Evidence for Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekingCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Barbarian said:
The first directly observed example was in 1904. Want to learn about it?

No,there are no directly observed examples of macro-evolution.
Don’t bother giving an example that even most scientists wouldn’t give as an example.

Hominin.

The word “hominin” includes not only humans and the supposed immediate ancestors of humans but also apes. So again,the “common ancestors” would have been simians. There were apes before there were humans.

He’s not necessary to the theory of gravity, either. Unless you start thinking about where it all came from.

Of course God is not necessary to the theory of gravity,because it is not about the origins of life forms. A theory of gravity doesn’t need to consider how things came into existence.
Click to expand...
 
anthony022071 said:
The Barbarian;3598879:
Of course God not necessary to the theory of gravity,because it is not about the origins of life forms.
Click to expand...
That should put an end to the comparisons of evolution with gravity (or plumbing) that are posed here on a continual basis.

Yes, it should but I think we can still expect to see that comparision repeated.
Click to expand...
 
drpmjhess said:
Abu, perhaps you can enlighten me about something that has stumped me for a long time: if I am descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. You only descended from Europeans,not evolved or speciated from them.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Having actually done science for a living, it’s hard for me to understand how people can’t understand that science can say nothing about religion.

It’s a method.

No,it isn’t just a method. A science is a field of study that uses methods.

It’s not a worldview, it’s not a philosophy, it’s just a method, a way of doing things that gives us reliable answers about the world in which we live.

The theories of evolution are not methods,they are interpretations of evidence. Modern science does indeed have a world-view and a philosophy to go along with the practice,namely,naturalism. It isn’t that science can’t say anything about God;rather,scientists choose not to bring in God because naturalism is the unproven but agreed-upon world-view of the scientific community. The belief in a Creator need not going to interfere with the methods of science,but it will interfere with naturalism.

Certainly, knowing a little of the biology and chemistry and physics of it all enriched that understanding for me. But it couldn’t give me that understanding.

Science can’t go there. But scientists can.

Thank God.

Science can be turned in any understanding that scientists want to turn it,just as they turned it in the direction of naturalistic understanding of nature several hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
 
anthony022071 said:
Of course God is not necessary to the theory of gravity,because it is not about the origins of life forms. A theory of gravity doesn’t need to consider how things came into existence.
Click to expand...
No, and neither does a theory of plumbing, or of electricity, or of variation the of species as a result of descent with a modification from a common ancestor. Science only explains how species change over time.
 
anthony022071 said:
Bad analogy. You only descended from Europeans,not evolved or speciated from them.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, it’s a good analogy! I am descended with modification from my European ancestors. The modifications have not turned my family into a different species from Europeans, both because (1) the time since separation has been too short, and (2) the genetic interchange between Europeans and Americans has been fairly constant. But if the two were completely isolated for millions of years, and subjected to different environmental constraints, no doubt significant changes would occur between the two groups, perhaps enough to define them as distinct species.

Petrus
 
Barbarian observes:
The first directly observed example was in 1904. Want to learn about it?
No,there are no directly observed examples of macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
I see, the “creationist crouch”; eyes shut, fingers in ears. It’s the only defense they have left. BTW, even the fundamentalist Institute for Creation Research has now admitted that species evolve. They have even touted work that asserts new genera and families evolve. So you’re a bit behind on your fundamentalist doctrines.

Barbarian on human ancestors:
Hominin.
The word “hominin” includes not only humans and the supposed immediate ancestors of humans but also apes. So again,the “common ancestors” would have been simians.
Click to expand...
“Simian” is an informal word of various usages. BTW, by strict classification, we are apes, and even the creationist Linnaeus, who invented classification, admitted that.

Barbarian chuckles:
He’s not necessary to the theory of gravity, either. Unless you start thinking about where it all came from.
Of course God is not necessary to the theory of gravity,because it is not about the origins of life forms.
Click to expand...
And the theory of evolution is not about the origin of planets, stars and galaxies. And, of course, God is not necessary to the theory of evolution, either. For the same reason He’s not necessary to the theory of gravity. Do you have a point?
A theory of gravity doesn’t need to consider how things came into existence.
Click to expand...
Stars, planets, the Earth we live on, etc. Think.
 
drpmjhess said:
No, and neither does a theory of plumbing, or of electricity, or of variation the of species as a result of descent with a modification from a common ancestor. Science only explains how species change over time.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. The theory of evolution is about the origin and genesis of species as well as “how species change over time”. The question of macro-evolution and above species-level “change” is a question of origin and genesis. If a population of a given species changes over time into a distinct species,then that is not just a matter of variation or modification but the coming into existence of a new,distinct family of creatures.
 
The question of macro-evolution and above species-level “change” is a question of origin and genesis.
Click to expand...
Genesis is about the origin of life. Evolution describes how life changes.
If a population of a given species changes over time into a distinct species,then that is not just a matter of variation or modification but the coming into existence of a new,distinct family of creatures.
Click to expand...
Species. Although at some point, if speciation proceeds far enough, it will produce new families.
 
drpmjhess said:
On the contrary, it’s a good analogy! I am descended with modification from my European ancestors.

The modifications have not turned my family into a different species from Europeans, both because (1) the time since separation has been too short, and (2) the genetic interchange between Europeans and Americans has been fairly constant.

You’re still of the same general species as your ancestors thousands of years ago. What are the physical traits that you have that some of your ancestors did not also have? We are preceded by thousands of generations of ancestors. There is not likely to be any physical trait about us that did not have a precedent in at least one of our ancestors. Variation yes,but where is the evolution in human genetic history?

But if the two were completely isolated for millions of years, and subjected to different environmental constraints, no doubt significant changes would occur between the two groups, perhaps enough to define them as distinct species.

Different races and ethnic groups have been geographically separated and subject to completely different environments for tens of thousands of years,perhaps hundreds of thousands of years,and yet all races and ethnic groups are capable of breeding with each other. There’s no sign that any population of humans will ever be genetically isolated from any other human population. If we are to believe science,barriers to reproduction between populations need not take thousands or millions of years to develop,but can happen very quickly.
Click to expand...
 
anthony022071 said:
Bad analogy. You only descended from Europeans,not evolved or speciated from them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We and our ancestors share a common species. Location is irrelevant.

If you try to convince me that you are descended from a European ape, I would try to set you straight before you continue to embarass yourself.
 
drpmjhess said:
On the contrary, it’s a good analogy! I am descended with modification from my European ancestors. The modifications have not turned my family into a different species from Europeans, both because (1) the time since separation has been too short, and (2) the genetic interchange between Europeans and Americans has been fairly constant. But if the two were completely isolated for millions of years, and subjected to different environmental constraints, no doubt significant changes would occur between the two groups, perhaps enough to define them as distinct species.

Petrus
Click to expand...
Wrong again. First, evolution does not occur in a few decades, or several thousand (million) years. A human will only reproduce a human. An ape will only reproduce an ape. And THAT is science!

Genetic interchange between Europeans and Americans? Both are members of the same species, the human race.

Two completely isolated groups will certainly show differences, regardless of environmental constraints. And it only taks a few generations. Isolated groups tend to reinforce traits. This results in a different appearance, different proclivities regarding immunity, prediliction to disease, body build & c. This is where we get the different “races” (this word race is incorrect as there is only one race, the human race. Rather, this is how racial characteristics are manifested).
 
The_Barbarian said:
Genesis is about the origin of life. Evolution describes how life changes.

The theory of evolution involves the origin of species,hence the title of Darwin’s book. The study of the origin of species is a study of genesis.

Species. Although at some point, if speciation proceeds far enough, it will produce new families.

That’s a big “if” that has yet to be seen to happen. It would be absolute,completed speciation,not the kind of speciation that stops at a partial reproductive isolation between two groups,or the kind that results in sterile,weak,malformed hybrids.
Click to expand...
 
Barbarian observes:
Genesis is about the origin of life. Evolution describes how life changes.
The theory of evolution involves the origin of species,hence the title of Darwin’s book.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it had been about Genesis, it would have been titled “The Origin of Life.”
The study of the origin of species is a study of genesis.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone’s trying to conflate beginnings of species with the book of Genesis. God is probably not pleased.

Barbarian observes:
Species. Although at some point, if speciation proceeds far enough, it will produce new families.
That’s a big “if” that has yet to be seen to happen.
Click to expand...
No one has seen a giant redwood grow up from a seedling, either. The creationist/ID shuffle: “let’s define evolution as the amount that takes too long for anyone to directly observe, and then demand that scientist show that someone has directly observed it.”

The funny part is, they actually believe that people are fooled by such things.
It would be absolute,completed speciation,not the kind of speciation that stops at a partial reproductive isolation between two groups,or the kind that results in sterile,weak,malformed hybrids.
Click to expand...
Speciation is rarely by hybridization. You’ve been misled about that.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Yes, if it had been about Genesis, it would have been titled “The Origin of Life.”

The study of the origin of species is the study of the origin of living creatures. Genesis.

Sounds like someone’s trying to conflate beginnings of species with the book of Genesis.

The Book of Genesis relates the beginnings of living creatures. And the theory of evolution attempts to describe the same. No getting around that fact. The theory of evolution is a theory of genetic history,and a world-view that denies Creation.

No one has seen a giant redwood grow up from a seedling, either.

Not too many people would doubt it,either. Humans figured out that huge trees come from seeds thousands of years ago,through common sense. Anyone who knows the connection between seeds and small plants or crops can guess that huge trees come from seeds as well.

The creationist/ID shuffle: “let’s define evolution as the amount that takes too long for anyone to directly observe, and then demand that scientist show that someone has directly observed it.”

The funny part is, they actually believe that people are fooled by such things.

The evolutionist shuffle: let’s extrapolate a theory of macro-evolution from observed instances of micro-evolution.

Speciation is rarely by hybridization. You’ve been misled about that.

I never said that speciation is commonly by hybridization anyway. Humans certainly didn’t develop from weak,malformed,sterile hybrids,and speciation has never been seen to lead to total genetic isolation,so there’s no justification for believing that we could have evolved from another species.
Click to expand...
 
anthony022071 said:
]Different races and ethnic groups have been geographically separated and subject to completely different environments for tens of thousands of years,perhaps hundreds of thousands of years,and yet all races and ethnic groups are capable of breeding with each other. There’s no sign that any population of humans will ever be genetically isolated from any other human population. If we are to believe science,barriers to reproduction between populations need not take thousands or millions of years to develop,but can happen very quickly.
Click to expand...
I thought YECs didn’t believe in hundreds of thousands of years. And when’s the last time you tried to breed with someone from 200,000 years ago?
 
edwest2 said:
The last time I mentioned the National Geographic here, it was discredited as being a popular magazine and not scientifically credible. And about the same subject.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The National Geographic website was simply one of dozens of online and print sources where the story was reported; it had nothing to do with National Geographic, per se. The research was conducted by a scientist at the University of Washington, along with a Japanese colleague.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top