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.
The point Buffalo was making had to do with the science
Actually I think the point Buffalo was making drew not on the science but on a misreported version of the science. When challenged with information from the actual paper concerned, Buffalo invited us to take it up with the Daily Mail.

Buffalo is perhaps less well acquainted with the editorial standards of the Daily Mail than some others of us.
 
My reading of the article is not so much that they misrepresented the study’s findings, but that they were interpreted utilizing the theory of intelligent design as the framework. That the authors, for whatever motivations, about which I should not have opined, disagree with how their paper was presented, does not impact on the point that there are other ways to organize the data.

Appeals to authority to my mind are valuable as an alert that there might be more to a matter of importance than one may have considered. The ultimate arbiter is one’s reason, which like conscience in decision making, is our connection to Truth.
 
Last edited:
The point Buffalo was making had to do with the science, not the temerity of individuals who must conform to the secular creed in order to be taken seriously. Of course they are saying he’s wrong; I would not expect otherwise. Who wants to be flung to the outskirts of science and lose their funding?
This guy has to be very careful. When a paper is written that goes against evolution, the pushback is intense.

They always give a hat tip to evolution. As the science aggregates quite a different picture becomes evident.
 
Actually I think the point Buffalo was making drew not on the science but on a misreported version of the science. When challenged with information from the actual paper concerned, Buffalo invited us to take it up with the Daily Mail.

Buffalo is perhaps less well acquainted with the editorial standards of the Daily Mail than some others of us.
You can read the paper yourself.
 
So what you’re saying is that you have a better understanding of the research from reading than the researchers who did it in addition to knowing better than the researchers what they meant by the “galaxies” analogy and other things? I just want to make sure I’ve got that right.
 
So what you’re saying is that you have a better understanding of the research from reading than the researchers who did it in addition to knowing better than the researchers what they meant by the “galaxies” analogy and other things? I just want to make sure I’ve got that right.
After reading the paper and their interview comments what is your takeaway?
 
My recollection is that the authors found that many of today’s species, including ours, experienced a time of very small population size some 200,000 years ago.
 
Speaking of contradictions … I wonder how evolution produced homosexuality
See Why Gays don’t go Extinct. Basically there is a gene combination that tends to cause homosexuality in men, while in women that same combination causes them to have more children than average. So less children from the gay men in the family is offset by more children from the female members of the family. Hence those genes persist as does male homosexuality.

rossum
 
My recollection is that the authors found that many of today’s species, including ours, experienced a time of very small population size some 200,000 years ago.
Not quite. Other species equivalent of Mitochondrial Eve was between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago for 80% of extant species. There may or may not have been a population bottleneck at that time. For mEves we only look at female descent, so any women who has only sons eliminates herself from the succession. That does not require a population bottleneck.

rossum
 
You’ll know the science much better than I do, but I thought the paper somehow calculated from Y chromosome as well as mitochondrial dna to arrive at its bottleneck theory.
 
I’ll get back to my Anglo-Saxon studies.
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
😃

rossum
 
Let’s look at some of the investigators conclusions:
ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago

We’re also surprisingly similar to not just every other human, but every other species.

At least for mitochondrial DNA, humans turn out to be low to average in genetic diversity.
What we find in the vast variety of animals today is great phenotypic variety, reflected in their nuclear DNA. At the same time the mitochondrial DNA is surprising similar.

One conclusion is that what drives the “mutations” in the genetic code that determines the physical make up of the organism is not present in mitochondrial DNA. As to why this is, let’s go back to a previous post:
Where do you think that mutations occur? In a fully grown organism? So that it causes ‘a rearrangement of existing elements’?

It happens generally when the cell is dividing after conception. That is the only time a mutation can be passed on. Else if the mutation occurs in the testes or ovaries before conception.

So the mutation (which can itself be an addition to the genome) causes either a rearrangement of the organisms make-up, or it deletes something (a tail gets shorter) or it adds something (a tusk gets longer). In the case of something being added, something new is being created that would not have been created otherwise.
There are recombinations that occur by epigenetic factors within the cells. These factors, which are responsible for the construction of the body, utilizing the code that is DNA, include those involved in the triggering adaptive reactions within the organism resulting from its involvement with its environment. The NASA twin study points to these differences, which can be quite significant as a result of space travel. They not only influence the immediate expression of the creature’s DNA, which does not apparently change, but also affect its offspring. Since a woman is born with all the eggs that could potentially lead to children, but a man continuously produces sperm, the sort of diversity that is involved in the capacity to best participate in one’s environment, adaptation, would be passed on by the male. I believe that it is what has been found. This all is built into what is a living being, having a given physical nature.

We interpret the science through the lens of what we consider to be real. Some of us try to think, “How would Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, through whom all this was brought into existence, how would He say this universe was created?” Others wonder as did the author of the original paper:
If a Martian landed on Earth and met a flock of pigeons and a crowd of humans . . .
 
Last edited:
On the topic of Evolution vs Genesis creation in the Bible.
How do you square these two.

If you believe in Evolution then Genesis account of Adam and Eve and original sin is lost. If there is no original sin then why would Jesus come down to die of humanity’s sin.

If you believe in the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis then the rest of the Bible makes sense. In fact Jesus himself refers to Genesis in the new testament.

Can someone pls explain how Evolution is compatible with Bible ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top