Really?
Please send links to this research.
- Status
Please send links to this research.
S
samiam1611
Guest
I mentioned the species problem in post 323, remember, when we were talking about reproduction? Here is the link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
S
St_Francis
Guest
You do realize that when a scientist “guides and recreates in laboratories” that there is an Intelligent Designer involved?
F
Farsight001
Guest
It’s not hard to explain how a different species came about. Let me rephrase. There is a line, it’s just vague and blurry. Obviously, a cow and a lizard are different species. A wolf and a dog are different species. But the more similar two creatures get, such as a golden retriever and a Labrador retriever, the more difficult it is to see the line because evolution flows like a river. It’s not a set of stairs. The point I was trying to make is that it flows, which is why a wolf does not pop out a dauchsund. Over thousands of years and thousands of generations, tiny changes add up and eventually you see the difference. For short lives species such as bacterias, it could take a matter of months instead of thousands of years. (it depends on an organism’s age of reproductive maturity)
F
Farsight001
Guest
All I can say is that you very very clearly do not understand the quotes you are citing.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Sure. But it’s still evolution. They guide it by creating the environment in which it lives, but the organisms adapt to that environment through random mutation and natural selection on their own. The Intelligent Design movement explicitly denies evolution, even evolution guided in such a way, stating very clearly that animals appear on earth as is and do not evolve at all.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I don’t know why you would need links. It’s been in the news for decades. I’ll look for links in the next few days. I’ve got homework and unpacking that takes priority. If someone else doesn’t provide (though I think someone will), keep on me about it because I randomly lose interest in a topic at times.
E
edwest2
Guest
There is zero evidence of this happening. None.
Let’s say we need millions of years for these gradual changes to take place, and once a little change occurs, what? It gets passed on? Suppose the possessor of the tiny new trait dies before it reproduces?
From the smallest dog to the largest - they’re all dogs. From all the different races of human beings, they’re all human beings.
After that, you’ve just got wishful thinking.
I’ve given up on those who claim to speak for science and scientists who study past biology; i.e. dead things. I’m only going to trust what the Church has to say, because I’ve decided the following: the reason this fact bothers some people has, in many cases, nothing to do with science.
Peace,
Ed
Let’s say we need millions of years for these gradual changes to take place, and once a little change occurs, what? It gets passed on? Suppose the possessor of the tiny new trait dies before it reproduces?
From the smallest dog to the largest - they’re all dogs. From all the different races of human beings, they’re all human beings.
After that, you’ve just got wishful thinking.
I’ve given up on those who claim to speak for science and scientists who study past biology; i.e. dead things. I’m only going to trust what the Church has to say, because I’ve decided the following: the reason this fact bothers some people has, in many cases, nothing to do with science.
Peace,
Ed
F
Farsight001
Guest
Once again, you should really do at the very least a google search for this evidence before you blindly and ignorantly claim there is none. The library near me literally has a room full of papers from studies and experiments about this.
No one said we need millions of years. We need thousands of generations. You ask these rhetorical questions assuming there is no answer for them, when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for each of them. Yes, once a change occurs, it tends to get passed on. If the possessor of the change dies before it reproduces, then it does not pass on its trait, obviously. But if the new trait increases survivability or capacity to reproduce, then it has an increased chance to be passed on. Sometimes it doesn’t get passed on, but more often it does, and that’s all that’s needed.
But “dog” is not a species, so this is completely irrelevant and expresses nothing more than a complete and utter ignorance as to what evolution actually is.
An interesting sentiment considering, first, that the Church is not authoritative on matters of science, but rather only faith and morals, and two, the church pretty much says that scientists know what they’re talking about, so, in reality, your refusal to trust scientists is, by extension, a refusal to to trust what the Church has to say.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Of course He doesn’t but that won’t stop the grand majority of angry nerds who’ll probably just hate God for not granting their fantasy wishes.
You’re making yourself into a strawman for the atheists to chew on.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
No. Real life is what the laws of physics say it is. If they say what comes up must come down, incanting Wingardium Leviosa isn’t going to change that.
And please, the “God has His reasons” excuse? Spare me. I’ve seen more people become anti-theists because of that. I’m sure many of the ones lurking here are already loading up your quote as a means to evangelize the gamers.
Basically you’re saying God wanted to torment people with this banal reality by removing all that was mystical from the world at some point in history.
Yeah. Brilliant. Might make a fine novel if it didn’t make our Faith look more ridiculous and logically inconsistent for own apologists to handle.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Slow down there! Are you serious? There’s a HUGE difference between modern storytellers and those in ancient times. Ancient storytellers actually believed in their tales.
We don’t. J.K. Rowling certainly didn’t believe Hogwarts was real.
G
grannymh
Guest
I do not mean to be disrespectful, but Catholics need to study the first three chapters of Genesis and then check the Catholic doctrines on the relationship between God and the real person Adam. Actually, I prefer learning Catholic doctrines first. That makes reading the first three chapters, not all 50 chapters of Genesis, a piece of cake.
Speaking of the Ancient War between the god of Evil and the god of Good, that was put to rest at the get-go.
Speaking of the 46% –
I believe in one God Who is Creator of all as in Genesis 1:1. But I do not consider myself a Creationist.
And the poll takers did not call me for my position.
G
grannymh
Guest
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Slow down there! Are you serious?
My physics course dates to the 1950’s. And I am not in the mood to update it. Currently, I find biology way more useful especially the study of the 21st century evolution model pertaining to decomposing anatomies.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
I’m not here to debate about the existence of the first human being. That doesn’t exactly deny evolution as it’s popularly understood. Adam’s existence isn’t so much as fantastically impossible compared to a true-blue, literal interpretation of all Genesis.
I’ve read those chapters ever since I was kid. I’ve also read many other creation accounts of other popular mythologies from Greece to China. I’m not dismissing Adam if we’re talking about the first human. My focus is on the ridiculous assertions that somewhere, in the distance past, our world resembled something that you could set a DnD campaign in.
I don’t know if you really understood what I was talking about. Even within their own ancient religion, it’s not unusual for pagan gods and their worshipers to have rivalries. Greek mythology is one good example. Egyptian mythology too (look at what happened to Set).
The fact is, anyone who reads most of the Pentateuch depicts God in a sadly similar fashion. He is pitted against both Greek and Egyptian gods and shown to be triumphant. This is in direct contrast to Christ, who’d sooner drive away money changers out of his own religion’s temple than use his powers against a Roman one.
G
gcharles
Guest
Please describe whether you’re talking about speciation evolution or adaptive evolution.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Well, I don’t know what you’re trying to argue (if you’re even trying to argue) but I don’t really care which subject is more fascinating.
If anything, hearing scientific explanations about why my fantasies are never gonna happen just provokes me to further my disdain for the entire discipline. (Yet ironically, here I am doing what a lot of people would deem as defending it.)
Wolves and dogs are able to be mated.
I see.
With a definition so fluid, I guess it would be impossible to prove false.
Especially if one decides that they will adhere to it no matter what they have to say anything really means.
But then again, with a definition so fluid, the theory becomes meaningless.
I only have the words to go by.
Perhaps you have something else?
Your inability to back what you claim is noted.
You really shouldn’t be calling people out for lack of backing when you are guilty of the same…
Remember this?
*
- Status