Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Hence, DNA has originated on earth some time in the last five billion years. That is sufficient evidence that DNA originated on earth. …

On my side I have a great deal of scientific evidence: Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries to post just one.
Click to expand...
Another @Rossum citation that offers no evidence or support for his claim. The good researchers in this article work explains “how” but not “when” DNA may have occurred on earth.

Supporters of macro often use this disingenuous method of citing non-related studies hoping, I guess, that we won’t read them. ???
 
buffalo said:
More trouble for evo from my favorite creationsit site. 😀

Scientists often want to make inferences about what the biological past was like, and how that past gave rise to the present, because doing so allows them to understand the processes that drive evolution. But, Louca and Pennell writing in Nature challenge a major aspect of that enterprise.

Louca and Pennell’s conclusions will be dispiriting to evolutionary scientists who are looking for a link between past levels of speciation and extinction and historical climate change or other environmental events, or who want to test ideas about what features of a species — such as diet, mating system or the length of a generation — might be used to predict speciation and extinction rates[4]

and

The supreme irony of this predicament is that Charles Darwin’s idea about the survival of the fittest, the story that we want to understand, by its very nature renders elusive some of the key components needed to study it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01021-4#ref-CR4
Click to expand...
And, from the article:
It is the evolutionary version of the observation that history is written by the victors.
Click to expand...
And then rewritten by the macro crowd to support their crumbling facade.
 
Perhaps, given the name of this website, this thread could be: Evolution vs. Catholicism.

If so then, as previous threads have explained; many of the speculations, hypotheses and theories on evolution are possibly compatible with Catholicism’s doctrines on the origin of species. Catholics are free to accept or reject those proposals based on their scientific evidence and supporting rationales. If a Catholic is persuaded by the evolutionists arguments then the Catholic believes that God acted through secondary causes in His plan for creation. If the arguments are not persuasive then the Catholic believes God acted directly in the creation of species.

Either way, the Catholic worldview is not threatened by evolution ideas, ideas that are necessarily limited to only material explanations.

Perhaps, given the name of this forum, this thread could be: Evolution vs. Philosophy.

If so then the evolution proposals that are short on evidence and long on “reasonable” speculations ought to be subject to criticism of the reasonableness of those speculations. For it is Philosophy that gives science its remit and not vice versa.
 
o_mlly said:
Another @Rossum citation that offers no evidence or support for his claim. The good researchers in this article work explains “how” but not “when” DNA may have occurred on earth.

Supporters of macro often use this disingenuous method of citing non-related studies hoping, I guess, that we won’t read them. ???
Click to expand...
Another citation free post. Another post failing to explain the origin of rabbits (or of DNA).

If science is wrong about the origin of DNA, then what is your explanation of the origin of DNA? Naturally you will need some supporting evidence to show us.
 
rossum said:
Another citation free post. Another post failing to explain the origin of rabbits (or of DNA).
Click to expand...
I have beaucoup citations in posts that require such. When a post does not require, none is given. Or are you arguing that it is better to cite a misleading source then no source at all?
rossum said:
If science is wrong about the origin of DNA, then what is your explanation of the origin of DNA?
Click to expand...
The question is when, not how. Do you have a citation for when DNA existed on earth?
 
I do commend you as one who argues their position, unlike others who prefer to safely snipe with snarks from the sidelines (S4’s).

I believe you often cite NCBI but do not use their glossary definition of “species” [A group of organisms that are biologically capable of exchanging genes with each other but are incapable of exchanging genes with other such groups] opting for the 19th century definition:
rossum said:
Basically biology defines a species as members of a population that actually or potentially interbreeds in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.
Click to expand...
Would you comment on why the older version is preferred?
 
o_mlly said:
I have beaucoup citations in posts that require such.
Click to expand...
Another citation free post. Another post failing to explain the origin of rabbits or of DNA.

You need a better game plan. This one isn’t working.
 
o_mlly said:
Would you comment on why the older version is preferred?
Click to expand...
I was using the same definition with different wording: “interbreeds” is a way of saying “exchanging genes with each other”.

Still no word on rabbits or DNA I notice. You are falling behind with your evidence.
 
rossum said:
40.png
ImQuiet:
Apologies, I’m trying to find a source for this, but now I’ve seem to lost it.
Click to expand...
Is it this: The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields?
Click to expand...
Yep. Jupiter is the exception to his magnetic moments section in this paper, and it’s a very significant one.
Granted, I’m not a scientist or astronomer, so if someone wants to correct me, please feel free to do so, but dynamo theory has no such exceptions, and has a lot more hard evidence backing it up, rather than what essentially amounts to philosophical suppositions.
 
rossum said:
I was using the same definition with different wording: “interbreeds” is a way of saying “exchanging genes with each other”.

Still no word on rabbits or DNA I notice. You are falling behind with your evidence.
Click to expand...
I am not the one claiming macro as real science or DNA occurring by natural means. You are, so we must examine your evidence.

As to macro: The two often repeated evidences you have provided for macroevolution do not meet your own definition of speciation. Since lace wings interbreed successfully in the lab then they potentially could do so in nature. And, of course, asexual creatures do not ,by definition, interbreed.

So far on DNA, we have nothing from you.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
I offer only the fact that you continually misinform readers by elevating as fact that which is, especially in the historical sciences, highly provisional if not merely speculation. Kindly provide us with citations rather than mislead us with declarative statements of fact.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not merely speculation, and you’re insulting the intelligence of every biologist in stating that it is. It is a theory that makes the most sense given the available data we have, which, especially with advances in genetics, is quite a substantial amount.
You can’t dismiss something because you don’t like it. Fact of the matter is, Evolution simply has far more evidence for it, while Creationism is somewhat infamous for basing its conclusions on little to nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
ImQuiet said:
Evolution is not merely speculation, and you’re insulting the intelligence of every biologist in stating that it is. It is a theory that makes the most sense given the available data we have, which, especially with advances in genetics, is quite a substantial amount.
Click to expand...
Science begins with an observation. Do you have an observation of macroevolution?
ImQuiet said:
You can’t dismiss something because you don’t like it. Fact of the matter is, Evolution simply has far more evidence for it, while Creationism is somewhat infamous for basing its conclusions on little to nothing at all.
Click to expand...
You’re late to the thread. The evidence for the issue debated, macroevolution, has from none to very contestable evidence. And, once again, cite where I have argued Creationism as an alternative to support your claim.
 
o_mlly said:
Science begins with an observation. Do you have an observation of macroevolution?
Click to expand...
Yeah. The fossil record.
o_mlly said:
You’re late to the thread. The evidence for the issue debated, macroevolution, has from none to very contestable evidence. And, once again, cite where I have argued Creationism as an alternative to support your claim.
Click to expand...
I’m indeed late to the thread, but considering this is a thread on evolution and creationism, it seems reasonable to assume that if you’re arguing against evolution that you’re arguing for creationism, no?
And please enlighten me as to the contestable evidence you are describing. From where I’m sitting, evolution has mountains of data to back it up.
 
ImQuiet said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Science begins with an observation. Do you have an observation of macroevolution?
Click to expand...
Yeah. The fossil record.
Click to expand...
Now you might think that this would swing either of two ways. A ‘yes, I see what you mean’ with possibly some debate over an esoteric point or two or a ‘No, it didn’t happen like that - here’s what I think happened’.

I’m afraid you are only going to get the second option without the alternative. O-mlly is like a flat earther who denies the world is spherical (ok…obloid) but won’t tell what what shape she thinks it actually is (could be a he, but I’ll use she until corrected).

We’ve actually had this promise for giving an alternative:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
So you were about to give us your alternative…?
Click to expand...
Just as soon as we get Fred’s version out of the closet.
Click to expand...
So it would apparently be forthcoming if I give yet another example of ‘macroeveolution’ (we’ve been doing this literally for thousands of posts). But despite that promise, we’re not going to get it. I don’t know why - I’m sure she has one. It’s possibly because it’s easier to pick holes in someone else’s argument then take a stand and defend one’s own. So go figure.

What will happen, and the example won’t be long in coming, is that if I do give some evidence of macroevolution then she will reject it for whatever reason and then still refuse to give her alternative. One reason for not doing that has already been used and that it is that she feels it’s not necessary to give an alternative proposal to one she dismisses.

Yes, I know. It makes no sense to me either. There would be no alternative necessary if she didn’t dismiss any proposal. It’s a self sustaining excuse not to have to nail the colours to the mast.

So if I may, I’ll use your link as examples of that which she is looking for and let’s see what happens.

Here’s some examples of macroeveolution you were looking for @o_mlly:

Loading…

www.britannica.com

If you disagree that the evidence as presented does not explain the evolution of the present biosphere, then could we have your version please?
 
Last edited:
ImQuiet said:
Yeah. The fossil record.
Click to expand...
Fossil record is not evidence for evolution but feel free to explain.

If the fossil of conjoined twins is discovered a million years from now, those people can not just conclude ‘evolution’ without considering that the form they are seeing could have resulted to the death of the organism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top