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.
So you could be characterized as asserting that when the first single celled organism existed 3.8 billion years ago, so did platypuses, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
So you could be characterized as asserting that when the first single celled organism existed 3.8 billion years ago, so did platypuses, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Bottom up or top down? SIngle cell and multi-cell could be all created in the beginning.
 
edwest211 said:
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
Click to expand...
Your Holiness, should you read CAF (and surely there could be no better use of your limited time) may I respectfully say that you are 100% wrong. Apart from experiments extending directly over many more generations, patiently explained to your follower Buffalo, there is indeed an experiment that can be done, and has been done, over10,000 generations. Genetic matter relevant to this discussion is transmitted from generation to generation by descent. By comparing which species has what material we can identify their relationship. Humans have about half their genetic material in common with plants. With other apes we have nearly all genetic material in common. This experiment, which is able to be replicated and has been, hundreds of thousands of times, extends over many more than 10,000 generations. Please continue to discuss evolutionary theory, which began with your fellow Catholic Gregor Mendel of blessed memory.
 
IWantGod said:
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…
Click to expand...
I agree that species of animals or plants don’t evolve or morph into an entirely different species according to the Darwinian macroevolutionary paradigm. But, just as from one first couple of the human species, namely, Adam and Eve, a variety of human races came about, so there appears to be some scientific evidence for variety within species of animals and plants through what is commonly called microevolution, adaptation, or gene recombination or expression mechanisms. However, it is not necessary to believe that God created only a first pair, as he did with humans, of a particular kind of animal or plant. He may have and probably did create many pairs of a particular species of plant or animal. It is also not necessary to believe that all the varieties within a particular species of plant or animal came about only by the natural mechanisms I just mentioned above. I believe that God himself probably created many of the varieties within a certain species that we find scattered over the face of the earth. It is also not scientifically clear the extent of the variety within a species the natural mechanisms can produce but it appears to be quite limited and especially limited to the certain kind of species of animal or plant in question.

It is also not necessary to assume according to the 7 day biblical creation account that God created all the animals or plants simultaneously on their respective days of creation. For example, on the fifth day of creation when God created the marine animals and birds, He could have created some of them in the morning, some at midday, and others towards the evening. And if this day is understood as an indefinite period of time even in the millions or hundreds of millions of years assuming there is some truth to these ages modern science gives, than the fossil record is not in contradiction to the Genesis narrative nor to the ‘stasis’ of the various kinds of animals. The same can be said for the vegetation or plant creation on day 3 and for the creation of the land animals on day 5.
 
Last edited:
(continued)

Indeed, according to the fossil record, it appears that God did not create all the animals and plants simultaneously but progressively from the more simple to the more complex. God’s creative activity in the creation and formation of the world and its variety of creatures in its first institution lasted through the creation of man (possibly just 2 million years ago or less), male and female he created them, which is narrated on the 6th day and the last to be created. Man is depicted here as the summit of creation created in the image and likeness of God and given dominion over the earth. Subsequently, on the seventh day, creation now complete in its first institution, God rests from ‘all the work he had done in creation.’

It is also not necessary to assume that, for example, since it is narrated that God created the vegetation or plants on day 3, he didn’t create any more plants afterwards such as on days 4-6. Or that since it is narrated that God created the marine animals and birds on day 5, he didn’t create anymore of them on day 6. The creation days of the plants and animals could be considered over-lapping. Thus, it is also not necessary to assume that the sacred writer is giving a precise historical or chronological order of the creation of the various species of plants and animals. The fossil record, if accurate to some extent, may give us some idea when God created the various kinds of plants and animals.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
there is indeed an experiment that can be done, and has been done, over10,000 generations.
Click to expand...
Again, totally missing the Pope’s point. All the organisms alive over the last 10,000 generations cannot be hauled into the lab.
 
FiveLinden said:
This experiment, which is able to be replicated and has been, hundreds of thousands of times, extends over many more than 10,000 generations. Please continue to discuss evolutionary theory, which began with your fellow Catholic Gregor Mendel of blessed memory.
Click to expand...
Uh no. It has not been replicated per your claim.

HGT is responsible for much cross species genetic simllarities as well as common design. That is why everyone knows Darwin’s tree of life has fallen and is now an entangled bush.
 
Only you know that, where has this ‘bush’ been proposed in actual scrutinized literature? People actually working in the field, including the Christians working in the field, keep finding more evidence. Still waiting for that fossil of a t-rex with a chicken in it’s stomach though. Or really any modern fossil found in proximity to an ancient one. There’s a Nobel prize there too, along with identifying the DNA barrier that prevents an animal from adapting too much. See those things WOULD actually crush evolution.
 
Dan123 said:
Only you know that, where has this ‘bush’ been proposed in actual scrutinized literature? People actually working in the field, including the Christians working in the field, keep finding more evidence. Still waiting for that fossil of a t-rex with a chicken in it’s stomach though. Or really any modern fossil found in proximity to an ancient one. There’s a Nobel prize there too, along with identifying the DNA barrier that prevents an animal from adapting too much. See those things WOULD actually crush evolution.
Click to expand...
The Tree of Life may be more like a bush

New species evolve whenever a lineage splits off into several. Because of this, the kinship between species is often described in terms of a ‘tree of life,’ where every branch constitutes a species. Now, researchers have found that evolution is more complex than this model would have it, and that the tree is actually more akin to a bush.

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com
 
“I found a guy who says the thing I agree with and I’m ignoring the consensus of the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields, ergo it’s disproven”. Well done.
 
I thought the bar was having to have ‘10,000’ generations? Does he dig a hole down to the cretaceous? Does it let it fill for millions of years?
 
Dan123 said:
“I found a guy who says the thing I agree with and I’m ignoring the consensus of the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields, ergo it’s disproven”. Well done.
Click to expand...
We do not do science by consensus. That may be the problem here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top