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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rom said:
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?
Click to expand...
No one is saying that it is impossible for it to have happened that way, only that if you are playing by the rules of the scientific method, that is not a supportable theory. There are no tests or experiments that favor that sequence of events over evolution. It is even conceivable that none of the physical world is real and we are all just experiencing a vast simulation, like in the Matrix, only more perfect. It is conceivable, but until Morpheus shows up and offers us a red pill, it is not a useful theory on which to base our understanding of the world.
 
buffalo said:
We now know NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
Click to expand...
Random mutations are creative
Natural Selection filters out the detrimental mutations and increases the population with beneficial mutations.
 
rom said:
It is not necessary to distinguish which God did the creating (YHWH or Vishnu), because there is only one God.
Click to expand...
There are many religions which will disagree with you. You cannot just assume that the Abrahamic religions are correct.
I have no direct empirical evidence of God creating a species out of nothing.
Click to expand...
Which is a very big problem if you want to have an impact on science. Science runs on empirical evidence. There is empirical evidence of new species evolving; there is no empirical evidence of any god/dess creating a new species.
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?
Click to expand...
We also see the gradual emergence of new species, as with Gould’s work on Cerion. And many phyla are not as “sudden” as some websites like to say. Some date back to the Ediacaran, and for others the “sudden” was a “sudden” five million years.
For, God can also make use of pre-existing matter to generate new beings.
Click to expand...
That is how the Bible said He did it: “Let the earth bring forth…” not “Let there be…”

rossum
 
buffalo said:
We now know NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
Click to expand...
You have said that many times. It has zero relevance to the truth of the evolution of species. Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant point? Do you have nothing relevant to contribute?

rossum
 
They’re literally all transitional fossils. If you were fossilized, you’d be the transition between people a million years ago and people a million years from now.
 
rossum said:
There is empirical evidence of new species evolving …
Click to expand...
Like this one?


Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. … A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has … estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.

Do you not note the self-serving bias in this definition of “specie”?

If a new species takes “only about 200 years” then interbreeding with preexisting species would be quite difficult to test. The lifespan of a finch in the wild is estimated to up to about 5 years.

The definition of specie precludes testing and is, therefore, not falsifiable.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
buffalo:
We now know NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
Click to expand...
Random mutations are creative
Natural Selection filters out the detrimental mutations and increases the population with beneficial mutations.
Click to expand...
And of course the whole ecosystem that the organism is connected to would have to go through all these changes also…right ?
 
Last edited:
“God poof-ed it all into existence” isn’t testable either… what else ya got?
 
That’s the problem. An organism is produced by evolution and it finds no food it can eat and dies? God can raise the dead, without science or instrumentation.
 
Vonsalza said:
“God poof -ed it all into existence” isn’t testable either… what else ya got?
Click to expand...
Read the topic. It doesn’t mention God. Apparently, you have not read the thread as the argument is whether or not the science supports macro-evolution. What do you got?
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
That’s the problem. An organism is produced by evolution and it finds no food it can eat and dies? God can raise the dead, without science or instrumentation.
Click to expand...
Right…how is it that there’s an environmental change so powerful that it causes an organism to morph into something new, but the ecosystem that it came from is unaffected ?
 
LeafByNiggle,

Sudden or direct creation is a supportable theory. If the fossil records can serve as evidence for evolution, why can’t the sudden appearance of phylas and classes of animals in the fossil record not serve to support the creation theory?
 
o_mlly said:
Read the topic. It doesn’t mention God. Apparently, you have not read the thread as the argument is whether or not the science supports macro-evolution. What do you got?
Click to expand...
The theory of evolution describes a working mechanism of change. Scientists have demonstrated that changes in an organism is caused by changes in it’s DNA, and those changes are passed on to it’s offspring. It’s very clear how organisms over millions of years can change dramatically in their appearance and functionality. It’s not difficult to see how this dynamic principle could result in the existence of a new species. We can see that different DNA sequences can results in different forms and new functions. Also it has been made evident by scientists that we share DNA sequences with other creatures that are not human, in fact, there is a genetic tree of life connecting all life on this planet. That is what the data is telling us.

All of this points to the idea that evolution is the key to why there are differences between organisms. Therefore scientists have good reason to think that there has been a natural evolution of species.

The only reason one has for thinking that God created the differences we see in animals is because God has the power to create those differences by fiat. But what sense does it make that he would do this over billions of years, why have a genetic principle at all if it requires tweaking? There is no evidence that God did create species by fiat, and it makes no sense that God would put these dynamic principles of change in place unless that is the way God intended to distribute biological forms.

If God created species fiat, 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 claim.
 
Last edited:
rom said:
LeafByNiggle,

Sudden or direct creation is a supportable theory. If the fossil records can serve as evidence for evolution, why can’t the sudden appearance of phylas and classes of animals in the fossil record not serve to support the creation theory?
Click to expand...
Because you have not given evidence of an experiment or a predicted outcome that can confirm the theory. You just have one explanation for the way things are. If this were a scientific theory, you would ask the questions

“how can I verify this conjecture?”
“What other outcomes does this conjecture predict?”
“Have I checked those other outcomes to see if they come out as predicted?”

All this has been done with evolution. By its very nature, your conjecture cannot be tested.
 
IWantGod said:
Scientists have demonstrated … It’s very clear … It’s not difficult to see … We can see … it has been made evident by scientists … there is a genetic tree of life (not again!) …
Click to expand...
Lots of claims but still no credible evidence for macro-evolution. Why do so many just drink the Kool-Aid that atheists put out?
 
Acquiring novel biological features (like wings) faces severe hurdles in the evolution argument which is blind, unguided chance. The design argument is purposeful, so it is the best explanation.
 
o_mlly said:
Lots of claims but still no credible evidence for macro-evolution. Why do so many just drink the Kool-Aid that atheists put out?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by macro evolution. For me, and scientists, macro evolution merely describes the end result that signifies a distinction between organisms insofar as their form and function, the consequence of many micro changes over the course of billions of years.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It’s very clear how organisms over millions of years can change dramatically in their appearance and functionality.
Click to expand...
Then there should be a huge trail of transitional fossils showing this, there are over 10 million plant and animal species in the world today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top