and lineage splitting. Some of these varieties have not survived, but enough have, and by further changes and more lineage splitting, have resulted in the great panoply of life we see today.

But if I have it right you diverge from the consensus by holding that there is some limit to the possible changes these varieties can make, and this limit, this scope for change, is inherent in the dna of the archetypes.

Can you say how we know there is such a limit, and by what mechanism it could be effective?
I think Buff has ‘a respectable scientific answer’ to that.
 
OK, at some time (tbd) God created a number (tbd) of kinds of creature (and, no doubt, plant). Congratulations, by the way, on not equivocating about the name of the Designer.

You agree with the consensus that the dna of some of the creatures descending from these archetypes has, by a number of means, been altered, resulting in new varieties and lineage splitting. Some of these varieties have not survived, but enough have, and by further changes and more lineage splitting, have resulted in the great panoply of life we see today.

But if I have it right you diverge from the consensus by holding that there is some limit to the possible changes these varieties can make, and this limit, this scope for change, is inherent in the dna of the archetypes.

Can you say how we know there is such a limit, and by what mechanism it could be effective?
The science itself cannot speak to God. As a Catholic we know the creator to be God.

Yes!

Experiments have shown genetic entropy. The organisms have built in code that maintain them, much like a rubberband, it will stretch but wants to return to its unstressed state. Organisms can through adaptation deviate slightly from the mean. Living fossils show us the mean. Organism have error correcting mechanisms that through several iterations limit random mutational changes unless they are cell directed.

This has been front loaded into the archetypes. They adapt to environmental changes to fill niches, but there are limits. Once the limits are exceeded they are on the road to extinction. Temporary mutational benefits cause a long term loss.
 
Item # 2 and 6 from the New Scientist publications should give god of buc advocates pause.

2 EVOLUTION SHOWS INTELLIGENCE (memory, optimization, induction)

6 ADAPT FIRST, MUTATE LATER (Neo-Lamarckian adaptation)

I have been posting about this for years. Now even the mainstream is starting to venture from their darwinian safe space. The floodgates are opening…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top