Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
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’.Bradskii:
And ID is winning because it is the better explanation.
On what do you base your claim?
A
Aloysium
Guest
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:
Take a gander at this and follow up if you are at all interested:
Loading…
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.
A
Atreju
Guest
IQ is way, way more developmental than genetic, IMO. I wouldn’t call it evidence related to evolution either way.
E
Edgar
Guest
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.
E
Edgar
Guest
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.
E
Edgar
Guest
I agree with you on this.
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.
A
Atreju
Guest
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!
R
rossum
Guest
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
B
Bradskii
Guest
That’s a silly question. You win the ‘Best Theory Award’. The one that explains the evidence the best.Bradskii:
What do you win?
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…
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
“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:
M
Metis1
Guest
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:
M
Metis1
Guest
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:
A
Aloysium
Guest
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.
A
Aloysium
Guest
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.
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually it was an evo back in the 30’s I think. Can’t remember his name right now.
A
Atreju
Guest
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.
Yes, living beings have the built-in capacity to mutate and evolve. That’s not exactly an argument against evolution.
A
Atreju
Guest
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?
P
PetraG
Guest
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!!
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