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

[Bradskii]

Good point; both have pro’s and cons though.

The general point has been lost; this is an adaptive change in a population which decided to milk cows for their human consumption, but which brings early death and increases hip fracture in the adult population

We need to look at mutations from the perspective of making the individual more specialised, viz on a pathway to species change.

I’m glad that you agree that it was a benefit to the evolutionary process. As Random eloquently explained, you only need the benefit to the point where you are able to procreate for it to have such.

And yes, the ability as we have been discussing does indeed make the individual more specialised. But no, there is no ‘pathway to species change’. There is no requirement for one species to evolve into another. If a genetic change confers an advantage in survival, then that’s all it does. Confer an advantage.

If elephants with a genetic tendency to have shorter tusks live longer than those with long tusks then that’s all the avantage does. They are still elephants. There is a lot more involved for speciation.

And what on earth was the point being made re Darwin’s racial views?

‘For every action there is an equal and opposite action’
‘Well, maybe you need to know that Newton used to read porn!’

 

[Uriel1]

what you are calling “evolution” @Bradskii
is mere adaption - what the theory says is that one species can become another, and that is unscientific and simply wrong

what’s the name of the book got to do with it? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

There is but one race and he was wrong even in his title

 

[Aloysium]

Bad assumptions.

Since one of the biggest problems with “evolution” is that there is little constency in its definition and I don’t recall your position on polygenism, a central tenet of scientific evolutionary theories, I had to begin somewhere. I think qualifying an assumption stated in a forthright manner so as to suggest a necessary clarification, as being “bad”, is rather harsh to my mind.

creationists presume

Let’s remember we are persons having our own individual understanding within the context of the larger society and the body of Christ.

Would you call a human body without a soul “a human”?

I call it a cadaver.

While we can be understood as a composite, our nature is a unity, one thing having different “dimensions” to it - primarily spiritual and also psychological and material.

From the Catechim of the Catholic Church:
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

 

[Aloysium]

-continued-

The theory would suggest that God directly – immediately – ensouled two and only two, and thus, He created the first two true humans. From them, all humans have their heritage.

We call God Father because He is the Father of all mankind. There are no intermediates.

The issue I have with the view that God “ensouled” two hominids lies in the nature of unity that is the person.

In Aristotelian terms as stated in the quote above from the Catechism, “the soul is the form of the body”. How I understand this is that the soul is the organization of matter which has its own intrisic properties. This organization, as a whole system is a new kind of being, different from the being that is an hominid. The person is an eternal soul, and an end or purpose that is not merely living out a temporary existence as is the case with animals. Our meaning is to be found in communion with God and from there tending to the garden he has created. The human body is organized towards the goal of bringing creation into the Trinity. Again in Aristotelian terms, the soul “actualizes” the material towards that end.

If two human parents do not themselves produce another human being, hominids could not do so. There are two possibilities for human beings to arise from a group of hominids - a pair of hominids was transformed into the original two persons, or a fertilized hominid egg was “ensouled”. In both cases, which I see as being pretty much the same but at different stages, this is problematic for me. The soul, being the organization of matter beginning at conception, one soul must die for another to assume the pre-existing molecules into itself. It would constitute more than a possession since in effect we have the creation of a brand new being. I’m not sure how this could occur in the case of possible adult hominids. Considering that it could have happened at conception we can more cloudy the issue. However, here as with imagined adult transubstantiation, any pre-existing genome and necessary surrounding cellular materials would need to be altered drastically in order to accommodate for the properties necessary for eternal life, human consciousness and love. It is difficult to sort out how death could have entered the world with the fall if Adam and Eve were destined to die regardless of whatever original sin they may have committed.

You may wish to share your beliefs as to how that all works. I don’t get it; creation is so simple and consistent with actual scientific data.

 

[buffalo]

Like i said in the OP. Show me evidence that all the animals that exist today have existed for as long as animals have existed. If you can do that then Evolution is false.

Living fossils are a good start. Punctuated equilibrium shows abrupt appearance. Homosapiens also shows abrupt appearance.

I have claimed that the original archetypes were created in the beginning. Some have adapted, but we have plenty of examples of living fossils. Convergent evolution is another area to explore.

Taken together, the evidence mounts against evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

what you are calling “evolution” @Bradskii
is mere adaption - what the theory says is that one species can become another, and that is unscientific and simply wrong

what’s the name of the book got to do with it? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

There is but one race and he was wrong even in his title

Why on earth are you spending time arguing the minutae of the evolutionary process if you have no interest in accepting the answers? As I said, the matter at hand had nothing to do with speciation. It appears that you feel the need to dispute all facets of the subject without understanding it. But hey, don’t worry, you are not alone on this thread.

And ‘races’ in the title doesn’t refer to the human races. It refers to varieties. See the following:

In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race. Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically. Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated.

If you knew even a little about the subject you would know that. Which only goes to confirm your lack of knowledge. Which, yet again, prompts the question: How can someone who knows so little about a subject consider him or herself to be capable of denying its validity?

Answers on a postcard to:
Bradskii
Bondi Beach
Sydney.

 

[buffalo]

Brad, The fool says “there is no God” and some grasp at atheistic explanations to avert God,

Drinking milk would have made those without the enzyme ill so natural selection would favour those with it, but who then died younger and had more osteoporosis

And you call that an advantage

They have to center on any advantage a mutation may offer, without regard for the bigger picture as to the overall negative effects of that mutation.

 

[rossum]

what you are calling “evolution” @Bradskii
is mere adaption - what the theory says is that one species can become another, and that is unscientific and simply wrong

what’s the name of the book got to do with it? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

There is but one race and he was wrong even in his title

1. Adaptation is evolution. That includes speciation. I am aware of one speciation event with three genetic changes involved, and another with only one.
2. The English language changes over time. Darwin’s “races” is better expressed in modern English as “species”.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Adaptation is evolution. That includes speciation. I am aware of one speciation event with three genetic changes involved, and another with only one.

No one argues adaptation. It is macro-evolution that is the issue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

IWantGod:

It’s not teleology that is argued against it’s intelligent design, For example a group of atoms haven’t been moved together by an intelligent being. They have moved together because it’s in their nature to do so.

Actually, the way I look at things, it is both. It is both in their nature to do so, and they are also moved by an intelligent being. The way I see it, the intelligent being (God) created and is creating their nature on a continuous basis to give atoms their nature. I don’t see it as an either/or. I don’t see nature as something distinct from God.

That sounds like you are try to make evolution more plausible by throwing God in to the mix.

When evolution is attacked on religious principles, of course I will defend it on religious principles. But when evolution is attacked on scientific principles (which it has not for a very long time in this thread) I will offer scientific responses and defend evolution on scientific grounds. Pick a lane.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

Adaptation is evolution. That includes speciation. I am aware of one speciation event with three genetic changes involved, and another with only one.

No one argues adaptation. It is macro-evolution that is the issue.

But speciation is a form of macro-evolution, isn’t it?

 

[rossum]

Living fossils are a good start.

Living fossils are not a problem for evolution, despite what creationist websites want you to believe. Evolution says that all life (except the very first) evolved from earlier life. All living fossils have earlier ancestors from which they evolved; that is how we know they are “fossils”.

Punctuated equilibrium shows abrupt appearance.

Punctuated equilibrium shows abrupt appearance from an earlier species. The earlier species hangs around unchanged for a long time (the ‘equilibrium’ part) and then quickly evolves into a new species, the ‘punctuation’. Again, the earlier ancestral species is present, as evolution predicts.

You might also want to read Darwin on punctuated equilibrium:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

– Origin, 6th Ed. Chapter Four

Homosapiens also shows abrupt appearance.

In America, yes. H. sapiens appeared literally in a single day.

I have claimed that the original archetypes were created in the beginning. Some have adapted, but we have plenty of examples of living fossils.

Your claim is false. Where are fossil mammals from the Cambrian? Where are fossil trees from the Cambrian? Your claim has zero evidential support.

Convergent evolution is another area to explore.

An interesting area for research, but it does not mean that mean that Dolphins are descended from Ichthyosaurs, nor Ichthyosaurs from Tuna. The physics of water has a lot more influence.

If you want to disprove evolution, then finding a species after its ancestors will not do it for you. What you need is a species appearing before its ancestors. The often mentioned Cambrian rabbit for example.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

But speciation is a form of macro-evolution, isn’t it?

No - speciation is a loss of function once had. From the beginning “kind”, isolation results in the inability to breed, and usually rendering sterile offspring. So sure, we can count many more “species” today than in the beginning. They are simply adaptations of the initial form, and loss of reproductive function to boot. This is well within the definition of micro-evolution. No macro to be found here.

 

[buffalo]

Living fossils are not a problem for evolution, despite what creationist websites want you to believe. Evolution says that all life (except the very first) evolved from earlier life. All living fossils have earlier ancestors from which they evolved; that is how we know they are “fossils”.

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation within.

Common decent is consistent with what we see, from the initial archetypes. UCD is not shown in the record.

 

[buffalo]

Punctuated equilibrium shows abrupt appearance from an earlier species . The earlier species hangs around unchanged for a long time (the ‘equilibrium’ part) and then quickly evolves into a new species, the ‘punctuation’. Again, the earlier ancestral species is present, as evolution predicts.

You might also want to read Darwin on punctuated equilibrium:

Or God created the “kinds” abruptly. Of course, we know, evos cannot let the “divine foot in the door”, so there has to be this story to conform.

"In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr’s model of geographic speciation,[4] I. Michael Lerner’s theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[5] and their own empirical research.[6][7] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[8] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

 

[buffalo]

Your claim is false. Where are fossil mammals from the Cambrian? Where are fossil trees from the Cambrian? Your claim has zero evidential support.

According to Gould, “stasis may emerge as the theory’s most important contribution to evolutionary science.”[43] Philosopher Kim Sterelny in clarifying the meaning of stasis adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner’s The Beak of the Finch describes this very process."[44]

So even Wiki agrees with my posts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But speciation is a form of macro-evolution, isn’t it?

No - speciation is a loss of function once had. From the beginning “kind”, isolation results in the inability to breed, and usually rendering sterile offspring. So sure, we can count many more “species” today than in the beginning. They are simply adaptations of the initial form, and loss of reproductive function to boot. This is well within the definition of micro-evolution. No macro to be found here.

Lot’s of unsupported claims there. But most importantly, I don’t think “loss of function” is what rossum’s examples illustrate. Remember, it was rossum you were responding to, so when rossum uses the word speciation, you would do well to inquire what was meant in that reference than to redefine away the problem. Rossum claimed we have examples of macro-evolution with only a very few mutations. That is the claim to address - not to quibble over what word should have been used.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

rossum:

Your claim is false. Where are fossil mammals from the Cambrian? Where are fossil trees from the Cambrian? Your claim has zero evidential support.

According to Gould, “stasis may emerge as the theory’s most important contribution to evolutionary science.”[43] Philosopher Kim Sterelny in clarifying the meaning of stasis adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner’s The Beak of the Finch describes this very process."[44]

So even Wiki agrees with my posts.

Wiki does not contradict rossum. There are many instances of genetic change. Some of “wobble around a mean” as described. But that does not say all of them wobble around a mean.

 

[buffalo]

Wiki does not contradict rossum. There are many instances of genetic change. Some of “wobble around a mean” as described. But that does not say all of them wobble around a mean.

Digging deep here…

Stasis is “wobbling around a mean”. As I posted before the organism is “resistant” to change, with many self correcting error mechanisms. Adaptation is “wobbling around a mean”. That is why the finches beaks changed back one pressure was removed.

We have established now, the increasing uphill climb for evolution. It is even more difficult as we find more information than was available years ago. Now we have genetic and epigenetics that reinforce inteliigent agency. We have HGT, jumping genes which the once strongly held tree of life is now a bush, with more than one trunk.

I do not argue against common descent, but against UCD. The question is how many more starting trunks are there.

 

[Gorgias]

Since one of the biggest problems with “evolution” is that there is little constency in its definition and I don’t recall your position on polygenism, a central tenet of scientific evolutionary theories, I had to begin somewhere. I think qualifying an assumption stated in a forthright manner so as to suggest a necessary clarification, as being “bad”, is rather harsh to my mind.

Fair enough. Yet, it’s disappointing that the starting point is “it must be the case that you disagree with Church teachings”.

Aloysium:

I call it a cadaver.

Nice.

But, we’re talking about a theory that suggests that there lived unensouled hominids prior to the existence of our first human parents. So, let me ask again: would you call a living hominid body without a soul “a human”?

Aloysium:

While we can be understood as a composite, our nature is a unity

Agreed. That’s what it means to be ‘human’.

We call God Father because He is the Father of all mankind. There are no intermediates.

That’s an assertion… but I don’t know that the “no intermediates” is a teaching of the Church…

Aloysium:

The issue I have with the view that God “ensouled” two hominids lies in the nature of unity that is the person.

Right. And, the idea here is that you didn’t have human persons until you had ensoulment.

Aloysium:

This organization, as a whole system is a new kind of being, different from the being that is an hominid.

Exactly! A hominid isn’t a “human person”, in the context of theology.

Aloysium:

If two human parents do not themselves produce another human being, hominids could not do so.

Agreed.

Aloysium:

The soul, being the organization of matter beginning at conception, one soul must die for another to assume the pre-existing molecules into itself.

That seems to presume that the hominid had a human soul to begin with. I’m not making that claim.

Aloysium:

It would constitute more than a possession since in effect we have the creation of a brand new being. I’m not sure how this could occur in the case of possible adult hominids.

So… an ontological change, right? Well… isn’t that what we say happens to living humans who are baptized and/or ordained to the priesthood? So, yeah… such a change is conceivable!

Aloysium:

any pre-existing genome and necessary surrounding cellular materials would need to be altered drastically in order to accommodate for the properties necessary for eternal life, human consciousness and love

I’m not seeing where you’re asserting a necessary change in physical characteristics, though…

Aloysium:

It is difficult to sort out how death could have entered the world with the fall if Adam and Eve were destined to die regardless of whatever original sin they may have committed.

To die what kind of death? The death that enters into the world, according to Paul, is a death of the spirit…