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.
The best thing that happened to the Church was that it extricated itself from politics. Besides its not Catholics I think who’d set up one in the US.

I’d be indifferent to the Catholic Church doing it, since its entirely permissive of people holding to the theory of evolution, and has even permitted far reaching interpretations of Genesis, though stipulating a few limits here and there, such as Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
The Church is mentioned all the time concerning political matters. Reinterpretations of Genesis are usually fictional.

And those Christians who are secretly behind the coming takeover. Right, I know their secret handshake 🙂
 
leonhardprintz said:
If you’re referring to the fact that DNA has error correction mechanism. That’s true, but that doesn’t prevent mutations from occuring, or gene duplication or anything else I’ve talked about.
Click to expand...
The fact that error correction prevents fixing of mutations makes them even more implausible. Not impossible, just less fix and more time is now needed.

Once again, besides error correction and the fact most mutations that make it through these defenses are deleterious is an increasing difficulty for the Darwinistic mechanism.

And, we now know that the programming of the cell can cause “mutatations” as needed and by design.
 
rossum said:
First make the individual parts, then assemble the parts together to make the whole. Dawkins’ Mount Improbable analogy applies here.
Click to expand...
Laughable fantasy masqueradng as science. One wonders what sort of mutation would form part of a heart in a creature whose DNA has no instructions for anything like a heart. Then this initial mutation - aka a useless lump of meat - for some reason is passed on to millions of subsequent generations until another chance mutation produces another useless lump of meat that forms part of the heart, which just happens to connect to the first part … and so on until a complete heart is formed, including the valves (wow, how fortuitous - the mutations actually formed valves … and they work in the right direction!). Then there were thousands of other chance mutations which formed the arteries and veins that connect to the heart to form a complete vascular system … not to mention the little matter of the nerves that connect it all to the brain, which, btw, just happened - as a result of sheer good luck - to mutate new brain matter which just happened to produce precisely the right instructions on how the heart system will work. This heart of course turns out to be just the right size for the creature involved and starts beating at just the right time and at just the right rate. One also wonders of what use an incomplete heart that doesn’t work would be, and to a creature that already has a breathing system that does work.

There is a simple explanation for why this sort of inexcusable nonsense is believed by vast numbers of evolutionist space cadets - there is no Creator, so it MUST have happened … however insanely impossible the logistics seem. As science fiction, evolutionary theory is excellent stuff; but as legitimate science, it’s an embarrassment.
 
Last edited:
Physicist Rob Sheldon and Gary Webb may be liking IDvolution… 😀

Comets and entropy hydrodynamics: How does evolution violate the 2nd law?

ABSTRACT
Information density can increase locally if one is careful to control the flow of entropy. Not diffusively but through clever use of “invariants of the flow”. Replacing entropy with true invariants of the flow, we show how information can be concentrated or “added” consistent with the observation of increasing complexity on the Earth. Analogous to a digital computer made of fluid components, the “calculation” proceeds by clever manipulation of boundary conditions. Magnetized comets possess exactly the properties needed to produce the simplest entropy invariant, making them a prime candidate for driving evolution. They may also provide the origin of the chirality or ”handedness” of life. Thus the Origin-of-life, evolutionary progress paradox can be solved, but at the cost of requiring the universe to be in a highly information-dense initial state.

The twentieth century began the description of physics as a huge casino, calculating the statistics of heat or thermodynamics, and later, the probabilities of quantum mechanics. And while this description of the world has been enormously useful, providing the understanding of steel and concrete, of electricity and power, in the end it could not explain the exquisite design of bio-materials: the strength of tooth enamel, the water-repelling nature of lily pads, the low drag of shark skin. The study of these remarkable things revealed that the secret lies in their coherence, in their nanoscale structure, in their design. If the 20th century was the century of chance statistics, of bulk materials, of diffusive transport, then the 21st century has become the century of coherence, of smart materials, and of controlled transport. If the 20th century was about energy–hydroelectric dams, nuclear bombs, oil wells–then the 21st century is about energy use–wind turbines, nuclear rockets, hybrid cars. If the
20th century was about entropy, then the 21st century is about information.

http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/PDF/spie13.pdf
 
Last edited:
The aversion to the term ‘technology’ strikes me as odd. It makes perfect sense to me that creation would be a divine technology of sorts, and that the diversification of life, if at all it happens through the processes described by these evolutions, i.e. not needing intervention at every point but through some already set process, is absolutely a tech. It’s just not a human tech!

I don’t understand the problem you have to be honest.

Do you not think we are the product of a superior mind?

Well, if part of our being (our bodies) comes from a mechanism he set in motion to operate automatically, on its own–yes, mechanically!–billions of years ago, then our bodies and the rest of life on earth are the product of technology.
 
Random chance and self-upgrading are two ideas that should not be in the same sentence. Evolution, as defined here, has no practical scientific application in Biology. Mount Improbable amounts to Mount Speculation. Since the changes to the organism happen very slowly, over millions of years, we can’t see them. But they do result in endless speculation and endless storytelling. Scientists are only at the beginning of understanding the human genome and molecular switches. And now, they have developed a gene editing tool which they don’t feel comfortable with because they don’t know enough and human cellular systems are far too complex. They are chiseling out a bit of DNA and looking to see what happens. That is science.

“CRISPR-Cas9 was adapted from a naturally occurring genome editing system in bacteria. The bacteria capture snippets of DNA from invading viruses and use them to create DNA segments known as CRISPR arrays. The CRISPR arrays allow the bacteria to “remember” the viruses (or closely related ones). If the viruses attack again, the bacteria produce RNA segments from the CRISPR arrays to target the viruses’ DNA. The bacteria then use Cas9 or a similar enzyme to cut the DNA apart, which disables the virus.”
 
Techno2000 said:
Yeah …a little trial and error, plus hot and cold… wet or dry conditions and you get happy new plants and animals
Click to expand...
You forgot to mean evolution’s “super magical ingredient” - billions of years" worth of time - it makes the impossible possible. Here’s a simple example: Given billions of years, monkeys could build a nuclear reactor. See how it makes perfectly good sense? All you need is a little imagination and an open and gullible mind.
 
Monkeys could build a nuclear reactor!? How about I put all of the parts of a bicycle in a large pond. Given enough time, all the parts will find their correct location on the frame and self-assemble.

Not.
 
Last edited:
I agree. If evolution is true, then it was very much designed and manipulated by an intelligence. That seems plain to me.
 
Edgar said:
40.png
rossum:
First make the individual parts, then assemble the parts together to make the whole. Dawkins’ Mount Improbable analogy applies here.
Click to expand...
Laughable fantasy masqueradng as science. One wonders what sort of mutation would form part of a heart in a creature whose DNA has no instructions for anything like a heart. Then this initial mutation - aka a useless lump of meat - for some reason is passed on to millions of subsequent generations until another chance mutation produces another useless lump of meat that forms part of the heart, which just happens to connect to the first part … and so on until a complete heart is formed, including the valves (wow, how fortuitous - the mutations actually formed valves … and they work in the right direction!). Then there were thousands of other chance mutations which formed the arteries and veins that connect to the heart to form a complete vascular system … not to mention the little matter of the nerves that connect it all to the brain, which, btw, just happened - as a result of sheer good luck - to mutate new brain matter which just happened to produce precisely the right instructions on how the heart system will work. This heart of course turns out to be just the right size for the creature involved and starts beating at just the right time and at just the right rate. One also wonders of what use an incomplete heart that doesn’t work would be, and to a creature that already has a breathing system that does work.
Click to expand...
Yeah… and there was always some kind of perfect environmental situation for evolution to produce millions and millions of different kinds of plant and animal variety. :roll_eyes:
 
edwest said:
Random chance and self-upgrading are two ideas that should not be in the same sentence.
Click to expand...
And yet we have the experiments of Richard Lenski, as well as other examples, that document this happening in exquisite detail. And its not something you’ve been able to answer.
 
It is because it would put life in the order of being of artifacts, instead of creatures. Instead of us being a perfect substance, made to be what we are, we’d instead simply be something fashioned by some creature into an intended purpose.

In principle then we could just as easily have been created by an angel, instead of God. Or even less than that, we could have been created by another physical progenitor being.

It sits very uncomfortably with scholastic philosophy to liken God to a lowly designer, imagining a divine workshop with Adam as a Woody puppet, getting his hair screwed in.

Beyond that the entire design argument presumes a highly mechanistic conception of life, so it sedes far too much ground to the materialists anyway. I believe personally we shouldn’t put life itself into the same order of being as chairs, puppets and cars.

There are already very strong arguments for the existence of cause from the directedness of causes in our universe. One that doesn’t merely result in us acknowledging the existence of some sort of superior intelligence. But one that establishes the characteristics of God as He is conceived of in classical theology: Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

If you need a good presentation of all the problems with the design arguments from a thomist, I really recommond Edward Feser.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Physicist Rob Sheldon and Gary Webb may be liking IDvolution… 😀

Comets and entropy hydrodynamics: How does evolution violate the 2nd law?
Click to expand...
Should be noted that neither of those are evolutionary biologists, Rob Sheldon works for a creationist blog called “Evolution News and View” and Gary Webb is a journalist.

As for supposed problem of entropy, there is none. Evolution doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, anymore than a baby developing in a womb does. As long as life has access to a source of energy that can perform work, then it can grow and develop.
 
leonhardprintz said:
It is because it would put life in the order of being of artifacts, instead of creatures. Instead of us being a perfect substance, made to be what we are, we’d instead simply be something fashioned by some creature into an intended purpose.
Click to expand...
This is only possible if someone had the absurd notion that some creature could also potentially create the code. Otherwise, I find the expressed concern too much of a stretch.

This is in fact a technology that was not fashioned by any creature. (If it’s true, that is–jury is still out on that). That’s fairly simple to me. We do not deny secondary causation in our faith.

Any in any case, what is described here is factually a technology, so I don’t feel the need to shy away from calling it that. In any case, it only refers to our bodies, not our souls.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Unless the code in this library needs to be accessed.
Click to expand...
Again if creationists wish to argue that all of the DNA is utterly nescessary and completely indispensible, then I suggest you ally yourself with some competent molecular biologists, and fund some experiments where attempts to create minimalistic DNA’s are done.

That would be an excellent way to test that.
 
By describing and likening it to computer code, you’re implicitly saying that its something a physical being could have made. Perhaps not one of human intelligence (I have no idea, since we’re still learning about how it all works), but one of an alien and superior intelligence.

But if a physical being couldn’t do it, then if, as you say, we’re just artifacts, then even the lowliest angel could do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top