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.
Rubee said:
there are many genuses (or whatever the plural of genus is) and the ToE says all life evolved from one life form, then surely it must mean that “species will evolve from one genus to another” through some process, no? Feel free to educate me, again I am no biologist. Just a lay person trying to reason through these things.
Click to expand...
The plural of “genus” is “genera”. I’m not a biologist either, but if all life on earth evolved from a microbe, then one genus evolved into millions of different genera.
 
In the examples given, the life form cannot be imagined to be living in the wild but on a movie set. The trees and vegetation are real and the area is cordoned off so that other factors never come into play. In reality, a real environment is dynamic. Too little rain, too much rain, a pack of predators discovers this perfect little scene and begins eating the inhabitants. Some days are abnormally cold or hot. There is a fire and the animals flee.

It’s all random. The purpose of mindless evolution is to spit out new organisms that may or may not survive in the environment they end up in. Say there’s been several years of extra snowfall. Somehow, the organism that is white wins the lottery, then snowfall returns to normal levels or drops, making whitey more obvious on the ground.
 
Rubee said:
I’m not a biologist but to me it doesn’t look random. It looks intelligently designed. Genes have an inbuilt capacity to deal with all random changes in the environment so that life has not gone extinct in 4.5 billion years. Isn’t that miraculous? From where I’m sitting, people talking about natural selection are claiming a providential process. a) There’s no reason life should “adapt” to anything. It should just disappear when it’s no longer fit if the claims of purely material causes are true. A material, blind universe doesn’t care if life or anything at all “survives”. b) If the idea is that there’s no adaptation but rather a dying away of what doesn’t fit and the continuation of what fits, then it seems to suggest there’s a pre-existing super potentiality in genes or capacity to survive any environment. Both have God written all over them from where I’m sitting.
Click to expand...
I’m on your side - creation is the result of an omnipotent God, who is rather intelligent and likes designing stuff.

The history of life as revealed by the fossil record suggests a process of progressive creation, not a contiguous process of biological evolution (macroevolution), in my opinion. The most powerful evidence of this is the Cambrian explosion, in which almost all the different phyla of life-forms appeared in a relatively short space of time, and without much - or anything at all- in the way of evolutionary ancestors. Before the Cambrian there existed only soft-bodied creatures like worms and sponges - ie, nothing at all like what “suddenly” appeared in the Cambrian. Since the Cambrian, hardly an new phyla have appeared, but many species have become extinct.

The problem with many biologists is, they’ve been indoctrinated to believe that nothing in biology makes sense unless one believes that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (namely, a microbe). But they are wrong, because nothing in all of applied science depends on this belief.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
In the examples given, the life form cannot be imagined to be living in the wild but on a movie set. The trees and vegetation are real and the area is cordoned off so that other factors never come into play. In reality, a real environment is dynamic. Too little rain, too much rain, a pack of predators discovers this perfect little scene and begins eating the inhabitants. Some days are abnormally cold or hot. There is a fire and the animals flee.

It’s all random. The purpose of mindless evolution is to spit out new organisms that may or may not survive in the environment they end up in. Say there’s been several years of extra snowfall. Somehow, the organism that is white wins the lottery, then snowfall returns to normal levels or drops, making whitey more obvious on the ground.
Click to expand...
Back in the old days, the environment alway worked in perfect harmony with evolution to produce the best possible outcome :roll_eyes:
 
Or something… The imagination is the only driving force sustaining ‘evolution’ in the present.
 
edwest said:
Exactly. No explanation will be forthcoming that can be demonstrated today. Fit today, gone tomorrow. But as you probably know, evolution can explain anything.
Click to expand...
How many( fit/die out ) scenarios do you think it took for evolution to produce 10 million different plant and animal species?
 
When you start talking about me you make clear that have understood nothing of what I’ve written. Again as I said to the other guy, self-reflect (no I’m not deepak Chopra) on what of yourself you are projecting onto others when you do that. Unfortunately, I cannot ask that you stick to the arguments presented, if you can’t grasp them.

Let me address your assertion:
Atreju said:
What is more likely, that every biologist in the world is a brainwashed idiot, or that some lay people who can’t even accurately summarize the theory and who have a religious conviction that if they accept the theory they will become atheists, are wrong?
Click to expand...
We are all brainwashed idiots. You don’t know who it is that is on the other side of the conversation.
 
Last edited:
That is something I’ve been researching for a long time. The answer involves a simple question: Where does the energy come from to sustain electrons in their orbits? No one knows. No one has a clue.
 
edwest said:
That is something I’ve been researching for a long time. The answer involves a simple question: Where does the energy come from to sustain electrons in their orbits? No one knows. No one has a clue.
Click to expand...
You seem to be talking about the Bohr model, in which the electron is a charged particle that goes around the nucleus in a certain orbit, like a little moon.
That model is often used to introduce the electron in physics and chemistry, because it gives a picture in the mind, but it was clear even soon after it was proposed that it had some serious problems. The current model is quantum mechanical; the electron has both the qualities of a particle and a wave.
The quantum mechanical model is used because it fits the known data far better than the Bohr model did.
A scientific hypothesis put forth to replace evolution would have to explain the known data better than the current model does. The Bohr model wasn’t discarded until a better model was proposed, and even that one was close enough to what he imagined that the image of a “orbital” was retained (because, well, nothing quite like it exists in the world of physics visible to the human eye).
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
According to the comedians down at Evolution Central, crayfish evolving into more crayfish is “macroevolution”. Delusion, but funny nevertheless.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. So you have no problem with humans evolving from apes because “mammals evolving into more mammals” is only microevolution?

If you do not understand the levels of the nested hierarchy then you will find it difficult to understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

My example was the evolution of a new species of crayfish. A new species. The evolution of a new species is, by definition, macroevolution.

If you are going to criticise evolution you first need to learn what it actually says. Otherwise your criticism misses the point and all your effort posting here is wasted.
 
Edgar said:
But natural selection is a slave to environmental conditons, which are random. So doesn’t this means the process overall is random?
Click to expand...
No, environmental conditions are not random. To take a simple example, ambient temperatures in the environment are dependent on the degree of latitude. It is warmer at the equator than at either pole. That temperature in the environment is not random.

A process with random (name removed by moderator)ut and non-random selection produces a non-random output.

If the (name removed by moderator)ut to a process is a die roll, but I filter out any roll that is not a 6 then the output from that process is: 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, … A non-random filter will produce a non-random output given a random (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
The Quantum model is a series of equations. Most attempts like Shrodinger’s cat, to explain the actual physics in day to day terms is an absurdity. From my understanding electrons are said to have both kinetic and potential energies which change depending on the distance from the nucleus. The electron spinning around the nucleus is still believed to cause the magnetism we find in iron as the atoms line up, in how we derive power from hydro plants, and in how many electric motors work. But, the idea that the electron and nucleus behave in the manner of chunks of stuff like planetary systems is where things do not to coincide with reality. Electrons are thought of as existing as a probability cloud, the most dense near the nucleus having discrete energies, their position and motion represented by a particular sphere, an electron does not have a single location in space. So, what I would say in terms of what we experience, the closest analogy would be that the electron, protons and neutrons are forms of information, relationships that can be understood as mathematical equations like Shrodinger’s equation.

What we have is this reality right here and now, the experience being the tip of an existential iceberg. How it is put together, it’s structure is determined by specific relationships that are defined by its building blocks, material and psychological, ultimately spiritual. This conversation, these words, might be said to be analogous to the rendering of an underlying program. This isn’t to say that the program - electrons and/or the relationships that define them are more real than this here; they merely represent part of the fundamental material structure that is brought together in the unity that is the person, here reading, thinking feeling as one being relating to what is other to the self.

And, that takes us to how we got here temporally. We each began at conception as a person, a manifestation of humankind. We had a beginning in one man, formed as the template from whom all of us are derived. The physical universe with its plants and animals, found on this world were brought into existence in a step-wise fashion until the environment was suitably established for us. Much of the information necessary for life and found in various life forms was utilized in our creation. There was a fall and we are on a journey bringing all of creation into communion within the Trinity through Jesus Christ.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Aloysium:
deepak Chopra
Click to expand...
I knew you reminded me of somebody. lool
Click to expand...
I must say you make the most compelling argument in this quote why people do tow the evolutionary line, in spite of their reason telling them otherwise.
 
Metis1 said:
Everything we see seems to be changing over time as material objects are not static entities.
Click to expand...
Which law of science says that?
Everything we see seems to be changing over time as material objects are not static entities.
Click to expand...
“Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record, and that STASIS dominates the history of most fossil species” - Wikipedia, “Punctuated equilibrium” (emphasis added).
Nor is there any evidence whatsoever for some sort of magical “wall” between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, as the latter is a logical byproduct of the former. When a few people here are asked to provide evidence for such a “wall”, all we get is song & dance-- no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention the thousands of years of animal and plant breeding that has not produced even the slighest hint that Darwinian macroevolution is factual or even possible. But why let thousands of years of empirical evidence spoil your “no wall” story?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top