T
Techno2000
Guest
Excellent thanks
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
Edgar
Guest
How dare you!! The evolutionary explanation for the history of life is acceptd by about 99% scientists on earth! Who the hell do you think you are to question their wisdom? And why are you attempting to introduce logic, rational thinking and plain ol’ common sense into evolutionary biology?
R
rossum
Guest
A valve is just a loose flap of skin. A mutation can produce a loose flap of skin. It won’t work very well, but it works better than no flap. Later mutations can improve the working of the initial flap.
Veins also have valves, and there are animals like Amphioxus with a circulatory system and no heart – blood is circulated by body movements. It is perfectly possible that valves evolved before hearts just to keep blood circulating in one direction.
R
Rubee
Guest
That’s great! Thanks. Even when I was a happy evolutionist back in June, I still thought it absurd to think this process wasn’t at least guided by a divine hand and his angels who he sets over the cosmos. Now that I know more about the DNA I think even that is a tad generous and that God had to have been directly involved, at least: (1) when the first life form showed up, (2) when the genetic code first showed up, and (3) whenever new information was infused into the genetic code (whenever it changed in a fundamental way).
R
Rubee
Guest
It’s funny you should say that since that’s what your positions seem like to me. “Chemicals must have poofed it, however absurd the notion. We just have to take it on faith that chemicals poofed code.” When you hypothesise something for which there is zero observation of its occurrence in nature, EVER, your position is not more rational than a person who looks at what is known to produce that thing and assumes what caused the condition resembles that known cause. It makes you more magical, not more rational. Yours is the position demanding miracles without a miracle-worker. At least Ed’s requires the miracle-worker. Yours is much more akin to classic magic.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
What we have in this example, given that the universe is an act of that reveals God’s love and glory, is evidence of a corruption. God doesn’t sit in eternity praising Himself, but rather He has created a myriad of beings with the ability to know and reflect the Love He is. That can only happen if the relational nature of those entities has the capacity for free will. Love is an act of giving rather than an emotion, and given the choice, a large number decided not to, including ourselves.
God originally created a harmonious system with checks and balances, plenty for everything as everything contributed to the formation of the whole of nature. Death would be built into nature as an aspect of change, with each living form having its moment in the sun. Within the wholeness of this garden universe, life sacrifices itself to life, that life will thrive and diversify.
Consider that the majority of angelic beings sing God’s praises as they carry out His will, much as we should strive to do. That work incldes bringing into existence everything of this world. Among their acts, would be what we refer to as the laws of nature. God, beyond time and space, not limited to a past-present-future existence, can be understood as bringing everything into existence simultaneously in one Beatific Vision, in an endless streaming of joyous brilliance from the One Trinitarian Godhead.
The Word witnessed the fall of Satan like lightning from heaven, a fall before our own, involving many angels causing the corruption of nature, bringing disharmony into the world. As the forces of nature turned to their self-interest, plasmids became viruses. The serpent entered into the garden to entice us to place ourselves at the centre of this garden. Sounding like so much nonsense these days, enthralled as we are in the vision of a dead universe, such concepts do reveal how we got here in a language that is clear and understandable. Self interest in nature, as in human affairs is responsible for the problems of this fallen world, and would be among the reasons why we are here, to tend to it.
Creation occurs from eternity, where ontologically speaking everything is one, as the entire universe is alive with individual beings, all brought into existence in their moment, from and within an eternal Now, through a Divine Act of Love. The original sin would be a primary ontological event that arises within us as we are maintained in existence in this world from our conception to our last breath. We have sided with the forces of evil and are now subject to its consequences - suffering and death. God’s will, with all its healing graces, has been replaced by the self-directed and therefore random activity of those agents responsible for the structuring of reality, who having fallen, disrupt the integrity of our physical, psychological and spiritual being. As the crown of creation, we have contributed our part in the corruption the universe by sin, from its beginning to its end. However, through us in Jesus Christ, all journeys to reconciliation with God.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sorry, but this sounds to me like “Chemistry isn’t real” and is thus difficult for me to consider.
If you want to call it code, fine with me. But it’s also just an acid chain.
I would resist the temptation to revere what you don’t understand. Just enroll in an organic chemistry class or some similar course. If you’re not looking for credit, you can take them for free at a lot of places.
RNA viruses lack DNA, if that’s what you’re talking about here… You can literally go observe them right now, assuming you have access to the equipment needed.
Nothing miraculous to it. A mutation occurs, usually during reproduction. If it’s beneficial, natural selection will spread the mutation. If it’s not beneficial, natural selection will kill it off.
What about that is difficult to grasp?
M
Metis1
Guest
To deny evolution is very much like sticking one;s head in the sand while loudly saying “Lalalalalalala!”. It’s just plain old common sense as material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects.
Also, as has been covered many times before, there is not one shred of evidence than one could put forth that somehow “micro-” stops before “macro-”, and all we get from some is the old bait & switch, thus refusing to directly deal with the supposed evidence.
The serious discussion shouldn’t be on whether evolution has occurred, because it certainly has, but more on how exactly did God use this process and why did God choose to do it this way?
And, to repeat, the ToE in no way negates Divine creation, and we shouldn’t really have to be repeating this.
Also, as has been covered many times before, there is not one shred of evidence than one could put forth that somehow “micro-” stops before “macro-”, and all we get from some is the old bait & switch, thus refusing to directly deal with the supposed evidence.
The serious discussion shouldn’t be on whether evolution has occurred, because it certainly has, but more on how exactly did God use this process and why did God choose to do it this way?
And, to repeat, the ToE in no way negates Divine creation, and we shouldn’t really have to be repeating this.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
This should probably be a signature on every post in this thread. Bravo.
B
buffalo
Guest
Paragraphs on a piece of paper are just ink deposits.
B
buffalo
Guest
NS is the evo driver from outside the organism, when we now know the cell programming drives the changes.
B
buffalo
Guest
No one has a problem with micro-evolution.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Well… Two things…Vonsalza:
NS is the evo driver from outside the organism, when we now know the cell programming drives the changes.
Cell programming doesn’t drive the change. Mutation is random.
Natural selection is the “judge” as to whether the mutation is good or not.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is what they used to think. No longer. Mutation is not random. We have evidence most are program driven.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
No we don’t.Vonsalza:
That is what they used to think. No longer. Mutation is not random. We have evidence most are program driven.
" Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” … In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Now at this point, if you’d like to argue that God provides an unseen hand, I’m fine with that.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
Because it is not really evolution, the way it is said to occur as a result of random chemical changes to the genome.
What appears as evolution happening within different kinds of living beings is the expression of a built-in capacity for diversity which reflects an individual organism’s role as a participant in its environment and also the creativity of the Divine Artist behind all this.
Random mutations and natural selection are merely the shadow of death within this process and are feasible as the source of creation only to believers.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Last edited:
- Status