Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

  • Thread starter Thread starter John121
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
Oh, sorry. You missed the bit about being able to have children with your new species. You lose the ability to have kids with Lucy and gain the ability to have kids with Beyonce.

And you think that’s a step in the wrong direction? Dear me…

Be honest. Which would you prefer?
Click to expand...
Nice try. Doesn’t work. Lucy was better.
 
Bradskii said:
That evolved ability to have kids with Beyonce is speciation which you class as macroevolution. And you have agreed that you don’t deny that happens.

I forget. What was the point of all your posts? About evolution that is. Not entropy. Not that I can find anything at all on your site regarding that particular subject by the way. Any help you can give me will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
You can call it whatever you want. The main point is the process causes a degradation. I do not deny loss of reproductive ability, aka what humans call speciation.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Oh, sorry. You missed the bit about being able to have children with your new species. You lose the ability to have kids with Lucy and gain the ability to have kids with Beyonce.

And you think that’s a step in the wrong direction? Dear me…

Be honest. Which would you prefer?
Click to expand...
Nice try. Doesn’t work. Lucy was better.
Click to expand...
I’m honestly not really interested. Take it as a hypothetical question. It’s moot as well. You wouldn’t be able to reproduce. That was the lack of function which is part of the definition for species. Small talk would have been a problem as well.

But not forgetting, of course, the other side of the evolutionary coin: You GAIN the ability to reproduce with Beyonce. Swings and roundabouts.
 
Bradskii said:
I forget. What was the point of all your posts? About evolution that is. Not entropy. Not that I can find anything at all on your site regarding that particular subject by the way. Any help you can give me will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
It is of more value to you that you take all the info on the site one at a time. Go for it. IDvolution is your friend. 😀
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
That evolved ability to have kids with Beyonce is speciation which you class as macroevolution. And you have agreed that you don’t deny that happens.

I forget. What was the point of all your posts? About evolution that is. Not entropy. Not that I can find anything at all on your site regarding that particular subject by the way. Any help you can give me will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
You can call it whatever you want. The main point is the process causes a degradation. I do not deny loss of reproductive ability, aka what humans call speciation.
Click to expand...
But you gain the ability to reproduce with the new species. Why do you keep omitting that? The two are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin.

But at least you admit to it.
 
Bradskii said:
But you gain the ability to reproduce with the new species. Why do you keep omitting that? The two are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin.

But at least you admit to it.
Click to expand...
No, it is a long term bad deal.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
You GAIN the ability to reproduce with Beyonce. Swings and roundabouts.
Click to expand...
It is a long term bad deal.
Click to expand...
So…let’s think of an example. Austrolopithicus afarensis and…um…humans. Two different species that evolved so that Lucy could still breed with her chums and we could breed with ours but we could not interbreed.

It’s been a while since that happened. That macroevolutionary speciation so let’s see if it’s a bad deal.

Well, we are here drinking g and t (well, I am) and Lucy and her chums are…extinct.

Is that what you class as a bad deal? I’m personally quite happy with it.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Is that what you class as a bad deal? I’m personally quite happy with it.
Click to expand...
You have no idea whether you would be better off. Evolution cannot predict.
Click to expand...
What? We ARE better off. We are not extinct. How on earth is that not better?

If you want to suggest that it is impossible to know in advance if speciation is good for one species or the other or both or neither, that is: evolution cannot predict the end result, then you win a coconut. You’ve been told that countless times. And that wasn’t your argument in any case.

You said it was a bad thing. And now you say, correctly, that we would have no idea.

Do you actually enjoy shooting yourself in the foot?
 
Bradskii said:
You said it was a bad thing. And now you say, correctly, that we would have no idea.
Click to expand...
Yes, what we currently know and understand is speciation is overall a bad thing. Lucy is a terrible argument to hang your hat on. One has to know the starting point to know in your example. It is a useless example.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
You said it was a bad thing. And now you say, correctly, that we would have no idea.
Click to expand...
Yes, what we currently know and understand is speciation is overall a bad thing. Lucy is a terrible argument to hang your hat on. One has to know the starting point to know in your example. It is a useless example.
Click to expand...
Good grief.

As you have pointed out, evolution cannot be predicted. But we can see, in retrospect, whether speciation (aka macro evolution), which we now know you accept, has been good or bad.

As far as everything currently alive on Planet Earth (which incidentally you think is 6,000 years old), from the smallest bacteria to the largest animals, the gazillions of life forms existing, it has been a good thing.

I find it difficult to believe I had to point that out.

As far as everything that went extinct, which is by a very large margin indeed a lot more that what is alive today, it was a bad idea.

Again, I find it difficult to believe that was also necessary to point out.

So is that your point? More organisms have become extinct than have not, so speciation is a bad idea?

Oh my word…
 
Might be worth summerising this. Your views:

Macro evolution, that is - speciation, doesn’t occur.
Oh, well OK it does.
But lots of things went extinct, therefore it’s a bad idea.

I don’t think you have anywhere else to go, Buff. Maybe you should concentrate on entropy and big numbers. Your arguments against evolution lie in tatters.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Macro evolution, that is - speciation, doesn’t occur.
Oh, well OK it does.
Click to expand...
I am OK if you want to accept macro evolution as loss of reproductive ability that ultimately leads to extinction. Do we agree?
 
Last edited:
This is taken from Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 12 of The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

St Augustine taught the possibility that organic beings developed from originally created seed powers.
assuming of course that everything developed from an original creation by God. He taught that some of God’s creations were brought into existence in a finished state, others were brought into being in the form of primitive seeds (rationes seminades or causales),

A certain development of living creatures was therefore accepted by some of the Church fathers and Scholastics. The idea that God created creatures in a primitive form that would later develop into something more advanced is therefore not only reconciliable with Catholic teaching on creation, but not even particularly new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top