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.
IWantGod said:
f 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.
Click to expand...
No. After the initial archetypes were thought into existence HGT and degradation began to take place. All we see are derivatives of the originals. HGT has cross contaminated. The 500 or so core conserved genetic instructions were put there at the creative act.
 
LeafByNiggle,

You said, “To some extent this is ex post facto reasoning. Creationists were already using the apparent sudden appearance of species in the fossil record to form their theory.”

MY RESPONSE: Well, isn’t that how the scientific method is supposed to work? You start with observation of the data first, then you formulate your hypothesis. Isn’t that also how the evolutionist started their theory? Didn’t they first observe a series of organisms that show increasing complexity of anatomical structures with time, before they formulated their hypothesis of evolution?

You said, “What other experiments can you perform, like today, on currently-living organisms?

MY RESPONSE: To be precise, the direct creation theory is a philosophical theory on observed physical data, rather than a scientific theory. So, I have no laboratory procedures to offer you. And to be perfectly precise, the so-called theory of evolution – which affirms that all forms of life descended from a single primitive form - is also not empirically verifiable. It is an inference based on circumstantial evidence (such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, etc.). Therefore, contrary to what many evolutionists say, it is also just a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.

You said, “We have some that produce significant changes consistent with evolution. What have you got?”

MY RESPONSE: The experiments you perform only serve to illustrate the mechanisms of evolution (such as genetic mutation that gives advantage to an individual organism). They do not prove that the large phyla of organisms that we see in the fossil records actually evolved that way. Also, genetic mutation is consistent with the creation model as well. For, there is no reason why God could not have deliberately induced such simultaneous genetic mutations to create several new species in a relatively short time.
 
rom said:
Well, isn’t that how the scientific method is supposed to work? You start with observation of the data first, then you formulate your hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that’s rather a naiive assumption as to what the ID crowd, especially the Discovery Institute, has done.

They have determined the answer that they want (God - although they try to sneak Him in by the back door by claiming only an intelligent designer) and then have gone out looking for the questions to ask which will furnish the answers they need.

They issued a book back in the 1980s called ‘Of Pandas and People’. And when they were critisised for pushing creationism as science into schools, simply reprinted the book with all references to creationism changed to intelligent design.

Maybe they thought no-one would notice.
 
Rossum,

You said, “We do have such direct evidence. Plants evolving resistance to herbicides is such evidence.”

MY RESPONSE: That is not an evidence for the theory of evolution, but an illustration of one of the mechanisms of evolution. Your example, as well as the evolution of antibiotic resistance, have been trumpeted by many evolutionists as evidence of evolution. No way. True evolution requires far more than the simple genetic mutation that gives advantage to an individual organism. Take, as an example, the evolution of the eye. How did it actually develop? We can agree that the eye started to improve from the time it gave power to an animal to see (although very slightly). But it only gave this advantage after the eye had been optically constructed and linked by nervous cells to a sensitive optical center in the brain. Now, how do you explain the simultaneous appearance of the elements necessary for vision as long as vision did not exist? The simple sensitivity to light of a particular area of the skin does not immediately trigger the formation of the lens, of the iris, and of the retina, right? Much, much more is therefore required than simple genetic mutation. And this is what many evolutionists missed!
 
Bradskil,

Direct creation is really just a philosophical theory, just as the theory of evolution is.

But for those who speak of the theory of evolution as if it were a scientific theory, my response would be that the direct creation theory is no less scientific than their own theory. They are both equally non-verified, nor verifiable.

In my case, I don’t hide God and start calling the driver of evolution as “Intelligent Designer.” God as the driver of evolution is more credible than random chance mutations in the DNA.
 
rom said:
MY RESPONSE: To be precise, the direct creation theory is a philosophical theory on observed physical data, rather than a scientific theory. So, I have no laboratory procedures to offer you. And to be perfectly precise, the so-called theory of evolution – which affirms that all forms of life descended from a single primitive form - is also not empirically verifiable. It is an inference based on circumstantial evidence (such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, etc.). Therefore, contrary to what many evolutionists say, it is also just a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.
Click to expand...
Numerous experiments on live organisms consistent with evolution have been cited in this thread. It is an extrapolation of what has been observed, but so it the half-life of radium. The half-life of radium is supposed to be 1600 years. But it has been less than 1600 years since radium has been discovered. So we couldn’t possibly have observed a quantity of radium decaying to one half. Yet we have observed it decaying over a matter of a few years and extrapolated from there. This is similar to how “micro-evolution” is extrapolated to “macro-evolution”. Do you also wish to declare the theory of radioactivity non-scientific and just philosophical?
 
Vonsalza said:
No, for “living fossils” the environment in which they lived didn’t change much, so they didn’t change much.
Click to expand...
So, it was just “living fossils” that lived in a environment…what did they eat ?
 
LeafByNiggle,

You said, “Numerous experiments on live organisms consistent with evolution have been cited in this thread. It s an extrapolation of what has been observed, but so is the half-life of radium.”

MY RESPONSE: An extrapolation is also an inference , and science is full of it. For example, they say that the temperature at the center of the sun is 15 Million Celsius. Can you verify it? I bet you and your thermometer will melt before you even come close to the surface of the sun. Do you therefore call it fact? I don’t know about you. But I would call it calculated datum , rather than fact. So is the half-life of radium. But the theory of evolution is an inference that did not result from any calculation. It was pure hypothesis so improbable that it could not be proved. In fact, calculations based on probability calculus show that if chance alone were at play, then you could hardly produce a living cell. What is the probability that by random mutations alone you will be able to drive evolution to produce the first insects (arthropods)? Evolutionists are so embarrassed they don’t even want to talk about it. So, you call evolution an extrapolation (as if backed by calculations using probability mathematics)? I call it wishful thinking! The truth is, those experiments on live organisms may serve to illustrate an extremely minute aspect of evolution. Then you try to apply your observation to a phenomenon several orders of magnitude more improbable and more complex than what was demonstrated by your experiment. Do you call that science? I call it “jumping to conclusions.”
 
Aloysium said:
That’s not something we know. That is an assumption. But, again the definition of evolution is so slippery, shifting as it does, and lacking in precision, the way it is used even within science, that it can be extremely difficult to know, even the persons themslves, what they mean. Do you believe that human beings are transitional beings in the process that would be the tree of life, evolving into something different, as are simians to us?
Click to expand...
First of all we do know that there’s been an evolutionary process, which is also continuing as we post, and for examples one can google “speciation”. Even the Wiki page on this is quite decent and has links to various studies, and you can access that here: Speciation - Wikipedia

Secondly, all plants and animals and viruses the reproduce are, in essence, “transitional” since there’s no evidence that evolution ever stops.

Thirdly, evolution is logical since all material objects tend to change over time, and genes are material objects. If one thinks not, name one material item that never changes in any way.

Fourthly, we know humans have evolved, and if one even just looks at the fossil record there is no way to explain the differences that we see other than we have evolved. The further back we go in time, the more similarities we see with the ape line, which also has been evolving in its own ways. The relatively recent Chad find that dates back roughly 6 million years b.p is of an individual that has so may shared human/ape characteristics that there’s been a debate as to how to classify it.

And finally, it is impossible to predict what the human species may look like in a million or more years, but it’s not as likely to be vastly different than what we see unless there’s a massive kill-off of us. The reason for this is that large gene pools tend to evolve at a slower rate than small ones, plus radical environmental changes tend to lead towards more physical changes as well. This we have seen in other observations, including experiments.
 
Last edited:
Jumping to conclusions occurred with ‘Junk DNA.’ It had to be what they said it was. The process of bioinformatics is uncovering more and more complexity, meaning there is no time to get from first life form to here. The odds are too great.
 
With billions of years for life to evolve, and multiple millions of years for larger life forms to evolve, I disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top