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.
Metis1 said:
The fact that life forms have evolved is obvious, plus there simply is not one shred of evidence or even basic logic that posits that somehow micro-evolution hits a magical wall just before becoming macro-evolution. It’s all about using a literalist approach to the creation accounts that’s the real obstacle as no such evidence exists as pretty much the vast majority of scientists are aware of.

So, next are we going to read how they are ignorant and/or crooked? I’ve seen that posted many times before.
Click to expand...
Let’s be more precise; it is obvious to you, a believer. Not to me, a person who does understand the basic scientific facts, but does not go along with the mythos into which they have been woven by modern society.

All the evidence and reason itself dictates that there is a wall.

A clear example of how bias (name removed by moderator)acts on our understandings is to be found in the last sentence of your post,
 
Last edited:
We actually have seen evolution bring about new and different life forms. The biosphere today is very different from what it was 50 million years ago.
 
Aloysium said:
All the evidence and reason itself dictates that there is a wall.
Click to expand...
So, please produce this supposed “evidence” and the “reason” that supposedly goes with it.

You might remember that I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught against “evilution”, had plans to go into the ministry, was first introduced to the fact that one can believe in God and the basic ToE back in the 1960’s by a Catholic priest, then I went on to go into biology in my undergrad years, later switched to anthropology, then got a graduate degree in the latter, and then taught it for around 30 years. That last item itself I can elaborate on if you’d like.

And if you supposedly were right, it would be shouted from the highest rooftops throughout much of the world-- but it ain’t.
 
Last edited:
There is no evidence of that. Everything is trial and error.

“The experimental HIV-1 vaccine is one of five that have progressed to tests of effectiveness in humans.”
 
Evolution significantly narrows down the search.

Ed I didn’t realize you did HIV research. Good on you.
 
Last edited:
I follow scientific developments on an almost daily basis. I can find things relatively quickly. The is no evolution guide book to help researchers. I am not a researcher.
 
Evolution isn’t a book, that is correct. Gravity isn’t a book either but it helps scientists understand things and know where to look to find certain things, and explains the behavior of other things. So does evolution. If you deny the ability of natural selection to select for and propagate beneficial mutations across generations you’re going to be totally lost trying to predict how viruses evolve. You can call that “adaptation” if you want but it’s the exact same mechanism as ‘macro-evolution’, and is definitely not ‘devolution’ because its effects are very beneficial for the virus and constitute ‘new information’ by any definition.
 
Viruses, like bacteria, have a built-in mechanism to fight off say, new drugs. This protein coat does not change in a predictable way. Bacteria can share bits of genetic material with other bacteria of different species. Another built-in ability. In the case of the virus, if the built-in change is not sufficient, it could stop functioning. But that means, in both cases, each are exposed to different drug combinations until something works.

Evolution has nothing to do with it. People washing their hands with soap and water can eliminate a lot of bacteria. And then we have the problem of different strains of a virus, which can interact like bacteria do.

“These viruses can make reassortant strains , meaning the strain is produced from the genetic material from two or more similar viruses . … Say you caught two different strains of the flu at once from two different people. A cell in your body could get infected with these two different strains .”
 
Dr Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and professor at Harvard Medical School, a leading researcher in the area commented that:
“The challenges in the development of an HIV vaccine are unprecedented, and the ability to induce HIV-specific immune responses does not necessarily indicate that a vaccine will protect humans from HIV infection,” he added.
Click to expand...
Dr’s Pavlakis and Felber of the US Cancer Institute wrote in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the study.
“Despite unprecedented advances in HIV treatment and prophylaxis, the number of people living with HIV infection continues to increase worldwide.”

“Implementation of even a moderately effective HIV vaccine together with the existing HIV prevention and treatment strategies is expected to contribute greatly to the evolving HIV/Aids response. It is therefore essential that a commitment to pursue multiple vaccine development strategies continues at all stages.”
Click to expand...
I missed the part where evolutionary biology is playing a role in vaccine development.
 
Last edited:
I’m not talking about protein coats or built-in mechanisms. I’m talking about new functions produced by new genes produced by genetic mutations. I’m not talking about washing hands, and I’m not talking about reassortant strains.
 
You might be talking about genetics, again which is best explained by creation.
 
If you can show bacteria growing arms and legs… Anyway, after a billion iterations, all you’re left with is bacteria.
 
Actually talking about a virus whose chief weapon is its ability to rapidly evolve, which is not explained at all by denying the ability of organisms to evolve.
 
“Evolution” as used here, is not relevant. The word could be left out and change nothing.
 
On the bacterial scale they’re doing much more radical things than just growing arms and legs.

But that was great how you invented that ridiculous strawman there, really doing wonders for your credibility.
 
Catholicanswers has this neat feature where I can tell when you didn’t actually read the linked papers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top