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.
I didn’t listen to any of them. I’m still waiting for these elusive peer reviewed papers you claim exist which endorse intelligent design.
 
Yes. Do you have a peer reviewed paper published by the Royal Society which endorses intelligent design?
 
The Royal Society explicitly rejects intelligent design. They stated that they “oppose the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs” and states “[…]intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not.”

Loading…

www.theguardian.com
 
PhiriTalk said:
Yes. Do you have a peer reviewed paper published by the Royal Society which endorses intelligent design?
Click to expand...
First let’s understand the new challenges to evolution you claimed in prior posts were not real and even called them a conspiracy. (remember how adamant you were that all is well)

The below is from thsi supplement https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.20356.1412604225!/suppinfoFile/514164a_s1.pdf (it did not format well so you can go to the original)

COMMENTSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION | 9 OCTOBER 2014 | NATURE | 1Supplementary information to:Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Comment in Nature 514, 161–164; 2014)POINT: Yes, urgentlyKevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman,Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee.Table S1: The EES expands what is recognized as causally relevant in the process of evolutionStandard evolutionary theory is gene-centered, and treats as evolutionary processes solely those events thatchange gene frequenciesThe EES is organism-centred, and recognizes other processes in addition to those that change gene frequenciesMutation: introduces new variants at random. Repeated occurrence of the same genetic variants is called mutation pressureNatural selection: makes adaptive variants more common through differential survival and reproductionGenetic drift: random changes in frequency of genetic variants due to samplingGene flow: variants enter and leave a population via migration, dispersal or mating
The EES is organism-centred, and recognizes other processes in addition to those that change gene frequencies

Developmental bias: developmental processes guide organisms’ forms along particular pathwaysPlasticity: novel, potentially functional, forms are induced by the environment and subsequently stabilized by selectionNiche construction: organisms systematically modify environmental resources in ways that impose biases on descendants’ development and evolutionInclusive inheritance: organisms inherit a wide variety of materials from their ancestors, including epigenetic marks, hormones, symbionts, learned knowledge and skills, and ecological legaci

Do you agree with the above?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know enough about what you posted to have an opinion on it. I am not a biologist.

What I can verify, is that none of the links you’ve posted say anything about intelligent design and the Royal Society explicitly rejects intelligent design.
 
Last edited:
Both are prior to the 2016 gathering. As I have been saying some of the old thinking is now obsolete because of what science itself has discovered.
 
The Royal Society doesn’t endorse intelligent design. Just, it literally doesn’t.

You have yet to provide a single peer reviewed paper which promotes or endorses intelligent design.

Should I reject Newton’s laws just because they’re incomplete?
 
Listen to the dialogue at 35:30 minutes.


Late for tea - hilarious…😀
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Both are prior to the 2016 gathering. As I have been saying some of the old thinking is now obsolete because of what science itself has discovered.
Click to expand...
The papers you linked to are from 2014. How many links on your wep page are more rececent than 2016? C’mon, Buff. Be honest. We can check.

How come you can dismiss info from 3 years ago when all your info is much older?

And any apolgies forthcoming for misrepresenting evolution on your page using quotes regarding entropy?
 
Last edited:
and this one at 19 minutes - no empirical evidence and leads to destruction. - And then Jablonka says “without God, we are excluding God”.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
The belief that God created the first life forms, is unscientific, in modern terms, although entirely valid.
Click to expand...
The belief that God created the first life forms, is untheological as well. The “first life” was not created because the “first life” is God, and God is uncreated.

God can have created the second, third, fourth etc. life, but not the first.
Click to expand...
God = Life = Existence = The Ground of Existence = The Actus Essendi (The Act of Being) = Perfect Divine Relationally = Love = Beauty = Truth

What is other to God is His creation, which is made up of this myriad of things, that is the universe, beginning to end, which He brings into existence from nothing. The essence of any thing is that which makes it what it is, and what He is, is the Actus Essendi, who gives to the thing, to its essence, actual existence. In contrast to the complexity and multitude of events that He creates, He is one, simple, eternal, uncreated and triune.
 
I would say that life is organism-in-the-world centred, involving many other processes, physical, psychological and spiritual. When we look at the diversity and complexity of life forms, now and over time, there is so much more to what is going on than “changes gene frequencies”. The fact that we can speak of natural selection is based on the reality that there exist whole systems (individual organisms) within larger systems (the environment to which they contribute and derive sustenance), and that the relationships that operate go beyond merely those that are described by physics and chemistry.

While the DNA provides the information that allows for development, it is cellular processes in relation to those found in the environment, that “guide the organisms’ forms along particular pathways”. The impact of the environment on the organism is holistic. Among the factors involved in the emergence of diverse life forms on this planet, which include the final causes of beauty, the capacity for knowledge, and ultimately love, we can see how “novel, potentially functional, forms are induced by the environment and subsequently stabilized by selection.” In this regard, the organism does not simply fit or not fit; rather, they “systematically modify environmental resources in ways that impose biases on descendants’ development and evolution.” The evolution that we see occurs in pre-existing kinds of creatures, which would have had a beginning in time, with the creation of their first members. Organisms inherit more than simply a code, which is reworked in the process of procreation. Even before the organism’s existence, beginning with the gametes that bind to begin its life, and including the greater world which it inhabits, development and growth to its eventual procreation involves “a wide variety of materials from (it’s) ancestors, including epigenetic marks, hormones, symbionts, learned knowledge and skills, and ecological legacies.”
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
God = Life … He is one, simple, eternal, uncreated and triune.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming my point that God did not create the first life.
Click to expand...
As the term applies to God, He is Life itself, first in an ontological sense, as the existential Ground, who gives being to all creatures. Matter and all living beings are other to Him, albeit that as a consequence of His entering into creation through the incarnation of the second person of the Divine Trinity, Jesus Christ, we have the capacity to become Love itself, and thereby enter into communion within the Triune Godhead.
 
rossum said:
Darwinism died about 1910 when it was replaced by the Modern Synthesis. In the 1950s with the advent of DNA sequencing that in its turn was replaced by the current theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
As far as a scientific explanation for the fossil record goes, here is a better one than evolution, a nineteenth-century idea: The history of life on earth is a result of genetic engineering performed by aliens.
(with the qualification that I don’t believe science can explain the fossil record and I don’t believe in aliens).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top