Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I cannot understand why anyone thinks there is any conflict between our Catholic faith and the Theory of evolution.
God made us and evolution was the tool he used to do it.
The Bible tells us what God did and Science tells us how he did it.
To suggest that we should not believe in evolution or any other scientific theory places a totally unnecessary obstacle in the way of belief.
 
buffalo said:
and yes that is a loss of a function once had, like it or not. essentially, the “new species” is a less functional form of its parent.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false as function more relates to adaptability, as does evolution in general.

You make statements based on your opinions but you don’t back them up with any sourcing, plus you just ignore my links and avoid answering what I have asked you, so trying to have any serious discussion with you is an absolute waste of time.
 
buffalo said:
Uh - that is what I posted, and yes that is a loss of a function once had, like it or not. essentially, the “new species” is a less functional form of its parent.
Click to expand...
So a bird cannot mate with a fish, and you consider that a loss of function? The bird can’t breathe water either. Poor bird! How disadvantaged he is. He can’t mate with a fish. He’s got no gills.

But a bird can swim, walk, fly, breathe air, and sing.
 
Last edited:
RandomAlias said:
So a bird cannot mate with a fish, and you consider that a loss of function?
Click to expand...
Dumb comment.

Say two bears become so isolated that they can no longer reproduce. We name one a “new species”. What has changed? They can no longer reproduce with each other. That is a loss of a function they once had.

Birds could never mate with fish. Duh.
 
Metis1 said:
You make statements based on your opinions but you don’t back them up with any sourcing, plus you just ignore my links and avoid answering what I have asked you, so trying to have any serious discussion with you is an absolute waste of time.
Click to expand...
See post 418 and 451 among the hundreds and hundreds already posted from mainstream science sites.
 
buffalo said:
Like the ecoli experiment?
Click to expand...
There have been thousands of experiments involving E. coli. Not one of them has disproved evolution.

There have even been experiments showing DNA being designed. In all those experiments, the designers were human.

That is what science shows. do you have any research showing DNA, RNA or similar being designed by non-humans?

ETA: Google scholar gives me 2,900,000 results on “E. coli”, so I underestimated.

rossum
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
That is what science shows. do you have any research showing DNA, RNA or similar being designed by non-humans?
Click to expand...
DNA and RNA was here at the beginning. There was no human to design it.

Yet, everything we see in DNA, RNA, Language and now encrypted codes smacks of design. The complexity is beyond anything we imagined. We recognize design because it was cognized.

But, NS did it, against all odds. 😀 Keep believing…blind faith…It has to be evo! Ahhhhh, meltdown…
 
buffalo said:
And which one proved macro-evolution?
Click to expand...
Erm… Macro-evolution involves the formation of a new species. So any experiment which shows macro-evolution would involve E. coli and a new species of bacteria, not just E. coli.

For macro-evolution see de Vries (1905), Tauber and Tauber (1977) or Lyko (2017) and many others. All describe the evolution of new species.

I await with interest your references to papers describing the creation of a new species by any non-human entity: macro-creation.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
non-humans?
Click to expand...
So, you have no evidence and no research. Thank you for confirming that. This is science, so you lose.

I also find it interesting that you use “blind faith” as a criticism. Since your side has nothing but blind faith (as shown by your failure to cite any supporting research) you are shooting yourself in the foot.

rossum
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
Science by # of hits on google. Really? That is how far science has fallen.
Click to expand...
I made an error by underestimating, so I corrected my error. And Google Scholar is not the same as Google. If you want to discuss science you should be aware of the difference.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Erm… Macro-evolution involves the formation of a new species.
Click to expand...
Yup. One that can longer reproduce with the former. No new creative novel features. Loss of a function once had. Wiggle around all you want. That is the fact.

If you want to limit the abilities of macro-evolution I am with you all the way.

Design an experiment that can take the fruitfly back to its prior forms, and then back again. Then we could see what it takes, the micro-steps, and full evo pathway.
 
rossum said:
I made an error by underestimating, so I corrected my error. And Google Scholar is not the same as Google. If you want to discuss science you should be aware of the difference.
Click to expand...
You are actually doubling down on this? WOW
 
1amgreen said:
God made us and evolution was the tool he used to do it.
The Bible tells us what God did and Science tells us how he did it.
Click to expand...
This thread offers us an opportunity to discuss the merits of Darwinism. Is it good or bad science? Since you believe that evolution was the tool he used, I would assume that in your opinion it is good science. I would have liked hearing what it is that convinced you of this. I might perhaps be able to open your mind to the possibilities. I don’t even know what you mean by evolution, actually - random genetic mutations? survival of the fittest? Dinosaurs? Monkey-men? This is a huge topic as you may have guessed.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
One that can longer reproduce with the former.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you have learned the definition of ‘species’ for organisms that reproduce sexually.

Now you need to realise that your silly ‘loss of function’ example does not apply to species that reproduce asexually. Your example fails for bacteria, archaea, many plants, many fungi some protists and a few metazoa.

You also need to be aware that evolution has no problem with loss of function. Cave fish are a far more obvious and less strained example of evolution losing function.

You have still not provided any research or references for the creation/design of new species. I have provided three examples of the evolution of new species. You are losing the scientific discussion here, buffalo.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Dumb comment.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that we are operating on different wavelengths. We are using the same language but not communicating. Each thinks his own comments make sense and the other’s don’t. It’s like we are different species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top