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.
Edgar said:
The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “evolutionary” history of life is a natural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed one genus evolving into another genus.
Click to expand...
The fossil record is an excellent reason to doubt that the “creationary” history of life is an unnatural process, as is the fact that no one has ever witnessed God creating any new species.

rossum
 
Well, determining one species from another is really a matter of humans categorizing and naming species ourselves. It fits along with man naming the animals. We know from science that humans were not alive during the time of the dinosaurs and that there is a prolonged period in the fossil record where we didn’t exist. Many ancient species simply did not exist. The oldest species, to my understanding, is the cockroach. Those buggers reproduce far too quickly and are nearly invisible.

I think it’s best to understand Genesis as being a mixture of genres. They are the oral traditions of the Isrealites written down. The word ‘adam’ means man. You’ll note, a lot of children’s bibles screw with out perception of what Genesis actually says. We tend to presume a lot of false things that aren’t actually in the written text. I find the creation accounts have powerful spiritual meanings about the nature of sin. To what extent they are literal events is beside the point. Some of the stories are best read as parables. I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s no historicity to them, but I think searching for that answer misses the point of Sacred Scripture. And mind you, I’m only speaking of Genesis.
 
buffalo said:
Correct. The archetypes were created before man.
Click to expand...
Please show us where the Bible describes God creating “archetypes”. Is this just a synonym for “Biblical kind” dressed up to look more sciencey and less theological?

If so, then you will still need to tell us how to distinguish between archetypes. Are kangaroos and wallabies formed after two different archetypes or one single Marsupial archetype. How can we objectively determine the answer?

rossum
 
rossum said:
Please show us where the Bible describes God creating “archetypes”. Is this just a synonym for “Biblical kind” dressed up to look more sciencey and less theological?

If so, then you will still need to tell us how to distinguish between archetypes. Are kangaroos and wallabies formed after two different archetypes or one single Marsupial archetype. How can we objectively determine the answer?
Click to expand...
Yes, the original “kinds” were the archetypes.

We are finding the Linnaean system outmoded and genetic studies will be a better classification system. We already see the tree of life has been felled since HGT and is now a tangled bush.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, the original “kinds” were the archetypes.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming that. However, you failed to answer my question about the Kangaroo archetype/kind, the Wombat archetype/kind and the Marsupial archetype/kind. How are we to objectively determine the boundaries between the various archetypes/kinds?

If we cannot determine the boundaries then the concept is useless, whatever word we use for it.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
The gene survey paper I have linked many times now has shown the vast space between species. We will only get better at it.
Click to expand...
And as I said that last time you linked to that paper, it is about determining the boundaries between species, not the boundaries between archetypes/kinds. If archetypes are the same as species, then the concept is redundant. If archetypes are not the same as species, then you will need a different way to determine boundaries.

rossum
 
rossum said:
And as I said that last time you linked to that paper, it is about determining the boundaries between species , not the boundaries between archetypes/kinds. If archetypes are the same as species, then the concept is redundant. If archetypes are not the same as species, then you will need a different way to determine boundaries.
Click to expand...
The circles will simply get larger with more “species” fitting within that originated from the archetypes. We will see some get booted to other circles entirely.
 
buffalo said:
The circles will simply get larger with more “species” fitting within that originated from the archetypes. We will see some get booted to other circles entirely.
Click to expand...
Which fails to answer my question. How do we determine archetype/kind boundaries? You are trying to make future predictions here, but failing to deal with the present. Are kangaroos and wombats the same archetype or two different archetype? How do we answer objectively?

rossum
 
buffalo said:
I have already repeated that we will hone the classifications according to genetics and its programming.
Click to expand...
So, “will hone”, meaning that you cannot currently answer the question. Go away and work on an answer and get back to us when you have one. Until then you do not have science, you have personal opinion.

Without science you will not win the scientific debate.

rossum
 
rossum said:
So, “will hone”, meaning that you cannot currently answer the question.
Click to expand...
Of course not. I said, once again, we will hone in on this. It is being developed, scientifically.

We have some science and will build on it. Morphology is a failing classification system, but if you want to stand by it, go ahead. Do you admit to HGT causing the tree of life to fall? Or are you still sticking with the old “tree of life”?

A System to Automatically Classify and Name Any Individual Genome-Sequenced Organism Independently of Current Biological Classification and Nomenclature​

Loading…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We have some science and will build on it.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Standard evolutionary biology has some science – that paper was not published by the ID side.

All the ID side is doing is piggy-backing on the work of standard evolutionary biology.

rossum
 
Could you elaborate a bit more on what in that paper you consider to be an indictment of evolution and a definition of “kind”?

Thanks, trying to get what you’re saying, it isn’t obvious from the paper.

I also dont understand why you’re criticizing Linnean taxonomy, if I recall correctly evolutionary biology moved to phylogenetics a long time ago.

And wouldn’t horizontal gene transfer make things more related, not less? And doesnt that just apply to microorganisms? Sorry for the bunch of questions.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
They will be.
Click to expand...
Science works on the best information available today. It is always aware that new information may appear tomorrow, but for today it uses what it has.

Hence, all promises of jam tomorrow are not science. They might be in future, providing the promise is delivered, but unless and until that delivery then they cannot be science.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top