Evolution and Religion

[loseyourname]

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?

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.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by sleuth reconciliation religion and evolution will solve this conflict.

Exactly. Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to say about where anything came from or why it is here. These are questions to be addressed through religion. Evolution answers quite effectively how the current diversity of species observed on this planet came to be. When you have fully learned it, and how it integrated into every other realm of the biological sciences, one cannot help but feel overwhelming wonder at the beauty of all. Life has a built-in capacity to adapt and advance and continually better itself and diversify. If the universe is indeed created, I thank whoever created it for doing it in such a way that there is a natural tendency for life to develop and for intelligence to evolve from it that may eventually come to discover exactly how it happened and appreciate it all. There is magnificence in such a world. I am glad to live in it.

[sleuth]

Originally posted by loseyourname There is magnificence in such a world. I am glad to live in it.

[Anonymouse]

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.

Hold on hold on. Which species became to? What are you talking about? Did you read any of my responses in this thread? Do do you have to say to the various points I raise other than "way to completely ignore" mumbo jumbo. In fact I answered her just fine.

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".

[loseyourname]

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.

Mouse, it is a different species.

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 what? The fact is, it happened. I have said many times before, the uncertainty comes in when you try to explain how it happened. Maybe it was God intervening. Maybe mutation alone isn't enough after all. Nonetheless, currently existent species came from species that are now extinct. That's a fact.

[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.

Where the confusion of "evolution" arises is essentially its semantics.

[loseyourname]

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.

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.

[Anonymouse]

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.

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.

[dusken]

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.

[loseyourname]

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.

Here you affirm that they are not new species.

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.

Here you say that they are. The process, in domestication, has been sped up through the use of selective breeding. However, natural selection on its own has the same effect; it just takes longer to manifest. This does not constitute an argument for intelligent design, although perhaps intelligent intervention took place. There is no way to know that. What we do know is that species evolved. As I said earlier, perhaps God prodded the procees along. The process itself took place either way.

By the way, I love how you used youre new powers to close the soul thread loser before I can submit my response.

I sent you a PM about this. If you would like me to reopen it, send me a PM. I would prefer that our responses to these debates be submitted in separate threads where they will be on topic, so that we can return the soul thread to its previous topic. This has nothing to do with new powers. The thread was my thread. I have deleted threads of mine before when they went off topic and nobody complained that I was abusing that power.