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:
We can no longer depend on morphology of the past. HGT has tangled that all up.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming that creationism does not have an objective way to place the boundaries between kinds.

Better get to work, buffalo. If you cannot define ‘kind’ objectively then you are not going to be able to use the concept in any scientific discussion.

rossum
 
We are getting closer.

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

 
buffalo said:
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."
Click to expand...
How is this relevant? It is about the boundaries between species, not the boundaries between kinds. Science already has good definitions of “species”. We are still awaiting a good definition of “kind”.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Extrapolate.
Click to expand...
Extrapolate? Why? I have already said, “We are still awaiting a good definition of ‘kind’.” Your one word post was not a good definition of ‘kind’.

If you don’t have a workable objective definition then the concept is useless.

For example, standard biology allows for one ‘kind’, the “All life on earth” kind which is related by common descent. How does your definition differ from that?

rossum
 
Atreju said:
Why is the nervous system, even a simple nervous system, impossible to be produced by evolution? Not talking about the evolution of souls. Does this also apply to the sensory mechanisms of plants and single-celled organisms?
Click to expand...
An adequate reply is way too long, So I’ve split it up.

I don’t know what you personally mean by evolution, but the thought that the wondrous complexity of each individual living being, even the simplest bacterium, could be the result of any power other than the awe inspiring Divine creativity of God, is absurd, most certainly that it could have arisen from random chemical activity.

In terms of modern science, there clearly exists a hierarchy of different interdependent kinds of life, from single independent cells to we ourselves, eternal creatures wiith multicellular bodies in time. It is also readily apparent that all this came into existence one step at a time. If we go back to the beginning, it makes more sense that the events which constitute the universe were created rather than being the result of the laws of the universe, being ever-present or appearing out of nowhere uncaused.
 
Last edited:
At the very Ground of what is, we can understand there to be Existence itself, Existence not some thing static, but rather an eternal Act of will that is relational, a Triune Godhead, Divine Love. Through a creative act, “light” was brought into being, a brilliance, made finite, separated from its nonbeing, thereby laying the groundwork for every thing that was to follow - the entire spectrum of different types of form within a geometric multidimensional cosmos; whose properties we have begun to scratch the surface. All this information-in-action, which our rational mind can grasp as the physical universe, was brought together in the formation of the first kind of living being, this new information, this new whole, a new creation, as were atoms before it. And, all this is maintained, these successive different kinds of being which had a beginning, from which they diversified as part of their innate make up, all this continues to be brought forth, everything in its moment as one Beatific Vision, composed of a myriad of individual beings.

The person is atomic at the smallest and simplest material level. That structure, which also can exist in isolation, as in death or where each component may become separated in itself, does however participate in an encompassing system that is the cell. In our body, that fundamental form is diversified into the various tissues that make up the integrated organ systems of the body. The totality of cellular processes, whole in this living body include a pattern of neuropsychological events, of which one portion, for example, we call the visual world. Right here and now, we see the relational nature of the human spirit where the observer is one with the observed in the observation. Out of this very experience of reading, we can discern the structure of that which is being experienced, from the physical reality of LED output to the ideas, they are meant to represent. WE can at the same time understand something of the psychophysical workings that is a person who sees such phenomena as colours, shapes, textures, and depth, along with the symbols, and how they would be processed neurologically in our parietal areas as words having meaning.
 
Souls are created, be they human, or the animal and vegetative the properties of which we also possess. I suppose we could say that there are subtypes of these broader categories of soul, each having a distinct nature which would define the kind of things they are - a crustacean, an elephant, an oak tree. The soul of a living being manifests itself as an individual organism, made in accordance with the “template” of their kind, possessing the capacity for greater diversity in successive generations, again, of the kind of living being it is. It is the “soul” of a thing, and we could take this all the way back to the atomic, which makes it a unity of being, composed of simpler forms.

Any evolutionary-like process would occur within the family tree of specific kinds of creatures. Let’s take a dog for example; the information that we see now expressed in the smallest toy poodle and the largest great dane was contained in the first creature of its kind, which would have included not only dogs, but also wolves, foxes and coyotes. The diversity that we see is most influenced by psychological and spiritual factors, people’s likes and dislikes, their seach for beauty and perfection, a needs such as those for companionship, protection and love. There is so much more to all this than what the story of evolution describes, and so much simpler, and what that is, is creation.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
the “All life on earth” kind which is related by common descent. How does your definition differ from that
Click to expand...
There is no evidence of the existence one pluripotential cellular organism from whom all have derived. I’m not saying that one did not exist. Perhaps that is the origin of human beings and all creatures are offshoots from that first cell, all of nature being a sort of placental organ allowing for our survival and development, until we are reborn in a different glorious form. Maybe you can start that religiion if and when you become disenchanted with Buddhism.
 
Because it’s cool and efficient. That’s like asking why God used gravity to run the solar system instead of personally and individually guiding each planet.
 
I want you to contemplate the answer and think of why God would desire it either way. I am not looking at a declarative answer from you, unless you have one, then I would like to hear your explanation. If you believe in evolution, what does it mean from an apologist standpoint and the same question if you do not believe in evolution?
 
Last edited:
You’re just asserting that. Almost everyone who actually studies biology believes in biological evolution. The only people who don’t are people who have determined ahead of time that it is blasphemy to accept it.
 
Atreju said:
believes in biological evolution
Click to expand...
Exactly! It is not a fact as is gravity.
Atreju said:
The only people who don’t are people who have determined ahead of time that it is blasphemy to accept it.
Click to expand...
It’s not blasphemy, it is nonsense. But then you never did explain what you mean by evolution. And, I have no reason to believe you have read any of my responses longer than a couple of lines.
 
minux said:
I want you to contemplate the answer and think of why God would desire it either way. I am not looking at a declarative answer from you, unless you have one, then I would like to hear your explanation. If you believe in evolution, what does it mean from an apologist standpoint and the same question if you do not believe in evolution?
Click to expand...
Well from an apologist standpoint denying science forces you to take up the mantle of ignorance, and young earth creationists and others tend to look very silly to people who actually understand scientific subjects.

I think the correct apologetic route is to take science seriously and actually try to understand what you’re talking about. If you’re going to contradict massive scientific consensus you should basically be one of the most well-studied people on the planet with regards to that subject. But I’ve never seen that. People who contradict scientific consensus are virtually always lay people doing so because of their own ignorance and misunderstandings, based on some “gotcha argument” they’ve thought up in an armchair or based on anti-science propaganda made by people who have sworn ahead of time that they will never change their conclusions no matter what evidence they find.

In this sense I think the Church has taken a very wise and correct route in granting maximal freedom of belief in this area (with a few limitations).

As far as what the difference is with respect for God, my personal opinion is that God likes a very ordered natural universe, and He doesn’t step in to miraculously do things unless it has direct spiritual significance. So He has a natural, ordered process for the development and diversification of lifeforms, stars, planets, coral, etc, as opposed to having to “get his hands dirty” and perform a miracle every time He wants a new species, star, planet, etc.

As an analogy, I would say that the more pro-science (and hence pro-evolution) view is that in Creation, God set the initial conditions that would require the minimal amount of divine intervention to create the world he wanted, rather than having to step in and constantly perform miracles to keep his system running. Like making the perfect strike in a game of pool so that every ball goes into the hole in one hit, rather than having to keep hitting balls in. That’s what I mean when I say evolution is more elegant than static creation. So, IMO, Evolution God is greater than Static Creation God.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top