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

[edwest211]

You write well. I think you know what I meant. If anyone complains about evolution, they are anti-science. Right?

I would like anyone to explain where the theistic part of theistic evolution occurs.

 

[Bradskii]

I would like anyone to explain where the theistic part of theistic evolution occurs.

You’re kidding, right? Seriously? You don’t actually know?

Who is responsible for planets forming? And suns? And mountains? Would that be God as far as you understand? Good. That’s part one explained. Now for part two.

Do you know how planets are formed? And suns? And mountains? You do? Good. That’s part two explained.

Part three is being able to hold those two concepts in your head and realise that, gee - God did all this and now we know how He did it. The same applies to evolution.

See? It doesn’t deny God after all.

Well, except that you deny basic science so planet formation is not something that you understand. I’m not too sure about suns and mountains. But if you think the planet is only a few thousand years old, then how they were formed is going to be a problem for you as well.

But we are here to help. Ask any questions if you need help.

 

[edwest211]

We are here to help? Who are you trying to kid?

Planet formation? Seriously? Everyone knows that science did it. God? Pfft! What God (including any god/gods)? You appear confused

 

[Bradskii]

We are here to help? Who are you trying to kid?

Planet formation? Seriously? Everyone knows that science did it. God? Pfft! What God (including any god/gods)? You appear confused

Don’t be silly, Ed. Science didn’t make the planets. Science discovered how God made them.

They’re quite old, too. Guess how old this one is.

 

[buffalo]

God did all this

Have you had a recent conversion?

 

[edwest211]

You used science and God in the same sentence? You’re trying to confuse people. Stop that. Everyone knows science and God don’t mix, except when the Catholic Church talks about them. But science can’t study God, right?

 

[Bradskii]

You used science and God in the same sentence? You’re trying to confuse people. Stop that. Everyone knows science and God don’t mix, except when the Catholic Church talks about them. But science can’t study God, right?

You can use them in the same sentence. Watch:

Science knows how God made planets.

Now this is the tricky bit. That’s a sentence that Christians can use quite freely. You can use it, Ed! Because you know the physical process whereby planets are formed (I don’t think you do, but let’s pretend for the moment). And you know God is responsible.

But science doesn’t cover theological matters so it cannot make any claims on divine purpose. So they can’t ‘study God’. Which you knew anyway, so I’m at a loss as to why you had to ask a question to which you already knew the answer.

Try asking questions to which you don’t know the answer.

 

[edwest211]

Funny. It is very clear that science is over here and God (any god) is over there. That for anyone who does not understand the Church’s role in rightly combining science and theology.

 

[Bradskii]

Funny. It is very clear that science is over here and God (any god) is over there. That for anyone who does not understand the Church’s role in rightly combining science and theology.

It’s kinda awkward discussing this with you because you don’t seem able to accept the science. If it was just evolution, then fair enough. But with you it’s even more basic things like the age of the planet. So if you don’t understand basic concepts then you won’t understand the more subtle aspects of the discussion.

Keep asking those questions though!

 

[edwest211]

Subtle? Where do you see subtle? The great divide is still there.

 

[Bradskii]

Subtle? Where do you see subtle? The great divide is still there.

Well, in your case, the differences aren’t so subtle I guess. 4 3/4 billion years versus a few thousand isn’t exactly subtle, is it…

 

[edwest211]

You are now at +30 to dodge.

 

[Edgar]

Evolution can and has been tested. Every time an insect evolves resistance to an insecticide evolution is tested. It has passed every test.

That’s not what I meant: I meant the theory that biological evolution is responsible for the history of life on earth cannot be confirmed - which is what I meant by “tested”. All that can be confirmed is that a form of “evolution” has occured over billions of years, but as for what caused that “evolution”, there is no way confirming/testing any explanation.

Your personal incredulity has no impact on the scientific support for evolution.

Initially I poo-pooed the claim that the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile, but the information you supplied re this matter has forced me to rethink my position - the fossil evidence is actually quite compelling. But as I said, such evidence doesn’t confirm that Darwinian evolution is responsible; rather, it merely demonstrates that some kind of “evolution” has occured, the cause of which cannot be confirmed. How do you know aliens (a scientific possibility) having fun with genetic engineering (a scientific possibility) aren’t responsible?

I have already shown examples of macroevolution (i.e. a new species) caused by one mutation - Procambarus virginalis - and by three mutations - Chrysopa downesi. If one single mutation is not sufficient for you then you have a big problem.

Please stop using your lame “microevolution is macroevolution” claim - it’s embarrassing. Ernst Mayr suggests macroevolution should be regarded as evolution at the level of genus (he may have stolen that idea from me), or even higher.

where is your evidence of any deity creating a new species?

There is no evidence of evolutionary transitionals that lead to insects - they appear in the fossil record out of nowhere.

 

[Bradskii]

But as I said, such evidence doesn’t confirm that Darwinian evolution is responsible; rather, it merely demonstrates that some kind of “evolution” has occured, the cause of which cannot be confirmed. How do you know aliens (a scientific possibility) having fun with genetic engineering (a scientific possibility) aren’t responsible?

Strange that you omitted God as being responsible.

 

[Edgar]

Strange that you omitted God as being responsible

Strange that you didn’t realize I was talking in terms of science - despite two clear references to it.

And denying common descent beause there is no commercial application (apart from being simply downright silly - it didn’t happen because we can’t use it to increase our bottom line!), it’s a shocking denial of the quest for knowledge

What are you talking about?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Strange that you omitted God as being responsible

Strange that you didn’t realize I was talking in terms of science - despite two clear references to it.

And denying common descent beause there is no commercial application (apart from being simply downright silly - it didn’t happen because we can’t use it to increase our bottom line!), it’s a shocking denial of the quest for knowledge

What are you talking about?

Science can only tell how something was done. It cannot comment on who was ultimately responsible. That is a theological answer. As I said, you failed to nominate God. So I’ll do it for you.

The ultimate cause of evolution is God.

One assumes that you believe that. So now you have your answer. As you know, I don’t believe it but that shouldn’t affect your belief in tbe slightest.

So…now you know that evolution is the process and now you know who is responsible. Seems like you have all you need.

 

[rossum]

… there is no way confirming/testing any explanation.

Yes there is. We have confirmatory experiments, such as the Lederberg experiment, which can be repeated. We have computer models, we have fossils, we have the DNA of modern organisms, and from some extinct organisms.

We have enough scientific evidence to confirm evolution now and in the past beyond all reasonable doubt.

Unreasonable doubt is a different matter.

I await your evidence of any deity directly creating a new species ex nihilo.

There is no evidence of evolutionary transitionals that lead to insects - they appear in the fossil record out of nowhere.

You are misinformed. Insects are arthopods, and we have a great many fossil arthopods. We do have a better ancestry for spiders and scorpions than for insects, but I suspect that may just be a matter of the habitats in which those ancestors lived.

 

[Aloysium]

the inner-ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile, but the information you supplied re this matter has forced me to rethink my position - the fossil evidence is actually quite compelling. But as I said, such evidence doesn’t confirm that Darwinian evolution is responsible; rather, it merely demonstrates that some kind of “evolution” has occured

The definition of evolution matters here. The fancy chair I’m sitting on evolved from some sort of stool, merging with the use of animal hides and the invention of a pillow, I suppose. It was constructed by persons using technologies developed by persons. It most surely does not bring itself into existence, nor did it shape itself. Yes, there are similarities between different creatures here and now and in the fossil record. For me the Darwinian explanation is the worst one out there. What is involved is clearly much more ionvolved than changes in DNA. Even if we take the organism as a whole, the DNA, epigenetic cellular processes, and the environment as a whole, it fails to explain the final product, where other anatomical changes have to occur in the head, not to mention those in the brain to handle the more complex information processing. What is also missing are the transitionals between species, or did I miss something?

 

[buffalo]

Science can only tell how something was done. It cannot comment on who was ultimately responsible. That is a theological answer. As I said, you failed to nominate God. So I’ll do it for you.

That is the position of ID, the science.

 

[buffalo]

We have enough scientific evidence to confirm evolution now and in the past beyond all reasonable doubt.

Baloney! …