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

[Techno2000]

The possible error I believe concerning the theory of the evolution of species is in a certain sense metaphysical. From a Thomistic metaphysical point of view, I think the proponents of the evolutionary theory of species essentially argue from a principle of substances, namely the material principle, that is not in itself the principle of why a thing is the kind or species of thing it is. The body of things and bodily parts such as cells, DNA, and atoms are all reduced to the material principle of substances, the body of a thing is as the matter of a material substance which matter is completed by the form, specifically, the substantial form. The material principle is an indeterminate principle, essentially potentiality, inactive, and does not even exist without form. Form is the determining principle of things and it is the principle why a thing is the kind of thing it is and why a thing has the kind of matter or organization of matter ( such as the DNA) it has. This is why St Thomas Aquinas argues in various places of his works that matter is not the first or primary cause of the distinction of things. Matter is essentially potentiality, entirely formless, entirely indeterminate.

Accordingly, it appears to me in light of Thomistic metaphysics that the proponents of the evolutionary theory of species argue from a principle of substances, namely the material principle which DNA is reduced too as a part of the body, that is in itself pure potentiality, indeterminate, inactive, does not even exist without form, and which is not the determining principle of why things are the kinds of things they are which principle is the substantial form. In other words, you can’t evolve some determinate thing from a principle that is in itself and essentially indeterminate.

Right ,a body without a spirit is a corpse, science can’t really explain that. But it’s easy to understand for those who believe in the Supernatural.

 

[o_mlly]

If God created species …

Aye, there’s the rub. Atheists do not like the word “create” but do like the word “species” and to put them in the same sentence confuses and distresses them.

Interesting that the words “species” and “specious” have similar etymologies – seemingly desirable, reasonable or probable, but not really so.

 

[edwest]

Sure. Just have unnamed people call this or that part of the Bible “a story” and what happens to the Bible? Nothing good.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVED

So they say. But why can’t a theory be proven?

How is it that so many people can have so many opinions on matters that they do not understand? This must be one of the best examples of conversations when so many people have understood so little but yet have claimed so much.

It surely is not possible that you can ask such a basic question as that when there have been thousands of posts written about nothing other than a theory. And now you virtually admit to not knowing what a theory is!

This is not credible. This is beyond my understanding. This is some sort of alternative reality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Wozza:

THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVED

So they say. But why can’t a theory be proven? Isn’t it so that some of Einstein’s theories were confirmed by experiments?

Say rather “supported by experiments.” It does not mean quite the same thing as “proved” in the sense of a mathematical proof. Scientific theories have more or less degrees of support. Newtonian mechanics has a very large body of support. Before Einstein you would have said that it is “proved.” Yet Einstein came along and through relativity showed that Newtonian mechanics is only approximately true where the approximation is very good at speeds much less than the speed of light, which explains why the shortcomings in Newtonian mechanics were not realized for so many years.

There is still the possibility that some extreme case will show that Einstein’s theories were not exactly correct either, and some small correction is needed. That is why we avoid using the word “proved” with scientific theories.

 

[o_mlly]

If one asked God for His opinion of the theory of evolution, I think He would say “Infantile nonsense!”

Yes. And the atheist evolutionists argue like infants, “Dad, you just can’t understand!”

While theories may not be provable, they are disprovable. It appears science may be closing the gap between the false theory of evolution by natural selection and the Bible. DNA study discloses perhaps the Creation event or a Noah’s Ark kind of event just 100 to 200 thousand years ago. Stay tuned.

That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

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.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?

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

 

[PickyPicky]

DNA study discloses perhaps the Creation event or a Noah’s Ark kind of event just 100 to 200 thousand years ago

No it doesn’t.

“The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.
“It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently.”

Another occurrence of an anti-evolutionist quoting evolution research and somehow reading the wrong thing into it. And in this case stealing from poor old Buffalo — this is the research he kept posting time after time as though he’d found the smoking gun.

 

[o_mlly]

No it doesn’t.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Another occurrence of an anti-evolutionist quoting evolution research and somehow reading the wrong thing into it. And in this case stealing from poor old Buffalo — this is the research he kept posting time after time as though he’d found the smoking gun.

There’s no argument here either. Just another opinion. Sad.

 

[PickyPicky]

As an argument I posted a quote from the scientist concerned which scuppered your assertion.

 

[o_mlly]

Another occurrence of an anti-evolutionist quoting evolution … And in this case stealing from poor old Buffalo — …

Another occurrence of an atheist in denial. (Thanks Buffalo! The truth is always worth re-reading.)

From the scientists:

The mass of evidence supports the hypothesis that most species, be it a bird or a moth or a fish, like modern humans, arose recently and have not had time to develop a lot of genetic diversity. …

Our work suggests that most species of animals alive today are like humans, descendants of ancestors who emerged from small populations possibly with near-extinction events within the last few hundred thousand years. …

[G]enetically, the world is not a blurry place. It is hard to find ‘intermediates’ — the evolutionary stepping stones between species. The intermediates disappear.

Did a mysterious extinction event precede Adam and Eve?​

By Michael Guillen, Ph.D. | Fox News

Loading…

www.foxnews.com

 

[Aloysium]

the very first post has put this debate to rest.

Hopefully this will read more than a word salad here.

It’s hard to scroll up to the top of this thread, so I’m going to use the quote Edgar proveded:

“If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today. The evidence does not bare out that claim.”

God created different kinds of things, beginning with light, and then atoms and later plants and animals. These are different kinds of being, different existing things which form a hierarchy, those more complex containing the information that constitutes lesser forms. What is an animal in itself encompasses its material being, making it all one whole unity, governed by what it is, its soul.

So, to begin with you and I are talking apples and oranges. God didn’t create different species; as I see it, they would have arisen as expresssions of the kind of thing they are, morphologically and psychologically different but essentially the same thing, manifesting itself through individual forms. One would not expect that animals today should be the same as they were when the first of their kind was brought into being in Eden.

The platypus is a fantastic animal, a monotreme, laying eggs, which remain in the womb absorbing nutriets from the mother until ten days before hatching. The zygote divides in much the same manner as reptiles and birds needless to say, differently than mammals. The young are nursed, but like marsupials must crawl with strong forearms to find the openings of the mammary glands which lack nipples. It has many characteristics that differentiate it from placentals. The most recognized features are its duck billed, beaver tail, and otter-like paws. Less known perhaps is that they have a venomous spur on their hind legs and that they hunt using electroreception, detecting the electric fields generated by muscular contractions and neuronal activity.

Evolution would have it that the first placental creature by necessity emerged from an egg, and the platypus would be one example of that rather abrupt transition. If the process were the result of random genetic factors, how much, much greater the likelihood of unviable offspring before a steady state of monotreme would have occurred.

The whole thing is creation anyway, and creation of kinds of being. Our individually being an expression of humankind is primary, the complexity of genetic and epigenetic process, although necessary are secondary.
I have so much more to say; it’s a pity you have put the debate to rest. It has barely begun to my mind.

 

[Aloysium]

Another occurrence of an anti-evolutionist quoting evolution research and somehow reading the wrong thing into it. And in this case stealing from poor old Buffalo — this is the research he kept posting time after time as though he’d found the smoking gun.

It doesn’t really matter how the research findings were interpreted. It may be placed in an evolutionary framework, but what is being highlighted is the data. No matter how the article may spin the findings to make the facts consistent with a stale theory, they are what is important for this discussion. The poster is attempting to demonstrate how they are far better understood from a creationist stand point. They’re trying to get beyond simply appeals to authority. Let’s use our God-given reason.

 

[PickyPicky]

Do you think the research as reported here really suggests to a person of reason the literal truth of the Flood myth?

 

[Aloysium]

How is it that so many people can have so many opinions on matters that they do not understand?

You tell me.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you think the research as reported here really suggests to a person of reason the literal truth of the Flood myth?

Do you think the research as reported here really suggests to a person of reason the figurative truth of the Flood myth?

Well, let’s check. A massive near extinction event? Yes.

 

[PickyPicky]

Golly. It does? OK, I’m happy for you.

 

[Aloysium]

Do you think the research as reported here really suggests to a person of reason the literal truth of the Flood myth?

The flood did happen. I don’t know when or what it involved. Psychodynamically it symbolizes what occurs as a person matures to where they are ready for their first communion, putting into the unconscious the chaotic passions of early childhood. It most definitely represents the Word of God, protecting us in the wood of the ark/cross, washing away the corruption of sin, carrying the seeds of a new world. Physically speaking, I do believe an actual historical event did occur expressing humanity’s decision to go with God through one family. It’s not a myth.

Scripture is quite specific about the ark itself and I don’t know what to make of that.

I’ve got enough on my plate getting through the first three chapters of Genesis and what they tell us of who we are, how we got here and our relationship with God. The science, confused as it is by evolution, I know backwards and forward and find it completely lacking. But the two do come together and contribute to the understanding of each.

I think the research does suggests the literal truth of the Flood. The details, as I said I don’t know and haven’t thought about sufficiently to say one way or another. Definitely what is understood to be the emergence of most species following near extinction events within the last few hundred thousand years would validate such a claim.

I do notice the use of myth to describe the flood, which suggests a prejudice aginst taking it seriously at all. If one fundamentally believes it to be merely fantasy, anyone suggesting it could be real will sound totally irrational. No doubt to some, I’m some old coot who lost his mind, eccentric at best.

 

[PickyPicky]

Myth doesn’t necessarily mean fantasy, as of course you know, but I admit that it is so long — I suppose 50 years — since I thought the Noah narrative was a story telling the historical truth of an event (and even then it wouldn’t have occurred to me that it might have symbolised the things you say it symbolises, my having been brought up in a rather literalist branch of Protestantism) — it is so long, I admit, that my disbelief in such things could I suppose have solidified into a prejudice against taking it seriously.

Be that as it may, it does seem to me that the possibility of a mass extinction (and we do know such has happened in the past and, indeed, that one may b e happening now) does not represent evidence of a man and a boat and a zooful of animals. But, as I say, if o_mlly finds comforting evidence of such, I’m not against comfort.

EDIT: My oh my, nearer 60 years. I’m an old coot, too.

 

[buffalo]

Science vs. Darwinism​

Challenging the evolutionary establishment​

I used to work at DuPont, the inventor in the 1930s of nylon—and 40 years later scientists found a bacterium with an enzyme dubbed nylonase that was able to digest nylon, which is a synthetic chemical not found in nature. Evolutionists use that as proof that new proteins can rapidly evolve, but you found a different story. It wasn’t what we call a frameshift mutation, a DNA deletion or insertion that shifts the whole way a sequence is read. I discovered a whole body of literature by some Japanese workers who had found pre-existing protein folds. There was no new protein, no novel protein fold, no new mutation.

‘Most scientists are blind to their own assumptions. They don’t even consider that there might be another explanation. For them, common descent is an automatic. It’s a given.’​

And now you’re undermining what we’ve seen frequently reported in newspapers and magazines: that a special creation of Adam and Eve, one couple from whom all of us are descended, could not have happened. Most of my scientific career seems to be involving people asking me questions and then I start down a path. In this case, a philosopher asked me how strong was the genetic evidence against Adam, because everywhere it’s been proclaimed we had to come from a population of 10,000. It’s led to people in the church suggesting there is no such thing as a historical Adam. So when the philosopher asked me, I said, “I don’t know. I’ll go look.” I started with a paper that Francisco Ayala, a very famous evolutionary biologist, wrote to disprove the possibility of a first pair.

Loading…

wng.org

 

[buffalo]

Accept evolution … coz it’s sooooo important to biology … but don’t ask anyone to explain why.

But defenders of Darwin do admit that life appears to have been designed. Richard Dawkins says biologists have to constantly remind themselves that life is evolved.

Loading…

wng.org