Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see those things as separate, independent observations. I see no reason to consider them "lines of evidence". The only way you could see them as lines of evidence is if you have a motivation to support a particular theory.All those separate lines of evidence are consistent with Evolution being the explanation.
They all work on using very different mechanisms to observe the same pattern, that life falls into a branching tree structure which is consistent with gradual diversification and not specifically consistent with simultaneous design by a common designer.
I don't accept it for the same reasons Darwin second-guessed himself. I give the man credit for being honest. But ultimately he "went with it" and ultimately I believe he was wrong.Why don't you try to look at specifics and attempt to isolate why you don't accept it?
If you accept adaption for micro scale variation in living species, try to isolate your problems with a larger and longer scale of the same mechanisms. You might find, on reflection, that your concerns and disagreements are separate to that specific scientific discussion and so you should focus your attention on your actual motivation.
What a weird argument. So I guess when geocentrism was widely taught, that meant it was true? Islam is taught in madrasas around the world, so that means it's true?Except that, logically speaking, since the theory of evolution is taught as basic scientific fact in schools not just in America but across the world, then surely by that simple fact alone, the facts to prove the theory of evolution are sound enough to warrant it being taught as fact.
Any argument against evolution is massively and majorly led by people who come at it from a religious point of view, not a scientific one.
The title of this thread is "facts to prove the TOE". Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?Great -- so you agree that this represents evidence for evolution, just not large-scale evolution. This means that you agree that there is evidence that evolution can produce new species(*) and can produce considerable morphological change (the birds' beaks differ a lot) that is adaptive (the different beaks are well suited to different specific diets). I trust you will object when creationists here claim that evolution can't do any of these things.
Now, where do you think microevolution stops? That is, what exactly are we supposed to be producing evidence for? Could all birds be the product of microevolution from a single ancestral species? If not, why not? What about primates -- they're no more diverse than birds, so are they the product of microevolution?
(*) Which, incidentally, is the realm of 'macroevolution' in the terminology of evolutionary biologists.
But you only have ill informed opinions.I see those things as separate, independent observations. I see no reason to consider them "lines of evidence". The only way you could see them as lines of evidence is if you have a motivation to support a particular theory.
I don't accept it for the same reasons Darwin second-guessed himself. I give the man credit for being honest. But ultimately he "went with it" and ultimately I believe he was wrong.
What a weird argument. So I guess when geocentrism was widely taught, that meant it was true? Islam is taught in madrasas around the world, so that means it's true?
No, it meant that there was nothing against it at the time. That's how science works: "this is the best explanation we have given the available evidence to date". And that was the point of the post.What a weird argument. So I guess when geocentrism was widely taught, that meant it was true?
In the sense that any religion is true, but religions rest on an entirely different congnitive basis than science, so strictly speaking they are not comparable to it. Even if creationists were right about the age of the Earth and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.Islam is taught in madrasas around the world, so that means it's true?
In the sense that any religion is true, but religions rest on an entirely different congnitive basis than science, so strictly speaking they are not comparable to it. Even if creationists were right about the age of the Earth and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science.
You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.But you only have ill informed opinions.
Not one fact to show the theory is wrong.
Does that not suggest a problem with
the honesty of your (emotional) stance?
The question there is as noted, ill informed.The title of this thread is "facts to prove the TOE". Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?
Speciation occurs. If speciation can occur, then there is no reason that it cannot occur repeatedly, and that is macro-evolution.You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.
So you have a basis for rejection other thanYou don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.
I'm curious. What do you mean by the phrase "the theory is right"? Do you think scientists think in terms of theories being right? If so, what do you think they mean by right? If not, how do you think they think of a theory?You don't have one fact to show the theory is right, which is the topic of this thread. And I have to say, you come across as a bit more emotional than I do.
Evolution states that every organism is the same species as its parents and its offspring. Why would you expect something other than a human in your example?Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?
There is no "hard line" where an individual, or even a population, becomes a different species. Instead, there is a gradual diversion as one population of a species becomes different from another. Over time, the differences become great enough such that an observer would regard them as different species. Traditionally, the marker has been loss of interfertility, but in reality there is a long period of gradually declining interfertility, so there is no "hard line" there, either.The title of this thread is "facts to prove the TOE". Instead of asking me where microevolution stops, I'll ask you where macroevolution begins. When do a human male and a human female perform the marital act and reproduce something other than a human?
If anything, I think this proves my point that any commentary against evolution largely comes from a religious, not a scientific perspective. To say a religion is right or wrong, as chesterton obliquely did, is a religious perspective.
Speciation occurs. If speciation can occur, then there is no reason that it cannot occur repeatedly, and that is macro-evolution.
No facts, no theory.
Religion isn't afraid to tell others they are wrong.
Telling others they're wrong is one thing. SHOWING is something else entirely, and it's something you Creationists are not very good at doing.
The "showing" can't be done by us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?