Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,051 Year: 5,308/9,624 Month: 333/323 Week: 177/160 Day: 13/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 31 of 493 (490025)
12-01-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Integral
11-29-2008 6:36 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Integral, posted 11-29-2008 6:36 AM Integral has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 12-01-2008 5:33 PM wardog25 has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 493 (490029)
12-01-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by wardog25
12-01-2008 5:24 PM


wardog25 writes:
The bottom line is, neither side can prove what you are asking for.
Actually, if one follows the evidence, a pretty clear picture appears.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by wardog25, posted 12-01-2008 5:24 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by wardog25, posted 12-02-2008 6:55 PM Huntard has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 33 of 493 (490149)
12-02-2008 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Huntard
12-01-2008 5:33 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 12-01-2008 5:33 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by killinghurts, posted 12-02-2008 7:19 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2008 8:48 PM wardog25 has replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 5099 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 34 of 493 (490152)
12-02-2008 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by wardog25
12-02-2008 6:55 PM


quote:
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.
Here's one recent direct observation of an organism evolving "accross species"
Just a moment...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wardog25, posted 12-02-2008 6:55 PM wardog25 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 493 (490168)
12-02-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by wardog25
12-02-2008 6:55 PM


Evidence for speciation
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.
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
  • A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
  • At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
  • Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wardog25, posted 12-02-2008 6:55 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 10:26 AM Coyote has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 36 of 493 (490254)
12-03-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
12-02-2008 8:48 PM


Re: Evidence for speciation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 12-02-2008 8:48 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 12-03-2008 10:40 AM wardog25 has replied
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 12-03-2008 10:45 AM wardog25 has replied
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2008 10:47 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2008 7:25 PM wardog25 has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 37 of 493 (490256)
12-03-2008 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by wardog25
12-03-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Evidence for speciation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 10:26 AM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 12:39 PM Granny Magda has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 38 of 493 (490257)
12-03-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by wardog25
12-03-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Evidence for speciation
Wardog25 writes:
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.
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 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 10:26 AM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 1:05 PM Huntard has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 493 (490259)
12-03-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by wardog25
12-03-2008 10:26 AM


Microevolution
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 10:26 AM wardog25 has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5697 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 40 of 493 (490262)
12-03-2008 11:43 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 12-03-2008 12:00 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 12-03-2008 12:01 PM johnfolton has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5301 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 41 of 493 (490265)
12-03-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by johnfolton
12-03-2008 11:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by johnfolton, posted 12-03-2008 11:43 AM johnfolton has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 493 (490266)
12-03-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by johnfolton
12-03-2008 11:43 AM


Just when you think you've heard it all....
johnfolton writes:
Evolution can not show new genes are formed thus micro-evolution does not equal a new kind.
New genes form all the time.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by johnfolton, posted 12-03-2008 11:43 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by johnfolton, posted 12-03-2008 4:05 PM Huntard has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 43 of 493 (490271)
12-03-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Granny Magda
12-03-2008 10:40 AM


Re: Evidence for speciation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 12-03-2008 10:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2008 2:02 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 50 by Granny Magda, posted 12-03-2008 2:07 PM wardog25 has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5659 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 44 of 493 (490272)
12-03-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Huntard
12-03-2008 10:45 AM


Re: Evidence for speciation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Huntard, posted 12-03-2008 10:45 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 12-03-2008 1:15 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 49 by fallacycop, posted 12-03-2008 2:06 PM wardog25 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 493 (490274)
12-03-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by wardog25
12-03-2008 1:05 PM


Re: Evidence for speciation
wardog25 writes:
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 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 hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 1:05 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by wardog25, posted 12-03-2008 1:42 PM Huntard has 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