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

[goout]

We will be changed.

Ed, is that you?
What have you done with ED!!!

 

[Aquinas11]

Whether or not Evolution is true is a continuing debate usually among people who think that the idea of natural evolution is either consistent with or against church teaching.

If you are merely concerned with the scientific validity of the theory, then so be it. But my statement still stands as far as Church teaching is concerned…

Well the main problem beyond Religion with Evolution is that there is no evidence supporting it. Sure, there are multiple fossils found at multiple periods over time, which people have attempted to portray as “evidence” that one species (of fossil A) evolved into another species (of fossil B). But this is faulty logic. It would be same as 1000 years from now, someone finding a fossil of a Great Dane, a Labrador and a Chihuahua and concluding that those 3 fossils are “evidence” that a Chihuahua evolved into a Great Dane.

 

[o_mlly]

“God of the Gaps” syndrome where God is inserted … humans are confused by yet another mystery they cannot explain …

“God of the gaps” is the disparaging sneer easily converted to the triumphant “brute fact” depending on the targeted audience. The reality is the same, “We just don’t know how that happened”.

 

[edwest]

The real Ed is on my spaceship. I’m a very advanced Artificial Intelligence that comes by to visit from time to time.

ED

 

[Gabika50]

Cool! Give my regrds to mini Ed! And know that we will become more like Elvis- hence Elvis lution. I had a similar post but it was flagged because I put fat and on drugs in it…

 

[buffalo]

Get this - devolution - Behe’s New Book

---

While Stephen Colbert has called Michael J. Behe the “Father of Intelligent Design,” Behe’s arguments have been called, “close to heretical” by the New York Times Book Review , and Richard Dawkins has publicly taken him to task for his “maverick” views. Wherever he goes, Behe makes waves, but has remained singularly focused on doing rigorous scientific analysis that points to controversial but incredible results that other scientists won’t touch.

Twenty years after publishing his seminal work, Darwin’s Black Box , Behe shows that new scientific discoveries point to a stunning fact: Darwin’s mechanism works by a process of devolution , not evolution. On the surface, evolution can help make something look and act different , but it doesn’t have the ability to build or create anything at the genetic level.

Critically analyzing the latest research, Behe gives a sweeping tour of how modern theories of evolution fall short and how the devolving nature of Darwin’s mechanism limits them even further. If we are to get a satisfactory answer to how the most complex, stunning life-forms arose, it’s time to acknowledge the conclusion that only an intelligent mind could have designed life.

 

[buffalo]

Oh and more devolution and more…

"Budding yeasts, despite their phenotypic similarity, are very different from one another genetically. They’re as different from one another as all animals or all plants are from one another." (galaxies apart?)

Reductive Evolution? Oh my… “By having a very broad swath of biodiversity, it allows us to reconstruct the evolutionary processes through time,” Hittinger says. “That’s what allows us to make the inference that much of budding yeast evolution occurred through the process of reductive evolution, where you have a relatively metabolically complex common ancestor losing traits through time.” (what I have been saying, aka devolution)

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Techno2000]

Oh and more devolution and more…

"Budding yeasts, despite their phenotypic similarity, are very different from one another genetically. They’re as different from one another as all animals or all plants are from one another." (galaxies apart?)

Reductive Evolution? Oh my… “By having a very broad swath of biodiversity, it allows us to reconstruct the evolutionary processes through time,” Hittinger says. “That’s what allows us to make the inference that much of budding yeast evolution occurred through the process of reductive evolution, where you have a relatively metabolically complex common ancestor losing traits through time.” (what I have been saying, aka devolution)

Broad genome analysis shows yeasts evolving by subtraction -- ScienceDaily

So, I would suppose that environmental changes/survival of the fittest, doesnt even come into play.

 

[Aloysium]

So, I would suppose that environmental changes/survival of the fittest, doesnt even come into play.

It comes into play as yet another aspect of death in the world. With the loss of information that would allow it to participate in its environment, the organism may not survive to procreate. Random mutation and natural selection clearly exist, but the do so in opposition to the established order that had a cause for its beginnings in the timeline of creation.

 

[Aloysium]

“God of the gaps” is the disparaging sneer

It is a projection of the “randomness of the gaps” that we find in science. If unexplainable by the prevalent theory, no explanation is thought to be necessary. Things just happen. Atoms randomly collect together by their own inherent properties to create a higher order of things - life. At least with God of the gaps, there’s a element of truth in that God brings all this into creation. That things somehow exist where we should really expect nothing and that they behave in extremely complex ways to bring about whole new systems beyond the sum of their parts, like you and I, for some there’s nothing to look at here, just move along.

 

[edwest]

I have found that any explanation can be created. Better to say “We don’t know” than ‘probably,’ ‘likely,’ ‘must have,’ and so on. I have seen a few cases of jumping to conclusions. Instead of writing ‘this group of people are most likely to have made xyz,’ I read that they must have. I’m involved in World War II research with some top researchers. They would never accept such terms. One highly regarded researcher offered the following, “This isn’t scientific proof but it’s the best explanation…” His book that contains this quote was expensive but I bought it. It is still regarded as the best treatment of the subject(s).

 

[Edgar]

Ironically, like many atheists, you seem to have great difficulty in seeing the epistemological difference between a metaphysical statement and a *scientific statement.

Please speak English. Isn’t epistemology the study of skin, or something? Why are you talking about skin?

I think the fact that you find the thread title offensive is absurd.

Well I think the fact that you think the fact that I find the thread title offensive is absurd is also absurd.
So it’s a case of my two “absurd” and one “offensive” verses your one “absurd” - in other words, I win.

 

[edwest]

“Epistemology is the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief. It analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.”

 

[IWantGod]

Please speak English. Isn’t epistemology the study of skin, or something? Why are you talking about skin?

Why can’t you resist the temptation to embarrass yourself?

All you had to do is google it.

epistemology

/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi,ɛˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/

noun

Philosophy

noun: epistemology

1. the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

 

[Edgar]

The same religious attitude is affecting polio immunisation in some places.

I heard that polio vaccination programs are opposed in some Islamic countries because the vaccination teams (who are usually from “Christian” nations) are suspected of being spies, or something like that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

IWantGod:

Whether or not Evolution is true is a continuing debate usually among people who think that the idea of natural evolution is either consistent with or against church teaching.

If you are merely concerned with the scientific validity of the theory, then so be it. But my statement still stands as far as Church teaching is concerned…

Well the main problem beyond Religion with Evolution is that there is no evidence supporting it. Sure, there are multiple fossils found at multiple periods over time, which people have attempted to portray as “evidence” that one species (of fossil A) evolved into another species (of fossil B). But this is faulty logic. It would be same as 1000 years from now, someone finding a fossil of a Great Dane, a Labrador and a Chihuahua and concluding that those 3 fossils are “evidence” that a Chihuahua evolved into a Great Dane.

If you are speaking of scientific evidence now, that’s now what scientists 1000 years from now would conclude. There would need to be dating that put the Chihuahua much older than the Great Dane. But there is no such fossil evidence of that ordering now, and 1000 years is far too short a time for that big a change to occur. Maybe in 10,000 years it might happen. More likely 1,000,000 years. Your view of how scientists come to their conclusions is far too simplistic.

Also we must distinguish between the general theory of evolution (that species do evolve) from the very specific theories that this or that species evolved from such and such a species. One can be wrong about the latter and right about the former.

 

[Edgar]

There would be others but none so utterly fantastic and unbelievable as the idea that atoms and molecules haphazardly by their own efforts joined together to bring about something so utterly complex as a bacterium, let alone this here that we are currently engaged in.

Oh, yes - abiogenesis undoubtedly takes the cake! I’ve always said that the most absurd belief ever held by a human being is the one that says life arose naturally from inanimate matter. There are many among us who refuse to acknowledge that each one of us is a walking, talking miracle.

“although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools” - Romans 1:21-22

 

[IWantGod]

Oh, yes - abiogenesis undoubtedly takes the cake! I’ve always said that the most absurd belief ever held by a human being is the one that says life arose naturally from inanimate matter. There are many among us who refuse to acknowledge that each one of us is a walking, talking miracle.

What difference does it make if animate objects arose from inanimate objects. If God created physical reality including our souls, then the whole entire thing is a miracle!!! The existence of Natural events is a miracle.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

The same religious attitude is affecting polio immunisation in some places.

I heard that polio vaccination programs are opposed in some Islamic countries because the vaccination teams (who are usually from “Christian” nations) are suspected of being spies, or something like that.

There was a rumor started by the Islamic anti-west extremists that vaccines from Western-sponsored agencies are actually intended to make all Muslims sterile. The sad part is that this rumor is readily believed by the peasants and it is preventing polio from being the second disease (after smallpox) to be eliminated from the wild. There are only three countries left in which polio is endemic: Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.

 

[edwest]

As I understand it, natural events, as mentioned here, don’t require God.