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.
40.png
Techno2000:
I didn’t say that.
You said that they were necessary components of the eco system. You know, food chains etc. Are they part of the system or not?
5 million species of fungi is the of number of them worldwide.Each ecosystem is different.
 
40.png
Wozza:
40.png
Techno2000:
I didn’t say that.
You said that they were necessary components of the eco system. You know, food chains etc. Are they part of the system or not?
5 million species of fungi is the of number of them worldwide.Each ecosystem is different.
So He has to have 5 million species to help sustain eco systems? You said they were necessary. But I still can’t see God needing to create 5 million different types of anything, especially funghi, to ‘maintain ecosystems’.

As I said, it seems to defy the term ‘omnipotent’. But if that’s what you believe…

But maybe there was one ‘kind’ of funghi and He formed new species from that to match the particular ecosystem in which it lived.

Sound reasonable?
 
Last edited:
False. Evolution is the current ultimate storytelling device. It can do everything except when it doesn’t. No wonder people reject the science-only explanation. It is incomplete at best.
That doesn’t even make sense with respect to my previous post. But clearly, if your best argument is to simply declare the science “false” then there’s little point in anybody engaging with you.
 
But maybe there was one ‘kind’ of funghi and He formed new species from that to match the particular ecosystem in which it lived.

Sound reasonable?
Yes, different fungi, for different kinds ecosystems.
 
40.png
Wozza:
But maybe there was one ‘kind’ of funghi and He formed new species from that to match the particular ecosystem in which it lived.

Sound reasonable?
Yes, different fungi, for different kinds ecosystems.
So each one matches the requirements of the environment in which it finds itself. It is suited for its environment. OK.

And if the environment changed then it wouldn’t be suitable for the new environment. So either it would die or it would need to evolve to match the new environment.

Does that sound reasonable to you?
 
The various new proposals include punctuated equilibrium, neutral evolution, evolutionary developmental biology, self-organization, epigenetic inheritance, and natural genetic engineering. Big claims are made for each of these variants and other versions of blind evolution. But in the end those claims — while undoubtedly believed sincerely by their proponents — have little more substance than a bluff. Each has serious shortcomings as a substitute for foresight and planning with a purpose…

We must applaud the search for a replacement to neo-Darwinism. Despite all the grand claims, it has failed to explain the origin of new form. But if origins biology’s quest for answers is to be guided by evidence rather than by a dogmatic rule, we would do well to have both material and intelligent causes in our investigative toolkit. Marcos Eberlin
 
And if the environment changed then it wouldn’t be suitable for the new environment. So either it would die or it would need to evolve to match the new environment.
Evolve to match the new environment is a fairy tail, none of that happens in the real world we live in . It dies , end of story, there’s no new fit offspring waiting in the wings to save the day.
 
No one will acknowledge that, but I encourage you to keep bringing it up.
 
40.png
Wozza:
And if the environment changed then it wouldn’t be suitable for the new environment. So either it would die or it would need to evolve to match the new environment.
Evolve to match the new environment is a fairy tail, none of that happens in the real world we live in . It dies , end of story, there’s no new fit offspring waiting in the wings to save the day.
So if God made 5 million species of funghi and the environment changes (as it has) then why make species that He knows are going to die?

Your argument, Techno, seems to rest on God not having a good grip on how to run a planet.

If we have 5 million species that are perfectly adapted right now as God planned to suit the curtent environment, then there must have been so many that died as the environment changed.

Not sure why you think He coulden’t get it right the first time.
 
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Wozza:
And if the environment changed then it wouldn’t be suitable for the new environment. So either it would die or it would need to evolve to match the new environment.
Evolve to match the new environment is a fairy tail, none of that happens in the real world we live in . It dies , end of story, there’s no new fit offspring waiting in the wings to save the day.
So if God made 5 million species of funghi and the environment changes (as it has) then why make species that He knows are going to die?

Your argument, Techno, seems to rest on God not having a good grip on how to run a planet.

If we have 5 million species that are perfectly adapted right now as God planned to suit the curtent environment, then there must have been so many that died as the environment changed.

Not sure why you think He coulden’t get it right the first time.
You are twisting what I said ,I didnt even mention God. I said, you are going to need an huge amount of environmental changes to account for the huge amount of different species .
 
And if the environment changed then it wouldn’t be suitable for the new environment. So either it would die or it would need to evolve to match the new environment.
How does that work? How can the new environment wait millions of years for evolution to produce something suitable?
 
40.png
Wozza:
And if the environment changed then it wouldn’t be suitable for the new environment. So either it would die or it would need to evolve to match the new environment.
How does that work? How can the new environment wait millions of years for evolution to produce something suitable?
So as the environment now is so different in all parts of the world then it has been, then if all 5million species of funghi were suitable for a specific environment then they should have all died out.

But then you said there must have been a huge amount of environmental changes to produce so many different species. And you say we have 5 MILLION just of funghi. So according to what you have said we have indeed had so many changes.

Is that right?
 
40.png
Wozza:
Not sure why you think He coulden’t get it right the first time.
He did, then the fall of man ruined it.
Is there some sort of evidence that backs this up? A sudden change six thousand years ago in the fossil record or similar?

I don’t want anyone to claim that you are just using that as an excuse. How do we know the changes in funghi species before and after the fall?
 
How does that work? How can the new environment wait millions of years for evolution to produce something suitable?
You have it the wrong way round. A mountain (the environment) can exist without any species adapted to live on it. Only after the mountain exists can plants and animals begin to adapt to living at higher and colder altitudes.
 
So as the environment now is so different in all parts of the world then it has been, then if all 5million species of funghi were suitable for a specific environment then they should have all died out.
The 5 million old species died out and 5 million new species evolved. Techno seems to be assuming that species are static. They are not. Old species go extinct and new species evolve all the time. The average mammal species lasts about 500,000 years. Mammals have been around for 70 million years. Species come and go while the larger clade carries on for longer.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wozza:
So as the environment now is so different in all parts of the world then it has been, then if all 5million species of funghi were suitable for a specific environment then they should have all died out.
The 5 million old species died out and 5 million new species evolved. Techno seems to be assuming that species are static. They are not. Old species go extinct and new species evolve all the time. The average mammal species lasts about 500,000 years. Mammals have been around for 70 million years. Species come and go while the larger clade carries on for longer.
There definitely seems to be a misunderstanding. He appears to accept that the environment changes. So if there were millions of species of funghi at any one time in the past, each specifically suited to it’s environment - as @Techno2000 implies, then they would die out as the environment changed. Unless they changed as well.

There are no other options. I’m not sure where he could go with this. He holds two views that are incompatible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top