Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Aloysium]

Yes, living beings have the built-in capacity to mutate and evolve. That’s not exactly an argument against evolution.

That built in capacity includes transposons which are inserted fragments of DNA from other positions in the molecule. One of the two or more classes is that of retrotransposons produced by reverse transcription, i.e. DNA from RNA. The other is composed of DNA, which carries the code for the protein, transposase that catalyzes the copy or cut and paste that make the transposition possible, while also probably encoding other proteins. This is how one type of microevolution works, diversity within a kind of being. Evolution cannot explain how such an important and sophisticated process arose. This emerged at a point early in the successive creation of living beings on earth.

is it possible that the eohippus and proto-giraffe both come from a forebear? Why not?

The giraffe is an extremely complex animal that except for very fundamentalist evolutionist, serves as an example of design, or possibly for pantheists, the creative engineering capacities of a nature taking on a myriad of forms.

A giraffe neck is 6 feet long. If we had to breathe through a tube that long we would suffocate because we would be unable to clear the tube of the carbon dioxide we breathe out. But a giraffe’s lungs are eight times ours with a respirarory rate one third, making it perfect for its dimensions and needs.
Although that long, the neck is still too short to reach the ground and becomes vulnerable when spread its front legs or kneel for a drink of water, they do so rarely, gettting the water they need from the leaves they eat.
They are capable of walking an hour after they are born and can eat solid food within a week.
They sleep in bursts of short minutes at a time for a total of much less than an hour in 24.
They have the same number of bones as we have in their neck.
The rete mirabile is a dense network of small capillaries covering the brain and preventing the rapid changes in blood pressure that would ensue from moving its head. Other mechanisms protecting against fainting are strong valves to stop the back-flow of blood in veins possessing elastic walls that dilate and constrict to control the flow of blood.
There are four similarly looking but genetically quite distinct species which would have diversified and not intermixed, from a common progenitor.
Giraffes run like camels rather than horses.
They have a foot-and-a-half long prehensile tongue.
Their hearts are the biggest of any land mammal, pumping 60 litres of blood per minute at a pressure twice that of a human being.
They apparently eat the bones of carcasses to supplement the large amounts of calcium they need for their bones.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

These among other characteristics make them quite a unique kind of living being. I can’t say for sure, but I think that they were a separate creation from that of an original equus.

 

[Aloysium]

Many people of the day, and for many years afterwards, said that the earth could not go around the sun because the Bible says explicitly the the earth is fixed and does not move. (1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 104:5 among others).Today they are saying that evolution cannot be true because the Bible said that God created the world in six days. I can’t help but feel that history is repeating itself.

Many people today and likely for many years from now say that the creation of different kinds of living being is not possible because science explicitly says everything has evolved (Origin of the Species). I to feel that history is repeating itself.

 

[Aloysium]

Same role God has in the operation of the solar system, He created the natural laws which allow and in fact demand that lifeforms evolve.

God brings everything into existence. The natural laws cannot explain how life forms have come to be. Their existence as the are in themselves, physically, psychologically and spiritually can only be explained by creation.

 

[Atreju]

You’ve said this before, but either it’s meaningless or it would disallow for even microevolution.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m not inclined from this to go back and read the thousands of posts I missed.

Thanks for dropping in. Don’t be a stranger.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m sorry that’s as far as you will go in trying to understand how all this works.

 

[Edgar]

Darwin was a lay minister in the Anglican church, and it was not until the latter part of his life that he turned agnostic as he was very dismayed at how so many fellow Christians reacted to what he had proposed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my claim that the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth is scientifically useless information

The concept of life evolving, including speciation, is an axiom within biology, and there are many scientific applications, such as how they prepare flu shots and the dangers of bacteria evolving that may not be affected by antibiotics. IOW, it’s really all related in a huge “ball”, so it doesn’t stand in isolation.

Nonsense. What you’re claiming in effect is that certain useful facts depend on an irrelevant and useless Darwinist folklore. Like most evolutionists, you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life, but have somehow failed to notice the fact that nothing in applied biology (the only form of biology that matters) depends on this interpretation. You’re simply blindly reguriating the mendacious fallacy the scientific community has conned you into believing without ever having thought about what you’re saying.

So here’s a small challenge for you that will require thinking about evolution for yourself for a change: Please provide one example of a practical application of biology that depends on accepting that all life evolved from a common ancestor and explain why. If you can do this - Congratulations! - you’ll be the only person in the world who ever has.

 

[Edgar]

Exactly! If EVILution were true, then why come we find fossils of horse-like creatures in the ground? If evilution were true then horses would never die.

Ah yes, horse evolution - another Darwinist fantasy. May I suggest you’ve been reading too many evo comic books.

"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” - George Gaylor Simpson, paleontologist and evolutionist.

“I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem” - Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown” - Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.

“But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time” - evolutionist science writer, Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery.

 

[Edgar]

Do I have to post the link to the paper about the macro evolution of the Marbled crayfish ( Procambarus fallax ) again?

So the genus of Procambarus evolving into the (same) genus of Procambarus is MACROevolution? Microevolution is macroevolution - hilarious!

 

[Atreju]

Exactly! Not only do horses die, which refutes evolution, but the individual fossils of dead horselike creatures don’t evolve! They just sit there like they’re made out of stone! Checkmate, scientists! Where’s my nobel prize???

 

[Edgar]

Let me see…
If I have something wrong with me then the doc has to:

1. Take the available evidence and make logical scientific conclusions based on that evidence.
2. Prescribe a course of action.
   Someone who is a YEC has shown herself to be incapable of item 1. Hence I wouldn’t rely on her for item 2.

I’ve personally known two doctors and a dentist who were evo-denying creationists and they seemed to be perfectly competent professionals. There are also many highly-qualified scientists working in applied science who are evo-denying creationists. Evolutionary science is useless.

 

[Atreju]

Exactly! I know several mechanics and engineers who think the moon landing was faked. Astronomy is totally useless, too!

 

[rossum]

So the genus of Procambarus evolving into the (same) genus of Procambarus is MACROevolution? Microevolution is macroevolution - hilarious!

You need to learn the difference between a Genus and a species. If you are ignorant of the basics of evolution then your criticisms will contain obvious errors and will be ignored. Ignorance can be cured by learning: “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.

The appearance of a new species is, by definition, macroevolution. Microevolution is contained within a single species, eye colour in humans for example.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Let me see…
If I have something wrong with me then the doc has to:

1. Take the available evidence and make logical scientific conclusions based on that evidence.
2. Prescribe a course of action.
   Someone who is a YEC has shown herself to be incapable of item 1. Hence I wouldn’t rely on her for item 2.

I’ve personally known two doctors and a dentist who were evo-denying creationists and they seemed to be perfectly competent professionals. There are also many highly-qualified scientists working in applied science who are evo-denying creationists. Evolutionary science is useless.

It would be my guess that your neck of the woods might have a greater proportion of the population less likely to ‘make logical scientific conclusions based on that evidence’ and more likely to organise day tours to the Creation Museum.

Y’all make good bourbon though.

 

[Metis1]

What role does theistic have in evolution? How do you know?

Some believe God caused all, and the reality is that one may believe as such or not believe as such, so no one really knows for certain even if they think they know for certain. So, it’s really a matter of belief, not empirical evidence.

 

[Metis1]

Nonsense. What you’re claiming in effect is that certain useful facts depend on an irrelevant and useless Darwinist folklore. Like most evolutionists, you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life, but have somehow failed to notice the fact that nothing in applied biology (the only form of biology that matters) depends on this interpretation.

It’s statements like the above that makes having a serious discussion with some nearly impossible, so I guess we’re permanently done as I’m not going to waste my time with even trying to explain, except for two items.

To the point that I was supposedly “indoctrinated” to accept the TOE, the real answer is no as I was indoctrinated by my fundamentalist Protestant church that called it “evilution”, but when I got into looking into this in biology, then leading me to eventually getting degrees in anthropology, this is when it became clear to me that I truly had been “indoctrinated” by my old church, and this understanding within biology and related sciences that led me to choose the reality that is the ToE. And let me remind you that it was a Catholic priest that first told me that one can believe in God and evolution when I was in high school back in the early '60’s that went against what my pastor had told me personally as I had thoughts about going into the ministry.

BTW, is insulting people and making sarcastic accusations against them acceptable within Catholic theology? The answer is a resounding no.

 

[stoplooklisten]

You win the ‘Best Theory Award’. The one that explains the evidence the best.

An organism’s complexity is not directly proportional to its genome size; some single cell organisms have much more DNA than humans… Genome reduction , also known as [Genome degradation], is the process by which a genome shrinks relative to its ancestor. - Source: Genome size - Wikipedia

How does the theory explain the size and complexity of the genetic code in a single cell organism? Rationally, how did it get there?

A jet aircraft isn’t randomly designed and built. Rather, it is very intentionally designed and built. Why should organisms be any different?

When we fly in an aircraft, its designers and builders may not be around for the ride but the aircraft is evidence for their existence. Why can we not see the evidence for the existence of the designer and builder of living organisms?

 

[stoplooklisten]

Logically, God must be the uncreated Source.

“Things don’t exist through themselves, but through the influence of a whole nexus of causes extrinsic to themselves. But those causes are themselves contingent upon further causes. If we want to give a sufficient reason why individual phenomena and things exist, we cannot go on endlessly appealing to conditioned causes.

We must come, finally, to some reality [God] that exists simply through the power of its own nature. And we recognize that this unconditioned being is the source of the being of everything outside of itself.”

Source: Spinoza, Secularism, and the Challenge of Evangelization - Word on Fire

 

[rossum]

An organism’s complexity is not directly proportional to its genome size; some single cell organisms have much more DNA than humans

Correct. Amoeba dubia has a genome about 100 times the size of a human. A Fugu fish is an example of the opposite extreme, with a very small genome for a fish.

How does the theory explain the size and complexity of the genetic code in a single cell organism? Rationally, how did it get there?

Size is a matter of the number of duplications and insertions in the genome. Shannon complexity is directly linked to size. If you are using some other measure of complexity then you will have to specify the measure you are using.

A jet aircraft isn’t randomly designed and built. Rather, it is very intentionally designed and built. Why should organisms be any different?

Jet aircraft do not reproduce themselves with variations in a situation of resource constraint. If you want an example of machinery in such a situation, then read Stanislaw Lem’s ‘The Invincible’.

It is an error to think that evolution as a whole is random. The underlying chemistry is not random. Random mutations are indeed random, but natural selection is not. It is not random that a well camouflaged organism has a better chance of reproducing than a less well camouflaged organism. Overall the process is not random.

When we fly in an aircraft, its designers and builders may not be around for the ride but the aircraft is evidence for their existence. Why can we not see the evidence for the existence of the designer and builder of living organisms?

Sometimes we can; Monsanto insert markers into the DNA of their genetically modified seeds so they can be identified.

The designer may wish to remain hidden perhaps. Alternatively the designer may be acting at one remove from the organisms in question. If the designer made the universe, setting its laws and the starting conditions then that designer had no direct impact on living organisms. Any influence was indirect. “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” In neither case did the designer directly form living organisms; they were formed indirectly.

To go back to your jet aircraft example, can you tell who designed the lathe on which some of the aircraft parts were made? Indirect design is a lot more difficult to detect.

rossum

 

[stoplooklisten]

God exists through the power of his own nature. God is the one and only unconditioned being and not limited by finiteness. God exists in Trinity that is not fully coherent to our finite understanding. Because He is Trinity, God is love. God is love with Father, Son and Holy Spirit relating to each other in love. God is the source of everything else. God’s being is timeless and unchangeable. God is a person and not merely a force and that person acts and speaks and listens. God is an authority who can command us finite, free-will beings and persons to use our finite, moral powers and to obey.

Things don’t exist through themselves, but through the influence of a whole nexus of causes extrinsic to themselves. God is not a thing. God was never dependent upon extrinsic causes external to himself. God is the source of the causes that lead to conditioned things.