H
Hobgoblin
Guest
Absolutely we’re involved…now. But for the first 14B+ years? We weren’t here.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
F
FredBloggs
Guest
F
FredBloggs
Guest
Curse you, bare assertion, you have sunk my evidence-based battleship
F
FredBloggs
Guest
Er…why?
A
Aloysium
Guest
Ontological means having to do with the nature of being.Aloysium:
I look up that word on multiple occasions, and I still don’t get.
The universe and everything it contains, exists. Existence is not something contained by things, but rather is a necessary aspect of what they are.
While the word gives the impression of something static, what is happening is an act, that of being. We exist in the moment, as does everything within the grand symphony that is the cosmos. We are now. Looking into the past and future from this eternal vantage point, we know we were “now” at the moment of conception, as we will be on our death bed. This moment, as all moments is brought into existence from an eternal Ground; that Now is in every time, all time and beyond time.
This now, this here, this being is holistic. We are, each of us, one thing, even though we are made up of many things. On a physical level, there are many organs and tissues which work in unison to be the person we call “me”. The various organ systems, the trillions of cells all have an independent existence, but the collection is made one in “me”. Similarly the molecules that go into the making of individual cells, the time and space that contains this is unified in the person.
This unity of being can be thought of as the soul of a thing, that which makes it what it is. It gives to the thing, the qualities that define the kind of thing it is. This is the case from atoms, upward in a hierarchy of complexity, with ourselves at the other end. Atoms are composed of events that come together and provide them with the interactional characteristics, that we study through physics and chemistry. We exist as ourselves but in relation to everything that is not our self. The relationships we form include the material; we eat, drink, hurt ourselves and succumb to pathogens. It also involves the psychological; we perceive, think to ourselves and talk to others using words, have feelings, and act on them. Spiritually, we don’t simply react, but can know what is beyond our self and have the capacity to act with a free will. This latter trait enables us to love, to give of ourselves for the good of the other, and hence to know God.
So, all things, exist in themselves as relational events. Atoms do so in very simple, constant ways. We understand what is outside our knowing self. I see the monitor - there is me, who sees, and a monitor that is being seen. The relationships that constitute what matter is and does, come together and are taken up by a higher level of new and different relationships that are those of cells. In multicellular organisms, cells interrelate as tissues within organ systems as the human form. This body allows for another level of relationality that includes the possibility of this conversation. Ultimately, we were made to exist as one humanity, each person communing with others. But, this has been broken by replacing that love, with self-interest.
Sorry for all the words. You asked.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Being is relational in nature, there is no I without a Thou. This nature is present from the Ground up, where at the Centre, the Source of everything, we have God, the Trinity, where the Father begets the Son, and they give and return to one another the love, that is the Holy Spirit. That is the eternal Cause of everything that is, was and will be. Ultimately all creation, through us, in Christ returns the love whereby we were created to the Father, within the beatific vision. There should be no doubt that we exist as “object” to the “Subject” that is God.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s more complex than that:
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arcr343/293-305.htm
No one here will read the paper in its entirety, but the last line in the introduction states:
Knowing exactly how they would bounce is the actual bouncing that occurs now, as it did in the past and will in the future. He is present everywhere, and knows the directions they will take, because He is right there when they do. He creates time. It is we who possess a spiritual soul on a journey to participate in our own eternal creation, who live in a localized past-present-future.
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arcr343/293-305.htm
No one here will read the paper in its entirety, but the last line in the introduction states:
My view would be that the universe cannot exist unless it is maintained, meaning brought into existence in every moment along its trajectory which is time. There exists a hierarchy of kinds of things, from the simplest atoms to we ourselves who do mathematics. It had a beginning, with each new kind of thing that was created, going on to form the substrate from which the kinds of being in next level would be able to express their nature. We are made of atoms, coming together in the form of cells, which have their own relational qualities, and are combined to form ourselves, who can know God.
Knowing exactly how they would bounce is the actual bouncing that occurs now, as it did in the past and will in the future. He is present everywhere, and knows the directions they will take, because He is right there when they do. He creates time. It is we who possess a spiritual soul on a journey to participate in our own eternal creation, who live in a localized past-present-future.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
How is this a problem for evolution? Darwin knew nothing of DNA, he talked about “variation”. This is just another mechanism of variation in a population.
Variations (both in DNA and epigenetic) introduce differences in a population. Natural selection promotes beneficial differences and eliminates deleterious differences.
A
Aloysium
Guest
It’s a problem for the belief that random mutations of DNA play a major role in the diversity we find in living forms. There are, in fact, mechanisms in the cell to correct for errors in replication. It’s a problem for reductionistic thinking that explains the differences we find in organisms over time, to the molecular. Living things come as individual whole beings, affecting and being affected by their environment and its constituent parts. This has all been built into the system. Random happenstance doesn’t cut it. And, what is understood as natural selection does not promote anything, but is merely a way to do away with what doesn’t fit. There is also an interplay between the organism and its environment, as we clearly see in humankind, whereby it changes it to make it more suitable for itself, and if compatable with its instincts and free will, in our case, other members of its kind.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
It is not a belief, it is a fact. How else do you think DNA evidence works in court? There is variation in DNA between members of the same species.
Correct, but those mechanisms are imperfect. They fix many errors, but not all of them. Again, that is a fact. Uncorrected errors are observed to happen. If those correction mechanisms did not exist then we would see many more copying errors than we do.
Correct. Random changes alone do not account for what we observe. As you say, natural selection removes the changes that do not fit, leaving only changes that either fit or are neutral. Hence the output is no longer random since all the not fit changes have been removed.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The way to prove that it is more than a belief, is to find empirical evidence, such as, and I could not more strongly counsel against it, subjecting oneself to radiation, viruses and toxins, and find what wondrous new skin, and novel organs, like a brain subprocessor, one would acquire.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
I could not more council against it as well. Because the majority - no, the vast majority of changes due to the reasons you give are either neutral or deleterious. Very few are beneficial.
And the benefits may not be apparent for a very, very long time.
One wouldn’t personally select evolution as a means to make improvements to the natural world because one would almost certainly be part of that natural world that doesn’t make the cut.
Very few make it. And only a few have. Just look around you.
B
buffalo
Guest
The error correction is really efficient going through multiple iterations.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. Evo’s make the claim that a “beneficial” mutation gives a survival advantage and some do. What they are neglecting is this temporary benefit has a long term trade off that makes the organism less adaptable and less fit, which over time leads to extinction. We see bacteria jettisoning their tail, which is essential for mobility, when put under stress. Short term survival, bad for the long term.
We now are understanding that cell directed mutations are more likely to make these changes than darwinism (natural selection)
A recent paper came out showing an already present capability that plants have to herbicides. No evolution took place, yet they became resistant.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right,and there should be a trail of evidence showing evolution’s failures.
E
edwest211
Guest
Based on posts here, only the fit survive. Which is not credible unless evolution just kept cranking out organisms with some new information or kept modifying alleged previous forms until they turned into what they are today. Just not credible.
R
rossum
Guest
95% efficient is still short of 100% efficient and so is imperfect, as I said.
Any organism with 100% efficient error correction would go extinct when the environment changed. It would no longer be well adapted to the different environment.
R
rossum
Guest
Ed, that is exactly what evolution does. It produced modified versions of current organisms. Are you identical to your parents? No; you are modified and have new information compared to your parents.
W
Wozza
Guest
See every species that is now extinct. Can you name some?Wozza:
Right,and there should be a trail of evidence showing evolution’s failures.
E
edwest211
Guest
Not true. I have genetic information from both parents. Any differences result from mixing the two. Someone I know showed me a photo of their girl’s face and was able to match part to the mother and part to the father.
The organism that is supposedly more fit also needs the correct environment to live in. If it is suited to a different climate, for example, it either finds it or dies.
The organism that is supposedly more fit also needs the correct environment to live in. If it is suited to a different climate, for example, it either finds it or dies.
- Status