Do you agree with these statements?

[Gene2memE]

Darwin taught evolution required the emergence of new species.

No, Darwin proposed a mechanism which explained how new species emerge. You're putting the horse before the cart.

The development of the Theory of Evolution was a consequence of the observation of the present diversity of life, together with the available evidence from the fossil record.

Evolution requires something new not merely an improvement within a species or change within a species.

Evolution doesn't "require" anything, its an explanation for what we observe in nature.

However, the development of new species with unique characteristics (colouration, internal organs, head and limb shape, methods of reproduction, wings ect, ect) is a very well studied area in the ToE. Here's a paper describing how Ebenaceae diversified into at least 24 "morphologically and ecologically clearly differentiated" species in the past 9 million years, the majority of which have emerged in the last 2 million years.

Please don't respond with "it's still a tree though".

Some will present that as evolution but it is not within the meaning of evolution as taught by Darwinism. Improvement can be adaptation to change and it is not evolutionary.

Adaptation is one of a series of mechanisms withing the framework of the ToE. What barrier is there that prevents small scale adaptations leading to the development of novel features? Would you like to know how many different times eyes have evolved? Or wings? Or a sense of smell?

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's not true in the least. Most of the great scientists have been Christian; and today atheists are still a minority among scientists.

I think you have missed the point - maybe read the thread again ??

 

[Radagast]

Do you disagree with what Pavel wrote...

I do.

Certainly the obvious success factors in the Six Day War were the Israeli strikes on Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian air forces, which gave them air superiority in all theatres.

Other obvious success factors include better leadership on the Israeli side and an Israeli willingness to take casualties.

 

[Radagast]

I think you have missed the point

Possibly because the point was poorly expressed.

 

[Radagast]

Carl Popper was a Christian.

I had always understood that Karl Popper was an agnostic.

Have you got a reference on his being Christian?

 

[SelfSim]

Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a religious belief.

I am going by my understanding that Atheism denies the existence of a deity, here. Happy to be corrected on this, however.
It seems to me that lacking something implies that there is a reason for lacking it. In this case, that reason would have to be a belief of some kind(?)

Agnosticism is unsure .. which is pretty close to saying nothing in response to the question about the existence of deities(?)

 

[SelfSim]

The experimantal method postulated by Carl Popper deals with observable phenomena. This correctly defines the boundary of science. Carl Popper was a Christian.

Popper was also heavily skewed by philosophical Realism ... which is based on untestable beliefs typically ejected by the scientific method.

 

[Kylie]

How then do you account for the victories of WW2 with Germany being superior in almost every measurable way - and the 6 day war with Israel being ridiculously outnumbered and under equipped.

Let's keep this to things that can affect populations of wild animals, shall we and not get into politics and warfare?

 

[Kylie]

Absolutely true. I only have an issue with the Zebra offspring becoming some other species.

Why is that?

If the kinds of small changes I describe take place over a long enough period of time, isn't it possible that all those small changes will add up to result in a large change from the original population?

 

[Kylie]

What are you inferring? A cat will over a million years turn into a dog?

No, because no one has said that dogs evolved from cats.

There was a common ancestor of both groups that lived millions of years ago, and some evolved to dogs and others evolved to cats.

Dogs did not evolve from cats anymore than you are the offspring of your cousins.

 

[Kylie]

Because the fossil record denies speciation.

You do realise that what seems to take an instant in the fossil record actually took place over a few million years in real time, yes? The Cambrian "explosion", for example, took about 20 million years.

 

[Kylie]

Explain the following.

Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, with no obvious ancestors for a period of about 80 to 90 million years prior to their appearance. Not even fossil leaves or pollen are known from this earlier time.

As I've said, "rather suddenly in the fossil record" still means a few million years or so.

 

[Radagast]

As I understand the wording of the OP (and I'm not wild about that wording), it's about how processes of natural selection can produce these three different species from a common ancestor: Equus zebra, Equus grevyi, Equus quagga.

As I have already said, I think most Christians would accept that, because they would see these species as being the same "kind."

See, for example, Speciation - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[Radagast]

If the kinds of small changes I describe take place over a long enough period of time, isn't it possible that all those small changes will add up to result in a large change from the original population?

That extrapolation would be the essential point of debate.

There would be push-back both from religious people and from scientists who believe that, scientifically, there's more to the story.

 

[Kylie]

That extrapolation would be the essential point of debate.

There would be push-back both from religious people and from scientists who believe that, scientifically, there's more to the story.

Let's discount anyone who rejects it simply because their religion tells them to. I'd like to restrict any discussion to producing actual evidence. Is there any evidence to show that such extrapolation is unjustified?

 

[Radagast]

Let's discount anyone who rejects it simply because their religion tells them to.

No, let's not. Philosophy has something to say, and for the religious person, theology has something to say as well.

Is there any evidence to show that such extrapolation is unjustified?

Is there any evidence to show that such extrapolation is justified?

There are, after all, scientists who believe that, scientifically, there's more to the story.

And extrapolation is always a dangerous game.

Personally, I'm a theistic evolutionist, but I think it's fair to say that evolutionary theorists haven't built quite the same kind of robust case that the quantum physicists have built.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I do.

Certainly the obvious success factors in the Six Day War were the Israeli strikes on Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian air forces, which gave them air superiority in all theatres.

Other obvious success factors include better leadership on the Israeli side and an Israeli willingness to take casualties.

You might then like to address his post and get a response...

 

[Radagast]

You might then like to address his post and get a response...

You were the person who introduced the Six Day War into the thread, as I recall.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You were the person who introduced the Six Day War into the thread, as I recall.

HE was the one who came out with the stats...

...mind you, I appreciate how you enjoy targeting me

 

[Carl Emerson]

I had always understood that Karl Popper was an agnostic.

Have you got a reference on his being Christian?

He was a baptised Lutheran...

Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in 1902 to upper-middle-class parents. All of Popper's grandparents were Jewish, but they were not devout and as part of the cultural assimilation process the Popper family converted to Lutheranism before he was born and so he received a Lutheran baptism.