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:
I believe Lenski’s little family is up to about 68,000 generations now. The E. coli are still E. coli, however.
Click to expand...
Yeah…every part of nature is connected together, you can’t affect one part, without affecting another.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
Pope Benedict:

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“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...
How many environmental change scenarios do you suppose it took to produce the millions of species we have today?
 
Just a heads-up guys. You’ve been talking to yourselves these past 4 days or so. It’s like the guy who keeps telling the same anecdote every time you meet him. It’s amusing for a while but he’s ignored eventually.
 
Edgar said:
I believe Lenski’s little family is up to about 68,000 generations now. The E. coli are still E. coli, however.
Click to expand...
And humans are still mammals, despite all the evolving we have done. There is more genetic variation within E. coli than within the entire clade of mammals.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
edwest:
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
Click to expand...
The Pope was badly advised on this. Lenski’s Long Term E. coli experiment passed 10,000 generations long ago: Celebrating 50,000 Generations.

rossum
Click to expand...
After 50,000 generations - bacteria. You may be right, he was misinformed. There is and can be no proof for macro-evolution, which is merely a story that distorts the reality of existence.
Edgar said:
I believe Lenski’s little family is up to about 68,000 generations now. The E. coli are still E. coli, however.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update. Still no news.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Wipond disagrees with you. Of evolution he
said that it’s all blind faith
Click to expand...
What evidence does he have to support that statement? Does he not believe that bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics?

rossum
Click to expand...
Some bacteria acquire resistance to antibiotics from other bacteria, whose genome retains those traits present in their original forms, their ancestors, present to maintain the balance in nature between bacteria and molds.
 
Wozza said:
Just a heads-up guys. You’ve been talking to yourselves these past 4 days or so. It’s like the guy who keeps telling the same anecdote every time you meet him. It’s amusing for a while but he’s ignored eventually.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve noticed that too. Same assertions, same rebuttals; but it’s been going on for years actually, here since the ban on these discussions was lifted, and before that obviously.

And then there’s the guy who sits there, not listening to what is being said, having given up, unaware of his lack of understanding, believing what is being said is nonsense - a sad vicious circle of ignorance. Just a heads-up, it does one well to listen.
 
That God created suns and planets before bacteria, and bacteria before grasses and trees, and those before fish and birds and dinosaurs, later to bring mammals and lastly we ourselves into existence is not evolution; it is the layering and shaping of an environmental whole in which we can dwell, we in whom all nature may know its Creator.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
…t a large drug company in America gave $100 million to a research institute based in New York whose scientists regularly use the theory of Darwin’s tree of common descent to formulate “techniques” designed to fight disease…none of these Darwin-based “techniques” have yet proven successful…
Click to expand...
Even if this unverifiable story is true, the failure of a technique to yield specific benefits in one area does not imply it is useless in other areas. That would be cherry-picking failures that favor your point. And even if it had no proven benefit anywhere yet, that does not make it false.
Edgar said:
Don’t be fooled by the words “evolution” and “directed evolution” - you will find that they refer here to microevolution only, based on mutations and natural selection. In other words, the technique it is not dependent in way on Darwin’s tree of common descent.
Click to expand...
So now it appears you are not disputing evolution anymore, but have narrowed your attack to a specific representation of common descent. Evolution can be true even if specific theories about who came from whom have errors and need correction.
edwest said:
This is Intelligent Design. Only “useful” enzymes for a given use are selected by humans. Like this: (example with Crisper)
Click to expand...
No, it is not like that at all. Gene editing is a separate technology that has nothing to do with evolution. But the example cited earlier is evolution, with artificial selection substituted for natural selection. But the mutation process is still very much natural.
buffalo said:
The tree is gone and is now a tangled bush.
Click to expand...
It is always safer to repeat a mindless meme like this than to offer any logical argument.
edwest said:
Pope Benedict:

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“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.”
Click to expand...
That is a long way from saying it isn’t true. It may not be proven, but it has evidentiary support.
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.
Click to expand...
Benedict’s knowledge of the kinds of experiments scientists can do is limited, as one might expect of a non-scientist.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
Wozza:
Just a heads-up guys. You’ve been talking to yourselves these past 4 days or so. It’s like the guy who keeps telling the same anecdote every time you meet him. It’s amusing for a while but he’s ignored eventually.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve noticed that too. Same assertions, same rebuttals; but it’s been going on for years actually, here since the ban on these discussions was lifted, and before that obviously.

And then there’s the guy who sits there, not listening to what is being said, having given up, unaware of his lack of understanding, believing what is being said is nonsense - a sad vicious circle of ignorance. Just a heads-up, it does one well to listen.
Click to expand...
Don’t be too hard on yourself. I’m sure you’ve learned something. Well, I hope you have.
 
Edgar said:
I believe the fossil and geological records do reveal an overall picture of evolution, but since the author of life’s history is God Almighty, it is highly unlikely that the mechanisms that allowed that history to proceed were purely naturalistic. That is to say, the contiguous process of biological evolution proffered by the scientific community may not be what actually happened, even though there may be evidence that reasonably suggests it.
Click to expand...
I am astonished that you think that “the fossil and geological records reveal an overall picture of evolution”

"Take some matter (where did that come from), heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The “fundamental” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are PRESUMED to have done the rest. (emphasis mine)

But how much of this neat tale is firmly established and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment." Scott A., New Scientist vol 106 p 30

“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.” Halton C. Arp, et al., The Extra Galactic Universe p 812

Meantime atheistic science, by denying God would have us accept death, which Jesus overcame on our behalf so that we too can strive for eternal life as sons of God.
 
Uriel1 said:
I am astonished that you think that “the fossil and geological records reveal an overall picture of evolution”
Click to expand...
Do you think your two quotes deal with evolution? They don’t appear to. They seem to refer to (a) abiogenesis and (b) cosmology.
 
Exactly. It fails to make anymore sense than to say I am carbon atoms, or the hundreds of Big Macs that I will have ingested over my consequently shorter life span.
 
Uriel1 said:
40.png
Edgar:
I believe the fossil and geological records do reveal an overall picture of evolution, but since the author of life’s history is God Almighty, it is highly unlikely that the mechanisms that allowed that history to proceed were purely naturalistic. That is to say, the contiguous process of biological evolution proffered by the scientific community may not be what actually happened, even though there may be evidence that reasonably suggests it.
Click to expand...
I am astonished that you think that “the fossil and geological records reveal an overall picture of evolution”
Click to expand...
The way to refute evolution is not to refute abiogenesis, and certainly not to quote someone’s opinion on abiogenesis.
Meantime atheistic science, by denying God would have us accept death, which Jesus overcame on our behalf so that we too can strive for eternal life as sons of God.
Click to expand...
Giant straw man. Edgar is obviously not proclaiming atheistic science. But go ahead and have fun fighting that straw man!
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Uriel1:
I am astonished that you think that “the fossil and geological records reveal an overall picture of evolution”
Click to expand...
Do you think your two quotes deal with evolution? They don’t appear to. They seem to refer to (a) abiogenesis and (b) cosmology.
Click to expand...
I am just demonstrating that abiogenesis is seen to be without foundation.
Without abiogenesis there can be no evolution,
and as we read,“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.” Halton C. Arp, et al., The Extra Galactic Universe p 812
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
and as we read, “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on a very few facts.” Halton C. Arp, et al., The Extra Galactic Universe p 8
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top