E
edwest
Guest
Ask Richard Dawkins.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
A
Atreju
Guest
by natural selection, yes. In the same sense that gravity guides how the planets move.
Young-earth creationists always want to create this false dichotomy by saying either the planets move totally randomly or that they are manually moved by God. It can’t be that God created a natural process that handles it.
Young-earth creationists always want to create this false dichotomy by saying either the planets move totally randomly or that they are manually moved by God. It can’t be that God created a natural process that handles it.
Last edited:
A
Atreju
Guest
Ask Francis Collins or Ken Miller or apparently most American Catholics:
B
buffalo
Guest
NS is a conservative process. It keeps what is, and limits variation.
A
Atreju
Guest
In some cases yes, but in other cases, especially in environmental flux, it is innovative, as I earlier demonstrated.
B
buffalo
Guest
in preservation only.
R
rossum
Guest
And random mutation is not a conservative process; it introduces new variations into the DNA of the population.
Natural selection selects the beneficial variants from those introduced by random mutations. One process, RM, increases the variation in the population. The other process, NS, reduces that variation. There is a dynamic tension between the two processes.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Together the arrow points down, devolution.
R
rossum
Guest
Your ‘devolution’ is a change in DNA over time. Evolution is defined as a change in DNA over time. Thank you for confirming the correctness of evolution.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Change is constant. We all know it and do not argue it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
There is something to that suspicion, and one of the reasons why many people would argue so passionately for evolution. Not capitalizing the G is a clue that the person with whom one is discussing the matter will not understand most of the arguments to be made in favour of creationism. There is no idea whom it is that is being talked about. And that is perhaps the bottom line, not knowing God, we can’t know the truth; the denial is of the alternative illusion to that which we have constructed.
Evolution is a story as is that of creation. There is an intersect between them in empirical data that is known fact. The advantage of creationistic descriptions is that they better explain diversity of physical forms as well as the psychological and recognize the existence of the spiritual - the unity and relational nature of living forms, the reality of everything being itself.
E
Edgar
Guest
In short, there is no practical use in applied science for the “information” that all life on earth evolved from a microbe … or that humans evolved from some kind of ape.
Many evolutionists will tell you otherwise, because they’ve been conned and indoctrinated to believe that the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life is not only the truth, but that it is essential to understanding all forms biology. But this is nonsense, as nothing in the entire field of applied science owes it’s existence to their evolution tale. Hence, your young-earth creationist (YEC) friend can operate perfectly competently as a pharmacist without being an evolutionist - ditto for doctors and dentists and geologists and biologists and scientists and anyone else who works in any field of applied science.
However - and this where it can get a little confusing - the word “evolution” is very broad and includes many real-world phenomena that are very useful in applied science. For example, the biological sciences regards breeding better crops or bigger chickens or fatter cattle as “evolution”. Breeding dogs with short legs or floppy ears are also examples of “evolution”. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, this is also “evolution” to a biologist.
E
Edgar
Guest
Firstly, “understanding the spread of disease” is merely an explanation based on a theory, so doesn’t qualify as a practical use. On the other hand, actually preventing the spread of disease would qualify as a practical use.
Secondly, how has the information that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor helped anyone understand the spread of disease?
E
Edgar
Guest
The claim was made by beyond_reason that humans have witnessed “new and different forms” of organisms coming into existence via evolution. Please cite a scientific artilce or paper which states this.
R
rossum
Guest
That was not my claim, since “form” is not fully defined. All I claim is that the emergence of new species, i.e. macroevolution, has been observed.
That is sufficient to establish macroevolution, as normally defined, on a sound scientific basis.
rossum
M
Metis1
Guest
That’s the “the vast majority of scientists that accept the ToE are involved in an anti-God conspiracy so they lie and falsify information” approach. Sorry, but that simply is a bogus claim.
And because the Church does allow for the acceptance of the ToE as long as it’s understood God was behind it all, the response above is also a rejection of what the Church actually does teach.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Your first reply is not what he said. I really don’t understand what people are doing when they exaggerate to disprove something the person never claimed. Not convincing in the least, not furthering the argument. I suppose it’s speaking to other believers to ignore the argument that evolution is a belief with anti-religious implications.Edgar:
That’s the “the vast majority of scientists that accept the ToE are involved in an anti-God conspiracy so they lie and falsify information” approach. Sorry, but that simply is a bogus claim.
And because the Church does allow for the acceptance of the ToE as long as it’s understood God was behind it all, the response above is also a rejection of what the Church actually does teach.
The Church’s caveat must be taken seriously. Recall that humanity began with one man, who committed the original sin by appropriating what belongs to God and thereby brought ignorance, death and suffering into the world, to be redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ.
There’s not been one post that I’ve read speaking to how the ToE and the Church’s teachings are one truth. All that is said is that God is behind it all. That sounds like Deism to me so if I am to take that theory seriously, someone better explain where is the love, where is Eden.
But then the genealogical evolution of life from some original single cell creature through the fundamental forces of nature makes no sense, so I’m not sure how a God of the gaps is going to fix it any more than ignoring the gaps and calling it all random.
I think you should explain how what the original poster said is a rejection of what the Church teaches. Since the Church has made no declaration against Santa Claus, I would assume that there is no prohibition to believe in them. To claim that Darwinian interpretations are being taught as being essential to understanding life is hardly a rejection of the Church any more than disputing the reality of the fat jolly old elf.
M
Metis1
Guest
The concept that all life forms emerged from a single cell is merely one hypothesis out of myriads of them wrapped up in the ToE complex, and a “hypothesis” is not a scientific theory nor an axiom. Even it were to be true, this still does not scientifically deal with what ultimately caused the single-celled organism. This is why the Church’s stance on the option of accepting the ToE is based on God causing it all.
In my anthropology course, I never taught nor implied that divine creation was not possible, and as far as I can remember, not a single one of my professors taught as such either during both my undergrad and grad years.
In my anthropology course, I never taught nor implied that divine creation was not possible, and as far as I can remember, not a single one of my professors taught as such either during both my undergrad and grad years.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
I understand but some extrapolations do appear in Biology textbooks which should not be there.
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. “Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
E
edwest
Guest
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
[/quote]
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
[/quote]
- Status