T
Techno2000
Guest
Thanks Buff, for thwarting their attempts to cloud the issue.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
Wouldn’t it have been more polite to say he was just harvesting the low hanging fruit?buffalo:
I can see what’s happened here. All the fish in the barrel have been shot so all that’s left is for Buff to take the bottom and scrape it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Articles related to this discovery have been posted a number of times in response to these repeated comments on this very thread.
https://relay.nationalgeographic.co...-bacteria-caves-diseases-human-health-science
Somewhere you must have explained the evolutionary mechanism that describes this phenomenon, but I can’t recall what you said and have not been able to find it. I have provided you with my perspective on this scientific fact, and am interested in yours.
https://relay.nationalgeographic.co...-bacteria-caves-diseases-human-health-science
Somewhere you must have explained the evolutionary mechanism that describes this phenomenon, but I can’t recall what you said and have not been able to find it. I have provided you with my perspective on this scientific fact, and am interested in yours.
R
rossum
Guest
Yes. That is what I said:
Thank you for providing experimental confirmation of my statement.
B
Bradskii
Guest
That would imply going for the easiest answer. As opposed to looking for an answer that’s not there.Bradskii:
Wouldn’t it have been more polite to say he was just harvesting the low hanging fruit?buffalo:
I can see what’s happened here. All the fish in the barrel have been shot so all that’s left is for Buff to take the bottom and scrape it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
My perspective on this is that such activity is random in the sense that rolling a one or a six is a random event, given the pre-existence of a die. It is part of the plan. There is no argument with the idea of “microevolution”, diversification within a group of the same kind of living being. What we don’t find in the cave is a new kind of organism, not found in other parts of the world, which I would expect given that we are talking about 4 million years and that “that random mutations may produce a solution to a problem before the problem arises”. Bacteria remain bacteria, in other words, unless they die out through “natural selection”.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
MicroevolutionTechno2000:
That would imply going for the easiest answer. As opposed to looking for an answer that’s not there.Bradskii:
Wouldn’t it have been more polite to say he was just harvesting the low hanging fruit?buffalo:
I can see what’s happened here. All the fish in the barrel have been shot so all that’s left is for Buff to take the bottom and scrape it.
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.
Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
R
rossum
Guest
The problem I have with that is that , so far, nobody has been able to provide an objective definition of a “kind”. Without knowing where the boundaries between kinds are, it is impossible to say if a particular evolutionary transition is allowed or not.
For instance. Are all marsupials one single kind or are kangaroos in one kind, koalas in another kind and wombats in yet a third kind? What are your objective scientific answers to those questions?
From my point of view there is only one kind in existence, the “Life on Earth” kind. All observed instances of evolution have happened within that kind.
No they do not. Some purple nonsulfur bacteria became mitochondria in eukaryotes by a process of endosymbiosis. We have the descendants of those bacteria in our cell today, as do all other eukaryotes. The evidence is against you on this I’m afraid.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Given that the objective reality of a species boils down to specific genetic pools, hardly an adequate description for what children demonstrate an ability to identify, from the moment they are able to speak, it is hardly surprising that different kinds of living being, obviously resting on an ontological basis, would be difficult to identify “objectively”, in accordance with today’s science. (That’s got to be the longest sentence I’ve written)
As to evolution, we can imagine how the dining room set began first with the use of a tree stump. This would have bee followed by the building of bigger boxes to put things on and smaller ones to sit on, later to be replaced by chairs and tables. Chairs did not evolve into tables. Each thing of its kind utilized pre-existing materials and similar processes to construct. The building blocks were created first, to be utilized in the creation of new kinds of living things. The science, which seems reasonable, can be expressed in both an evolutionary and creationist perspective, the latter being closer to the truth.
As to mitochondria, there is very little diversity seen in the DNA of different species, and nowhere close to that of their genomic DNA. “Random” mutation involves “processes” that are outside those that involve the fundamental laws of nature.
As to evolution, we can imagine how the dining room set began first with the use of a tree stump. This would have bee followed by the building of bigger boxes to put things on and smaller ones to sit on, later to be replaced by chairs and tables. Chairs did not evolve into tables. Each thing of its kind utilized pre-existing materials and similar processes to construct. The building blocks were created first, to be utilized in the creation of new kinds of living things. The science, which seems reasonable, can be expressed in both an evolutionary and creationist perspective, the latter being closer to the truth.
As to mitochondria, there is very little diversity seen in the DNA of different species, and nowhere close to that of their genomic DNA. “Random” mutation involves “processes” that are outside those that involve the fundamental laws of nature.
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
It is so unfortunate that some conflate the process within science with that within religious faith, and even a half-way decent elementary student should be able to discern the difference. Science throughout the world begins with the “scientific method”, which is rather obviously not used in the case of religion.
The ToE is really basic and has been well-established through myriads of evidence and, as mentioned many times previously, it’s just plain old common sense as all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. Plus, there’s not one shred of evidence that suggests micro-evolution miraculously stops prior to macro-evolution and is simply an imaginary fabrication to ignore the reality of the evolution of life forms. If there was such a “wall”, geneticists would well know that. As an anthropologists, I can tell ya that we work with geneticists a great deal.
When religious faith is used as a set of blinders to basic reality, then that faith must be considered bogus as the Truth cannot be relative. I went through the difficult process many decades ago to walk away from the form of brainwashing that I had been brought up with in my fundamentalist Protestant church, so if that can happen with me, that can happen with anyone.
Science is not the enemy of religion-- intellectual blindness to reality that can all too often lead to falsehoods and superstition is. If Catholicism took the same approach that my old church did, there’s simply no way I would have ever even considered converting to Catholicism.
The ToE is really basic and has been well-established through myriads of evidence and, as mentioned many times previously, it’s just plain old common sense as all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. Plus, there’s not one shred of evidence that suggests micro-evolution miraculously stops prior to macro-evolution and is simply an imaginary fabrication to ignore the reality of the evolution of life forms. If there was such a “wall”, geneticists would well know that. As an anthropologists, I can tell ya that we work with geneticists a great deal.
When religious faith is used as a set of blinders to basic reality, then that faith must be considered bogus as the Truth cannot be relative. I went through the difficult process many decades ago to walk away from the form of brainwashing that I had been brought up with in my fundamentalist Protestant church, so if that can happen with me, that can happen with anyone.
Science is not the enemy of religion-- intellectual blindness to reality that can all too often lead to falsehoods and superstition is. If Catholicism took the same approach that my old church did, there’s simply no way I would have ever even considered converting to Catholicism.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
God is way more powerful than you think, he doesn’t have to use evolution to create anything.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you believe it possible for God to have used intelligent design?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Gee, we haven’t seen that put forward for at least a couple of weeks. A link to an article that accepts the ToE as a given, written by scientists whose work is entirely based on the ToE, describing aspects of the ToE, all put forward as an attempt to…umm…deny the ToE.
That’s like linking to an article by written by NASA scientists, who were involved in the moon landing, describing various apects of the mission, in order to deny the moon landings took place.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Can you tell us who they are and what they have found so far?
And what happened to the question about God recognising Adam? Where was that meant to go? You can’t ask it and then ignore the answer.
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
First of all, it’s “interesting” that you think you know what God can or cannot do. As for myself, I know that this is well beyond my pay-grade.
And who is to say that God couldn’t use a natural process like evolution to make life? The evolution of our universe dating back to at least 13.7 billion years ago indicates that our universe evolved, so why is it somehow illogical that life evolved with it?
E
edwest
Guest
Hmmmm. Thank you.
E
edwest
Guest
Exactly right.
M
Metis1
Guest
There really no such thing as “devolution” as even the deterioration of a form still is evolution.
Also, quoting an i.d. source as if it’s actual science is nonsense because i.d. assumes a creator-god and then hunts for some confirmation whereas there’s none in reality. IOW, it’s a supposed “answer” looking for confirmation, which is not how the scientific method is to be done.
In order to substantiate i.d., one first has to provide objectively-derived evidence that there is a creator-god, but no such objective evidence exists. If there was, it would be constantly shouted from the rooftops as proof with all the supposed evidence to support it. If one believes in God, they do so on the basis of faith, not objectively-derived evidence, as pretty much any theologian worth his/her salt will tell ya.
And equating religious faith and the scientific method as somehow being the same is ridiculous as pretty much any good elementary student should be able to tell. Science is not based on just some sort of faith based minus objective evidence, and claims that somehow it is indicates that a person who believes and says that either are ignorant of the different methodologies or simply are fabricating falsehoods.
Also, quoting an i.d. source as if it’s actual science is nonsense because i.d. assumes a creator-god and then hunts for some confirmation whereas there’s none in reality. IOW, it’s a supposed “answer” looking for confirmation, which is not how the scientific method is to be done.
In order to substantiate i.d., one first has to provide objectively-derived evidence that there is a creator-god, but no such objective evidence exists. If there was, it would be constantly shouted from the rooftops as proof with all the supposed evidence to support it. If one believes in God, they do so on the basis of faith, not objectively-derived evidence, as pretty much any theologian worth his/her salt will tell ya.
And equating religious faith and the scientific method as somehow being the same is ridiculous as pretty much any good elementary student should be able to tell. Science is not based on just some sort of faith based minus objective evidence, and claims that somehow it is indicates that a person who believes and says that either are ignorant of the different methodologies or simply are fabricating falsehoods.
- Status