N
Noose001
Guest
Evolution can not be demonstrated. You can not get a species from another species.
- Status
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Evolution according to the Catholic Church as described by the English language version of Wikipedia is found here: Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
W
whatistrue
Guest
It has been demonstrated. It is predictive. Speciation has been observed. You are quite simply misinformed on this subject, and refusing to accept a fact does not make it not a fact.
N
Noose001
Guest
When? For it to be demonstrated, each aspect has to be shown to be true:
- Random mutations need to be shown to give an ‘advantage(s)’ to the organism
- Natural selection
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
For your #1, it is not necessary to show that each and every random mutation, or even a given percentage, to be beneficial. It is recognized that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. And even then, mutation is not the only way that evolution happens; normal variation in a species can confer an advantage on a small percentage of a population under changing conditions.
#2 is seen daily, so saying it doesn’t exist is simply denial of facts.
Again, you are simply misinformed on this subject and denying a fact does not make it a non-fact.
#2 is seen daily, so saying it doesn’t exist is simply denial of facts.
Again, you are simply misinformed on this subject and denying a fact does not make it a non-fact.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Repeating this does not address the point I made.
All living things share genetic material that is passed on through descent.
Therefore all living things are related.
Therefore they share common ancestors.
Therefore evolution happens.
This is not a hypothesis, or even a theory. It is a fact, like the fact of gravity and the fact of water existing as solid, fluid and gas.
The point is that life does differ from one living thing to other according to what genetic material is inherited. That is why you differ from my pot plant. You share only half your genetic material with plants. It is also why you differ from me, unless you are a long-lost identical twin. Our genetic material is a little different.
N
Noose001
Guest
Mutations are rare and they happen when DNA proof reading mechanism is interfered with. Why would evolution give cells a ‘DNA proof reading mechanism’ which seems to deter evolution?
Mendelian Hereditary science is seen daily for sexual organisms. A dominant gene will always be expressed no matter the situation. Adaptation is inbuilt for every organism.
N
Noose001
Guest
All living things are living and so share life and way of life (genetic material)
This doesn’t exclusively show that i share an ancestor with the pot plant, it could also mean i share a common designer with the pot plant.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Possibly for the same reason that negative feedback in a mechanical system keeps the system running normally rather than letting it take off and thrash the machine to small shards. Massive rapid change is not the best way for life in general to evolve. So a slightly imperfect control mechanism on a slightly imperfect replication mechanism yields a tiny rate of change, most of which is either thrown out (e.g. miscarriage) or ignored (e.g. hair color) with respect to survival.
Which is part of natural selection, which you denied existed.
N
Noose001
Guest
We don’t have ‘imperfect control mechanism’ in living cells and we can not have slight improvement or improvement in functions. Organisms are about systems; the bio-molecules, the cells, the tissues, the organs are a system which work together toward a goal which is a function. A slight deviation upstream can not improve a function because we can not improve functions, it can only have neutral or negative impact.
Not in the manner evolutionists want people to believe. Even with adaptation, species go extinct. Adaptation seem designed and each species seem to have limits to what they can adapt to.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
This is demonstrably untrue, as untold years of study and research by a vast number of working scientists have shown. You are misinformed and refusing to acknowledge evident facts. I am done. Muting thread.
N
Noose001
Guest
And there’s a reason why millions or 100s of thousands of years have been proposed for evolution. Your ‘untold years of study and research by a vast number of working scientists’ means nothing.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
You know I thought your response to me maybe had some philosophical underpinning I missed, even though I disagreed. Now I know you’re just being anti-scientific. Shame.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Common descent from archetypes is a better explanation than universal common descent.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Your Inner Fish!
E
EndTimes
Guest
Humans descend from Adam and Eve…
Virtually all Phylums - Body Plans no less
- very quickly came into being de novo during the Cambrian -
The arguable realization of DeVolution is also an Explanation
_
B
BT3241
Guest
If it was just Adam and Eve and then just Noah and his family then we are are the spawns of incestual relationships.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
I’m not being anti-scientific but i like ‘better’ and simple explanations. This is who i am.
Abiogenesis and Evolution are not better explanations IMO.
N
Noose001
Guest
Yes.
R
rossum
Guest
There is nothing there to say that speciation does not happen. All species lose the ability to interbreed with their original parent species. All species will eventually go extinct, though not all have done so yet.
Your points are irrelevant to the fact that speciation happens and has been observed.
- Status