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.
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Probably the same as with most parthenogenic species. They will do well so long as their environment remains reasonably stable. If the environment changes then they will not be able to adapt as quickly as a sexually reproducing species because they no longer have recombination to introduce additional variation into their genomes.
Click to expand...
In other words, they will go extinct. This loss of function once had ultimately is their undoing. But, they are a new species. 😀 Pretty weak…
Click to expand...
Yeah…they were doing just fine, until all those environmental pressures came along and ruined it for them. :roll_eyes:
 
Your arguments are your own issues to which you have formulated a response to satisfy the conflicts (material vs immaterial for example) therein. The result of my attempt to point to another way to envision the world went pretty much as I had expected. Please be aware that every word in the verbiage has been thought out to present as best I can what I think. There’s not much fluff in the word salad as some might describe it. The first draft was longer, but I don’t think it would have been any more effective although containing a few additional ideas to clarify what I was saying.
 
rossum said:
It is a new species of crayfish
Click to expand...
When God created life on earth, He brought into existence the first of different kinds of creatures. In time and in keeping with His infinite creativity and as integral parts of changing environments, they diversified into species. The genetic disordered crayfish you keep bringing up may be called a different species but it remains a crustacean, another type of crayfish that may be around for a few millennia, but the lineage will ultimately succumb to the consequences of random mutations, occurring without the benefits provided by sexual reproduction.
 
Evolution is not contrary to God’s creation. It is the very means by which He creates.
 
Wozza said:
I just thought that you should know that.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I would agree, although there were a few people who were pretty bright and insightful. Why they left, I don’t know. Can’t say I miss the old format, except for the emoji’s. But as they say, nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.
 
Last edited:
It would appear that we hold different opinions on that matter, but then I have no idea what you mean by evolution, so I can’t really say.
 
My use of the term “evolution” means nothing apart from its easily referrenced, long established and widely accepted definition.
 
There is the problem of the creation of man and Divine revelation. The science only crowd has an incomplete and distorted view of who we are.
 
This point of contention sounds like an insurmountable obstacle, full of inconsolable grief and unquenchable fury, a veritable vortex of rage and despair overlooking the shores of a desolate and dystopian future devoid of hope. How will such a debate ever be resolved? 😎
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
To show that mutations are random have a look at the Lederberg experiment or the Luria-Delbrück experiment, both of which show mutations are random.

rossum
Click to expand...
From what I understand rossum, mutations in the DNA or genes are (essentially?) copying errors and so in a certain respect they might be considered random or chance like mutations. However, IMO, this is a nail on the coffin in the death of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I do not believe from any point of view that all the varieties of the kinds or species of plants and animals on the earth were the result of chance or randomness nor that any finely tuned organism is the result of chance processes. I find this to be against the very nature of the ‘reason’. It doesn’t make sense to me that your going to get order out of chance or chaos. The structure of the DNA in any given organism appears to be the material cause of the bodily accidental differences among the individual members of a given species of animal including humans or plant. But I don’t believe mutations result in substantial differences or the generation of substantially different species such as a fish, lion, or tree. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Rossum. Not that various or certain mutations might be considered random or chance like in a certain respect among the individuals of a given species and accidental material differences but that such a process is or may be the cause of all the varieties of animal and plant species on the face of the earth.
 
Last edited:
So, random mutations of the genome and natural selection it is. You do realize that we do everything we can to prevent random mutations of our genes and there’s a lot of people in the Galapagos working very hard and needing financial contributions to keep species from going extinct as many are everywhere on this globe as a result of natural selection. Both pillars of evolution mean death to life. I am left wondering what you meant when you said that they are the means by which God brought living things into being.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top