If the question was “Why is evolution important?”, I answered it directly. You just don’t like the answer.
I’ve seen this before. ‘Evolution is the best explanation to the question of “How did I get here?” so far running.’
From reading posts here and from other sources, reasonable doubt has developed. In other words, Intelligent Design is the better answer but that is rejected out of hand by most here.
Reasonable doubt didn’t develop, it’s always been there. Note that it’s referred to as the Theory of Evolution rather than the Law of Evolution.
The reason the TOE is rationally superior to ID is because it doesn’t require supernatural “poof”-ing as a fundamental component.
Take the eye. Lots of folks in the ID camp insist that something like an eye is too complex to progressively evolve.
However, the folks that adhere to the TOE not only think it can evolve, they’re also capable of identifying currently extant species that demonstrate different evolutionary spots in the development of sight.
“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Design is vastly more used in science.
Absolutely. That is micro-evolution aka adaptation.
Does evolution explain how the universe came into being, does it explain how our planet and sun were created?
The only satisfactory answer to these questions is God.
Wrong. And there lies a big problem. If life is front loaded with the necessary information, then no supernatural intervention is needed.
That’s like asking “does gravity explain how trees convert sunlight into energy?” Its not really relevant.
Ironically gravity and physics do actually explain where the sun and planets come from.
Separate lane. It’s important to understand what evolution is trying to explain and also what it’s NOT trying to explain.
For the universe in general, see an astrophysicist. The best running theory there is the Big Bang.
Cool. Small question.
If evolution doesn’t occur, why aren’t there any fossils of people? Or of the other 99.9% of currently extant species?
The answer is that life was and is “front-loaded” with the ability to evolve.
You’re drawing an inference from the analogy, not from the study. In terms of the science, there is nothing showing that vertical development of species isn’t present.
Slight correction - The answer is that life was and is “front-loaded” with the ability to adapt
Draw a circle around common descent lines. We define species as those that can no longer reproduce with each other. They would still be in that circle. The entirety of the circle limits the extent of the original archetype.
I am getting more confident that our continuing study of genetics and epigenetics will help us more accurately show us this archetype. I submit these archetypes will be very far apart.
And where is there any evidence whatsoever for some sort of magical wall that separates micro from macro, and why is it that geneticists are overwhelming certain that there isn’t one? In physical anthropology, we study their basic understandings because we use them, so I’m quite “sensitive” when some come around and try to twist genetics to their own liking.
Never mind as this has been hashed and rehashed plus more. So, I’ll stick with “material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects”, and none of this negates Divine creation in any way.
It’s like one researcher said, namely that if we find one set of rabbit fossils during the Cambrian Explosion, it’s “back to the drawing board”.
And let just add that the Creation accounts simply do not match what we now know about the early days of Earth, plus the use of “yom” (day) in this context could only mean an actual day since God rested on the 7th day, which is Shabbat-- namely a single day of the week.
Where some theologians come in on this is that the Creation accounts probably were taken from a much lengthier and earlier Babylonian epic but then reworked to reflect Jewish mores. Societies throughout the world have done this going back as far as we can take it. Thus, the importance of the Creation narrative is not “Did this really happen?”, as if it’s actual history, but more “What is the author(s) really telling us?” in terms of basic Jewish morals and values. It’s this latter point that’s truly important within our Catholic faith.
BTW, the very first time I ran across the basic understanding that the ToE can be accepted within Christianity was from a Catholic priest I ran across back in the early 1960’s. His response confused me since I was taught in my Protestant church that is was “evil”. It took a few years for me to realize that the basic ToE is sound and that it doesn’t negate Church teachings.
I agree that at some point a developing species would no longer be able to reproduce with variants that came before, but that in and of itself is not sufficient evidence to disprove evolution.
It is not magical. It is designed in. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.
Behe’s - Edge of Evolution. A major inferenece is now been confirmed.
The direction of the arrow is devolution. It conforms to the 2nd law. Genetic entropy has to be considered, too. In other words, evolution always has an uphill battle to overcome long odds and laws. Natural processes are subject to the same and they do not overcome it.
Did you actually read your link? It doesn’t say what you think it says.
Which is a recurring theme with your links.