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

[Richca]

Richca:

Yes, it’s chance if we call the mutation a random chance like event.

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.

I understand. But I call what you call ‘natural selection’ the mutation itself which we are calling a random chance like event. In my view, the ‘selection process’ does not exist. What exists are simply the causes and I’m reluctant to call them a ‘selection process’ as if these natural causes that are without intelligence know what they are doing. I prefer to simply call them natural causes of nature. Now, if you agree that we can identify the causes of what your calling the ‘selection process’ than we can agree on something here, namely, the causes such as what I’ve mentioned to Techno a few posts back. Although, you may call them ‘selection causes’ but I prefer to call them ‘natural causes’. Accordingly, if by ‘natural selection’ you mean the natural causes involved than we are in a sense talking about the same thing. But, as I mentioned in my last post to Techno, I prefer to not use the phrase ‘natural selection’ because to me it is to general, vague, confusing, ghostlike, and misleading in a certain sense. I don’t see these natural causes intentionally as it were ‘selecting’. The whole of animate irrational nature acts and responds to the environment by instinct.

 

[rossum]

The science you are referencing is producing papers that are limited in scope. Do you support this?

The Bible is limited in scope, it tells us nothing about the grammar of the Serbo-Croat language. Does every book written have to be like the Encyclopaedia Britannica and cover everything about every subject?

Science deals with the material. It does not deal with the actions of Vishnu or the other gods. Do you want scientists to include Amaterasu in every science paper they write?

A paper dealing with a specific subject, as do most science papers, only has to deal with that specific subject.

Aquinas does not deal with kangaroos or America in his Summa so it is limited in scope. Do you support this?

rossum

 

[edwest]

Why do you post about this topic?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Show me your source of “numbers stacked against” some critical aspect of evolution and I will show you how it is bogus.

We are not playing that game. You made the claim, back it.

Edwest made the claim:

Blind unguided chance has the numbers stacked against it.

So, back that up.

 

[buffalo]

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.

This is your post - 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.

Back it up

 

[Richca]

Yes, the word ‘species’ was used by Plato in his doctrine of the Ideas or Forms which are universals. Aristotle is called the father of the science of taxonomy. He goes into this in a quite a detailed manner and it is a very useful study but not an easy study. In fact, yesterday I was reading over some of what is involved here and it is complicated but very logical. To see what I mean, one can look at this link:

https://icucourses.com/pages/032-02-the-universal-and-the-predicables

Porphyry and Boethius, to name a few, followed with commentaries on Aristotle’s taxonomy and categories and of course the scholastic theologians followed them.

The five predicables or universals and their understanding are very important too. These are genus, species, difference, proper, and accident. Aristotle’s ten categories of being also factor in. One is simply not going to comprehend or understand all this overnight so to speak unless one is a genius maybe. It involves lots of deep study and a trusted teacher like Aquinas.

From what I was reading yesterday and I’m certainly simplifying this is that the species is taken from the genus and specific difference, For example, man is defined as a rational animal. Animal is the genus and rational is the specific difference and this is the definition of man. The definition of a species refers to its essence or the common nature that individuals of the species share.

According to the Aristotlelian/Thomistic hylemorphic structure of this corporeal/material world and all its variety of creatures and substances, the form or more specifically the substantial form is the determining principle of the species of a thing or the kind of thing it is and which determines the matter (the undetermined principle of the thing) or kind of body or organization of the matter including DNA that the thing has. The matter or ‘kind/organization’ of matter is for the form and not the form for the matter for created matter is formless and pure potentiality which is why the form is the form or what is called the act of matter for forms are acts.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

He’s extrapolating this stuff to make us believe it can do more than it really can.

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.

Techno2000:

He’s extrapolating this stuff to make us believe it can do more than it really can.

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.

Exactly

 

[Techno2000]

They expect people to believe there was some natural - non-God - force involved.

It’s all smoke and mirrors plus… the Emperor’s New Clothes .

 

[edwest]

But… but… we’re told it’s science. Very important science. I mean why do we have 5K posts on something like this? It’s advertising a product. A product called evolution. Buy it. Swallow it.

 

[Wozza]

What. A . Waste. Of. Time.

So many posts. So much nonsense. When will it end…I’m going to put this in upper case:

THIS IS AN EMBARRASMENT TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Speaking as an atheist, please stop it now.

 

[edwest]

Not until we get to infinity ;

 

[Aloysium]

That a human mind can come up with atheism is an embarrassment to reason.

 

[Techno2000]

But… but… we’re told it’s science. Very important science. I mean why do we have 5K posts on something like this? It’s advertising a product. A product called evolution. Buy it. Swallow it.

Evolution sounds like a New Age book I read one time, A Course in Miracles.At first it sounded like it was saying lot, but in the end, it wasn’t saying anything at all.

 

[Wozza]

That a human mind can come up with atheism is an embarrassment to reason.

It’s wierd that you think that someone came up with the idea of atheism. Really strange.

 

[buffalo]

THIS IS AN EMBARRASMENT TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Why is this important to you?

 

[edwest]

Psalm 14:1

New International Version
For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

New Living Translation
For the choir director: A psalm of David. Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

English Standard Version
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

 

[Edgar]

You do not get to define what macroevolution is. The marbled crayfish is an example of macroevolution.

A splendid example of Darwinist fantasy and wishful thinking.

“Words can mean whatever I want them to mean” - from Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

That a human mind can come up with atheism is an embarrassment to reason.

It’s wierd that you think that someone came up with the idea of atheism. Really strange.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

There are intelligent atheist philosophers; Russell and Sartre come to mind. I’m talking however about individuals.

We all have a relationship with Reality, whose depths reason fathoms. In the end most will rejoice in the Truth, so long sought; that one ran from it and may have stooped to mock it, that will be embarassing.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Aloysium:

That a human mind can come up with atheism is an embarrassment to reason.

It’s wierd that you think that someone came up with the idea of atheism. Really strange.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

Do you know which God I don’t believe in? The God of whoever I am talking to at any given moment (yours is certainly different to most others on this forum). If no-one believed in gods then there would be no atheists. For there would be nothing to disbelieve.

So no-one came up with the idea of atheism. You need a concept of a god first. What happened was there someone who said: ‘Hey, a god controls all this and I know because X, Y and Z’. He was the first theist. And someone else said: ‘that makes no sense to me’. And he was the first atheist.

It’s not an idea that can stand on its own. That one can ‘come up with’ in isolation. It’s a reaction to other people’s ideas.

 

[Aloysium]

This sounds like something I wrote and got blasted for some five years back, that atheism is an act of saying no to the idea of God. Maybe it isn’t as you say, an idea as much as it is an act of will, not so much rejecting God Himself, but rather the probability of God, and for sure other people’s words as they are understood. I’m sure the next atheist I encounter will have a different version of what the label means to them.