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.
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
. If you propose a theory that fits the evidence better than any other theory, you win.
Click to expand...
And ID is winning because it is the better explanation.
Click to expand...
By what metric are you determining that it is winning? Peer reviewed papers? Number of experts in all associated fields that accept it? There must be something which we can use to determine the validity of theories in general and then apply it to evolution and (ahem) ID to see which is ‘winning’.

On what do you base your claim?
 
Atreju said:
Actually IQ has increased over the last century, or at the very least not consistently decreased:
Flynn effect - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I can see you haven’t been posting over the last five years. This keeps coming up and has to be clarified. In spite of the Flynn effect which merely makes the most of what the genome would provide, there is something going on counteracting it’s positive influence on the phenotype.

Predicting what happens every time, I will quote yourself:
Atreju said:
But I guess the opinion of a couple amateurs on the internet matters a lot more.
Click to expand...
Take a gander at this and follow up if you are at all interested:

amp.cnn.com

IQ scores are falling and have been for decades | CNN

IQ scores have been steadily falling for the past few decades, with changes in our environment and the way we are learning thought to be reasons why, a new study suggests.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com

To illustrate that there are different findings to be found in any field Google:

The negative Flynn Effect: A systematic literature review by Edward Dutton, Dimitrivan der Linde and Richard Lynn in the journal Intelligence.

I can’t seem to bring up the study I quoted years ago published in the same journal, but here is a rather in-depth description of its methods and findings:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...alysis_of_the_slowing_of_simple_reaction_time

Here’s one that summarizes it and is an easier read:

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846

This may be making a bigger deal perhaps than it is, but the findings of a lowering of IQ would be consistent with the concept of evolution since random mutations would go either way and greater complexity is considered illusory. If you disagree, don’t bother me, because there is clearly such an increase over the time frame of creation. The poster Iwantgod made that assertion to support his belief in evolution.
 
IQ is way, way more developmental than genetic, IMO. I wouldn’t call it evidence related to evolution either way.
 
rossum said:
That was not my claim, since “form” is not fully defined. All I claim is that the emergence of new species, i.e. macroevolution, has been observed. That is sufficient to establish macroevolution, as normally defined, on a sound scientific basis.
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that the word “macroevolution” was coined by creationist scientists, in order to make the distinction between the demonstrable fact of species-level evolution (aka microevolution) and the non-demonstrable claim of above-species-level evolution. But now it seems that the scientific community has hijacked this word and twisted its original meaning to suit themselves - claiming, rather oddly, that species-level evolution is macroevolution. Microevolution is also macroevolution - amazing!
Evidently, evolution science has taken a leaf out of Alice in Wonderland, where words can mean whatever you want them to mean.
 
Bradskii said:
If you propose a theory that fits the evidence better than any other theory, you win.
Click to expand...
What do you win?

Apart from that, naturalistic theores (aka scientific) that attempt to explain the history of life on earth do a rather poor job of explaining what is observed, but I can fully appreciate that an atheist like yourself must delude oneself into believing that evolutionary science is actually doing a great job.
 
Metis1 said:
I believe God caused all, but I don’t believe that the Creation accounts taken literally make any sense. It defies our basic understanding of how our universe and Earth came into being if taken verse by verse in Gensis, plus it defies basic Catholic teachings that one simply cannot always use literalistic interpretations as Aquinas stated. OTOH, if viewed as being allegory, the Creation accounts make much more sense.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this.
the issue largely discussed here in not whether God caused all but exactly how did God cause all.
Click to expand...
That’s as futile as humans offering a scientific explanation for how Jesus turned water into wine or how the Virgin Mary became pregnant or how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. Forget it! The glaring inadequacies of evolutionary theory demonstrate the puny limits of science.
 
Exactly! If EVILution were true, then why come we find fossils of horse-like creatures in the ground? If evilution were true then horses would never die. Checkmate, scientists!
 
Edgar said:
It’s my understanding that the word “macroevolution” was coined by creationist scientists, in order to make the distinction between the demonstrable fact of species-level evolution (aka microevolution) and the non-demonstrable claim of above-species-level evolution. But now it seems that the scientific community has hijacked this word and twisted its original meaning to suit themselves - claiming, rather oddly, that species-level evolution is macroevolution. Microevolution is also macroevolution - amazing!
Click to expand...
Back in the early 20th century, conservative Christians denied evolution completely: species were fixed. They even passed laws forbidding the teaching of evolution, as in Tennessee – hence the Scopes trial, where he was found guilty of teaching evolution. However, as evidence of variation within species accumulated, the anti-evolution groups shifted to say “evolution can only happen within a species, but not across species boundaries”. At that point they adopted the already existing scientific terms, “microevolution” and “macroevolution” to describe their position: microevolution was possible, but not macroevolution.

As time passed, science discovered more examples of macroevolution, and the ability to sequence DNA showed a lot more evidence, so the creationists had to retreat again. This time they allowed that evolution between related species could happen, but that evolution between “kinds” could not. Here ‘kinds’ is derived from the Bible, not from science, so it has no scientific definition.

In short, the term ‘macroevolution’ started as a scientific term before being adopted by creationists to describe their position post-Scopes and pre-DNA. Today, the word ‘kind’ is more often used.

rossum
 
Edgar said:
40.png
Bradskii:
If you propose a theory that fits the evidence better than any other theory, you win.
Click to expand...
What do you win?
Click to expand...
That’s a silly question. You win the ‘Best Theory Award’. The one that explains the evidence the best.

Now all we need to do is wait for Buffalo to decide to tell us, if he considers ID to be the winner, how one determines any given theory to be better than any other.

Stay tuned…
 
Bradskii said:
You win the ‘Best Theory Award’. The one that explains the evidence the best.
Click to expand...
“One of the most fundamental problems in the spiritual order is that we sense within ourselves the hunger for God, but we attempt to satisfy it with some created good that is less than God. Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth , pleasure , power , and honor . - Bishop Robert Barron, author of the Catholicism video series

Human beings commonly seek honor/honour. Human beings do not commonly seek humility because humility would be humbling.

Now, earthly honors like sports championships (or theory champtionships) are a fading glory.

If there is a God and not only did He raise Jesus Christ from the dead but He will raise us from the dead (and bring us to judgment - May the LORD have mercy upon us in that day), then God wins in the end.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
An unguided evolutionary process
Click to expand...
The ToE does not intrinsically posit nor suggest that evolution is “unguided” (or “guided”) at its core, which is why there are so many “theistic evolutionists” within science, including yours truly.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
That’s as futile as humans offering a scientific explanation for how Jesus turned water into wine or how the Virgin Mary became pregnant or how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. Forget it! The glaring inadequacies of evolutionary theory demonstrate the puny limits of science.
Click to expand...
As a scientist, we are all too painfully aware of our limitations. For every problem we solve, more questions tend to pop up.

Also, any serious theologian will tell you that much the same occurs in any in-depth study of the scriptures. Within real estate, the value of a house is mostly based on “location, location, location”; and within theology, it’s more “interpretation, interpretation, interpretation”. Even within the history of the Church there long has been numerous differences of opinions on a great many topics.

As any scientist will tell you, keeping an open and objective mind is paramount.
 
Last edited:
Atreju said:
Exactly! If EVILution were true, then why come we find fossils of horse-like creatures in the ground? If evilution were true then horses would never die. Checkmate, scientists!
Click to expand...
This is fascinating actually. Did you not grasp his argument that kinds of living beings were created in stages with the built in capacity for diversity. There was an original equus, perhaps the eohippus, the forebear of donkeys, horses, zebras and the okapi, which natural selection appears will soon do away with. What is a kind of being may come and go in time as its last expression is no more. Some people believe, rightly so I think, that they will populate the garden that is the New Jerusalem.
 
It’s been pointed out to me that the okapi is a member of the giraffe family. Well, there goes the entire argument; not really, just making fun of some of the retorts one reads here.
 
I’m poking fun at Edgar who said that ‘punctuated equilibrium’ should keep horses from dying.

Yes, living beings have the built-in capacity to mutate and evolve. That’s not exactly an argument against evolution.
 
If donkeys, horses, and zebras can all come from a forebear (maybe the eohippus), and okapi and giraffes also come from a forebear (let’s call it a proto-giraffe), is it possible that the eohippus and proto-giraffe both come from a forebear? Why not?
 
Well, I’ve lost track of this thread for awhile.
6,643 posts? Really?

Everyone who learned something new from someone who doesn’t agree with you or who changed your mind whatsoever, could you please save me some time and summarize what that was and what information or insight lead to that? Thanks!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top