Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

pretentious

That’s about as strong an argument against creation as any I’ve heard that tries to support an evolutionary perspective.

Thanks for the heads up, though. An argument can fail in reality, not because it is unreasonable, but because of the manner in which it is presented. People can shut down if they feel they are being intellectually browbeaten. And, to call the person pretentious would be a defense against this, deflating them of emotional power to do so. Am I doing it again?

Not here…

 

[Bradskii]

Aloysium:

pretentious

On further reflection of this interesting human trait, I’m thinking that generally most people participating on a philosophy forum would be seen as being pretentious, engaging in airy-fairy, non-realistic sort of thinking. The only ones that would not be seen as pretentious, ironically would be the trolls who are actually only pretending to engage in the discussion.

The fact is that what is being discussed is metaphysics, the underlying order of existence, that which governs our capacity to engage in these conversations. This stretches from that which is the structure of material being to that of humanity, the unity of being that includes those lower levels of existence and is here being expressed. The fact is that what is here and now had a beginning, for each of us and for all of us in humanity. And, that would be why I consider these discussions important, as a dialogue ultimately with the Ground from which all this springs, to understand where we all come from, individually in eternity.

But here…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Evolution provides the poorest explanation to what creation nails.

I don’t know in what sense you claim that evolution provides the “poorest” explanation. Certainly it is not the scientific sense.

 

[o_mlly]

In writing ‘‘Wonderful Life,’’ Stephen J. Gould said, his intent was to determine the extent of the ''predictability of life." https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/09/home/gould-shale.html?_r=1

Gould also discloses the bias of evolutionists which leads them into error:
Walcott, in analyzing and classifying the bounty he reaped from the Burgess Shale, is mentally bound to a view of evolution as linear and progressive. He knows, without even looking at the fossils, that they must be simple ancestors of the species we see on earth today. And sure enough, that is what he decides he has found: simple ancestors of the species we see on earth today.

The modern evolutionists continue this bias (finding exactly what they look for) in analyzing their data and add affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy, to prove conclusions.
If evolution is true then the bones progress.
The bones progress.
Evolution must be true.
Non sequitur.

 

[o_mlly]

Well gosh.You have discovered that not all scientists are in lock step with the fine details of the exact processes of evolution!

I keep saying this, but those with limited knowledge of the ToE and all its aspects invariably sound foolish when they comment on it.

Anyone who has studied evolution to any extent will know Gould’s views. You haven’t, so you don’t. You therefore think his views are somehow a plus for you. He would have been amused at that. As I am.

If I were you I’d quit while I was behind.

The usual drivel without content that we’ve all come to expect. Do us all the courtesy of supplying sneer quotes in future so we can just skip ahead to the next post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gould also discloses the bias of evolutionists which leads them into error:

You mean “Gould claims the bias…”

 

[Aloysium]

I am talking about the scientific understanding of evolution as random change in the genome, the understanding of which is evolving and differs significantly from that which poster’s here believe. It is said to happen at strictly at a chemical level, a belief that I think most scientist would not personally hold. These chaotic, in terms of the inherent material structure that worked well enough to result in the production of offspring, changes are passed on further to the following generation, if allowed by natural selection. While the first operates on the level of the genotype, this second pillar of evolution involves the phenotype within the environment of which it is a part. That level of existence is undefined in chemical terms, it’s ordering principles are of a different order than the material and involve the mind. Evolution is actually a mess, but it fulfills the need for a mythos that satisfies today’s worldly social, political and economic systems.

 

[Techno2000]

I am talking about the scientific understanding of evolution as random change in the genome, the understanding of which is evolving and differs significantly from that which poster’s here believe. It is said to happen at strictly at a chemical level, a belief that I think most scientist would not personally hold. These chaotic, in terms of the inherent material structure that worked well enough to result in the production of offspring, changes are passed on further to the following generation, if allowed by natural selection. While the first operates on the level of the genotype, this second pillar of evolution involves the phenotype within the environment of which it is a part. That level of existence is undefined in chemical terms, it’s ordering principles are of a different order than the material and involve the mind. Evolution is actually a mess, but it fulfills the need for a mythos that satisfies today’s worldly social, political and economic systems.

Yeah… “Natural Selection” is too vague.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yeah… “Natural Selection” is too vague.

It works substantially better for rational folks than God poof-ing everything into existence.

There are lots of animals here today that are nowhere in the fossil record. There are lots of animals in the fossil record that are not here today. That means there has been at least some “swapping out” of species present on the earth.

Evolution with natural selection as one of the drivers offers a reasonable explanation for this apparent swapping. Otherwise, where were all the squirrels when T-rex roamed the earth? In great big God-jars labeled “do not release for 65 million years”?

 

[Bradskii]

Evolution…fulfills the need for a mythos that satisfies today’s worldly social, political and economic systems.

Be honest. You got that from here, didn’t you: Random Academic Quote Generator - Phrase Generator

 

[rossum]

I am talking about the scientific understanding of evolution as random change in the genome,

You misunderstand evolution. Yes, evolution includes random mutation, your “random change in the genome” but it also includes natural selection. If you omit natural selection then you are not talking about evolution. Natural selection is not a random process, and the overall effect of random mutations filtered by non-random natural selection is no longer random. Pass randomly sized grains of sand through a sieve, and the grains that pass through are no longer randomly sized; they all fit through the sieve.

rossum

 

[rom]

Sorry, I’m quite late in this discussion, but I just want to give my two cents.

This is just a commonsense argument.

If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that cl;aim.

So while one might not want to take evolution as fact, i think one can think that it is the most likely origin of species when compared to the biblical 7 day creation explanation…

I don’t see why we should accept evolution as the most likely origin of species right away. Why would it be impossible for God to create different species of beings in sequential fashion? He did not have to create everything all at once. Why could He not create simple cells first, then multicellular life, then the eukaryotes, then the arthropods, then the fish, then the plants and the trees, then the amphibians, then the reptiles, then the dinosaurs, then the mammals, the birds, the flowering plants, the bees, the apes, the hominids, and lastly man? In this scenario each of the various species of beings on earth can be thought of as having been directly created by God in a timely sequence, rather than evolving or originating from the creatures that came before it. There is no need to postulate that later creatures evolved from earlier creatures. In fact, there is no evidence that it happened that way.

 

[rossum]

I don’t see why we should accept evolution as the most likely origin of species right away. Why would it be impossible for God to create different species of beings in sequential fashion?

Welcome to the thread.

You are correct that we do not find modern species in ancient rocks. One of the possible disproofs of evolution is to find Haldane’s Precambrian rabbit.

Is your version of God unable to create evolution? We know that God created animals indirectly: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” That is an indirect process, not a direct one. Evolution is just such an indirect process. And an omnipotent God could certainly create such a process.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

I will be concerned when what I read makes no sense to me.

That day is coming.

That fact speaks to the reality of how the order that is matter is subsumed by that which is my spirit. Here it is all one relational unity, with you stating, if nothing else, what you have as other to my self. This order that is a person had a beginning, and was brought into existence with the creation of Adam.

Following your lead of speaking clearly what is on our minds, I must say that this truth is lost to atheists, and that is how modern mankind has come up with the absurdity that is evolutionary theory. Why any Christian, knowing the miracles that Jesus performed and what the faith teaches about our eternal soul and its fate, would not harbour doubts about evolution, I believe reflects the doubts in their own faith.

 

[Aloysium]

Sometimes it appears that people read only up to the first statement that triggers the argument going on in their own head, and proceed to post.

 

[rom]

Thanks rossum

[/quote=Is your version of God unable to create evolution? We know that God created animals indirectly: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” That is an indirect process, not a direct one. Evolution is just such an indirect process. And an omnipotent God could certainly create such a process.
[/quote]

In my opinion God can allow and direct evolution as easily as He could create beings directly. Therefore, it can go either way. Since, there are two possibilities, we therefore cannot conclude right away that evolution is the way it happened. Is evolution more likely than direct creation? I need to see evidence of that.

Sorry, I still don’t know how to handle a partial quote.

 

[Bradskii]

Is evolution more likely than direct creation? I need to see evidence of that.

There is none. At least, that’s what I read somewhere in a forum.

Oh yeah, it was in this forum. On this thread. By you.

 

[rossum]

Is evolution more likely than direct creation? I need to see evidence of that.

There is evidence of new species evolving (see this thread and many others). There is no evidence of any deity creating a new species from nothing.

That puts evolution in the driving seat as the current best scientific theory. If you want to replace it then you need a better theory, just as Einstein’s theory of gravity was better than Newton’s.

One issue I can see with divine creation is how do you show what God did the creating; was it YHWH or was it Vishnu? Intelligent Design avoids the problem by refusing to characterise their designer, but ID has other problems.

rossum

 

[rom]

Thank you, Rossum.

It is not necessary to distinguish which God did the creating (YHWH or Vishnu), because there is only one God.

I have no direct empirical evidence of God creating a species out of nothing. But if we see the sudden emergence of various species in the fossil record without any transitional forms, or the sudden appearance of major groups (new phyla, or new class), then it does give credibility to the direct creation theory also, don’t you think?

By the way, let me clarify that I use the term “direct creation” as an antonym of “evolution” (which is a slow process), not necessarily as implying a creation out of nothing, or ex nihilo. For, God can also make use of pre-existing matter to generate new beings. However, He need not wait for a species to develop into an advanced stage before creating the next higher one. Often, He would direct physico-chemical and biological processes to produce the new being, which is why we often see in a relatively short time drastic or sharp changes in the capability of the new species.

 

[buffalo]

natural selection

We now know NS is a conservative process not a creative one.