Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pressure is observable in its effects, like air pressure. Put your hand out a car window on a windless day and you will feel the pressure of the air.
 
TheOldColonel said:
Some might say that is only a theory related to water in gravity environments and certainly not provable since questions may be raised about how the same gravity interacts with the the instruments used to measure such supposed “pressure” of a non-compressible liquid. Indeed, is not “pressure” a theorized concept?
Click to expand...
Indeed. Your first sentence is quite correct. But pressure isn’t a theory in itself. It’s the momentum of (for example) molecules of gas in a fixed volume (with velocity equalling temperature and quantity equalling density).

These are measurable quantities from which theories can be proposed, such as Boyle’s Law.
 
That is “true” only for those who subscribe to such a school of thought. Others, now and in the past share no such perspective on the theory of “pressure.”

I’m not sure why you’re having such issue with my use of relative thinking and skepticism since you employ such exact methods here in matters of religious doctrine, morality and theology regularly.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Theories can’t be passed on as facts. They are different things. If someone does so, tell them they are very wrong.
Click to expand...
Like these? Here are just a few gems from Brother Brad’s Traveling Evolutionists Show: (Warning to rational theists: Reading these repeatedly may cause severe headaches.)
“Bradskii said:
When our line of descent split from the line that produced chimps then we went on our merry way …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“Bradskii said:
But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“Bradskii said:
Man, as we are right at this moment, has a lineage that stretches back to a point where the line split from the line …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TheOldColonel said:
Can one prove a feeling?
Click to expand...
They can be hard enough to identify in oneself, let alone find words to describe them.
I’m feeling pressured to come up with a point to this post.
I have to do it quickly because I will be called away at any moment.
I’m even not sure why I want to, but there it is. Get it done!
All this to be expressed within an environment that can be very unfriendly.
This adds to the pressure, I’m sure, to get something down that’s intelligible.
I think we feel we have to prove feelings when there is a disconnect.
We say what we feel and the other person gets it or they don’t.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Theories can’t be passed on as facts. They are different things. If someone does so, tell them they are very wrong.
Click to expand...
Like these? Here are just a few gems from Brother Brad’s Traveling Evolutionists Show: (Warning to rational theists: Reading these repeatedly may cause severe headaches.)
“Bradskii said:
When our line of descent split from the line that produced chimps then we went on our merry way …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“Bradskii said:
But the DIRECT line from that split to us gradually evolved to the point where we undoubtedly and obviously …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“Bradskii said:
Man, as we are right at this moment, has a lineage that stretches back to a point where the line split from the line …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What you quoted aren’t theories. I’ve given up trying to explain what that entails.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Actually, I’m not.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
Pressure increases with depth in water.
Click to expand...
That’s a fact. The theory inherent in the observation involves the relationships within fluids, conceptualized as force, distance and gravity, which in this case means only that things are pulled downwards. A theory doesn’t have to stretch the imagination, presenting the world as different form the appearance while utilizing concepts we do know, in this case as the momentum of particles. We don’t need these models until we start breaking down the basic elements of the simpler theory.
 
Last edited:
By now @bradski and @rossum had time to read the 132 papers they cited to evidence their case for macro-evolution.

Neither has produced the smoking gun paper. It should be obvious to all, there is no empirical evidence for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is philosophy and risen to a dogmatic religion.
 
rossum said:
Watch buffalo find reasons to ignore the evidence in 3… 2… 1…
Click to expand...
See how you did this. Let’s define species in a way that fits. LOL

From the abstract:

Disruptive selection first produced a stable polymorphism based on a single pair of alleles that adapted individuals to two habitats, and second, it established seasonal asynchrony in reproduction through allelic substitutions at two loci.

Micro-evolution is real. Macro is not.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Yawn. Here, yet again is a paper I have already shown you …
Click to expand...
That old bug story again (11 years)?
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/search?q=chrysopa&expanded=true

How many new “species” have evolved just because of “Publish or Perish” pressure on academia?

I do not claim to understand the sex life of bugs but it appears these two “species” could successfully breed but do not because of proximity or the love song just isn’t the turn on it used to be. Either case that means the species remains the same (unless we redefine “species”).
 
buffalo said:
By now @bradski and @rossum had time to read the 132 papers they cited to evidence their case for macro-evolution.

Neither has produced the smoking gun paper. It should be obvious to all, there is no empirical evidence for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is philosophy and risen to a dogmatic religion.
Click to expand...
Your comprehension skills are reaching all time lows. Or maybe it’s just memory loss.

You wanted evidence that showed that the ToE could be used to MAKE PREDICTIONS. Remember that? Obviously not. But that is what you have been given. NONE of those papers make any reference AT ALL to macro evolution. They deal with PREDICTIONS using the ToE.

This is at least the second time you have been told this:

"Incidentally, I should point out that as far as I am aware, none of the papers deal with predictions regarding macro evolution. Which they couldn’t in any case and which wasn’t requested anyway.

Why do you think any of them would? They are simply examples of what you requested: The ToE being used to make predictions."

If you want to claim that it doesn’t happen then you have to actively discount the methodology behind all those papers. Feel free to make a start anytime you like. I’ve got lots of time. Start with the first one and we’ll work our way through them. Anytime you’re ready, champ.
 
buffalo said:
Micro-evolution is real. Macro is not.
Click to expand...
Aaaaand… there is buffalo’s excuse to ignore the evidence.

The paper describes macro-evolution. It describes the evolution of a new species, Chrysopa downesi, from a population of a different species, Chrysopa carnea. Just three mutations, changing three alleles made the new species from the old one. They have different mating seasons, “seasonal asynchrony,” so they do not interbreed. That is macro-evolution, by definition: the evolution of a new species.

The paper describes real macro-evolution.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top