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.
rossum said:
Why do you continue to say this when I have shown you an example of speciation, i.e. macroevolution.
Click to expand...
What you keep claiming as macro-evolution is actually loss of function, devolution. If you want to continue to limit macro-evolution to loss of function and certain extinction, go ahead.
 
Metis1 said:
I’ve spent over 50 years studying and teaching this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence submitted by any scientist that gives evidence for this magical wall.
Click to expand...
Here we have a person who has not picked up and read “The Edge of Evolution”. It is easier to disregard sources that will shatter the paradigm.
 
STT said:
Why He should limit our knowledge?
Click to expand...
By definition the created is not the creator. Since we are creatures we have limited knowledge.

He informs us through Revelation. Listen to what He says.
 
Atreju said:
Isn’t it just amazing how every single one of the people against evolution in this thread could not accurately describe what the theory says if their life depended on it?
Click to expand...
This stupid picture is worth a thousand words.
 
Metis1 said:
for accepting the basic ToE
Click to expand...
No one has a problem with the basic ToE. It is most obvious. Change is part of life. Adaptation, too. You and others are not pitching basic ToE. You are pitching molecules to man with natural selection as the outside driving source of all change. ID sees it coming from within the organism, not the outside.
 
Last edited:
Tell us more about how the theory of evolution is disproved by horses dying in heat waves.
 
I spilled coffee this morning. Where was gravity to keep it from falling to the ground? Checkmate, gravity-believers!
 
buffalo said:
You are pitching molecules to man with natural selection as the outside driving source of all change.
Click to expand...
The assumptions are that
  • molecules can arrange themselves into organelles, which in turn combine to form basic bacteria and other unicellular creatures, through the fundamental processes that we study in chemistry.
  • RNA and DNA, along with the proteins required to carry out the functions necessary for life and replication all were formed as part of that random chemical activity.
  • the Krebs cycle, involving ATPase, resulted from DNA altered by random chemical events
  • chlorophyll was formed in cells whose DNA was altered through random chemical activity
  • multicellular organisms with tissues having specialized functions happened as a result of random changes in the genome, which fortuitously produced a phenotype capable of interacting with its environment
  • sexual reproduction came about as the result of another glitch in the reproductive process (see below)
  • the capacity for motion was the result of a series of glitches that produced actin and myocin, bringing them together in myocytes.
  • neurons were formed after neurotransmitters came about through other glitches,
  • these serendipitously had the capacity to connect and communicate to one another and to muscles to produce coordinated movement
  • they also allowed for perceptions of various kinds, emotions, and cognitive capacities
  • all this of course because randomly all this information including that which describes how it should unfurl was compacted into one seed, one egg, to be fertilized by two gametes, half cells specialized for that function
I think I may have made my point although I could go on and expand on any of these.

Natural selection basically does away with all those creatures whose DNA does not produce a phenotype, an actual living thing that fits and is able to procreate - a motivator for conscious beings, to be sure, but hardly a driving force for change by atoms and molecules.

The driving force for morphological change is within the organism, built into the genetics and epigenetic processes created with first of its kind (not to be confused with the modern definition of species).

None of this explains the psychological dimension of organisms, nor the spiritual which binds, shapes and unites the matter into one living being. Nor is a geneological relationship necessary or explanatory for the vast differences in complexity between different kinds of living things.
 
Last edited:
Atreju said:
Tell us more about how the theory of evolution is disproved by horses dying in heat waves.
Click to expand...
I was kinda being sarcastic about that, but the point was, evolution has not saved any creature that has ever gone extinct.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
buffalo:
You are pitching molecules to man with natural selection as the outside driving source of all change.
Click to expand...
The assumptions are that
  • molecules can arrange themselves into organelles, which in turn combine to form basic bacteria and other unicellular creatures, through the fundamental processes that we study in chemistry.
  • RNA and DNA, along with the proteins required to carry out the functions necessary for life and replication all were formed as part of that random chemical activity.
  • the Krebs cycle, involving ATPase, resulted from DNA altered by random chemical events
  • chlorophyll was formed in cells whose DNA was altered through random chemical activity
  • multicellular organisms with tissues having specialized functions happened as a result of random changes in the genome, which fortuitously produced a phenotype capable of interacting with its environment
  • sexual reproduction came about as the result of another glitch in the reproductive process (see below)
  • the capacity for motion was the result of a series of glitches that produced actin and myocin, bringing them together in myocytes.
  • neurons were formed after neurotransmitters came about through other glitches,
  • these serendipitously had the capacity to connect and communicate to one another and to muscles to produce coordinated movement
  • they also allowed for perceptions of various kinds, emotions, and cognitive capacities
  • all this of course because randomly all this information including that which describes how it should unfurl was compacted into one seed, one egg, to be fertilized by two gametes, half cells specialized for that function
I think I may have made my point although I could go on and expand on any of these.

Natural selection basically does away with all those creatures whose DNA does not produce a phenotype, an actual living thing that fits and is able to procreate - a motivator for conscious beings, to be sure, but hardly a driving force for change by atoms and molecules.

The driving force for morphological change is within the organism, built into the genetics and epigenetic processes created with first of its kind (not to be confused with the modern definition of species).

None of this explains the psychological dimension of organisms, nor the spiritual which binds, shapes and unites the matter into one living being. Nor is a geneological relationship necessary or explanatory for the vast differences in complexity between different kinds of living things.
Click to expand...
All this can happen,because random mutations are guided by Natural Selection or God…take you pick. :roll_eyes:
 
buffalo said:
What you keep claiming as macro-evolution is actually loss of function, devolution. If you want to continue to limit macro-evolution to loss of function and certain extinction, go ahead.
Click to expand...
Every instance of macroevolution involves loss of function, by definition. The new species loses the ability to breed with the parent species.

Your ‘loss of function’ point is irrelevant to whether or not macroevolution has taken place. You appear to have set up a strawman of macroevolution here, buffalo.

You are wasting your energy tilting at windmills here.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
…evolution has not saved any creature that has ever gone extinct.
Click to expand...
@Atreju: I call in now and then and collect these gems. There has to be at least an article in in it. Although would one promote it as tragedy or comedy? Tough call…
 
Just beause I happen to be bored out of my skull,

Is there any real-world benefit to accepting evolution? Does it help you drive the car? Or make a pizza?
I know a pharmacist who is a young-earth creationist, and it doesn’t stop him from understanding about medications and their effects on the body and drug interactions, etc.
He doesn’t go around announcing his belief system, either, but he’s really good at his job.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
Just beause I happen to be bored out of my skull,
Click to expand...
There has to be a scientific paper in there somewhere: “Observed instances of extra-cranial existence in humans.” 😃
Is there any real-world benefit to accepting evolution?
Click to expand...
Yes. Our knowledge of evolution helps us to slow down the evolution of drug resistance in bacteria and of pesticide resistance in pests. See How To Make A Superweed for some examples.

rossum
 
I personally don’t have a grief with the idea of evolution, I was just thinking about this the one day…
 
As expected, all I see from those who claim there’s a wall is defection with not one iota of evidence to support them. Ah, so what’s new, eh?

BTW, I am a “creationist” in terms of believing that God likely caused it all, but I also strongly believe in also using objectively-derived evidence from scientific studies and not relying on medieval superstitions.

Anyhow, I think “the deal is sealed”, at least for now, in that nobody here can provide evidence for this supposed magical wall. Nor are they likely to ever be able to do as such since, if that wall had any evidence for it, it would be shouted from the rooftops long ago and almost all scientists would have gotten use to eating crow for dinner. The fact that no such evidence has been found pretty much indicates that it probably doesn’t exist.
 
BTW, let me just add that giving me the name of a book without even quoting from it or even citing whether it’s actually from an actual scientific source is not “evidence”.

BTW, I did look it up, and it’s from the “Discovery Institute” and is written by Michael Behe :roll_eyes: , and if one gets a chance, check out the book in Wikipedia and scroll down to “2.1 Negative Reviews” that shows that it really is nothing more than pseudo-science, not only in terms of what he concludes but also his refusal to use internationally-accepted scientific techniques, including the Scientific Method itself.

IOW, it’s for public consumption only-- not scientific.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top