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

[PickyPicky]

Mudskipper.

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Aloysium]

Mudskippers have the ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth (the mucosa) and throat (pharynx); this is only possible when the mudskippers are wet, limiting them to humid habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing, similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous air breathing. Another important adaptation that aids breathing while out of water is their enlarged gill chambers, where they retain a bubble of air. These chambers close tightly when the fish is above water, due to a ventromedial valve of the gill slit, keeping the gills moist, and allowing them to function while exposed to air. Gill filaments are stiff and do not coalesce when out of water.

I suppose this is to serve as an example of transitionals in evolutionary development rather than God’s creativity and artistry. I am left wondering where would be all the those creatures with the nonfunctional beginnings of what in later offspring would be lungs. I this makes me glad we don’t need to breathe through our skins, but I suppose in that case the train I’m riding would be an aquarium on wheels. I commend the intellectual efforts at keeping the faith of evolution, even though it offers no true rational physical explanation for the appearance of the mudskipper.

 

[Edgar]

post removed.

 

[Edgar]

post removed

 

[PickyPicky]

I suppose this is to serve as an example of transitionals in evolutionary development rather than God’s creativity and artistry

If you wish, although I only posted it as a response to something quoted by Edgar (since mysteriously removed) from Edwest making merry with the very idea that a fish should come out of the water.

 

[buffalo]

as the imperfect beginning of creation,

God said creation was good.

 

[Aloysium]

I believe the original post questioned why a fish would want to leave the water and how it would determine what is food, and the removed post why a dinosaur would want to fly. I can’t speak for the authors what point they were trying to illustrate, but I think these are valid questions. They pertain to the psychological aspect, the instinctual perception, feeling, desire and activity of the reality that is an individual organism, these functions physically appearing as a pattern of excitation within a system of neuronal connections within the unity that is the animal.

What happens is that God, eternally bringing all creation into existence, executes His will through His angels, who in carrying it out participate in the heavenly choir that unceasingly sings of His glory. I am going to assert that there are no true laws of nature; what exists are events that are rational and consistant with the will of God. We establish what are those patterns of relationship that are the reality of things in the world, and call them laws. God is involved in every event that occurs in the universe be it directly caused or contingent. Contingency played a minimal role in the formation of fish and birds, what was going on in any particular day, in contrast with the act of creation that sees the beginning of a new kind of thing. Each living being exists individually as itself, also as a prototype of all future offspring, and as a participant in the totality that is an environment, which not only the creature requires, but also needs the organism to play its role in its formation. It all comes together, physically and psychologically, one inter-related system in union with its environment. The desire for a particular food, the choice of a mate, the drive to seek something different, along side the physical capacities to enable a change are all granted to the organism, the progenitor of its kind and its descendents.

The cause of all this, evolution holds to be random chemical change and natural selection. The very causes of dwindling species the world over, we are being told is what brought them into existence. I don’t think so, which is why I put sunscreen on the kids when they were small, have gone to a dentists who provide a radiation screen that covers me from my thyroid to my genitals when taking X-rays, why I don’t smoke, and why I use gloves in a well ventillated area when dealing with teratogens and cancer-causing agents. I’d be a fool to think that random changes to my genetic code are going to make any part of me better than what was given to me originally.

 

[guanophore]

I Fail to see how i am making that error.

I believe you. You don’t realize that you use the term “literally” as equivalent to “true”. Therefore, the Genesis accounts of creation must be fables, since they do not appear to be consistent with your perception of historical/scientific facts.

it seems to me that you already have the same view, just worded differently.

That may be. He seemed to come out of the gate making assumptions and strawmen. I was also put off by the title of the thread. I am very suspicious of those think it is there job to tell me what I “should think”.

And neither does it follow from a strict reading of genesis that God created different kinds over billions of years .

From my point of view, this statement comes from a fundamentalist perspective. If a “strict reading” cannot recognize poetry, or the method being used to communicate religious history (rather than scientific), there is not much room for dialogue. When I read Genesis, it does not follow (from the text) that life was not created over billions of years. The difference, I think, is a matter of perspective. I hold one that sees no contradiction. IWandGod has one that embodies a 'strict reading", whatever else that means, it excludes any literary criticism and the possibility that there is harmony with science.

(1) Christians have been conforming true scientific facts to Genesis and the rest of the Bible since the early fathers of the Church.

Indeed, fundamentalism is nothing new! I just had a recent review of the interactions of Galileo with the Catholic hierarchy.

I have learned, mostly here, that evolution has no practical use in applied science, in new drug discovery or any other branch of science.

The Theory is based upon mutation/adaptation. I think it is quite clear from the plethora of drug resistant bugs and mutated infections that mutation in life forms affects their preservation (especially when it comes to resistance to antibacterial drugs).

What is being discussed is the objective truth of a scientific theory.

If it has progressed to an objective truth, then why is it still called a theory, rather than a “proof” or an “axiom”?

And if it is still a theory, then why am I told I “should think” it is true?

the practical applications of a theory have absolutely no bearing on whether that theory is true

So is one of those “practical applications” to discredit the book of Genesis?

 

[Aloysium]

I think it is quite clear from the plethora of drug resistant bugs and mutated infections that mutation in life forms affects their preservation (especially when it comes to resistance to antibacterial drugs).

Drug resistance is passed on through the transfer of genes from bacteria who have the trait to those whose ancestors lost it. Since fungi and bacteria live in the same environment, when they were originally brought into existence, they possessed the capacity to control not only their own growth but limit that of the other kind of life, thereby maintaining the balance and harmony of their shared world. We utilize the ability of molds to create substances that are toxic to bacteria in order to control infections. New chemicals may be derived from the shape of those protein structures, but there will be some bacteria somewhere that will be able to counteract it. And, they are capable of sharing their apparent good fortune to others. By the way, speciation works primarily through gene deletion, the loss of function.

 

[guanophore]

In other words, our contemplation of the creation around us should lead us to its creator, to God. This does not seem to be the case with evolutionary theory and atheists.

Thank you for posting those verses. They have been on my mind also. I disagree with you, though. Evolutionary theory does nothing (in my view) to negate those verses. To me it is immaterial if God’s creation morphed over billions of years.

I don’t see a conflict with God creating the universe with a big bang, either.

The question is would God create and produce the universe according to a mode such as evolutionary theory that apparently doesn’t really lead to him such as in the case of the atheists?

This is like saying “would the Father have sent Jesus to earth in an effort to reach the hearts of people that would eventually reject Him”? Of course He would, and He did. A person’s unwillingness to exercise the gift of faith given to them does not mean that revelation should not occur.

When we look up at the heavens and the sun, moon, and stars, do we think immediately of God or of evolution

For me there is not a contradiction. When I am looking at fossil rocks in my yard that are millions of years old (I live on what used to be a sea bottom) and no longer exist, should I somehow conclude that God was less present?

The wonder and complexity of evolution is evidence of God’s mystery being so much deeper than we can possibly imagine.

Last year I discovered John Gurche, a paleoartist. I was most fascinated by this composite of hominid faces that is found about 2/3 down his page.

This is a very narrow view of God. I do not think God is at all limited by science.

Indeed, the scientific method was developed by Christians. I think science is limited, but I think that science and faith can work well together. I don’t understand the drive some people have to separate them.

 

[PickyPicky]

What happens is that God, eternally bringing all creation into existence, executes His will through His angels, who in carrying it out participate in the heavenly choir that unceasingly sings of His glory.

Sounds wonderful. When you say “What happens is …” I notice there us no qualifier as in “What I believe happens is …”. I don’t cavil at that — what we say is the case is of course what we believe is the case — but people normally add a qualifier when they conjecture.

We establish what are those patterns of relationship that are the reality of things in the world, and call them laws

Yep.

I don’t think so

I’d gathered that. And I think most of us agree that mutations have a very strong tendency to be deleterious.

 

[guanophore]

post removed

Were you on a tear, or what?

 

[Techno2000]

Last year I discovered John Gurche, a paleoartist. I was most fascinated by this composite of hominid faces that is found

What cause the hominid to die out ?

 

[Aloysium]

I notice there us no qualifier as in “What I believe happens is …”.

Belief is an odd word. Some people equate it to faith. Faith to me means to know and trust. I would assume that people understand that I am writing down my thoughts. Basically, what is happening is a weaving together threads of knowledge, what has been realized personally and revealed to us collectively, into a tapestry that would be obviously an ongoing work in progress, and God-willing, will not begin to fray for a while longer. How about, beginning with “I would like to share some of my thoughts”? I frequently have started off that way, or more simply “My two cents”. Would that convey sufficient humility? That’s a pretty obnoxious comment, isn’t it? But, I do understand that in cutting to the chase, the words can come across as off-putting. Sometimes I care, in retrospect I should have in this instance. Thanks for the feed-back.

 

[guanophore]

Why does it have a cabbage growing on its back?

Isn’t that an integral component of cruciferocity? Or was I thinking of broccoli?

 

[guanophore]

By the way, speciation works primarily through gene deletion, the loss of function.

Sometimes I miss not having a tail…

 

[PickyPicky]

As I’ve said before, I enjoy reading what you write. It’s so different from what comes out of my mouth (or fingers) that I find it quite envigorating.

 

[guanophore]

What cause the hominid to die out ?

A fascinating question, don’t you think? There is such a variety of hominids, some so very old.

The dna traced from these beautiful blue eyed, blond haired black children has been traced to a hominid who migrated through asia whose remains have not been found (yet).

What we have is the evidence - the footprint that this pattern of unique DNA existed, and is different from other gene pools presently found in the region.

 

[edwest]

“correction: only some of the events in Genesis…” Which parts?

 

[edwest]

“…discredit the book of Genesis?” Yes, it appears so.