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

[Uriel1]

@rossum

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor are in an evolutionary chain with a sparrow. God made every kind and that is very clear from the Bible.

You are contradicting the Bible my friend, and with no evolutionary fossil continuum to support your thesis.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

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 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

Is that right? The well respected @rossum said, " 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

 

[Chris4]

And also they should use THEIR OWN dead chemicals.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor are in an evolutionary chain with a sparrow.

More of a family tree than a chain, but to you, I dare say. If you researched it better you would understand why most scientists take what you think is ridiculous quite seriously.

God made every kind and that is very clear from the Bible.

How did he do that?

You are contradicting the Bible my friend, and with no evolutionary fossil continuum to support your thesis.

We contradict a literal interpretation of six-day Creationism precisely because the “fossil continuum” appears to deny it.

And yes, the well-respected Rossum is so well-respected that his occasional forays into levity are treated with the good humour they merit, not the bitterness of one who has yet to come to terms with the context of this thread.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

Not all random mutation are destructive. Some are improvements and add function.

 

[rossum]

Is that right? The well respected @rossum said, " 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?"

My mistake, I should have used a on that post.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@rossum

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor are in an evolutionary chain with a sparrow. God made every kind and that is very clear from the Bible.

You are contradicting the Bible my friend, and with no evolutionary fossil continuum to support your thesis.

You ask for too much when you ask for a compete continuum of fossils with zero gaps. The most reasonable extension of the partial fossil record including gaps is the continuum of evolution.

 

[abucs]

If God created species, then apart from animals that have gone extinct, all the animals that exist today should be no different from when they were first created; there should be no new species. So it should be true that the Platypus has always existed for as long as there have been animals. From the moment animals existed they ought to be identical to the animals that live today.

No, this is not true.

If God created life with a flexible DNA then each species that evolves is a creation from God.

 

[rossum]

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor are in an evolutionary chain with a sparrow. God made every kind and that is very clear from the Bible.

All life on earth is in the same evolutionary tree. If you are going to criticise evolution then at least learn what it says first.

You are contradicting the Bible my friend, and with no evolutionary fossil continuum to support your thesis.

You are new here. I am Buddhist, not Christian – look at my avatar picture – so a great deal of what I believe contradicts the Bible.

Besides that, a great deal of reality contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal Genesis has birds (day 5) appearing before land animals (day 6). Can you show me a fossil bird from before the earliest land animals? You are the one lacking fossil evidence.

If God made the world, then the World of God is as reliable as the Word of God. If your interpretation of the Word of God contradicts the World of God, then you are in effect saying that God is a deceiver. That is not a wise position for a Christian to take.

rossum

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor are in an evolutionary chain with a sparrow. God made every kind and that is very clear from the Bible.

All life on earth is in the same evolutionary tree. If you are going to criticise evolution then at least learn what it says first.

You are contradicting the Bible my friend, and with no evolutionary fossil continuum to support your thesis.

You are new here. I am Buddhist, not Christian – look at my avatar picture – so a great deal of what I believe contradicts the Bible.

Besides that, a great deal of reality contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal Genesis has birds (day 5) appearing before land animals (day 6). Can you show me a fossil bird from before the earliest land animals? You are the one lacking fossil evidence.

If God made the world, then the World of God is as reliable as the Word of God. If your interpretation of the Word of God contradicts the World of God, then you are in effect saying that God is a deceiver. That is not a wise position for a Christian to take.

rossum

Why on earth are you on a Catholic forum when you don’t believe Jesus is God, and is our uncreated light.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

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

Not all random mutation are destructive. Some are improvements and add function.

So just name three that are improvements and add function. Give the evidence for any such assertion too so we can see upon what you are basing your teaching which opposes the Bible.

 

[Uriel1]

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Sinosauropteryx or Microraptor are in an evolutionary chain with a sparrow.

And this well-respected Rossum is the same one who doesn’t believe Jesus is God, and is himself a Buddhist ? On a Catholic forum, and you say that’s not trolling. LOL

 

[Aloysium]

sexual selection

And this involves the mind, the aspiration towards an end that is beautiful, utilitarian being a necessary but least important component I the creation of diversity, not to mention the beginnings and elaboration of social structures.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Uriel1:

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

Not all random mutation are destructive. Some are improvements and add function.

So just name three that are improvements and add function. Give the evidence for any such assertion too so we can see upon what you are basing your teaching which opposes the Bible.

In mathematics there are such things as existence proofs and other things called constructive proofs. In general it is more satisfying to have a constructive proof. But there are times when all we have is an existence proof. Here is an example. There is a famous one-line proof by Zagier to the statement:

If P is a prime number whose remainder upon dividing by 4 is 1, then P can be expresses as the sum of two squares.

The proof is an existence proof in that it proves that for every such P, there must be two squares that add up to P. However Zagiers proof, indeed all the proofs to this statement by Fermat, are all incapable of demonstrating an efficient way to actually find the two squares that add up to P.

I bring this up not because mutations have anything to do with prime numbers or Fermat’s theorem, but to illustrate the problem with your request. It is an unreasonable request.

Experiments have been done with artificially induced mutations where improvements in function have been observed. But these are not “random mutations” and so would not qualify for your demand. Mutations that occur in nature occur with such rarity that it is unreasonable to expect to be able to observe the process in close enough detail over as long enough period of time to gather the evidence that would satisfy your demand. However the action of such mutations can be inferred even it cannot be observed in action in real-time. That is why I brought up the two kinds of mathematical proofs. I hope that helps explain the situation.

 

[rossum]

Why on earth are you on a Catholic forum when you don’t believe Jesus is God, and is our uncreated light.

In Buddhism, any man may have been, or will be, reincarnated as a god. Jesus as a god is not a problem. For most Buddhists, Jesus is a Bodhisattva as well, and a Bodhisattva is better than a god.

As to why I am here, I enjoy the discussions. This forum is generally more polite and has a better quality of dialogue than some of the more fundamentalist fora.

Light was created at the time of the Big Bang; the existence of subatomic particles, like photons, before the Big Bang is very doubtful.

rossum (who can be overly literal sometimes)

 

[rossum]

So just name three that are improvements and add function.

Three?

1. Lactase persistence, which allows digestion of milk into adulthood.
2. HbC which confers resistance to malaria.
3. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano, which reduces the danger of heart attacks from a fat-rich Western diet.

You were lied to when you were told that mutations cannot add function. As I said before, many creationist websites lie to you. Because there is essentially zero factual support for literalist creationism, all they have are lies and distortions.

Do not trust websites that lie to you.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

And this well-respected Rossum is the same one who doesn’t believe Jesus is God, and is himself a Buddhist ? On a Catholic forum, and you say that’s not trolling. LOL

I’m having difficulty working out why you are joining this thread. Catholics are - indeed, must be - interested in other people’s ideas. The command to “Teach all nations” is much better implemented by being friendly and understanding than by being intolerant and obtuse.

 

[Aloysium]

Not all random mutation are destructive. Some are improvements and add function.

Things are called random when we have not discovered the underlying structure that constitutes the events in question. An EEG will reveal a random pattern of electrical events happening on the scalp which are associated with the transfer of potassium and sodium ions across the cell membrane of neurons in the brain. Grossly they provide information about a person’s level of consciousness. To get more accurate unformation as to where in the brain it is happening and from there the mental correlation of the physical event, we can do a PET scan.

So what we may term as random events, not really understood at a molecular level inside a cell, are not necessarily destructive. Those that are manifestations of built-in epigenetic processes would be an example. I see the evidence as pointing to the creation of original kinds of organisms with the potential to become what we see today.

What are destructive are the workings of the physical components of living beings, when they escape the influence of the organizing principle established when the creature was originally conceived. Atoms acting in accordance with their intrinsic properties as elucidated by the field of chemistry, work towards decomposition. The structure of the material, inorganic world is chaotic to the organization that comprises a living form.

We apply sunscreens in addition to other barriers when dealing with radiation as well as toxins that impact on those cellular structures responsible for reproduction. Changes in the human genome are at best neutral and are usually are destructive. While some mutations in protein production, such as that of hemoglobin in sickle cell anemia, are fortuitously helpful in those who carry only one trait, the change in the shape of the abnormal molecule renders it unable to fully fulfill the role intended for hemoglobin in the workings of the body as a whole.

Other than in the universe of sci fi comic books, novels and movies, oh yes, in evolutionary theory, random mutations based on the properties granted to matter at an atomic level do not lead to an improvement or add function.

They have had to be configured in particular ways to do what they do. Evolutionary theories see the spontaneous random addition, deletion and changes in the atomic configuration of the genome as the cause of the diversity we see about us. I think Christians who believe in evolution should focus on describing how this is supposed to have happened, for themselves if not to try to convince others.

 

[buffalo]

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.

That is the problem with modern science. Its search for knowledge is very limited and exclusionary.

 

[buffalo]

Not all random mutation are destructive. Some are improvements and add function.

To base your whole evo religion on this so rare occurrence is blind faith indeed.