The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[thedoc]

Evolution-ism and evolutionist are derogatory made up terms that do not really mean anything, that have been made up by young Earth creationists to support their claim that evolution is a religion based on faith. They are wrong, the acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution is based on a large body of evidence that is growing every day.

[PauloL]

1. Extinction doesn't invalidate dumb luck...

No indeed

I agree.

but before we get to why a species dies out, do you not think it worthwhile to establish how it got there in the first place?

Yes.

It's a serious question: if the millions of species that are alive today are not related, (to say nothing of all the ones that are now extinct) by what mechanism did they come into being? And do you have any examples of this actually happening?

I agree. They are related. But if you ask me if Darwin explains how they come into being, my answer is no. That's supported by challenging evidence, which is for most part highly incomplete if not far from congruent. This is the very pillar of all science, challenging evidence. You can't affirm a theory that fails. Period.

I couldn't challenge Einstein's or Newton's theories, not even Virchow's Cell Theory. These are solid state theories. Not the case for Darwin and Evolutionauts.

I offered DNA as evidence that all life come from a single source, as you can check from this post of mine a propos cockroaches selection (or rapid evolution as they call it):

I am not against evolution.

All DNA molecules in all known life forms have configuration of a right-handed helix.

There's no fundamental reason it couldn't be left-handed, and there would be both configurations on Earth if that occurred by hazard.

So all must have started with a single living ancestor. This is irrefutable evidence. And this is falsifiable.

[...]

For your enlightened quotes:

Bertrand Russell was the stupid or the intelligent?

When you lose the argument are you before the stupid or the clever?

[Harbal]

by what mechanism did they come into being? And do you have any examples of this actually happening?

He won't tell you, uwot, he's hoping to lead us to his desired conclusion without us realising it. He obviously thinks we are all as gullible as he is.

[Greta]

Some believe that evolution contradicts their religious texts. Ironically, this view is inevitably due to an overly literal reading, and thus misreading, of those ancient texts.

It is embarrassing and pointless to debate evolution in 2017. The debate was over decades ago. PauLoL's and Walker's posts shows clearly creationism's incoherence, unable to make any strong points worthy of response - because there are none.

I believe now the complaint is that biological evolution does not explain abiogenesis. No, that's because evolution is what happened afterwards (and before, really, but the theory only refers to the biological). I'd personally like to see the concept expanded to include the geological, and before. In truth, evolution in (of) this universe - the dynamic, not the formal theory - started with the big bang and whatever prior environment or triggers existed at that time.

Meanwhile, every gestation follows a species' evolutionary steps to its current form - a microcosm of evolution. It's only logical that a species during gestation would follow its own evolutionary path - after all, zygotes are hardly going to follow the evolutionary steps of other species.

The human, animal, plant, fungal, geological, hydrological, atmospheric (and space) realms are all part of a larger system. The way I see it, if a "philosopher" is not passionate about natural history, then they are not doing philosophy but sociology. Philosophy is about trying to understand the nature of reality and philosophies tend to be painfully shallow in their anthropocentrism without considerable study of nature.

[PauloL]

Greta, I invite you to read my posts before writing.

The only person who invoked biblical texts so far was you.

[Greta]

Greta, I invite you to read my posts before writing.

The only person who invoked biblical texts so far was you.

I read the posts. Lots of "evolutionauts" and "evolutionists" but there are only abstract assertions, no actual content to address.

The "chance" argument simply ignores natural selection. Why bother?

[thedoc]

The "chance" argument simply ignores natural selection. Why bother?

Evolution (natural selection) does not happen by "chance", it is not a random process. There is a purpose to evolution though it is not a purpose to the future but only to the present conditions.

[uwot]

It's a serious question: if the millions of species that are alive today are not related, (to say nothing of all the ones that are now extinct) by what mechanism did they come into being? And do you have any examples of this actually happening?

I agree. They are related. But if you ask me if Darwin explains how they come into being, my answer is no.

Fair enough. The point about Darwin though, was not that he explained the mechanism by which creatures evolve, much less the origin of life. What he did was open up the development of living creatures as something that could be investigated, rather than throw our hands in the air and accept biblical claims.

[Greta]

The "chance" argument simply ignores natural selection. Why bother?

Evolution (natural selection) does not happen by "chance", it is not a random process. There is a purpose to evolution though it is not a purpose to the future but only to the present conditions.

Jim Al-Khalili put it nicely - he said he had no idea how evolution may pan out in the future but he is sure that it will be awesome

[thedoc]

Fair enough. The point about Darwin though, was not that he explained the mechanism by which creatures evolve, much less the origin of life. What he did was open up the development of living creatures as something that could be investigated, rather than throw our hands in the air and accept biblical claims.

The Bible doesn't make any claims about how life developed, those claims were made later by some people reading the Bible and claiming that it said that God created life in a certain way, that is not true at all. The Bible only states that life was created but does not say how God did it. Darwin does not address the spiritual aspect of life and the development of life, only the physical side of that process and Darwin was looking at the physical evidence and interpreting it in a way that fit what he was observing. Neither the Bible nor Darwin tries to describe how life started, Darwin only tries to describe how life developed after it had started and the Bible is not specific about that.

[Harbal]

Greta, I invite you to read my posts .

I hope you are going to reciprocate in kind by sticking your head down the toilette.

The only person who invoked biblical texts so far was you.

I think we can all agree there's no place for God in all this, right, Paul?

[PauloL]

You're right in that opening up as something that could be investigated, but that wasn't so received.

Darwin theory is taken as final and above all unquestionable.

I don't see congruence in that theory as I demonstrated and my doubts couldn't be answered with scientific reasoning.

Evolution to whales is supported by common ancestors never seen.

Textbooks teach us that mankind and apes have a common ancestor. That ancestor gave rise to 625 living ape species and one hominid. I don't contest that.

Those textbooks teach us that A. afarensis begat H. habilis that begat H. erectus that begat Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. This is based on assumptions about Darwin.

My question is: why didn't the common ancestor give rise to these five hominid species and all perished, except Homo sapiens sapiens (fortunately for us, dumb luck)?

Why assuming evolution seems plausible, but assuming an alternate hypothesis doesn't even if data could support either hypothesis? The steps, with or without evolution, are imaginary.

[Harbal]

five hominid species and all perished, except Homo sapiens sapiens (fortunately for us, dumb luck)?

No, not luck, we killed them all. That's what we do.

[thedoc]

Textbooks teach us that mankind and apes have a common ancestor. That ancestor gave rise to 625 living ape species and one hominid. I don't contest that.

Those textbooks teach us that A. afarensis begat H. habilis that begat H. erectus that begat Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. This is based on assumptions about Darwin.

My question is: why didn't the common ancestor give rise to these five hominid species and all perished, except Homo sapiens sapiens (fortunately for us, dumb luck)?

If textbooks are teaching that one species led to the next in a lineage of evolution, then the textbooks are wrong. At this point scientists do not know if all the species of Hominids are a sequence or if they all evolved from a common ancestor and are several separate lines of evolution. I would suspect that you just don't have a good understanding of what the textbooks actually say.

[PauloL]

I don't think it very fruitful to mix science and Theology, but I'd like to answer you pertinent thoughts.

Why should religion ever worry about evolution? Isn't life a divine gift theologically speaking? So why does it take 9 months to conceive a human being? Because Nature, be it created by God or by pure chance, must obey the precise rules that govern it.

So why wouldn't those rules operate on evolution from inorganic matter to living matter?

The Catholic Church accepts Darwin theory and the Big Bang.

Even if they didn't, attacking a scientific theory wouldn't prove they're right, only that science was wrong at the best.