What i can't understand about evolution....

quote:

---

Kind = ability to breed
if they can breed, they are of the same kind

---

In that case if they can't breed then they are of different kinds.But how, then, do you account for ring species ? All the populations within the "ring" can be connected by interbreeding (so they must be the same kind) but not all the populations can breed with all of the other populations (so they must be different kinds).It seems then that you must either accept that the ability to interbreed is not an adequate definition or accept that macroevolution can and does occur.

quote:

---

It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view. All I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that there is no God and the evolutionist point of view comes into focus fairly easily. I don't agree with it, but I understand where they are coming from.

---

That pretty much shows that you DON'T understand the evolutionist point of view. The assumption that there is no God isn't part of evolution, and certainly isn't a basis for it.

quote:

---

The diversification of animals after the flood did not follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history (for those who are calling it that). It mostly involves a process that we can test and observe every day.

​

Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair? Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.

​

If I crossbreed several dogs and get a new breed, did I cause a new breed to evolve? No, I just mixed and matched genes that were already there. So really, it all just depends on what genes the parents were carrying. Since I don't know what the parents looked like, I can't really expound much further.

---

That's a standard creationist fantasy. But it can't work. Even by the most favourable interpretation the Ark only carried 7 pairs of each "clean" animal - which is small enough to be in danger of inbreeding. All other species are even worse off - the unclean "kinds" would be represented by only a single pair.. Even if the "kinds" in the ark were species they should ALL have low genetic diversity without mutation. The problem is multiplied horrendously if you make a "kind" a genus or more.No, you need hyper-mutation to go with your alleged post-Flood hyper-macroevolution. That is the only way to explain away the genetic evidence.

quote:

---

this is very true and i appreciate the point your making here. I've never undertaken any science studies so i'm obviously not speaking from experience. But its certainly not arrogance that makes me disbelieve evolution.

---

It looks like arrogance from here. If you don't know what you are taking about and can't be bothered to find out what could lead you to so confidently reject evolution ?

quote:

---

if anything, arrogance is seen alive and well in evolution with such sayings as ”All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ This is a form of intimidation and mental bullying, almost being forced to believe it without questioning it even though the theory has changed and there are many different schools of thought.

---

Setting aside your exaggeration, why is telling the truth an example of arrogance ? The vast majority of people who are actually familiar with the evidence do accept it.
Surely it is arrogance for those who do NOT know what they are talking about to put forward their uninformed opinions as facts, not for those who DO know the facts to put those forward.

quote:

---

From what your saying above, only people involved the the study of evolution can understand it. If thats the case then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied? Is it even reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science?

​

Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study?

​

this is quite a dilemma, yes? lol

---

There's no dilemma for anyone who cares about the truth. The only rational course is to accept that the experts have it mostly right or educate yourself to the point where you have an adequate expertise.

quote:

---

im sure evolutionists are as committed to their ideas about the origin of life just as much as creationists are committed to their belief in a creator.

---

You're wrong. Some may favour a pet theory or hypothesis but a good many of us are not committed to any one.

quote:

---

both are a matter of faith if you get to the nitty gritty of it. Evolution has not given an answer for the origin of the first living cell or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things ....these are all a matter of faith in that "it must have happened" even though we cant replicate it, or observe it.

---

The origin of the first life isn't even part of evolutionary theory - and the fact that we haven't worked it out yet isn't any sort of problem for evolution as such. ANd we do have some pretty good ideas about how "genes shape the forms of living things" - not a complete understanding but a good deal of knowledge which is growing through active research (see developmental biology).

quote:

---

The problem i see in what you are saying is that, the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?

---

Yes, it is. The basic evidence is there from taxonomy and the fossil record.

quote:

---

Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links.

---

That's not true. Transitional fossils wee found in Darwin's time and more have been found and continue to be found.

quote:

---

Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again.

​

Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species???

---

Transitions to new species are rare (and there are reasons for that) - but then you've already said that you accept those and see no problem with it. The rest is asking for evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory. Want to explain why anybody who knows what they are talking about would do that ?

quote:

---

no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor

---

This is completely false. The idea that all life has a single ancestor is a conclusion based on evidence.

quote:

---

this implies that it originated from an original source...

---

Well you got something right..

quote:

---

...from a primordial soup where life sprang to life

---

And then got it wrong again. The fact that life stems from a single source does not imply any particular source.

quote:

---

THAT is why i take exception to evolution

---

Then, since your objection is based on a clear misunderstanding, can we take it that you accept evolution now ?

quote:

---

Life only comes from pre existing life...this is fact and all smart scientists know it.

---

If this is really true then life must have existed for an infinite time (or not exist at all) since there can be no origin of life. Since the evidence is very much against it smart scientists do not believe it at all.However, the very fact that we do not see new life forms springing into existence SUPPORTS the idea of a single common ancestor - since it requires only a single origin of life event.

quote:

---

I am happy to accept evolution. Actually i do...to a point... only to the point where the origin of life is involved

---

In that case, you accept all of it, since the origin of life is NOT involved.

quote:

---

If evolution insists that each species came from some other species, then this is not in line with what we see in nature.

---

Up to now you said that your only objection to evolution was to the origin of life. Now you are suddenly rejecting speciation ! Do you actually think about what you are writing ? Did you not notice that you completely contradicted your previous sentence ?Or your own statement in Message 244

quote:

---

Each species continues to produce its own kind - in great variety - I accept this and i accept genetics. But this crossing of species does not happen. They have not successfully cross bred anything of a differnt species, have they?

---

Species do not generally develop through cross-breeding.

quote:

---

Thats pure conjecture. if you look at the bones of many creatures you'll see similarities, it cannot be proved that these bones evolved to produce a new species

---

This is why people say that you are arrogant. Rather than looking at the evidence you have simply decreed that it cannot exist. Unfortunately for you, it does exist. We have transitional fossils illustrating the change (as you would know if you had actually investigated the link). Indeed the bones are not merely similar - they are anatomically the same bones.