Creation And Science

[Fidei Defensor]

The natural changing of cells in a life time isn't evolution in the form that man came from monkeys, surely? Try us on the whole we won't understand your 4 years of study, truly this thread could go on for 4 years if you like, if phatmass lasts that long. :) And how is theory ever fact, no matter how good and probable a theory is?

Organisms and cells don't evolve, populations do.  

 

Here is an example. Let's say there are originally 2 colors of a species of beetle—red and yellow. Now both beetles are preyed upon by a bird. Now lets say that by a mutation, a green beetle is found among the others. The red and yellow beetles are generally eaten much more often than the green beetle because it blends in with their surroundings.  Over time, red + yellow beetles are eaten, often before they reproduce. The green beetle, however, lived long enough to pass on its genes to new generations of green beetles. After a long enough time, green beetles will become more and more common because they are better equipped to hide from predators, and the red and yellow beetles eventually disappear from being eaten to extinction.

 

This is evolution. The beetle didn't consciously choose to become green, it just so happened that instead of red or yellow, a mutation caused a beetle to be green instead.  It is by happenstance that evolution occurs through gene mutations and natural selection

[Fidei Defensor]

Now, you may ask — how does that kind of thing turn monkeys into humans? It doesn't. It is how "lower" life forms became higher ones — mutations (among other things) changed populations and eventually enough changes accumulated that a whole new species was born. Given millions of year and tiny changes and slow shift, you can get something as radically different as a human. It is like filling a bucket with a single drop of water at a time—wait long enough and you could have an ocean. It just take a looooooong time.

[Guest]

I don't say this to objectify women but look at the really beautiful ones (females can say the same about men) Some are so beautiful you are left in awe.......To say God didn't have something to do with that is obserd........Focusing to much on the beauty aspect is vain but it's still something to be thought about.........I love science and evolution and the big bang.......It shows evidence of God's work at hand.....If you think Kate Upton evolved from a ape to what she is now just by random luck then I have no words to describe the depth of your stupidity...

[CrossCuT]

Interesting.  If I had came here asking about the hypostatic union, would you tell me to go off and read the Summa?  You are assuming of me that I am ignorant of the science of evolution because I disagree with it and find that there is insufficient evidence for it.  I ask you, what point in even having this thread, or having a discussion forum in the first place, if it's simply going to be a referral to other sites and textbooks?  To be quite honest, I can only assess your post and those of CrossCut as cowardly, as you have both demonstrated an unwillingness to engage the discussion.  Perhaps you simply don't understand the topic at hand?

 

Hey now, I invited you to a PM conversation if youre serious. It IS a large topic but it isnt unattainable from someone with a non science background. GM was very correct when he said that these things are typically taught over a semester in school. There is a lot of information and things that build up a foundation for it. 

I think a lot of the time even if you explain evolution in the best way, if someone doesnt have an appropriate background they will not fully grasp it.

 

I think evolution is beautiful and I am very willing to engage in a discussion about it. Its just hard to start from square one. Usually people have a specific problem...not a problem with the WHOLE thing. Usually if they disagree with the entire concept, there are some serious flaws in their understanding that need to be corrected. You just let me know where youd like to start and Id be up for it.

[PhuturePriest]

I don't say this to objectify women but look at the really beautiful ones (females can say the same about men) Some are so beautiful you are left in awe.......To say God didn't have something to do with that is obserd........Focusing to much on the beauty aspect is vain but it's still something to be thought about.........I love science and evolution and the big bang.......It shows evidence of God's work at hand.....If you think Kate Upton evolved from a ape to what she is now just by random luck then I have no words to describe the depth of your stupidity...

 

*Headdesk*

 

I will explain this only one more time, and I will try to do it as simply as humanly possible.

 

We do not believe Kate Upton is pretty by chance. Evolution happened by God's Hand, not by accident. I honestly don't see why that's so hard for you to understand.

[CrossCuT]

I think we would all be as pretty as Kate Upton if we had an army of makeup and hair stylists following us around 24/7 at our disposal. :)

[Guest]

FuturePriest I was talking to atheist and agnostic.....Of course you as a believer dont think it was by random chance....Chill out and go shave your legs or something...

Edited April 25, 2014 by Guest

[mortify ii]

Hey, I'm still waiting for an explanation on how a basic component of our physiology evolved (post #75)

 

[CrossCuT]

every part of our physiology is based in DNA code which all evolves the same way. Random mutations over millions of years + environmental pressures.

Edited April 25, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Fidei Defensor]

Hey, I'm still waiting for an explanation on how a basic component of our physiology evolved (post #75)

 

It's all trial and error, mutations and small changes over MILLIONS of years. Again, you can fill an ocean a drop at a time, it just takes a VERY long time.

[Credo in Deum]

[Ash Wednesday]

Phatmass, you can be very tiring sometimes.

[mortify ii]

It's all trial and error, mutations and small changes over MILLIONS of years. Again, you can fill an ocean a drop at a time, it just takes a VERY long time.

 

So lets take something very basic. By the time blood in your legs is circulating back towards your heart the pressure is obviously much lower than when it first left your heart. To help move blood back into your heart the veins in your legs have valves that prevent blood from moving backwards. When your leg muscles contract it helps "push" the blood forward. It's not just the valves in the veins but the actual composition of veins versus arteries that also makes this possible. Now looking at this one isolated example, how is it that valves only appear in veins but not arteries? Well, according to evolution there is no guiding force, it's by an extremely fortunate circumstance that mutations coding for valves occurred in the veins and not the arteries. If we had valves in our arteries, well, that would prevent the flow of blood through our body and we'd probably not survive. So you see, to suggest simply trial an error is not that simple. Error in this case means the death of our species. 

 

In this case I isolated a very basic element of our cardiovascular system, but like I said there is much more. The composition of veins does differ from arteries. The electrical system of the heart and of course the heart itself and even the design of the blood cells. It's a complete system and that's something that needs to be focused upon. You can't have elements of this system evolving at different times and rates, otherwise, well, we'd be non existent!

 

Think about it. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Fidei Defensor]

So lets take something very basic. By the time blood in your legs is circulating back towards your heart the pressure is obviously much lower than when it first left your heart. To help move blood back into your heart the veins in your legs have valves that prevent blood from moving backwards. When your leg muscles contract it helps "push" the blood forward. It's not just the valves in the veins but the actual composition of veins versus arteries that also makes this possible. Now looking at this one isolated example, how is it that valves only appear in veins but not arteries? Well, according to evolution there is no guiding force, it's by an extremely fortunate circumstance that mutations coding for valves occurred in the veins and not the arteries. If we had valves in our arteries, well, that would prevent the flow of blood through our body and we'd probably not survive. So you see, to suggest simply trial an error is not that simple. Error in this case means the death of our species. 

 

In this case I isolated a very basic element of our cardiovascular system, but like I said there is much more. The composition of veins does differ from arteries. The electrical system of the heart and of course the heart itself and even the design of the blood cells. It's a complete system and that's something that needs to be focused upon. You can't have elements of this system evolving at different times and rates, otherwise, well, we'd be non existent!

 

Think about it. It just doesn't make sense.

 

It does make sense if you take into account other animals and organisms and their circulatory systems. They are more primitive, but you can see the minute changes that eventually lead to a more complex system.  The example I gave with the beetles works for this, too. It's just a matter of organisms with the best characteristics and best chance of survival passing their genes along.

[mortify ii]

Going back to the principle of looking at something holistically. I've always been fascinated by a notorious avian brood parasite named the cuckoo bird. It's named a brood parasite because it lays its eggs in another species of birds nest, when the baby cuckoo hatches it then pushes the other eggs out of the nest, and host parents end up nurturing a bird of another species! Now the fascinating thing about this is that there are multiple factors involved that to make such an evolutionary risky practice successful. Despite being larger than the common host species the eggs of the cuckoo are smaller, the development is faster and so the cuckoo chick hatches earlier, and of course the chick is born with the innate instinct to knock the host eggs out of the nest. Now just stop to imagine what a dangerous practice this is, and for it to be successful *all* components from the physiological to behavioral must be present. How is it that an unguided process which evolution obviously is, could explain such a thing? And of course, there are countless examples of this. I'm sorry folks, but genetic variation, natural selection, and reproduction can NOT explain everything... well, at least not to a reasonable person!

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mb0GOITRUU[/youtube]

[Fidei Defensor]

Going back to the principle of looking at something holistically. I've always been fascinated by a notorious avian brood parasite named the cuckoo bird. It's named a brood parasite because it lays its eggs in another species of birds nest, when the baby cuckoo hatches it then pushes the other eggs out of the nest, and host parents end up nurturing a bird of another species! Now the fascinating thing about this is that there are multiple factors involved that to make such an evolutionary risky practice successful. Despite being larger than the common host species the eggs of the cuckoo are smaller, the development is faster and so the cuckoo chick hatches earlier, and of course the chick is born with the innate instinct to knock the host eggs out of the nest. Now just stop to imagine what a dangerous practice this is, and for it to be successful *all* components from the physiological to behavioral must be present. How is it that an unguided process which evolution obviously is, could explain such a thing? And of course, there are countless examples of this. I'm sorry folks, but genetic variation, natural selection, and reproduction can NOT explain everything... well, at least not to a reasonable person!

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mb0GOITRUU[/youtube]

I think we're going to have to just respectfully disagree.  To be clear, I don't believe that evolution was unguided—on the contrary, I believe God had a hand in the whole process. But I do believe that evolution can be the single explaining factor in development of new species and the diversity of species we have today.

[mortify ii]

It does make sense if you take into account other animals and organisms and their circulatory systems. They are more primitive, but you can see the minute changes that eventually lead to a more complex system.  The example I gave with the beetles works for this, too. It's just a matter of organisms with the best characteristics and best chance of survival passing their genes along.

 

And yet you have not explained how it is that valves only appear in veins. Keep in mind that mutations are random and natural selection is blind. There is no principle that could guide evolution to place in one place but not others. It is but one of hundreds of millions of fortunate "accidents" that makes life possible for us. 

[Fidei Defensor]

And yet you have not explained how it is that valves only appear in veins. Keep in mind that mutations are random and natural selection is blind. There is no principle that could guide evolution to place in one place but not others. It is but one of hundreds of millions of fortunate "accidents" that makes life possible for us. 

Yes, mutations are random. But remember that bad ones result in mortality and good ones result in a better chance of survival and thus producing offspring. That is how a trait is "selected" for — it is passed along only if the organism lives long enough to reproduce.

[mortify ii]

I think we're going to have to just respectfully disagree.  To be clear, I don't believe that evolution was unguided—on the contrary, I believe God had a hand in the whole process. But I do believe that evolution can be the single explaining factor in development of new species and the diversity of species we have today.

 

If you want to suggest that God is involved in guiding evolution then yes, that would make sense, but beware, the "scientific community" will accuse you of magical thinking.  :hehe2:

[Fidei Defensor]

If you want to suggest that God is involved in guiding evolution then yes, that would make sense, but beware, the "scientific community" will accuse you of magical thinking.  :hehe2:

Oh, I'm aware of what the scientific community generally thinks of religion. Regardless, God drew me back to himself and turned me from my atheistic ways.