|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
Integral,
The bottom line is, neither side can prove what you are asking for. Evolutionists will point out all the small changes that occur and then say that it is up to creationists to prove that there is a line between species/kinds, otherwise small changes become large changes over time. Creationists say it is up to the evolutionists to prove that the small changes can lead to large ones, and evolutionists have yet to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
wardog25 writes:
Actually, if one follows the evidence, a pretty clear picture appears.
The bottom line is, neither side can prove what you are asking for. Evolutionists will point out all the small changes that occur and then say that it is up to creationists to prove that there is a line between species/kinds, otherwise small changes become large changes over time.
No. There are MANY examples where we can show the evolution of a species quite well.
Creationists say it is up to the evolutionists to prove that the small changes can lead to large ones, and evolutionists have yet to do so.
Wrong, they have done so. MANY times in fact. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
No. There are MANY examples where we can show the evolution of a species quite well. I asked for examples demonstrating evolution across the lines of species in this thread: http://EvC Forum: Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread) -->EvC Forum: Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread) I was told by you and others (some of the posts were lost when the thread was lost) that these examples would never be seen because either we don't have enough time to witness them (because they take thousands of generations) or because modern day species are not under the same pressure to evolve as species back then. If you have these "many" examples, by all means bring them up in that thread so they can be discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5024 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
quote: Here's one recent direct observation of an organism evolving "accross species" Just a moment...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you have these "many" examples, by all means bring them up in that thread so they can be discussed. Here's a good one -- ring species.
This also does serious damage to the creationists' claim that there are no transitionals. Ring species preserve the transitionals, still living, for all to see. (All but creationists, who generally ignore or deny this evidence of speciation.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
Once again, the examples given are "microevolution" (I use that term for lack of a better one).
"Ring species" or not, it is still just microevolution. You start with a salamander and you end with a salamander. You start with a greenish warbler and end with a greenish warbler. (and in the link above that, they started with E Coli and ended with... E Coli) The fact that a few traits change between them is irrelevant. Microevolution is completely affirmed by creationists. I've used this example before, and I'll use it again: If I breed Cocker Spaniels and get a Cocker Spaniel that is 6 inches taller. Does that mean Cocker Spaniels could be bred for milllions of years and we could get a 60 foot taller one eventually? 99.9% of scientists would say no. Because there are limits. It is not a limit you can point at and say "there's the final limit". It is not a limit that would be easy to define. But it is a limit nonetheless. So if I can't assume that the height of a dog can increase indefinitely, why can evolutionists assume that small changes mean that something the size of a virus could evolve into something like a human (if given enough time)? Biologically, it cannot be demonstrated. Citing examples of "microevolution" does not help. Integral's question still stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi wardog25,
It is not a limit you can point at and say "there's the final limit". It is not a limit that would be easy to define. But it is a limit nonetheless. So just to be clear; There is a limit on variation, but it can't be pointed to. It can't be directly observed. It can't be defined. How do you know it's there at all then? If you want to claim that there is a limit on variation, you need to verify its existence somehow. That requires that you produce some kind of evidence. Saying "It's there somewhere!" doesn't cut it. Indeed, you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse others of doing; claiming an effect that cannot be observed. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Wardog25 writes:
The reason scientist say no to this is not because it is theoretically impossible, it is because by the time you get one that big, it would no longer be considered a cocker spaniel as we consider it today. There will be many more changes also happening to the animal, and it will most likely turn out VERY different from what we consider a cocker spaniel today. I've used this example before, and I'll use it again: If I breed Cocker Spaniels and get a Cocker Spaniel that is 6 inches taller. Does that mean Cocker Spaniels could be bred for milllions of years and we could get a 60 foot taller one eventually? 99.9% of scientists would say no. Because there are limits. I have a question for you. What do you consider macro evolution? And if you say: "one kind changing into another", please define kind VERY precisely, so we can easily determine when something did or did not "change into another kind". I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Once again, the examples given are "microevolution" (I use that term for lack of a better one). No, they are not. Microevolution is evolutionary changes that take place within an interbreeding population. That is, within a species. These changes are incipient speciation so they are no longer microevolution.
It is not a limit you can point at and say "there's the final limit". It is not a limit that would be easy to define. But it is a limit nonetheless. This limit that you can't point to and can't define sounds a bit like my invisible friend that I can't point to either. When you have a definition of it and can point to it then come back to the discussion. In the meantime you have nothing to bring to the discussion other than your own lack of knowledge about the subject and your incredulity.
Does that mean Cocker Spaniels could be bred for milllions of years and we could get a 60 foot taller one eventually? 99.9% of scientists would say no. Because there are limits. If 99.9% of scientists would say no it is only because 60 foot tall is beyond the physical limits of what a mammalian tetrapod body plan would support. Drop the 60 foot to 20 feet and 99.9 % of scientists would then say "yes" we could get such a thing. You are making things up and do not have any idea what you are actually talking about. In fact, cocker spaniel sized things DID breed over millions of years into things that weighed 10+ tons. See:WorldsOfImagination.com is for sale | HugeDomains
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Evolution can not show new genes are formed thus micro-evolution does not equal a new kind. A new species is an example of micro-evolution. etc... right? Kent Hovind does a good job of exposing those evolutionists that espouse micro-evolution is macro-evolution is not based on genetics but myth. Meaning no new genes formed thus still the same kind of creature, even if its a new species. right?
P.S. Intelligent Design is the new theory thats based on science and not myths, etc...If no new genes are created its the same kind thats all creationists are saying. ID people see no new genes so guess the scientists are agreeing with the creationists and not the evolutionists. right? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
johnfolton,
Evolution can not show new genes are formed thus micro-evolution does not equal a new kind. In which case, because IDists can't show us special creation, then it can't have happened.
ID people see no new genes Because they never fucking look. Scientists who do look see genes evolve new function. If a gene evolving to have a new function isn't a "new" gene, then I don't know what is.
P.S. Intelligent Design is the new theory thats based on science and not myths, etc Even if you really say it lots & lots of time, it still isn't true. In order to be science it has to meet scientific criteria; it doesn't. Even Phillip Johnson is on record as saying ID isn't science. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Just when you think you've heard it all....
johnfolton writes:
New genes form all the time.
Evolution can not show new genes are formed thus micro-evolution does not equal a new kind. A new species is an example of micro-evolution.
As Ned pointed out just one post above you, no it isn't
etc... right?
Why do you keep posting this? I've seen this several times in all your posts, and it just doesn't make any sense to put them there.
Kent Hovind does a good job of exposing those evolutionists that espouse micro-evolution is macro-evolution is not based on genetics but myth.
Kent "I'm in jail" Hovind doesn't even understand what he's talking about.
Meaning no new genes formed thus still the same kind of creature, even if its a new species. right?
Wrong.
P.S. Intelligent Design is the new theory thats based on science and not myths,
By this, he means that it has absolutely NO basis in reality.
If no new genes are created its the same kind thats all creationists are saying.
Uh oh, he just mixed up ID, which claims it's NOT a religion, with creationism, which has been established is nothing BUT religion. To make matters worse, his statement is false.
ID people see no new genes so guess the scientists are agreeing with the creationists and not the evolutionists.
And mixed them up again....oh my. Oh, and science most certainly doesn't agree with creationists, since they don't even do science.
right?
Wrong. Uterly utterly wrong. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
So just to be clear; There is a limit on variation, but it can't be pointed to. It can't be directly observed. It can't be defined. How do you know it's there at all then? If you want to claim that there is a limit on variation, you need to verify its existence somehow. That requires that you produce some kind of evidence. Saying "It's there somewhere!" doesn't cut it. Indeed, you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse others of doing; claiming an effect that cannot be observed. Mutate and Survive If you look back at my first post on this thread, this was the point I was making to start with. Both creationists and evolutionists claim their side is correct, but neither side can prove it. I cannot scientifically "prove" that there is a line between kinds any more than evolutionists can scientifically "prove" that an elephant and a lemur evolved from the same ancestor. I am perfectly willing to accept that my side takes some faith. Evolutionists seem afraid to admit that theirs does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
I have a question for you. What do you consider macro evolution? And if you say: "one kind changing into another", please define kind VERY precisely, so we can easily determine when something did or did not "change into another kind". Yes, that is an accepted definition for macro-evolution. I'm not sure what sort of definition you want for "kind". It is a very difficult thing to classify every organism on earth no matter what system you use. There is no one single trait that you can look at to identify the "kind" just the same as there is no one single trait that classifies a "species" or a "genus". Often times "kind" matches up with the biological classification of "Family" (as in: Species, Genus, Family). So house cats, lions, tigers, etc. would all be "cat kind". But I'm sure I could find exceptions without much trouble.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
wardog25 writes:
I didn't say give one thing that defines a kind, I asked for a detailed description. There may not be one thing that separates a species from a genus, but there are very strict rules about this. If you can't define a kind, you can't claim the animal in discussion belongs to that kind without a doubt. There will always be arguments to refute that, unless you define it very precisely. Until then, I'll say macro evolution happened, and one kind turned into another. I'm not sure what sort of definition you want for "kind". It is a very difficult thing to classify every organism on earth no matter what system you use. There is no one single trait that you can look at to identify the "kind" just the same as there is no one single trait that classifies a "species" or a "genus". Often times "kind" matches up with the biological classification of "Family" (as in: Species, Genus, Family). So house cats, lions, tigers, etc. would all be "cat kind". But I'm sure I could find exceptions without much trouble. I hunt for the truth
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024