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.
LeafByNiggle said:
Gather more data and try to confirm the hypothesis. Are there any identifiable portions of advanced DNA in the most primitive life forms? What about artificial selection where very unnatural characteristics are selected for and evolve? Is the atrocity known as the modern English Bulldog part of God’s plan? What is the proposed mechanism by which advanced characteristics appear at the proper time? What is the cause and effect?
Click to expand...
I have provided exactly the same amount of evidence as evolutionists have for their assumed limited gene pool. So, you first.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Gather more data and try to confirm the hypothesis. Are there any identifiable portions of advanced DNA in the most primitive life forms? What about artificial selection where very unnatural characteristics are selected for and evolve? Is the atrocity known as the modern English Bulldog part of God’s plan? What is the proposed mechanism by which advanced characteristics appear at the proper time? What is the cause and effect?
Click to expand...
I have provided exactly the same amount of evidence as evolutionists have for their assumed limited gene pool. So, you first.
Click to expand...
Supporting data has been gathered - much of it reported in this very thread.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Are there any identifiable portions of advanced DNA in the most primitive life forms? What about artificial selection where very unnatural characteristics are selected for and evolve? Is the atrocity known as the modern English Bulldog part of God’s plan? What is the proposed mechanism by which advanced characteristics appear at the proper time? What is the cause and effect?
Click to expand...
  1. I’m not quite sure what you are referring to, so I will assume you mean organisms like bacteria. One would not expect there to be “advanced” DNA, as there is in a human zygote, that would code for the phenotype of more complex forms. They would be the first to be created, forming the environment suitable for the more complex kinds of living forms that followed. DNA, by the way is the tip of an ontological iceberg that is the thing in itself; it is what is observable directly by the senses and their technological extensions.
  2. Again, I don’t understand what you are getting at. There has been random degradation of the genomes of various kinds of creatures since the fall. The breakdown in the information carried by the DNA would result in “unnatural” characteristics arising and being passed on.
  3. As I understand your post, this is an elaboration of what you were getting at in the previous question. I believe that they have a lot of congenital issues. It would be as much a part of God’s plan as would be war - what human beings do with what they have been given, putting self-interest above love.
  4. I’m not going to post the link yet another time to the NASA twin study. The cellular mechanisms that involve DNA are associated with the organism’s relationship with its environment and we see considerable changes that permit the organism and its offspring to live more harmoniously within the greater system of which they are components.
  5. God is the Cause and this here is the effect.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Are there any identifiable portions of advanced DNA in the most primitive life forms? What about artificial selection where very unnatural characteristics are selected for and evolve? Is the atrocity known as the modern English Bulldog part of God’s plan? What is the proposed mechanism by which advanced characteristics appear at the proper time? What is the cause and effect?
Click to expand...
  1. I’m not quite sure what you are referring to…
Click to expand...
I am referring to o_milly’s hypothesis that everything we have been calling “evolution” is just a rearrangement of genes that were already present in the first organisms. It is a nice theory, but there is no experimental data to support it.
  1. Again, I don’t understand what you are getting at. There has been random degradation of the genomes of various kinds of creatures since the fall.
Click to expand...
How can you call the changes “degradation” when the later life forms are proving more successful than their ancestors?
The breakdown in the information carried by the DNA would result in “unnatural” characteristics arising and being passed on.
Click to expand...
But if those changes make the creature less successful at breeding, they don’t get passed on for long.
  1. As I understand your post, this is an elaboration of what you were getting at in the previous question. I believe that they have a lot of congenital issues.
Click to expand...
If you are speaking of the English Bulldog, it got that way because people selected them for those congenital issues. There are other instances of evolution from artificial selection producing creatures that have no natural advantage other than the fact that they have been arbitrarily preferred by man. Without that artificial interference, such congenital issues would have died out in the wild. But we can create an artificial environment and the creatures will evolve to adapt to it. Many experiments show this.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
The modernist lexicon doesn’t contain the word, “inspired”. One often comes across a “modern” theologian who claims that the ancient authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other cultures - the implication is, these ancient authors may not have been inspired - they just copied ideas from somewhere else.
Click to expand...
And there lies the problem. It is well exploited.
 
Edgar said:
Scientists can genetically modify certain organisms, but they’ll never be able to create life (or even an atom) from nothing. According to Thomistic philosophy, it is a far greater feat for God to create life from nothing than to modify an existing creature. From this perpective, a process of progressive creation (separate creations) demonstrates God’s power and glory far greater than a process of evolution ever could.
Click to expand...
Recognize that lab experiments are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and what happens in the lab is different than what happens in the wild.
 
Bradskii said:
Which is: If you think that people thought that it was miraculous to believe that God stopped the sun from moving, then they had accepted that it was moving in the first instance.
Click to expand...
Yes. The sun moves and it was stopped. In 1917 it miraculously danced.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
From a biological point of view, there is only one ‘kind’: the Life on Earth kind. That makes biology, including evolution, compatible with Genesis.

The evidence of the history of life tends to confirm the all life is one kind hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree.
 
rossum said:
He did say. Not in words, “Let the waters bring forth…” is compatible with many interpretations. He said so in His Works. The evidence of the world shows that God used evolution.

Remember that God wrote two books: the Bible and the World. You appear to be ignoring what He said in His second book.
Click to expand...
Hmmm - it seems God’s Revelation (unchangeable) is being ignored or reinterpreted. The weak link is provisional historical science which by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Then we add in faulty or incomplete human reasoning.

In the case of Revelation we have the protection of the Holy Spirit.
 
rossum said:
Classic god of the gaps: “never”. Be very careful here. Thor once lived in the gap called “What causes thunder?” Science closed that gap and now Thor has to live in comic books, not Asgard.

As a philosophical point, God did not create the first life, since He Himself is a living God, so He is the first life, and He did not create Himself. At most He created the second life.
Click to expand...
Evolution has the gaps. And now we know they are like the distance between galaxies. It is getting worse for evo every day.

There will always be at least one gap.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I am referring to o_milly’s hypothesis that everything we have been calling “evolution” is just a rearrangement of genes that were already present in the first organisms. It is a nice theory, but there is no experimental data to support it.
Click to expand...
Another au contraire.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/lederberg_01

The Lederberg experiment
So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.
Click to expand...
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I am referring to o_milly’s hypothesis that everything we have been calling “evolution” is just a rearrangement of genes that were already present in the first organisms. It is a nice theory, but there is no experimental data to support it.
Click to expand...
Another au contraire.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/lederberg_01

The Lederberg experiment
So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
They might have evolved resistance in response to exposure to something in nature that was similar to penicillin.

Also the mutation needed is small enough that the probability of it appearing randomly is reasonable.

Actually, this experiment supports evolution more that not. It has always been the premise that genetic variation exist, and this just shows that premise is true. From the very first line of your citation:
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
“So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.”
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
“So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.”
Click to expand...
They just happened to have the random mutation that made them resistant. Evolution does not posit that exposure creates mutations. This experiment is taken as one of the classical confirmations of a key principle of evolution.
 
It didn’t confirm anything. By using a built-in mechanism called Horizontal Gene Transfer, bacteria can transfer genetic bits to other species of bacteria. Dirt was taken from a remote area and bacteria were found in it that were resistant to man-made and natural antibiotics/harmful substances. What this shows is, given a random sample of bacteria, you may luck out in the lab.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top