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.
Rau said:
It’s a fair question because we have many things, not just a book (Genesis) with no fixed, Church-prescribed interpretation.
Click to expand...
The Magisterium has faithfully handed it on. No one has yet produced a magisterial document showing it to be wrong and how we got it so wrong and why the Holy Spirit allowed it.
 
buffalo said:
Nope - fsci is information for a purpose,
Click to expand...
I see no “purpose” in “functional complex specified information”. Evolutionary processes are capable of developing functional complex information in DNA. Any specification is external to the DNA itself.
 
o_mlly said:
Ask Rossum. It’s his post; I merely corrected its internal logic.
Click to expand...
And I was merely pointing out the flaw in the internal logic of Genesis. It makes a partly false claim about the relative dates of appearance of fish, land animals and birds. It is correct that fish appeared before land animals. It is incorrect that birds appeared before land animals.
 
rossum said:
Evolutionary processes are capable of developing functional complex information in DNA.
Click to expand...
The evidence is incomplete. We don’t know for sure how the eye or the skeletal system could evolve purely by natural causes.
 
Rau said:
“We” (the Church) didn’t get it wrong. It is you who insist on a certain interpretation - not the Church.
Click to expand...
Oh no - I am consistent with constant magisterial teaching. TE’s are not.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
And how long was that gap?
Click to expand...
Ask Rossum. It’s his post; I merely corrected its internal logic.
Click to expand...
If rossum is wrong because, as you say, there is a demonstrably large gap between the first land animal fossils and the much later earliest bird fossils, then you must have an idea how long that gap is.

What’s ‘a large gap’ as far as you are concerned?
 
rossum said:
It makes a partly false claim about the relative dates of appearance of fish, land animals and birds. It is correct that fish appeared before land animals. It is incorrect that birds appeared before land animals.
Click to expand...
There is no empirical (observable, repeatable, predictable) evidence of any of this.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
If rossum is wrong because, as you say, there is a demonstrably large gap …
Click to expand...
No, it is as Rossum says.
Click to expand...
No. As you say:
o_mlly said:
40.png
rossum:
Demonstrably false. There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
There is a large gap between the first land animal fossils that we have found so far and the much later earliest bird fossils.
Click to expand...
How long is ‘a large gap’ in your view?
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom said:
The evidence is incomplete. We don’t know for sure how the eye or the skeletal system could evolve purely by natural causes.
Click to expand...
The evidence is sufficient. See here for the complete path of the evolution of complexity.

Science does not require complete evidence. Science works with the evidence it has available, and is ready to change when new evidence is discovered. If science waited for complete evidence then it would not be able to progress. Instead science works with provisional conclusions, and is ready to change those conclusions as required.

If science had waited for complete evidence, then it would never have accepted Newton’s theory of gravity, nor would it have accepted Copernicus’ theory that planets moved in circular orbits round the sun.

Science is not theology. Theology already has complete evidence: the relevant sacred text. Science is different, it knows how to do the best is can with incomplete evidence.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
That is your issue. fsci=design=purpose=teleological
Click to expand...
No. My problem is that fcsi is an unmeasurable construct developed by the ID side to give the appearance of science. For example, where are the ID lists of the amount of fcsi present in various species, or even in various pieces of DNA?

How do we measure fcsi? Where are the ID research papers detailing the fcsi content of various species or of anything else beyond schoolbook examples.

The idea of fcsi is not to be scienctifc, it is to give creationism the appearance (not the reality) of science under the deceptive label of ID.

If ID wants to be science, then it needs to do the work of science. Actually producing a catalogue of the fcsi content of various species would be a start. For example, how much fcsi is there is a Covid-19 virus? Where is the relevant ID research? Real science has done a great deal of research into that virus; where is the ID side’s research?

Has ID even determined yet whether or not the Covid-19 virus was designed yet?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
The evidence is sufficient. See here for the complete path of the evolution of complexity.
Click to expand...
Your link shows the wonders of computer programming; but it cannot replicate how the skeletal system could evolve purely by natural causes.

The computer would have to be goal driven, and this is clearly not how evolution works.
rossum said:
Science works with the evidence it has available, and is ready to change when new evidence is discovered.
Click to expand...
That is why I am not convinced the evidence we are working with now is sufficient. I believe there has to be a better explanation.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
That is why I am not convinced the evidence we are working with now is sufficient.
Click to expand...
That is the reason many scientists are working in science. They want to discover more evidence to add to the total we already have.

However, until that new evidence arrives, science will continue to work on the basis of the evidence we have. That existing evidence shows that evolution is currently the best explanation available.

If you want more evidence, then you should go and look for it. You will not change science with what you might find in future. You have to actually produce the necessary evidence.
 
NSmith said:
…
In order to ascertain if the fossil record supports the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation as a result of mutation and natural selection I am looking for the strongest possible case in the affirmative…
Click to expand...
Neo-Darwinian theory (or Modern Synthesis) is incomplete and needs extension, and has competition from:
  • symbiogenesis (cooperation between species)
  • horizontal gene transfer (i.e., non-parental transfer)
  • inheritance of acquired characteristics (e.g., sperm RNAs).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top