Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

Their article depends on an evolutionary process proceeding over millions of years. You don’t believe any of that.

Of course it does. It is dogma. They just parrot the dogma so they can try to fit it in to evo theory and get published.

Once again you focus on dogma and miss the entire point of the paper. The walls are closing in on your worldview. You can holdout though.

Design is the better explanation .

 

[gama232]

Design is definitely the better explanation.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Their article depends on an evolutionary process proceeding over millions of years. You don’t believe any of that.

Of course it does. It is dogma. They just parrot the dogma so they can try to fit it in to evo theory and get published.

Their proposals don’t work if evolution doesn’t occur over millions of years.

One one hand you are saying ‘Look what these guys say about evolution’ and then you tell us that they actually know the proposals they are making aren’t true.

How on earth can you expect us to accept what they say in one post and then in another tell us that they know what they have written is false?

The basis for their work is something you deny yet their conclusions which depend on that basis you say are valid. Truly, utterly bizarre.

 

[Freddy]

Design is definitely the better explanation.

Again, we await your refutal of all cladistic analysis and phylogenetic reconstruction, parahomology, anatomical and molecular convergence, morphology, genetics etc. We look forward to your explanation as to how all these branches of science and many others beside support design.

C’mon, Ed. I’m in self imposed isolation here. I’ve plenty of time.

 

[buffalo]

Their proposals don’t work if evolution doesn’t occur over millions of years.

Proposals? Really - look at what they found. They did not even have to make any reference to millions of years to be significant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Their proposals don’t work if evolution doesn’t occur over millions of years.

Proposals? Really - look at what they found. They did not even have to make any reference to millions of years to be significant.

Their findings are based on the evolutionary process taking millions of years. Do you not read the articles to which you link? You even quoted them saying things you don’t believe: '…nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.’ That’s a comment that you think is nonsensical.

We don’t have to look for information that demolishes your position. You supply it yourself.

Keep up the good work.

 

[buffalo]

“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."

“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."

 

[rossum]

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.

The Catholic Church is wise enough not to attempt to second guess science; it limits itself to theology. You would do well to follow its example.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, we await your refutal of all cladistic analysis and phylogenetic reconstruction, parahomology, anatomical and molecular convergence, morphology, genetics etc.

Studies which assume the truth of macroevolution do not advance your argument on the truth of macroevolution itself.

But they do provide evidence of the confusion within the believing community of macroevolutionists. @rossum believes that the appearances of creatures does not indicate a differentiation of species, only the inability to produce fertile offspring supports a speciation event (after some undefined time from the lineage splitting event).

Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.

 

[o_mlly]

‘I don’t know’ is quite a common phrase used in science. But what’s your alternative theory?

As it relates to macroevolution, apparently not common enough.

 

[rossum]

Studies which assume the truth of macroevolution do not advance your argument on the truth of macroevolution itself.

There are no such studies. Macroevolution, the evolution of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

 

[o_mlly]

There are no such studies. Macroevolution, the evolution of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

Let’s look at the first study which @Freddy proposed as supporting the truth of macroevolution, cladistics.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_05

Assumptions
There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:

1. Change in characteristics occurs in lineages over time.
2. Any group of organisms is related by descent from a common ancestor.
3. There is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.

Your purported observations of macroevolution are irrational and not supported by a consensus in the scientific community.

 

[tafan2]

The Catholic Church does not attempt yo provide an answer to this question.

 

[rossum]

Your purported observations of macroevolution are irrational and not supported by a consensus in the scientific community.

See Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci.

Speciation, the formation of a new species, is macroevolution. There is evidence for macroevolution available and any of your sources which deny it are grossly misinforming you.

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church is wise enough not to attempt to second guess science; it limits itself to theology. You would do well to follow its example.

In the areas where faith and science intersect both must be true.

 

[buffalo]

Macroevolution, the evolution of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

Rewrite - Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

 

[buffalo]

Let’s look at the first study which @Freddy proposed as supporting the truth of macroevolution, cladistics.

A house built on sand…

 

[rossum]

Rewrite - Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

Your irrelevant obsession with loss of function is becoming very obvious. There is nothing in evolution that requires a gain of function in all cases. Cave fish and many parasites are obvious examples of both evolution and of loss of function. You are wasting your efforts on irrelevancies here.

 

[buffalo]

Your irrelevant obsession with loss of function is becoming very obvious. There is nothing in evolution that requires a gain of function in all cases. Cave fish and many parasites are obvious examples of both evolution and of loss of function. You are wasting your efforts on irrelevancies here.

So you say. We are converging on the reality of what really happens. Devolution going from more fit to less fit over time. Good. Progress is being made.

 

[o_mlly]

See Tauber and Tauber (1977) Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci .

Speciation, the formation of a new species, is macroevolution. There is evidence for macroevolution available and any of your sources which deny it are grossly misinforming you.

The 1977 article you cite makes claims not supported by a consensus of scientists or your own definition of species. First, your own definition of species:

Basically biology defines a species as members of a population that actually or potentially interbreeds in nature …

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00441.x

The fact that the two species interbreed fairly freely in the laboratory makes this approach possible.

The potential to interbreed is evidenced in the lab and, therefore, the lack of evidence in nature is not the potential to interbreed but the lack of the will to do so. The bugs just don’t like the new song.

And these sources argue against the sympatric speciation as conclusive evidence of speciation.

What, if anything, is sympatric speciation? - PubMed

Sympatric speciation has always fascinated evolutionary biologists, and for good reason; it pits diversifying selection directly against the tendency of sexual reproduction to homogenize populations. However, different investigators have used different definitions of sympatric speciation and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Reply to Tauber and Tauber's “Synipatric Speciation in Chrysopa: Further Discussion”

Abstract. I do not reject the Taubers' model (Tauber and Tauber 1977a,b, 1982) of sympatric speciation in Chrysopa carnea and C. downesi in favor of a trad

academic.oup.com

However, I am not wholly persuaded by the data so confidently presented by the Taubers to support their hypothesis; in fact, none of the data, theirs or mine, discriminate between the two modes of speciation.