Why are there still apes?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you have examples were some natural, unplanned agents worked in accord toward a well defined, cumulative result? Stalactites and stalagmites in some caves is the most complex thing I can think about and that does not even come close to the appearance of species.

Ocean waves sorting the pebbles & sand on a beach by size; wind & warm water producing tornadoes; annual weathering producing sedimentary layers of rock; river erosion producing winding canyons; plate tectonics throwing up mountain ranges; the formation of thunderclouds; wind and sand making dunes; the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets; the formation of the heavier elements ('metals') by stellar nucleosynthesis, supernovae, and neutron star mergers; etc., etc.

The complexity depends on the materials and processes involved. Chemistry, particularly carbon (organic) chemistry has the greatest potential for complexity, but the formation and lifecycles of stars are pretty complex. The complexity of life is a product of organic chemistry refined and enhanced by iterative variation and selection, producing multiple layers of emergent processes.

Were it some natural agents that caused the origin of life?

The evidence we have suggests that life arose in a natural environment from the interaction of natural molecules stimulated by a natural energy source. I can give more details if you like.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm just curious as to how you can compartmentalize everything, that's all.

*I guess it comes with scientific training.

It's a natural human trait. Very useful in navigating complex social hierarchies & social role-playing, as well as in minimizing cognitive dissonance.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you have examples were some natural, unplanned agents worked in accord toward a well defined, cumulative result?

Snowflakes.

Diamonds.

People.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let us do some math. If the Planet currently has 8.7 million species after 99.9 % are extinct, there certainly has been thousands of millions of species in a relatively short period of 500 million years. Natural agents could not have caused such complex changes so, it was either Creation of Theistic Evolution.

Math? I love math. I will begin with a quote:

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” ― Albert A. Bartlett​

Ok, do the math. Lets say we started with one species. Every million years that splits into 2 species. We continue to double every million years: 2 species, 4 species, 8, 16, etc. In 10 million years, we have reached a little over 1000 species. And we would continue to increase by 1000 every 10 million years. So we would end up with:

after 10 million years: 1000 species
after 20 million years: 1,000,000 species
after 30 million years: 1,000,000,000 species
after 40 million years: 1,000,000,000,000 species
​

And so on. Where do we end up at after 500 million years? Do the math.

A better question is, "Why aren't there more?" The answer is that most species die off before they split into new species. There are a limited number of niches out there. If a species can't find a niche, they are out of here.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that comes around, what once every three years in the cycle of readings?

I don't know. You're the one who said this:

This notion is unfamiliar to me. Don't recall hearing it before.

For not recalling hearing it before, what makes you think it only comes around once every three years?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's another good example of a metaphor in Genesis - it's not literally talking about stepping on snakes.

From the Thomas Haweis Commentary:

We now are assured, that this seed was Christ; and need not doubt but the gospel preached unto him in this first promise, was as effectual as to the other patriarchs, before his appearance in the flesh. Note, If Christianity be not full as old as the creation, it is almost as old. Christ is called the woman’s seed, as being in the fullness of time to be born of her, and of woman only.

 

[Strathos]

From the Thomas Haweis Commentary:

I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me here or not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know. You're the one who said this:For not recalling hearing it before, what makes you think it only comes around once every three years?

'cause that's how the reading at mass work. I looked up the particular passage after someone provided a link and saw that it was indeed used once every three years.

 

[AV1611VET]

'cause that's how the reading at mass work. I looked up the particular passage after someone provided a link and saw that it was indeed used once every three years.

Okay.

 

[James A]

People have explained that we have limited (not zero) evidence of evolutionary ancestors because the kinds of life that evidently did exist are very unlikely to leave fossils.

We have evidence of simple bacteria and possibly worms before the Cambrian explosion so, at this point, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The sudden appearance of complex life during the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained in the terms of Evolution.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species were so rapid and is very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors so, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable? putting it in a different way, what would it take to convince Biologists that it was not some "environmental factors" that diversified life in the way we know.

I'm not seeing a chain of reasoning or justification. Why can't natural agents have caused such complex changes?

A well defined, cumulative product posits intelligent design so, if it were some natural agents that caused the diversification of life then, the natural factors were caused by an intelligent agent we call, God.

You can't just say "Let us do some math" then just declare yourself to be right because big numbers give you strong feelings of conviction.

As long as you don't help me find out what was missing, it is "our math".

The Cambrian explosion is a unique period of history... so obviously biologists would try to explain it... that's what scientists do, they look for explanations for evidence. They also have a whole lot more evidence available than Darwin did and so their explanations are more justified.

We wouldn't be talking about Cambrian Explosion so much if there were evidence of its evolutionary ancestors and the time period was convincingly long enough. By the way, if those "uniqueness" resulted in some complex results then, it was an intelligent mind that was behind it.

Flawed analogy. I know how houses are built, I've seen it. Houses don't breed, they don't grow on their own, we don't have billions of years of evidence of them existing and changing.

The analogy purported to demonstrate that a well defined, cumulative product posits intelligent design.

Except we've seen it again and again. Mutations create new variation and that variation can have a statistical increased chance of successful reproduction.

I , along with many Christians, don't deny the mutation. The matter of contention is "what" caused the mutation - an intelligent mind or some environmental factors?

Life is made up of complex organic chemicals...
Complex organic chemicals can spontaneously form from simple organic chemicals...
The kind of simple organic chemical that make up the complex chemicals of life exist all over the universe...

You believe it was some "natural, unintelligent" agents which changed mud (inorganic matter) into organic matter (amino acids), transformed it into protein molecule, infused it with DNA to form the first living cell? The process is so complex that researched believe the life on Earth came from outer space.

 

[James A]

A. No he didn't.

and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.

Wikipedia, Cambrian Explosion

B. So what if he did (which he didn't). We do not cling dogmatically to Victorian science.

But we have modern day biologist trying to explain the Cambrian Explosion.

Why couldn't they? Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.

I would appreciate if you could be more specific and point out what is missing in the math.

I am convinced that Creator exists and our Universe and the life is His creation. Through this discussion, I am trying to find out what it takes to convince an Evolutionists that it weren't some "unintelligent" natural agents which caused the mutation.

That makes no sense, no one claims that we know everything about that time period. I don't accept that modern biologists or paleontologists find the Cambrian to be particularly problematic.

Yes they do.

Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species during the Cambrian Explosion were so rapid ands very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.

I think you need to read what Darwin actually said about the Cambrian period.

I copy/pasted Wikipedia above and I do own a copy of "origin of species"

I would conclude that humans designed and built the house, because there is evidence that that is where houses come from. If you look hard enough you can observe houses in various stages of construction and watch as they develop.

Looks like we are on agreement. There is an intelligent design behind the house ( you said, humans) because it was well defined and cumulative. Similarly, there was a design and designer, an intelligent one, behind the origin and diversification of life.

 

[James A]

Do we really think the female sex about came from a man's rib? That the sky is a vault separating us from the waters above?

"rib" is a metaphor purported to educate us that man and woman are equivalent and that they should live side by side. There are a couple of things we need to keep in mind while reading the book of Genesis. If you are interested, you may refer to my previous post.

The things that you mention are products of our complex brains I would think, although I'm no expert.

Point missed, if the living organism, especially humans have meta physical attributes, then the involvement of a meta physical being is certain.

Maybe this will help. What did you think? An invisible supernatural fellow appears and tinkers at the genetic level every time reproduction occurs? It's possible I suppose.

The mutation is too complicated to have happened without a pre plan and an intelligent agent unless, you are pre determined that there is not such being.

 

[James A]

Ocean waves sorting the pebbles & sand on a beach by size; wind & warm water producing tornadoes; annual weathering producing sedimentary layers of rock; river erosion producing winding canyons; plate tectonics throwing up mountain ranges; the formation of thunderclouds; wind and sand making dunes; the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets; the formation of the heavier elements ('metals') by stellar nucleosynthesis, supernovae, and neutron star mergers; etc., etc.

All those things you mentioned are of uniform structure compared to living beings which have flesh, bones, hairs, skin etc., Their eyes produce tears to cleans it from dust and eye lid work as the shield, it was the wax which protests the ears. softetest part - brain - is enclosed in the hardest part - skull. It has complex nerve system and mechanisms like blood cloting etc. to ensure its survival. if you cant find the signature of the Master Creator here, I am sorry.

The evidence we have suggests that life arose in a natural environment from the interaction of natural molecules stimulated by a natural energy source. I can give more details if you like.

Consensus among researchers is that the life is too complex to have occurred on Earth. The first form of life must have arrived from outer space. Well, by the time the life arrived on Earth, it was provided with water, oxygen etc. do u=you not see an i(I)ntelligent plan here?

 

[James A]

Snowflakes.

Diamonds.

People.

"people" makes it a circular reasoning because I brought this argument to prove that living being cannot be a result of some natural process.

Diamonds and snowflakes are pretty uniform unlike the living beings which have flash, bones, hairs, skin etc.

 

[James A]

Ok, do the math. Lets say we started with one species. Every million years that splits into 2 species. We continue to double every million years: 2 species, 4 species, 8, 16, etc. In 10 million years, we have reached a little over 1000 species

Who said every species splits into two ? Strawman.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"rib" is a metaphor purported to educate us that man and woman are equivalent and that they should live side by side. There are a couple of things we need to keep in mind while reading the book of Genesis. If you are interested, you may refer to my previous post.

If the "rib" is a metaphor, why can't the various actions in the "six days" be metaphors?

 

[Hans Blaster]

living beings which have ... hairs,

Just us mammals.

 

[James A]

If the "rib" is a metaphor, why can't the various actions in the "six days" be metaphors?

It is certainly debatable what are metaphors and what are not in Genesis, however for this discussion, Genesis states it clearly that God is the Creator of all created things.

 

[James A]

Just us mammals.

feathers...

 

[Hans Blaster]

feathers...

Mammals don't have feathers. Feathers aren't hair. Only sauropods have feathers.