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

[IWantGod]

Because it’s science. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth

But all scientific explanations involve natural explanations like those involved in the formation of planets or the Big-bang or gravity. Does that mean they are not true?

I don’t think you are making a reasonable argument here.

I don’t see why a theory is atheist just because God isn’t mentioned as a cause.

 

[Edgar]

I won’t challenge that too harshly, as evolution is a theory and we mustn’t lose sight of that.

Tell that to the hordes who belief it’s a scientific fact!

But it’s the best one so far. Nothing else explains so well the relatively short time these species existed, how they “disappeared”, how they “appeared” and how it resulted in the living things present today.

“explains so well”? Are you kidding? Science does a very poor job of explaining the fossil record, with it’s lack of transitionals, it’s ubiquitous gaps and sudden appearances of fully-formed organisms, etc. Stephen Jay Gould described the fossil record as an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory! Only creation can explain the fossil record.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

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.

Meanwhile the organism evolves brain matter that just so happens to perfectly control a heart. How does natural selection make it possible for a brain and a heart to evolve separately yet both be perfectdly attuned to one another?

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.

And of course, the creature survived - somehow - before any valves at all evolved … and - even before any veins evolved .- somehow …

Another argument from incredulity. We do seem to get a lot of these…

 

[Bradskii]

I suspect…

What follows is only opinion (the rest was simply comments with no argumentative value).

Science does a very poor job of explaining the fossil record…
…Only creation can explain the fossil record.

These two comments contradict one another.

The issue is how it happened. I cannot see it being possible through random chemical activity.

I haven’t totally thought this out, but I loved the video, and here’s a chance to post it.

The machines in the video above cycle through random collections of letters. Potentially meaningful sequences are tagged red and become full-blown words. Note the number of failures at a meaningful combination. Imagine a set of letters that have meaning and then glitching as they are reproduced, even if the total number remains the same, what it would take to get a new meaningful result. And, with living forms, we are not talking about a word, or a phrase, but an encyclopedia. It’s not a matter of billions of years, rather trillions multiplied by trillions of attempts.

I realize I am responding to believers of the evolutionary mythos, but hoping someone with an open mind is listening in.

Let’s say a monkey is trying to type Richard III which has about 30,000 words. Hitting keys at random and it’s obvious that it’s going to take some time.

But let’s say we have a sytem that benefits certain keys. Just like evolution favours certain combinations of genes. And let’s say that ‘N’ is a beneficial letter. It has a small chance of surviving longer than any other letter. So when it hits ‘N’ it sticks around. So the chimp is banging away again with ‘N’ in place as the first letter.

Now let’s say that the combination of an ‘N’ and an ‘o’ is better at surviving. So when the monkey hits an ‘o’ we have ‘No’. So that combo sticks around and propagates. Then we have a situation where the combo of ‘No’ and a ‘w’ is even better yet of surviving. So when the monkey hits a ‘w’ we get ‘Now’ and that propagates.

With a very simple evolutionary rule (this random letter is a slight improvement on the existing sequence), if the mokey hits one key every second, how long would it take to type the complete play?

With a simple rule benefiting certain combos (like evolution) and another being entirely random (your tornado in a junkyard), the random system takes longer than the time it will take for the universe to cease existing. Using a simple rukle, it taes ten days.

Now, for heaven’s sake do not take this literally. It’s just a thought experiment to show that simple rules can change the time taken to reach a given result from infinity to a week and a half.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

You should know by now that using the word “proved” in science is an error. Do you think that Newton’s theory of gravity was ever “proved”?

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Vonsalza told buffalo, “We can literally show you the evolution of your eye”, which is not a theory but an empirical claim - ie, physical, observable evidence. Therefore one can legitimately demand PROOF of sucn an empirical claim.

If someone asks for specific examples of evolution and is given them, then the only choice is to agree or disagree with them. You cannot later claim that the evidence does not exist (t’s just that you don’t find it credible).

Vonsalza:

Not at all. It stems from the fact that virtually all the stuff in the rocks doesn’t exist any more and the stuff that exists is virtually absent from the rocks. Life has obviously experienced multiple turnovers in diversity. Evolution is the most logical answer that doesn’t require the supernatural.

Precisely - ToE is the godless explanation for the history of life. Does that mean it’s the truth?

Straw man. Evolution does not exclude God.

IWantGod:

Why is it a godless explanation?

Because it’s science.

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

because this…theory is the best science can come up.

Well done.

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s say a monkey is trying to type Richard III which has about 30,000 words. Hitting keys at random and it’s obvious that it’s going to take some time.

A monkey in reality will never type out Richard III. Such things occur only in the imagination. Likewise chemical reactions, happening without an ordering principle that brings the primary materials together in a particular spatial and temporal sequence, will never result in a cell.

It’s just a thought experiment to show that simple rules can change the time taken to reach a given result from infinity to a week and a half.

The thought experiment should go further and explain how the simple rules, the fundamental forces of nature, can produce the beginnings of life.

We can speed up the process of random change in pre-existing organisms through natural means. But, we all know that irradiating one’s genitals in the hope of producing brighter offspring, will not work. Such events happen only in the Marvel Comic Universe - the imagination.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Let’s say a monkey is trying to type Richard III which has about 30,000 words. Hitting keys at random and it’s obvious that it’s going to take some time.

A monkey in reality will never type out Richard III.

Yes, it could. All you need are simple rules that increase the information we get out of the random typing. As I said, let’s not take this too literally. In fact, don’t take it any other way than it was meant. To indicate to the ‘tornado in a junkyard’ mentality that a impossible event is well nigh certain to happen under simple rules.

Likewise chemical reactions, happening without an ordering principle that brings the primary materials together in a particular spatial and temporal sequence, will never result in a cell.

Luke 1:37

 

[Aloysium]

Is the natural formation of planets a Godless explanation?

It depends how it is stated.

Let’s start with the Big Bang Theory. What we’ve done is to extrapolate back in time, utilizing our observations of what we find in the universe today, to find, as everyone has read, that there existed something very different at the beginning. We speak about a time when gravitation hadn’t pulled matter together to form stars and galaxies, when “the Universe was too hot to form neutral atoms”, when “atomic nuclei were blasted apart”, “matter-antimatter pairs would spontaneously form”, when “individual protons and neutrons would be dissociated into quarks and gluons”.

The language implies that time has two directions, that the furture determines the past. That’s an assumption, as would be the one that might start with the idea that the basic laws of physics are eternally present, even when things were completely different from how they are today. Creation is a better explanation that sees the formation of this world happening in steps that build on the old to bring into existence the new.

It being so 1980’s to talk about an initial singularity, it is pretty well accepted that it’s most probably wrong and that we can only know what happened after the final ~10^-33 seconds of inflation. How long inflation lasted, if we can speak of time at all, is unkowable. Some might offer the suggestion that it took one day.

At any rate, during the era of cosmic inflation, the Universe was energy itself, undergoing a rapid, exponential expansion, having the same properties everywhere, from which matter and radiation, were created, representing the hot Big Bang. From that plasma, atoms were created, and from there this universe as we know it, consisting of stars and planets.

So there is a Godless explanation as to how the cosmos “brought itself” into its current form, resting on nihilistic, atheistic and pantheistic roots. For the actual science to be understood, it must be cast into a story that is understandable. It seems to me that in the belief that we are freeing science from the constraints that religious and philosophical systems, something that is impossible unless we simply stick to the mathematics, Godless ideas are wrongheadedly being pushed in the class room and media. This is ok if we, as Christians, take into account the distortions that happen in our understanding as we do so, and try to see everything under the Light that is Jesus Christ.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

Likewise chemical reactions, happening without an ordering principle that brings the primary materials together in a particular spatial and temporal sequence, will never result in a cell.

Luke 1:37

“For with God nothing shall be impossible.”

You might be catching on. There is only one way this could happen.

 

[Rubee]

At any rate, during the era of cosmic inflation, the Universe was energy itself, undergoing a rapid, exponential expansion, having the same properties everywhere, from which matter and radiation, were created, representing the hot Big Bang. From that plasma, atoms were created, and from there this universe as we know it, consisting of stars and planets.

I don’t understand. Do you believe the whole BBT is wrong? It seems you do but this paragragh^^ reads like you accept it post inflation.

 

[Bradskii]

“For with God nothing shall be impossible.”
There is only one way this could happen.

Those two sentences are contradictory. Didn’t you realise that when you typed them?

 

[Vonsalza]

Tell that to the hordes who belief it’s a scientific fact!

Well, to be fair, there’s a hint in the name. The “T” in “ToE”.

“explains so well”? Are you kidding? Science does a very poor job of explaining the fossil record, with it’s lack of transitionals,

Are there still questions? Absolutely. But that doesn’t negate the fact that it’s still the best theory standing.

And as far as transitionals? Literally every species that has ever been found is a “transitional”.

We’ve been pulling these things out of the rocks for so long now that there aren’t any species I’m aware of that are a total evolutionary mystery. Now, there may be a handful left. But I’m unaware of any.

Like with the evolution of the whale graphic that I’ve posted a few times. You can literally see the transitions. They are transitions.

Only creation can explain the fossil record.

Well, then you need multiple, continuous creations. Virtually every fossil we have has the characteristic of limited chronology. It showed up at a certain date and was gone by a certain date, based on the specimens we find.

To put that under a scientific lens, you’d need to show the world where this creation is happening. Or, if it’s stopped, explain why it stopped in a scientific way.

If you get to invoke your supernatural power, how do you rationally exclude a Hindu’s supernatural power?

And if you have to change the rules of rational discourse itself in order to assert your claim, then you should really, really reconsider the claim.

 

[Metis1]

Divine creation is based on faith, not objective empirical evidence. The ToE, otoh, is based on objective empirical evidence, not faith. One may believe in Divine creation, as I do, but belief by itself cannot and is not the basis of the ToE.

 

[buffalo]

Another argument from incredulity. We do seem to get a lot of these…

The natural selection arguments I read here are magnitudes higher in incredulity.

 

[buffalo]

objective empirical evidence

No, it is not. There is no observable, repeatable and predictable evidence. I have asked for it over and over and no one has ever produced any. This is fantasy. You really need to drop this line.

 

[edwest]

Funny. Everything has to be looked at as a personal opinion. In the United States, the National Academy of Sciences is disappointed when students don’t know or refuse to write the “correct” answer on tests. On their copyright protected site, as in, “don’t you dare copy anything from here,” they have a section where various religious leaders say the “right” thing. It’s obvious what is going on. Very obvious.

 

[rossum]

There is no observable, repeatable and predictable evidence.

There is; your sources are lying to you again.

The Lederberg Experiment is an observable, repeatable and predictable demonstration of evolution. It shows that mutations occur randomly.

The Luria-Delbrück Experiment is an observable, repeatable and predictable demonstration of evolution. It shows that mutations happen before selection, not after.

You have been grossly misinformed I’m afraid.

 

[buffalo]

There is; your sources are lying to you again.

The Lederberg Experiment is an observable, repeatable and predictable demonstration of evolution. It shows that mutations occur randomly.

The Luria-Delbrück Experiment is an observable, repeatable and predictable demonstration of evolution. It shows that mutations happen before selection, not after.

You have been grossly misinformed I’m afraid.

Have you missed or are simply ignoring the cell directed mutation papers I cited.

 

[Metis1]

Some need to google “speciation” for evidence of the evolution of life, and then maybe even check out what “genome testing” is all about in the context of the evolution of various life forms. The evidence is there en masse, but one has to actually open their eyes and minds in order to see it. To use a nonsensical interpretation of the creation accounts in such a literalistic manner simply is not science nor is it sensible. When one takes that position, it actually diminishes Christianity by making it look like Dark Age mythology.

 

[buffalo]

Some need to google “speciation” for evidence of the evolution of life,

Yes, change happens. Speciation shows loss of function and is devolution.