B
Bradskii
Guest
No, that’s an issue for people who confuse abiogenesis with evolution. And for those who misrepresent both.
- Status
W
William_Scott
Guest
Hello again my evolutionary nemesis (aka Rossum),
I agree that Wikipedia is a less than authoritative source of truth (which is obvious given its hawking of evolutionism)
As to the appearance of blue eyes–this is not “new information” in the sense described in the link I provided. Here’s a helpful YEC nutter discussion on the matter and the type of information ideas that YEC’s use as a scientific “veneer” for their silly religious beliefs:
creation.com
Rossum said:
“Pterosaurs (flying reptiles) died out with no living descendants. Birds are descended from non-flying dinosaurs, which developed feathers before they developed flight. Pterosaurs did not have feathers, their wings were skin, similar to modern bats. Some dinosaurs were warm blooded, and birds inherited that along with feathers from their non-flying ancestors. Your source is misinforming you here.”
I agree that the link I provided got its evolutionary mythology messed up on the Dino to Chicken link. As for the warm blooded question: The following article provides an interesting look at the thoughts of mega-liar wingnuts on the issue:
answersingenesis.org
I agree that Wikipedia is a less than authoritative source of truth (which is obvious given its hawking of evolutionism)
As to the appearance of blue eyes–this is not “new information” in the sense described in the link I provided. Here’s a helpful YEC nutter discussion on the matter and the type of information ideas that YEC’s use as a scientific “veneer” for their silly religious beliefs:
mutations-new-information
Mutations can produce new information, depending on the meaning of new and information, but they cannot account for the evolution of all life on Earth.
Rossum said:
“Pterosaurs (flying reptiles) died out with no living descendants. Birds are descended from non-flying dinosaurs, which developed feathers before they developed flight. Pterosaurs did not have feathers, their wings were skin, similar to modern bats. Some dinosaurs were warm blooded, and birds inherited that along with feathers from their non-flying ancestors. Your source is misinforming you here.”
I agree that the link I provided got its evolutionary mythology messed up on the Dino to Chicken link. As for the warm blooded question: The following article provides an interesting look at the thoughts of mega-liar wingnuts on the issue:
Dinosaurs May Have Been Neither Warm- Nor Cold-Blooded
Dinosaur body temperatures, like Goldilocks’s preferred porridge, may have been neither hot nor cold but somewhere in the middle.
answersingenesis.org
W
William_Scott
Guest
I am sorry for the confusion my post has caused. However I did point out the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution a little earlier in this thread (while discussing the scientific belief that rocks eventually develop arms, legs and twitchy eyes)-so I was hoping all my loyal followers were paying attention.
However, the naturalistic worldview (i.e. religion) of evolutionism requires abiogenesis–so as a dedicated adherent to evolution you must believe that rocks can develop consciousness if given enough time. If I’m wrong on this point, please accept my apologies.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
You guys are really going to get me in trouble with my wife…so for the good of humanity I am now going to leave this discussion.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Aren’t you supposed to be doing your chores? As opposed to posting comments with faux bon homie digging your new chums in the ribs about these crazy YEC guys and their silly religious beliefs. Oh how we laugh at these sort of people! I mean, they wouldn’t understand a basic scientific concept if it hit them upside the head!
But us lot…well, we can have a proper discussion like real grown-ups.
Nice try. But you can go and stand in the corner over there with the YEC guys and the flat earthers and the ark builders. The science section is over here.
But us lot…well, we can have a proper discussion like real grown-ups.
Nice try. But you can go and stand in the corner over there with the YEC guys and the flat earthers and the ark builders. The science section is over here.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Yes you are and no I don’t.
W
William_Scott
Guest
Do you have to be the voice of conscience Bradskii? Anyhow, I see you religiously avoided the rock to man question. Now if you don’t mind, my flat earther and ark building friends are calling me…
E
edwest
Guest
This is speculation, especially the interbreeding with other proto-humans. The soul concept does not exist and cannot be proven so adding it cannot be proven. The wording in Humani Generis allowed for investigation into evolution, both for and against, “… provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”
B
buffalo
Guest
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
More evidence for IDvolution.Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .
For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.
The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."
“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Were you just looking to score another ‘Buffalo’? Keep posting that link and I will keep posting this from it:LeafByNiggle:
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
More evidence for IDvolution.
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .
For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.
The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."
“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
'But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth. This means a population “bottleneck” is only a partial explanation at best.
“The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving,” said Stoeckle.’
Buffalo 8.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
You know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."
“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
E
edwest
Guest
Thank you, buffalo.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I guess the best interpretation that we can come with for that is that (wait for it)…‘life is always evolving’.
C’mon, mate. You need to post the link to win a point. You know the rules. Don’t make me find another cartoon with someone picking cherries.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
If the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory, as you state, then which scientific theory or hypothesis do you believe can replace it: creationism, intelligent design, or none?
A theory is better or more comprehensive than a law since the former is an organized collection of facts, which include laws, whereas the latter is a specific statement concerning an event.
A theory is better or more comprehensive than a law since the former is an organized collection of facts, which include laws, whereas the latter is a specific statement concerning an event.
M
mVitus
Guest
I had a feeling you’d bring out your catchphrase. But if you read…
As the soul isn’t material, we can’t find a fossilized soul. But we can think about scientific evidence in a theological light and say, “This would make sense.”
The common interpretation is that Catholics may accept evolution. And that view has yet to be corrected, so it’s 99.999…% certain that’s right.
(And to head off your other common objection, of course a Catholic couldn’t hold a God-less view, but as we’re both Catholics on a Catholic forum, I’m obviously not advocating that.)
Side note: I’m guessing you’re having issues with your @Edwest211 account. I’m wondering if maybe there’s something any of us might be able to tell you that could help you get back in it.
Last edited:
M
mVitus
Guest
Out of curiosity, meltzerboy2, I’m curious what the Jewish view of Genesis is. Would you be able to share?
U
Uriel1
Guest
You say that a theory is better or more comprehensive than a law so are you saying that the theory
of evolution is a fact, or close to a fact?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
A theory (that is, scientific theory) is better than a single fact because it is an organized group of facts. When a hypothesis is tested and verified, it can become a theory. This does not mean a theory can never be revised or even discarded if new evidence comes to light; but in the meantime, it is the best we have in science.
E
edwest
Guest
I’m not arguing that Catholics cannot accept evolution, but I am trying to point out that there are issues with it.
Pope Benedict
"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
“impossible to conduct experiments” I think things like this need to be addressed, that’s all.
Pope Benedict
"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”
“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
“impossible to conduct experiments” I think things like this need to be addressed, that’s all.
Last edited:
U
Uriel1
Guest
Do you know what the word theory means in English?
- Status