R
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Borrowed some straw from your bud, did you? No one has argued that God is involved in evolution.That old Messiah story again (2000 years)?
The argument is that the science does not support the claim that humans evolved from non-humans.
The point, as explained in the post, is the evolutionists make the definition of “specie” as elastic as necessary to support their faith in evolution. The “specie” definition used to be “can” successfully interbreed. Now the new definition has evolved to “do” interbreed. Pun intended.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It describes loss of function once had.he paper describes real macro-evolution.
R
rossum
Guest
That argument is wrong. How else do you explain genetic compatibility between Homo sapiens and both H. Neanderthalensis and H. denisova?The argument is that the science does not support the claim that humans evolved from non-humans.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Irrelevant. Evolution, including macro-evolution may gain function, lose function or keep function the same. It may also both gain and lose function in different areas. Seals have lost much “walk on land” function, but have gained a lot of “swim in water” function.It describes loss of function once had.
The definition of macro-evolution says nothing specific about gain or loss of function, with the exception of the gain in function of interbreeding with the new species and the loss of the ability to interbreed with the old species. That is both a loss and a gain.
rossum
O
o_mlly
Guest
Do you claim both are not human beings?That argument is wrong. How else do you explain genetic compatibility between Homo sapiens and both H. Neanderthalensis and H. denisova ?
B
buffalo
Guest
The definition of species does.he definition of macro-evolution says nothing specific about gain or loss of function
B
buffalo
Guest
What a load of BS, but you proved my point.with the exception of the gain in function of interbreeding with the new species and the loss of the ability to interbreed with the old species. That is both a loss and a gain.
R
rossum
Guest
I claim neither is Homo sapiens. Are you using a different definition of “human being”?Do you claim both are not human beings?
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for proving my point that you have no real argument against macro-evolution, specifically against the evolution of Chrysopa downesi from C. carnea.What a load of BS, but you proved my point.
After all this time arguing against macro-evolution, surely you have something better than that. As o_mlly pointed out, it is hardly the first time I have posted a link to the Tauber and Tauber paper.
rossum
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Time for a fresh new thread!
O
o_mlly
Guest
“Homo sapiens” is an invented term to differentiate groups within primates. Am I to infer from the above that your definition of “homo sapiens” includes all and only those primates that are human?I claim neither is Homo sapiens . Are you using a different definition of “human being”?
R
rossum
Guest
A Christian definition of “human” usually includes a human soul. I do not accept the existence of souls, either human or animal. For a scientific discussion of evolution I use the scientific categories, that is biological species, as mentioned in the thread title.“Homo sapiens” is an invented term to differentiate groups within primates. Am I to infer from the above that your definition of “homo sapiens” includes all and only those primates that are human?
A discussion on the existence, or not, of souls is off topic for this thread.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
I thought this was made perfectly clear countless times before.Are you using a different definition of “human being”?
I would add that science is not only on the wrong track, but has erred in carving up humanity based on gross morphological differences. Trying to think clearly, the reality of a species boils down to its being the gene pool of organisms which can produce offspring. Clearly, since we carry the DNA of these long ago people, they should be classified as human in scientific terms. But, the definition of species seems to be as slippery as an Anguilla rostrata, anything to support the theory that classifies even genetic abnormalities such as Procambarus virginalis as a separate species.
Last edited:
E
ewohdrol
Guest
But they are not genetic abnormalities once they reproduce and become the statistical norm. By very definition their ability to do so creates different and varied genomes ovee generations. They great thing about bacteria is they reproduce with such speed, so we can see the allele changes rapidly.
I’ve just jumped into this thread and really surprised by some arguments.
I’ve just jumped into this thread and really surprised by some arguments.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The topic is “Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true.” The counter argument speaks to why you should not think it’s true.A discussion on the existence, or not, of souls is off topic for this thread.
The reality of the individual existence of persons, and all living creatures, having a particular ontological structure, which in our case includes the capacities to know the beautiful, the true and the good, and to act as causal agents, is key to any definition of who and what we, and any other organism, are in ourselves and how we came to be what we are.
It is important to reflect on how we are a unity of being. Take what is happening here as you read. The structure of the experience is the brain in action - the mind: the colours, the shapes, the ideas and feelings that form as that tiny dot of consciousness skims across the rows of letters. At the same time, it is the the screen on which this appears and includes myself, other to you, typing these thoughts in another place and time. The oneness of the intricate mind-brain event happening now and being understood in the context of universal order, is an aspect of what it means to be human.
Humanity as it is manifested individually in each of us as persons has an origin. The brokenness within and among us does as well. Knowledge of the spirit and its Source is the key to knowing who we are, how came to be this way, and how we are to proceed in finding the cure to what ails us. In this light, the materialistic picture presented by evolutionary thought begins to crumble. We can spin around demonstrating the associations that are linked together to produce the story of evolution, but without any reference back to the reality of our existence, we are merely reinforcing a delusion.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Viable changes in the configuration of the genome are the result of “pre-programmed” genetic and epigenetic structures and processes. There are also random chemical changes in the information-in-action through which we develop, grow, are maintained and reproduce, but these overwhelmingly prevent those processes from happening, just as cumulative random alteration of letters in this post would affect the meaning they convey.But they are not genetic abnormalities once they reproduce and become the statistical norm. By very definition their ability to do so creates different and varied genomes ovee generations. They great thing about bacteria is they reproduce with such speed, so we can see the allele changes rapidly.
I’ve just jumped into this thread and really surprised by some arguments.
The aquisition of antibiotic resistance, for example, results from gene transfer from bacteria that carry that particular gene, to those whose progenitors had lost that function through gene deletion, aka random mutation.
The particular species of crayfish was mentioned because it carries triple x-chromosomes and reproduces by cloning itself. As a “species”, it will die off in time because of an accumulation of genetic abnormalities which would be mitigated by sexual reproduction.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Then why bring “soul” up. I have not.A Christian definition of “human” usually includes a human soul. I do not accept the existence of souls, either human or animal. … A discussion on the existence, or not, of souls is off topic for this thread.
That’s fine. But you have not advanced your argument yet that science evidences that human being evolved from non-human beings. Please stop deflecting and answer the question: What evidence?For a scientific discussion of evolution I use the scientific categories, that is biological species, as mentioned in the thread title.
R
rossum
Guest
I am Buddhist, so to me the ontological structure of living things (animal, gods etc. included) is very different from the Abrahamic/Christian ontological structure; see the five skandhas. However, that discussion is off-topic for this thread.The reality of the individual existence of persons, and all living creatures, having a particular ontological
Evolution deals only with the material components of living things.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Evidence please. Where is your list of the pre-programmed responses available to the common cold virus, for example. Such a list would enable you to find a cold cure that has no pre-programmed response in the virus, and so is 100% effective and will not be rendered ineffective by further evolution of the virus.Viable changes in the configuration of the genome are the result of “pre-programmed” genetic and epigenetic structures and processes.
I have seen this “pre-programmed” claim many times, but never have I seen any evidence that it exists, or any medical treatments developed as a result of analysis of any such pre-programming. In science you need evidence, not opinion if you are going to have any impact.
rossum
- Status
- Not open for further replies.