Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true


#6187

Could you elaborate a bit more on what in that paper you consider to be an indictment of evolution and a definition of “kind”?

Thanks, trying to get what you’re saying, it isn’t obvious from the paper.

I also dont understand why you’re criticizing Linnean taxonomy, if I recall correctly evolutionary biology moved to phylogenetics a long time ago.

And wouldn’t horizontal gene transfer make things more related, not less? And doesnt that just apply to microorganisms? Sorry for the bunch of questions.


#6188

They will be. Perhaps by another evo sounding name.:grinning:


#6189

Science works on the best information available today. It is always aware that new information may appear tomorrow, but for today it uses what it has.

Hence, all promises of jam tomorrow are not science. They might be in future, providing the promise is delivered, but unless and until that delivery then they cannot be science.

rossum


#6190

I guess one question I would have is why would one ignore what the fossil record and the genome testing is telling us, and then also ignore our observations that all material objects appear to evolve over time and genes are material objects? On top of that, there is not one shred of evidence for some sort of magical wall between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”.

It’s not only well-established science, it’s also just plain old common sense, so why would one stick to a literalist interpretation of the Creation accounts under these circumstances? If our Catholic faith is to be enlightening, and I very much believe it is, we need to accept the reality of the evolution of life forms that goes well beyond “micro-evolution”. To not do so with all the evidence we now have is to use religious faith as a set of blinders, not enlightenment.


#6191

Evolution could not happen without God, so God has to be far more important than evolution to anyone with a faith.

If there really was overwhelming evidence for the ToE; I am sure we would accept it. But 6k posts later and there still seems to be many causes for doubt.


#6192

I’m not so sure people who are determined not to believe something could be persuaded by evidence. Ever hear of the flat earth society?

Virtually all biologists believe in evolution, and they are the people who are most familiar with the evidence. It really just seems to be people who think they have a religious obligation not to believe it who don’t.


#6193

Oh, you’re right about there being questions that haven’t been answered.

Sure!

It’s just that the ToE is more comprehensive and has fewer rational blind spots than any if its rivals.


#6194

It was the ToE that helped me to find a faith in God about twenty years ago. I looked at the skeletal system as a whole; and all the hurdles blind nature would have to overcome from an engineering perspective. After a number of years, I concluded there had to be a God, and that belief has only become stronger since.


#6195

Very well said.


#6196

And there is not one empirical shred of evidence macro-evolution is real. The wall is self imposed.

No, we do not. The evidence is favoring ID more and more. Get used to it.


#6197

We do not do science by consensus.


#6198

is ID. …


#6199

False. Again. I have already shown you the example of the Marbled Crayfish, the emergence of a new species, more than once. Why do you persist in this erroneous claim in the face of the evidence?

You will not advance your cause by ignoring the evidence. It is a cardinal sin to ignore evidence in science.

Science has evidence of macroevolution, of the evolution of new species.

rossum


#6200

I would have to say Intelligent Design is the best answer.


#6201

And I have showed you why this is not evidence.


#6202

No you have not. All you have done is to personally redefine the word “macroevolution” to mean something different from it’s standard meaning, but which is more convenient for your argument.

That is Humpty Dumpty argumentation, not science.

Here, once again, is the evidence for macroevolution of the Marbled crayfish ( Procambarus virginalis): The marbled crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) represents an independent new species.

If you can only support your argument by ignoring evidence then you need to find a better argument. This one has obviously failed.

rossum


#6203

As far as I can tell you don’t do any science at all. I’m still waiting to here how you interpreted that paper earlier, and other questions I had in post 6142.

Good science leads to consensus. If I have to choose between the 99% of medical doctors believe that smoking can lead to lung cancer, and a couple guys who work for tobacco companies who are addicted to smoking, I’m going with the 99% of experts in the field.


#6204

That’s fine.

But you need to honestly agree that your conclusion is emotionally derived rather than rationally.

The rational truth is that God and evolution and, say, electricity are separate fields. Different lanes. And advance in one doesn’t mean contraction on another. Knowledge is not a zero sum game.


#6205

Oh, the irony … ! The belief/conclusion/theory/claim that all life on earth evolved naturally from a microbe is scientifially vacuous and useless - its only raison d’etre is to promote atheism.


#6206

Are you a reader of minds and souls, that you know that all biologists who believe in evolution are liars trying to promote atheism?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.