Do you believe in evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Where did you get this idea? Did you know that some argue Neanderthal man is just a subspecies. The definition of “species” is not as cut and dried as you might think. When asexual reproduction is involved, the usual definition (capacity to interbreed) fails. Then there are hybrids.

Most commonly we think of speciation occurring when populations become physically separated in different environments. The ordinary processes of mutation and natural selection see the pool of animals (and genes) in an environment shift. Speciation is about how the separated pools of animals compare over long time periods, not the incremental differences between mum/dad and the kids.
Click to expand...
The term ‘exchange of genetic material’ in species’ definition gives it clear boundaries.

Are these boundaries observable? Yes. Failure to interbreed even between so called close cousins.

Most asexual organisms also have clear boundaries because they are characterized by their phenotype and it is still true to the species definition, they can not exchange genetic material with other species to produce offspring.
Rau said:
Most commonly we think of speciation occurring when populations become physically separated in different environments.
Click to expand...
Not true.
 
Noose001 said:
Budha doesn’t exist, only beings that exist exercise authority and power. Destruction is well within exercise of dominion. Humans do that every day with regard to harmful microbes.
Click to expand...
Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, no longer exists. Neither apparently does your spell checker.

Other Buddhas have existed in the past. The Maitreya Buddha will exist in the future. Other Buddhas exist elsewhere in the universe.

You presumably have no reply to the number of people, innocents included, who the Abrahamic God killed. You also apparently have no answer to the question of the number of people the Buddha killed.
 
Rau said:
Is this true?
Click to expand...
The answer to the question of whether or not the historical Buddha exists now that he has undergone his final death will get you into some very abstruse Buddhist metaphysics. It is one of the unanswered questions in the Malunkyovada sutta and Buddhist philosophers have been trying to answer it ever since.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
If God was necessary to the process, but evolution explains the process without God, then evolution is false.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s not how science works. Do you really believe that God can be pinned down and measured by humans? I don’t. The theory as it is can only speak to what it can see and measure. God cannot be seen (directly) or measured. Don’t try to put God in a bottle.
 
rossum said:
Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, no longer exists. Neither apparently does your spell checker.

Other Buddhas have existed in the past. The Maitreya Buddha will exist in the future. Other Buddhas exist elsewhere in the universe.
Click to expand...
Good to know that but i guess this is a nice bed time story or does he have anything to do with reality?
rossum said:
You presumably have no reply to the number of people, innocents included, who the Abrahamic God killed.
Click to expand...
Both Innocent and guilty die, they must die. What kind of reply are you expecting?
rossum said:
You also apparently have no answer to the question of the number of people the Buddha killed.
Click to expand...
It is a bed time story, he doesn’t exist, he will not exist therefore has no bearing on who dies or lives.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Now tell me how many people the Buddha killed.
Click to expand...
How many did he create?
The Abrahamic God has a great deal of blood on His hands, some of it innocent – all those babies and unborn.
Click to expand...
Making this statement you:
  1. Affirm the historical accuracy of the Old Testament - and thus must accept the same for the New which has more historical support
  2. Acknowledge the power of God over life, nature, death and mankind
  3. Require an equal evaluation of what God has done for humanity
  4. Require some sort of weighing in balance of the Final Judgement that we all face before God. How does all of this blood on His hands, weigh against the good (which you must equally acknowledge) He has done?
Unless you want to cherry pick some incidents - adhere to those and irrationally dismiss the rest, you have to deal with the whole entity. The fullness of God - His powers, His rights.

What rights does God have over his creation?
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
meanwhile in Taxonomy and other proven sciences, a species is clearly identifiable with very clear boundaries never to be crossed.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

“The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms” Haldane (1956)

“No term is more difficult to define than “species,” and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.” Nicholson

“The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word ‘species’.” Hey (2001).
Noose001 said:
Your proposal can only work with artificial selection.
Click to expand...
So there aren’t any populations of the same species separated by geographical boundaries?
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
“The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms” Haldane (1956)

“No term is more difficult to define than “species,” and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.” Nicholson

“The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word ‘species’.” Hey (2001).
Click to expand...
It is a problem to Evolutionists only. The problem is not with definition or description of species, the problem is with Evolution.
Dan123 said:
So there aren’t any populations of the same species separated by geographical boundaries?
Click to expand...
Of course there are but my earlier post was addressing physiological boundaries (Big dog, small dog, in the same environment but not able to mate)
 
Last edited:
Dan123 said:
Are you conceding we could create new species using artificial selection by creating two populations that can’t physically interbreed?
Click to expand...
We can genetically engineer aliens, we can even bring back the Mammoth but is it acceptable?
 
o_mlly said:
… currently existing in a randomly changing environment."
Click to expand...
The changing environment impacts the current value of the average for the population. Natural Selection merely looks at whether the current average value is exceed or not.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
How many did he create?
Click to expand...
One. His son Rahula.

Your failure to answer the question I asked is telling. You are implicitly telling us, correctly, that the Buddha did not kill anyone.
Bill_B_NY said:
Making this statement you:
  1. Affirm the historical accuracy of the Old Testament - and thus must accept the same for the New which has more historical support
  2. Acknowledge the power of God over life, nature, death and mankind
  3. Require an equal evaluation of what God has done for humanity
  4. Require some sort of weighing in balance of the Final Judgement that we all face before God. How does all of this blood on His hands, weigh against the good (which you must equally acknowledge) He has done?
Unless you want to cherry pick some incidents - adhere to those and irrationally dismiss the rest, you have to deal with the whole entity. The fullness of God - His powers, His rights.
Click to expand...
No. I accept the Bible as the authoritative description of the Christian God. The Tanakh/Old Testament is the authoritative description of the Jewish G-d. In the same way I accept the Qur’an as the authoritative description of Allah.
What rights does God have over his creation?
Click to expand...
Actions have results. God’s actions will have results in future. If He misuses His claimed rights then He will see the results.

Again, I do not wish to worship a God who kills unborn babies and orders unborn babies to be killed (Numbers 31:17). Even the Argentine Junta were better than that; they waited for a pregnant woman to give birth before killing her.
 
rossum said:
Again, I do not wish to worship a God who kills unborn babies and orders unborn babies to be killed (Numbers 31:17). Even the Argentine Junta were better than that; they waited for a pregnant woman to give birth before killing her.
Click to expand...
The verse you quoted doesn’t say what you are saying maybe you need to review some things instead of copy pasting from dubious websites.
 
Last edited:
Pope Benedict did not take issue with evolution, nor the idea of common descent
 
Noose001 said:
We can genetically engineer aliens, we can even bring back the Mammoth but is it acceptable?
Click to expand...
Not talking about cloning or genetic engineering. I’m asking if we take two populations of the same species and selectively breed them for very different traits for thousands and thousand of generations, would they eventually be different species? Especially if such traits meant they physically couldn’t breed.
Noose001 said:
It is a problem to Evolutionists only. The problem is not with definition or description of species, the problem is with Evolution.
Click to expand...
What definition of species are you using?
Noose001 said:
Of course there are but my earlier post was addressing physiological boundaries (Big dog, small dog, in the same environment but not able to mate)
Click to expand...
If two groups of the same species are geographically isolated from each other could they be subjected to different environment pressures?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top