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.
Ha, trying the ol’ it is all evolution so therefore macro is true. Not. Nice try though…
So, you are trying to deny the existence of the marbled crayfish? That is an actual observed example of the evolution of a new species of crayfish. A new species. That is macroevolution by the standard scientific definition.

Macroevolution happens. It has been observed. The mutation that caused the instance of macroevolution has been found.

Ignoring evidence does not make that evidence disappear.

rossum
 
An interpretation of the facts does not constitute evidence.
In terms of science, the facts are the evidence. The interpretation of the facts is initially a hypothesis, and if the hypothesis is confirmed it becomes a theory.

Both Einstein and Newton interpreted the facts, they came up with their hypotheses which were confirmed and both became theories. Einstein had more, and more accurate, facts to go on so his hypothesis was superior.

rossum
 
So, you are trying to deny the existence of the marbled crayfish?
What??? Never said that. I said it is an example of a loss of function once had. This “species” will go extinct. The others will not.
 
You are correct. But what does that have to do with evolution? Natural selection is not “blind unguided chance”. Your point is irrelevant in this thread on evolution.

rossum
Natural selection is teleological? When did that change?
 
What??? Never said that. I said it is an example of a loss of function once had. This “species” will go extinct. The others will not.
We have a new species, so we have an example of macroevolution.

A lot of species go extinct. In time all species will go extinct. Seen any live trilobites recently?

You are throwing up irrelevancies to try to cover up the fact that macroevolution has been observed. Or are you seriously claiming that T. rex was not a species because it has gone extinct?

Similarly with your “loss of function” irrelevancy. Cave fish, which have lost the function of sight, are still perfectly good species. There is no requirement for all functions to be retained in a new species.

Macroevolution happens, buffalo.

rossum
 
Natural selection is teleological? When did that change?
Natural selection is not chance. Is it chance that an animal with a mutation that confers resistance to a disease does not contract that disease, while animals without the mutation do contract the disease?

Nothing teleological there.

rossum
 
The facts are basically that there exists a crayfish with triple X chromosomes that produces clones of itself.

Your interpretation is that it exists as a new species, thereby proving evolution to be true - change and the growing complexity we see in nature the result of random genetic changes. Since the concept of species is a component of the theory, it really can’t be used as part of the proof. What you are asserting is an interpretation of the facts.

Another interpretation is that a kind of being was brought into existence utilizing the information that had been previously created. This would include matter itself, what we understand as the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. These come together in the cell, which is the physical building block of the organism, and in multicellular living forms is specialized into tissues, coming together as organ systems, working in harmony within that individual being, a unity of being in itself. The first being of its kind passed on to its offspring the capacity for diversity, to creatively be manifested in different forms and allowing it to participate more fully in its environment. Again what was created was a kind of thing in an individual creature that reproduces it’s own kind.

Because of original sin, creation fell. We are made of the stuff that is the universe, physically in the form of atoms, molecules, cells and multicellular forms, and psychologically in the form of perception, emotions, thought and action. We share in the attributes that are present in animals, although we are not instinctively bound in our knowledge and actions. We are in a sense the means by which the universe is able to relate to itself and the Source of our being. I believe that when we fell in one man, it was not only all mankind, but all of it. This world, from its beginning to its end, arose from that “eternal” state, ontologically preceding the existence of this universe. Time itself is a journey to reconciliation and ultimate communion with the Ground of its being - communion within the Trinity, in and through jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God.

Under my frame of reference, the marbled crayfish exhibits the effects of death’s presence in this world. Through the inherent properties of matter, there was a glitch affecting information contained in the cell from which it developed. This random event is chaotic to the underlying information and typifies how devolution works. In time, unprotected from the benefits provided by sexual reproduction to multicellular organisms, the ongoing impact of random mutations will kill off the eventual offspring. Natural selection at work, not creative, but destructive.

Same scientific data, a totally different picture, as much science as is evolution. One might say it is evolution turned upside down.
 
Last edited:
The facts are basically that there exists a crayfish with triple X chromosomes that produces clones of itself
And that crayfish is incapable of interbreeding with other crayfish. That reproductive isolation is part of the definition of a biological species. Hence that crayfish constitutes a new species. The formation of a new species is, by definition, macroevolution.
Your interpretation is that it exists as a new species, thereby proving evolution to be true
Not “interpretation”. It conforms to the scientific definition of a biological species. Darwin’s book was called “On the Origon of Species”. This is an example of just that: the origin of a new species.
Since the concept of species is a component of the theory, it really can’t be used as part of the proof.
The word ‘species’ long predates Darwin. He incorporated it into his theory as a useful concept that already existed. In scientific terms it goes back as far as Linnaeus. By your line of argument here, physicists are unable to use the concept of gravity to prove the theory of gravity because it is a component of the theory. That is obviously a ridiculous argument. You can do better than that, Aloysium.

rossum
 
Cave fish, which have lost the function of sight, are still perfectly good species.
What happens when the cave collapses?

Please share your understanding of macro-evolution and micro-evolution. and don’t tell me it’s a matter of degree.
 
And that crayfish is incapable of interbreeding with other crayfish. That reproductive isolation is part of the definition of a biological species. Hence that crayfish constitutes a new species. The formation of a new species is, by definition, macroevolution.
Yes, it lost a function it once had. We name it a new species.

We could agree if you define macro-evolution as “loss of function”.
 
No. I read a lot of science. In the case of Einstein, I’ve looked over his work and the unfinished “Unified Field Theory” has been my primary interest. I’ve never read about any theories involving the universe.
 
No. I read a lot of science. In the case of Einstein, I’ve looked over his work and the unfinished “Unified Field Theory” has been my primary interest. I’ve never read about any theories involving the universe.
Einstein did not like a universe with a beginning. He was trying to prove an eternal universe. When Hubble showed an expanding universe it was really big trouble for the eternal universe proponents.
 
The word ‘species’ long predates Darwin.
And, it was then used as part of his theory, which changes its meaning.

We all have a sense of what species means. A cat, a dog, a human being all existing as individual beings are expressions, manifestations, examples of their species, something we intuit, but may find it difficult to describe. To me it represents the soul of a thing, that which makes it what it is. Having the same soul would not imply that all members are identical. As we see in nature there is much diversity in physical form related to built-in genetic and epigenetic processes. Personalities are also seen to differ.

Beyond this world, St Thomas’ view was that, although there are different classes of angels each angel is a species in himself.

The term species has various meanings, which today’s science depend on the the field of study that is using the concept. I think it is probably best described as a specific gene pool, which covers both the genetic and phenotypic similarities between members and has some explanation as to why different species cannot produce viable offspring.

I would like to use the word species rather than kind, but that would make things more confusing to the reader than my posts are already, since I would mean it more in the traditional sense rather than what is currently in scientific vogue.
 
Last edited:
What happens when the cave collapses?
Odds are that it’ll be 1 of 3 options.
  1. The Cave’s collapse kills the ecosystem amd they die.
  2. The Cave’s collapse still leaves areas inhabitable and they continue on in a smaller area.
  3. The cave’s collapse introduces them to a whole new ecosystem with light and lacking the now-advantage of sught, the fish are easy prey. Or some survive in whatever new birch there is.
What do you think wouod happen when the cave collapses?
 
Please share your understanding of macro-evolution and micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is genetic change that does not affect breeding with other members of the same species. Blue eyes or altitude adaptations in humans for example.

Macro-evolution is genetic change which has a significant impact on interbreeding with the unaffected population. For example, lions and tigers can only interbreed with 50% success – males are infertile. The marbled crayfish has a 0% interbreeding success rate with its ancestor species.
NS has foresight? Is Guided? not chance?
Natural selection has no foresight, it can only work on the mutations that are present here and now in the current environment.

Guided selection is artificial selection, not natural selection.

An eagle chick has a mutation which makes it blind. Is it “chance” that that chick starves to death because it is unable to hunt? Is it chance that that mutation is not passed on because the chick died before it found a mate? It is not chance that natural selection weeds out deleterious mutations and spreads copies of beneficial ones.
We could agree if you define macro-evolution as “loss of function”.
Macro-evolution is both a gain in function and a loss in function. There is a gain of the ability to breed within the new species. There is a loss, in whole or in part, of the ability to interbreed with the original species from which it descended.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top