What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[Little Dragon]

We don't, though. We don't even have a host, properly speaking.

The planetary ecosystem, is the host, in this analogy.

 

[Little Dragon]

The planetary ecosystem, is the host, in this analogy.

Which other species live in balance with, mostly. Not humans though.

 

[Little Dragon]

I suspect we will adapt as we've done for tens of thousands of years.

Adapt to a dying world? I truly hope humanity fails in that respect. It may cling on, it depends on what happens. So far we can see all the signs of a collapsing climate system. Adapt to that...adapt to acidic oceans and an unbreathable atmosphere.

 

[Left Coast]

The planetary ecosystem, is the host, in this analogy.

All lifeforms "live off" the planetary ecosystem. So by that reasoning all life is parasitic.

 

[Left Coast]

Which other species live in balance with, mostly. Not humans though.

Nah. The history of life is full of species that dominate others, all the way to extinction. Then some other species or force comes along that upsets the apple cart. We are just the first species to be consciously aware of this process.

 

[Left Coast]

Adapt to a dying world? I truly hope humanity fails in that respect. It may cling on, it depends on what happens. So far we can see all the signs of a collapsing climate system. Adapt to that...adapt to acidic oceans and an unbreathable atmosphere.

You hope humanity goes extinct?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, God does not want humans to mistreat animals or each other, but He is letting them off on their own since Adam sinned. He will, however, restore the earth to a beautiful situation for mankind and animals in the near enough future.

Promises, promises ...

 

[metis]

A multi-science research study done a few decades ago concluded that the world could hold 3 billion people and do OK as long as we tried our best not to destroy our planet, and yet now we are at 7 billion and counting.

 

[wellwisher]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

Darwin's thesis was called the Origin of Species. He only used the term evolution once near the end. The reason he did not stress the word evolution, was the term evolution was already used in biology, in his time. It was connected to embryology and how the embryo changes with time in a predictable fashion from early states of evolution until it reached the present.

The word evolution (from the Latin evolutio, meaning "to unroll like a scroll") was initially used to refer to embryological development; its first use in relation to development of species came in 1762, when Charles Bonnet used it for his concept of "pre-formation," in which females carried a miniature form of a human that evolves into a baby.

For example, A “vestigial tail” describes a remnant of a structure found in embryonic life or in ancestral forms. [4] During the 5th to 6th week of intrauterine life, the human embryo has a tail with 10–12 vertebrae. By 8 weeks, the human tail disappears. It is sort of like the embryo cellular differentiation traces earlier evolution and then goes beyond, due to more newer layers of genes on DNA.

With that in mind, my guess is Darwin's view of the origin and change of species by natural selection, was more like a logical process, since the embryo "evolved" in an orderly way up the ladder of evolution. It mentioned evolution at the end to show his logical parallel to a known biology term of his time.

Deviation from the orderly evolution of an embryo would tend to cause birth defects and would not be selected; miscarriage. He assumed a type of rational design that was not based on dice and cards. I found that idea of cause and effect sound. I had no problem with it.

Where I got off the boat was the contemporary over emphasizes on statistical arguments, since embryos do not evolve that way. The term was commandeered and misused to describe a random process that was not fully logical. Darwin name is flashed like a prestige badge to make people assume Darwin also thought evolution was random. The current model is not that of Darwin.

Natural selection is logical. The environment sets potentials and what is chosen meets the needs of those potentials. If the environment is cold, thick insulating fur is chosen. Random became more in vogue in the 1920's with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Lack of understanding could be now blamed on nature and not on the random theory, itself.

I prefer a water model for evolution since this makes it logical like evolution of an embryo. Water is the chemical environment that set potentials for natural selection at the nanoscale; picks the organic molecules that work best in water. It is not coincidence that hydrogen bonding common to water was a good way to be chosen for the cell and life; DNA, RNA, Protein, etc. DNA will not work in other solvents since it is tuned to water and its hydrogen bonding.

I believe in evolution but like the original term at the time of Darwin. The current definition of evolution uses the same math as gambling casinos, marketing consultant, focus groups, pollsters and politicians. Need I say more?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not evolution's purpose to "solve mankind's problems." Neither is it the purpose of plate tectonics or the water cycle or literally any other natural phenomenon.

Not saying it is evolution's purpose. But then I don't imagine evolution has a thoughtful purpose, right? It just happens, based on biologic opportunity. I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Adapt to a dying world? I truly hope humanity fails in that respect. It may cling on, it depends on what happens. So far we can see all the signs of a collapsing climate system. Adapt to that...adapt to acidic oceans and an unbreathable atmosphere.

Mankind has caused the naturally irreversible effect of superheating the globe. I say natural effect because yes, only a superpower can undo the damage. Not preaching, just saying what I believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah but the rules are clear on preaching. You are supposed to say something like, in my opinion or some such thing. I've got in trouble for that before.
When making assertions about untestable matters as if they were fact.

Just wondering if that same precept is applicable to statements about evolution and or what will happen to the earth naturally as if it will be ruined and not suitable for life. Say some. Not everyone though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which other species live in balance with, mostly. Not humans though.

I'm not sure your viewpoint can be substantiated. In reference to other species living in balance. I do agree that it is horrible that one country would try to knock out another country, and as it goes, this has been going on for a long time, sadly to say.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm not disagreeing that awful situations were here since Adam & Eve left the Garden of Eden. Evolution obviously is not going to solve mankind's problems. Only God can and will.

Ok we will wait.

 

[YoursTrue]

You too. No offence intended. I do hate the human species collectively, that is undeniable, but I do feel differently about individual human beings, so I hope you don't think my posts were intended to be personal, unfortunately you just happen to be a totemic standard bearer for all that I find utterly objectionable.

I thought about your reply and expressed my hatred of this world today to my husband. He took it in stride as he usually does. But! I reminded him of Louis Armstrong's song and rephrased it to "What a Terrible World." So we're in agreement there...but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok we will wait.

Aww, sweet, we cannot rush it.

 

[metis]

IMO, the world is neither good nor bad-- it's just a mixture.

 

[YoursTrue]

A multi-science research study done a few decades ago concluded that the world could hold 3 billion people and do OK as long as we tried our best not to destroy our planet, and yet now we are at 7 billion and counting.

Still land available. Nevertheless...

 

[metis]

Still land available. Nevertheless...

But not unlimited resources.

 

[YoursTrue]

IMO, the world is neither good nor bad-- it's just a mixture.

If Jesus thought everything was bad, I doubt he could find followers. So it should be taken subjectively. He did speak of destruction. But obviously not entirely otherwise a new earth would have to be in some people's minds and entirely new ball of wax ok that was an illustration. I'll do a little research on the word 'world' as used in the Bible. Thanks.