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

[Roseeurekacross]

I bought a dinosaur tree today, in honour of my sister.

A Wollemi pine. It came with a certificate and a care for me booklet. It is a living fossil, and is also found in the fossil record.

This suggests Noah crashed his ark into the blue mountains in Australia

A perfect example of creation and evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

This suggests Noah crashed his ark into the blue mountains in Australia

That’s why they got Russell Crowe to play him in the film. He could nail the accent.

‘G’day, Shem. I’m gonna build a boat. Fair dinkum I am!’

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We have 2 proofs now. My only question is , why did yabringthefunnelwebsalong

 

[Bradskii]

We have 2 proofs now. My only question is , why did yabringthefunnelwebsalong

He apparently didn’t bring specific creatures along. Just ‘kinds’. So it would have been just your ordinary common-or-garden variety of spider. Then it ‘micro-evolved’ into a funnel web when it got off the boat.

No, seriously. I read it somewhere.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

bugga!

I do love Noah too

 

[Metis1]

Both random mutations and natural selection exist in the world, but as aspects of death. They work counter to creation. To suggest that these tendencies could somehow be responsible for the emergence of this garden planet is irrational.

First all, the basic ToE does not negate the concept of creation in any way. Yes, there’s some randomness involved, but then that would even beg the question what created the randomness?

Secondly, what mutations do is to increase the diversity of the gene pool, and we know with certainty that this happens as it’s been observed many times over in experiments. Now, even though most mutations are either “negative” or “neutral”, some are “positive”, and that becomes important in creating this greater diversity. But even those that are “neutral” may have a “positive” effect that could come into play in the future if there’s an environmental change.

For an example of the latter, studies on rats have found that some rats can withstand substantially more radiation than most other rats, but that doesn’t provide any real “positive” advantage today. But if there would be a nuclear war somewhere down the line, heaven forbid, there could be a new movie produced with the title “Planet of the Rats” playing at your local theater in the future.

 

[rossum]

Start by defining terms, i.e. define “species” (Your prior definitions did not use DNA as a descriptor.)

In this case, a group of interbreeding metazoa.

How does that invalidate my data? The pairs of species I showed cannot interbreed across species boundaries.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What? Source?

Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible?” is a good starting point.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

what created the randomness

The question involves who.

When you say random, what is it that are the factors in the randomization exactly? For example, coin is flipped and has a 50-50 chance of coming up heads; there is a two sided coin being spun, falling and landing after a certain distance.

mutations do is to increase the diversity of the gene pool, and we know with certainty that this happens as it’s been observed many times over in experiments

Can you name one, so we can understand what you are referring to?

most mutations are either “negative” or “neutral”, some are “positive”, and that becomes important in creating this greater diversity

Can you provide the stats?

some rats can withstand substantially more radiation than most other rats, but that doesn’t provide any real “positive” advantage today. But if there would be a nuclear war somewhere down the line, heaven forbid, there could be a new movie produced with the title “Planet of the Rats” playing at your local theater in the future.

I don’t know the study you are referring to. The DNA molecule and ancillary processes involved in replication and reproduction can be affected by the random destructive nature of radiation either directly or through the formation of free radicals. The trait you describe could be tied to the capacity to fix damage occuring in the DNA molecule, present in all cases, but superior in some mice than others. It could also have to do with the capacity to absorb or produce antioxidants which act on free radicals. These are present in all mice but variable in their expression as a result of a number of different factors that come together within the individual rat, a representative of a kind of organism which had a beginning, created in time. Please note: " The Planet of the Rats"; this does not illustrate evolution as the cause of diversity - rats from start to finish.

 

[rossum]

Both random mutations and natural selection exist in the world, but as aspects of death. They work counter to creation.

If they exist, as death exists, then they are part of creation. If something, other than God, exists then it is part of creation.

How can they be counter to creation when they are part of creation? An acorn dies when a squirrel eats it. How can that be “counter to creation”? Death is necessary for heterotrophic species to live. Only chemotrophic bacteria and photosynthesising plants do not need the death of others to live.

To suggest that these tendencies could somehow be responsible for the emergence of this garden planet is irrational.

Nobody suggests that. Evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of planets. Look at astronomy, not biology, for the origin of planets.

While making the suggestion might be irrational, that does not mean that evolution is irrational. All you are claiming here is that a certain suggestion is irrational, not that random mutation is irrational or that natural selection is irrational. You have completely failed to support your earlier statement.

rossum

 

[buss0042]

I hope this gets read, but it seems curious to me that the primary pushback against evolution comes from particular pockets of Christianity. I think WileyC1949 is onto something, because it would seem that the only reason some Christians in particular vehemently deny evolution is because they believe it disproves God.

If evolution exists, its because God created the world and guided it in such a way that evolution exists.
Evolution is not an atheistic science.
Its simply the best consensus idea for how the diversity of life that exists today exists.

That does not mean evolution has the answers for everything - there are many things that it cannot account for, and we are right in pointing them out. Simply put, evolution is an evidence-backed idea for how things are the way they are. It is not the end-all-be-all. This might as well be a scientific debate about the workings of quantum mechanics, because the end result points to God regardless of the outcome. Whatever exists, God created.

Further, it seems that the reason this topic in particular possesses so much mouth-frothing ferocity is because it seems to contradict the Bible (which was never written as a scientific book, so to quote it as such would be equivalent to quoting Romeo and Juliet in defense of the pythagorean theorem - just silly).

Certainly, there are compelling reasons to believe evolution is a real process in the created universe.
Certainly, there are reasons to doubt its all-encompassing claim.
Simply put, we don’t know everything. And that’s okay.

But to claim that evolution and God are mutually exclusive is erroneous.

 

[Aloysium]

How can they be counter to creation when they are part of creation?

They are human constructs - ideas.

They arise from observing what is destructive in life:

• random mutations - changes serving no purpose arising from the inherent traits of components which have been organized into a certain order by an external principle.
• natural selection - the elimination of what does not establish a relationship with its environment that is necessary for reproduction

Evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of planets. Look at astronomy, not biology, for the origin of planets.

By “garden planet” the point being conveyed was that of the unity that is the totality of living forms resting on the elements of this world and the sun, which is the source of the energy which drives the system. This ever changing whole and the myriad of entities of which it is composed, had a beginning is a step-wise process of creation that ultimately saw the emergence of mankind, whose purpose, among others, is to maintain the garden.

 

[Aloysium]

I hope this gets read

Thank you for your contribution.

the only reason some Christians in particular vehemently deny evolution is because they believe it disproves God

Some feedback: That would not change the fact that it is simplistic and wrong. People believe it because that is what they have heard their whole lives, and they cannot separate what they truly know from the illusion in which it has been cast.

 

[rom]

I am challenging you to support your contention. Do you accept or not?

I don’t. At your option, you may sing your song of victory. I just have no time anymore. When I made my first post, I thought I was just giving my 2 cents to the OP. But I got dragged into controversy and I’m spending more time than I should.

My example was not meant to be “just like evolution.” It was only meant to prove that extrapolation does legitimately happen, your claim to the contrary not withstanding.

Yes, it works for simple cases, but not for complex ones. Making an inference from an observed sample of evolution to the evolution of the entire plant or animal kingdom does not always result in a successful prediction. Consider this: Children are human. Children are observed to exhibit behaviors a, b and c. Therefore all humans (including adults) show behaviors a, b and c.” Clearly, the inference does not work, does it? Extrapolation has its limits.

Structures may evolve because they serve some other function, then be re-purposed to serve another function.

Hahaha. Your natural selection agent is beginning to sound like an Intelligent Designer; it intelligently adjusts functions and goals.

Dear LeafByNiggle, I really have no time and I must quit now. You may have the last word on this controversy. You are very smart, like Rossum, and I enjoyed discussing this subject with both of you. If you have not done so already, you might want to read my discussions with Rossum in this thread, because they also relate to what we have been discussing. Regrettably, I had to say goodbye to him as well, but maybe not for long. Maybe I will see you again in another thread? God bless!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I just have no time anymore… I’m spending more time than I should… I really have no time and I must quit now…

Yes, these threads can get quite time-consuming. Out of respect for your need not to spend any more time on this, I will not challenge your assertions further. God bless.

 

[rossum]

They are human constructs - ideas.

Are mountains human constructs? We can observe mountains. We can observe random mutations. We can observe natural selection. We can observe evolution: here.

They arise from observing what is destructive in life

Destructive? “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” – 1 Samuel 15:3. That looks pretty destructive to me, wouldn’t you agree?

An omnipotent God can destroy as well as create. Why do you object to that aspect of His power?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

What’s rational about mercy?

At the very Centre of Existence, the Source of everything that is the perfect Divine and eternal relationship that is the Triune Godhead, from whom everything is given its being. The Trinity is Love, the mutual giving, Father and Son through the Holy Spirit. The cosmos with the intent that His creation would share in His glory and love. But, we chose to usurp that which is God, placing our selves at the centre of our relationships with Him, the world and one another. In doing so we “detached” ourselves form the creative and healing power that is His love. Justice is the face of love that is seen by sin, and justice, the surrendering of this broken humanity back to God is done with or without our will. In Jeus Christ, who became one of us and died to sin, we find our salvation, the healing of our brokenness, acheiving transcendence in communion with God.

As a manifestation of love, there is nothing so rational.

Creationism requires much, much more divine poof -ing, which is not rational.

Poof, you here now exist, your entire life stretching before this moment and ahead to where no one knows, each momnet lived as it is, was and will be, “now”, where everything happens. Out of nothing in time and, depending on the definition of time, back to nothing. Poof. And, that’s just you, who is not anyone else who has ever or will ever live. At the same time, you are a human being, with the particular perosnal and environmental physical, psychological and spiritual qualities that go into making you who you are. Both you and the kind of being you are, poof, here we are conversing. True but considered irrational seen through the looking glass from the other side.

your theory can’t evolve like theories (like gravity) must be allowed to do

I’ve noticed how my ideas have evolved since way before I entered into these discussions. By evolved I mean growing in depth of explanatory and revelatory value, in complexity and clarity. I don’t think anyone else but me could know this. I share what I know and think and others get what they can from it.

You’ve dogmatized yourself into a corner

It’s wise to consider that how one sees others can frequently reflect that defect within oneself.

 

[goout]

An omnipotent God can destroy as well as create. Why do you object to that aspect of His power?

rossum

That is a fundamentalist reading of scripture. God is the very essence of being, or the act of “to be”. Or however you’d like to express that reality.
The passage in question is part of scripture, and can be read with different senses, but the Catholic Church does not read Scripture through literalist fundamentalist eyes. And so God ordering destruction must be read in the proper context.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No, for “living fossils” the environment in which they lived didn’t change much, so they didn’t change much. A slower evolutionary path (like crocodiles) doesn’t disprove evolution in the slightest. It just shows that the organisms in the environment achieved a near-perfect competitive equilibrium.

Your logic is backwards. If I claim a unicorn exists then I have the burden of proof. Until proof is offered the claim does not need to be proven wrong. Prove macro-evolution. (I only offered “living fossils” to complete your incomplete list of things we have to examine.)

No, the logic is quite intact.

Most folks think it already sufficiently proofed. The vast majority of the small segment of holdouts do so only because they think it conflicts with their ideas on God.

 

[Techno2000]

PickyPicky:

Although the mutation may precede the environmental change, presumably, and then be selected later?

Yes. Populations always have variations, so there will be individuals with, say, relatively longer hair and relatively shorter hair. Given those variations in the population then whatever direction the environment changes there will be some variants that become more beneficial, and some that become deleterious. If the climate cools then longer hair will be favoured and shorter hair disadvantaged compared to the present.

rossum

You keep leaving out the importance of the ecosystem that the long and short hair organisms are connected to, and how is all that going to evolve.