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.
There exists much in nature that exhibit the Fibonacci spiral. Each number is the sum of the two previous numbers.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In geometry, a golden spiral is a logarithmic spiral whose growth factor is φ, the golden ratio. That is, a golden spiral gets wider (or further from its origin) by a factor of φ for every quarter turn it makes.

For example, for a pear tree there will be 8 leaves and 3 turns. Here are some more examples:

Branches of the Fibonacci Family
Tree Leaves Turns
Elm 2 1
Cherry 3 2
Beech 3 1
Poplar 5 2
Weeping willow 8 3
Pear 8 3
Almond 13 8

You can take a walk in a park and find this pattern on plants and bushes quite easily.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Atreju:
I didn’t say anything about crossbreeding. And mechanically, human selection is the same as natural selection.

I’m amazed you’re still struggling with this concept.
Click to expand...
If plants that were more edible to humans were more likely to reproduce, then we would see asparagus plants become more edible over generations.

Way too vague,how exactly would all this works?
Click to expand...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+evolution+work
 
It’s an illusion. Trust Richard Dawkins.

Oh… wait. Never mind. It Is Designed.
 
That’s right. We may find that the universe is a bubble containing atomic particles of a type yet unknown to science.
 
A comment said that was a mouse brain cell. I also wonder what the latter picture actually is, since we can’t take a picture of all the galaxies of the universe with any technology we have.
 
But we have image comparison technology that could identify similar structures in space.
 
Bradskii said:
Nearly missed this one. Do you have any concrete examples of biology ignoring statistics and probablity that we can examine?
Click to expand...
Examples abound. Take for instance the probability of a heart evolving along with brain matter that is (necessarily) perfectly tuned to tell that heart what to do and when to do it.
A rational, unprejudiced mind would consider the probability of that happening to be so absurdly small as to be impossible.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
It seems to me that the practical uses of “evolution” date back into prehistory. I can’t think of any particular practical use for the theory “first formulated in Darwin’s book".
Click to expand...
The reference to Darwin is irrelevant. The quote could be reduced to:

“The theory of evolution by natural selection … is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits",

in which case, there are many practical uses in biology for this defintion of ToE.

The principles of microevolution that have utilized for thousands of years by animal and plant breeders form the guts of any defintion of ToE - indeed, most definitions of ToE refer to no more than these principles of microevolution. However, there are other defintions which go a bit further and add the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth.

So it is not the “the theory of evolution” that is useless, it is only the information/claim/conclusion/belief that a biological evolution is responsible for the history of life on earth that is useless. For this reason, any evo-denying creationist (who accepts the known fossil and geological records) would not be professionally compromised working in any field of appled science.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Yes, but that’s selective breeding/microevolution…right ?
Click to expand...
Correct - most definitions of “the theory of evolution” include no more than the principles of microevolution. The definitions also encompass natural selection/artifical selection.

Many evolutionists consider the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life as not part of ToE, but rather as a conclusion arrived at from ToE.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Yes, but that’s selective breeding/microevolution…right ?
Click to expand...
Correct - most definitions of “the theory of evolution” include no more than the principles of microevolution. The definitions also encompass natural selection/artifical selection.

Many evolutionists consider the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life as not part of ToE, but rather as a conclusion arrived at from ToE.
Click to expand...
You mean like roaches that become resistant to roach spray, does not necessarily mean rats can morph into Whales? 🤔 🙂
 
Edgar said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Nearly missed this one. Do you have any concrete examples of biology ignoring statistics and probablity that we can examine?
Click to expand...
Examples abound. Take for instance the probability of a heart evolving along with brain matter that is (necessarily) perfectly tuned to tell that heart what to do and when to do it.
A rational, unprejudiced mind would consider the probability of that happening to be so absurdly small as to be impossible.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to calculate the probability of something that’s already happened. It’s 1.
 
I believe it was Pythagoras who first spoke of a microcosm and macrocosm. It is a sort of mystical idea that the larger whole is made up of structures having the same pattern. Most of us learned about atoms as being like mini-solar systems.

I think it reflects how we conceptualize things, seeing analogies in stuff we don’t know well, of things we do.

The slice of brain tissue that has been stained to show the connections between three neurons on the left is rather a dramatic visual representation of the brain’s structure, omitting pretty much everything that is going on and holding it together. It does inspire awe at how this all works. Especially when we consider that, if we were to lose a few million of these events at the back of our brain, what we see here would disappear. Many of us probably have at least one close person whom we’ve seen shrivel up with Alzheimer’s, as all of this gets gummed up and disappears.

Evolutionists can have their simplistic understandings, as creation reveals its mysteries. It too is a form of apophenia, seeing patterns where there are none, believing that the diversity found in nature is essentially a consequence of self-generated, haphazard breeding, similar to what we’ve been doing, stretching into prehistory.

The other graphic is a computer simulation of galaxy superclusters. There too the majority of stuff, not only the planets and gravitational relationships, but dark matter and energy are not visualized although implied in the structure.

The commonality that I “see”, beyond the sheer wonder inherent in both, has to do with the relational quality of existence and the underlying processes and structure of what constitutes their being. Hidden in plain sight is our Creator.
 
Last edited:
I get the point you are making, but I’d say that since we’ve been doing what the theory states, for perhaps a thousand times longer than it’s been around, it’s pretty much useless in practical terms.
 
IWantGod said:
This is just a commonsense argument.

If God created species, …
Click to expand...
Do you mean creatures in the archaic sense, both non-living and living, both material and spiritual? That includes all of creation. Or are you limiting to just living material things: Archaea, Bacteria, Protista, Fungi, Plants, and Animals?
 
Rubee said:
There are no “possible” options except those deliberately allowed by God.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the extent of what God has allowed to be random we simply cannot discern. The ToE in no way removes God from the equation as it is neutral on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top