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


#6086

God being Love, It hardly matters one way or the other. What does matter in terms of this conversation is what happened, what it is that God brings into existence. God did give us the capacity to truly become gods in Jesus Christ, meaning that it is He who raises us to heaven. All our efforts in that regard are simply the construction of some Tower of Babel. Otherwise, kinds of being do not transform themselves into others. Matter does not become human


#6087

The more random mutations there are in each generation, must make it more confusing for natural selection to do its work. How does natural selection work out which of the 75 mutations are beneficial; and which are rubbish?
The first 176 steps in the evolution of the eye would have seen negligible improvement in vision. Yet natural selection would have had to detect a 1% improvement each time, Then we need the one percent improvement in the brain and limbs as well, you are asking too much. I would say that is impossible to do without a guiding power.


#6088

I agree. But science is the only thing you’re asked to believe even when it makes outlandish claims. In your well thought out example, one error in the process means an end to the process. Unless at some unknown future date, the alleged process can continue.


#6089

Right, how did it survive while it waited to evolve the ability to use photosynthesis ?


#6090

How would evolution even know the concept of seeing and thinking?


#6091

A very good and direct point. The correct answer is: scientists don’t know. Intelligent Design is the best answer.


#6092

It wouldn’t. The blind watchmaker is not goal oriented yet we’re told that we will end up with a watch or its biological equivalent.


#6093

I’m going to coin a new word… Intelligent Evolution… :roll_eyes:


#6094

How about IDvolution

ID=Intelligently Designed

volution - having a volute or rolled-up form.


#6095

Well, apparently evolution is “All knowing” it can make an organism fit in a few million years. :roll_eyes:


#6096

Threatened? Hardly. Anyone who believes lifeless dirt can naturally produce life is living in a anti-scientific dreamworld.

I believe God created life from inanimatel matter. Are you saying God wasn’t needed for the transition from dust to life?


#6097

You forgot to mention that the “college educated” are the most evo-brainwashed citizens of all.
You also forgot to mention that the vast majority of universities in Western civilzation are hot-beds of atheism and atheist dogma and values.
You also forgot to mention the best scientific explanation for the creation and history of life on earth is highly likey to be not even close to the truth.


#6098

… which is hardly surprising, considering human were created probably no more than 10,00 years ago.


#6099

The first organism “digested” hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide.

Just so we’re on the same page, you’re aware that digestion is nothing more than the process by which you process food for energy, right? It’s simply a series of chemical reactions where food is broken down into baser substances so your various enzymes can process the chemical soup into substances your complex body calls for.

For the most part, you turn your food into sugar. The first life form did the same thing - processed hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide into sugar (If you don’t remember high school chemistry, all sugars are just different combinations of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen).


#6100

Grade schools kids know that one - beneficial mutations promote fitness. Bad mutations do not.
Thus, the critter with the bad mutation is less likely to pass on its genes.

No, you’re assuming too much. The origin of the eye precedes sophisticated limbs. A powerful limb like legs or wings are only useful if you can see where they’re propelling you.

That’s a fine opinion, imo.


#6101

By that standard, the vast, vast majority of scientists are anti-scientific because they think that very thing. But to be clear, life probably popped up in the littorals. Shallow water. Not just dirt.

I’m saying abiogenesis and evolution are a fine way of saying how God created life.

Modern homo sapiens are 200,000 years old. The birth of our genus “homo” happened 2,000,000 years ago. So you can debate the age of “humans” as being between those two numbers, depending on what you mean by the term. But either is certainly much longer ago that the figure you give.

We have actual bones that suggest these dates, btw. They weren’t just made-up in a basement somewhere.


#6102

I’ve come to this conclusion as well. It’s a Sentient Force that molds Creation…

Wait… kinda sounds like God now… :thinking::neutral_face:


#6103

Because once there was a population of chemotrophs, then there was a new ecological space for a population of chemotroph-eaters. Some of the chemotrophs evolved to eat other living organisms.

rossum


#6104

Put simply, natural selection counts the number of grandchildren compared with the average. With more grandchildren there are more copies of your genes in the future population. With fewer grandchildren there are fewer copies of your genes in the future population.

Natural selection deals with many mutations in each organism by averaging out the effect of all each individuals mutations. Remember also, that the majority of mutations are neutral so are ignored by natural selection. It is only the deleterious and beneficial mutations that have an effect.

rossum


#6105

Clearly a meterialistic view fails except for its ardent believers. Let’s consider the camera on a portable device, which is very less complicated than the eye:

image

We see how the standard version of evolution is nonsense, since each component would require a lengthy series of base pairs to carry the information to produce the required protein structure.

image

And we are not talking about everything else that is required to build a functioning camera which provides information to be processed by the cpu, let alone the eye which is an outcropping of the brain. To paraphrase one of your earlier post, just adding 6 zeros to the timeline somehow is supposed to make all this possible.

In the creation of life forms having greater complexity, in terms of what we today think about as matter, we are talking at the very least design. And what has been designed is a kind of thing that over subsequent generations diversifies into Various shapes and sizes, exhibiting a variety of behaviours and capacities, all of which were made possible as a result of a basic form built into the first of their kind.

It would appear that the misunderstanding about how we were created has much to do with how we think of matter, what it is in itself. As we go beyond the mathematical formulae which describes the various interactions that define it, trying to make analogies to what we experience in our daily lives, taking them further than is meant to be, we stray into illusion. Getting close to home, we can consider how that all this is 100% matter - this screen, as it exists as itself as a collection of LED’s and as the retinal cells which release the neurotransmitters, reacting to light and commencing a cascade of neurological events, all made one, by our relational spirit - an observation of an observed event by an observer. One small stroke in a specific parietal area in the brain and these words are gone, replaced by nonsensical squiggles, which a similar event in the occipital will destroy. The physical is but a subset of the metaphysical, information or subroutines necessary for the complete program to function. Beyond the analogy is the person, the reality of our being, able to know and to act because we are in this very moment known as we are brought into existence through an act of Divine will in eternity. Not understanding who we are and our relationship with God, attempting to come to that understanding lacking an appreciation of the fundamental reality of our existence, is how we have come up with the story of evolution.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.