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.
40.png
Techno2000:
If you don’t believe in the supernatural…the Devil has got you where he wants you.
This is where the worship of science comes in to play. For many people is an idol that replaces the supernatural. Leading the way is Darwinian evolution.
I don’t doubt that “some” people see science as replacing God, but I don’t think their numbers amount to “many.”
 
What Genesis doesnt tell us is that this inanimate matter included genetic material, from a pre-existing creature. The description of Eve being created from Adam’s “rib” may be a symbolic description of her being created from Adam’s DNA.
Eve was created from a pre-existing creature, Adam.

In the beginning God made us male and female, that we might have a relationship with an other that was our equal . We are made as a self-other, incomplete in isolation within ourselves, fulfilled and forming one body in Christ, in love.

DNA is not the end-all and be-all of who we are. We all have differences in our genetics, which can be very extreme in some cases causing serious disability, we are persons nonetheless.

Ribs are on the outside of our thorax surrounding those organs by which we incorporate external matter and transform it into ourselves, they contain the heart. They thereby demonstrate the intimacy that exists between oneself and another person, a union that is disrupted by sin, the placing of one’s ego above others, which manifests itself as pride and hatred, as well as the fear and mistrust of the other which tempts us to control rather than love them. It is very symbolic but also rationally makes sense as a true physical possiblity.

We are created from other human beings, at the beginning and each time one of us is brought into existence by God. Human beings come from human beings; apes come from apes. That a human being resulted from two mating animals does not make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
The magisterium has told us.
As far as I know the magisterium permits Catholics to believe in evolution.
Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
1 Corinthians 13:12
Does not answer my question. I’d like a verse by verse breakdown please.
 
Where I would disagree is with your belief that the genome itself, of previous life forms was used in the construction of higher, more complex life forms.
Thank you for your thoughts. I think using genetic material from a pre-existing creature is an important ingredient in my model, for the following reasons:
  1. Genesis states that God created living creatures from inanimate matter.
  2. It helps explain the genetic similarities between humans and other creatures, such as those discussed in this article, http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
My model would be that of a heirarchy rather than a tree of life
This is an interesting thought. The tree-shaped map of the fossil record is essential to biological evolution, as every creature needs to be connected by birth to its ancestor. But with my model, perhaps a differently structured map would be more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
I was not implying that I accept the story of whale evolution. I was suggesting to Techno that God has the power to create any way He likes, and is not confined to the creation scenario suggested by the literal “six days” scenario.
 
The last paragraph is speculative.
I would prefer to think that Adam was an exception - that he was not created from the genetic material any pre-existing creature. But it’s my understanding that genetics science suggests otherwise - ie, there are links between human DNA and that of lower creatures. Either way, Adam was created from inanimte matter, as per Genesis 2:7.
 
But with my model, perhaps a differently structured map would be more appropriate.
Off you go then. We can call your diagram the first step towards the acceptance of Edgarism. Just make sure it accurately represents the association between different species.
 
Last edited:
Off you go then. We can call your diagram the first step towards the acceptance of Edgarism. Just make sure it accurately represents the association between different species.
By morphology only?
 
40.png
Wozza:
Off you go then. We can call your diagram the first step towards the acceptance of Edgarism. Just make sure it accurately represents the association between different species.
By morphology only?
Why would you require that we limit it? Association by any measure thanks.
 
Why would you require that we limit it? Association by any measure thanks.

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution​

More evidence for IDvolution.

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

“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.”


Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

 
Last edited:
Why are you posting literature from people who accept without fail the fact of evolution? If you accept what they say then you surely realise that IT IS ON THE BASIS THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT that they say it.

I don’t understand. That’s just…wierd.
 
Why are you posting literature from people who accept without fail the fact of evolution? If you accept what they say then you surely realise that IT IS ON THE BASIS THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT that they say it.

I don’t understand. That’s just…wierd.
Everyone accepts micro-evolution.

Mainstream science articles often give a nod to evolution. They have to to get published. Read enough of them and you will see the real issues with macro-evolution.

Here are two main points:

“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.”


Nothing in between them? No transitionals? Vast differences with clear boundaries. Genetics are much more accurate than trying to group by features.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wozza:
Why are you posting literature from people who accept without fail the fact of evolution? If you accept what they say then you surely realise that IT IS ON THE BASIS THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT that they say it.

I don’t understand. That’s just…wierd.
Everyone accepts micro-evolution.

Mainstream science articles often give a nod to evolution. They have to to get published. Read enough of them and you will see the real issues with macro-evolution.

Here are two main points:

“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.”


Nothing in between them? No transitionals? Vast differences with clear boundaries. Genetics are much more accurate than trying to group by features.
But those guys you quoted aren’t simply discussing micro-evolution. They accept without reservation the fact of evolution. In its entirety. They are even describing species as being as different and as separated as galaxies. Do you not understand what they are discussing? It’s evolution. Period.

One of the guys actually said that the best reason he could come up with for his findings is that ‘life is always evolving’ or something close to that. He ain’t suggesting that life is making minor adjustments via micro evolution. Where on earth did you get that idea from?

What next? Quotes from Neil Armstrong to prove the moon landings didn’t happen? Something from Einstein to deny relativity?

It’s just weird dude.
 
Let’s see what else they said that is interesting:

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

I think you need to read this a little closer…
Not ‘all the animals’. All the extant animals. Which have evolved together with humans over the last few million years. This is the most mundane of proposals imaginable.

I’m beginning to realise that you know a great deal less about this subject than you think you do.
 
Let’s see what else they said that is interesting:

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

I think you need to read this a little closer…
Here is a more critical evaluation and explanation of the research you are quoting so heavily:
Many of you have seen headlines like this on social media recently. What is the origin of this flurry of excited claims? Do they have any merit?

Did Stoeckel and Thaler conclude that “90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans”?

The answer is No. Here is the relevant quote from the published paper:
the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.
In other words, the genetic diversity observed in mitochondrial genomes of most species alive today can be attributed to the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years.

Their conclusions are interesting (and to some extent unexpected) but they are not shocking, nor do they defy evolutionary theory. To see why, let’s unpack what the authors have claimed. First, it is important to note that the authors never claim that most “species” came into existence within the past 200,000 years. Rather, what has come into existence within that time frame is the genetic variation observed in one gene in the mitochondrial genome. By tracing the mutations in that one gene, we can trace the origin of the gene back to the last common female ancestor of all living members of a certain species (the so-called “mitochondrial Eve”). But this discovery, at best, tells us the minimum age of the species. It tells us little to nothing about the maximum age of a species.

In summary: Do Stoeckle and Thaler’s findings undermine evolutionary theory and prove that most animals were created recently? Definitely not.
For more details read the full text of the article I cited.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top