Be fair – it was @buffalo who brought up the notion of “holding on to old paradigms for too long”. He opened the door… @rossum merely stepped through it.
Ooh! Can I play this game? “Buffalo defines macro-evolution as ‘the attempt by science to deny God’.” How’s that?buffalo:
How do you define macro evolution?
Not according to Biol. Stephan Scholz, Biologist at Universität Rostock. All agree that the ancestors are unknown. Scholz, as I cited, believes Lyko’s interpretation as “highly speculative.”
Do not paraphrase too much the language used in science papers to elevate what is offered as provisional to be fact, especially when peers report skepticism of even the provisional claim.
Your bias is showing. Follow your own instructions on promoting personal opinions as science facts.
All scientific theories are provisional. Facts are not, but theories always are. Newton’s theory of gravity was provisional and was replaced. That is the way science works. We use the best information we currently have. As and when more information comes in the theory will be adjusted or replaced as required. Darwin was not aware of Mendelian genetics. When Mendel’s work was rediscovered Darwin’s original theory was adjusted to incorporate Mendel.
We know all that. But there are scientific facts – overwhelming confirming data and all experts in agreement. Macro-evolution does not approach that status.
All agree that the Marbled Crayfish is different than non-Marbled Crayfish. You may call the Marbled Crayfish a different specie (once you define the term “specie”). What is not evidenced is that the Marbled Crayfish is a new specie (again depending on a definition of “specie”).
That is the problem. Please hold your feelings in abeyance and think. Science is rational; not emotional.
That’s very reasonable, but the problem is that the same could be said for any scientific theory, and that would not be a useful position. We can’t sensibly sit back and say “we just don’t know whether any scientific theory is true, but we may some day.”
Your sources are incorrect. Macro-evolution does reach that status. Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”. Since macro-evolution is how species originate, then obviously macro-evolution id basic to the theory, and is very well supported. If there was no macro-evolution then there would be no new species, and we would find fossil horses in hte Precambrian. We do not, so horses must have originated by macro-evolution since the Precambrian.
It was first observed recently and not in the wild but in German aquariums. It is a new species, or do you have a fossil Marbles Crayfish from the Precambrian? Crustaceans fossilise very well because they have hard shells.
Yes. Because then we would have to dump all scientific theories. Theories are not facts, and can be changed when necessary. Newton’s Gravity was not a fact, and it was changed when shown to be in (small) error. You would have us not even start to use the theory, which is still useful where the small error is too small to make a difference.
“You” was meant collectively.
Need I produce the list of Catholics who spoke out against it?
Look at just about any pro-evo paper. This is the language you will see:
Which support intelligent design.
It is being disproven -
idvolution.blogspot.com
A bit off topic but illustrates your point.
