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.
Techno2000 said:
This is like saying, if man kept cutting off the tails of every dog, then dogs would stop growing tails…ridiculous.
Click to expand...
False analogy. Better is if men killed dogs with longer tails to keep the tails as trophies. Gradually, dogs would evolve shorter tails or no tails at all.
 
rossum said:
Natural selection sorts through the random fluctuations
Click to expand...
When we speak of natural selection, we are discussing new set of relationships, beyond those described by physics and chemistry. A finch having to deal with larger or tougher seeds, needs a larger and stronger beak than its cousins living in a different environment. It could be that there is a natural variation of phenotypic expression behind the finding of such finches, and that those which did not express that capacitywould die of starvation or perhaps not be as healthy and able to procreate or be able to feed their newborn offspring. From current studies in genetics and epigenetics, it is becoming increasingly clear that what we are dealing with is the whole individual organism, with the constituent molecular structures and processes present within its cells, linked to hormonal influences affect the genetics and the development of its offspring.

Life, in all its abundance, diversity and complexity did not arise from random chemical events occuring in the genome. Genetic mutations arise as a result of radiation, toxins, viruses and the noise that exists in any system, where there exists nothing in nature with 100% efficiency. These may be harmless but would be what “natural selection”, as it is understood does to those organisms that don’t fit in. Both are destructive influences and could not result in what we find today and in the fossil record.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
This is like saying, if man kept cutting off the tails of every dog, then dogs would stop growing tails…ridiculous.
Click to expand...
False analogy. Better is if men killed dogs with longer tails to keep the tails as trophies. Gradually, dogs would evolve shorter tails or no tails at all.
Click to expand...
That would just be selective breeding.
 
Aloysium said:
When we speak of natural selection, we are discussing new set of relationships, beyond those described by physics and chemistry.
Click to expand...
No we are not. We are describing the number of grandchildren. Natural selection works from reproductive success. Reproductive success means more copies of your DNA in future generations.

Your case is scientifically very weak, so you seem to be trying to strengthen it by moving outside science. That is not a winning strategy in a discussion of evolution, which is a science topic.
 
edwest211 said:
Selective breeding doesn’t count…
Click to expand...
Every cocker spaniel I had ,or seen has their tail cut…but cocker spaniels tails keep on growing.If man killed every cocker spaniel they would go out of existence…but that has nothing to do with evolution.
 
Our cocker spaniel had the full tail. This thread is the usual merry-go-round but it refuses to die. Unnatural selection?
 
Isn’t it obvious? Lighting a literal fire caused early humans to walk upright. What could be more… uh… uh… vague or outlandish than that?
 
edwest211 said:
Isn’t it obvious? Lighting a literal fire caused early humans to walk upright. What could be more… uh… uh… vague or outlandish than that?
Click to expand...
Seems like they want keep evolution in the news anyway possible. 🤔
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
This is like saying, if man kept cutting off the tails of every dog, then dogs would stop growing tails…ridiculous.
Click to expand...
False analogy. Better is if men killed dogs with longer tails to keep the tails as trophies. Gradually, dogs would evolve shorter tails or no tails at all.
Click to expand...
You would have to cut the DNA tail code out of the dog for that to happen, just cutting the tail won’t work
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Can you tell me this, if you reject evolution, how do you believe that the species we see arrived at their current form?
Click to expand...
To begin, let’s consider the context and take you and I as examples of living things. We are both expressions of humankind. Neither one of us existed temporally, one hundred years ago, but came into existence at conception, as persons on their journey through life, as we transform ourselves into who we are for eternity. We are each of us, a unity of being, atoms combined as a result of what they do, into extremely complex molecules, a great variety of which form the cellular structures and processes, that constitute our bodies, all this one with our psychological make up which includes words, feelings, perceptions, memories and behaviour. You and I are whole systems, made up of many subsystems, which in turn, are made up of other. The structures that make up our being may be classified in terms of material, psychological, and spiritual/existential/ontological relationships, but we remain one thing, you and I. And, we are made in the mould of what is humanity. Each of us exhibits some degree of the capacities that constitute human nature, regardless of how we look on the surface or at the level of our genetics.

I have come to believe, and I didn’t when I first entered into this discussion, that the first human being was not conceived in the womb of a primate, but was created in adult form. That person was subsequently trnsformed into male and female, from whom all humanity has arisen. Adam had no parent than God Himself. All kinds of organisms were created fully formed, with the capacity to carry out the functions that define them, and to procreate. A living thing gives rise to living things of their own kind, as whole entities; what is involved is more than just molecules interacting, although clearly we can study what happens at that level. To get to the creation of man took a process that perhaps involved six steps to implement. On a physical level, it began with the creation of light, space, atoms, suns, planets. This set the ground for the creation of the first single cell creatures. Plants followed as did animals. With the establishment of each successive level of creation, we see a development in the psychological sphere, where greater physical complexity is associated with more elaborate instinctual perceptions, emotional and cognitive abilities, and behaviour. With any kind of creature, we see that they contain the potential for an elaboration of what they are. In part, the built in genetics allow for adaptation to changes in the environment. However, predominantly they demonstrate the creativity, the beauty, the power that is God. When we get to mankind we find knowledge and free will transcending given ways to interact with the world about us.

It’s a joke to some people here that I write so much in my posts. I think most don’t bother to read them. You asked, and this reply barely scratches the surface. I have not commented on the role sin has played in the development of the world as we know it.
 
Aloysium said:
It’s a joke to some people here that I write so much in my posts. I think most don’t bother to read them. You asked, and this reply barely scratches the surface. I have not commented on the role sin has played in the development of the world as we know it.
Click to expand...
I don’t find it a joke, I appreciate the response. I also agree that it is basically impossible to discuss the topic in detail in the limited space a forum provides.

I am curious, however, because many of your arguments against evolution seem to based on your view that evolution is not scientific, or not sufficiently scientifically grounded. But your own position is not scientific - it is grounded in faith. I myself find evolution to be well grounded scientifically, and I don’t think that faith can be “proven” in the same way. Given that your objection to evolution seems to be principally based on faith, why is that not your primary position - why fight the science (which is frankly a losing battle, IMO).
 
looskanal said:
40.png
Aloysium:
It’s a joke to some people here that I write so much in my posts.
Click to expand...
I don’t consider it so much a joke, but rather a sad and puzzling commentary on human intelligence. I must say however that yours isn’t the worst example of distorted reasoning to be found in this thread.

So there’s a bright side.
Click to expand...
Yeah…that’s kinda like saying…If you didn’t have bad luck…you would have no luck at all. :roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top