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.
edwest211 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have genetic information from your father that is different from the genetic information your mother has. You are not genetically identical to your mother. Likewise, you have genetic information from your mother that is different from the genetic information your father has. You are not genetically identical to your father. You also have an average of 75 mutations in your DNA that are different from both your parents. That is new information.

Your particular combination of DNA is unique. You are a unique, modified, variant of H. sapiens.
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.
Click to expand...
Environments change. Some of the variants with a species are better adapted to the changed environment; those variants will prosper. Some of the variants within a species are less well adapted to the changed environment; those variants will not prosper.
 
Last edited:
75 mutations? How do you know this? How many are beneficial and how many are harmful?
 
Wozza said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Wozza:
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.
Click to expand...
Right,and there should be a trail of evidence showing evolution’s failures.
Click to expand...
See every species that is now extinct. Can you name some?
Click to expand...
I’m talking about all the transitional stages that had to "die out " before evolution (after million of years :roll_eyes: ) finally got it right.
 
rossum said:
Environments change.
Click to expand...
There would have to have been billions of environments change to account for all different species we have today.And all of these changes would have work together in perfect harmony with every intricate ecosystem.
 
edwest211 said:
75 mutations? How do you know this? How many are beneficial and how many are harmful?
Click to expand...
An average of 75 mutations; some have more, some fewer. I know it from the scientific literature. The majority are neutral mutations. Most of the rest are deleterious and a very few are beneficial. Most of us are well adapted to our environments, so there is not a lot of scope for beneficial mutations. Whenever the environment changes that gives more scope for beneficial mutations.
 
Techno2000 said:
There would have to have been billions of environments change to account for all different species we have today.
Click to expand...
Merely different environments. Some species live in salt water, some in fresh water, some on land and some in the air. No need for change at all, those different environments have existed for a very long time.

A general environment has a lot of different ecological niches for animals to live in, even without any changes.
 
You can buy a tree that has gone missing for 200 million years. Somehow, natural disasters, comet strikes, etc. didn’t matter.
 
What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes “jeopardize” the modern synthesis

Here, we review some of the wealth of evidence, much of which originated in microbes, that reframes mutagenesis as dynamic and highly regulated processes. Mutation is regulated temporally by stress responses, occurring when organisms are poorly adapted to their environments, and occurs nonrandomly in genomes. Both biases may accelerate adaptation.

Bacteria teach biologists about evolution Microbes were initially held as proof of the independence of mutational processes and selective environments. The Luria–Delbruck experiment (1943) demonstrated that bacterial mutations
to phage resistance can occur prior to phage exposure [2], and the Lederbergs showed similar results for resistance to many antibiotics [3]. However, discovery of the SOS DNA-damage
response and its accompanying mutagenesis [4–7] in the post-DNA world of molecular genetics began to erode the random-mutation zeitgeist.

Assumptions about the constant, gradual, clock-like, and
environmentally blind nature of mutation are ready for retirement. @rossum

Loading…

storage.googleapis.com
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
There would have to have been billions of environments change to account for all different species we have today.
Click to expand...
Merely different environments. Some species live in salt water, some in fresh water, some on land and some in the air. No need for change at all, those different environments have existed for a very long time.

A general environment has a lot of different ecological niches for animals to live in, even without any changes.
Click to expand...
rossum, just to name a few :

12,000 grass species

350,000 beetle species

5 million fungi species

How many trial and error /environmental changes did it take for evolution to produce just this ?..And we haven’t even scratched the surface.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Wozza:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Wozza:
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.
Click to expand...
Right,and there should be a trail of evidence showing evolution’s failures.
Click to expand...
See every species that is now extinct. Can you name some?
Click to expand...
I’m talking about all the transitional stages that had to "die out " before evolution (after million of years :roll_eyes: ) finally got it right.
Click to expand...
Again, that would be every species that went extinct. Can you name some?
 
buffalo said:
What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes “jeopardize” the modern synthesis
Click to expand...
Scare quotes aside, do you realise that the Modern Synthesis was developed in the 1920s and 1930s? The theory of evolution has itself moved on since then. Most notably with the ability to sequence DNA and Kimura’s Neutral Theory. The theory has changed; you need to update your arguments so they reflect the current theory.

The Modern Synthesis is more than “ready for retirement”, it has already been retired.
 
Techno2000 said:
I’m talking about all the transitional stages that had to "die out " before evolution (after million of years :roll_eyes: ) finally got it right.
Click to expand...
Evolution doesn’t ever “get it right.” There’s no end game, no ultimate goal to be sought, where Evolution can hang up its helmet and chill out. Evolution hasn’t stopped, and never will.
Techno2000 said:
There would have to have been billions of environments change to account for all different species we have today.And all of these changes would have work together in perfect harmony with every intricate ecosystem.
Click to expand...
Not at all - there’s no need for a unique environment for every adaptation of every species.

Sorry, but this is basic stuff that you’re not understanding.
 
Aloysium said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow the broader implications of what you mean by this. I’d say the universe requires God for its existence. And from an eternal perspective all past, present and future just is. In that sense God is intimate and creates every point. As a practical matter though he’s not working to manufacture every moment. He created the machine and the machine runs. It’s not clear how this actually plays out though. I’ve suggested it starting with a deterministic Newtonian pinball, but I believe it’s probably something “freer” than that. God’s not moving every atom. It’s not an extension of him in a physical sense, either. It is “other”. He created it but it’s not composed of him. It’s contingent on him, but he’s not guiding every moment.

For me the whole question of Creation/Evolution ties back to the concept of Free Will. I struggled with it for a long time as a Christian and as an atheist. Though it’s impossible to prove free will, I think we can have confidence that it exists because the universe would be absurd without it. (This is actually a strong point that drew me towards belief in God…your mileage may vary). Christianity is based on the notion that we are free agents and God desires freedom. The universe is more than a house we live in. It’s an environment enabling freedom. It allows opposition to God. It REQUIRES freedom to operate apart from God. God “relates” to the world. He doesn’t “impose” upon it. This free universe that is apart from God moves in its own way. It develops and builds itself, ultimately producing us at this point in spacetime. This can all be deduced from Christianity. And it’s exactly what we observe from science.

This is why I have high confidence that evolution is true. I’m not a scientist. I’m not qualified to debate the minutiae some argue about here. I’m just a regular guy who got C’s in science class. 😊 But I’m confident in science because the entirety of modern civilization is built on it…and it works.
 
Hobgoblin said:
As a practical matter though he’s not working to manufacture every moment.
Click to expand...
My view would be that whatever He brings into being, does what it does, in accordance to the relationships it forms with everything that it isn’t. Chemistry and Physics define the relationships that matter takes. If something acts in accordance to chance, it does exactly that. Animals behave instinctively; we have a free will. The outcome is determined by the properties of the particular events taking place. That said, God can always intervene, as He did when He turned water into wine, fed the masses with a few fish and morsels of bread, and many other miraculous incidents, when it was His will to do so.
Hobgoblin said:
God’s not moving every atom.
Click to expand...
I guess, I’d say that He does and He doesn’t, since the existence of each and every atom is dependent on an eternal Divine act whereby everything, from the simplest to the most complex forms of relationship, in the universe exists.
Hobgoblin said:
It REQUIRES freedom to operate apart from God. God “relates” to the world. He doesn’t “impose” upon it. This free universe that is apart from God moves in its own way. It develops and builds itself, ultimately producing us at this point in spacetime.
Click to expand...
A free will and the accompanying capacity to know allow us to love, and thereby know God, who is Love itself. These capacities are not inherent in simpler forms of being such as atoms and cells, nor in the psychosomatic structure of animals. Human beings, as a unity of spirit and matter, had a beginning as such; we were created beginning with Adam, and were not built up by the universe doing its thing.
Hobgoblin said:
I’m confident in science because the entirety of modern civilization is built on it…and it works.
Click to expand...
It’s great in manipulating matter, not so much in telling us who we are and where we come from.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
The Modern Synthesis is more than “ready for retirement”, it has already been retired.
Click to expand...
We agree. It is finally being broadcast in more literature.

Many do not get it yet. I have been informing this group for years that they it is the EES and self organization. Progress…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top