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

[Metis1]

Your post suggested you had issues with how God does things. It seemed to be implied by your observation that our mortality and suffering is some haphazard random event, the result of an intended ommision by God, rather than the direct consequence of original sin.

I do believe it is likely that suffering due to genetic mutations that can cause birth defects and death are not planned by God as that would make Him a genocidal maniac. Also, we also see defects, including “miscarriages” and serious birth defects in other animals and also even in plants, so which kind of “original sin” did they commit? I’m not being sarcastic as this is what we do repeatedly see in the animal and plant kingdoms.

The concept of “original sin” is and has long been a contentious concept, and I think that probably most theologians today will only pay lip service to it because it really doesn’t make much since if taken at the literal level. For example, should you be executed if your grandfather committed murder? How about you being imprisoned if your mother robbed a bank?

In Judaism, since the source of this is found within the Jewish scriptures, the sins passed on to the next generation is usually interpreted as meaning that if I sin my own family is tainted by that, which may sound strange to many westerners since we tend to see ourselves more as individuals. However, early Semitic peoples instead put much more emphasis on the family than on the individual, and family image was very important as is true even today in traditional Semitic societies.

One of my old Catholic catechisms had the author saying that he felt that the latter explanation above made more sense than the traditional interpretation of “original sin”. But in a supplement at the end of the book he had to also give the “company line” to get approval.

Either way, the point is not whether God created all but how God created all. If we make God the author of suffering then we simply cannot say that He is a “loving God”.

Take care.

 

[rossum]

I think common sense is needed.

Indeed it is. Evolution is defined as “The variation in the genome of a population over time.” The Grants have observed the variations in the genomes of those finches over time. That is a confirmation of evolution.

Naturally the ID site you link to tries to disparage their work, without showing any evidence at all of their alleged designer at work.

The Grants observed evolution happening in the finches. They did not observe any intelligent designer at work. It is not surprising that a pro-ID site is unhappy with their results.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

He may be thinking of Mark Armitage’s misidentified “Triceratops” horn, which is actually a bison horn and carbon dated about 33,000 ybp. Strangely enough the YEC sources do not make a great deal of that date, which destroys the YEC timeline. That is not an unusual date for a bison horn.

No I was not.

 

[buffalo]

I do believe it is likely that suffering due to genetic mutations that can cause birth defects and death are not planned by God as that would make Him a genocidal maniac. Also, we also see defects, including “miscarriages” and serious birth defects in other animals and also even in plants, so which kind of “original sin” did they commit? I’m not being sarcastic as this is what we do repeatedly see in the animal and plant kingdoms.

Death and corruption applied to the entire universe. We see this in the 2nd law.

 

[buffalo]

The concept of “original sin” is and has long been a contentious concept, and I think that probably most theologians today will only pay lip service to it because it really doesn’t make much since if taken at the literal level. For example, should you be executed if your grandfather committed murder? How about you being imprisoned if your mother robbed a bank?

This is a poor understanding of original sin and its transmission.

 

[buffalo]

In Judaism, since the source of this is found within the Jewish scriptures, the sins passed on to the next generation is usually interpreted as meaning that if I sin my own family is tainted by that, which may sound strange to many westerners since we tend to see ourselves more as individuals. However, early Semitic peoples instead put much more emphasis on the family than on the individual, and family image was very important as is true even today in traditional Semitic societies.

And now epigenetics is showing that indeed these “sins” are passed on to two or three generations. Science, once again catching up to Scripture.

 

[buffalo]

Either way, the point is not whether God created all but how God created all. If we make God the author of suffering then we simply cannot say that He is a “loving God”.

Ever hear of redemptive suffering?

A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering | Called to Communion

If God is all powerful, and truly seeks our good, then why does He allow bad things to happen to people? Why does God allow all the suffering we experience in this life, if He loves us and is all-powerful and all-knowing? What does the Catholic Church say about the meaning of suffering? Job and

www.calledtocommunion.com

 

[buffalo]

Indeed it is. Evolution is defined as “The variation in the genome of a population over time.” The Grants have observed the variations in the genomes of those finches over time. That is a confirmation of evolution.

Naturally the ID site you link to tries to disparage their work, without showing any evidence at all of their alleged designer at work.

The Grants observed evolution happening in the finches. They did not observe any intelligent designer at work. It is not surprising that a pro-ID site is unhappy with their results.

Uh, the finches beaks returned back to what they were before as pressure was reduced. This is adaptation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Zombie Watch: Debunked Finches Re-Emerge to Validate Darwin | Evolution News
I was reading this by chance while looking into another matter, if you have time to read it do as I think it will show you why i don’t hold modern bias funded science as credible.
I think common sense is needed.

There are so many mistakes in that article, I don’t know where to begin. To save me time, will you concede that it is rubbish if I point out just one mistake? Or do you need 2? Or 4? What is the minimum number of mistakes it will take to convince you that this is not a trustworthy source?

 

[buffalo]

There are so many mistakes in that article, I don’t know where to begin. To save me time, will you concede that it is rubbish if I point out just one mistake? Or do you need 2? Or 4? What is the minimum number of mistakes it will take to convince you that this is not a trustworthy source?

Have at it. Over and over you claim this, but never do you actually show it.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Indeed it is. Evolution is defined as “The variation in the genome of a population over time.” The Grants have observed the variations in the genomes of those finches over time. That is a confirmation of evolution.

Naturally the ID site you link to tries to disparage their work, without showing any evidence at all of their alleged designer at work.

The Grants observed evolution happening in the finches. They did not observe any intelligent designer at work. It is not surprising that a pro-ID site is unhappy with their results.

Uh, the finches beaks returned back to what they were before as pressure was reduced. This is adaptation.

Q1: If you have an environment in which birds with longer beaks would have an advantage over those with shorter beaks, what would you expect to happen to beak lengths?

Q2: If the environment changes so that shorter beaks are an advantage, what would you expect to happen to beak lengths?

Q3: Explain the process by which these adaptions appear in any given population.

Q4: How come you don’t understand any of this after so long?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There are so many mistakes in that article, I don’t know where to begin. To save me time, will you concede that it is rubbish if I point out just one mistake? Or do you need 2? Or 4? What is the minimum number of mistakes it will take to convince you that this is not a trustworthy source?

Have at it. Over and over you claim this, but never do you actually show it.

First you have to commit to what is the minimum number of mistakes it would take to convince you that this is an unreliable source. I only have so much patience for doing that work.

 

[buffalo]

Q1: If you have an environment in which birds with longer beaks would have an advantage over those with shorter beaks, what would you expect to happen to beak lengths?

Q2: If the environment changes so that shorter beaks are an advantage, what would you expect to happen to beak lengths?

Q3: Explain the process by which these adaptions appear in any given population.

Q4: How come you don’t understand any of this after so long?

I do very well. This is micro-evolution aka adaptation. Evo’s try to extrapolate and stretch this to macro-evolution. No dice. The gig is up.

 

[buffalo]

First you have to commit to what is the minimum number of mistakes it would take to convince you that this is an unreliable source. I only have so much patience for doing that work.

Another strike.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

First you have to commit to what is the minimum number of mistakes it would take to convince you that this is an unreliable source. I only have so much patience for doing that work.

Another strike.

Just as I thought. You would not be convinced even if I showed you a mistake, so why should I bother?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Q1: If you have an environment in which birds with longer beaks would have an advantage over those with shorter beaks, what would you expect to happen to beak lengths?

Q2: If the environment changes so that shorter beaks are an advantage, what would you expect to happen to beak lengths?

Q3: Explain the process by which these adaptions appear in any given population.

Q4: How come you don’t understand any of this after so long?

I do very well. This is micro-evolution aka adaptation. Evo’s try to extrapolate and stretch this to macro-evolution. No dice. The gig is up.

Q5: When does any given organism reject any further changes because Bufallo would consider it to be macro evolution?

Hint: Every single change is a micro change. Every single change is essentially the very first.

Q6: Why don’t you understand this?

 

[rossum]

Uh, the finches beaks returned back to what they were before as pressure was reduced. This is adaptation.

Nothing in the theory of evolution says it must always proceed in one direction. Since evolution follows changes in the environment, and environmental changes may be cyclical or unidirectional then evolution can also be either cyclical or unidirectional. The finches are an example of evolution tracking a cyclical change.

Merely renaming it “adaptation” is not a refutation of evolution, it is a Humpty Dumpty argument. How about “That is not Christianity, it is Jesusism, you cannot show me a real example of Christianity.” Have I refuted Christianity by calling it a different name? Of course not.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

I do very well. This is micro-evolution aka adaptation. Evo’s try to extrapolate and stretch this to macro-evolution. No dice. The gig is up.

‘My brother came over to Bondi for a beer last night’.

‘Well, he’s always been in Bondi’.

‘No, he lives in Coogee. He walked over’

‘There’s no such thing as walking. Did you seem him travel all that way? If you didn’t then all this ‘walking’ is just guesswork and assumptions on your part.’

‘Huh? Of course there’s something called walking. Look, here’s someone putting one foot in front of the other and moving in a forward direction’.

‘That’s ‘micro-walking’ aka ‘taking steps’. Walkos try to extrapolate and stretch this to ‘macro-walking’. No dice. The gig is up.’

Stunned silence…

‘And another thing. Do you know what happened when there was no more beer? Your brother returned back to where he was before’.

More stunned silence…

Note: Names and places have been changed to protect the identity of Bufallo.

 

[Aloysium]

I do believe it is likely that suffering due to genetic mutations that can cause birth defects and death are not planned by God as that would make Him a genocidal maniac. Also, we also see defects, including “miscarriages” and serious birth defects in other animals and also even in plants, so which kind of “original sin” did they commit? I’m not being sarcastic as this is what we do repeatedly see in the animal and plant kingdoms.

Likewise, I don’t see deformities and miscarriages as planned by God. According to scripture and what makes sense, common or otherwise, is that they have arisen consequent to the fall.

With original sin, mankind, and through us all creation, in damaging the relationship with God, has taken itself from His healing graces. There is an order to everything that comes into being. That ordering principle is the source not only of DNA, proteins, fats, sugars and such, but is what pulled them together as the material structure and physiology of living beings, each whole existing in itself. While you and I are old and failing, just as each baby is fresh and new, each moment should be so, coming into being from nothing in eternity.

Let’s asssume that save for mankind, all living creatures could have been created to be conceived, born, develop and grow and ultimately age and die. It makes sense from an ecological point of view that sees all creatures as participants in their environment and as a medium by which God manifests His grandeur, power and artistry. Living organisms have built in capacities to change in successive generations, and even in one’s own as the NASA twin trial revealed. This allows for the free shifting of anatomical and metabolic structures and processes so that the environment remains a harmonious whole. With the fall, placing our will at the centre of our lives, we were forbidden the Divine connection that would maintain us in life. To have permitted this would have meant our being condemned perpetually to hell.

We can be reborn and have eternal life, partaking of the fruit of the tree that is the cross. Where Jesus sits at the Centre of the garden that is our relationship with the world and with God, we are again with God in paradise.

 

[Aloysium]

Now what I wrote above does not explain sickness, and here we can go in two directions:

The first would involve the fall of the angels, who constitute an important means by which God’s will is done. Animals act on instinct and it might reasonably be considered that these were corrupted, accompanied by physical metamorphoses, as one third of angels rebelled. So illness may have entered the world temporally at that point. Once we were created, Satan’s aim was to influence our free will and turn us against God, which he did. No longer centred on the eternal Fount of creation, we came to share in a common fate with animals.

Too briefly stated perhaps, another way to look at what happened arises when we contemplate who we actually are as spiritual beings and a unity of mind and matter. Through these two dimensions we express our relational nature as a knower knowing what is known, an actor acting on the acted upon. Physically speaking, there is not one single atom in our bodies that was not a material component of something previously other, including those which constituted the two haploid cells from our parents. As individual beings we incorporate the universe into ourselves physically and cognitively. It may sound grandiose, but for want of a better way to say it, its laws are us and we are the universe trying to understand itself. In other words briefly, as the crown of creation, we took all of it down with us when we fell. In terms of there having been something before we entered the picture, the paradox that what happens temporally later may affect what occurs earlier can be understood in terms of causality where creation comes about from eternity. Every moment that exists, whether it is now, before, or later relative to where you and I now sit on the timeline, comes into existence in its now, centred on an eternal Now. The moment of our coming into being and our decision to alienate ourselves from God impacted on everything because we are one with everything and a supremely important final cause in God’s creation of the universe.