R
rossum
Guest
This thread is discussing Evolution and creationism. I suggest you start a new thread in the Non-Catholic section if you want to discuss Buddhism.
Last edited:
- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
Ah. My bad. I stand corrected. My notes said photons. My typing said protons…Freddy:
Erm… Protons have mass. I suspect you meant photons, which have zero rest mass, not that they ever come to rest.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Have you seen a bacterium father a plant, a plant father an animal, an animal father a human being? If not, you’re claiming truth for things unseen. You do need a philosophical mind to avoid such errors.
Perhaps more importantly, your post and others show how scientific knowledge often reflects social structures rendering the appearance of objectivity to what is really subjective. The atheist culture wants (wills, not sees) macroevolution to be true. While a few theists believe in macroevolution but cannot articulate why, in the threads that I’ve followed on CA, no atheist has rejected it.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Neither would I think it necessary. But then your fellow atheist posts …
So, it appears necessary to inform atheists how science works and doesn’t work.
R
rossum
Guest
Have you seen George Washington? Did you hear Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address? You do need a philosophical mind to avoid such errors.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Natural faith supported by historical evidence and testimony from witnesses supports belief in both events. Do you have either to support the claims of macroevolution? No. So, you do need a philosophical mind to avoid such errors.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
You are still confusing the two. Yes, species evolve. They change over time from one species to another. That’s a recognised fact. It’s undeniable. We can even do it in the lab. That’s what Five was pointing out. Even creationists accept it: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/Freddy:
Neither would I think it necessary. But then your fellow atheist posts …
So, it appears necessary to inform atheists how science works and doesn’t work.
And how does it work? Well, we have a theory which proposes how the process happens. And we call it the theory of evolution and it’s the best explanation we have. That it happens is a fact. The explanation as to how it happens is not.
Maybe you have a better one…?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Until the scientific community agrees on a single definition of “species”, anything goes; which is not the way science works. “Species” is a moving target for the critical analysis of the macroevolution hypothesis.
All hypotheses and theories are constructs of the thinking mind, are interpretations of the facts, are imaginative and are never facts. The facts are the repeatable observations agreed to be facts by the scientific community.
If theories were facts then those theories would never change. What scientific theories held in 1900 are unchanged in 2020?
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
A designed experiment cannot evidence natural selection on random mutations evolving a new species (whatever that is).
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.”
The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."
O
o_mlly
Guest
Not quite. Only when science succeeds, not merely works.
After all, science can only offer natural causes for observed effects. Science never observes causes but imagines them. Those imagined hypotheses always remain in the realm of the probabilistic, some more so, some less.
Under your definition of species, does not the Neanderthal lose it species classification?
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
So if you disgaree with the theory then you need a replacement. What is yours?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Scientists ought to be humble enough to say, “We cannot explain what we see”, instead of throwing out terribly unscientific hypotheses.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
And they also add (just to be able to ‘keep their funding’ one assumes) quotes which directly contradict your views. Such as:
“It would be very exciting if over the next few years physical anthropologists and others were able to compare mitochondrial DNA from hominid species over the last 500,000 years,” says Dr. Stoeckle.
A half a million years, Buff!
F
Freddy
Guest
‘I don’t know’ is quite a common phrase used in science. But what’s your alternative theory?Freddy:
Scientists ought to be humble enough to say, “We cannot explain what we see”, instead of throwing out terribly unscientific hypotheses.
B
buffalo
Guest
@Freddy - never address the main points and be sure to always point out the nod to Darwin. Typical.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think you have it backwards. The main point is that the authors are considering a different interpretation of the evolutionary process which, as they point out in their article, happens over millions of years. If the process only happened over a few thousand and didn’t result in new species then they wouldn’t have anything to write about.Freddy:
@Freddy - never address the main points and be sure to always point out the nod to Darwin. Typical.
Their article depends on an evolutionary process proceeding over millions of years. You don’t believe any of that.
It’s not that they give a quick nod to the accepted science for whatever nonsensical reason you can come up with. Their article is based on science which you don’t accept. Even the journal is titled ‘Human Evolution’.
You have even quoted in your post the authors saying: ‘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.’
Why are you posting specific comments that you deny happened? If you are trying to deny evolution and only consider the planet to be a few thousand years old, then what on earth compels you to copy and paste someone saying things that obviously contradict that view? You didn’t even make any attempt to omit them.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Why this discussion cannot be had. People are not interested in looking at the scientific evidence.
G
gama232
Guest
The so-called scientific evidence is deficient. It makes conclusions based on a partly blind approach. Only the Catholic Church can provide the complete, whole answer.
F
Freddy
Guest
We await your refutal of cladistic analysis and phylogenetic reconstruction, parahomology, anatomical and molecular convergence, morphology, genetics etc.
All of these different methods produce evidence that points to evolution as being the best explanation for the process. I’m not sure you actually realise the weight of evidence across so many disciplines and how they all converge. But then, you haven’t investigated it so you weren’t to know.
- Status