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

[buffalo]

Scaffolding? is designed

Mousetrap - no one says other styles of mousetraps cannot exist.

If we design one (specified) with the specific parts and assembled in a specific fashion, and one of the parts is removed from the assembly, it will not work as specified. If we take the same parts and just lay them on a table nothing happens. They have to be assembled as designed and all of them present and the spring loaded for it to work. In addition the spring is rather complex as well as the latch. The mousetrap is designed with purpose and will not function without all its parts.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The answer has already been decided. Because we have agreed that we can understand how natural laws governed the process.

How can you “understand” how a process works if all you have is a theory for how that process works? I think you are conflating understanding a theory and knowing a fact.

4,000 plus posts and still we get comments like this. I did say I wasn’t going to help you but it seems I must.

Then again…no. It’s junior high school stuff. Science 101. Whether you think the op is correct or not, the fact that you don’t know any of the basics that one would need to make an educated appraisal on the matter will speak for itself.

 

[IWantGod]

If we design one (specified) with the specific parts and assembled in a specific fashion, and one of the parts is removed from the assembly, it will not work as specified.

In biology, the loss of one function does not equate to the complete break down of an organism.

Using artificial examples that exist solely for one purpose and function as an analogy for biology is the first fallacy.

 

[edwest]

Thanks again.

 

[buffalo]

In biology, the loss of one function does not equate to the complete break down of an organism.

Using artificial examples that exist solely for one purpose and function as an analogy for biology is the first fallacy.

Which part of the ATP Synthase motor can be eliminated?

 

[IWantGod]

it doesn’t follow from any point of view that God had to create all the kinds or species of plants and animals at once or simultaneously which is your assumption.

It doesn’t. And neither does it follow from a strict reading of genesis that God created different kinds over billions of years. Clearly, it is more reasonable not to think of genesis as an historical account of creation, and i don’t think it was intended to be. Any attempt to conform genesis to the scientific data is adhoc at best.

 

[Edgar]

Evo does not qualify as empirical science. SInce it is not, it is philosophy

Most of it is theories that can’t be tested, so most of it doesn’t even qualify as science.

 

[o_mlly]

[A]ll that the scientist could say about the matter is that they don’t know

If only they would.

Evo does not qualify as empirical science. SInce it is not, it is philosophy.

Evo is like a nude beach. Sounds like a good idea until you actually look at it.

 

[Edgar]

They can’t even show a creature or a plant that’s morphing into something new right now in this day and age

That’s a good point. There should be evidence of partial organs and limbs, etc. in extant species. They may exist, but I can’t think of any living species that has part of any eye or part of a heart or part of a wing. (Although I must admit that a dog or horse running on a beach looks suspiciously like the beginning of another whale evolution sequence.)

 

[Richca]

o_mlly:

While theories may not be provable, they are disprovable.

Thank you. Is it correct to say no one can prove that all life on earth evolved from a microbe?

It’s possible that from the natural sciences point of view macroevolutionary theory will be disproven or considered highly unlikely if that hasn’t already been done so in certain respects. Even from this point of view, I personally find the theory unreasonable and highly unlikely. I don’t think it is possible for it to be proven with certainty short of a divine revelation even if it was true as mankind was not around to observe what God was doing before Adam and Eve were created as well as the certain truth that God doesn’t need evolution to create different species of animals and plants. What we do know and observe is that species generate their own kind and what we possess from divine revelation such as God’s word, i.e., Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition literally favors creationism and God’s direct creation of all the species of plants and animals and all the other kinds and species of creatures of the universe culminating in the creation of the first man and woman, namely, Adam and Eve.

 

[Edgar]

The idea of irreducible complexity is not reliable from a scientific standpoint. Because again and again scientists have discovered things that have been thought to be irreducibly complex and yet they have been found to be the result of a chemical process and not an intelligent-builder

Are you an atheist? Coz you really sound like one.

 

[buffalo]

the design and production of materials, structures, and systems that are modelled on biological entities and processes.

Yes, design from design.

 

[IWantGod]

Are you an atheist? Coz you really sound like one.

Why would i be an atheist based merely on my rejection of the complexity argument? Now that’s bizarre. Is Behe’s intelligent design argument your religion or something?

 

[Edgar]

THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVED

I didn’t actually say theories can be proven. I said it can’t be proven that the common ancestor all life on earth is a microbe that existed billions of years ago. In other words, it’s a belief that can’t be proven.

 

[Edgar]

Judging from previous threads and this one, you seem to want to cut God out of the process of creation, which I find quite odd for a Christian.

 

[Aloysium]

The idea of irreducible complexity is not reliable from a scientific standpoint.

Scientific standpoint? It’s philosophical. You are an irreducible complexity. Break yourself down into your components and all you’ve done is engaged in reductionism.

 

[IWantGod]

Judging from previous threads and this one, you seem to want to cut God out of the process of creation, which I find quite odd for a Christian.

How can that possibly be when i have made plenty of threads arguing for the existence of goal direction and intelligent information in nature, not to mention plenty of threads arguing for the existence of an intelligent uncaused cause of physical reality.

I have also made it clear that i disagree with the traditional intelligent design arguments put forth by William Paley and the complexity argument put forward by Behe and his friends. Because they don’t work!! They are God of the gaps arguments based purely on assumptions that cannot be logically proven…

Not to mention that i think that the current attacks on evolution in favor of intelligent design is an insult to Christianity and makes us look desperate and willfully ignorant…I’d Prefer to stay well-away from any thing "Behe" in nature.

I don’t see Evolution as a threat, but rather it is an unveiling of how God’s creation works. i celebrate it.

 

[njlisa]

The Church does not reject evolution.

Here’s what St. John Paul II wrote:

"There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity]."

John Paul II, “Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings”, April 16, 1986.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?​

Yes, because…

In addition to the excellent response from IWantGod, I will point out a logical flaw in your description of ID as scientific theory. You say:

Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

But this is the wrong hypothesis. The hypothesis you really need to support is:…

If a natural object contains high levels of CSI, then it was designed.

It is the rookie logic mistake of confusing “A→B” with “B→A”.

 

[buffalo]

But this is the wrong hypothesis. The hypothesis you really need to support is:…

If a natural object contains high levels of CSI, then it was designed.

No. Nature contains patterns and such without design. All designs however, contain patterns. Language, maps, symbols, codes, specifications, instructions etc are designed.