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

I looked up "Family" on wikipedia and got this: In biological classification, family (Latin: familia, plural familiae) is a rank, or a taxon in that rank. Exact details of formal nomenclature depend on the Nomenclature Code which applies.Example: "Walnuts and Hickories belong to the Walnut family" is a brief way of saying: the Walnuts (genus Juglans) and the Hickories (genus Carya) belong to the Walnut familyIn Biology online, I got this: a taxonomic group containing one or more genera; sharks belong to the fish family.In Encarta, I got this: in biological classification, group of genera with related characteristics. The family is below the order and above the genus in biological groupings. The names of families in modern classification are usually derived from a genus of the family, called the type genus. The family names of animals always end in idae, as in Equidae, the horse family; those of plants almost always end in aceae, as in Dipsacaceae, the teasel family.The style of their definitions are not all that different to mine. Evolutionists will accept a bland definition in that case, but not from a creationist, I guess.

Unfortunately this doesn't wash. As evolution is essentially change over time, the lines between biological classifications are necessarily blurred. If they weren't then this would be an argument against evolution!With "kinds", on the other hand, you are in effect proposing absolute barriers between species. These barriers should, by their very nature, be very easy to pinpoint. However, no such barriers have been observed.In any case, as is common with anti-evolution proponents you forget that it is your job to provide positive evidence for your assertions. Criticising evolutionary theory does not provide support for your position by default.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Science is not about proof. Science involves accuracy, which is entirely different. Technically, I cannot prove that you exist.Science is about modeling reality in a theoretical framework to the highest degree of accuracy possible using all available evidence. The Theory of Evolution, and in fact the hypothesis that both elephants and lemurs shared a common ancestor, has shown to have a very high degree of accuracy based on all of the available evidence. The Theory of Evolution has even accurately predicted the existence of evidence that we were previously unaware of.Stop trying to think of scientific theories as trying to prove something. They're not. When you think you've proven something, you stop lookign for ways to increase the accuracy of your model, and you automatically assume that you're correct regardless of additional information. Scientific theories are best-fit models for the evidence we have gathered so far. They are always subject to change, and they constantly undergo rigorous testing.In the case of evolution, the evidence is so overwhelming that only ignorance (willful or otherwise) prevents its acceptance. All of the evidence fits perfectly with the modern concept of evolution as change in species over generations through random mutation guided by natural selection. We have directly observed new traits to form, and have even directly observed new species arising from pre-existing ones, exactly as evolution predicts. Genetic and morphological evidence from literally every species we have ever found, living or extinct, has fit perfectly with the prediction that new species do not suddenly appear by magic, but rather that they arise slowly, over many generations, from pre-existing species.Does this mean that evolution is proven? No. It means that it is a highly accurate representation of what happens (and has happened) in nature. The overwhelming weight of evidence means that the theory of Evolution is unlikely to be falsified, and that it's a very useful model.Think of it this way: Newton's Theory of Gravity is very accurate...if you only know as much about the Unvierse as Newton did. Einstein's version of gravity is far more accurate. I can say that it is proven that gravity exists becasue we directly observe it every day, but the Theory of Gravity is still just the most accurate representation of the factual phenomenon we've observed in nature. It's subject to change when additional information comes along.That species change over generations (including the rise of new species) is proven becasue it has been directly observed. But the Theory of Evolution, which describes the mechanism by which that change occurs, is a best-fit solution given the evidence we have available. That mechanism peredicts many things about all life, including extinct species, and when we look at the evidence, those predictions are verified.The very fact that you're stumbling to define "kinds" in a detailed fashion is because of evolution. Because species arise gradually from pre-existing species, it's difficult to draw the sort of firm lines between "kinds." It's one of the many, many reasons that Creationism can't hold any water in a scientific discussion. This is a common sentiment amongst Creationists, and it's flat-out wrong. Faith is defined as a belief held without supporting evidence, or even despite contrary evidence. The belief that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that Santa Claus exists, or that the moon is made of swiss cheese would all be various examples of faith.The Theory of Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. There is no faith involved whatsoever. No part of the theory of Evolution is based on belief without evidence, or inspite of contrary evidence. To conflate a scientific theory with faith is simply incorrect to the point of absurdity.Creationists frequently make statements like yours in a childish "you do it too, you're just as bad!" sort of argument. You don't like the fact that your beliefs have the same supporting evidence as belief in Santa Claus, and that the conflicting Theory of Evolution carries the weight of real evidence. But making false statements conflating scientific models with faith only shows that you don't understand science at all.

Unless you find a good definition for kind, your whole point about microevolution versus macrevolution goes down the drain, which is just as well since that distinction is completely artificial and meaningess to begin with.Human beings are more closely related to chimps then cats are to lions. Would you put humans and chimps in the same kind?

Scientists are not trying to "prove" anything. You seem to be operating under a major misapprehension about how science works. Science works by providing evidence, not by "proving" anything. And there is plenty of evidence for speciation. You have already seen it in the shape of the greenish warbler. Its example shows that:1) Populations contain variance;2) Geographically separated populations will diverge;3) Sufficiently divergent populations will become so different to one another that they will no longer breed.These three facts provide clear evidence for speciation.There is no evidence for creationism. And yet you are a creationist are you not? On what basis did you decide to believe creationism, if not evidence? Whim? Because it was what you happened to be brought up believing? Because it just sounded good?If you truly believed that both sides were just as guilty of shoddy reasoning, you would be neutral, no? So your argument is faith based. Is that a good or a bad thing?You claim that evolution is faith based. Is that a good or a bad thing?Mutate and Survive

---

"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

I've heard of how the mosquetoe has billions of errors of mutations yet its still a mosquetoe. I think your smoking something because natural selection simply is unable to create new genetic information it can only go where the genetic program allows. This is intelligent design mutations genetic drift is not new information.P.S. The truth is that life is de-evolving. right? ring species, mosquetoes, even genetic diseases in humans, etc... If you have any information where you can show any cell is capable of generation of information of design of new genetic information please step up to the plate. Was not this the main point Kent Hovind challenged you folk and you all failed to come to the plate arguing nothings because thats all evolution has in respect to answering origin is your all still clueless, right? etc... If you want to understand this better checkout Kents site and stay away from talk origins and their kind thats just breeding more psuedo science stuff as if its based on scientific facts, etc ...

Here is an article for you to read that shows you are 100% wrong.Recipes for life: How genes evolveSome sample paragraphs:

As the genomes of more and more species are sequenced, geneticists are piecing together an extraordinarily detailed "Making of..." documentary. Nowadays, we can not only trace how the bodies of animals have evolved, we can even identify the genetic mutations behind these changes.

​

[snip]

​

Some theoretical biologists think gene copies can also be preserved by other, more subtle, mechanisms, but the real challenge to the classical model comes from actual studies of new genes in various organisms. Earlier this year, in the most comprehensive study of its kind yet, a team led by Wen Wang of Kunming Institute of Zoology in Yunnan, China, looked at several closely related species of fruit fly. By comparing their genomes, Wang was able to identify new genes that have evolved in the 13 million years or so since these species split from a common ancestor.

​

One of Wang's surprise discoveries was that around 10 per cent of the new genes had arisen through a process called retroposition. This occurs when messenger RNA copies of genes - the blueprints sent to a cell's protein-making factories (see diagram) - are turned back into DNA that is then inserted somewhere else in the genome. Many viruses and genetic parasites copy themselves through retroposition, and the enzymes they produce sometimes accidentally retropose the RNA of their host cells.

​

[snip]

​

Among other things, these sample paragraphs show that new information can indeed arise in the genome, contrary to what creationists claim, and this study shows how that can happen.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I thought there was actually a thread dedicated to speciation events, but I searched and didn't find one. I did come across a thread relevant to what's being discussed here though - MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?I know in one thread or another I've provided some examples of speciation events before, and now I'll just provide some links that list some speciation events. Observed Instances of Speciation
The above link discusses relevant issues to the discussion including species definitions, and starts listing events at section 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation. Whether or not they all, if any, are deemed acceptable to all I cannot say. Some More Observed Speciation Events
This is a different page from the same website as the previous link listing more speciation events.Oh, hey... I just found a thread on EvC about speciation events... through Google - Speciation eventsI'd swear that one didn't come up for some reason when I did a search on here.

I guess you all see genetic mutations, parasites, viruses as evidence of evolution. I see it as evidence life has been devolving since Genesis, viruses, genetic mutations, genetic parasites?Even with natural selection don't you see the theory of evolution more about how life is devolving not evolving? Species going extinct, no new kinds coming into existence! right? etc...P.S. Don't you think the theory of evolution is about life devolving not evolving? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

So you do believe in evolution. Devolve by definition from Websters Dictionary means: to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution.Devolve and evolve are part of the same process. Biological evolution incorporates both evolving and devolving genetic changes.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

John, you're 100% flat-out completely wrong.Life is currently increasing in diversity. New species form all the time, so frequently that we've been able to directly observe it happening in the lab several times despite the fact that evolution occurs over many generations of a population.You're quite obviously referencing the "fall" of Genesis, and the Creationist position that mutations and such are all the result of the gradual atrophy of life's perfection since that time. There is no evidence for that position, and in fact it relies entirely on horrendously misunderstanding the very concepts of evolution, mutation, and genetics.The imperfect copying of genetic information that defines mutation is not evidence of any sort of "corruption" as you are claiming. Rather, copy errors are the very driving force behind increasing diversity. Change in populations over generations is the very definition of evolution, not your made-up "devolution" antonym.

Hello wardog25 Of course there are limits - physical limits to how big a body can become and still survive. Limits that have nothing to do with biology or evolution. The mass goes up as the cube of the linear dimension: do you think a 6ft cocker would look like a standard cocker? It wouldn't have the strength to support itself, it's dietary needs would be entirely different.This kind of limit has nothing to do with biology or evolution in terms of what changes to features could occur, and is rather a logical fallacy of equivocation on what kind of change we are talking about.To be specific we know that we can get the range of variation in features seen in dogs from a single form seen in wolves and still remain a single species.Now the question is, what difference is greater than the variation seen here to go from say a fox to a cat?Or is the difference between fox and cat just "microevolution"? What mechanism other than microevolution is needed? Curiously descendants of a population will always be descendants of a population, no matter how many generations are involved, and if you think evolution says otherwise, you are wrong. Descent with modification from common ancestors - Darwin's original formulation - means that descendants of salamanders will always, must by definition always, be descendants of salamanders.Once populations are no linked by breeding they are free to diverge through microevolution into different forms. We see the effect of reproductive isolation in dog breeds with only a few generations. We can repeat these kinds of changes in other species by the same methods: isolate populations and select for characteristics that make the offspring different.What mechanism other than reproductive isolation combined with microevoltion is needed to explain the total diversity of life as we know it - from the world today, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record and from genetics?Can you tell me the differences between these skeletons?

​

Dog Skeleton, by Cheryl R. Dhein, Washington State University

​

​

"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07Are the differences between dog and eohippus more or less than the variation we see in dogs?Or is the difference between dogs and horses (and cats and foxes) just "microevolution"? Sure we can: the "limit" is life. All life is related by common ancestry.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No.The scientific evidence does not show that.Only those who believe their respective shamans rather than the findings of science and the evidence before their very eyes could make such a claim.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

However no new kinds of creatures. right? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

define "kind"

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor