H
Hope1960
Guest
Aren’t there some? And doesn’t that prove he was right?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
Let’s try an example.Bradskii:
But that is exactly my point, Bradster. Nothing is ever half-formed. It is all perfectly “finished”, or “fully formed” as you put it. We see no species in transition. In other words, we see no evolution happening anywhere.
Or are you saying that fully-formed new characteristics pop up in a single generation as a result of random mutation? E.g. a fish gives birth to an amphibian? Apart from the absurdity of it, that would make RM&NS hardly random, now would it?
BTW, I’m not necessarily a creationist as you (probably) understand that term. I’m just saying the RM&NS part of evolution theory is grossly at odds with the observation – confirmed by you – that species do not exhbit half-formed characteristics.
Say you are buidling a house. You get 4 walls up, a door and a roof and move in. Is it finished? Well, it serves its purpose. It keeps the rain off. So effectively yes. If that’s all you need (you’re going to move on in a few days) then we are done. It’s not half finished. It’s not the first stage in building a mansion. It’s complete.
But later, when you’ve moved on, you decide to build something more substantial because you want to stay for a while. It has two room and a window and a chimney in addition to what you built earlier.
Sometime down the track you decide to stay where you are and you build a really solid 4 room place with a stable and a garden.
Each building was complete and fully finished in itself. It didn’t need to be any better than it was at each stage because it fitted the requirements. But…and here comes the clincher…we can look at the first two and DESPITE them being fully formed and exactly what was needed at the time we can see the transition from a simple shelter to a substantial home.
But what you coukdn’t do was look at each dwelling when it was being built and say ‘this is a transition to…something else’. We don’t know where evolution is headed. We don’t know if something is finished or will.continue to evolve.
So a mea culpa here. When some of us say that everything is actually a transitional form, what is meant is that everything is a potential transitional form. Archaeopterix is only a transitional form because we can see what preceeded it and see where evolution took it. If it was alive now we wouldn’t be able to call it transitional. Just as we couldn’t call each dwelling a transitional.form without knowing that something larger was going to be built.
And we don’t have that knowledge regarding evolution. We don’t know where it’s going.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I can’t tell you about it, because I’ll be accused of Quote mining.Techno2000:
Aren’t there some? And doesn’t that prove he was right?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sorry, but this is way too simplified, there’s a million variables that would come into play involving complex ecosystems.Roguish:
Let’s try an example.Bradskii:
But that is exactly my point, Bradster. Nothing is ever half-formed. It is all perfectly “finished”, or “fully formed” as you put it. We see no species in transition. In other words, we see no evolution happening anywhere.
Or are you saying that fully-formed new characteristics pop up in a single generation as a result of random mutation? E.g. a fish gives birth to an amphibian? Apart from the absurdity of it, that would make RM&NS hardly random, now would it?
BTW, I’m not necessarily a creationist as you (probably) understand that term. I’m just saying the RM&NS part of evolution theory is grossly at odds with the observation – confirmed by you – that species do not exhbit half-formed characteristics.
Say you are buidling a house. You get 4 walls up, a door and a roof and move in. Is it finished? Well, it serves its purpose. It keeps the rain off. So effectively yes. If that’s all you need (you’re going to move on in a few days) then we are done. It’s not half finished. It’s not the first stage in building a mansion. It’s complete.
But later, when you’ve moved on, you decide to build something more substantial because you want to stay for a while. It has two room and a window and a chimney in addition to what you built earlier.
Sometime down the track you decide to stay where you are and you build a really solid 4 room place with a stable and a garden.
Each building was complete and fully finished in itself. It didn’t need to be any better than it was at each stage because it fitted the requirements. But…and here comes the clincher…we can look at the first two and DESPITE them being fully formed and exactly what was needed at the time we can see the transition from a simple shelter to a substantial home.
But what you coukdn’t do was look at each dwelling when it was being built and say ‘this is a transition to…something else’. We don’t know where evolution is headed. We don’t know if something is finished or will.continue to evolve.
So a mea culpa here. When some of us say that everything is actually a transitional form, what is meant is that everything is a potential transitional form. Archaeopterix is only a transitional form because we can see what preceeded it and see where evolution took it. If it was alive now we wouldn’t be able to call it transitional. Just as we couldn’t call each dwelling a transitional.form without knowing that something larger was going to be built.
And we don’t have that knowledge regarding evolution. We don’t know where it’s going.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
There are hundreds of different species of crayfish, forming a Superfamily, the Astacoidea. This is a new species, so it is macroevolution.
You seem to need to learn more about the levels of the nested hierarchy.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
No. It already has a survival advantage over earlier species that are now extinct. Remember also that the environment in America is not the same as the environment in Germany. What works well in Germany may not work so well in America. Hurricane resistance is needed in America, not so much in Germany for example.
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, you’re saying American crayfish can’t survive in Germany ?Techno2000:
No. It already has a survival advantage over earlier species that are now extinct. Remember also that the environment in America is not the same as the environment in Germany. What works well in Germany may not work so well in America. Hurricane resistance is needed in America, not so much in Germany for example.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
In German aquariums they can. That is where the new species appeared. In the wild, the new species will outbreed them.
rossum
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
O
o_mlly
Guest
True. And he skips the most important variable: Can the “simpler shelter” interbreed with “the substantial home?”
A
Aloysium
Guest
This is a philosophy forum. If you want to know more about the science, might I suggest you read or take a class. I think the arguments have been made, and I don’t know what would constitute proof for you. I think it obvious that evolution is wrong and as obscure my reasoning might be, I personally have done my best to explain that view. If this matter is as important to you as your posts suggest to me, and equally to the inter-denominational church you are considering to attend, you might wish to consider refraining from doing so. You may end up just upsetting yourself and them. It’s your business, believe what you want and do what you will; I just wanted to bring it back to what we are doing here. May Jesus walk with you in your search.Hope1960:
Still…nothing.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I can’t say I was ever an atheist except for maybe a few months in my mid-teens, but I did go to church for many decades when my understanding of our existence was in line with eastern religions. As late as almost six years ago, when I mentioned to my son about my participation on CAF, he was surprised and asked, “Aren’t you Buddhist?” During those many, many years, I did not participate in the Eucharist, believing it to be simply matter and not the body and blood of our Saviour. I continued however, to feel the need for more than solitary contemplation and meditation. As much as I felt myself an outsider, the church was home. God is always calling us, and He was calling that atheist you knew.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Is an unborn baby a transitional form?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Is the concpet too complex for you to understand?
‘Transitional forms, fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms’. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
That’s from evolution 101. If there was a simpler explanation involving less sylables then I would post it.
If you have something to say about that that somehow, in some wierd Bufallo contrived way could possibly involve unborn babies then simply say it.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
What? loooool
A
Aloysium
Guest
To my mind, the reality of a baby is its humanity, developing into a person who will exercise its free will to participate in the creation of itself in eternity. Our senses, and the technology we employ to delve into what is not immediately observable, reveal its bodily structure. We understand how physically, the zygote absorbs matter into itself to grow and diversify from a pluripotential cell, becoming ever more specialized cells, resulting in the complexity of the human body and amniotic sac which contains it. Along with the physical, a universe of colours, sounds, touch and taste emerges from the brilliant silence. We continue to develop, eventually discarding our primordial home, to emerge into the encompassing greater world, where we participate, deciding through our actions, who we will ourselves to be. Eventually, this temporal body-in-the-world is left behind, as we are resurrected in eternity, hopefully assuming the role we were destined to fill, in and through Jesus. We are all transitional forms on the Way to our true selves.
It is perhaps that sense that gives the illusion of evolution the feel of reality. All creation is journeying to final communion within the Trinity through us, as we endeavour to surrender ourselves to Love, becoming Christ-like. All creatures are built utilizing the same material foundations, but created individually as an expression of their kind, having a common soul, and demonstrating the glory and beauty of God in all their diversity. Serendipity does not explain what is happening here.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I don’t understand what is funny in the comment. I could write pages and pages, books if one follows all the implications evoked by the question. I’m asking because not one of them made me laugh.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Now that’s funny as a “roast”. The problem in responding with laughter is that, unlike your post, unless the person is in on the joke, it is ridicule. And ridicule is a weapon to keep people quiet, to inhibit their thinking outside of their society’s prescribed norms. While our psychosocial nature requires a common language and world-view in which to dwell, society must remain open to different points of view. History is replete with the consequences of how far we can go to stiffle free thought. That said, when one knows what one is talking about, as poorly as it may be communicated, that sort of response comes across as braying.
- Status