Evolution is contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buss0042
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
many small to medium sized changes
Click to expand...
What is it about them that would qualify them as evolutionary and not simply a difference in morphology between a progenitor and its offspring. I’m pretty sure we all agree that happens. What is questionable is the belief that random changes in the genome under the influence of natural selection is the cause of the diversity and growing complexity of living forms.
Click to expand...
The nice part about talking about complexity from your point of view is that you can set the bar arbitrarily high as to what constitutes new complexity so that no single evolutionary change qualifies. The fact is a series of small changes, none of which you will call new complexity have resulted in changes you must call complexity.
 
sevenswords said:
Micro evolution is not the same as Macro as micro is observable testable and repeatable, show any of that in evolution of millions of years and you will win me over.
Click to expand...
No scientifically-testable definition has been given for micro-evolution, but it appears that your working definition is any evolutionary change that I can demonstrate in a human lifetime. The fact is I am quite sure you already believe in a scientific theory that cannot be tested in less than 200 years. So your insistence on seeing a lab experiment to prove “macro” evolution rings hollow.
 
Aloysium said:
What is it about them that would qualify them as evolutionary and not simply a difference in morphology between a progenitor and its offspring.
Click to expand...
The standard definition of evolution qualifies them:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

– Evolution 101
Click to expand...
What is questionable is the belief that random changes in the genome under the influence of natural selection is the cause of the diversity and growing complexity of living forms.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you have no evidence supporting your belief here. Science works on evidence, and the evidence from fossils, from biology and from DNA all points to the theory of evolution being correct.

For example, what is your evidence that all the different species of Kangaroo did not descend from a common ancestor, as DNA and the fossil record shows.

rossum
 
Cruciferi said:
I’ll comment as I see fit and I’ll challenge these absurd notions as they appear.
Click to expand...
You are tilting at windmills. You are challenging something non-existent. That is, the notion that changes are permanent. It’s like challenging the notion that the moon is made of cheese.

As I said, if you knew more about the subject then you would avoid looking foolish when commenting on it.
 
rossum said:
For example, what is your evidence that all the different species of Kangaroo did not descend from a common ancestor, as DNA and the fossil record shows.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t show that at all. It shows a correlation between the DNA of more primitive species and that of more complex organisms. And, again for those who missed it, we are dealing with forms of living being, a unity of psychophysical structures, whose physical components are deteriorating in time as genetic mutations accumulate. Other than in the Marvel Comic universe, mutations mean sickness unless there pre-exists some corrective process to attenuate th disorder they cause. The same science can lead to radically different conclusions as to how the beauty and the diversity of nature has come to be.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
sevenswords:
I find it hard to believe as a scientist and a Catholic that anyone would still believe in evolution given the evidence against it.
Click to expand...
Your inability to believe it does not constitute such evidence.
Click to expand...
What I read is that he finds it hard to believe that people believe in evolution. I don’t personally find it hard to believe because it has been instilled in us from pretty much the time we were able to understand, and for most of us the truth is what we hav been taught. I takes a lot to divest oneself of this secular dogma, especially when ridicule is the common response to saying that evolution just didn’t happen. The evidence is actually everywhere. You put it together into a story of evolution. The same facts actually make more sense, they are more coherent and concise, illuminating who and what we are as well as our relationship with God when understood as creation.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
sevenswords:
I find it hard to believe as a scientist and a Catholic that anyone would still believe in evolution given the evidence against it.
Click to expand...
Your inability to believe it does not constitute such evidence.
Click to expand...
What I read is that he finds it hard to believe that people believe in evolution. I don’t personally find it hard to believe because it has been instilled in us from pretty much the time we were able to understand, and for most of us the truth is what we hav been taught. I takes a lot to divest oneself of this secular dogma,
Click to expand...
Of course I disagree with your characterization of evolution as secular dogma. It is just science, like any other science.
 
Let’s go into detail about Evolution, give me one scenario of some kind of animal evolving into a whole new species.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So your insistence on seeing a lab experiment to prove “macro” evolution rings hollow.
Click to expand...
The evidence for macroevolution is not there. It’s not that difficult to admit. It’s an assumption. Given that creation is clear to some posters here, all of whom have heard the evolution side of the story, I would think people could be more open minded and see that possibility in the raw genetic data and the fossil record. Science is about the evidence.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Aloysium:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
sevenswords:
I find it hard to believe as a scientist and a Catholic that anyone would still believe in evolution given the evidence against it.
Click to expand...
Your inability to believe it does not constitute such evidence.
Click to expand...
What I read is that he finds it hard to believe that people believe in evolution. I don’t personally find it hard to believe because it has been instilled in us from pretty much the time we were able to understand, and for most of us the truth is what we hav been taught. I takes a lot to divest oneself of this secular dogma,
Click to expand...
Of course I disagree with your characterization of evolution as secular dogma. It is just science, like any other science.
Click to expand...
It is the worst kind of science.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
So your insistence on seeing a lab experiment to prove “macro” evolution rings hollow.
Click to expand...
The evidence for macroevolution is not there. It’s not that difficult to admit. It’s an assumption.
Click to expand...
The sense in which you use the word “assumption” applies to many scientific theories that we all generally accept. Probably you do too. It is just this one theory for which the word “assumption” is a deal-breaker for you.
 
Aloysium said:
It doesn’t show that at all. It shows a correlation between the DNA of more primitive species and that of more complex organisms.
Click to expand...
So, the Flood story in Genesis is wrong. More than one species of kangaroo survived the Flood.

rossum
 
Evolution is a political (scientific) theory that lacks crucial evidences. The Bible and this theory simply just don’t work together.
 
_Crucesignatus said:
Evolution is a political (scientific) theory that lacks crucial evidences. The Bible and this theory simply just don’t work together.
Click to expand...
Evolution is a scientific theory that has been verified by both observation and experiment.

Some interpretations of the Bible do not work with this theory, while other interpretations do. Just ask Francis Collins or Ken Miller (who is Catholic).

Since evolution is derived from observation of the world that God made, then it is probable that those anti-evolution interpretations of the Bible are incorrect, just as the pre-Copernicus geocentric interpretations of the Bible were incorrect.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
rossum:
40.png
Techno2000:
That’s not true darwinian evolution.
Click to expand...
Oh look, a perfect example of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

rossum
Click to expand...
It’s still a crayfish.
Click to expand...
You asked for “some kind of animal evolving into a whole new species.” The fact that the new species is also called a crayfish does not mean it isn’t a whole new species. (There are several species of organisms that are all called “birds”. But they are different species.) The problem is that you have left the definition of what you are asking for deliberately vague. The most common definition of the term “new species” is organisms that progenitor organisms cannot breed with, but they new organisms can breed with among themselves. You apparently hold a different definition. Why?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Aloysium:
The evidence for macroevolution is not there. It’s not that difficult to admit. It’s an assumption.
Click to expand...
The sense in which you use the word “assumption” applies to many scientific theories that we all generally accept. Probably you do too. It is just this one theory for which the word “assumption” is a deal-breaker for you.
Click to expand...
People are claiming that evolution is scientific fact, something observed in nature. Evolution, as the modern mythos of our origins, is a way of framing with assumptions, the raw data, about which there is little disagreement. At least a creationist approach admits that it is philosophical, unlike the materialism that is being passed off as science and taught in our schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top