B
buffalo
Guest
We have an additional piece of evidence - Revelation.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Wait a minute! Dawkins said biology looks designed. In this case, Catholics, God is deceiving us by the illusion of design, but instead used evolution? I don’t think so.
I
IWantGod
Guest
While we cannot always comprehend why God would do something, we know that God doesn’t do things for no rational reason. I think it’s more reasonable to think that if God is using evolution as a means to distribute varying biological forms, he would use it as a means to create different species altogether; hence the origin of species. We have no reason to think that God created different kinds directly. The only reason people believe that is because it is written in the bible and people take it literally without much critical thought.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
The genetic distance between higher groups, say chordates and arthropods is indeed very large, but that is what the common descent predicts for groups that diverged a long time ago.
All you are doing here is showing more evidence to confirm the predictions of common descent.
If you think that design has a role to play, then please explain what part of design theory predicts such large gaps between higher clades. Is the designer incapable of designing something to fit into the gap between, say, arthropods and chordates?
In all cases there was a time when the gap was not insurmountable, when the two diverged from their common ancestor.
For example, Pat lives in Montreal while Chris lives in Mexico City with a very large gap between them. However they both used to live in New York at the same time, before they moved to their new cities. Back when they were both in New York, the gap between them was a lot smaller.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
A mirage looks like water. Dawkins agrees that biology can give the appearance of design, but that is mere appearance,not reality. A cloud may look like a human face, but it is not a human face.
Dawkins even coined a word: ‘designoid’ to describe this effect: “something which appears designed, but actually isn’t.”.
rossum
B
Bradskii
Guest
When it comes to having a reasonable online discussion about evolution, then what you think is very important indeed. And what you think about it is so far from any reasonable understanding of the subject as to make any (name removed by moderator)ut you have in this discussion worthless. It would be like discussing relativity with someone who didn’t understand arithmetic.
And please believe me that this is not an ad hominem. What you say should not be ignored because of who you are. It should be ignored because of what you don’t know.
O
o_mlly
Guest
It appears we have many speculations but we do not have any observations. Are you referring to preprint articles? The peers appear to disagree.
Also, I note that not only has no one “observed” speciation but these articles, riddled with words like “could”, “suspect”, “speculate”, “may”, etc., betray the bias of their authors who beg the question presuming that species have in fact evolved. That’s not how science works.
Better to reference the published and peer reviewed articles rather than preprints.
Deflection. Substitute the latest creature you think parented the first human.
My conclusion is that because the evidence that the human being can be fully explained by evolution (and ToE derivatives) is lacking that perhaps one could give us something in support. But even the laws of large numbers works against the claim.
De Vries would take issue (as I do) with these mercurial definitions of “specie” and “mutant.” If the data does not support the claims then one may redefine the terms is not good philosophy.
Evidence? If random and naturally selected then contemporaneous populations is highly improbable.
But that is precisely the point. A mutated animal specie that replicates sexually cannot mate with its progenitors. The probability that a compatible mutant of the opposite sex would come into existence and that the two would be proximate and survive to puberty and have successful sex is mind numbing. The mantra of the evolutionist, “Just give me more time …” notwithstanding.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Is that (I hope) your final non-answer?
E
edwest211
Guest
I agree. Design is no illusion.
T
Techno2000
Guest
The random mutation dice always rolls a winner for a male and a female.
E
edwest211
Guest
The random mutation dice always roll a winner? That means they’re not random.
R
rossum
Guest
Indeed, we have many speculations, but no observations of any deity from any religion creating a new species from nothing. Science has DNA data and observations but gods creating new species has nothing.
So, you have no maths to back up your personal opinion. Without the maths, and supporting evidence, all you are left with is your personal opinion. As I am sure you are aware, that does not carry much weight in science.
Why not? Lions and tigers can mate to produce fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys can mate to produce live, though not fertile, offspring. A newly emerged species will be even closer than lions and tigers; fertile offspring will be perfectly possible at first. As the two species drift further apart then the number of fertile offspring will reduce, but by that time there will be a large enough population of the newer species for it to survive.
rossum
I
IWantGod
Guest
Instead of trying to squash 13 billion years of physical activity into genesis, we should instead accept that the creation event as depicted in the bible is not meant to be taken as a literal historical event. Yes, i think that in the real world God is the uncaused cause of all potential beings, but i don’t believe that the genesis account is a scientific or literal example of what really happened. It is a theological depiction of what happened with some general truths (God created the world, original sin etc) , but mostly theological in description.
Please save yourself the unnecessary stress of reconciling reality with genesis, because you are only succeeding in making any attempt appear ad-hoc, unreasonable, and false. In other-words you are doing more harm to the faith than you are doing good.
Please save yourself the unnecessary stress of reconciling reality with genesis, because you are only succeeding in making any attempt appear ad-hoc, unreasonable, and false. In other-words you are doing more harm to the faith than you are doing good.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
Aloysium
Guest
Much unnecessary stress lies in maintaining the unconscious suspension of disbelief that is necessary for one to think that we came to be through the mechanisms described by evolutionary theory. The depth of meaning to Genesis runs far deeper than its historical representation of our beginnings, which like the others requires the grace of the Holy Spirit to understand.
R
rossum
Guest
That is not a new species from nothing; it is a new member of an existing species. We already know how existing species produce new members. Not a good answer, I’m afraid.
rossum
rossum
E
edwest211
Guest
I don’t think so. Evolution is a non-issue for most people.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I agree…
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Accept for those who struggle with their faith and have the misfortune of coming across edwest and buffalo whom would like us to think that the natural theory of Evolution contradicts our faith.
A
Aloysium
Guest
We are each of us a new creation as an expression of one humanity - a real kind of being capable of self knowledge and of meeting its Creator face to face.
Last edited:
- Status