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.
Of course it does. The alleged process that formed our bodies upgraded our brains. So we now have evolutionary psychology.
 
Fair. Evolution can speak to why social species including humans have a sense of fairness, compassion, empathy and morality. What I meant was it doesn’t speak to what those should be, beyond that ones that make a species more likely to survive would over time be selected for.
 
You haven’t demonstrated the need for a distinction between micro and macro. ‘Macro’ is just a lot of ‘micros’ over a long period of time. Demonstrate why adaptation, time, and a reproductive barrier of any kind (including nothing more than geography) wouldn’t cause two populations to diverge in their evolutionary path. Demonstrate the imaginary barrier that prevents an animal from changing ‘too much’.

And I’d still like to know why fossils are found sorted into a gradient where they’re similar to the ones around it but less and less similar the further up/down you go.
 
Dan123 said:
And I’d still like to know why fossils are found sorted into a gradient where they’re similar to the ones around it but less and less similar the further up/down you go.
Click to expand...
Did you study the flume experiments? What did they show you?

There is a distinction between macro and micro. Even if macro was admitted to it is rare and not observable. There is plenty of evidence for micro and the fossil record supports it. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
goout:
More importantly, The Catholic Church says this at the highest levels. This is not a matter of lay opinion on this forum, it’s a view shared by Popes and theologians at the highest levels.

It’s not fruitful to wander off to your own island.
Click to expand...
Micro-evolution is not an issue. I have not seen a Magisterial pronouncement on macro-evolution specifically. Have you?
Click to expand...
It’s near impossible for me to have a discussion with you on science, I’m sorry.
The Church has spoken about evolution at our highest levels of competence (and brilliance too by the way, JP2 is a giant in the history of the Church’s intellect).
 
You suggested those would show the layers formed quickly. I’m not talking about that. Are you saying the experiments will show that dead animals will sort themselves in ground layers according to how similar they are in a gradient?
 
goout said:
It’s near impossible for me to have a discussion with you on science, I’m sorry.

The Church has spoken about evolution at our highest levels of competence (and brilliance too by the way, JP2 is a giant in the history of the Church’s intellect).
Click to expand...
The distinction between micro and macro is most important. Which form did the Church supposedly approve?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
goout:
It’s near impossible for me to have a discussion with you on science, I’m sorry.

The Church has spoken about evolution at our highest levels of competence (and brilliance too by the way, JP2 is a giant in the history of the Church’s intellect).
Click to expand...
The distinction between micro and macro is most important. Which form did the Church supposedly approve?
Click to expand...
You think the Church approves specific scientific theories and discoveries? Perhaps this illustrates the core of your error
the point went by you.
 
You don’t understand the Church’s position on the relationship between faith and science. That should be pointed out for those reading, because you post nonstop about it.
It has been pointed out, continually.

You say I have no argument.
There is no argument. The Church speaks. I for one, listen to the Church.
 
Yet you just posted the Church does not approve specific scientific theories and discoveries.
 
buffalo said:
Did you study the flume experiments? What did they show you?
Click to expand...
You have been asking this for a while now, so I thought I’d “study the flume experiments.” Which flume experiments? You are careful not to say. Are you referring to the largely non-sensical experiments by Guy Berthault in the 1990s? They have been extensively studied. Although largely uncontroversial, where his extrapolations directly conflict with field observation they have been comprehensively refuted, in detail.

And you are, of course, continually wrong in attempting to distinguish macro-evolution qualitatively from micro-evolution. This has been demonstrated so many times that Creationists no longer have any argument other than: it hasn’t been witnessed, which is of course, an absurd objection. No change that takes longer than a human lifetime has been witnessed, astronomical, evolutionary, geological or environmental, and no doubt there are others. The argument is facile.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
You have been asking this for a while now, so I thought I’d “study the flume experiments
Click to expand...
Start here:

Dilly, R., Berthault, G.: “Orogenesis: Cause of sedimentary formations” – The Russian Academy of Sciences scientific Council on Lithology and Minerals in Sedimentary Formations – VIII All-Russian Lithological Meeting (Moscow, 27-30 October 2015), Tome II, pp. 162-164

Berthault, G. : “Orogenesis: Cause of sedimentary formations” – Kazan Golovkinsy Stratigraphic Meeting, 2014, pp.19-20

Lalomov, A., Berthault G., Tugarova, M., Isotov V., Sitdikova L.: “Reconstruction of sedimentary conditions of Middle Permian Kama-Ural basin studied by N.A.Golovkinsky” – Kazan Golovkinsy Stratigraphic Meeting, 2014, pp.53-54

Berthault, G. : “Orogenesis: cause of sedimentary formations” – “Open Journal of Geology“ ISSN 2161-7570.Vol 3, Number 28, April 2013.

Berthault G. : “Towards a Refoundation of Historical Geology” – “Georesources” 1(12) 2012, p.38, 39

Berthault, G., Lalomov, A. V. and Tugarova, M. A. : “Reconstruction of paleolithodynamic formation conditions of Cambrian-Ordovician sandstones in the Northwestern Russian platform” – “Lithology and Mineral Resources, 2011, Volume 46, Number 1, 60-70” (Springer Publishing site)

Berthault, G., Veksler A.B., Donenberg V.M. , Lalomov A. : “RESEARCH on EROSION OF CONSOLIDATED and semi-consolidated SOILS BY HIGH SPEED WATER FLOW” Izvestia.VNIIG., 2010, Vol. 257, pp.10-22. – (Russian original.)

Lalomov, A. : “Reconstruction of Paleohydrodynamic Conditions during the Formation of Upper Jurassic Conglomerates of the Crimean Peninsula”, Lithology and Mineral Resources, 2007, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 268–280

Berthault, G : “Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River)” , Lithology and Mineral Resources 2004, Vol. 39, No 5. October 2004.

Berthault G., “Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data”, Litol.Polezn.Iskop.2002, vol 37, no.5,pp 509-515 (Lithology and Mineral resources 2002 (fac-similé) (Engl.Transl.), vol.37, no.5, pp442-446), Journal of the Academy of Sciences of Russia.

Julien, P.Y., Lan, Y., and Berthault, G., “Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures”, Bulletin Société Géologique de France, 1993, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 649–660.
 
Berthault, G., “Sedimentation of a Heterogranular Mixture. Experimental Lamination in Still and Running Water”, Compte rendu de l’Académie des Sciences 1988, vol. 306, Serie II, pp. 717–724.

Berthault, G., “Sedimentologie: Expériences sur la lamination des sédiments par granoclassement périodique postérieur au dépôt. Contribution a l’explication de la lamination dans nombre de sédiments et de roches sédimentaires”., Compte rendu de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 1986 , vol. 303, Ser., 2, no. 17, pp. 1569-1574.
Lalomov, A. and Tugarova, M. A. : REPORT for 2008 joint research of Geological Laboratory ARCTUR (Moscow) and Lithological department of Geological Faculty of St.-Petersburg State University “RECONSTRUCTION OF PALEOHYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF DEPOSITION OF PERMIAN STRATA OF KAMA REGION STUDIED BY GOLOVKINSKY”

Lalomov, A. : FINAL REPORT for 2006 – 2007 joint research of Geological Laboratory ARCTUR (Moscow) in co-operation with Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits Russian Academy of Science (IGEM RAS) and Research – Exploration Centre “Monitoring” (Khanty–Mansiisk, West Siberia) – “PALEOCHANNELS OF URAL FOLDED BELT AND PIEDMONT AREA: RECONSTRUCTION OF PALEOHYDRAULIC CONDITIONS”
 
buffalo said:
Yet you just posted the Church does not approve specific scientific theories and discoveries.
Click to expand...
Yes I did.
And you don’t understand the difference between approving specific scientific discovery and the Church speaking to the validity of various scientific lines of discovery. The Church talks about evolution because it’s a controversial subject in the area of faith.

Are you aware that our Popes have discussed evolution?
 
goout said:
es I did.

And you don’t understand the difference between approving specific scientific discovery and the Church speaking to the validity of various scientific lines of discovery. The Church talks about evolution because it’s a controversial subject in the area of faith.

Are you aware that our Popes have discussed evolution?
Click to expand...
Are we at the point yet where the Church is OK (permits) investigation and research, does not mean tacit or implicit endorsement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top