Evolution and Creationism

[o_mlly]

Ladies and gentlemen, the sound you can hear is the goalposts being shifted. o_mlly is effectively admitting that there are peer-reviewed examples of macroevolution, as requested, but has found a spurious reason to reject them. Those papers exist. If you joined a good library you could read them, and many others, as well as some other books.

Macroevolution has been observed and you are agreeing that it has been observed. It is just that you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

Your leaning into ad hominems again suggesting you have no other arguments to offer. By the way, repeating what has been refuted as true again and again does not move the argument forward.

Perhaps the reason I can say, “So what?” to many posts from atheists on this thread is because my worldview does not change whether I accept macroevolution as possible, probable or not. They, however, must cling to it.

You are forgetting the important fact that a mutation is only beneficial with respect to the environment.

Ahem. I didn’t make the “brain” claim, you did. Is selective amnesia a beneficial mutation?

Or are you going to claim that a larger brain in humans is not a beneficial mutation?

 

[Freddy]

You are grossly misinterpreting what I stated. I said to @rossum if he wanted to call macro, degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction, I would be OK with it. You missed the point of this exchange. @rossum was trying to redefine macro to hoist himself up by his own petard.

Macro as commonly described does not/did not happen.

That’s your definition: A new lineage which cannot interbreed with the ‘parent’ species (and you insist it will lead to extinction). That defines speciation. And you say that if one wants to call that ‘macroevolution’ then quote ‘I would be ok with it’.

Good grief, man. You just posted that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

ou want me to buy a book rather than give me an answer? Yeah…not going to happen.

You can string a few sentences together. We’ve had evidence.of that. So put a few together in your own words and tell us about the process you propose. With some time lines if you could. So we know what branches of science are involved.

You don’t have to read it then. It is for the folks who want to follow the evidence where it leads.

We need you to tell us your interpretation of the process. Keep it simple. Words of two syllables maximum. Just a few sentences. In your own words. Bearing in mind your agreement a few posts upstream where you confirmed dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago.

Off you go…

 

[o_mlly]

No. The main question is: How have we arrived at this point from a biological perspective. Was it evolution or creationism.

Please read what I post. The sources for “creation” and “evolution” knowledge are different as others have pointed out to you as well. One source claims only the possibility of truth, the other certainty. But it appears that some posters believe, “I argue therefore I exist”. The end of this thread threatens their existence. Sad. Sums it up pretty good, don’t you think?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No. The main question is: How have we arrived at this point from a biological perspective. Was it evolution or creationism.

Please read what I post. The sources of knowledge for “creation” and “evolution” knowledge are different as others have pointed out to you as well. One source claims only the possibility of truth, the other certainty.

If.you are certain then please give us the details of the process so we can examine them. I mean, this surely can’t be difficult. You are (presumably) suggesting that actual events took place?

For example, when did this process in which you claim certainty occur?

 

[buffalo]

That’s your definition: A new lineage which cannot interbreed with the ‘parent’ species (and you insist it will lead to extinction). That defines speciation. And you say that if one wants to call that ‘macroevolution’ then quote ‘I would be ok with it’.

What is your definition of macro? Contrast it with micro.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s your definition: A new lineage which cannot interbreed with the ‘parent’ species (and you insist it will lead to extinction). That defines speciation. And you say that if one wants to call that ‘macroevolution’ then quote ‘I would be ok with it’.

What is your definition of macro?

I’m happy with yours.

Now about your proposal as to how this happened? Any chance of a brief description and timeline?

 

[buffalo]

I’m happy with yours.

Ok, good. Your version - does it create new and novel features (lowest complexity to higher complexity) despite genetic entropy and deleterious mutations and non-creative natural selection?

 

[o_mlly]

If.you are certain then please give us the details of the process so we can examine them.

Read your bible, the applicable encyclicals, and the catechism. Start a new thread if there is something that you don’t understand. Suggest you put something in the thread header that assures us your not one as described in Matthew 7:6.

The main question is: How have we arrived at this point from a biological perspective. Was it evolution or creationism. Just check the op.

Fair enough.

But Adam and Eve had souls, because people who believe in evolution show that bacteria was the first living thing to ever exist, but bacteria and animals don’t have souls and don’t go to heaven.

All living beings have animating principles. We call them souls. Only beings with rational souls, souls made in His image, can reunite with their Creator.

But creationism, bones are weird and they confuse me.

The macroevolutionary scientists are just as confused but too proud to admit it. As scientists, they cannot appeal to the supernatural as causal.

Many common species have similar DNA. Kangaroos are not in Asia, well the big ones. There are tree kangaroos in New Guinea, but they’re a different species.

“Species” is an undefined term in evolution science. Collections of beings are observed and scientist arbitrarily assign that collection to a species category. If that process seems circular, that is because it is. Species are not discovered, they are invented.

They have similar bone structures and DNA, but without evolution, how did they came to be.

The “species” definition problem would resolve if the community agreed on one definition that had few, if any, gray areas. The definition given in your thread as interbreeding capability is too elastic IMO to be taken seriously as descriptive in any meaningful way.

 

[whatistrue]

I admire your patience. I don’t have nearly that much.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m happy with yours.

Ok, good. Your version - does it create new and novel features (lowest complexity to higher complexity) despite genetic entropy and deleterious mutations and non-creative natural selection?

I think yours was:

‘a degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction…’

For the sake of furthering the discussion, let’s go with that. So it’s speciation you’re talking about. The degradation ebing an inability to interbreed with the ‘parent’ species (as you keep telling us). And as you said, if rossum wanted to call that macro, you’d be ok with it. Seeing as 99% of species have gone extinct and about the same percentage cannot interbreed, then you’re in the ball park.

So let’s be clear. If that’s the definition you want for speciation, then it’s also the definition you’re ok with as regards ‘macroevolution’. Your words. Not mine. Your definition. Not mine. You’re the one that said you’re ok with it.

Now, any details on how you think the.process works as far as you are concerned? Bearing in mind your comments re the age of dinosaurs of course.

 

[buffalo]

Ok, good. Your version - does it create new and novel features (lowest complexity to higher complexity) despite genetic entropy and deleterious mutations and non-creative natural selection?

Yes or no.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If.you are certain then please give us the details of the process so we can examine them.

Read your bible, the applicable encyclicals, and the catechism. Start a new thread if there is something that you don’t understand.

Start a new thread? What? Something maybe titled 'evolution and creationism? This is it. This is the one where those who understand evolution try to explain it to those who don’t and those who support creationism get to explain the process whereby it took place. You know, when and how etc.

Any time you are ready you can give us the details. The catechism doesn’t. We need your personal view on the matter. On the assumption that what you think happened actually did happen, we can check the veracity of your claims.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Ok, good. Your version - does it create new and novel features (lowest complexity to higher complexity) despite genetic entropy and deleterious mutations and non-creative natural selection?

Yes or no.

I’m going with your definition. See the posts above. Your words. Your posts. Your acceptance of ‘macroevolution’.

Now we have that settled let’s have your ideas as to how you think the process actually worked. Timelines would be helpful.

 

[buffalo]

I’m going with your definition. See the posts above. Your words. Your posts. Your acceptance of ‘macroevolution’.

Predictable.

Since you will not answer, it is a no, and we do not agree on the definition of macro.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m going with your definition. See the posts above. Your words. Your posts. Your acceptance of ‘macroevolution’.

Predictable.

Since you will not answer, it is a no, and we do not agree on the definition of macro.

Yes we do. I said, we’ll use yours: 'a degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction…’.

That is yours. I copied it from your post. It’s a direct quote. Now on to the process as you see it happened. When do you think it occured?

 

[buffalo]

Yes we do. I said, we’ll use yours: 'a degrading lineage splitting leading to extinction…’

Hold on - you agree with this part too?

• does it create new and novel features (lowest complexity to higher complexity) despite genetic entropy and deleterious mutations and non-creative natural selection?

Your answer is no.

 

[rossum]

So the rocks they are found in are not really 65M years old.

Some rocks are that old. Some are older. Other rocks are younger. If a 30,000 year old non-avian dinosaur fossil is found then the rocks will be about 30,000 years old.

Either way the YEC timescale is shown to be false.

 

[buffalo]

If a 30,000 year old non-avian dinosaur fossil is found then the rocks will be about 30,000 years old.

We agree. ,

 

[rossum]

The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check

Your source has a problem: it does not explain the origin of life. It proposes that life was started by a living designer/God. That is not and cannot be an explanation of the origin of life. It assumes the existence of one form of life and uses that pre-existing life to explain the origin of other forms of life. The question of the actual origin of life is left unanswered.