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.
rossum said:
Why is this relevant? I showed that the marbled crayfish was a new species, and hence its appearance is a documented example of recent macroevolution. Your quote confirms that.

That is macroevolution, not microevolution.

Macroevolution happens. It has been observed to happen. To deny macroevolution is to deny the reality of the world.

Humans have lost the ability to extract oxygen from water with gills that our very distant ancestors once had. There is no rule in biology that a new species cannot lose an ability its ancestors once had.

rossum
Click to expand...
It is still a crayfish. What does evolution predict will become of the marbled crayfish?

The argument is circular. See, we define species as being able to reproduce. Then they cannot reproduce. Now we have a new species. We call that macto-evolution.

Actually, it is really adaptation.
 
rossum said:
Evolution is part of science; it explains the physical/material part of human existence. For the immaterial part we will have to differ since Christians and Buddhists differ on the make-up of the non-physical part of a human being.
Click to expand...
We agree, then, that all living beings possess an essential immaterial property not discoverable by science. We may disagree on the characteristics of that immaterial property but not as to its existence as essential to all living things.

Is it not more important to understand the essence of a being rather than its accidents? But that is another thread.
rossum said:
I showed that the marbled crayfish was a new species …
Click to expand...
“New” as to be known to exist, OK. But the claim “new” as to existence goes beyond the data. “New” to existence can only be held in suspense.
 
buffalo said:
It is still a crayfish.
Click to expand...
It is a new species of crayfish. When cats evolved from their carnivore ancestors, was that “still a mammal”? Macroevolution is the evolution of a new species. The marbled crayfish is a new species.
What does evolution predict will become of the marbled crayfish?
Click to expand...
Probably the same as with most parthenogenic species. They will do well so long as their environment remains reasonably stable. If the environment changes then they will not be able to adapt as quickly as a sexually reproducing species because they no longer have recombination to introduce additional variation into their genomes.

What does creationism predict will become of the marbled crayfish?

rossum
 
Uriel1 said:
No, no. The Church is not opposed to science; it’s just that the Darwinians are not founded in science, but in fantasy and supposition
Click to expand...
The problem with Darwinism is that it attempts to explain unnatural events using natural knowledge.
 
Some people may use Darwinism (incorrectly) to draw conclusions about unnatural events, but that’s not how most scientists interpret Darwinism. The correct interpretation is only about that part of existence which is material, observable, testable, and natural.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Creation is just that and evolution is a poor attempt at explaining who we are and how we got here, reflecting the reality that “there is so much that we just don’t know and understand” and the difficulty people have in accepting that God is God.
Click to expand...
Evolution certainly does a very poor job of explaining why humans are so different to all the other creatures. On the other hand, the information that humans were created in the image of God explains very well why humans are so so different to all the other creatures.
 
Aloysium said:
It is a “coincidence” because science is blind to knowledge of such causalities. I would reject any pseudoscientific attempt to imply that the co-incidence of events meant they were uncaused.
Click to expand...
Some of the “scientific explanations” I’ve heard for certain biblical events are so lame they’re embarrassing.
 
rossum said:
Probably the same as with most parthenogenic species. They will do well so long as their environment remains reasonably stable. If the environment changes then they will not be able to adapt as quickly as a sexually reproducing species because they no longer have recombination to introduce additional variation into their genomes.
Click to expand...
In other words, they will go extinct. This loss of function once had ultimately is their undoing. But, they are a new species. 😀 Pretty weak…
 
Aloysium said:
It’s hard to get the point across where the counterargument is that human existence is explicable using the principles that describe a rock.
Click to expand...
On an atheist forum, such a counterargument would be perfectly acceptable.
 
guanophore said:
All life is oriented toward survival. Species develop in order to avoid predators. Even wildlife that has now moved into the cities like racoons and coyotes do this now.
Click to expand...
In Australia, there are now kangaroos driving buses and taxis and wombats running small businesses. That’s evolution occuring right before our eyes.
(In America in the 1960s, there was a talking horse called Mr. Ed. incredible.)
 
buffalo said:
In other words, they will go extinct. This loss of function once had ultimately is their undoing. But, they are a new species. 😀 Pretty weak…
Click to expand...
No answer to my question then, buffalo. I answer your question; you do not answer mine.

Pretty weak indeed.

rossum
 
Edgar said:
I wouldn’t consider speciation within a genus to be evidence of “macro-evolution”. I would call it wishful thinking
Click to expand...
You do not get to define what macroevolution is. The marbled crayfish is an example of macroevolution.

If you want your own definition then you need to use a new word, ‘macroevolution’ is already taken.

rossum
 
edwest said:
So "unintelligent selection’ ignores a wide array of real life factors. It is special pleading to point to millions of years as time enough to get from Point A to Point B. That is speculation, not science.
Click to expand...
Apparently, there is a special law of evolution that says billions of years makes just about anything possible.
 
If I may take a minute of everyone’s time…

I had to dig out something I’d written quite some time back, not associated with the forum. But I came across a lot that I’d written on the forum as I used to write it on notepad before posting. It was easier to edit and gave me a chance to fine tune any argument before posting.

There were dozens of these posts written to people who mostly gave up the site when the new format was introduced. And I spent some time reading the conversations I had back then (under a different user name as old names were lost in the transition).

What struck me was the quality of responses I always received. It was a pleasure to be involved in the discussions. There was very little repetition, comments were backed up by agreed facts, arguments proceeded along logical paths and everyone seemed to respect the viewpoints of everyone else. If you were shown to have claimed something that was incorrect, then it was generally accepted that you were in error and the discussion moved on. There were exceptions, but they were exceptions.

Then yesterday I received an email out of the blue from an old adversary. Long time no see. And she was astonished that I was still posting. She’d logged on to check out the current state of affairs and could not believe that I was persevering.

What could I say. Yes, it’s a shadow of its former self. It’s not worth anyone’s time any more. For me it has become a habit. One of the sites I check now and then. I guess I hope that it will improve. I mean, my post number was in 5 figures. It’s kinda difficult to let go.

But discussions like this are a sad reflection on what this forum used to be. I just thought that you should know that.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
rossum:
What does creationism predict will become of the marbled crayfish?
Click to expand...
Food. Just can’t suck the “brains” out like those Cajuns do. Yuk.
Click to expand...
Lol… I’m from New Orleans, it’s not the brains that gets sucked out, it’s the yellow-orange fat inside the crawfish, it’s very flavorful.

PS never go to New Orleans and ask for “crayfish” it’s only known as crawfish down here. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top