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

[Techno2000]

Aloysium:

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.

How are the rats going to survive if everything else is dead ?

 

[Aloysium]

here .

I have abandonned any expectation that my replies will mean anything to the posters to whom I am responding. I trust that there are others who will derive benefit from this.

The bacteria remain bacteria. The offspring are different from their progenitors because of pre-existing genetic and epigenetic structures and processes. These allow for adaptation to the environment in which they participate as components of that greater whole, transforming and being affected by what is other to their individual being.

We can observe mountains. We can observe random mutations. We can observe natural selection. We can observe evolution

The observation of mountains is the connection between who we are and what is the mountain. We do not observe mutations arising from chemical processes acting in accordance to the random activity of matter alone. The mutations we observe are the result of programmed capacities within the bacterium, to adapt itself and to pass that on to its offspring. Things die as a result of their not fitting in; and, we can call that natural selection, I suppose. We do not observe natural selection nor evolution; we frame what we see in accordance with those beliefs.

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

That things come into existence ex nihilo, and that their existence is dependent on God, who grants them their existence does nothing to change the reality behind what is called natural selection. It is not creative. As things change, what was, is replaced by what is new. The fading does not cause the emergence of a new light although it precedes it temporally. There comes to pass is a new creation.

.

 

[Aloysium]

A rat eat rat world I guess.

 

[Techno2000]

A rat eat rat world I guess.

Yeah… but wouldn’t the radiation build up to intolerable levels ?

 

[rossum]

And so God ordering destruction must be read in the proper context.

Whatever the context, it is still God ordering destruction, no doubt for Godly reasons. To deny that God can order destruction is obviously a misreading.

Hence, the idea the evolution cannot be of God because it involves destruction is incorrect. Merely involving destruction is insufficient; more detail of the argument is needed.

rossum

 

[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.

Yes, the ecosystem evolves as well, in parallel with the particular species under consideration. Both predators and prey will find longer (or shorter) hair more beneficial since the temperature change affects them both. Plants will need to adapt to changed temperatures as well, using existing variations.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The bacteria remain bacteria.

First, they are evolved bacteria. Evolutionary processes have changed their DNA.

Second, you need to learn a lot more about biology. “Bacteria” covers many species, probably about a billion. Just as “Eukaryote” covers many species. All plants, all fungi, all animals (including humans) as well as a number of single celled species, like amoeba, are Eukaryotes.

Saying “they are still bacteria” is like saying “they are still eukaryotes” when comparing an elephant with a mushroom.

rossum

 

[WileyC1949]

What? Source?

College Theology courses

 

[Aloysium]

First, they are evolved bacteria. Evolutionary processes have changed their DNA

Genetic and epigenetic factors inherent in pre-existing bacteria provide them with the mechanisms to adapt to their environment, to re-configure the relationship they have with the world of which they are a part, such that they can grow and multiply. No evolution, simply change.

you need to

FYI - In any kind of conversation or discussion, this is where the people you are talking to shut off and you begin to speak only to yourself. Usually it sets an accusatory tone going both ways and therefore nowhere. Especially on the internet, we have no idea to whom we are talking to and it is best to stick to the argument. See, now I’m telling you what to do. Pointless

Saying “they are still bacteria” is like saying “they are still eukaryotes” when comparing an elephant with a mushroom.

But I actually did read on and found what is an example of the worst kind of semantic argument.

 

[WileyC1949]

The Holy Spirit was sleeping for so long, and now we find out?

Definition of “Biblical Inspiration” from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, p 868:

“The gift of the Holy Spirit which assisted a human author to write a biblical book so that it has God as its author and teaches faithfully, without error, the saving truth that God has willed to be consigned to us.” (italics added)

What is inspired in the Bible is that which is important to know for salvation. What is NOT inspired is the history, science or sociology which is found in the Bible.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

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.

Yes, the ecosystem evolves as well, in parallel with the particular species under consideration. Both predators and prey will find longer (or shorter) hair more beneficial since the temperature change affects them both. Plants will need to adapt to changed temperatures as well, using existing variations.

rossum

So that means… you’re going to need a whole lot of perfectly synchronised random mutation going on.

 

[buss0042]

I would return that the same could be said, in some regard, of other subjects, such as quantum physics. Theories are simply theories, because we really don’t know enough. But people don’t have the issues they do with quantum physics that they do with evolution because it’s a bit of a scapegoat for atheism. It’s made to be something it isn’t. It is, at its purest form, an idea that potentially answers a question of life diversity. Just an idea, that has some evidence that points to part of it being justified as a theorem. Nothing more, nothing less.

That’s not to say evolution is 100% factually true. Much of its groundwork remains the best available natural explanation for the natural order as it exists. And it certainly isn’t a proof for the unexistence of God. As long as that’s agreed upon, which it seems like everybody in this thread is in agreement upon, it’s mostly a disagreement about the burden of scientific proof.

 

[buffalo]

Definition of “Biblical Inspiration” from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, p 868:

“The gift of the Holy Spirit which assisted a human author to write a biblical book so that it has God as its author and teaches faithfully, without error, the saving truth that God has willed to be consigned to us. ” (italics added)

What is inspired in the Bible is that which is important to know for salvation. What is NOT inspired is the history, science or sociology which is found in the Bible.

For thousands of years the Holy Spirit let us get it wrong?

 

[buss0042]

Maybe a more cohesive way of putting it – if all things were equal, evolution would be put under the same scrutiny as quantum and astrophysics and relativity, all of which have a basis for belief but are by no means as solidly understood as gravity.

But it isn’t the case that those things are as scrutinized by some pockets of Christians, so it must not be the case that all things are equal. And I think that things aren’t equal because there is some incorrect understanding that evolution disproves God. And maybe that’s because some individuals read Genesis literally, or some other reason.

The main point is that the undue over the top focus on evolution as crappy speculation isn’t warranted because it’s 1) just a somewhat sound idea and 2) not at all an argument against God

 

[Aloysium]

evolution would be put under the same scrutiny as quantum and astrophysics and relativity, all of which have a basis for belief but are by no means as solidly understood as gravity.

The difference between evolution as a theory and those related to physics is that it speaks to who we are.

it’s 1) just a somewhat sound idea and 2) not at all an argument against God

I don’t know what you mean by evolution, but I assume you think it a sound idea that human beings are a species of animal and that we evolved from ape-like creatures. If you think about why you believe this chances are that it has something to do with the fact that you’ve heard it since you remember and also that those who don’t buy it are rather slow or scared or brainwashed. But it also must make sense because you would know that we share so many similarities, physically and psychologically with what we consider our animal cousins. We also come from one cell, so although it is something very different and would support creation, it can appear to support the idea that we came from some sort of bacteria.

The fact is that we share many of the characteristics of animals because we too were created to live in this world. What makes us human is our spirit, which unites all the matter and psychology that makes us who we are, and whatever other thing we are relating to, into a whole. We can know the beautiful, the true and the good, and have the capacity to form intent and act. In order to do this we need an appropriate brain; it would be very lucky indeed that it would have happened randomly. Although we possess different gifts and challenges, we share in the same humanity. No one is less human because their genetics and abilities are different from the norm, no matter how far along the statistical curve they are placed. This humanity, with its eternal nature, was created at a point in time and is not a transformation of a previously existing soul. This is the case in the same way that you are not a transformation of something else, but rather individual and unique, irreplaceable in yourself, even if there were an infinite number of other persons; none of them would be you. This is a fundamental quality of human existence, which also has it that we are united as the body of Christ through love.

I could go on, but just to briefly address your second point. I don’t see it as an argument against God; it doesn’t need God at all. The way things are is b elieved to be randomly produced as a result of material processes and is directed by necessity, what is usefull for survival, rather than what is good. What is good according to evolution is survival of the kids, which emotionally makes some sense, but is in conflict with God’s will that we love our enemy. A poster advocating for evolution proposed that mercy is irrational.

This is a very interesting topic for me, but I don’t know why it would have any relevance for others.

 

[rossum]

Genetic and epigenetic factors inherent in pre-existing bacteria provide them with the mechanisms to adapt to their environment, to re-configure the relationship they have with the world of which they are a part, such that they can grow and multiply.

Which is a description of evolution: “Genetic and epigenetic factors” cover random mutations and “such that they can grow and multiply” covers natural selection.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So that means… you’re going to need a whole lot of perfectly synchronised random mutation going on.

Not quite. Random mutation is random, obviously. It is natural selection which provides the smooth synchronisation. As the climate gets colder, natural selection will select those random mutations which improve the survivability of all species living in that colder environment. Animals will get longer fur. Plants will be better able to resist frost. Fish will adapt to living in colder water.

It is natural selection which coordinates the changes arising from the changed environment.

rossum

 

[rossum]

For thousands of years the Holy Spirit let us get it wrong?

Yes. For thousands of years the Holy Spirit did not let us know about the existence of Australia, pulsars and neutrinos.

Maybe the Holy Spirit wanted a book small enough not to need 200 people to carry it?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

The issue has to do with whether those factors gradually accumulated or were brought together by an organizing principle, which we may refer to as the soul of the living being. Further, there is a question as to whether this soul was either created in time or formed gradually.

That life emerges from “dust” because it is in the nature of dust to do such things is a view held by some. Most people seeing how difficult it is to put something together and how easily it will fall apart don’t believe that something so complex as nature and especially themselves and their loved ones occured by happenstance. It is a pretty strong belief that in the face of what life teaches, would hold that genetic and epigenetic factors grew in complexity, producing functional propteins and cells, solely as a result of the inherent properties of atoms.

The idea of there being an organizing principle, transcendent to the workings of matter alone arises as we seek to understand the causes of what is. To restate what was said above, some people may believe that the bricks and mortar come together to build the home. However, while their properties are necessary to the construction, they in themselves cannot carry out the work. Let’s take an enzyme involved in the production of some neurotransmitter that allows for this thought to exist in time and space. It is produced by very tightly controlled process within the neuron. This happens by virtue of the chemical properties of many molecules working together within the cell in conjunction with others in the brain, which is one among other organ systems that make up the body, which in turn is physically and psychologically atuned to its environment on which it is dependent for its survival. That order, while it may be sufficient to explain the physical workings of the cell that maintain it, does not explain how it came to be. The ordering of matter, here the human spirit, which allows for this experience to happen, can be traced back to the beginnings of life, where in ever simpler forms manifests the soul of particular organisms. The existence of an individual living being can be thought of as an expression of universal being or as having been created as other, remainining in relation to Existence, which is not a thing but Divine Relationality.

The soul of a thing is knowable as itself; it is here right here, you and I, as we converse. When we dissect it using the intellectual lens that isolates the physical, however, we will find molecules doing their thing. Materialistic reductionism would see this as the final truth of what is. It is rarely found; more common is a naturalist view that speaks about emergent properties, things coming together forming a new greater whole with its own properties. While the soul, with its psychological and physical aspects, is made up of constituent parts, necessary for its expression, it does not so much arise from them, but rather brings them together into the unity that is the living being.

 

[rossum]

The issue has to do with whether those factors gradually accumulated or were brought together by an organizing principle, which we may refer to as the soul of the living being.

No we may not. Scripture specifically denies the existence of a soul:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5-7

Most people seeing how difficult it is to put something together and how easily it will fall apart don’t believe that something so complex as nature and especially themselves and their loved ones occured by happenstance.

How complex is God? Does the complex God have a meta-God who organised the complexity in God? One of the issues I have with Intelligent Design is that it never applies its own ideas on complexity and design to the Designer it proposes.

You assert a complex designer and have no explanation for the origin of that complexity. You are in essence assuming what you have to prove. If the complexity in God was not the result of design, then the complexity of the physical world need not be the result of design since God is an example of undesigned complexity.

Standard evolutionary processes can increase complexity in DNA using standard measures of complexity.

rossum