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.
I quoted you Matt 10:6, but I meant Mark 10:6. Sorry.

"But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’
Mark 10:6
 
False, the evidence of micro-evolution (aka adaptation) by science is well accepted.
Evo’s hate it when anyone separates their precious belief system into fact and hypothesis. It undermines the illusion.
 
Last edited:
Scientists studying abiogenesis
… the lengths some dreamers will go to to rationalise natural abiognesis.
Scientists studying abiogenesis
… are deluded dreamers and bs-artists, who seriously underestimate what they’re dealing with.

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools” - Romans 1.
 
I wish Creationists wouldn’t just quote mine and quotebomb so indiscriminately, particularly in the presence of people who actually know what they are talking about.
Abiogenesis and evolution scientists claim to know what they’re talking about … and God laughs.
 
are deluded dreamers and bs-artists, who seriously underestimate what they’re dealing with.
Not that any of this is necessarily true, or indeed that you are qualified to say whether its true or not, by your own admission.
 
the guidance of selection
That’s one way to put it. Asteroids and comets, famine and war, viruses and toxins, volcanoes, vermin and such, “guiding” the diversity that covers the planet. To Christians who believe in evolution I suppose that this would be how God guides us. Fighting words to be sure, but that is what you insinuate. And, that’s how atheists become atheists, better no God than one who is cruel and brutal, uncaring.

Take a look at what “natural selection” has been doing to the Galapagos with the introduction of foreign species and the efforts people are making to save them. The maintenance of creation involves work, a lot of money and a love for the creatures we are intent on saving.
 
Last edited:
Asteroids and comets, famine and war, viruses and toxins, volcanoes, vermin and such, “guiding” the diversity that covers the planet.
If all these things do not have such a purpose, what are they there for? To illuminate the love of God?
And, that’s how atheists become atheists, better no God than one who is cruel and brutal, uncaring.
Your own words describe the cruel brutality of God, with all his natural disasters, viruses, toxins and vermin. That may well be why atheists become atheists, because of what they see as God’s random capriciousness, not because of the beautifully ordered progress of immutable laws (God’s own laws, of course, and immutable by choice, not be necessity).
 
Read the Sciencedaily article and then the paper which is referenced.
 
Last edited:
Read the Sciencedaily article and then the paper which is referenced.
I have done, of course. I always do. What I won’t do is argue against a case which you haven’t put forward. Simply finding a paper referenced on some Creationist website and chucking it into the pot without any attempt at explaining how it actually supports your position is intellectually lazy.

Needless to say, there is nothing in the article or paper which supports Creationism in any form.
 
Last edited:
Needless to say, there is nothing in the article or paper which supports Creationism in any form.
All Catholics are creationists by definition. I am a creationist and IDvolutionist! 😀

Let’s try again.

What most surprised researchers was that the orphan genes differed from one pandoravirus to another, making it less and less likely that they were inherited from a common ancestor!
 
Last edited:
It is a poetic way of saying that out of one celled creatures (formed in what would commonly be called slime aka mud)
The Bible also says that God created man after He created everything else.
 
Your own words describe the cruel brutality of God, with all his natural disasters, viruses, toxins and vermin. That may well be why atheists become atheists, because of what they see as God’s random capriciousness, not because of the beautifully ordered progress of immutable laws (God’s own laws, of course, and immutable by choice, not be necessity).
God’s Beauty, as is His Truth, is synonymous with His being Love. We may also find Him in His immutable laws, which are parts of the interface between persons individually and collectively and the events that form creation. They are an aspect of our relational and rational human spirit, that enables us to love. They also reflect the Logos which underlies creation. The order that we witness in nature is an aspect of God’s will which is to bring into existence a creation that will share in His glory.
 
If all these things do not have such a purpose, what are they there for? To illuminate the love of God?
What I see is that the horrors of this fallen world are “natural selection” at work. Rather than a mechanism that favours diversity, it does the converse, limiting the expression of life.

While organisms exist as individual beings in themselves, they are also components of a larger ecological system. In that light, the concept of natural selection reveals itself to be a distortion of how the world works. This garden, made perfect, has been corrupted by sin, reaching into the depth of its emergence into existence in every moment from eternity. Mankind isn’t some random add-on, but the reason for the existence of the cosmos, and therefore what we have done has affected all of it. I would say this is true to the farthest galaxy, although that reality points to how infinitesimally small we are.

Let’s consider the Galapagos as an example of how diversity happens. There we see tortoises with longer necks and a saddle shaped shell that allows them to reach the fruit of cactuses that grow tall, distinct from those that are found on an island where the plant is short, growing more horizontally. The epigenetics of organisms allows for their capacity to relate optimally within their environment. This ability of a “genus”, which is to say the “soul” of organisms ancestrally linked, is built into living beings that they may better participate in the whole that is the world and to diversify with the ongoing blooming of all creation.

We can break down the physical components of any living being into the atoms and the fundamental properties of nature. Creation as a temporal event required their coming into existence prior to that of beings that could reproduce themselves and order the basic material substances that are taken from what is outside, to give themselves a physical form. Left to the inherent properties of atoms, the entire cosmos is reduced to an empty rock collection. As awesomely powerful as a star going supernova might be as it is known by God, it is amazing that we are able to share its wonder with Him. The order that allows us to do this, that shapes our being, is not emergent from the physical, which merely forms the substrate of our existence in time and space.

Earthquakes and asteroids exist as natural phenomena that reflect the organization of matter needed to construct this world and the physical dimension of who we are. They are laft to impact on us because we have wounded the connection to He who brings us into being. The initial order that existed at the creation of the universe, has been damaged as a consequence of our turning away from Him, putting ourselves at the centre. Viruses, famine and war accompany the disorder. This was not the way it was meant to be and ultimately, in and through Jesus Christ they are transcended, and the world will be whole once more.
 
Last edited:
What most surprised researchers was that the orphan genes differed from one pandoravirus to another, making it less and less likely that they were inherited from a common ancestor!
As you do not choose, surprise, surprise, to elucidate on what we are supposed to make of your selection of this quotation, I must attempt to read your mind. I think that you hope that the reference to the unlikelihood that certain genes in Pandoraviruses have been inherited is prima facie evidence for the spontaneous creation of Pandoraviruses, and by extension all other living things.

Well, of course, it isn’t. The production of new genes is a regular feature of living things, in spite of some Creationist insistence that all evolution is destructive. Since they are not derived from existing genes, and sometimes constructed from ‘raw material’ such as non-coding genomic region of the genetic material of the organism, then obviously they do not have ‘ancestors’ themselves. (Rather like, say, fingernails, or teeth). However, there is no suggestion that the organisms themselves have no common ancestor, or that either the organisms or the ORFan genes were spontaneously created from nothing.

The paper itself, rather than the article from which the quote was taken, says:
“Our data support an evolutionary scenario whereby novel (hence strain-specific) protein-coding genes could randomly emerge from non-coding intergenic regions, then become alike protein-coding genes of older ancestry […] For a long time considered unrealistic on statistical ground, the notion that new protein-coding genes could emerge de novo from non-coding sequences started to gain an increasing support following the discovery of many expressed ORFan genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila, Arabidopsis, mammals, and primates. This hypothesis was recently extended to giant viruses.”

Needless to say, there is nothing in the article or paper which supports Creationism in any form.
 
“Our data support an evolutionary scenario whereby novel (hence strain-specific) protein-coding genes could randomly emerge from non-coding intergenic regions, then become alike protein-coding genes of older ancestry […] For a long time considered unrealistic on statistical ground, the notion that new protein-coding genes could emerge de novo from non-coding sequences started to gain an increasing support following the discovery of many expressed ORFan genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Drosophila, Arabidopsis, mammals, and primates. This hypothesis was recently extended to giant viruses.”
IOW: It happened because it happened - randomness-of-the-gaps.
 
The paper itself, rather than the article from which the quote was taken, says:
“Our data support an evolutionary scenario whereby novel (hence strain-specific) protein-coding genes could randomly emerge from non-coding intergenic regions, then become alike protein-coding genes of older ancestry […]
Of course they do, they have to. (evolution always has to be involved or no more funding – a point I have made right along) When all these findings add up the from many different papers we get

No universal common descent. This is another pointer to the abrupt appearance of complexity without any continuous evolutionary pathways. Woese also showed this years ago.

We get closer to the “kinds”.

“could randomly emerge” Oh my…

I am glad you are now taking the time to read and discuss.
 
Last edited:
It is a poetic way of saying that out of one celled creatures (formed in what would commonly be called slime aka mud)
While considering literary interpretations… I find it interesting too that all the matter in our bodies originated in minerals, water, and atmospheric gases. Minerals plus water makes mud. God’s breath is the air, and is also the spirit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top