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

[buffalo]

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

bveritas:

The evidence does not support radical changes from species to species due to the irreducible complexity of physiological structures and the impossibility of these occurring accidentally and randomly when their gradual development would serve no life sustaining physiological purpose.

Right…and start to adding up all the transitional life forms that evolution had to produce to get the 10 million species we have today, and the odds are overwhelmingly against random mutations.

Another non-mathematical and totally intuitive use of the term “odds”. There is a real field of probability in mathematics and statistics. It is well-developed. Too bad it is not being used here.

When are we going to start see something actually evolve into a completely new creature, or do we have to wait another 4 billion years .

If you would be so kind as to specify exactly what you mean by “a completely new creature” I might venture a guess as to how long we would need to wait. If you say “bacteria into bambi” I’m afraid you might have to wait that long.

What I’m talking about is what rossum calls a partly new organism.Something that would make a unbeliever, a believer… like half rabbit/half goat like creature walking around

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What I’m talking about is what rossum calls a partly new organism.Something that would make a unbeliever, a believer… like half rabbit/half goat like creature walking around

I’m afraid that any change that big will take more than your lifetime. Now if you are willing to accept evidence from before you were born, we might get somewhere.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

What I’m talking about is what rossum calls a partly new organism.Something that would make a unbeliever, a believer… like half rabbit/half goat like creature walking around

I’m afraid that any change that big will take more than your lifetime. Now if you are willing to accept evidence from before you were born, we might get somewhere.

The clock for evolution started ticking 4 billion years ago, and out the 10 million species we have now, not one organism can be seen to be in the… half/half stage .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

What I’m talking about is what rossum calls a partly new organism.Something that would make a unbeliever, a believer… like half rabbit/half goat like creature walking around

I’m afraid that any change that big will take more than your lifetime. Now if you are willing to accept evidence from before you were born, we might get somewhere.

The clock for evolution started ticking 4 billion years ago, and out the 10 million species we have now, not one organism can be seen to be in the… half/half stage .

Oh, there are plenty of them right now. But you won’t know that they are in that half/half stage until you see the other half, which might not appear for several million years. And you won’t wait that long. That is why I suggested that you accept evidence from before you were born so we can see both halves.

 

[Techno2000]

But you won’t know that they are in that half/half stage until you see the other half, which might not appear for several million years.

How does evolution know what’s the environment is going to be like several million years from now ?

 

[buffalo]

The clock for evolution started ticking 4 billion years ago, and out the 10 million species we have now, not one organism can be seen to be in the… half/half stage .

Because we now know as I posted the distance to cover genetically is too great. We would need to see so many more transitionals to cover this vast distance.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

The clock for evolution started ticking 4 billion years ago, and out the 10 million species we have now, not one organism can be seen to be in the… half/half stage .

Because we now know as I posted the distance to cover genetically is too great. We would need to see so many more transitionals to cover this vast distance.

And how is the organism going to be fit for the environmental change if it takes millions of years for this to happen, what does it do in the meantime ?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But you won’t know that they are in that half/half stage until you see the other half, which might not appear for several million years.

How does evolution know what’s the environment is going to be like several million years from now ?

Why do you think it needs to know? (Because obviously it doesn’t.)

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

But you won’t know that they are in that half/half stage until you see the other half, which might not appear for several million years.

How does evolution know what’s the environment is going to be like several million years from now ?

Why do you think it needs to know? (Because obviously it doesn’t.)

So it can be fit for this so-called environmental change ? You tell me.

 

[Bradskii]

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

IDvolution.org: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

Buffalo 09

 

[Aloysium]

And right there is where you abandon science and turn to labeling as an alternative to arguing.

You do realize that this is what you are doing right here, failing to actually address the point I am making that evolution is an interpretation of the actual science.

The actual science is to be found in physics, chemistry, and genetics. No controlled studies can confirm evolution; what is done is to interpret the actual findings in accordance with a materialistic and utilitarian philosophical system. The creationist vision is far far superior.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

But you won’t know that they are in that half/half stage until you see the other half, which might not appear for several million years.

How does evolution know what’s the environment is going to be like several million years from now ?

Why do you think it needs to know? (Because obviously it doesn’t.)

So it can be fit for this so-called environmental change ? You tell me.

That does not require knowing what the environment is going to be. It only requires recognizing and responding to the environment after the environment changes, which is does through natural selection.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And right there is where you abandon science and turn to labeling as an alternative to arguing.

You do realize that this is what you are doing right here, failing to actually address the point I am making that evolution is an interpretation of the actual science.

I did address it. I disagreed with with.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

But you won’t know that they are in that half/half stage until you see the other half, which might not appear for several million years.

How does evolution know what’s the environment is going to be like several million years from now ?

Why do you think it needs to know? (Because obviously it doesn’t.)

So it can be fit for this so-called environmental change ? You tell me.

That does not require knowing what the environment is going to be. It only requires recognizing and responding to the environment after the environment changes, which is does through natural selection.

How can evolution offer any beneficial survival advantages if it takes millons of years to do so?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How can evolution offer any beneficial survival advantages if it takes millons of years to do so?

I see you have reverted to your old standby of asking endless irrelevant question.

 

[rossum]

The clock for evolution started ticking 4 billion years ago, and out the 10 million species we have now, not one organism can be seen to be in the… half/half stage .

That is your misunderstanding of what a transitional species is. If you want to convince us, then please explain why Archaeopteryx is not a transitional species:

                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae

Archaeopteryx is part dinosaur: feathers, teeth and a bony tail, and part bird: flight. Why does it not meet your criterion?

rossum

 

[Edgar]

But huge doses of wishful thinking can overcome such lousy odds.

 

[Edgar]

I am aware of the frequent use of symbolic numbers like 7, 12 and 40 in the Bible. But the Flood account contains several, seemingly meaningless numbers, such as the following:
“In the SIX HUNDREDTH year of the life of Noe …
in the SECOND MONTH …
in the SEVENTEETH DAY OF THE MONTH …
for A HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS … the SEVEN AND TWENTIETH DAY OF THE MONTH …
until the TENTH MONTH …
the FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH …
in the SIX HUNDRETH AND FIRST YEAR …
In the SECOND MONTH, the SEVEN AND TWENTIETH DAY OF THE MONTH”

You have not explained the symbolic significance of these numbers, which doesn’t surprise me, as I believe they are not symbolic at all, but are part of a description of literal history. Why did the author include these seemingly meaningless and needless chronological details? There seems to be only one logical explanation - to convey to the reader that this is an account of real, literal history.

If anyone understands the significance of numbers in the OT, it’s the Jews, but I’m not aware of any Jewish attempt to explain the Flood numbers symbolically.

 

[Edgar]

I like these AIG guys–my primary annoyance is their insistence on using Ussher’s 6000 year old Chronology based on the Masoretic text. We all know IMHO that the better numbers are found in the older Hebrew text reflected in the LXX, which provide for a world that is about 7600 years old if there are no gaps in the Biblical genealogy. However, if there are gaps in the genealogies the Masoretic and the older Hebrew texts allow for a somewhat older earth (though a 10,000 year old earth would already be pushing the limits of additional years that could be squeezed into hypothetical genealogical gaps).

The Martyrology of the Catholic Church states Christ was born 5199 years after the creation of Adam and 2957 years after the Flood. So this implies mankind is about 7217 years old. I think it’s fair to assume that the Catholic scholars who calculated these dates were well versed in the Bible’s genealogies and any ambiguities contained therein. The Church’s modernists, deceived by the atheist/demonic fable of evolution, laugh at such dates of course, concluding that the Bible’s genealogies and history aren’t literal, but “symbolic” . What are they “symbolic” of? Ha, no one knows! In other words, they would have us believe that vast tracts of the Holy Word of God are a meaningless drivel.