Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Wozza]

What’s that you say? That line of argument has been proven to be fallacious?

OK, here’s an idea @Buffalo. Drop that line, pretend it didn’t happen and head off in another direction. One that you’ve used before no doubt. Surely not something new.

Well, here it comes anyway…

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1
Yup…

I agree that that is literal.

I don’t see any evidence there that he did not use evolution though.

They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Did God have to use evolution to multiple the fish?

 

[edwest]

God, being God, can violate the laws of physics and chemistry, etc. If He could create the Universe from nothing, He can certainly create loaves and fishes from nothing. Or turn water into fine wine.

 

[IWantGod]

They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Did God have to use evolution to multiple the fish?

Seriously bro?

 

[IWantGod]

If He could create the Universe from nothing, He can certainly create loaves and fishes from nothing. Or turn water into fine wine.

True, but that wouldn’t negate the possibility that it was his intention that the world should develop according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Otherwise, whats the point.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Did God have to use evolution to multiple the fish?

Seriously bro?

Seriously dude… God can create any animal or plant out of thin air.The uncreated is greater than the created.

 

[buffalo]

Here are two main points: (and why they were bolded)

“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.

 

[Wozza]

Here are two main points: (and why they were bolded)

“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.

You don’t seem to understand this very well. Of course there are no transitionals between species. Do you expect to see the creature that was the transition between man and ape roaming around? Do you expect to see a half lizard/half bird wandering your backyard?

Really…this is on par with ‘why are there still monkeys’. It would appear that you post a lot on evolution threads. In fact, I see not a lot of posts on much else. It beats me how you can show so little understanding of the subject.

But I guess if you stick around you’ll eventually pick up the basics. You should try this site: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

It’s aimed at those looking for a basic understanding so give it a look over and if you have any questions then someone here would be able to help I’m sure. If nothing else it will help to prevent the obvious errors you are making.

 

[buffalo]

The 'ol Berkely evo site. LOL

 

[Techno2000]

The 'ol Berkely evo site. LOL

Why do they like that one so much ?

 

[Techno2000]

The 'ol Berkely evo site. LOL

It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many leaves on the tree…LoL

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_54

 

[edwest]

Communion and Stewardship

“Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here are two main points: (and why they were bolded)

“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.

Yup, @Wozza, he did just what you predicted. Totally ignored the discrediting of his analysis.

 

[buffalo]

Totally ignored the discrediting of his analysis.

It is you who are totally ignoring what this means.

 

[Edgar]

Seriously dude… God can create any animal or plant out of thin air.The uncreated is greater than the created.

To be fair, Scripture says all creatures (including man) were made from inanimate matter. That said, it is far greater to create a creature from dust than to modify a living creature.

 

[Wozza]

The 'ol Berkely evo site. LOL

I thought it would be helpful to you. You are (excuse me for saying so) making quite a few basic errors in your understanding of the subject. I didn’t think that that site would be too difficult to understand but there are other simpler ones:

Loading…

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Wozza]

buffalo:

Here are two main points: (and why they were bolded)

“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.

Yup, @Wozza, he did just what you predicted. Totally ignored the discrediting of his analysis.

I’ve noticed that happening quite a lot in these threads. Someone will make a claim which is obviously wrong and will have that fact pointed out. It’s then ignored for a while but then the exact same claim is made by the same person (verbatim!) as if no-one is going to notice.

To save a lot of typing it might be an idea to get a set of answers written up to this constant nonsense and simply link to it.

‘Ah, the ‘species as galaxies’ comment yet again. Answer here: xxxx’

Maybe we could even number them. ‘Species as galaxies? See answer 21’.

 

[Elf01]

God can create any animal or plant out of thin air.

I think the evidence is that he used evolution though - or at least that it was done in a way that is indistinguishable from it.

Also - are you implying that he needed air to create?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Totally ignored the discrediting of his analysis.

It is you who are totally ignoring what this means.

As I showed, it is you that is misunderstanding the very research that you cite.

Techno2000:

Seriously dude… God can create any animal or plant out of thin air.The uncreated is greater than the created.

To be fair, Scripture says all creatures (including man) were made from inanimate matter.

That is your literalist interpretation, not how the Church interprets Scripture.

That said, it is far greater to create a creature from dust than to modify a living creature.

Your opinion. I think it is absolutely awesome that God created a world with evolution - much more awesome than the sideshow magician rabbit-out-of-a-hat understanding you present as "greater.’

 

[o_mlly]

It’s just weird dude.

Thank you for correctly identifying your species. In the 1960s, dude evolved to mean any male person. The transitional species known as “weird dude” was thought to be extinct until now. The scientific community had suspected this aberration may be extant as some scientists had mistakenly identified him as the more evolved “serious dude” asking, “Are you ‘serious dude’?” That error has now been corrected; it is just “weird dude”.