Why accomodate Darwin?

[Prayerman]

Sorry I wasn’t smart enough to realize there are other threads on the subjec folks…Betse Devos who is that?? You’ve obviously evolved from that hence your staunch belief in evolution as an act of faith. But basically…why has the shark not evolved much over the zillions of years one talks about or the cycad. The dolphin grew a brain and for the shark this was all too useless due to its brute force it never needed one for two zillion years or whatever. Even scientists from NASA grapple with this today but you have it all figured out. I don’t I’m too stupid so I am hoping a acientist explains that to me and guarantees his is the only valid take on this among the entire scientific community

 

[Usagi]

Case in point, a media report some years back that got very excited that Darwin’s finches had been seen to evolve in the space of 20 years with bigger beaks to eat bigger food sources. But they didn’t evolve really did they, they just simply adapted to their environment, they are still just finches. Micro-evolution good and provable, for God has built in a mechanism of survival, macro-evolution on the other hand has absolutely no evidence. It annoys me when the two are considered the same thing. So why would I want to entertain, even accommodate such.

Adaptation to one’s environment (in the form of certain hereditary traits that become more widespread because they confer a survival and reproductive advantage) is exactly and literally evolution.

Biologists don’t make the macro/micro distinction. It seems to be a creationist invention precisely so that they could disregard the kind of smaller, faster changes we can watch happen as “not really” evolution.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The Catholic Church has only said that people can accept the theory of evolution in so far as not using it to reject God or the dignity of his creation.

The Church has never said Evolution is true or false.

=======================================

Even most of thw honinids found were reconstructions from a piece of tooth here and a femor from downstream and even a full hominid doea not mean we desdended from it.

I agree that there’s a lot of linear analysis going on. My favorite is the “we have 98% of DNA in common with this and that ape”. Try factoring in sample size and complexity for a change. I typically don’t discuss evolution at length on the internet because I often find people are blindly committed to one camp or the other and pretty closed-minded when it comes to ideas like Panspermia.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The dolphin grew a brain and for the shark this was all too useless due to its brute force it never needed one for two zillion years or whatever.

Sharks have brains. And they use them to hunt in packs. Watch David Attenborough.
https://www.sharks-world.com/how_big_is_the_shark_brain/
HOW BIG IS THE SHARK BRAIN?
ANSWER:
The brain size of sharks is not the same in every shark species, some of them have a Y-shaped brain with two bulbs.
Some writers have said that the shark brain is the size of a golf ball, but this is not accurate.
The brain mass to body mass ratio in sharks is much lower than humans, but they have a good rate when compared with some mammals and birds.
In general, sharks have complex brains.

And it’s been using its brain for all that time.

 

[Darryl_B]

I beg to differ on your definition of evolution. As I have said God has built in a flexibility, but that flexibility has explicit boundaries. This earth has much built in flexibility but it doesn’t evolve beyond what it is, evolve demands an increase in complexity, not an adaption, and certainly not mutational devolves.

Ignoring micro and macro would be great, if we were still living in the pre-DNA/RNA era of knowledge.

 

[Usagi]

I beg to differ on your definition of evolution. As I have said God has built in a flexibility, but that flexibility has explicit boundaries.

What explicit boundaries? How do we know they exist, and by what mechanism are they enforced?

This earth has much built in flexibility but it doesn’t evolve beyond what it is, evolve demands an increase in complexity, not an adaption, and certainly not mutational devolves.

Again, how do you know this and how does it work?

Ignoring micro and macro would be great, if we were still living in the pre-DNA/RNA era of knowledge.

The discovery and subsequent study of the genetic code has certainly revolutionized evolutionary biology and has even overturned some previous ideas (creatures that turn out to be more closely or more distantly related according to their genes than it seemed from their outward appearance), but it does not appear to have torn the whole concept down. What about our knowledge of DNA and RNA makes the macro/micro distinction so vital?

 

[straykat]

One remarkable thing that makes me step back from anything definitive, even when being open to Evolution:

Chimps have more genetic diversity than humans… yet it is humans who’ve managed to subdue the earth and all that is in it. How did this happen? You’d think a powerful species would have taken a bit more work and more mutations and variations to “get it right”.

 

[Darryl_B]

Structure vs fluid.

 

[Usagi]

I’m afraid I have no idea what that means or how it answers my various questions. Would you mind elaborating?

 

[Prayerman]

My point was really granted that the shark has some sort of brain whatever the shape, why did it not change or evolve or the shark itself for millions of years? Ok so its not a mammal its a fish granted but its not like they had very little chance of evolving right? So we then can say well no mutation was considered as beneficial and was rejected. Don’t understand the use of the term ‘mutation’ used in evolutions as mutations in general are never a a good thing for example humans with mutations or animals usually that doesn’t imptove lifestyle pardon the pun. Usually thats a disadvantage so random mutations dont sound fresh to me but thenI dont have much of a brain so don’t worry.about my comments.

 

[Darryl_B]

Structure vs fluid. It is taking a step back. They are philosophies, two different world-views. They are philosophies that are intrinsic primarily to our personalities. And they will generally not see eye to eye. They generally dictate our paths in life, particularly in subjects (schooling) we choose, and occupations we pursue, and past-times we enjoy.

This is a different direction, because all you asked me was “How do you know”, and I am not interested in submitting the obvious reply, “How do you not”, the easier path (as is your own). For I cannot relate all the observations I have made in life, and I cannot relate all the things I have read, and I cannot relate all the things I have experienced. They piece together sufficiently for me, and every extra piece of information I gain fits.

I love the scientific method, I fall into structure. When KAr dating makes the claim “it works just not for any age-known samples”, I cringe, for that is science breaking the rules of science. When I heard about a whale found miles inland and at 1000s of feet high, which had been speculated to be 3 million years old, I asked that it be carbon-dated. The reply was “What’s the point? Its 3 million years old so the reading will be non-existent”, to which I cringe for that is breaking the rules of science.

So back to my possible response, which could have been “How do you not”. To which the reply can be “We are here aren’t we”, which is the circular horse before the cart, the chicken before the egg, or is it the egg before the chicken. So I won’t put you into that.

Biologists, and I mean people who actually do biology related work for a living, never touch darwin. It is not about then, it is about now and looking forward. They recognize structure, for they know there are bounds they cannot cross, limits to which they cannot trespass.

If I had to look at the history, I would say darwin had the privilege of fluid, but everything we have learned that is actually accurate and not just a generational peculiarity, has headed into the structured, a very long way now from the fluid.

And finally all dogs, are just wolves. Every single one of them. And the broccoli is just the cauliflower. Nothing more.

 

[Prayerman]

I began a discussion on evolution when there were already several but leaned a lot from all the comments. I am glad that the answers were not entirely from biased folks that are into scientism.

But the line between scientism and science is sometimes not very clear.
As much as some here believe evolution discussions are not about God I felt that it very much is in that one would have to say that God chose to create an ape or fish to have the end result Adam.
So then we ask if the angels also evolved from lower forms (kidding)
Why would such a mighty God create an ape to obtain mankind but guess this is all dogma in a sense.

Way back I would read Steve Hawkins books where there would be recounts on how some physicists would create sensationalism in new findings to fund their projects and wondering how widespread this still is…Often science cannot prove whether one scientists facts or theories are indeed correct which makes things all the more difficult.

But I do respect Scientists people with many times my IQ that have dedicated their lives to this mystery we call life and creation.
I marvel at NASA scientists and how they search for similar life on other planets but also thankful for those who’s job it is to go out and save souls

 

[IWantGod]

I’m not paying that kind of money for pseudo-science. If the book was lets say $1, i would give him an ear, and that’s only because i know he doesn’t have a credible future in science and i want to know why he would risk destroying his career. But i doubt he has anything groundbreaking to say when compared to what has already been said on the matter.

 

[rossum]

Why would such a mighty God create an ape to obtain mankind

Why would such a mighty God create a whole planet to obtain mankind? Why would such a mighty God create a whole universe to obtain mankind?

God had a great many possible methods available to Him to create mankind. He picked one of those many methods. The evidence we see in the world He created shows that the method He chose involved earlier species of ape and evolution.

If God is truthful and reliable, then the evidence of the world He created is as truthful and reliable as the word He inspired. Both are from God so both have equal standing.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Darryl_B]

Way back I would read Steve Hawkins books where there would be recounts on how some physicists would create sensationalism in new findings to fund their projects and wondering how widespread this still is…Often science cannot prove whether one scientists facts or theories are indeed correct which makes things all the more difficult.

This is an interesting thing, one day I read in a newspaper that a government funded organization was going to have its funding cut. The next day I read that the government funded organization was on the verge of a major break-through.

Just as an aside, I am not quite sure the logic of NASA trying to find planets which would support our life. Why are we not looking for life not like our own, a planet where the inhabitants drink molten lava for breakfast etc something more Doctor Who-ish.

 

[Marycmp]

THe main point is that God started it all.
The unmoved mover.