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


#6106

So i can take this as your conspiracy theory in full, yes? It’s well written, i’ll give you that.


#6107

Where did the other organisms come from?


#6108

They were the population of chemotrophs. Haven’t you been paying attention? We started with 100% chemotrophs, and then some evolved to be able to get at the chemicals inside other chemotrophs.

rossum


#6109

You are making up all this stuff as you go along…right, rossum ?


#6110

I have no idea what you are talking about, and evidently this is mutual.


#6111

Wrong Techno 2000.

rossum


#6112

No, it’s exactly the answer I’d have given.

The same organism drifts into different environments. Due to these differences, there are different selective pressures. They evolve in response to those pressures.

The first apparent changes are so incrementally small that you’d still consider the different groups as different variations of the same species.
Then the changes become more apparent and you’d then consider them different sub-species of the same species.
Then the changes become significant enough that they’re considered a different species all together.

All happening over time, in response to the forces within their different environments.

*Worth noting - what most often happens over evolutionary history is that the organism drifts into an environment with so much selective pressure that it’s too much for the organism to slowly overcome. The organism becomes locally extinct in that area.


#6113

You mean it happens so slow I should believe it too.


#6114

You are supposed to believe that we evolved from bacteria because animals in different environments (eg: dogs in a society of apartment dwellers vs those in primitive conquering nations such as Ancient Rome) end up looking and behaving very differently. We know this is the result of built in epigenetic factors related primarily to psychological influences, but the assumption, contrary to what we observe (eg: bacteria keep breeding bacteria and dogs, dogs) is that all this psychophysiological and spiritual complexity arose by happenstance, the activity of molecules and/or life forces alone. Reason dictates otherwise.


#6115

Sorta close.

As it pertains to dogs, it’s why native species of North America have heavy coats and native species of Australia don’t.

One place is cold. One is not.

The still share a common ancestor. Go back far enough and the great grand daddy of a wolf and dingo is the very same dog.


#6116

Believe it or not, there are events in the universe that take longer than your lifetime to unfold.

I take it that you don’t believe mountains arose from plate tectonics? They were simply always there and are thus the same age, despite what their rock layers reveal?

:smirk:


#6117

As someone else stated, the post above is not only hypocritical it also indicates that you really don’t know much of anything about the Dover case or that you just prefer to get a disingenuous dig in. Either way, I will no longer respond directly to your posts as such tactics should be beneath you.


#6118

Tactic #2 :grinning:

We actually had a judge rule in the Dover case on the science and this is acceptable? The search for more should stop? New publications should stop? Nonsense… That isn’t how science is done, right? It was political and simply meant to keep God out of the schools.

The Dover case is passe. We know so much more now.


#6119

We are mostly in agreement of what the earth looked like at the start and Genesis?


#6120

Let me recommend that some read this carefully and not as they misunderstand or pretend it to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District


#6121

We had a judge rule on the law. He was asked to rule if it was legal to teach ID in a science class in a public school.

The judge specifically said that he did not rule on whether ID was true or not:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Source: Decision of the Court

It is noteworthy that no ID people have since tried to raise a similar court case. They were badly defeated, and are sensible enough not to want to be defeated again.

rossum


#6122

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Now go back a billion years, what environmental changes caused limbs, vertebra and eyes to evolve over the next few hundred million years?


#6123

These aren’t huge mysteries, man.

If you seriously want to know, just Google it. There are volumes and volumes written about each of those subjects by trained people.


#6124

Whatever environmental change came along it always worked hand in hand, in perfect harmony with random mutations to produce the best possible outcome.That’s the Miracle of Hot and Cold weather. :roll_eyes:


#6125

Techno. You will only get one type of answer here forever. As in, forever. A few people, like buffalo, will provide you with other information.


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.