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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IWantGod said:
What you are saying isn’t even scientifically valid
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I am not at all sure that science is as certain about these issues as you aver.
IWantGod said:
We know that physical reality is space-time and everything that it comprises
Click to expand...
We know the physical reality we experience is such, we do not know that it is the only physical reality within the Universe. If the Universe existed/exists/will exist beyond the boundary represented by the Big Bang, then it contains another space-time.

For your proof to work, you need to show that the Universe contains only the reality we know; that somehow the Universe has the same characteristics as its parts; that cause and effect (which we know result from the physical laws present within the Universe) also apply without the Universe; and that postulating a second body, separate from the Universe, somehow solves the problems that the temporarily finite Universe of your model poses.

You may make your usual response (That is nonsensical!) and I’ve no doubt that you are satisfied that you can show these things (or that they are not necessary). But forgive me if I find the case unproven.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
that it is the only physical reality within the Universe.
Click to expand...
When science talks about the universe it’s talking about physical reality, and physical reality changes. And that is what requires an uncaused cause. Everything else you have said is irrelevant speculation.
 
Last edited:
OK. Not good enough for me, I’m afraid. Indeed it’s not really an answer. But never mind. I’ve said more than enough.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This claim is despite the empirical evidence that has been presented. Evolution is just as much a science as other theories about the past, such as plate tectonics and periodic magnetic field reversal. The only reason you have trouble seeing it as science is that it contradicts your narrow reading of Genesis. If Genesis had said something contrary to plate tectonics or periodic magnetic field reversal in the past you would have been calling those theories unscientific too.
Click to expand...
No, zero empirical evidence has been provided.

You do realize I am Catholic? It is the science that is supporting Genesis.
 
PickyPicky said:
OK. Not good enough for me, I’m afraid. Indeed it’s not really an answer. But never mind. I’ve said more than enough.
Click to expand...
You have asserted that the universe is distinct from space-time and that is an error since the word universe refers to physical reality, space-time, and is not a thing in and of itself. Anything else is just a semantic mind game. That’s clearly an error. What ever else you imagine physical reality to be is irrelevant speculation that has no scientific foundation let alone any philosophical validity.

The fact of the matter is, physical existence is changing, and that requires an uncaused cause, including anything else that is changing with it.

If you wish to ignore that, then there is not much more i can say.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Evolution is just as much a science as other theories about the past, such as plate tectonics and periodic magnetic field reversal.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to get the point across where the counterargument is that human existence is explicable using the principles that describe a rock.
Click to expand...
That’s not a counterargument to the point I was making, which is that evolution is a scientific theory. My point is that the reasons I hear being given for evolution not being a science are mostly about it being something that happened in the past. But those same reasons would say that plate tectonics and magnetic field reversal are not scientific theories because they happened in the past too. There are lots of scientific theories about the past. Not all scientific theories are theories about predictions of future reactions and events. Appealing to the specialness of humanity as you have done here is called “special pleading”, and is a logical fallacy.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
This claim is despite the empirical evidence that has been presented. Evolution is just as much a science as other theories about the past, such as plate tectonics and periodic magnetic field reversal. The only reason you have trouble seeing it as science is that it contradicts your narrow reading of Genesis. If Genesis had said something contrary to plate tectonics or periodic magnetic field reversal in the past you would have been calling those theories unscientific too.
Click to expand...
No, zero empirical evidence has been provided.

You do realize I am Catholic? It is the science that is supporting Genesis.
Click to expand...
Just because you have ignored and rejected all the evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist. And what has your being Catholic got to do with it? And when you say “science supports Genesis” you are conveniently noncommittal about what specific claims of Genesis you mean (there are many). Some may be supported by science and others not.
 
o_mlly said:
From the above “less common/more common” we can conclude that rather than evolving new genes, that genes manifest or recede with changes in environment.
Click to expand...
Evolution is the result of two processes: mutation and selection. Mutation causes new variants of existing genes and sometimes entirely new genes. In short, mutations introduce variation into a population’s genome. It can be seen as a creative process.

Selection is a conservative process. It generally reduces variation, reducing or eliminating deleterious variants while increasing beneficial variants. In the case of hunted elephants, it reduced the frequency of genes for large tusks and increased the frequency of genes for small or no tusks.

Selection does not introduce or change the genes themselves, that is the job of mutations. Selection acts on the genes produced by mutations, increasing the frequency of those variants that are better suited for the current environment.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
It is the science that is supporting Genesis.
Click to expand...
Genesis has birds created on day 5 while land animals are created on day 6. Where is your scientific evidence that birds appeared one day (however long a Genesis ‘day’ is) before the appearance of land animals? If science supports Genesis, then you should be able to show us scientific support for this claim in Genesis.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
How in the world could evolution understand the idea of poachers ?
Click to expand...
All life is oriented toward survival. Species develop in order to avoid predators. Even wildlife that has now moved into the cities like racoons and coyotes do this now.
 
rossum said:
Mutation causes new variants of existing genes and sometimes entirely new genes. In short, mutations introduce variation into a population’s genome. It can be seen as a creative process.
Click to expand...
Do we have evidence that sometimes entirely new genes are created? Does not such a claim of new gene presuppose complete knowledge of the genome involved (before and after the purported novelty)?
 
o_mlly said:
Do we have evidence that sometimes entirely new genes are created? Does not such a claim of new gene presuppose complete knowledge of the genome involved (before and after the purported novelty)?
Click to expand...
Compete knowledge is not needed. If the new gene is deleterious, then selection will eliminate that gene. If the new gene is beneficial then selection will preferentially spread copies of that gene through the population.

A new gene can be caused by a frame-shift mutation which changes the way the triplets in DNA are read. For example:
Old Gene: GAT TAC ACT …

New Gene: GCA TTA CAC T …
Click to expand...
rossum
 
rossum said:
Evolution is the result of two processes: mutation and selection. Mutation causes new variants of existing genes and sometimes entirely new genes. In short, mutations introduce variation into a population’s genome. It can be seen as a creative process.

Selection is a conservative process. It generally reduces variation, reducing or eliminating deleterious variants while increasing beneficial variants. In the case of hunted elephants, it reduced the frequency of genes for large tusks and increased the frequency of genes for small or no tusks.

Selection does not introduce or change the genes themselves, that is the job of mutations. Selection acts on the genes produced by mutations, increasing the frequency of those variants that are better suited for the current environment.

rossum
Click to expand...
Is natural selection some kind of force of nature? And if so, where is it and can anybody identify it? As far as I know, there is nothing such as a being of some kind or force in nature we call natural selection. In the gene mutation process, we have genes, DNA, atoms, the action of enzymes, and various processes scientists have identified. The concept of natural selection is talked about as if it is a ‘thing’ or force of nature but where is it? It seems like a ghost of nature. In reality, I think the idea or concept of natural selection exists only in the mind, it does not exist extramentally in the external world outside the mind. It is a concept in the mind or explanation invented by Darwin of what is observed extramentally in the external world.
 
Last edited:
That definitely appears to be the case. And like a product, it is being heavily promoted.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Just because you have ignored and rejected all the evidence does not mean it doesn’t exist. And what has your being Catholic got to do with it? And when you say “science supports Genesis” you are conveniently noncommittal about what specific claims of Genesis you mean (there are many). Some may be supported by science and others not.
Click to expand...
Really? After all these posts you still do not get it? You know by now exactly what I have said science supports and does not. You well now by know there is no EMPIRICAL evidence for macro-evolution.

It is too bad this forum doesn’t have a favorites or something like that so I do not have to continually repeat the same things over and over and over.
 
rossum said:
Genesis has birds created on day 5 while land animals are created on day 6. Where is your scientific evidence that birds appeared one day (however long a Genesis ‘day’ is) before the appearance of land animals? If science supports Genesis, then you should be able to show us scientific support for this claim in Genesis.
Click to expand...
We have been over this and I have. Go back and recheck. I am convinced you are not reading my posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top