We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[BCP1928]

The evolutionist mentality is effectively this:
Billions of years of mutations and natural selection can perform magic ... given enough time, a fish can turn into a dog, for example.

It's a smokescreen that attempts to cover up the theory of evolution's inadequacies, viz-a-viz how novel organs, body plans and phyla could have evolved.

They're not covered up. Those "inadequacies" of yours are well explained and evidenced. You are just refusing to look. Or afraid to look.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evolutionist mentality is effectively this:
Billions of years of mutations and natural selection can perform magic ... given enough time, a fish can turn into a dog, for example.

And don't forget:

We're supposedly mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[BCP1928]

... without being dogmatic about it. No Catholic is obliged to accept evolution. A Cathoilc is free to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth.

Of course they are. Very few actually do, though, and they would not in good conscience be able to denounce the faith of those who do not.

 

[BCP1928]

And don't forget:

We're supposedly mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God.

Perhaps you suppose it, the rest of us don't need to.

 

[AV1611VET]

They're not covered up.

Yes, they are.

Science just draws lines from one animal to the next.

Right over missing links.

It's like trying to get to L.A. from Boston on a road with no bridges.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you suppose it, the rest of us don't need to.

I wouldn't either, if I were them.

I'd want to keep that skeleton in the closet.

 

[Buzzard3]

Let's test that. Name me one change in the long journey
from prokaryotes to humans that you can show is impossible to have happened naturally. Other than a God-given immortal soul, that is.

That isn't my argument ... I never claimed that it's impossible via a natural process.

There are no records of such observations. Prehistoric, you know. However, we do have plenty of examples of species evolving from other species when we started looking.

I never claimed that species don't evolve from other species.

It seems rather foolish to argue that biology worked differently before we started paying attention.

I never explicitly claimed that "biology worked differently" in prehistoric times, but I concede that's implicit in my argument.

However, I argue that it can't be proven that the biological mechanisms we see at work today were responsible for producing the history of life on earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, they are.

Science just draws lines from one animal to the next.

Right over missing links.

It's like trying to get to L.A. from Boston on a road with no bridges.

It's not a destination, it's a family lineage. If you only know you're great-great-great-great grandfather on your mother's side, but not the other members of that side that came after him, all you can do is draw a line from you to your mother to your great-great-great-great grandfather on her side.

You're definitely looking at it the entirely wrong way. Though I very much think that you're doing so on purpose.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ya ... the Asian elephant and the African elephant are still ... elephants.

Speaking of which, I love the way evolution science considers the speciation of Green Warblers into more Green Warblers (for example) to be evidence that a mammal can descend from a fish.

Evolution science is a curious thing.

 

[Buzzard3]

Wrong again! If I phrased it thus: atheists do not worship anything, maybe that will be more comprehensible.

Thank you. I think I've got it now.

 

[BCP1928]

That isn't my argument ... I never claimed that it's impossible via a natural process.

I never claimed that species don't evolve from other species.

I never explicitly claimed that "biology worked differently" in prehistoric times, but I concede that's implicit in my argument.

However, I argue that it can't be proven that the biological mechanisms we see at work today were responsible for producing the history of life on earth.

And we agreed with you long ago. What's your point?

 

[BCP1928]

Speaking of which, I love the way evolution science considers the speciation of Green Warblers into more Green Warblers (for example) to be evidence that a mammal can descend from a fish.

Evolution science is a curious thing.

It's evidence that a process exists which has the capacity to produce macroevolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

Really? Why it then some posters here seem to be vehemently opposed to my claim.

As others have stated, I'm not sure what your point is.

Don't you find it curious that so many people accept ToE as a factual description for the process that produced the history of life on earth, when it cannot be proven that that history is even the result of a natural process?

And don't you find it curious that so many people accept ToE as a factual description for the process that produced the history of life on earth, when that history is unknown and unknowable?

The TOE has held up for many decades by making correct predictions, and has failed to be falsified, which is as good as it gets.

Yep, it's the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth ... for what it's worth.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a destination, it's a family lineage. If you only know you're great-great-great-great grandfather on your mother's side, but not the other members of that side that came after him, all you can do is draw a line from you to your mother to your great-great-great-great grandfather on her side.

But they're still humans.

You're definitely looking at it the entirely wrong way.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Though I very much think that you're doing so on purpose.

Do you want me to post that picture of "blue lines" again, to show how evolution is a game of connect the dots?

 

[The Barbarian]

I never claimed that it's impossible via a natural process.

So why not just go with the evidence, then?

I never claimed that species don't evolve from other species.

So why not just accept the evidence, then?

I never explicitly claimed that "biology worked differently" in prehistoric times, but I concede that's implicit in my argument.

The evidence we have shows that it worked the same way then.

However, I argue that it can't be proven that the biological mechanisms we see at work today were responsible for producing the history of life on earth.

Logical certainty is not part of science. It's inductive. Has to be. We can only watch the game and infer the rules. But even honest and informed YECs admit that the evidence indicates that biological evolution has produced common descent. The thing is, there is always an increasingly tiny possibility that the theory might be wrong. Which seems to me to be a rather small place in which to hide God. Given that God makes no stand on evolution, why not just accept that He chose to do it in the most efficient way?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution science is a curious thing.

I couldn't have said it better, myself.

This verse immediately came to mind:

Acts 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But they're still humans.

And apes, mammals, and eukaryotes.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

*yawn*

Do you want me to post that picture of "blue lines" again, to show how evolution is a game of connect the dots?

Post it all you want, you'll still just be told that you're wrong and you'll just willfully ignore what you're told on the matter.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure it is ... especially for those who need to believe that a certain scientific theory is the truth, but can't prove that it's the truth.

I can't prove that the planets will continue on their apparent paths in the sky. Do I need to believe that planetary science is the truth, even if I can't prove that it's the truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's evidence that a process exists which has the capacity to produce macroevolution.

Yup -- just move the decimal place of time a few places to the right, and presto, plenty of time for macroevolution.

Assuming of course, that God, who is a God of boundaries, hasn't set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post it all you want, you'll still just be told that you're wrong and you'll just willfully ignore what you're told on the matter.

Oh, good.

Here it is ... with my comments:

See those blue lines?

They gloss over more missing links than Carter has liver pills and make evolution look smooth and analog.

Now tell me where I'm wrong.