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

[buffalo]

The common understanding of the term is that science does not include this particular branch of philosophy.

As a result of the so called enlightenment.

 

[sevenswords]

You sir are a fool if you think your intimidation tactics will sway me into believing your fantasy.
I can see through your illusion of authority and know that the reason you use this tactic like many many before you is because you do not have a single fact for your fairy tale and are terrified of being exposed.
I notice you still do not present any evidence of your observation of spontaneous life
I also know that you come from the enlightenment movement that desperately needs to cling to dead theories in order to deny the reality of God.
So you are without wisdom or knowledge and have nothing to add only despair and darkness.

 

[Bradskii]

You sir are a fool if you think your intimidation tactics will sway me into believing your fantasy.
I can see through your illusion of authority and know that the reason you use this tactic like many many before you is because you do not have a single fact for your fairy tale and are terrified of being exposed.
I notice you still do not present any evidence of your observation of spontaneous life
I also know that you come from the enlightenment movement that desperately needs to cling to dead theories in order to deny the reality of God.
So you are without wisdom or knowledge and have nothing to add only despair and darkness.

My dear Sevenswords, I have zero objection to you believing what you will. Each to his own. If you have faith that God created everything in a particlar way then I honestly don’t have a problem with that.

However…if you insist on attacking the science behind the process that has been responsible for getting us to this point (guided by God no doubt) whilst indicating that you have no knowledge of the subject, then you will be called out at every ocassion.

To understand something and still reject it is a reasonable position.

To not understand something and yet still reject it is the position of…how did you put it? Ah yes. A fool.

 

[sevenswords]

Still knowing all that you can’t bring yourself to present a shred of proof? just another superiority complex lecture.
I have debated evolutionists for the past 20+ years and never EVER and again Never was presented with a fact just the opposite always, assumptions and presumptions these are not facts.
So enlighten me and expose my ignorance and show me a simple fact that is testable observable and repeatable isn’t that what science claims to do when it comes to evolution? isn’t that what you claim?
and I am open to every single field of science so you should have truck loads of these facts given your arrogance on the matter.

 

[Bradskii]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Let me know if there is something you specifically don’t understand.

And something a little more detailed:

https://www.nature.com/subjects/evolution

And a little more straightforward:

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?

www.livescience.com

The first and last will be worth reading. Let me know when you are done and, as I say, if there is something specific you don’t understand or don’t agree with then bring it to the table.

 

[sevenswords]

A Transitional fossil that is in transition not a genre of another species not a lemur passing as a human or a missing link such as "Archaeoraptor.

this is empirical proof that Dinosaurs are not millions of years old and the many art works and pottery bare out the fact that people lived with dinosaurs as they observed them and depicted them in various forms.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection isn’t an idea with holes. It’s one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?
Who says so?
I have to go to work now but proof is what I have shown you in the video observable testable and repeatable not a statement of fact from some unknown source. lets stick to facts.

 

[Aloysium]

Thanks for the link. Here’s my take on it:

The theory of evolution by natural selection tries to make sense of differences we observe in the diversity of life on earth and in the fossil record. It focusses primarily on the physical shape of organisms and how those shapes differ over time, presumably related to changes in the genome over successive generations. It is believed that the great diversity and growing complexity observed in the hierarchy of life is the direct result of the individual organism’s being to better able to adapt to its environment, allowing it to survive and have more offspring.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the most highly held beliefs in science, a paradigm into which evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines is forced. The science of paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology is misused in this regard.

Authorities claim that all life on earth is connected by common ancestry, stretching back to when the first organic molecules came together spontaneously as a result of their inherent chemical properties. The diversity of life is simplistically explained away as being a product of modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others.

What constitutes an environment is the collection of living creatures, ultimately a whole in which each individual contributes its part and all is grounded on the air, the earth, and sun. Life in its myriad of diverse forms, rooted in the material, by which each individual creature is brought into physical existence as itself with the capacity to replicate itself, has predetermined capacities to do so in a variety of forms that express the nature of each kind of living being. What we ultimately have is an ever changing environment, that currently finds the individual creature in opposition to the unity of which it is a part, although this was not meant to be. There was a fall that wounded the loving connection between all things that is grounded in creation’s relationship with its Maker.

We can still clearly see God’s hand in all this although in the darkness of our sinfulness, we may see chaos and necessity at the root of life’s struggle to exist. And along with this, power rather than love, is held to be the fundamental force that makes it happen.

Evolutionary theory includes our human origins, which are said to be part of the same process of descent with modification based on the survival of the fittest, the ability to survive and reproduce. The influence of random genomic change, although we know it to be destructive of established order and the cause of cancer and inheritable disease, and the living long enough to procreate, we are told to believe are the sources of our capacity to engage for instance, in this intricate dance called the forums.

To be continued . . .

 

[Aloysium]

Continued from the post above. . .

As an example of where science is misused as a mythos to promote the values of secular, communist and fascist societies is provided by a study on human evolution on 1,900 students, published online in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. The trouble that many people have finding a mate is not understood in terms of such factors as the growing isolation so much a part of the modern world where we find ourselves at odds with our society and our neighbours, where refuge from loneliness is found in fantasy, so called reality tv and pornography. It is simplistically stated to be because of rapidly changing social technological advances that are evolving faster than humans. What is proposed is far from the reality of sin’s Influence in our being loving person’s and the decline in moral standards that come with a relationship with God. These difficulties are said to arise, not because something wrong or broken in our lives and in society, but due to people living in an environment which is very different from the environment they evolved to function in. The solution I suppose would be for us to be more animal-like, which since we cannot be animals owing to our eternal natures, would amount to being more demonic.

The bottom line is that one can believe in evolution if one wishes, as one can believe in unicorns, as long as there is adherence to the teachings of Christ through His Church, enlightened through the graces of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t expect the original poster to read this, but thanks to those who have; the idea of writing solely for my own benefit is rather depressing.

 

[PickyPicky]

… the idea of writing solely for my own benefit is rather depressing.

Nah — you write very well. I can’t join you in the way you think, but the way you think is interesting, nonetheless.

 

[Metis1]

I believe it is most likely that the creation accounts are allegorical, probably based on a much longer and earlier Babylonian epic, especially since we know that at least some Jews living in eretz Israel were familiar with it since a tablet containing at least part of that epic was found in northern Israel that was written prior to the writing of Genesis.

As an anthropologist, one thing that we run across constantly is the sharing of beliefs from one society to another, but typically these beliefs are altered to fit into the receiving society’s values and morals.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Thanks for the link. Here’s my take on it:

The theory of evolution by natural selection tries to make sense of differences we observe in the diversity of life on earth and in the fossil record. It focusses primarily on the physical shape of organisms and how those shapes differ over time, presumably related to changes in the genome over successive generations.

There is no “presume” about it. The fact that physical shapes are affected by genes has been well-established by multiple independent experiments.

It is believed that the great diversity and growing complexity observed in the hierarchy of life is the direct result of the individual organism’s being to better able to adapt to its environment, allowing it to survive and have more offspring.

Almost. Individual organisms don’t adapt. The entire population adapts. Individuals are what they are.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the most highly held beliefs in science, a paradigm into which evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines is forced.

The science of paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology is misused in this regard.

Other than your claim that these fields should have no bearing on the subject, how do you know it is a “misuse?”

Authorities claim that all life on earth is connected by common ancestry,

There are no “authorities” in science in the sense that every scientific claim stands or falls on its own merit. There are people with better reputations for accuracy, and these are naturally listened to with more attention than someone who is unknown. But eventually even an unknown person can overturn the view of “authorities” if his work has merit.

The diversity of life is simplistically explained away…

This is another allusion to the “questions that must be answered!” which is itself a logical fallacy. Some questions do not need to be answered, even if such answers might be good to know.

… What we ultimately have is an ever changing environment, that currently finds the individual creature in opposition to the unity of which it is a part, although this was not meant to be.

“Meant to be?” Yes,…according to some religious beliefs.

Evolutionary theory includes our human origins, which are said to be part of the same process of descent with modification based on the survival of the fittest, the ability to survive and reproduce. The influence of random genomic change, although we know it to be destructive of established order

Not always destructive.

 

[Metis1]

Scientism has done its job.

There is simply no such word as “scientism”, nor does using that word make any sense whatsoever since the process of the formation of religious beliefs versus scientific inquiry are very different.

 

[Metis1]

Since I read it back in the 1980’s, no I cannot. It’s maybe possible you can check some of the Pew polls conducted since then on religious trends.

 

[Techno2000]

I believe it is most likely that the creation accounts are allegorical, probably based on a much longer and earlier Babylonian epic, especially since we know that at least some Jews living in eretz Israel were familiar with it since a tablet containing at least part of that epic was found in northern Israel that was written prior to the writing of Genesis.

As an anthropologist, one thing that we run across constantly is the sharing of beliefs from one society to another, but typically these beliefs are altered to fit into the receiving society’s values and morals.

I know,I know…I heard it a million times…the ancient myths were incorporated into the Bible.

 

[Aloysium]

There is no “presume” about it. The fact that physical shapes are affected by genes has been well-established by multiple independent experiments.

This is beside the point being made that epigenetic factors may be more important than chemically based random chemical changes in the genome. These are built in, “designed” mechanisms present in the kind of organism that something is.

You may wish to review the twin study conducted by Nasa to get a feel of the complxity of what I am talking about. For example:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-twins-study-confirms-preliminary-findings

Scott’s telomeres (endcaps of chromosomes that shorten as one ages) actually became significantly longer in space. . . the majority of those telomeres shortened within two days of Scott’s return to Earth. . . 93% of Scott’s genes returned to normal after landing. However, the remaining 7% point to possible longer term changes in genes related to his immune system, DNA repair, bone formation networks, hypoxia, and hypercapnia.

Some questions do not need to be answered, even if such answers might be good to know.

The suggestion would be that some truth would be better left unexplored, but I’d say that one would choose do so at their peril.

Yes,…according to some religious beliefs.

Are your true colours finally showing?

Not always destructive.

Any disruption of an established order is by definition destructive. That there may be a Phoenix arising from the ashes, a rebirth, a resurrection does not diminish this fact. If one is uninterested in the specifics of how the diversity of life came to be on earth, one should not disparage the attempts of others to do so. Spread the light, not the darkness.

 

[Aloysium]

But, it does express your belief that the basics of the Theory of Evolution is acceptable as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

My view is that God created everything perfect and not as a series of random mistakes. It looks to be designed. I should add that I don’t view myself as a proponent of Intelligent Design, seeing God more intimately involved in all moments of His creation and more of an Artist than Engineer, The fall changed everything at its ontological beginning, thereby affecting all time. In this fallen universe there is an appearance of evolutionary change because everything decays and, existing in opposition to the environment of which they are intergral participants, living forms struggle to manifest their inherent nature, which includes the transformation of inorganic material outside their being, into themselves and participating in the bringing into existance, their offspring. God’s Word brought into and maintains all this wonder in existence, as it permits us and thereby all creation to ultimately come into communion within the Blessed Trinity, in and through Jesus Christ.

Random mutation and natural selection are observed presently in the Galapagos where we are struggling to keep around species that are dwindling. These pillars of evolutionary belief are but shadows of the present cast on what occured in the six “days” of creation.

 

[Bradskii]

A Transitional fossil that is in transition not a genre of another species not a lemur passing as a human or a missing link such as "Archaeoraptor.

this is empirical proof that Dinosaurs are not millions of years old and the many art works and pottery bare out the fact that people lived with dinosaurs as they observed them and depicted them in various forms.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection isn’t an idea with holes. It’s one of the most solid theories in science. But what exactly is it?
Who says so?
I have to go to work now but proof is what I have shown you in the video observable testable and repeatable not a statement of fact from some unknown source. lets stick to facts.

I’m sorry, but your first sentence makes no sense.

And you have just posted a video that says organic material was found in dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. And then say that it proves that they are not millions of years old.

Colour me puzzled.

Incidentally, you might have noted Mary Schweitzer’s name mentioned in tbe video. She js one person who is claiming to have fojnd organic material in these type of bones. Take heed at what she says about people like yourself:

"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

 

[edwest211]

Not true in this case. God is the author of Scripture.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is no “presume” about it. The fact that physical shapes are affected by genes has been well-established by multiple independent experiments.

This is beside the point being made that epigenetic factors may be more important than chemically based random chemical changes in the genome. These are built in, “designed” mechanisms present in the kind of organism that something is.

Ignoring you unscientific claim that the mechanisms are “designed,” the presence of epigenetic changes that persist for several generations does not contradict the process of random variation and natural selection, and it does not establish “intelligent design.”

Some questions do not need to be answered, even if such answers might be good to know.

The suggestion would be that some truth would be better left unexplored, but I’d say that one would choose do so at their peril.

I didn’t say the questions shouldn’t be asked and answers sought. I just said we shouldn’t assume anything from the inability to answer certain questions. (But go ahead and keep trying…)

Yes,…according to some religious beliefs.

Are your true colours finally showing?

Actually, they are my religious beliefs too.

Not always destructive.

Any disruption of an established order is by definition destructive.

The very use of the term “establish order” implies the belief that there is an “establisher” of that order. A more neutral way to describe the situation would be to say “the current state of things.” It removes the sense of one order being more “right” than another, which is an unscientific notion. Somethings changing the “established order” produces a “better” order. I would not call that “destructive,” would you?

If one is uninterested in the specifics of how the diversity of life came to be on earth, one should not disparage the attempts of others to do so.

I don’t disparage the attempts. I only disparage the failures to do so.

 

[Metis1]

I know,I know…I heard it a million times…the ancient myths were incorporated into the Bible.

And I guess the only question I would have is why anyone would think otherwise? Even some of the many names for God found in Hebrew in the Tanakh are to be found in the names of some of the deities that the ancient Sumerians believed in.

A common human trait is that we learn from each other.