You are no more a Catholic than am I.
What can we see right now evolving into a new species ?
I can’t disagree with you here, but I do prefer a story with a different time-line while equally fitting revealed truth.
“Evolution” must be the weirdest word. I pretend to know what people are talking about, but I really don’t understand.
Darwin actually did not use the word in his original text, referring instead to “transmutations”. This would make more sense since the term evolution usually implies a progression in complexity, some sort of growth and Darwinism resting on a material foundation, proposes no mechanism in nature to explain why this fact, clear to any observer, must be so. I can’t grasp how intelligent people can consider that mere happenstance is a sufficient explanation as to how there would have once been dirt, followed by microbes, then bugs and plants, and now us, sitting here at our computers.
The other problem I have with the concept has to do with what would be evolving. We’ve got a collection of atoms, arranged into molecules, and at some point they spontaneously organize themselves into different shapes such that they begin to interact to form proteins, which in turn form the structure and processes that constitute a cell. Really?! And, a particular bunch that codes for the proteins is acted upon serendipitously by other complex molecules to produce other molecules identical to themselves. Let’s ignore the bizarreness, in its inadequacy, of this belief; the question remains for me, what is it that would be evolving. Clearly it is not the first molecule. I suppose it would have to be the earth, with some inherent will that would have fashioned all this from itself. Pantheism makes more sense than evolutionary theory.
What is also obvious is that individual creatures exist in their own right. It’s easy for those with cats, or dogs or horses to know this. Many people even hope to be reunited with their pets in heaven. The story of evolution is nowhere even close to addressing this reality, let alone all that is involved in the simplest human activity, the daily trip to work or to the market. Pretty much all reality disappears once the filter of evolutionary theory is applied to an understanding of life. Life itself is intellectually murdered, transformed into dusty chemicals.
Isolated populations of lizards on small islands are one example. IIRC some studies have been done on the Dalmatian islands. Often, islands are good for isolating small populations which can result in speciation. Small rodents are another example as well as lizards.
Horses and donkeys are well along the path to separation: they are close enough to still produce live offspring: mules, but they are far apart enough that those offspring are overwhelmingly infertile.
Lions and tigers are also in the process of separation, though there it has not gone as far. They produce live offspring: ligers and tigons, where the males are infertile and the females are fertile.
I thought evolution was supposed to take millions of year to happen… not 5 minutes of mating.
The memory means they remember coming across it before. They adapt.
Yes, and what the Royal Society is working on. The modern synthesis is going away.
The definition of species is man made. Genetic mapping is redefining species.
It becomes evolutionism, scientism or materialism. They did a good job selling their religion to the masses. They are the one’s with the blind faith they often accuse believers of having.
Yes, to conserve themselves.
As a storyteller myself, I totally get it. But it would not be very useful as a story-telling method because it is inconsistent. I mean I can’t write a story and change some aspect later on and do a - prepare for fancy term - deus ex machina.
Definition: “a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.” Conjecture is conjecture. Readers prefer consistency and plausibility.
As I understand it, species refers to a group of similar individual organisms capable of exchanging genes and breeding. I suppose the similarity that is being looked at now has more to do with the genotype than the phenotype. However, I am wondering if there is something more to the concept of species than the code present within each cell that determines each specific creature’s attributes. There seems to be a "catness” or "dogness” that is the key feature that pulls the myriad of cells, organised into organ systems, together into one’s pet. I suppose this doesn’t really become an issue until we get to human beings.
The sort of definition you are using, with its material basis, might imply that someone with Down’s or Turner’s syndrome might not qualify as human. Now a case could be made that the person’s genetic make up is a variation of normal. The fact that they were born from human parents would bolster the obvious case that they are. The reality is that what is a human being goes beyond what we define as such. Who we are as a species is not restricted to the physical and what we imagine ourselves to be.
In terms of the animal kingdom, it may be that there are no true species outside our classification systems. I think there are. However, just as we can do a census that describes a population in terms of age groups, economic status or professions, that provides no real meaning as to the individual reality of the person’s involved, biological taxonomy barely skims the surface of what constitutes living creatures.
At best, microevolution is “sub-species” evolution, but we have a great deal of evidence for “macro-evolution”, that is populations gaining sufficient genetic and reproductive distance that speciation occurs. We also have a growing body of molecular data that shows how extant life falls into an evolutionary tree, confirming the core Darwinian idea of a common ancestor.
As to “true”, well, in science, everything is provisionally true, but so far as a theory can be confirmed, evolutionary biology has been.
We now understand there are 500 or so conserved genes in most life forms. From these 500 “building blocks” just about every living thing can come from. They are packed with instruction sets.
One has to answer the challenge who added the information?
Now we’re getting somewhere. And the unanswered questions don’t seem to matter. DNA has two codes? A recent discovery. That fact alone diminishes “evolution” by orders of magnitude. Codes come from an intelligence, not rocks and water.
You forgot that they can also come from Mutations
With respect to DNA and the rest of the complex molecular machinery that supports the growth and reproduction of the cell and the overall anatomy and physiology of the organism in its capacity to develop and maintain itself, to relate to others in its environment and ultimately to mate, we are talking about bricks and mortar, when life is all about homes.
Science does not deal with truth, but rather facts, which its theories determine.
As to ancestry, there is no way of scientifically knowing whether or not scripture is true in its claim that Adam had no ancestors. Save for the very first person, human beings come from human beings, not from animals and not from DNA. There is no common ancestry to all life although it may be argued that life may have utilized previously created complex molecules in the formation of each individual species.
But then everything that makes up our physical form was part of some other creature, its body denatured and incorporated into our own.
Apparently everything is matter of time and size of population and how fast genetic material optimally changes (very fast change kill the species and very slow change doesn’t give good benefit). You have to wait very long, 1000,000 to 100,000 years, to see significant changes in a population with size of 1000,000 to 1000,000,000. These are just rough number which came to my mind from what I have read about human evolution long time ago.