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.
Techno2000 said:
Exactly…here’s a question I can never get an straight answer for:

If evolution is there to make a creature fit for a new environment, how is the creature going to become fit if it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?
Click to expand...
The answer is ------------------------------------------

adaptation, built in right from the beginning. (aka micro-evolution)
 
This is adaptation with rapid and complex communication using latent memory.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Exactly…here’s a question I can never get an straight answer for:

If evolution is there to make a creature fit for a new environment, how is the creature going to become fit if it takes evolution millions of years to do anything ?
Click to expand...
The answer is ------------------------------------------

adaptation, built in right from the beginning. (aka micro-evolution)
Click to expand...
A cactus can adapt to severe drought condition. But if the environment changes to a wet climate, it and the whole ecosystem it’s connected to would die also. Overwatered cactus die and rot, waiting million of years for evolution to do something about it wont help.
 
Techno2000 said:
A cactus can adapt to severe drought condition. But if the environment changes to a wet climate, it and the whole ecosystem it’s connected to would die also. Overwatered cactus die and rot, waiting million of years for evolution to do something about it wont help.
Click to expand...
Right, adaptation may not be able to handle sudden and severe changes.
 
buffalo said:
adaptation
Click to expand...
Take a look at this recent article.

www.sciencedaily.com

Not in the DNA: Epigenetics discovered in single-celled archaea

Researchers have reported the first experimental evidence of epigenetics in the single-celled organisms known as archaea. The simplicity of archaea -- combined with the fact that their cells resemble eukaryotes' in some important ways -- may allow researchers to investigate epigenetic questions...
www.sciencedaily.com

Expecting the typical knee-jerk reaction to the first sentence, to be called a moron:
Species most often evolve through mutations in DNA that get inherited by successive generations.
Click to expand...
I thought it worthwhile to post here because of the actual testable science that it includes.

Isolating a few interesting points that have the potential to lead to some lively discussions:
multicellular species can also evolve through epigenetics: traits originating not from genetic changes but from the inheritance of cellular proteins that control access to an organism’s DNA.
Click to expand...
epigenetics is essential to some of the most productive and destructive physiological processes in humans – the differentiation of cells into roughly 200 types, the occurrence of cancers
Click to expand...
epigenetics can pass along extreme acid resistance in a species of archaea: microscopic, single-celled organisms that share features with both eukaryotes and bacteria.
Click to expand...
Yet the discovery also raises questions, Payne said, especially about how both eukaryotes and archaea came to adopt epigenetics as a method of inheritance. “Maybe both of them had it because they diverged from a common ancestor that had it,” said Payne, a doctoral student in biological sciences. “Or maybe it evolved twice. It’s a really interesting concept from an evolutionary perspective.”
Click to expand...
Or maybe that is how they were created as whole creatures, the entire cell, all parts working as one, within the environment that they maintain and by which they are in turn maintained, each capable of transforming themselves as an expression of the designer’s infinite creativity and as needed to meet changes in their conditions.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Or maybe that is how they were created as whole creatures, the entire cell, all parts working as one, within the environment that they maintain and by which they are in turn maintained, each capable of transforming themselves as an expression of the designer’s infinite creativity and as needed to meet changes in their conditions.
Click to expand...
Yes!

What is IDvolution?​

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Arrows show information flow.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Techno2000:
A cactus can adapt to severe drought condition. But if the environment changes to a wet climate, it and the whole ecosystem it’s connected to would die also. Overwatered cactus die and rot, waiting million of years for evolution to do something about it wont help.
Click to expand...
Right, adaptation may not be able to handle sudden and severe changes.
Click to expand...
It easy to try and speculate what evolution could have done millions of years ago.But when you try to apply this idea to the real world we live in now, it doesn’t work.
 
buffalo said:
Don’t hold onto nylonase. It has been debunked.
Click to expand...
It evolved. That is evolution. There is some uncertainty as to the exact path evolution took in that case, but it is still an example of evolution.

rossum
 
IWantGod said:
One who believes matter possesses such an animating property makes a religious claim,
Click to expand...
An observation is not a hypothesis.

All scientific hypotheses predict the relationship of a dependent variable to an independent variable, i.e., y = f(x). For instance: Hypothesis: If one reassembles dead body parts and jolts the construct with electricity (x) then life (y) will begin. Now, that is a testable scientific hypothesis that does not rely on faith.
Click to expand...
 
o_mlly said:
hypothesis that does not rely on faith.
Click to expand...
Yet we observe biological objects expressing a self organizing principle and reproducing based on that principle. Abiogenesis may or may not have a part to play in the actuality of that process. Thats’s a scientific hypothesis. One can argue that an atheist is unreasonable not to think that God is the reason why physical objects have this principle in the first place, but that’s a philosophical concern. In the context of science God is irrelevant since they are trying to identify the physical processes involved and describe them. I don’t see a problem with that. It’s called methodological naturalism, the underlying principle of all modern sciences.

Perhaps you disagree with methodological naturalism, but then you disagree with modern science.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Yet we observe biological objects expressing a self organizing principle and reproducing based on that principle.
Click to expand...
That observation – life begetting life – is categorically different than the non-observation of life emanating from non-life.
IWantGod said:
Abiogenesis may or may not have a part to play in the actuality of that process. Thats’s a scientific hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I think you would have to give the “If … then …” format to qualify as a scientific hypothesis.
IWantGod said:
One can argue that an atheist is unreasonable not to think that God is the reason why physical objects have this principle in the first place, but that’s a philosophical concern.
Click to expand...
Not at all, either philosophically or theologically. A scientist’s personal belief system does not affect the goodness of his science. Only the evidence and cogency of reasoning offered do.
IWantGod said:
In the context of science God is irrelevant since they are trying to identify the physical processes involved and describe them
Click to expand...
Aha. We agree.
IWantGod said:
Perhaps you disagree with methodological naturalism, but then you disagree with modern science.
Click to expand...
Now, that is a hypothesis. It’s false but you are getting the form correct.
 
o_mlly said:
That observation – life begetting life – is categorically different than the non-observation of life emanating from non-life.
Click to expand...
Scientists observe physical phenomena and they build physical hypothesis for that phenomena; in otherword’s, they develop physical explanations for what they observe. A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence.

www.britannica.com

Scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example | Britannica

Scientific hypothesis, idea that proposes an explanation for an observed phenomenon or narrow set of phenomena. Two key features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an ‘If...then’ statement, and the ability to be supported or refuted in...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
o_mlly said:
Now, that is a hypothesis. It’s false but you are getting the form correct.
Click to expand...
You either agree with the principle of methodological Naturalism or you don’t.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Scientists observe physical phenomena and they build physical hypothesis for that phenomena; in otherword’s, they develop physical explanations for what they observe. A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence.
Click to expand...
And your point is?
IWantGod said:
You either agree with the principle of methodological Naturalism or you don’t.
Click to expand...
Those 2 choices cover 100% of the options available so one cannot disagree with the statement.
 
It’s hard to believe that things that allegedly happened millions of years ago apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top