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
Beyond_Reason:
I think it is a nonsense word invented by anti-evolutionary creationists.
Click to expand...
But you would be wrong.
Click to expand...
Give us your definition then.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
buffalo:
no one argues micro-evolution, aka adaptation.
Click to expand...
But you are arguing against the idea that changes in DNA can result in the existence of a new species. What is your justification for challenging this view.
Click to expand...
The creation of a new kind of being is associated with differences in the DNA that codes for the specific physical traits that enable them to express their instinctive relational capacities - perceptual, emotional, cognitive and behavioural. Included is the potential to diversify any of these attributes, established at their creation and elaborated in different circumstances and conditions. Speciation can also occur through gene deletion with the random activity occurring on a chemical level. Outside the belief system of evolution, what is the justification to believe that changes in DNA could possibly cause the existence of a new kind of creature, mankind from apes as an example that is close to home.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by a “new kind of creature”? Are chihuahuas and great danes different kinds of creatures?
What about wolves and dogs?
Wolves and jackals?
Wolves and foxes?
Foxes and raccoons?
Raccoons and red pandas?
Red pandas and regular pandas?
 
Last edited:
You realize that those aren’t all the same thing, right? Like there were thousands of generations between each of them? It’s not like pokemon.

And is that second to last thing “totally different” from a whale?
 
Last edited:
You expect us to have the dead bodies of everything that ever lived? Do you understand that decomposition is a thing?
 
Well, without the missing hard evidence I suppose we’ll just have to guess :man_shrugging:t2:
 
See this is the ever shifting goal posts.

“There’s not a single shred of evidence in the fossil record for evolution!”
“What about all these fossils showing a progression from land-dwelling mammals to ocean-dwelling whales?”
“Whatever! Why come you don’t have like all the bones of every organism of those species? Huh?”

Same story for human evolution, fish to amphibians and reptiles, dinosaurs to birds, basic mammals to felines and canines, etc. “Not a shred of evidence!” followed by evidence provided and dismissed because we don’t have like a video tape of a hundred million year long process.
 
Cruciferi said:
That we haven’t found… :man_shrugging:t2:
Click to expand...
So, you have found the skeletons of all the Biblical patriarchs between Adam and Noah? Between Noah and Abraham? Between Abraham and Moses?

Does your failure to find their remains mean that they did not exist?

rossum
 
I’m sure if we looked hard enough, we’d find more evidence of them than walking whales. :man_shrugging:t2:
 
Beyond_Reason said:
What do you mean by a “new kind of creature”?
Click to expand...
When we think of species, there is something real at the other end that we try to conceptualize. The name we apply to anything, rightly or wrongly, has to do with the fact that there is a kind of thing to which we are relating such as a human being or an atom, a tree, a blade of grass, an oyster. We give names to individual expressions of things that exist. Boiling down what it actually represents, the term species has come to mean something along the lines of a particular genetic pool, a collection of very similar DNA as it found in different organisms. And here, science is going off track. A particular cat, for example, is an expression of something different than a particular dog. I would suggest that all the animals you describe, having a canine sort of appearance, are likely related to a common progenitor. On the other hand, we are not ancestrally related to apes, although we may share some common morphological phenotypic and genotypic features.

I am not a biologist and don’t pretend to have developed a taxonomy that is consistent with creation. There’s a lot of work being done in genetics, and although any results are as good as the algorithm used to provide the statistically derived conclusions, I would think that the current phylogenetic approach is better than those of the past. It at gives us some idea of the common genetic traits among members of the same species and I believe will ultimately demonstrate the superior validity of a creationist view.
 
Last edited:
Beyond_Reason said:
“Not a shred of evidence!” followed by evidence provided and dismissed because we don’t have like a video tape of a hundred million year long process.
Click to expand...
There would be no direct evidence that different kinds of living being arose from previous forms via descent. What we have is evidence of similarities, of the fact that members of the same species reproduce and that we or other factors in their environment can breed for specific traits. Putting the three together we assume that all organisms are connected genetically along, at different points interconnected, branches forming a “tree” of life. Using this analogy, we would say that it is rooted in the coming together of matter into organelles which combined to form some primordial cell(s). That’s the theory, like that of the sun’s rising and setting, but with far less evidence because we can observe the motion of the sun, whereas we do not see any sort of growth in complexity or change in the essential nature of living things through breeding.

Whether a fossil or video tape, we are talking about remnants of what was and is no more. Fossils are products of decomposition, for different reasons existing in the present, that link us through time to a particular living thing now dead. What decomposes is the material structure of a living being. Decomposition is the natural outcome of random chemical change, freed from the imposition of the organizing principle that makes a living being what it is in itself, all the parts working together within their environment and constituting that greater whole.

Whether the first placental creature hatched from an egg or not, it doesn’t really matter because what we would likely be dealing with is an entirely new form of being, far more psychophysically complex than what previously existed. In the case of the whale, the various species that fall under that classification exhibit quite sophisticated psychosocial behaviour, as well as perceptual and cognitive capacities, not likely to have been present in any presumed four-legged ancestor.

Clearly, what we find in the fossil record is evidence of an intelligent cause. Evolution, I’ve discarded as I did panthesism earlier and long ago - these pretty much go together. With God, only creation, however one understands it, makes sense.
 
Last edited:
You say you’re not a biologist though. Why do you think you have a better understanding of biology than biologists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top