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

[Wozza]

Any valid test of PE would require vast expanses of time - we are testing for macroevolution, after all. In other words, it’s impossible to test.

You’ll have to explain to me how this works, Edgar. You wanted to know how PE could be tested and I linked to a paper that did EXACTLY THAT. Did you not check the link? It explains what they were doing and briefly how they did it.

It didn’t require ‘vast amounts of time’. Without paying to download their paper I would guess it took a few weeks at most.

So what you have posted is wrong. It is possible to test for PE and it has been done and the results are favourable to it having happened. Now if you have a problem with how it was done or the means by which it was done then let me know and we can discuss it.

And if your answer is a variation on ‘we weren’t there so we don’t know’, then I have to say we’re back to T shirt slogans again.

 

[Edgar]

As if the only valid science is done by materialists

Materialists place an inordinate amount of importance on theorectical science - it’s their theology

 

[Techno2000]

Edgar:

Any valid test of PE would require vast expanses of time - we are testing for macroevolution, after all. In other words, it’s impossible to test.

You’ll have to explain to me how this works, Edgar. You wanted to know how PE could be tested and I linked to a paper that did EXACTLY THAT. Did you not check the link? It explains what they were doing and briefly how they did it.

It didn’t require ‘vast amounts of time’. Without paying to download their paper I would guess it took a few weeks at most.

So what you have posted is wrong. It is possible to test for PE and it has been done and the results are favourable to it having happened. Now if you have a problem with how it was done or the means by which it was done then let me know and we can discuss it.

And if your answer is a variation on ‘we weren’t there so we don’t know’, then I have to say we’re back to T shirt slogans again.

Just the fact that somebody has to come up with the idea of "Punctuated Equilibrium " show how weak the fossil record really is.

 

[Wozza]

Edgar:

Wozza:

Just that extrapolating to that extent without any evidence would make one look silly. So no-one does it.

Oh but they do - I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an evolutionist say, “We can see evolution in action every day, so who can doubt that evolution is real”. What they are saying in effect is, “Since we can observe microevolution, we can assume macroevolution happens and so we can assume all life on earth evolved from a microbe.”

Darwin must of have seen a tadpole morph into frog and figured everything did the same.

No, that’s metamorphosis not evolution. Darwin, being a biologist, would have realised that.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Edgar:

Any valid test of PE would require vast expanses of time - we are testing for macroevolution, after all. In other words, it’s impossible to test.

You’ll have to explain to me how this works, Edgar. You wanted to know how PE could be tested and I linked to a paper that did EXACTLY THAT. Did you not check the link? It explains what they were doing and briefly how they did it.

It didn’t require ‘vast amounts of time’. Without paying to download their paper I would guess it took a few weeks at most.

So what you have posted is wrong. It is possible to test for PE and it has been done and the results are favourable to it having happened. Now if you have a problem with how it was done or the means by which it was done then let me know and we can discuss it.

And if your answer is a variation on ‘we weren’t there so we don’t know’, then I have to say we’re back to T shirt slogans again.

Just the fact that somebody has to come up with the idea of "Punctuated Equilibrium " show how weak the fossil really record is.

No. It proposes a difference in how we interpret the fossil record. Not that it is weak to begin with.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Edgar:

Any valid test of PE would require vast expanses of time - we are testing for macroevolution, after all. In other words, it’s impossible to test.

You’ll have to explain to me how this works, Edgar. You wanted to know how PE could be tested and I linked to a paper that did EXACTLY THAT. Did you not check the link? It explains what they were doing and briefly how they did it.

It didn’t require ‘vast amounts of time’. Without paying to download their paper I would guess it took a few weeks at most.

So what you have posted is wrong. It is possible to test for PE and it has been done and the results are favourable to it having happened. Now if you have a problem with how it was done or the means by which it was done then let me know and we can discuss it.

And if your answer is a variation on ‘we weren’t there so we don’t know’, then I have to say we’re back to T shirt slogans again.

Just the fact that somebody has to come up with the idea of "Punctuated Equilibrium " show how weak the fossil really record is.

No. It proposes a difference in how we interpret the fossil record. Not that it is weak to begin with.

How can you interpret things that supposedly happen Billions of year ago.?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Just that extrapolating to that extent without any evidence would make one look silly. So no-one does it.

Oh but they do - I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an evolutionist say, “We can see evolution in action every day, so who can doubt that evolution is real”. What they are saying in effect is, “Since we can observe microevolution, we can assume macroevolution happens and so we can assume all life on earth evolved from a microbe.”

Well they’d be wrong. Very wrong. If you know who has posted a nonsensical comment like that then please let me know. Just because polar bears are white does NOT mean we are descended from microbes.

The fact that they are led some people to look for an answer as to why. Which leads to evolution. But the fact on its own cannot be used to extrapolate to the whole of biological existence.

 

[Wozza]

Aloysium:

The pseudo-religion as it is pseudo-science - evolutionism, stiffling people’s ability to think rationally, ideology above truth.

Trying to convince an atheist that Darwinism and the theory of a Universal Common Ancestor isn’t true is Mission: Impossible. Without God in the mix, there is simply no other alternative. The science and evidence are secondary and only serve to reinforce the a priori position.

If you have any other proposals than evolution (apart from the literal reading of Genesis which I mentioned earlier) then bring them to the table. But as I also said, evolution and God are not mutually incompatible. Except if you’re a fundamentalist, in whicb case you can take your argument to your fellow Catholics.

 

[Wozza]

How can you interpret things that supposedly happen Billions of year ago.?

If you find a fossil of a creature that is in rocks a billion years old we can interpret that it died earlier than one we find in your garden.

 

[buffalo]

Everything else is branded creationist, as if even a creationist could not be correct.

 

[Wozza]

buffalo:

As if the only valid science is done by materialists

Materialists place an inordinate amount of importance on theorectical science - it’s their theology

If, by materialist, you mean someone who holds that only science holds the answers to all questions, then…you are guilty of a tautology.

 

[Wozza]

Everything else is branded creationist, as if even a creationist could not be correct.

If you have other options, then please bring them to the table. I’m keen to learn about them.

 

[Edgar]

And in passing, yes I agree. If you were knowledgable enough about tbe subject and an atheist, then you might well accept evolution (the only other options are religiously based).

One does not have to be very knowledgeable to accept a general theory of evolution - it is a reasonable scientific conclusion based simply on the fossil record, which does reveal what could be described as an overall evolution - the first organisms that appear in the rocks are microbes, and much later, more functionally-complex organisms appear, and so on.

Faith and the process of evolution are not incompatible (as the pope will tell you).

I have no theological objection to the evolution of non-human creatures, but I find I cannot accept that man evolved from a lower animal. However, as a Catholic I must (begrudgingly) accept the Church’s teaching that believing in human evolution is permissible.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And in passing, yes I agree. If you were knowledgable enough about tbe subject and an atheist, then you might well accept evolution (the only other options are religiously based).

One does not have to be very knowledgeable to accept a general theory of evolution - it is a reasonable scientific conclusion based simply on the fossil record, which does reveal what could be described as an overall evolution - the first organisms that appear in the rock are microbes and much later, more functionally-complex organisms appear, and so on.

Faith and the process of evolution are not incompatible (as the pope will tell you).

I have no theological objection to the evolution of non-human creatures, but I find I cannot accept that man evolved from a lower animal. However, as a Catholic I must (begrudgingly) accept the Church’s teaching that believing in such an evolution is permissible.

Sincerely…well said. I wish others were so honest.

 

[Techno2000]

Edgar:

Wozza:

Just that extrapolating to that extent without any evidence would make one look silly. So no-one does it.

Oh but they do - I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an evolutionist say, “We can see evolution in action every day, so who can doubt that evolution is real”. What they are saying in effect is, “Since we can observe microevolution, we can assume macroevolution happens and so we can assume all life on earth evolved from a microbe.”

Well they’d be wrong. Very wrong. If you know who has posted a nonsensical comment like that then please let me know. Just because polar bears are white does NOT mean we are descended from microbes.

The fact that they are led some people to look for an answer as to why. Which leads to evolution. But the fact on its own cannot be used to extrapolate to the whole of biological existence.

If hypothetically the Amazon Jungle was to experience a north pole like climate change. Do you think evolution could transform this Jungle ecosystem into a new arctic ecosystem?

 

[Edgar]

Darwin must of have seen a tadpole morph into frog and figured everything did the same

Then he discovered that frogs sometimes morph into princes, so he put one and one together and came up with … a billion. It’s called Darwinian extrapolation, and it’s a beautiful thing.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Edgar:

Wozza:

Just that extrapolating to that extent without any evidence would make one look silly. So no-one does it.

Oh but they do - I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an evolutionist say, “We can see evolution in action every day, so who can doubt that evolution is real”. What they are saying in effect is, “Since we can observe microevolution, we can assume macroevolution happens and so we can assume all life on earth evolved from a microbe.”

Well they’d be wrong. Very wrong. If you know who has posted a nonsensical comment like that then please let me know. Just because polar bears are white does NOT mean we are descended from microbes.

The fact that they are led some people to look for an answer as to why. Which leads to evolution. But the fact on its own cannot be used to extrapolate to the whole of biological existence.

If hypothetically the Amazon Jungle was to experience a north pole like climate change. Do you think evolution could transform this Jungle ecosystem into a new arctic ecosystem?

Any gradual changes in a given climate produce gradual changes within the ecosystem.

 

[Edgar]

You’ll have to explain to me how this works, Edgar. You wanted to know how PE could be tested and I linked to a paper that did EXACTLY THAT. Did you not check the link? It explains what they were doing and briefly how they did it.

Thanks for the link, but I’ve learnt to take any claims made by evolutionary scientists with a very LARGE grain of salt. Any form of macroevolution - gradual or punctuated - is impossible to observe.

 

[edwest]

No. (ten characters)

 

[Aloysium]

So we now know the process. Some people reject it on religious grounds, as you yourself have explained many times. Now that’s not a position I will argue against. The only posts I disagree with are the ones that post incorrect information.

You didn’t explain anything. What is the process you think is going on when you have in successive generations, the appearance of white bears? We see the converse today as the arctic and subarctic areas are warming up. This is not evolution but simply a change in the appearance of bears, governed by built-in genetic and epigenetic processes designed to do just that sort of thing. If you believe that there exists a process by which you arose from some ancestral bacterium, you have to describe it. You may be satisfied with simplistic, superficial generalities that explain nothing, but we should not be.