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 way I see it, natural selection preserves the parts of the environment which together contribute to the workings of the wholeness that is that system. The driving force, that which makes it effective in the shaping of the creatures we observe, is death. Those that do not fit, will die and not reproduce. Death never created anything. As we see today in the Galapagos about a century and a half after Darwin is how natural selection depletes what is. The introduction of new species, from bacteria to insects to plants and mammals, not to mention the impact of humans, has made the preservation of species an extremely difficult task requiring time, money and care.
 
Last edited:
One day for God can be a thousand years for humans. Who knows what really happened?
 
buffalo said:
Natural selection preserves what is, it does not create.
Click to expand...
Natural selection selects from the range of options presented by random mutations. It weeds out deleterious mutations; it ignores neutral mutations and it spreads beneficial mutations through the population.

Modelling only one part of the process is useless; you have to model both parts: random mutation and natural selection.

A calculation which only includes one part is GIGO and will be ignored as irrelevant. I could calculate the odds of the letters in the Bible falling together by chance, but that calculation would be rightly ignored because the Bible did not arise from raw chance. Similarly, evolution is not raw chance; natural selection is not a chance process.

rossum
 
Reuben_J said:
One day for God can be a thousand years for humans. Who knows what really happened?
Click to expand...
The way I figure, time is a collection of events. Thinking about the process of creation, which occurred in a step-wise fashion, there was much less going on before than after a specific phase of creation.

As something goes faster and faster, what happens within that thing is known to go slower. Twins one on earth and another accelerating away from the earth, taking a trip around the solar system and returning, will have aged differently, the astronaut now being younger. So, in any moment there can only be so much change.

If what can occur in a period of time is fixed, a “day” could include so many events and no more, no less.

If we look back in time, because of the complexity and number of events taking place now, what is a day in terms of totality of events could be billions of years in terms of what went on near the beginning.

In other words, as you say “Who knows?” We try to fathom these mysteries, imagining what happened using our reason grounded on what we believe is the way the world works.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
All those creationist tornado-in-a-junkyard calculations are also wrong because they ignore the effects of natural selection.
Click to expand...
The “tornado in a junkyard” analogy refers to abiogenesis. How is natural selection relevant to abiogenesis?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Of course. Really you non-mathematicians have such narrow imaginations
Click to expand...
When playng in the sand-pit of abiogenesis and evolution science, a vivid imagination is essential, but in the world of true science, I’m afraid fantasising is worthless
 
Last edited:
Reuben_J said:
One day for God can be a thousand years for humans. Who knows what really happened?
Click to expand...
God knows what happened. He wrote an account of it in a book that humans can read - ie, life on earth was created in a few days. No billions of years of evolution.
 
Glark said:
The “tornado in a junkyard” analogy refers to abiogenesis. How is natural selection relevant to abiogenesis?
Click to expand...
Abiogenesis is chemistry, and chemistry is not random. Those pure random calculations ignore chemistry, and often, incorrectly, assume modern proteins rather than simpler proteins or ribozymes.

Even in pure chemistry, there is a certain amount of feedback possible in self-catalysing loops.

rossum
 
Glark said:
God knows what happened. He wrote an account of it in a book that humans can read - ie, life on earth was created in a few days. No billions of years of evolution.
Click to expand...
And there are 1001 different versions of what that book really says. Whoever wrote the book obviously made it ambiguous. AIUI the Catholic Church allows both the six day interpretation and the billions of years interpretation. What makes your personal interpretation the only valid one?

You personally do not have as much theological or scientific authority as the Catholic church.

rossum
 
Darwinism and creationists agree at a certain point . As someone has argued somewhere in posts earlier, man was the latest creation. Nobody can tell how long it took from the previous “day” to his creation. The giants before the floods are pointers. The evolutionist only have a complex but logical question. The origin of that which must evolve. The creationists are able to reach an intelligence. Even the Big Bang pales out into it.
 
Chris4 said:
The creationists are able to reach an intelligence.
Click to expand...
“reach”? No, creationists assume an intelligence. They start with an intelligence, they do not reach it. Evolution starts with non-intelligence and evolves it. Creationism starts with intelligence and stays the same.

rossum
 
rossum said:
“reach”? No, creationists assume an intelligence. They start with an intelligence, they do not reach it. Evolution starts with non-intelligence and evolves it. Creationism starts with intelligence and stays the same.

rossum
Click to expand...
Rather they start with non-intelligence and revolve about it. BTW, one attribute of truth is it “stays the same”. Lesser ideals must mutate.
Adieu R-evolutionist!
 
rossum said:
Abiogenesis is chemistry, and chemistry is not random. Those pure random calculations ignore chemistry, and often, incorrectly, assume modern proteins rather than simpler proteins or ribozymes.

Even in pure chemistry, there is a certain amount of feedback possible in self-catalysing loops.

rossum
Click to expand...
Stretching…
 
rossum said:
And there are 1001 different versions of what that book really says. Whoever wrote the book obviously made it ambiguous. AIUI the Catholic Church allows both the six day interpretation and the billions of years interpretation. What makes your personal interpretation the only valid one?

You personally do not have as much theological or scientific authority as the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
You have made a perfect argument for why Catholicism is “the” religion. It is like a 3 legged stool. Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. Remove any one and the stool topples.

The Magisterial interpretation is the one we use. It has been constant, firm, longheld and protected by the Holy Spirit.
 
Chris4 said:
BTW, one attribute of truth is it “stays the same”.
Click to expand...
So the statement “I am 45 years old” is not “truth” no matter when it is said.

Similarly 1 + 1 = 2 is not “truth” because that statement is highly dependent on context and so changes with context.

You have a very rigid and restrictive definition of “truth” I’m afraid.

rossum
 
rossum said:
So the statement “I am 45 years old” is not “truth” no matter when it is said.

Similarly 1 + 1 = 2 is not “truth” because that statement is highly dependent on context and so changes with context.

You have a very rigid and restrictive definition of “truth” I’m afraid.

rossum
Click to expand...
Ah! You make it complicated. But then ‘45’ or any number are absolute in value thus remain true. What change are the contexts that attend around it . Particularly ‘am’ and ‘years’. Since you last penned it you are no longer it no matter how negligible the shift in value, so that statement is no longer true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top