Evolution and Creationism

[o_mlly]

Really? Scientists agree on the main point and disagree on details. Therefore the main point is wrong. No I don’t think so.

The scientists do not agree, rather they believe, that is have faith in what is assumed i.e., macroevolution. All science efforts to improve the probability of an hypothesis merely affirm the consequent, not the conditional.

Protestants and Catholics agree that Jesus is the Messiah, but they disagree on details. So, by your argument, Jesus is not the Messiah because of disagreement on details

The parallel you draw does in part apply. However, the faith that Jesus is the Messiah having been tested for 2,000 years does have historical, observable evidence in support. Not so with macroevolution, this theory relies exclusively on faith.

So fish are not animals because they swim rather than walk? Whales are not animals because they swim rather than walk? You really need to think through this stuff before you post it. Jellyfish and sponges are animals; have you ever seen either walking?

The “walking” function was meant as one easily observable kind of locomotion. Plants do not express all the functions unique to the animal kingdom, nor do animals express all the functions unique to man. To wit:

B) MAN’S LOWER FACULTIES A faculty is a capacity or power for vital operation. We have already learned that man is in possession of all the faculties of living bodies. Man has nutrition, growth, and vital generation, like the plants. He has sensation, appetition, and locomotion, like the non-human animals. And he has understanding and will (at least in actu primo) like pure spirits. Because man has all these faculties, in addition to the bodily character of his being which he holds in common with non-living bodies, he has been called “a microcosm” or “a world in little.”

Paul J. Glenn. An Introduction to Philosophy (Illustrated) (pp. 245-246). Aeterna Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you have exactly the same characteristics as your great grandparents? No. So there are changes in characteristics which occur in lineages over time.

Is your red headed brother or blue eyed sister a different species to you? The differentiation is not based on accidental characteristics but on essential functions.

Are you and your siblings related to your great grandfather? Yes. So your ‘group of organisms’ is related by descent from a common ancestor.

Does your family tree split to show different lineages? Yes. So there is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.

It’s not exactly pushing the boundaries of what could be scientifically accepted if it’s even relevant to you and your family. Is it?

Ditto. None of these questions indicate a speciation aka macroevolution event, only microevolution which is not disputed.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you saying you don’t know what an alternative theory might be? Or do you have one…?

No one has a good scientific hypothesis for macroevolution.

 

[Hume]

Well, it’s a hypothesis in itself that was created to explain the fossil record.

It does a pretty good job.

As an aside, I’m using the general term evolution. The line between micro and macro is so arbitrary as to be difficult actually Define.

 

[gama232]

It was produced by the International Theological Commission. Here is a link:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[rossum]

The scientists do not agree…

The scientists agree that speciation, i.e. macroevolution, has happened.

However, the faith that Jesus is the Messiah having been tested for 2,000 years does have historical, observable evidence in support.

My local Rabbi disagrees with you. He is still waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt and for 1,000 years of peace.

 

[rossum]

No one has a good scientific hypothesis for macroevolution.

How do you find the time? You have talked to every evolutionary biologist on earth!. However, I must admire your skill with languages.

 

[o_mlly]

The scientists agree that speciation, i.e. macroevolution, has happened.

Without an agreed definition of what constitutes a species, those that agree cannot understand what they are in agreement with.

My local Rabbi disagrees with you. He is still waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt and for 1,000 years of peace.

The religious Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Christians do. In matters of faith, men of goodwill can disagree.

How do you find the time? You have talked to every evolutionary biologist on earth!.

One need not interview “every evolutionary biologist” if doing so is redundant. Are there different schools of evolutionary biology whose views are decidedly different?

 

[tafan2]

Thank you, I will read it and see what it has to say about macro evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

The line between micro and macro is so arbitrary as to be difficult actually Define.

The line is demarked by an imagined speciation event and, yes, I too have found the definition of species to be ambiguous. That definition maybe difficult but it is also necessary.

 

[buffalo]

Well, it’s a hypothesis in itself that was created to explain the fossil record.

But we now know the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

 

[buffalo]

The scientists agree that speciation, i.e. macroevolution, has happened.

The scientists agree that degradatory lineage splitting has happened.

 

[buffalo]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Well, it’s a hypothesis in itself that was created to explain the fossil record.

But we now know the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

Sure. Some critters evolved rapidly, some very little. Depended on environmental pressure.

Your chicken used to be a dinosaur in the same amount of time that a crocodile has changed virtually none.

 

[rossum]

But we now know the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

Yes, humans appeared abruptly in North America. One day there were no humans and the next day there were humans. That is migration not evolution, and accounts for a great many of the abrupt appearances in the fossil record.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

We’re still waiting for your explanation of why it is that not being able to mate with chimps is a loss.

We never could to begin with, so it is an irrelevant question.

Ah yes. You don’t believe that speciation occurs. So there never has been a point where one group could not breed with another. So your risible ‘devolution’ cannot ever ocurred.

I don’t often see someone’s own argument refuted by their own claims.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Do you have exactly the same characteristics as your great grandparents? No. So there are changes in characteristics which occur in lineages over time.

Is your red headed brother or blue eyed sister a different species to you? The differentiation is not based on accidental characteristics but on essential functions.

Are you and your siblings related to your great grandfather? Yes. So your ‘group of organisms’ is related by descent from a common ancestor.

Does your family tree split to show different lineages? Yes. So there is a bifurcating, or branching, pattern of lineage-splitting.

It’s not exactly pushing the boundaries of what could be scientifically accepted if it’s even relevant to you and your family. Is it?

Ditto. None of these questions indicate a speciation aka macroevolution event, only microevolution which is not disputed.

The list you gave wasn’t meant to prove speciation and you didn’t post it to do that or to refute that. This list is meant as an accepted set of assumptions for using cladistics. Which was the very reason you posted it - trying to show that the assumptions were invalid.

But as you have been shown, the assumptions even apply to the most simple of examples - you and your family.

So to use your eye colour example, both my kids have different eye colours to me. And my grandson is different to my daughter’s. So there has been a change in characteristics in my lineage over time. There are other examples but only one is needed. So we can tick that box.

Do you want to discuss the others or are you going to accept that the assumptions are valid?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you saying you don’t know what an alternative theory might be? Or do you have one…?

No one has a good scientific hypothesis for macroevolution.

Buffalo does. You should discuss it with him. But what you are now saying is that you refute every single basis for evolution (covering a gigantic amount of evidence over many different aspects of scientific endeavour - like cladistics which you seem not to either accept or understand) and when you are asked for your alternative, we get…a shoulder shrug.

You have literally no idea how the process has produced what we have now but you feel quite confident in saying that everyone else is wrong.

At least Buff has an answer: God did it when He created all the kinds all at once a few thousand years ago. But I guess that’s a bit too ‘fundamentalist’ for you. You don’t mind sharing the platform with him and Ed when they try to deny evolution, but when it comes to explaining how they believe it happened you shuffle of the dias and hope no-one notices your absence.

o_mlly:

The scientists do not agree…

The scientists agree that speciation, i.e. macroevolution, has happened.

However, the faith that Jesus is the Messiah having been tested for 2,000 years does have historical, observable evidence in support.

My local Rabbi disagrees with you. He is still waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt and for 1,000 years of peace.

That’s a coincidence. My local imam also refutes the claim. Maybe they know something we don’t.

 

[buffalo]

Ah yes. You don’t believe that speciation occurs.

You obviously have not been reading my posts.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Ah yes. You don’t believe that speciation occurs.

You obviously have not been reading my posts.

Ah, so good ol’ macroeveolution is alive and well. I mean, if you reach a point where you can’t even reproduce with an earlier species then what else could you possibly call it.

Shall we forsake all other definitions for the sake of discussion and simply use that one?