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

[rossum]

Ah! You make it complicated.

And the world is not complicated?

But then ‘45’ or any number are absolute in value thus remain true.

No. ‘45’ is not an absolute value. The value represented by those symbols changes depending on the surrounding assumptions. 45 in octal = 37 in base ten; 45 in hex = 69 in base ten. It will have different values in other bases, or be meaningless in bases below 6.

What change are the contexts that attend around it .

An in the absence of that context no meaning is discernible. Does “elf” mean a mythical humanoid (as in English) or the number eleven (as in German)? Absent the context we have no way of telling.

I have no problem with truth. I have a big problem with absolute unchanging truth. For that matter, I have a big problem with absolute unchanging anything.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

That’s right.

 

[buffalo]

No. You don’t quote them. You quote mine them. You simply cut and paste with zero understanding of what you it means.

You have been caught out so many times you must be psychologically incapable of feeling shame.

I have a quotemine from today’s Mass readings from the Book of Wisdom

God did not make death,
nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.
For he fashioned all things that they might have being;
and the creatures of the world are wholesome,
and there is not a destructive drug among them
nor any domain of the netherworld on earth,
for justice is undying.
For God formed man to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made him.
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who belong to his company experience it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Can’t get much more evolutionist than that.

 

[Bradskii]

If death entered the world by the envy of the devil, then God sure took advantage of it:

‘…nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.’

Well, not all. God is in error there. One assumes that aquatic life went on its merry way.

 

[rossum]

Another Bible error there. “destroy every living thing”? Ermm… wasn’t there this big wooden boat with a lot of living animals and some living people on board?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The expected infantile responses from the adherents to the SAB.

 

[Glark]

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.

What this has to do with “natural selection” is still unclear to me. Regardless, as with evolution “science”, abiogenesis “science” throws up endless, useless, empty theories based on wishful thinking and assumptions, that lead nowhere and contribute nothing to the advancement of science. In other words, it’s all talk and no action.

When scientists convert dead chemicals into a viable life-form, wake me up.

 

[Glark]

His book is called “On the Origin of Species” …

This comes straight out of The Manifesto of Scientism. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Church to include Darwin’s sci-fi novel in the canon of Scripture.

 

[Glark]

your personal interpretation the only valid one?

My interpretation is the traditinal one that has held by Catholics for thousand of years. It is has not been abrogated by a popular myth built on junk science.

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

I don’t need a degree in astronomy to know that the sun rises in the east and I don’t need a degree in theology to know that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

 

[Glark]

Nobody can tell how long it took from the previous “day” to his creation

On the contrary, the length of a creation “day” is clearly described in Exodus 20:9-11 …

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them”.

 

[Glark]

Evolution starts with non-intelligence and evolves it.

That is to say, with magic and irrational superstition.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I don’t need a degree in theology to know that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

And I don’t need a degree in theology to know that evolution is wholly compatible with Scripture. What we might need degrees for is in persuading each other of the correctness of our ‘knowledge’.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.

Well there’s a volte face. A few days ago you thought there was a huge gap between the creation of the heavens and the creation of "the earth, the sea, and all that is in them”.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t need a degree in astronomy to know that the sun rises in the east…

There’s your problem I think (apart from a limited education). It sure does look it rises over there. But astronomy tells us the facts of the matter. Not just what it looks like to you.

 

[rossum]

My interpretation is the traditinal one that has held by Catholics for thousand of years. It is has not been abrogated by a popular myth built on junk science.

Heliocentrism was the traditional interpretation once. Is Copernicus “junk science” as well?

The Bible is not a science textbook and it is a gross error to treat it as such. Have you been able to find a bird or whale fossil earlier than the first land animal yet? That is what Genesis says in the traditional interpretation: Genesis 1:20-25.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

The twin pillars of evolutionary theories are random mutation and natural selection.

Natural selection is the mechanism of adaptive (and reversible) change.

Random mutation causes loss of function, and doesn’t improve it.

Creation-Intelligent Design is obvious

 

[rossum]

The twin pillars of evolutionary theories are random mutation and natural selection.

And neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection etc.

Natural selection is the mechanism of adaptive (and reversible) change.

Natural selection is a mechanism to spread beneficial mutations through the population and to reduce deleterious mutations.

Random mutation causes loss of function, and doesn’t improve it.

False. Your source is lying to you here. In future I suggest that you find a better source, one that does not lie to you.

Neutral mutations (the most common type) do not change function at all, while some mutations can cause an increase in function. Those mutations are rare, but they do happen. The most obvious example of an increase in function is a reverse mutation to one that caused a decrease in function. If a mutation from GATTACA to GATCACA caused a loss in function, then the reverse mutation from GATCACA back to GATTACA obviously causes an increase in function from the mutated DNA.

Creation-Intelligent Design is obvious

It is only obvious on lying websites that do not tell you the truth. It is also obvious that Intelligent Design has no explanation at all for the origin of intelligence. It merely assumes it, which is not a very scientific approach.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

The twin pillars of evolutionary theories are random mutation and natural selection.

And neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection etc.

Natural selection is the mechanism of adaptive (and reversible) change.

Natural selection is a mechanism to spread beneficial mutations through the population and to reduce deleterious mutations.

Random mutation causes loss of function, and doesn’t improve it.

False. Your source is lying to you here. In future I suggest that you find a better source, one that does not lie to you.

Neutral mutations (the most common type) do not change function at all, while some mutations can cause an increase in function. Those mutations are rare, but they do happen. The most obvious example of an increase in function is a reverse mutation to one that caused a decrease in function. If a mutation from GATTACA to GATCACA caused a loss in function, then the reverse mutation from GATCACA back to GATTACA obviously causes an increase in function from the mutated DNA.

Creation-Intelligent Design is obvious

It is only obvious on lying websites that do not tell you the truth. It is also obvious that Intelligent Design has no explanation at all for the origin of intelligence. It merely assumes it, which is not a very scientific approach.

rossum

Methinks you are a troll; if not

explain how a bird evolved wings from legs and survived predation in the period between losing the functional leg and gaining the wing

sexual selection is a subset of natural selection

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Methinks you are a troll; if not
explain how a bird evolved wings from legs and survived predation in the period between losing the functional leg and gaining the wing
sexual selection is a subset of natural selection

Youthinks entirely incorrectly. Rossum is a long-standing and well respected commenter on this thread, amongst both Creationists and Evolutionists alike. You, on the other hand, have dropped in from nowhere, made tediously conventional arbitrary assertions of classic Creationist misunderstanding, and ask a typical tediously conventional Creationist question to which you have no interest whatsoever in the answer. By whatever definition of Troll you adhere to, you are considerably closer to it than Rossum is.

If you are interested in the evolution of birds, either Google it, for a good clear overview, or look it up on Google Scholar, where all your inquiries will be fulfilled in detail. In the unlikely event that you find something you do not understand, just post its reference here and we will be delighted to clarify it for you.

 

[rossum]

Methinks you are a troll; if not

Not a wise statement. Best to avoid such in future.

explain how a bird evolved wings from legs and survived predation in the period between losing the functional leg and gaining the wing

We have many fossils of feathered small non-avian dinosaurs, such as Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor they had working limbs with feathers.

Have you compared the forelimbs of T. rex with its hind limbs? Theropod dinosaurs were often bipedal, with their forelimbs reserved for functions other than walking. Birds are descended from a group of Theropod dinosaurs.

rossum