Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 1 of 830 (486641)
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


In the "Is it science" topic, there is a thread for best evidence for creation.
I would like to hear what people consider to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.
Edited by wardog25, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 10-24-2008 5:37 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 5 by The Matt, posted 10-24-2008 5:55 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 10-24-2008 6:28 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2008 9:33 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 10-25-2008 11:12 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 02-15-2009 10:34 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 33 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-15-2009 1:45 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 6:05 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 71 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-18-2009 3:29 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 78 by kofh2u, posted 03-06-2013 8:44 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 83 by rationalone, posted 10-04-2014 9:24 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 107 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-25-2019 10:06 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 650 by mike the wiz, posted 03-21-2020 10:40 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 760 by Barry Deaborough, posted 08-01-2021 8:37 AM wardog25 has not replied

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 11 of 830 (486876)
10-25-2008 9:25 AM


In response to The Matt, Agobot, and maybe Huntard (depending on what aspect of genetics you were referring to):
Why is it that microevolution is so often presented as foundational to the theory of evolution when microevolution is both accepted and celebrated by creationists and evolutionists alike?
To me it seems that microevolution is just a matter of interpretation, and cannot be used as evidence for one side or the other.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Huntard, posted 10-25-2008 9:39 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2008 9:46 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 5:49 PM wardog25 has not replied

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 14 of 830 (486888)
10-25-2008 10:46 AM


In biology the term "micro-evolution" is not used anymore. Biologists only refer to evolution now. Evolution is the change of the genetic make up in populations over time. This has been observed to happen, in fact it is very easy to test. The modern day science of genetics is thus a supreme tool in providing evidence for evolution.
A matter of interpretation? what other interpretations for: "the genetic make up of a population changes over time" are there?
But this is my point entirely. No species has ever been shown to change into another species, yet evolutionists insist it is possible and even (as you mentioned) define the terms to support their side.
So it is a matter of interpretation whether microevolution demonstrates evolution or not. Creationists completely affirm that animals change within species (or kind). We just know that there are limits. Evolutionists know there are limits too, they just insist there aren't any limits in certain areas.
For example: Say I'm breeding dogs and I get a dog that is 1 foot taller. Could we keep breeding for millions of years (provided we could stay alive that long) and get a dog that is 200 feet tall? No, there are limits.
So if you can't breed indefinitely and get a 200 foot tall dog, why can you breed indefinitely and get a completely different kind of animal?
Changes within a species do not demonstrate that the species can change to something else entirely. Therefore microevolution is not foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.
Edited by wardog25, : No reason given.
Edited by wardog25, : Quote was not showing correctly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 10-25-2008 11:05 AM wardog25 has replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2008 4:34 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 5:59 PM wardog25 has not replied

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 17 of 830 (486899)
10-25-2008 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
10-25-2008 11:05 AM


Through genetics, one can track the point where the current creature branched off from it's common ancestor with another creature.
Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism? (not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)
What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.
Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.
So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".
We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material. So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.
(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 10-25-2008 11:05 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminNosy, posted 10-25-2008 11:47 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 10-25-2008 11:56 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 10-25-2008 1:24 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 28 by Agobot, posted 10-26-2008 6:03 AM wardog25 has not replied

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 25 of 830 (486929)
10-25-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Admin
10-25-2008 1:24 PM


Wardog25, please see Message 3. As AdminNosy indicated in Message 18, if the origin of new genetic material is what you really want to talk about then you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.
A caution to other participants:
The possibility exists that wardog25 is not really interested in what people believe to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution. I was concerned that this might be the case, so before discussion started I issued the advisory in Message 3 that this thread is not for discussion of the validity of the offered evidence, but only about whether it was truly foundational. We would never promote a thread where any and all evidences for evolution would be on the table at the same time. We try very hard to avoid such confusion here.
Based upon wardog25's Message 17 members may want to be circumspect about further participation.
Wow. Very tightly moderated board. I guess that's a good thing with these topics.
Sorry about getting off track. I am interested in hearing what people think is foundational for evolution. It's very telling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 10-25-2008 1:24 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024