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.
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here is an area of disagreement. I would not consider the loss of function once had, to be replaced by the ability to breed among the loss of function descendants to be a gain.
 
rossum said:
It is not chance that natural selection weeds out deleterious mutations and spreads copies of beneficial ones.
Click to expand...
That’s too vague.What exactly cause this to happen, and how long does it take?
 
Last edited:
The answer is: it takes however long it takes. We’ll just ignore the part about the ecosystem which would need to “adapt” too.

New species: But Dad, I’m hungry now!

Dad: Look kid. I know it don’t make no sense but we gotta wait millions uh years…
 
Techno2000 said:
That’s too vague.What exactly cause this to happen, and how long does it take?
Click to expand...
It is caused by differential rates of reproductive success, and the time it takes depends on the size of the differential. A deleterious mutation that kills the embryo before birth/hatching is eliminated very quickly – a zero reproduction rate. A mutation that reduces the reproduction rate by a small amount is eliminated slowly.

Similarly for beneficial mutations. The bigger the increase in the reproduction rate the quicker copies of the mutation will spread through the population.

rossum
 
rossum said:
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?

rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s chance if we call the mutation a random chance like event. The mutation is the reason why the animal with the mutation doesn’t contract the disease and die while the others without the mutation die. That the animal with the mutation survives is by chance if we call the mutation a random chance like event. Essentially, your calling ‘natural selection’ here that the animal with the mutation survives. But, again, the cause of its survival is the mutation produced from what we are calling a random chance like event. So, essentially, this idea of natural selection boils down to the mutation. But the mutation can’t be called a random event and a natural selection at the same time, its contradictory.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
rossum:
It is not chance that natural selection weeds out deleterious mutations and spreads copies of beneficial ones.
Click to expand...
That’s too vague.What exactly cause this to happen, and how long does it take?
Click to expand...
Yes your right. Your asking the correct correction as to the cause or causes. The idea of ‘natural selection’ means nothing more than that an organism survives or doesn’t survive but it really doesn’t tell us the causes why it survives or not. We can assign causes such as possible beneficial or deleterious gene mutations gained or lost and external environmental factors such as the loss of habitat, predators, climate changes, etc., which external causes can also apparently trigger the manifestation of certain genes in various organisms beneficial to its survival from what I’ve been reading here.
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
rossum:
It is not chance that natural selection weeds out deleterious mutations and spreads copies of beneficial ones.
Click to expand...
That’s too vague.What exactly cause this to happen, and how long does it take?
Click to expand...
Yes your right. Your asking the correct correction as to the cause or causes. The idea of ‘natural selection’ means nothing more than that an organism survives or doesn’t survive but it really doesn’t tell us the causes why it survives or not. We can assign causes such as possible beneficial or deleterious gene mutations gained or lost and external environmental factors such as the loss of habitat, predators, climate changes, etc., which external causes can apparently trigger the manifestation of certain genes in an organism from what I’ve been reading here.
Click to expand...
He’s extrapolating this stuff to make us believe it can do more than it really can.
 
Richca said:
Yes your right. Your asking the correct correction as to the cause or causes.
Click to expand...
Materialistic science has eliminated the formal and final causes from its inquiry. Methodological naturalism holds that the material is all there is. That is why it is deficient method of inquiry. It has painted itself into a corner.

The issue is, they sold this to the public and academia very well through propaganda. It is a shame.
 
Techno2000 said:
He’s extrapolating this stuff to make us believe it can do more than it really can.
Click to expand...
I’ve been trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint what exactly is meant by this idea of ‘natural selection’ because it is talked about as if it is something in nature, a principle, process, or being of some kind but which appears to me to be ghost-like. It seems to me then, that what it refers to are simply the natural causes such as what I mentioned in my last post that may be beneficial or deleterious to an organism’s survival and than which are labeled ‘natural selection’. Although, random mutations can hardly be called selected. I personally have no need of introducing this idea of ‘natural selection’ in my understanding of the natural world which in my opinion is a general, vague, confusing, and ghostlike notion invented by Darwin’s understanding of the natural world. What is important is identifying the causes and it is as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
Yes, it’s chance if we call the mutation a random chance like event.
Click to expand...
That was not what I said. I said that natural selection is not chance.

Mutations are indeed chance, and they form the (name removed by moderator)ut to natural selection. The selection process itself is not chance.
That the animal with the mutation survives is by chance if we call the mutation a random chance like event.
Click to expand...
Given the presence of the mutation, then survival is not chance. Animals without the mutation die, those with it do not. Simple observation shows that individuals in a species are not all identical. All organisms have a number of mutation, some passed on by their parents and some newly appearing in the individual. Natural selection sorts through that pool of variation, reducing deleterious variations, increasing beneficial variations and ignoring neutral variations.

A new mutation might be by chance. Mutations inherited from parents, like blue eyes, are no longer chance because they have survived one or more rounds of natural selection. Every individual with that mutation in your line of ancestors succeeded in reproducing.
Essentially, your calling ‘natural selection’ here that the animal with the mutation survives.
Click to expand...
Some mutations are never passed on, the individual dies before sexual maturity or else is infertile. Other mutation may change the chances of having fertile offspring and will increase or decrease as the chances of fertile offspring increase increase or decrease. Resistance to an endemic disease obviously increase the chance of fertile offspring.

After the selection process the mutations are no longer random. Some have disappeared, some have increased, some are unchanged and some have decreased. What was initially random is no longer so. Then in the next generation the mutations run through selection again with further increases and decreases. After many generations of selection the surviving mutations cannot be described as random.

rossum
 
Things just happen. They, meaning scientists, don’t know how. They expect people to believe there was some natural - non-God - force involved. There are two birds in the United States that look identical but can’t breed. That explains nothing. They are located on opposite coasts. So what’s being proposed here are a series of guesses that must, in all cases, have materialist explanations. Why some post here is a partial mystery.

God does not exist in science. Miracles, which happen today, can be ignored. For Catholics, they cannot be.
 
buffalo said:
Methodological naturalism holds that the material is all there is.
Click to expand...
How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist, there is more to the world than the purely material.

I also suspect that you are confusing methodological naturalism/materialism with philosophical naturalism/materialism.

Methodological materialism says that you do not have to sacrifice a chicken to make a light switch work. Material things work in material ways and can be studied in material ways, without having to sacrifice chickens.

Philosophical materialism asserts that the material: space, time, energy, matter, is all that exists.

rossum
 
It doesn’t matter what you believe. The question is: why do mutations happen at all? What is the mechanism involved? And millions of years is not an explanation. It’s a way of saying that this amount of time was needed for man to supposedly go from almost nothing to modern men. It’s mostly guesswork followed by more guesswork to prop up a philosophy.

On the Catholic side, God actually did things. Nature, as the word is used by some here, exists but God/gods don’t.
 
rossum said:
How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist, there is more to the world than the purely material.
Click to expand...
The science you are referencing is producing papers that are limited in scope. Do you support this?
 
edwest said:
Blind unguided chance has the numbers stacked against it.
Click to expand...
Any report you have every seen that purports to offer a numeric calculation of the odds of some critical stage of evolution working is pure junk. The “numbers” say nothing about those odds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top