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.
Edgar said:
No one is claiming Harry Potter is factual, so there must be a fundamental difference between the Bible and fiction.
Click to expand...
How about Homer then? Homer is basically history, yet it contains details of the Greek gods. Does that make those gods true. The Mahabharata contains many details of the history of ancient India and the actions of the Hindu gods.

Details can be added to true stories and to fictional/legendary stories. The presence of detail does not indicate that a story is necessarily true. It may be true, it may not be.

rossum
 
Edgar said:
Almost there- Adam and Eve were created about 7200 years ago.
Click to expand...
According to buffalo we are actually there. He says that Adam’s skeleton is in a side chapel of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (?). Now it is up to you to sequence the DNA and show the differences between Adam’s DNA and modern human DNA. I await your evidence.

Alternatively, did Jesus, aka “the new Adam” have the same DNA as Adam? If so, then you could sequence the DNA on the Turin Shroud, the Holy Umbilicus or other physical remains of Jesus.

rossum
 
o_mlly said:
Professor Voegelin traces man’s inclination in this direction to his pre-modern, age-old experience of anxiety in the midst of the ambiguity of existence, and the tension that became increasingly evident in the ancient Greek and Hebrew differentiations between the this-worldly and the other-worldly, the immanental and the transcendental, the physical and the spiritual-in man’s increasing awareness of his participation (mēthexis) in-between these two realms, and the tension that derives from his status as one who, as Augustine phrased it, is in, but not fully of, this world.
Click to expand...
excellent sentence!
o_mlly said:
unclear, ambiguous truth into clear untruth
Click to expand...
The truth described in the quote above is pretty clear.

I would add that the tension between the transcendent and immanent, the eternal and temporal may be understood as arising from the relationship between the person and their existence, defined by death, the limits to individual being. Ultimately, as a manifestation of the fear of God, its resolution is to be found in God, He who is Existence itself and the Cause of everything. Triune in nature, perfect relationality, He is reflected in all that is. In love we become that connection between self and other, in the giving over what we are, achieving unity. Thus knowing, through this act of love, the eternal Fount of being, all anxiety evaporates in joy.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Professor Voegelin traces man’s inclination in this direction to his pre-modern, age-old experience of anxiety in the midst of the ambiguity of existence, and the tension that became increasingly evident in the ancient Greek and Hebrew differentiations between the this-worldly and the other-worldly, the immanental and the transcendental, the physical and the spiritual-in man’s increasing awareness of his participation (mēthexis) in-between these two realms, and the tension that derives from his status as one who, as Augustine phrased it, is in, but not fully of, this world.
Click to expand...
excellent sentence!
o_mlly said:
unclear, ambiguous truth into clear untruth
Click to expand...
The truth described in the quote above is pretty clear.

I would add that the tension between the transcendent and immanent, the eternal and temporal may be understood as arising from the relationship between the person and their existence, defined by death, the limits to individual being. Ultimately, as a manifestation of the fear of God, its resolution is to be found in God, He who is Existence itself and the Cause of everything. Triune in nature, perfect relationality, He is reflected in all that is. In love we become that connection between self and other, in the giving over what we are, achieving unity. Thus knowing, through this act of love, the eternal Fount of being, all anxiety evaporates in joy.
Click to expand...
Wow. There was a lot of thought that went into that.
 
The holistic theory of species would include an explanation of the origin of life from matter. Absent that theory, the origin of species cannot satisfy the philosophical question, “How did human life come to be?”

The improbability of evolution of life from non-life also explains the improbability of the evolution of species (altered DNA by random mutation). The earth/universe is just not old enough to support the theory of life from non-life. If the first life from non-life is virtually impossible then the question of how different forms of life came to be becomes almost meaningless.
See:


 
o_mlly said:
The holistic theory of species would include an explanation of the origin of life from matter. Absent that theory, the origin of species cannot satisfy the philosophical question, “How did human life come to be?”
Click to expand...
But it is not necessary that the theory of evolution explain everything. It only explains what it says it explains and that is good enough to be a theory with support.
The improbability of evolution of life from non-life also explains the improbability of the evolution of species (altered DNA by random mutation). The earth/universe is just not old enough to support the theory of life from non-life.
Click to expand...
  1. Abiogenesis or it’s impossibility says nothing about the probability of evolution of living species. Why can’t you have one without the other?
  2. These “calculations” of probability do a great disservice to the real and legitimate field of mathematics called “probability.” They are totally fallacious.
 
o_mlly said:
The improbability of evolution of life from non-life…
Click to expand...
Is not as improbable as you seem to think. Szostak has shown that randomly assembled ribozymes (a probable precursor to proteins) are often functional: Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences.
Abstract
Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation. Two of the three classes of ribozymes have been engineered to act as true enzymes, catalyzing the multiple-turnover transformation of substrates into products. The most complex of these ribozymes has a minimal catalytic domain of 93 nucleotides. An optimized version of this ribozyme has a kcat exceeding one per second, a value far greater than that of most natural RNA catalysts and approaching that of comparable protein enzymes. The fact that such a large and complex ligase emerged from a very limited sampling of sequence space implies the existence of a large number of distinct RNA structures of equivalent complexity and activity.
Click to expand...
Your source’s calculation assumes one single target. This is wrong, there are many possible targets which can all perform the same function with varying degrees of effectiveness. For example, Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 1093 different ways to make a working cytochrome-C. Your source needs to correct its calculations, as they currently have a very obvious error.

rossum
 
rossum said:
This is wrong, there are many possible targets which can all perform the same function with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Loading…

darwins-god.blogspot.com
So the argument goes like this. The low probability of a protein, such as cytochrome c, evolving is not important because there are many other proteins that could have evolved and functioned. So the world that we have is but a sampling of a vast set of possible worlds. And the proteins that we have are but a sampling of a vast set of possible proteomes. It must be vast in order to resolve the low probability problem. You can’t merely have a couple dozen other possible worlds. That is not going to help. You need an astronomical number of possible worlds. There’s just no scientific evidence for anything of the kind.

If anything, the world we observe show no signs of such flexibility. You can’t just take away cytochrome c and insert some other type of protein. At least, that is what the science suggests. Perhaps that would be possible, but we certainly don’t have evidence for it.

If you don’t get it, here is another approach. Try applying this argument to automobiles. Yes, you could have a world with a lot of different kinds of autos, none of which exist today. But that set is small compared to the enormous universe of all possible configurations. The set of functioning autos, while large, is tiny compared to the set of all configurations. The non functioning configurations dwarf the functioning ones.

The problem is much worse in molecular biology because there isn’t as much flexibility.
Click to expand...
 
Aloysium said:
God, He who is Existence itself and the Cause of everything.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that a naturally evolving reality is the most reasonable thing for a timeless being to create. In fact that is what i would expect from a metaphysical perspective, and everything that science is revealing is consistent with that notion, including evolution…

God would create a reality that can take care of it’s own development. Why would he create a reality that he has to tinker with given that he is all powerful?

Your idea of creation is very limited.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It seems to me that a naturally evolving reality is the most reasonable thing for a timeless being to create.
Click to expand...
We believe that only a supernatural act can explain the very first human being to the one just created moments ago.
 
o_mlly said:
If anything, the world we observe show no signs of such flexibility.
Click to expand...
Your source is lying to you. We know that many different cytochrome C’s work because they are working at this moment in different species. Here are a few amino acid sequences of different working cytochrome C’s:
Code: 
Hum:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chm:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhe:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Mou:          mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne
Frg:          mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht cekggkhkvg pnlygligrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg erqdliaylk sacsk
Fly:     mgvp agdvekgkkl fvqrcaqcht veaggkhkvg pnlhgligrk tgqaagfayt dankakgitw nedtlfeyle npkkyipgtk mifaglkkpn ergdliaylk satk
Sun: masfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta
Key: Hum - human, Chm - Chimpanzee, Rhe - Rhesus monkey, Mou - mouse, Frg - bullfrog, Fly - fruit fly, Sun - sunflower.

The human and chimpanzee sequences are identical, a 1 in 2.3 x 1093 chance. The Rhesus monkey has one amino acid different, and the mouse has eight. Cytochrome C sequences are part of the evidence for evolution. The fly and sunflower have many more differences for the human/chimp sequence. The closeness of the sequences mirrors the closeness of the species in the tree of common descent. We are a lot closer to mice (mammals) than to flies (insects) or sunflowers (plants).

Your source is misinforming you, either deliberately or through ignorance. You should not rely on a source which does either.

rossum
 
Aloysium said:
God, He who is Existence itself and the Cause of everything.
Click to expand...
This is an obvious error. God Himself is uncaused, so He was not the cause of Himself. At most God is the cause of everything except Himself.

You are not the first person to make this common error. I suspect that it is a common expression which is typed without real thought. Please try to do better next time.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Please try to do better next time.
Click to expand...
Let’s recall the lotus:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Every action is a seed. They bear fruit of one kind or other. Some are infertile, and die wherever they fall. Like the lotus in the mud, through acts of goodness, beauty is brought into the world as one grows in goodness.
 
rossum said:
The human and chimpanzee sequences are identical, a 1 in 2.3 x 1093 chance.
Click to expand...
That the physical similarities and differences at the macro level are mirrored in the micro level among living things is irrelevant to the instantiation of life itself.

As to the chimp and human, while the physical micro level does mimic the macro, the micro says nothing about the vast difference in intelligence.
 
rossum said:
This is an obvious error. God Himself is uncaused, so He was not the cause of Himself. At most God is the cause of everything except Himself .
Click to expand...
The error is misunderstanding the word “uncaused.” That which is uncaused has no cause, that is the uncaused being has no cause to which it is an effect. God does not cause Himself; His essence is His very existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top