How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is right, the Bible does not explain in detail 'how' God did it. The Bible has themes that are pertinent to mankind. And the mystery of it stays -- particularly how molecules were formed, put together, but then I'm going to stop because I have a feeling that there are those who will say like scientists may, that they found examples of the "first molecules." So do I believe they have found examples of the first molecules? No. But even if they are right -- the mystery is still there. I don't believe anyone ever will solve that mystery. One reason is that the Bible says we can live forever. To live forever also means we will never get bored, never get tired of learning about God's creation. That's what I think.

Here is what I think. We will all die. Now that is fact, simply because I think it. That is the level of your standard for thinking. Someone thinks it and now it is a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is right, the Bible does not explain in detail 'how' God did it. The Bible has themes that are pertinent to mankind. And the mystery of it stays -- particularly how molecules were formed, put together, but then I'm going to stop because I have a feeling that there are those who will say like scientists may, that they found examples of the "first molecules." So do I believe they have found examples of the first molecules? No. But even if they are right -- the mystery is still there. I don't believe anyone ever will solve that mystery. One reason is that the Bible says we can live forever. To live forever also means we will never get bored, never get tired of learning about God's creation. That's what I think.

What is the basis for your statement about scientists declaring that examples of the first molecules formed? I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say or the basis for it.

Why do you think that God gave us intelligence and the senses to observe and explore the world around us? Do you think that He wanted us to close our eyes to what we see, ignore it and stop thinking?

Do you think that we will be exploring all of Creation after we die? I have never considered it that way based on my interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not saying that at all.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is the message that many of us seem to be getting.

Part of it can be answered in the Bible, but I am sure that some would object, saying "Ah, who knows, it could be made up as fable, fantasy, parable, whatever," but I'll say it anyway -- despite objections -- when Jesus was on the earth, it is written that many did not believe him.

I am not sure that answers my point about determining who has the truth. All you are saying is that someone does and that some people won't believe them, but that does not show us how one could determine who that someone is and how what they know is the truth.

I understand, and frankly I have learned to look at evolution as somewhat of a fairy tale. I say somewhat because scientists believe they have the evidence. I no longer do. But then you don't view the Bible as a reliable witness, do you? So that would more or less eliminate trust in what the Bible says.

Scientists do have evidence. You have been shown some of that evidence here and you have even presented some of that evidence yourself. Is it really the conclusions about that evidence that you consider to be the fairytale?

Also, I am not saying that God clicked his fingers and voila! there was life. Rocks -- animals -- fishes -- no, I'm not saying that at all. But then I have come to the conclusion that it didn't just happen by means of the chances of "natural" evolution. And I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is "inspired of God." Therefore, God put the necessary components together for life. And the various forms of it.

It could be that it happened in an instant, fully formed, but it doesn't explain why there would be evidence that it didn't happen that way and this planet and life did not appear fully formed.

The evidence supports the conclusion of random (chance) events and non-random action that resulted in a universe, planet and life as we know it. It isn't all chance and that is not what is claimed with science.

A creation process could occur in practically unlimited iterations. That the details are omitted in Genesis may be more telling than many believers are willing to concede. Perhaps learning how things happened is part of our mission in life. Certainly, pursuing those details does not repudiate God or say anything negative about Him at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me rephrased, if possible, so you understand. Does evolution in anything (plants, animals) lead to the eventuality of death of the particular organism? Plants disintegrate and go back to the soil, human bodies also disintegrate and go back to -- the soil or whatever. So isn't that the eventuality of the theory of evolution when it comes to mankind, gorillas, pear trees, etc.? In other words, no way out. Death.

Evolution doesn't really apply passed the point of reproductive ability. For mankind, reproduction is generally in the first half to two thirds of the average lifespan. Since longevity would be determined post-reproductive phase there is no means to select for it. If a person is done reproducing at 50, but lives to be 110, there is nothing about that trait that can be selected and it enters a gene pool as a random, unselected variation. While death is as close to a certainty as one can find, death of living things is not something explained or predicted by the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by death?

Death = the cessation of life.
What do you think death is?

 

[YoursTrue]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is the message that many of us seem to be getting.

I am not sure that answers my point about determining who has the truth. All you are saying is that someone does and that some people won't believe them, but that does not show us how one could determine who that someone is and how what they know is the truth.
Scientists do have evidence. You have been shown some of that evidence here and you have even presented some of that evidence yourself. Is it really the conclusions about that evidence that you consider to be the fairytale?
It could be that it happened in an instant, fully formed, but it doesn't explain why there would be evidence that it didn't happen that way and this planet and life did not appear fully formed.

The evidence supports the conclusion of random (chance) events and non-random action that resulted in a universe, planet and life as we know it. It isn't all chance and that is not what is claimed with science.

A creation process could occur in practically unlimited iterations. That the details are omitted in Genesis may be more telling than many believers are willing to concede. Perhaps learning how things happened is part of our mission in life. Certainly, pursuing those details does not repudiate God or say anything negative about Him at all.

I understand your point. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth--the earth did not come about and pop up molecules that continued to develop without an intelligent guidance. Evolution simply cannot prove it did not happen that way. They may speculate as to what happened, but really the 'how' is missing. Scientists and others may conjecture, but yes, there is no proof despite what is called evidence. The Bible does not go into detail about these things. It starts with a brief description of how life came about. Now I realize there is some evidence considered supportive for the theory of evolution insofar as it is interpreted. And I believe much of the evidence is misinterpreted. On the least level I question the dating process because of sediment and ingrained elements. The universe and life is truly beyond imagination. But I go no further now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Death = the cessation of life.
What do you think death is?

I don't know. I don't know what happens when a human dies in regards to souls or no souls.
So here is what you do. You confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Only one is science, the other is in the end religion.
Science doesn't prove that the world is natural and there are no gods.
And don't just listen to all claims made in the name of science as if science is the world is natural and there are no gods.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand your point. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth--the earth did not come about and pop up molecules that continued to develop without an intelligent guidance. Evolution simply cannot prove it did not happen that way. They may speculate as to what happened, but really the 'how' is missing. Scientists and others may conjecture, but yes, there is no proof despite what is called evidence. The Bible does not go into detail about these things. It starts with a brief description of how life came about. Now I realize there is some evidence considered supportive for the theory of evolution insofar as it is interpreted. And I believe much of the evidence is misinterpreted. On the least level I question the dating process because of sediment and ingrained elements. The universe and life is truly beyond imagination. But I go no further now.

What I am saying is that we do not really know the details and cannot say God did it one way or another, including letting it carry out on its own.

The theory of evolution isn't formulated to comment on, conclude or predict the existence of a creator/designer and scientists are not claiming that it does. You are arguing against a position for the theory that doesn't exist. The theory is based on natural causes that are known and evidence that is known. A scientific theory cannot stand based on things that are not known and not testable.

There is evidence and so far, no other viable explanation for that evidence that it fits.

The evidence and the dating processes are well established and widely discussed. What are the questions that you have regarding them?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution doesn't really apply passed the point of reproductive ability. For mankind, reproduction is generally in the first half to two thirds of the average lifespan. Since longevity would be determined post-reproductive phase there is no means to select for it. If a person is done reproducing at 50, but lives to be 110, there is nothing about that trait that can be selected and it enters a gene pool as a random, unselected variation. While death is as close to a certainty as one can find, death of living things is not something explained or predicted by the theory of evolution.

What I am saying is that we do not really know the details and cannot say God did it one way or another, including letting it carry out on its own.

The theory of evolution isn't formulated to comment on, conclude or predict the existence of a creator/designer and scientists are not claiming that it does. You are arguing against a position for the theory that doesn't exist. The theory is based on natural causes that are known and evidence that is known. A scientific theory cannot stand based on things that are not known and not testable.

There is evidence and so far, no other viable explanation for that evidence that it fits.

The evidence and the dating processes are well established and widely discussed. What are the questions that you have regarding them?

There is a natural cause, as I see it, in producing offspring with different color skin, hair, and eyes, things like that. But aside from conjecture, there is no observable natural cause demonstrating the growth or evolution from fishes to mammals, for instance.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I am saying is that we do not really know the details and cannot say God did it one way or another, including letting it carry out on its own.

The theory of evolution isn't formulated to comment on, conclude or predict the existence of a creator/designer and scientists are not claiming that it does. You are arguing against a position for the theory that doesn't exist. The theory is based on natural causes that are known and evidence that is known. A scientific theory cannot stand based on things that are not known and not testable.

There is evidence and so far, no other viable explanation for that evidence that it fits.

The evidence and the dating processes are well established and widely discussed. What are the questions that you have regarding them?

I realize that which is thought of as evidence and natural causes leading to the great diversity and complexity of life is considered as (likely) true by many. However it happened with the said putting molecules and atoms together I surely don't know. I believe it is impossible to understand. Even when I was looking up atomic structure, questions abound as to the how. But now I'm at the point that it doesn't make sense to say that the growth and/or atoms & molecules and the various distinct life forms (fish vs. lions, let's say) came about by sheer evolutionary processes. I make no assertion as to any probable truthfulness of evolution. Yet gorillas remain as gorillas, and humans are far advanced, even according to scientists, in their cognitive abilities. The idea that animals exhibit recognition that appears unique still does not mean-or prove- evolution. Therefore when God said, "Let us make man in our image," humankind was made different than the animals.
Genesis 1: "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.”
I don't want to change the subject, but while images were presented in the holy scriptures as to likenesses of lions, bulls, etc. AND man -- God did not evolve. He always was. Can I prove it? The Bible says He is -- He exists from everlasting to everlasting. Do I fathom it? It is a mystery beyond our recognizance.
Psalm 41:13 - Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen.
I thank you for your very decent conversation, @Dan From Smithville .

 

[Darkstorn]

I realize that which is thought of as evidence and natural causes leading to the great diversity and complexity of life is considered as (likely) true by many. However it happened with the said putting molecules and atoms together I surely don't know. I believe it is impossible to understand. Even when I was looking up atomic structure, questions abound as to the how. But now I'm at the point that it doesn't make sense to say that the growth and/or atoms & molecules and the various distinct life forms (fish vs. lions, let's say) came about by sheer evolutionary processes. I make no assertion as to any probable truthfulness of evolution. Yet gorillas remain as gorillas, and humans are far advanced, even according to scientists, in their cognitive abilities. The idea that animals exhibit recognition that appears unique still does not mean-or prove- evolution. Therefore when God said, "Let us make man in our image," humankind was made different than the animals.
Genesis 1: "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.”
I don't want to change the subject, but while images were presented in the holy scriptures as to likenesses of lions, bulls, etc. AND man -- God did not evolve. He always was. Can I prove it? The Bible says He is -- He exists from everlasting to everlasting. Do I fathom it? It is a mystery beyond our recognizance.
Psalm 41:13 - Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen.
I thank you for your very decent conversation, @Dan From Smithville .

So, long story short: You tried to understand evolution. It didn't work.

And now we're here arguing your straw men.

Ugh.

 

[Yerda]

There is a natural cause, as I see it, in producing offspring with different color skin, hair, and eyes, things like that. But aside from conjecture, there is no observable natural cause demonstrating the growth or evolution from fishes to mammals, for instance.

Hi there.

If fish genomes make fishes,
and mammal genomes makes mammals,
and genomes are 'changy',
what reason would there be to expect that a lineage that once produces fishes couldn't later produce mammals?

 

[YoursTrue]

Here is what I think. We will all die. Now that is fact, simply because I think it. That is the level of your standard for thinking. Someone thinks it and now it is a fact.

I have reason to believe we will not all die. And especially not to be dead forever.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi there.

If fish genomes make fishes,
and mammal genomes makes mammals,
and genomes are 'changy',
what reason would there be to expect that a lineage that once produces fishes couldn't later produce mammals?

Has there been any (scientific) corroboration that fishes "became" mammals, in the long run of evolutionary changes, of course? I can't ask for proof, because there is no proof. Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

So, long story short: You tried to understand evolution. It didn't work.

And now we're here arguing your straw men.

Ugh.

OK, so far no 'proof,' and I've examined as much as I could, but thanks and ugh to you also? (Have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. I don't know what happens when a human dies in regards to souls or no souls.
So here is what you do. You confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Only one is science, the other is in the end religion.
Science doesn't prove that the world is natural and there are no gods.
And don't just listen to all claims made in the name of science as if science is the world is natural and there are no gods.

Science, as I learned from these boards, proves nothing. You might think religion per the Bible proves nothing, but there is where we disagree. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, long story short: You tried to understand evolution. It didn't work.

And now we're here arguing your straw men.

Ugh.

I can understand evolution although I do have questions -- but now I cannot say yes to it. Anyway, have a real good day. P.S. If I ask you a question, instead of giving me a link, can you explain your beliefs beyond quoting some scientific statements? If you can't answer, or understand, just say so. I won't hold it against you.

 

[Darkstorn]

OK, so far no 'proof,' and I've examined as much as I could, but thanks and ugh to you also? (Have a good one...)

Proof for what? You admitted to trying to understand evolution, and that you still don't. Now if only you could admit that it might be a limit of your understanding rather than a problem for the theory, this could finally be going somewhere, but as it stands, we're still at only this point in your evolution debate:

You've tried to understand evolution.

That's it.

Has there been any (scientific) corroboration that fishes "became" mammals, in the long run of evolutionary changes, of course? I can't ask for proof, because there is no proof. Right?

Why would you want to ask for proof? You know the difference between proof and evidence because i've seen this explained to you dozens of times on these forums. Oh right, so you can say there is no proof when you really mean evidence! Classy.

I can understand evolution although I do have questions -- but now I cannot say yes to it. Anyway, have a real good day. P.S. If I ask you a question, instead of giving me a link, can you explain your beliefs beyond quoting some scientific statements? If you can't answer, or understand, just say so. I won't hold it against you.

You don't understand evolution. You've already admitted to it. Now i'm thinking you didn't admit it on purpose though. Tough luck, you did anyway. And i believed you then. And i don't believe you now.

You also said that you believe that understanding it is actually impossible. I also believe that you believe it.

 

[Yerda]

Has there been any (scientific) corroboration that fishes "became" mammals, in the long run of evolutionary changes, of course? I can't ask for proof, because there is no proof. Right?

When people say that "science doesn't prove things" they mean that technically there are always other explanations that can't be ruled out by experiment. For me personally I'm fine with that term in cases where we can eliminate plausible alternatives.

In this case, I don't believe that there is proof.

There is evidence that all of the tetrapods share an ancestor that came from the seas. That is, go far back in the lineage of any of the things with four limbs (and some that have lost the limbs since) and you'll find fishy ancestors. Also, as far as I know there is no evidence that contradicts this "hypothesis", though my knowledge isn't really extensive.

Does that answer your question?

Do you think you could answer mine?

 

[ppp]

And now we're here arguing your straw men.

Yes. @YoursTrue claims that they understand evolution, but obviously does not. And knows that they don't. Paul's explicit flouting of God's commandment not to lie is the standard for many Christians. Most notably the creationists.