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.
Imagine a device that keeps upgrading itself or a computer program that keeps adding function. We’re being asked to believe that biological life upgraded itself. That a system that requires internal function of a high order was upgraded so gradually that we can’t see it, resulting in man.
 
Mutations can cause “upgrades” or “downgrades”, and then natural selection and random genetic drift can kick in.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
If you seriously want to know, just Google it. There are volumes and volumes written about each of those subjects by trained people.
Yes there are volumes written, but they avoid answering the questions you ask. If you ask how did the vertebrate evolve? You get descriptions of vertebrate in various species and a timeline, but there are no satisfactory answers as to how it happened.
And just as vague from them is exactly what kind of environmental change cause all this " die out " of animals and plants, were doing just fine until some mysterious climatic change came along.
 
Last edited:
Whatever environmental change came along it always worked hand in hand, in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce the best possible outcome.
Mutations are random, and more are deleterious than beneficial. Natural selection selects the beneficial ones, eliminating the deleterious ones from the population genome.

The overall outcome is almost certainly not “best”, but it will be better than before. An eagle has better eyesight than we do, so our eyesight cannot be “best”. It is sufficient for our needs; unlike an eagle we do not need to spot a rabbit in undergrowth from 200 metres in the air.

rossum
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
If you seriously want to know, just Google it. There are volumes and volumes written about each of those subjects by trained people.
Yes there are volumes written, but they avoid answering the questions you ask. If you ask how did the vertebrate evolve? You get descriptions of vertebrate in various species and a timeline, but there are no satisfactory answers as to how it happened.
Right, all you get is some stupid lines drawn on some graph pointing to some animal.
 
Techno,

Science can say very little about events that happened millions of years. Also, the dynamic, sometimes changing, environment that a life form is born into adds complexity and uncertainty to any scenario. Looking at it without precision means a small error in interpretation may associate itself and increase as attempts are made to explain this or that change in the organism over time.

Imagine using a rifle that can hit a target one mile away. The user has many factors to take into account. Without sufficient knowledge, it is likely the target will not be hit or another, unintended target is hit. Wind speed, the drop in height in a given caliber of bullet as it travels to the target and so on. Living things are far more complex and yes, they must be able to survive in their environment.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
And just as vague from them is exactly what kind of environmental change cause all this " die out " of animals and plants, were doing just fine until some mysterious climatic change came along.
Chicxulub is not “mysterious”.

rossum
So, Chicxulub is the explanation for the 10 million diverse species of plant and animals we have today?
 
So, Chicxulub is the explanation for the 10 million diverse species of plant and animals we have today?
No it is not. It is part of the explanation for some of them, as you would know if you had read more about the subject. For someone who is so interested in asking questions about evolution you do not appear to have done much background reading. You will learn more if you find the answer for yourself then if you are continually handed answers on a plate.

rossum
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
Respectfully you just keep misunderstanding it. It didn’t work out perfectly. The road of evolution is paved in dead Critters. It only looks like it worked perfectly because the only specimens you see alive today we’re the ones that obviously succeeded. All the ones that didn’t succeed are dead. And they represent the majority of species that have ever lived.
Then that means the Earth should be littered with the evidence of this …right ?
Absolutely. Large-scale occurrences of this are evidenced by something we call fossils.

The majority of the dinosaurs that lived didn’t evolve into something still alive today. They’re dead and their evolutionary tree ended.
 
The “stupid lines” Indicate the morphology.

Bones and fossils indicate a common ancestor that evolved 2-3 million years ago which is connected by a stupid line to and ancestor that lived 500k years ago which is connected by another stupid line to you.
 
Sorta close.

As it pertains to dogs, it’s why native species of North America have heavy coats and native species of Australia don’t.

One place is cold. One is not.

The still share a common ancestor. Go back far enough and the great grand daddy of a wolf and dingo is the very same dog.
The intimate role of human beings has been integral to how they have developed. As the Inuit use more snow mobiles, the husky which was bred to be a work dog, is gradually reverting back to one less powerful and dedicated to pulling as a team.

I haven’t heard anyone here arguing the reality of what is termed micro-evolution. People breed fruit, vegetables, fowl, cattle, horses and themselves, having done so since prehistory; that is not the issue. The fundamental disagreement has to do with the nature of creation.

I believe we were created genetically, psychologically and spiritually perfect. Since we are the crown of all these structural dimensions of existence, all of it fell in us with original sin. This hit at the ontological origin of everything that exists and corrupted everything, brining death into the world. There was an Eden at the beginning of all this in other words, and time, created cyclical, procedes to a New Jerusalem. It is understandable that those who think this world is the true ground of our being, would fill in the blanks with something like evolution. But that’s not what happened as far as I can see given what has been revealed to us through not only scripture, but science itself.
 
Mutations can cause “upgrades” or “downgrades”, and then natural selection and random genetic drift can kick in.
So the belief goes, unconvincing to anyone with a modicum of skepticism and experience at the work and effort, the control necessary to produce even the simplest chemical effect, or pretty much getting anything to work. Hopefully you use gloves in a ventilated area when handling toxic substances, put on sun screen on sunny days and a full apron when getting X-rays at the dentist, who turns on the switch from behind a leaded wall, tell your pregnant daughter to avoid travel to Brazil, and somehow have learned how to avoid simply getting old. But hey, who knows, maybe the next random mutation will make you healthier. Good luck with that.
 
The overall outcome is almost certainly not “best”, but it will be better than before.
That’s too simplified, explain what kind of environmental changes is going to cause bacteria to morph into 10 million species of plant and animals,you can start with the artichoke plant…go.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Sorta close.

As it pertains to dogs, it’s why native species of North America have heavy coats and native species of Australia don’t.

One place is cold. One is not.

The still share a common ancestor. Go back far enough and the great grand daddy of a wolf and dingo is the very same dog.
The intimate role of human beings has been integral to how they have developed.
That’s absolutely right!

So much so that the two most different dogs are still more genetically related to each other than wolves.

They gray wolf variant that bridged the species is extinct.
As the Inuit use more snow mobiles, the husky which was bred to be a work dog, is gradually reverting back to one less powerful and dedicated to pulling as a team.
Good example there of evolution, if true.
I haven’t heard anyone here arguing the reality of what is termed micro-evolution.
It’s a largely non-scientific term that is mostly the dominion of ID-ers.
I believe we were created genetically, psychologically and spiritually perfect.
I do too. But we can also change.

Ancient homosapiens couldn’t digest cow’s milk. Now we pour it over our cereal.

With the rise of agriculture, we discovered that some folks were able to eventually drink it without bcoming violently ill. As that provided a readily accessible source of nutrition (and thus survival) that mutation rapidly expanded in the population. There are still a few lactose-intolerant folks out there, though. They haven’t been totally bred-out yet 🙂
But that’s not what happened as far as I can see given what has been revealed to us through not only scripture, but science itself.
Not science as taught by the average state university… But suit yourself.
 
By that standard, the vast, vast majority of scientists are anti-scientific because they think that very thing.
Exactly. Thousands of scientists believe in the irrational, unscientific fantasy of natural abiogenesis, so you do too. Is that how is works?
But to be clear, life probably popped up in the littorals. Shallow water.
Sure it did … and the Tooth Fairy wears a pink dress; not a sky blue one as many people believe.
I’m saying abiogenesis and evolution are a fine way of saying how God created life.
So God was so disinterested in creating life on earth that He delegated that boring task to mindless chemicals?
Modern homo sapiens are 200,000 years old. The birth of our genus “homo” happened 2,000,000 years ago.
… according to atheist folklore.
We have actual bones that suggest these dates, btw. They weren’t just made-up in a basement somewhere.[/
They are the actual bones of non-human primates that existed before God created Adam from dust. It seems you’ve been conned by an atheist fairy tale.
 
Because once there was a population of chemotrophs, then there was a new ecological space for a population of chemotroph-eaters. Some of the chemotrophs evolved to eat other living organisms.
Where would evolution be without untestable stories like this? What we’ve got here is a fairy tale masquerading as science. It’s simply astounding that so many sane, intelligent adults believe this stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top