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.
Gerd B. Muller, an Austrian evolutionary theorist, also believes MS is in dire need of an overhaul. He complains that the modern synthesis is inadequate to explain how novel morphological features arise - something creationists have been saying for decades.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
Gerd B. Muller, an Austrian evolutionary theorist, also believes MS is in dire need of an overhaul. He complains that the modern synthesis is inadequate to explain how novel morphological features arise - something creationists have been saying for decades.
Click to expand...
Yes he does. From the Royal Society ( what I have been posting for many years now - a must read) - [Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary]

“But in the past decade, without much notice by general audiences, a more wide-ranging debate has arisen from different areas of biology as well as from history and philosophy of science, about whether and in which ways evolutionary theory is affected, challenged or changed by the advances in biology and other fields.”
While documenting numerous empirical and theoretical advances, at the level of core assumption most current textbooks on evolution, whether explicitly or implicitly, still offer a theoretical framework that is largely based on the MS of the 1930s and 1940s. (hat tip to @edwest)

His comments on Natural Selection (hat tip to @buffalo)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
 
-and-

A subtler version of the this-has-been-said-before argument used to deflect any challenges to the received view is to pull the issue into the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate. Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory. It should not be used in discussion of the EES, which rarely makes any allusions to macroevolution, although it is sometimes forced to do so.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’.
Click to expand...
I would say that the focus on what occurs at a molecular level, be it the structure of the genome or other related and necessary cellular processes, is “insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity”.

Everything that is happening here and now, centred around this communication happening through time and space, is composed of material substances. At the same time the chemical reactions occurring within neurons, as they form patterns of excitation in our brains, make no sense unless we consider the reality of the perceptions, thoughts, feelings and behavioural reactions that are taking place. That reality is psychological and rests on a spiritual foundation. We exist as relational beings, whole in ourselves and able to commune with one another and the Ground of our existence.

In a similar fashion, individual cats, dogs, elephants, hydrangeas, molds, and bacteria exist as themselves, expressions of a kind of living being. In their way, as we in ours, each type of existence represents a collection of relationships that transcends those of the organism’s molecular constituents, as it participates in the larger system that are its environment. The complexity of phenotypes has to do with the novel ways in which the individual creature relates to other members of its environment. The relationships that exit between the components that constitute the phenotype’s structure, described by chemistry and physics, are utilized in expressing the organism’s relational nature, but they do not account for it. This is what is brought into existence in the moment, and was created at some point in time, utilizing what had previously been brought into existence. Just as light and then atoms, had a beginning, so too did all creatures within the hierarchy of life, and ultimately ourselves, one mankind, united in love, broken in sin.
 
When novelty is pursued and worshiped like a god, this is some of what can happen. A society devoid of a good belief system has no good choices left. Some people will propose anything and everything, especially things that are at variance with time-proven truths.
 
edwest211 said:
When novelty is pursued and worshiped like a god, this is some of what can happen. A society devoid of a good belief system has no good choices left. Some people will propose anything and everything, especially things that are at variance with time-proven truths.
Click to expand...
Like…the age of the earth.
 
edwest211 said:
When novelty is pursued and worshiped like a god, this is some of what can happen. A society devoid of a good belief system has no good choices left. Some people will propose anything and everything, especially things that are at variance with time-proven truths.
Click to expand...
If intelligent design is true then why doesn’t the scientific community accept it?
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
edwest211:
When novelty is pursued and worshiped like a god, this is some of what can happen. A society devoid of a good belief system has no good choices left. Some people will propose anything and everything, especially things that are at variance with time-proven truths.
Click to expand...
If intelligent design is true then why doesn’t the scientific community accept it?
Click to expand...
Becase it’s a religious idea proposed by people with fundamentalist beliefs.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
edwest211:
When novelty is pursued and worshiped like a god, this is some of what can happen. A society devoid of a good belief system has no good choices left. Some people will propose anything and everything, especially things that are at variance with time-proven truths.
Click to expand...
Like…the age of the earth.
Click to expand...
No comment?
 
looskanal said:
Now you might suggest that I have the capacity to overcome my biases, and I might suggest likewise. But as far as a designer is concerned it might have been better not to design us to rely upon biases in the first place.
Click to expand...
You would prefer to be programmed not to have any bias? You would lose your freedom.
 
looskanal said:
But our brains are still doing what they have always done, taking what they expect to see, and using that as the basis by which they interpret what they actually do see. We’re still relying upon that process. Which is why I can look at something and see the exact opposite of what you see. We’ve got different biases.
Click to expand...
And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top