Originally posted by Anonymouse After groundbreaking research, and more than a century since Darwin, I don't see any reason to accept evolution. Whether it is citing the moth as an example, or the antibiotics and genes resisting. All these examples forget one basic thing, these are examples of microevolution which I have not denied. You are only stating the obvious. The point is not to dispute whether microevolution happens, but whether it means anything at all?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evolution and Religion
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by sleuth reconciliation religion and evolution will solve this conflict.
Comment
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Way to completely ignore what she said. One species became two. That right there is an example of macroevolution. It is not an alteration within a species. It is a change to another species. Another example, also one done through selective breeding, is the transformation of wild cats and dogs into house pets, which are new species. Examples of this abound in early agriculture. Take a look at what dairy cows were before they were domesticated. They bear very little resemblance to what we see today. The simple fact is, point mutations and natural selection are known to produce microevolution within a population. When enough of this has been built up speciation may occur, and this is macroevolution. It has been observed to have happened before, and it is rather obvious, once again, that new species did not come from nowhere. They came from previous species. This is not a guess, Mousy. There is no other place they could have come from, unless God is playing a cruel trick on us by periodically exterminating old species and creating new species that are nearly completely identical. If this makes sense to you, Mouseboy, I urge you to take a class in logic. It will do you wonders.
A cow is still a cow. Even though may be changed and adapted due to environment and diet overtime, it is nonetheless a cow, and not something else.
Furthermore, your reference about selective breeding is precisely evidence of intelligence interfering for purposes of creating a "new species" and more tends to support the idea of a God interfering to create new species. Since these are not species changing our of their own volition, but are having intelligence ( humans ) interfere and create new ones.
So if we read your post, you would have us believe evolution is a scientific law. You can weave a web of scientific aura with your words and tiny examples and give readers a thorough illusion of evolution in act, yet it remains that evolution has many points which prevent it from becoming a scientific law, therefore constituted as knowledge, per the rules of the scientific method.
It is, as you would call it "an educated guess".Achkerov kute.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anonymouse [B]A cow is still a cow. Even though may be changed and adapted due to environment and diet overtime, it is nonetheless a cow, and not something else.
Furthermore, your reference about selective breeding is precisely evidence of intelligence interfering for purposes of creating a "new species" and more tends to support the idea of a God interfering to create new species. Since these are not species changing our of their own volition, but are having intelligence ( humans ) interfere and create new ones.
Comment
-
There are no different species. I've already addressed the issue of bacterias, moths. If you scroll back far enough and read my tediously boring posts, you'll see I mention that. It's nothing new. This argument is the only thing people such as Futuyma rely on as the most compelling evidence for evolution, which I dont' buy for one bit.
Where the confusion of "evolution" arises is essentially its semantics.Achkerov kute.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anonymouse There are no different species. I've already addressed the issue of bacterias, moths. If you scroll back far enough and read my tediously boring posts, you'll see I mention that. It's nothing new. This argument is the only thing people such as Futuyma rely on as the most compelling evidence for evolution, which I dont' buy for one bit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by loseyourname It makes little difference whether or not you say there were new species. There were. A domesticated dog is distinct from the wild dog that it came from, as a domesticated cat is distinct from the wild cat that it came from, as a domesticated cow is distinct from the wild cow that it came from. They are different species. You are barking up the wrong tree here. You have better arguments than this, I'm sure.
Furthermore, you are just confirming that intelligence can create "new species", as man is intelligent and is taking control of those below him and creating "new species". This is a perfect argument for intelligent design.
By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.Achkerov kute.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anonymouse A dog is a dog, maybe different in characteristics, but nonetheless a dog. Such trivial examples are all brushed under the effect of "evolution" when its all a tautology and a confusion of semantics.
Furthermore, you are just confirming that intelligence can create "new species", as man is intelligent and is taking control of those below him and creating "new species". This is a perfect argument for intelligent design.
By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.
I am sure you enjoy the word but I have not seen a single tautology in this thread.
Intelligence interferes to speed up the process.
Lose mentioned, and you still ignore, that intelligent interference is not excluded from the idea of evolution.
And the example about dogs was used because he is implying that they are of a different species and of the same genus. They cannot not mate in such an instance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anonymouse [B]A dog is a dog, maybe different in characteristics, but nonetheless a dog. Such trivial examples are all brushed under the effect of "evolution" when its all a tautology and a confusion of semantics.
Furthermore, you are just confirming that intelligence can create "new species", as man is intelligent and is taking control of those below him and creating "new species". This is a perfect argument for intelligent design.
By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.
Comment
Comment