Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Adaptation does not produce new species.
Pope Benedict has some kind of an Intelligent Design view and has always held to the core doctrine of God as Creator.
Papias knows this, he is just counting on you not knowing it.
...
John Macarthur expressed it this way:
So-called theistic evolutionists who try to marry humanistic theories of modern science with biblical theism may claim they are doing so because they love God, but the truth is that they love God a little and their academic reputations a lot. By undermining the historicity of Genesis they are undermining faith itself. Give evolutionary doctrine the throne and make the Bible its servant, and you have laid the foundation for spiritual disaster Dont Surrender the Ground!
I concur.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Adaptation does not produce new species.
a wild dog still a dog
a white finch ia still a finch,
they do not turn into different species.
one-lord.org
OK. But I don't see anything there that excludes evolution. Biological evolution doesn't refer to the origin of being or of the orderly governance of creation or the origin of life.
It fits the definition of natural you give here: things that happen that usually happen. In fact, it fits into the order of existence.
OK, so it's a personal belief and not something derived from either the study of creation or the precepts of theology.
I do see reason to believe that God creates ---not individual creatures--but ongoing populations through a gradual development process.
No, nothing we know about species says they begin with an individual creature.
That makes sense. I won't either. On the other hand, I will attribute to God what I do believe happened to bring the diversity of life as we know it into existence. And I am convinced that evolution happened.
Should we not?
Then we should not attribute the incarnation of the Son to God, nor his resurrection, as well as a good many other events described in scripture.
On what basis do you say that? I think it is pretty obvious that the species we know evolved and have been evolving for quite some time. So to me, it seems God did work that way.
What makes that evident to you?
How do you account for the evidence cited in support of an evolutionary history?
Biological evolution refers to the origination of species,which are,in reality,made up of living beings that are conceived into being. And organisms are characterized by functional order,animated by spirit.
The theory of evolution is a narrative of the history of organismsthat makes claims that cannot be proven to have happened.
My opinion is derived from my knowledge of organisms and analysis of the theory of evolution.
Individual creatures obviously do exist,and so they are created as such by God. They are individual creations. And populations exist and begin with individual creatures.
Species exist as individual creatures. You can't separate the concept of species from the reality of individual creatures.
And I am convinced that the narrative of the theory of evolution is false,because there is no way to know that all species are linked by reproductive connections to a single ancestral organism.
The Incarnation,Resurrection and the truth of scripture are proven by the saints of the Catholic Church,whose lives testify to the truth of those things. The saints could only be what they became if they really were filled with the grace of Christ and if what the Church teaches and scripture says really is true.
It is obvious that creatures are immediately created. With humans and other sexual creatures,it is called conception,which means "beginning". All living creatures have an immediate beginning.
Conception.
I account for it as a misguided naturalistic,reductionist attempt to piece together the history of species according to their external and genetic commonalities,on the false assumption that these commonalities prove relatedness.
Yes, and as I said, that seems to fit the definition of "natural" which you posted: things that happen that usually happen. Evolution is something that usually happens to species (not organisms, though).
Actually that is not the case. The theory of evolution is not a narrative of history at all. It is an explanation of the factors which produce changes in the characteristics of species. i.e. it shows how things like chromosomal recombination, changes to DNA bases and sequences (i.e. mutations), genetic drift and natural selection modify species characteristics.
Of course, since evolution is a process in history, the history of any species is a history of the evolutionary changes it has accumulated.
But the history itself is not part of the theory, nor can it be derived from the theory. The narrative of the history of evolution is called phylogeny.
Phylogeny depends on evolution, not the reverse.
IOW if there was no evolution, there would be no phylogeny at all. So if the theory of evolution is wrong, all phylogenies are also wrong. But a phylogeny may have gaps and even errors without affecting the theory of evolution. We can know that evolution happens without being correct in all details of the history of evolution.
Like, I said, personal opinion.
Sure, but that is a different issue.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were originally saying. What I intended to say is that species, even when they first begin, do not consist of a single individual.
A species is always a population, (except for that moment in time just prior to extinction when only a single individual is left alive.)
But sure, the individual creatures are individually created. Again, no problem with evolution there.
Species exist as populations of individual creatures. You may consider that change a quibble. Maybe it is.
You can't separate species from the fact that they exist as individual organisms that are immediately conceived. If you claim that a species has evolved from another species into existence,you are also saying in effect that organisms have evolved from other organisms into existence.
Changes in form can only happen through reproduction of individual creatures.
gluadys said:The theory of evolution is not a narrative of history at all. It is an explanation of the factors which produce changes in the characteristics of species. i.e. it shows how things like chromosomal recombination, changes to DNA bases and sequences (i.e. mutations), genetic drift and natural selection modify species characteristics.
That is not the theory of evolution itself,that is the supporting evidence for the theory.
It is not just an explanation of descent with modification at the genetic level,it makes claims about the origins and lineages of all species,linking them all together by ancestry to a single hypothetical organism.
The history of a species is a history of reproductive connections.
If reproductive connections cannot be known,neither can evolutionary changes from one species into another.
The narrative of the history of organisms is the main part of the theory. The theory of evolution is phylogeny. It is about the evolutionary history and development of species.
gluadys said:Phylogeny depends on evolution, not the reverse.
That's like saying the evolution of species depends upon the evolution of species.
Again,the theory of evolution is not just about explaining descent with modification,it is also a narrative of the history of species.
All beliefs are personal at bottom,even theological and scientific ones.
What of it?
It is a fact that must be remembered when speaking of species and populations and descent.
According to the Bible,the human race began with a single individual.
When I said that species begin with individuals,I was not saying that all species begin with a single individual.
Whether they begin with one creature or more,the individual or individuals have immediate beginnings,just as
we did.
At bottom,there is no evolution into existence of any species.
There is only individual creation - both as an act of God creating individual creatures and as species being created as individual creatures.
The words species and population do not mean more than one creature.
Species and populations exist as individuals,sometimes even as one individual.
If you own a bird and someone asks you what species it is,you will answer with the species-name.
A species is first and foremost a kind of creature. That is what species means in Latin,and it still holds in science. Species are identified as such according to their distinguishing characteristics,even apart from whether they are or were reproductively isolated.
What kind of evolution do you mean? Evolution can refer to anything fromgluadys said:But sure, the individual creatures are individually created. Again, no problem with evolution there.
minor changes in a species that have been observed to macro-evolution and the claim that all species have descended from a common ancestor.
For the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty,don't just say "evolution"
and leave it as an unlimited concept or phenomenon.
There's no real difference. It's true that species exist as populations of individuals,but a population exists as individuals,or even one individual.
No, I am not. The only thing that may distinguish an organism is a genetic feature it did not inherit from either parent, but is new in that organism. That genetic feature may or may not be expressed as a visible variation and/or as a change in fitness. Beyond those slight differences organisms do not evolve. Organisms are always the same species as their parents and as their children.
Obviously there cannot be evolution without reproduction. But reproduction is not sufficient to produce evolution. The production of individuals in a species which vary from one another in their characters is not sufficient to produce evolution.
To understand evolution, you have to go beyond the prerequisites that allow evolution to happen and focus on the factors that make evolution happen.
Yes, it is the theory itself. The fact of evolution is that species change over time and multiply into more species.
The theory of evolution is the explanation of what causes species to change and to divide into a plurality of species. The various items I named are such causes. They are not evidence for the theory; they are the explanatory causes of evolution. The theory explains how these different causes work together to produce species change and speciation.
The theory is the basis of descent with modification.
But the theory does not predict specific lineages. Those have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. To illustrate, the theory of evolution would still be true if evidence showed that humanity was descended from bovines instead of primates.
So, on the one hand, since evolution is descent with modification, the theory of evolution tells us there will be lineages connecting species to each other. But the theory does not tell us specifically what those lineages will be. That has to be worked out apart from the theory. That is the work of those studying phylogeny.
We should not confuse the content of phylogeny with the process of evolutionary change.
Since all living things reproduce, and since we know that species can multiply into more than one species (groups of species have common ancestors), the real issue is whether there is evidence anywhere that there are no reproductive connections between any pair of species.
A simple experiment could help.
Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.
It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.
If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars
one-lord.org
Biological species exist as organisms. So if you deny that groups of organisms can become something different from their parents why would you believe that species evolve beyond the species level?
Any genetic changes in a species would have to happen from parents to offspring,irrespective of the extent and rate of change from generation to generation. Species are made up of parents and offspring.
Do you mean speciation? That happens through the reproduction of individual creatures which vary from their parents. Whatever changes happen through changes in allele frequencies,or natural selection,happens firstly through reproduction. No matter which way you cut evolution,at the bottom of all descent with modification,whether real or supposed,is reproduction.
There is no getting beyond reproduction. It is the only means of transmitting genetic changes.
To say that species change over time is ambiguous. It can mean any extent of change,from that which is observable to that which is unobservable and naturally impossible.
The expanation of descent with modification is not the theory itself,it is
the supporting evidence for the theory. No one has a problem with the
observable facts of descent with modification. If that was all the theory
was about,there would be no controversy.
The theory of evolution is not primarily an explanation of what causes species to change,it is an explanation of the history of species and how they have originated and developed.
When an evolutionist explains how the causes of evolution work together to produce species change is taking it as a given that they did change in the way described by the theory.
I know that evolution scientists prefer to define the theory as an explanation of the causes of biological change,but when they explain natural selection working upon genetic mutations they do it to justify the historical narrative. They use it to lead up to the phylogenic claims of the theory. The idea of common descent of all species and its collorary,macro-evolution,is taken for granted.
The reality of descent with modification is used as supporting evidence for the theory.
It would be a different theory of evolution than the one that is current.
Phylogenic research is done in the service of the theory,just as with evolutionary biology.
The fact that speciation happens does not justify the view that all species must be related by ancestry.
That is to assume that there must have been only one original source for all species.
Different species that are seen to have descended from common ancestors may be considered sub-species of a broader,reproductively related group. That is why creationists are not swayed from their opinion when evolutionists show them observed instances of speciation. Speciation causes sub-species to emerge.
A simple experiment could help.
Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.
It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.
If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars
one-lord.org
I imagine the creationist would be the one who wanted to change a fruit fly into a bee. After all, it would disprove evolution.
A simple experiment could help.
Fruit flies reproduce very fast, so I would like to see an evolutionist have the freedom to introduce all the gentic manipulation they want and let us see if they can turn that fruit fliy into a bee.
It should not take long to make it happen.
Come on get to it.
If any scientist manages to turn the fruit fly descendent into a Bee, then I will donate them 1,000 dollars
one-lord.org
Given that adaptation is guided by an intelligent process, a fruit fly should be able to turn into a bee if it could turn into a bee. This should happen with a few days to a few weeks of pressure since there is no wait for random mutations.
Transposable elements 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
Epigenetics and Darwinism Epigenetics and Darwin
You are making some subtle modifications in my statement that change the meaning. I said organisms are always the same species as their parents. I also said an organism may have unique traits due to genetic changes which are not found in either parent: not enough change to make it a different species, but still a difference.
I did not say anything about groups of organisms never becoming different from their ancestors. A group of organisms is either a species or a potential species and yes, that is where evolution happens: in the group.
Macro-evolution. As in dinosaurs evolving into birds,or indohyus into whales,or a simian species evolving into humans.I don't know what you mean by "evolve beyond the species level".
Scientists do not,in practice,stick with the biological definition of species. They will call a group of creatures a species based upon its distinguishing physical characteristics,even if the group is known to be genetically compatible with another group,and even if it is not known to be genetically isolated (as with dinosaurs). Species and sub-species alike are identified as such according to their physical characteristics.But suppose you do have a group of organisms of species A. Through evolution, this group becomes marked off as a sub-species. The group is differentiated from the rest of the species by some unique feature not found in other members of the species. It is not a different species at this point, because if it comes in contact with organisms outside the group, successful mating can still take place.
But eventually a time comes when successful matings between most members of species A and its sub-species no longer happen. Now we must call the sub-species a species.
And we have to call the remaining segment of species A a species as well.
The genus classification is not defined as an original species,it is above the species level. Like the other taxonomic classifications above the species level,it is arbitrary,as it places together different species based upon their physical similarities rather than upon known reproductive relatedness.So what now, do we call the original species A (both sub-groups taken together?) Now we call that a genus.
No.Is that what you mean by "evolving beyond the species level"?
That isn't the proper definition of evolution. Evolution is change and development of the physical form of species. Changes of allele frequencies are a cause for evolution,not evolution itself.If you are thinking in terms of what happens to the individual genes that are inherited, that's right. But that's not what evolution is.
Evolution is a measure of the frequency at which a gene appears in the population. More precisely it measures the changes in the frequency at which a gene appears in the population over generations.
I did not suggest there was. I was making the point that genetic changes in a species or population cannot be separated from genetic changes that appear in individuals.When it comes to organisms, there is a fixed number of the copies of a gene that can appear at any locus. 1 or 2 depending on whether the organism is haploid or diploid. So there is no change in the frequency of the gene.
But populations exist as individuals,perhaps even one.Only in a population can the number of copies of a gene change frequency. That is why it is only populations that can evolve.
Evolution is defined by evolutionists as descent with modification,that is,reproduction with variation.No, I mean evolution, irrespective of whether speciation also occurs. Reproduction of offspring who vary from their parents is necessary for evolution to take place, but it is not sufficient in itself to trigger evolutionary change. Something more is needed in addition to reproduction with variation.
If you are getting at natural selection,that comes down to reproduction as well.Changes happen in organisms --- or rather in their genes, with those changes sometimes being expressed phenotypically. But organisms cannot change the frequency of alleles just by reproducing. In fact, Mendel showed that reproduction alone maintained a fairly constant frequency of alleles in the population. So changes in organisms, the changes that are passed from parent to child, are not what makes evolution happen.
Is there an exact point at which a population has evolved? Are variation in a group and evolution separate things?What you get at this level is a population with a lot of variation. But not one that has evolved.
Groups consist of individuals with specific beginnings at conception. What appears as evolution of a species consists of organisms that are conceived with new traits.
Scientists do not,in practice,stick with the biological definition of species.
gluadys said:So what now, do we call the original species A (both sub-groups taken together?) Now we call that a genus.
The genus classification is not defined as an original species,it is above the species level. Like the other taxonomic classifications above the species level,it is arbitrary,as it places together different species based upon their physical similarities rather than upon known reproductive relatedness.
gluadys said:Is that what you mean by "evolving beyond the species level"?
No.
gluadys said:Evolution is a measure of the frequency at which a gene appears in the population. More precisely it measures the changes in the frequency at which a gene appears in the population over generations.
That isn't the proper definition of evolution. Evolution is change and development of the physical form of species. Changes of allele frequencies are a cause for evolution,not evolution itself.
gluadys said:When it comes to organisms, there is a fixed number of the copies of a gene that can appear at any locus. 1 or 2 depending on whether the organism is haploid or diploid. So there is no change in the frequency of the gene.
I did not suggest there was. I was making the point that genetic changes in a species or population cannot be separated from genetic changes that appear in individuals.
But populations exist as individuals,perhaps even one.
gluadys said:No, I mean evolution, irrespective of whether speciation also occurs. Reproduction of offspring who vary from their parents is necessary for evolution to take place, but it is not sufficient in itself to trigger evolutionary change. Something more is needed in addition to reproduction with variation.
Evolution is defined by evolutionists as descent with modification,that is,reproduction with variation.
gluadys said:Changes happen in organisms --- or rather in their genes, with those changes sometimes being expressed phenotypically. But organisms cannot change the frequency of alleles just by reproducing. In fact, Mendel showed that reproduction alone maintained a fairly constant frequency of alleles in the population. So changes in organisms, the changes that are passed from parent to child, are not what makes evolution happen.
If you are getting at natural selection,that comes down to reproduction as well.
Is there an exact point at which a population has evolved?
Are variation in a group and evolution separate things?
Individuals being conceived with new traits make evolution possible. They do not make evolution happen.
The scientific definition of species is the biological definition of species.
You seem to want to depart from that. That is a typical way of avoiding the biological facts of speciation.
Yes, the genus classification is above the species level. And now the population A is also above the species level since it now consists of two species. That is why it is now called a genus.
It is true that when biologists were limited to using only morphological traits, the genus classification was based on physical similarities alone and therefore arbitrary. Today, genetic characteristics are used as well, and that removes a lot of the arbitrariness of the genus and other higher-level taxa. Finding out what the reproductive relatedness of various populations are is a major portion of phylogenetic research.
Well, it should be. That is how a population evolves from the species level to the genus level, and subsequently to the family, order, etc levels. That is the basic process of macro-evolution.
What you named earlier was not the process of macroevolution, but the results: dinosaurs to birds, indohyus to whale, simians to humans.
If you want to know how these results were obtained, you have to begin with speciation: the splitting of a breeding population into separated populations.
Yes, it is the proper definition of evolution. Changes in allele frequences is the definition of evolution, not the cause of evolution.
I think again, you are looking at the result rather than the process.
We see that over time, species change in physical form. The cause of that change is evolution. But what then is evolution? It is the process by which the genes (the carriers of information which determine inherited form) become more or less frequent in the population.
Changes in allele frequency over generations is the basic process of micro-evolution.
So, in a sense we are both right. Evolution is change. Microevolution is change within a breeding population (a species) and is seen through its results: the typical characteristics of the population change (colour, size, shape, behaviour, etc.). Macroevolution is change on a larger scale giving us new genera, families, classes, etc.
We can call the observed change itself "evolution" as you are doing.
But that observed change doesn't help us understand what produces the change. There is an underlying process in both cases. For microevolution, that process is the changing frequency of alleles in a gene pool over generations. For macroevolution, that process is primarily cladistic speciation i.e. one species or population is divided into two or more populations which no longer successfully breed with each other.
We can call those processes which drive the observed change "evolution" as I have been doing.
These are not antithetical ideas. The processes bring about the changes. So if we ask "what is evolution?" we can say either "the observed changes in species and higher taxa" [result-focus] or "the processes which produce the observed changes in species and generate new species" [process-focus] and either answer is correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?