E
Edgar
Guest
I haven’t noticed anyone here arguing that the “evolution of species” is not a fact.
Last edited:
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
Edgar
Guest
When it comes to evolution, Popes are merely repeating the concensus of the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, which a) is riddled with atheists and b) merely offers the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth … which probably isn’t worth the paper its written on, since that history is probably the result of a miraculous process.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I would define “macroevolution” as the evolution of one genus into a different genus - something that has never been witnessed by man and something thousands of years of artifical selection by animal and plant breeders suggests is physically impossible. If the fossil record reveals that this has happened, the best scientific explanation for it is biological evolution. But since God is the author of life, the possibility that genus-genus “evolution” is unnatural (unscientific) and a “one-of” event cannot be discounted.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
That definition of macroevolution is personal to you alone. The standard definition of macroevolution is “evolution at the species level and higher”. Your definition omits events at the species level, such as the evolution of a new species, which has been observed.
In science you need to use the standard definitions; using personal definitions is Humpty Dumpty argumentation.
rossum
I
IWantGod
Guest
Please enlighten me, I’ve been wrong before.
I mean, what could you possibly show different? That we have no genetic similarities with the great ape species? I doubt it.
Loading…
evolutionnews.org
Here they question the percentage of similarities we have genetically. But it is not proven false that we share genetic similarities and neither does anyone challenge that we have a genetic relationship with chimps. Thus to say that the claim is false is dishonest. At most, one can only say that the degree to which we share genetic similarities is still being studied.
You have to understand, the percentage is irrelevant. It’s fact that we share genetic similarities at all that justifies the conclusion that we are genetically related.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Genetic change definitely happens across generations through recombination and gene transfer and likely influenced by epigenetic factors acting on the DNA of spermatozoa.
It is clear that we members of humankind come in different sizes and capabilities. There are different amounts of melanin and melanocytes in our skin. Lactase is an enzyme present in infants which disappears for many people, but not others. The NASA twin study reveals the impact of space travel on the human body and demonstrates how the environment affects the expression of information contained in DNA in the body, and likely impacting on subsequent generations. Again, this is all pre-programmed in the creation of life and we ourselves.
Loading…
www.cbc.ca
Whatever purpose tusks have, it would appear that for practical reasons its better for female elephants not to have them. We’ve known this sort of thing happens since we began breeding farm animals, dogs, horses and we ourselves. This process, extended to the claim that we have a geneological connection to a shared ancestor with apes and gorillas, so firmly stated as fact, is not one that can explain the emergence of the human brain, which is capable of expressing those aspects of the spirit that define mankind, such as this very conversation.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Make that two.
B
Beyond_Reason
Guest
Well you can posit these conversations to the introduction of a soul if you want, but that doesn’t really speak to the biological history.
E
edwest
Guest
The Church has made such declarations. They are rejected automatically.
E
edwest
Guest
I suggest you do a review of contemporary human skulls.
B
Beyond_Reason
Guest
Got a lot of modern adult human skills with 800 mL cranial capacity?
E
Edgar
Guest
What’s the difference between an “evolutionary biologist” and a standard-issue biologist?
E
Edgar
Guest
B
Beyond_Reason
Guest
I’m not sure why you think we don’t have evidence of evolution above the genus level.
R
rossum
Guest
It is both. Evolution can be either microevoluiton, below the level of species, or macroevolution, at or above the level of species.
rossum
M
Metis1
Guest
Specialization.
E
Edgar
Guest
Thanks, but that doesn’t tell me anything. I suspect an evolutionary biologist spends most of this time theorising about the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth and how contemporary biological events can be interpreted through this prism. In other words, an evolutionary biologist is mainly a useless talker who contributes nothing to the advancement of science or to the betterment of other organisms … as opposed to real-world biologists who actually do something useful and beneficial.
B
Beyond_Reason
Guest
See here’s your problem. You can’t get any money by just theorizing. Evolutionary biology is useful and is testable and produces results. Not theorizing, research.
Just peruse through a few of these papers:
https://www.nature.com/subjects/evolutionary-biology
Look at the data, look at the complex models and specific esoteric language. 92 papers in the last year in just one scientific journal. This is what I can’t understand, how people who don’t seem to even have a good grasp of the basic concepts can just dismiss all of this with a sweep of the hand and an a priori certainty that their preconceptions are correct, without any real research on their own. It’s the height of arrogance.
Just peruse through a few of these papers:
https://www.nature.com/subjects/evolutionary-biology
Look at the data, look at the complex models and specific esoteric language. 92 papers in the last year in just one scientific journal. This is what I can’t understand, how people who don’t seem to even have a good grasp of the basic concepts can just dismiss all of this with a sweep of the hand and an a priori certainty that their preconceptions are correct, without any real research on their own. It’s the height of arrogance.
E
Edgar
Guest
That’s not what I said - I said evolution at genus level has never been witnessed by humans. In other words, there is no empirical evidence that one genus and evolve into another genus as a result of biological evolution. Such genus-genus transformations may be evident in the fossil record, but how do we know these are the result of a natural process of biological evolution or the result of divine intervention? It could be that life on earth is the result of progressive creation (ie, a series of miraculous, separate creations) that has unfolded over billions of years but ended when man arrived.
E
Edgar
Guest
Just because evolutionary evolution is used in “research” doesn’t mean it’s practically useful and has produced tangible benefits in applied science. A lot of research results in useless dead-ends and theorising never helped anyone.
On another site I got into a discussion with a computational biologist who was a senior member of a research team that was sponsored to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by a well-known drug company. He insisted that the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life (more specifically, the belief that humans and chimps share a common ancestor) had proven “useful” in this research into improving vaccines. However, further inquiry revealed that what he meant by “useful” was that evolutionary theory seems to explain certain observations … he then admitted that no tangible benefit had resulted from this theorising. In other words - another case of an evolutionary biologist wasting other people’s money by trying to squeeze some life out of a useless belief. Evolutionary biologists would surely rate as being amongst the most useless and overrated members of the scientific community - all talk and no action.
If you can give me one example of how the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life has led to a practical use in applied science, I would like to hear it.
Last edited:
- Status