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

[Garydavid]

Well for myself what matters is that God the Father created everything. He changes what He creates, when and how He sees fit. He is in control of everything. Knowing this within myself, nothing else matters. God bless… Gary

 

[Edgar]

when I’m trying to create rational explanations for things …

Why do you want or need a scientific explanation for the history of life on earth?

 

[Edgar]

Green Party’s efforts, in Australia.

If you to see what satanic politics looks like, look no further than the Greens in Australia. I don’t know if they are typical of the Green Party elsewhere in the world, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. A disturbing number of Catholics vote for the Greens.

 

[Edgar]

A monkey in reality will never type out Richard III. Such things occur only in the imagination.

Unlike the hard sciences, evolutionary biology couldn’t care less about the reality of ridiculous odds. This is just one example of the unscientific nature of this farcial, philosophy-driven “science”.

 

[rossum]

Actually, the ToE is not based on observations.

You are grossly misinformed here. Mutations, natural selection, neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection and the other mechanisms of evolution have all been observed. How do you think that a multiply resistant bacterium like MRSA appeared?

We do not observe molecules randomly coming together to create life.

That is not evolution, but Abiogenesis. Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life and Species”. There is currently not yet a theory of Abiogenesis. All we have are a number of possible hypotheses, which are being examined to see which one stand up. Science works by putting up hypotheses and knocking them down. Last one standing gets to be a theory, until it is replaced by a better theory.

All known alterations in DNA, not caused by the inherent properties of cells, such as horizontal gene transfer or translocations, that are built in mechanisms for adaptation and to promote diversity in organisms and their environments, are at best neutral, or at least offset by having two chromosomes.

So many errors. Bacteria do not have chromosomes. Chromosomes are only found in Eukaryotes, and I am not certain that all Eukaryotes have them. It is possible that a single-celled asexually reproducing eukaryote will not.

Most mutations are neutral. Most of the rest are deleterious, but beneficial mutations do exist. HbC and Apo-AI Milano are two examples of beneficial mutations in humans. Roundup resistance is an example in plants.

Theyy ultimately result in disease, and that is why your beloved XXX crayfish will survive only about 100,000 years, because of the accumulation of chromosomal damage, caused by random physical events on the genome. It will be disappear due to “natural selection”.

All species go extinct in time. Extinction is not a disproof of evolution. Your argument here is completely irrelevant.

I do understand the philosophical basis for evolution but believe it to be relevant only in the world of Marvel Comic Books.

Evolution is science, not philosophy. That may be why you have such a strange attitude to it; you have it wrongly categorised. You would not expect a mention of God in a textbook on gravity, nor should you expect and mention of God in a textbook on biology.

The most you are likely to get is Darwin:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwin, Origin (6th edition)

 

[Aloysium]

You are grossly misinformed here.

FYI - It’s called using one’s God-given reason. I am not getting this from anyone other than through the relationship I have with reality.There is no information involved, actually. It is a perspective that is being presented.

How do you think that a multiply resistant bacterium like MRSA appeared?

This capacity existed from the beginning, as an attribute belonging to bacteria in their forming a harmonious balance with microscopic fungi, as the initial layers of a living environment were being brought into existence, in order to create a stable base on which other, more complex life forms could thrive. Random genetic mutations destroyed this trait in many bacteria, but they could re-aquire it, through horizontal gene transfer. There is also a built-in regulatory systems that allows for changes in the expression of the DNA, and modifications to the genome such as translocation. These permit there to be changes in protein synthesis within the individual bacteria and modifications to offspring, which account for this development. More and more is being learned about how life works at a molecular level. There is nothing different in the true science between creationism and ToE; the explanatory power, however, of the former is far superior to the latter. The ToE would hold that all these biological mechanisms serendipitously appeared; but, they were in fact created. Once one separates the actual facts from the story into which they have been woven, it is possible to see how they come together in a clearer, much more comprehensive portrayal of reality - creation.

You keep repeating this question and I have answered pretty much in the same way. You may wish to consider pursuing the arguments I am proposing in response to this perpetual query.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually, the ToE is not based on observations.

Dear me…

 

[Bradskii]

Unlike the hard sciences, evolutionary biology couldn’t care less about the reality of ridiculous odds. This is just one example of the unscientific nature of this farcial, philosophy-driven “science”.

Statistics and probablity are unscientific? That’s one for the summary…

 

[buffalo]

Most of the rest are deleterious, but beneficial mutations do exist.

Yes, they are cell directed.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is science, not philosophy.

Evolution is philosophy.

 

[rossum]

There is no information involved, actually. It is a perspective that is being presented.

You are correct: “no information involved”. Your own personal perspective is personal to you. There is no reason I can see for me to agree with it.

This capacity existed from the beginning, as an attribute belonging to bacteria in their forming

And you evidence for this statement is? Do you have the DNA sequence for the ancestor of MRSA from 3 billion years ago?

Alternatively, you can look at the DNA of the contemporary cold virus and tell us how to cure all colds by finding something which is outside the capacity of the cold virus. If all future capacity is inherent in current DNA, then such a search should be easy.

A great many anti-evoluitonists use this argument of inherent pre-existing capacity, yet none of them seem to be able to produce any evidence to show that it exists.

The Luria–Delbrück experiment shows that random mutations may produce a solution to a problem before the problem arises. They are random, so some will turn out to be a solution to a past problem, some to a present problem and some to a future problem. That is to be expected from random mutations.

 

[rossum]

Yes, they are cell directed.

Intelligent cells doing the directing? Strange.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Evolution is science, not philosophy.

Evolution is philosophy.

‘Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.’ https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

We get what you mean to say even as you don’t actually say what you mean. The ToE can certainly lead to a philosophical discussion. Such as ‘Is it true or should we believe my personal interpretation of certain passages of scripture’.

 

[edwest]

To no one in particular,

Evolution is a philosophy - a worldview. It has no scientific use.

 

[Bradskii]

To no one in particular,

Evolution is a philosophy - a worldview. It has no scientific use.

‘The only practical solution is Bioinformatics’…someone said recently. And someone was given lotsa examples of practical uses of the ToE which is being used by countless people in countless applications earning gazillions of dollars but which (wait for this) apparently doesn’t work.

You will be mentioned in dispatches, Ed.

 

[edwest]

Dispatches, eh? Reverse-engineering is the only choice scientists have. The only choice to fully understand things alive today.

 

[buffalo]

hmmmm - a few posters were claiming no diff between micro and macro.

From @bradskii artcile

Natural selection​

To understand the origin of whales, it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called “microevolution.”

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as “macroevolution.” It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

 

[buffalo]

and here we see teleological language:

“natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up,”

 

[Bradskii]

hmmmm - a few posters were claiming no diff between micro and macro.

From @bradskii artcile

Natural selection​

To understand the origin of whales, it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called “microevolution.”

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as “macroevolution.” It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

I love the way that you post articles that you claim are false in the first instance in order to show that it accepts something that you think is false.

There has to be a term for that.

 

[Bradskii]

and here we see teleological language:

“natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up,”

I can see what’s happened here. All the fish in the barrel have been shot so all that’s left is for Buff to take the bottom and scrape it.