Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 493 (491602)
12-18-2008 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by wardog25
12-17-2008 12:42 PM


Re: New genes do arise?
Hi Wardog25,
Fossil evidence found in geological layers is biological evidence, just as chemical and mineral signatures of meteorite impacts in geological layers is astronomical evidence.
What you're actually doing, in a roundabout sort of way, is posing a hypothetical. For example, one could ask, "If the earth were constantly shrouded in clouds and there was no such thing as optical astronomy, could we still prove Big Bang theory?" and people could look at the problem and try to figure out if it were possible. In a similar way, you're asking if evolution could be proven if we had no fossil evidence.
It's an interesting topic for discussion, but excluding fossil evidence is an artificial constraint. The fact is, we do have fossil evidence and it makes the conclusion of change over time inescapable. And our modern knowledge of heredity makes the conclusion of evolutionary processes as the mechanism inescapable, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by wardog25, posted 12-17-2008 12:42 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-18-2008 11:49 AM Percy has not replied

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 77 of 493 (491619)
12-18-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
12-18-2008 8:07 AM


Re: New genes do arise?
Wardog25, doesn't want to accept the fossil record in any way shape or form because Wardog25 believes that,
"The Devil put them in the ground!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 12-18-2008 8:07 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by dwise1, posted 12-18-2008 4:00 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 78 of 493 (491625)
12-18-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by wardog25
12-17-2008 12:42 PM


Re: New genes do arise?
I'll give you one evidence from genetics. Different life forms do share many genes. Those genes are not exactly identical though. There are some variation from species to species. Most of this variation seam to have little physiological consequence (They are neutral variations, not benefical or detrimental). Now comes the interesting part. Species believed to be closely related like humans and chimps happen to have more similar forms of a given gene then species believed to be less closely related like mice and cows. that is genetic (therefore biological) evidence for the theory of evolution.
Edited by fallacycop, : fix typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by wardog25, posted 12-17-2008 12:42 PM wardog25 has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 79 of 493 (491630)
12-18-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by wardog25
12-17-2008 12:42 PM


Macro-evolution sans fossils!
wardog25 writes:
This thread is in the biology discussion area, correct? So that is what we are asking for, correct? BIOLOGY evidence. If you want to say that we can observe smaller changes and then assume that macroevolution happens because of what we see in other areas of study (i.e. geology, paleontology, etc), you are welcome to do it. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are looking for biological evidence only.
Firstly, we need to define what you’re looking for. Biology, the study of life, does not exclude paleontology (in some senses, a subcategory - the study of pre-historic life). Neither can life be studied only in a vacuum that excludes its environment, and in case you hadn't noticed, that includes rocks. As we're talking about evolution here, we could try looking up "evolutionary biology", and we'd easily find things like this:
quote:
Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist.
That sounds just like the field you're looking for in your quest to understand macroevolution. So:
quote:
Description:
Evolutionary biology is an interdisciplinary field because it includes scientists from a wide range of both field and lab oriented disciplines. For example, it generally includes scientists who may have a specialist training in particular organisms such as mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology, but use those organisms as case studies to answer general questions in evolution. It also generally includes paleontologists and geologists who use fossils to answer questions about the tempo and mode of evolution, as well as theoreticians in areas such as population genetics and evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary biology - Wikipedia
Oh dear. It appears that rocks and fossils are part of the science of biology, so that doesn't help us define what you really mean. So I'll do it. What you want is evidence from biology for evolution, without mention of fossils or rocks. Agreed?
So I'll give you some, but it has to be sketchy, because whole books could be written on this without covering all the ground.
Firstly, let's start with proviruses. These are caused when a virus genome, like that of a retrovirus, is integrated into the DNA of a host cell on the germline, and therefore passed on to the descendents of the infected individual. The effect is not always negative, and can be neutral or eventually positive, so some of these "scars" fix across populations, and are carried by entire species. We can recognize relationships between species and construct phylogenetic trees based on proviruses that have happened in common ancestors. There are so many places that these viruses can insert themselves that a common pattern of proviruses in different animals is a proof of common ancestry way beyond all reasonable doubt.
In primates, the patterns of proviruses illustrate clearly that we are closely related to the other great apes, less closely to the lesser apes, even less to old world monkeys, and even further from new world monkeys. They also show ancient "scars" that are common to all those groups.
So this:
descends from a common ancestor with these:
That’s the world’s largest and smallest primates, and it takes a lot of macroevolution to get them (and you) from a common ancestor. Proviruses are good examples in evolution/ creation debates, because they are the results of viral invasion and damage, certainly not design.
Elsewhere, I think you asked for micro-organism to elephant evolution. As I mentioned above, paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, so presumably you think that this transition is historic, or will take place in the future, or something.
However, leaving aside that technical point, how can we know that elephants have descended from single celled organisms?
For a start, that’s what they’re made of. Elephants are complex colonies of eukaryotes.
To start off evolving our elephant, we need evidence of the evolution of single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms. It's surprisingly easy to find evidence for this, because there are organisms in various intermediary stages all around us. Many singled celled species form into cooperative colonies, and some of them actually form multicellular “creatures” during their life cycles. There are some that biologists find hard to define as being definitely single celled or multicellular species. This is important, because it illustrates that stages in between being single cellular and multicellular are fully functional and can be selected for.
In order for cooperative colonies (and multicellular forms) to occur, cells must evolve the ability to communicate chemically, and some of the mechanisms that these cooperative single celled species use to communicate are similar to those of our own cells. Multicellular organisms, including elephants, are in fact complex cooperative colonies of single celled organisms which have evolved into arrangements that were advantageous to them.
Next time you see a slime mould, say “Hi, cousin”, because the molecular evidence in its cells’ communication mechanisms and yours illustrate the relationship!
Enough for one post. Here’s a brief article on single/multi-cellular intermediates.
Living transitionals - no fossils, and no rocks!
Note the line:
quote:
Indeed, in light of recent discoveries of communication among bacteria and the importance and prevalence of bacterial biofilms, “single-celled” may turn out to be a misnomer even for these organisms.
We could just give them the provisional nickname of "non-fossilized transitional forms".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by wardog25, posted 12-17-2008 12:42 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 2:28 PM bluegenes has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 80 of 493 (491635)
12-18-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by CosmicChimp
12-18-2008 11:49 AM


Re: New genes do arise?
Wardog25, doesn't want to accept the fossil record in any way shape or form because Wardog25 believes that,
"The Devil put them in the ground!"
A creationist once tried to offer just such an argument, that Satan had fabricated and planted the fossils in order to fool us into not believing in God.
I pointed out to him that Satan didn't have to go to all that work. All He had to do was to create a false theology that falsely teaches that such real evidence as the fossil record, the geological record, etc, disprove the existence of God (even though they don't). Then to make His job even easier, all he had to do was to give that false theology to a pack of religious zealots and let them spread the lie for Him.
And (assuming His existence) that is quite obviously exactly what Satan did. And He didn't even have to tamper with the physical evidence; all He had to do was to trick believers into believing that the evidence would convince them that God doesn't exist and then just let the universe do the rest. Clever devil!
Edited by dwise1, : corrected a misspelling
Edited by dwise1, : Added to closing paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-18-2008 11:49 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 81 of 493 (492235)
12-29-2008 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by bluegenes
12-18-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
So I'll do it. What you want is evidence from biology for evolution, without mention of fossils or rocks. Agreed?
Bluegenes and 1 or 2 others seem to be some of the few who grasped what I was trying to say. I've generally heard biology and paleontology listed as separate (not unrelated, just separate) areas of study, so I was treating them that way. Sorry if that was confusing to people.
So as much as I appreciate all the extreme right-wing religious references, I do actually study the fossil record as well. I was simply trying to exclude it from this particular discussion to learn what exactly the CURRENT/PRESENTLY OBSERVABLE biological evidence is. (allow me to reiterate: this is NOT because the fossil record is irrelevant, but simply because evolutionists say that there is VISIBLE, OBSERVABLE, PRESENT DAY evidence for evolution that we can currently see demonstrated in biology and I want to know what it is. Yet when asked, evolutionists seem to only point out what I'm already aware of.)
Let me try and boil this down to the simplest bottom line. And here it is:
I think that MOST visible biological evidence (visible, observable, evidence that we could personally watch or test) for evolution is all affirmed by creationists, so is basically irrelevant to this debate.
All dogs came from a common ancestor. That's true. Creationists have been saying that for centuries.
All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too. Why are these things all of a sudden evidence for evolution?
Finding 50 finches with different beaks, colors, songs, etc, etc is no more evidence for evolution than it is for creation.
So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order?
I do realize that the fossil record cannot ultimately be excluded from this discussion, but why is it that when you tell an evolutionist that there is minimal evidence from LIVING biology (once again, this means present-day living things that we can watch and observe), they get up in arms. Yet, when I ask for the evidence, I get answers that creationists already affirm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 12-18-2008 3:28 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2008 3:26 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 12-29-2008 3:36 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 84 by fallacycop, posted 12-29-2008 4:09 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 12-30-2008 10:08 AM wardog25 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 82 of 493 (492242)
12-29-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by wardog25
12-29-2008 2:28 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
I think that MOST visible biological evidence (visible, observable, evidence that we could personally watch or test) for evolution is all affirmed by creationists, so is basically irrelevant to this debate.
So, as long as they acknowledge it, it's... not evidence? What?
-----
wardog25 writes:
All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too. Why are these things all of a sudden evidence for evolution?
If different things share a common ancestor, then it's quite obvious that some sort of change has happened over time. Since "change over time" is the definition of the word "evolution," how could common ancestry not be evidence of evolution?
Remember, creationism need not be false for evolution to be true. If any hereditary change happens over time (even just at the species level), evolution has been proven true. Any difference in survival and reproduction associated with the changes proves evolution by natural selection. You are conflating two very different concepts---“evolution” and “natural history” (this is a pet topic of mine, so bear with me).
Evolution is a mechanism of change over time. Natural history is the explanation of the history of life. Natural history can be divided into several subtypes: what I call “evolutionary natural history” and “creationary natural history,” as well as any number of grades between. But, strict “evolutionary natural history,” wherein all life arose from pre-biotic chemicals with no intelligent intervention, need not be true for evolution to happen.
So, if God created one “cat” kind, and that kind evolved into tigers, lions, cheetahs, cougars and Smilodons, this would be evolution. Evolution vs Creation is not a strict dichotomy wherein one must be completely false and the other must be completely true. That creationists accept “microevolution” only means that creationists accept the Theory of Evolution, while rejecting parts of “evolutionary natural history.”
-----
wardog25 writes:
So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order?
What are you asking for, Wardog?
Do you want evidence of a new order having arisen in recent times? Surely you know it doesn't work that way.
Would phylogenies work? How about, if creationists accept that all primates are derived from a single common ancestor, and we can show that the same trend of genetic nestedness continues unabated right across the primate/non-primate line? Would that be good enough for you? Why not?
You want “biological” evidence, but you have already stipulated that ring species and bacterial resistance (which pretty much prove what you’re looking for) don’t count. It seems like you want evidence that fits a random suite of arbitrary conditions that you just pulled out of your head. What possible benefit could there be for such a discussion?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 2:28 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 83 of 493 (492244)
12-29-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by wardog25
12-29-2008 2:28 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
wardog25 writes:
Bluegenes and 1 or 2 others seem to be some of the few who grasped what I was trying to say. I've generally heard biology and paleontology listed as separate (not unrelated, just separate) areas of study, so I was treating them that way. Sorry if that was confusing to people.
Biology is the study of life. That means all life, including past life that is the focus of paleontology. Paleontology is not exactly a branch of biology, but it is not an independent area of study, either.
All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too.
Would that this were true. You've perhaps heard it said, "I ain't related to no monkey?"
I do realize that the fossil record cannot ultimately be excluded from this discussion, but why is it that when you tell an evolutionist that there is minimal evidence from LIVING biology (once again, this means present-day living things that we can watch and observe), they get up in arms.
Perhaps saying this draws objections because it isn't true that the evidence is minimal. It isn't as much as when combined with all the other evidence, but it is still a great deal of evidence.
We can probably all agree that subsets of evidence are less convincing than all evidence, but so what, that's true of every theory. What people believe you're really doing is seeking subsets of evidence small enough to be inconclusive so that you can argue the total evidence is also inconclusive.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 2:28 PM wardog25 has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 84 of 493 (492249)
12-29-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by wardog25
12-29-2008 2:28 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
I think that MOST visible biological evidence (visible, observable, evidence that we could personally watch or test) for evolution is all affirmed by creationists, so is basically irrelevant to this debate.
That makes no sense. The acceptance of any evidence by any of the parties of a debate makes that evidence more relevant.
All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too. Why are these things all of a sudden evidence for evolution?
You sure don't mean to say that. you're confused.
So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order?
I pointed out that there is genetic evidence. would you care to respond?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 2:28 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 1:26 PM fallacycop has replied

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


Message 85 of 493 (492260)
12-29-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Blue Jay
12-29-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
So, as long as they acknowledge it, it's... not evidence? What?
Not acknowledge. Affirm. Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution. It may be a different way of looking at it. But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
Evolution is a mechanism of change over time. Natural history is the explanation of the history of life. Natural history can be divided into several subtypes: what I call “evolutionary natural history” and “creationary natural history,” as well as any number of grades between. But, strict “evolutionary natural history,” wherein all life arose from pre-biotic chemicals with no intelligent intervention, need not be true for evolution to happen.
What you call "evolutionary natural history", I call the Theory of Evolution. Yes, the official definition of the word "evolution" is different, but I generally try to go by what is meant by the word "evolution" 95% of the time I hear it. Most people mean a lot more than "change in gene frequency over time" when they say the word evolution.
You want “biological” evidence, but you have already stipulated that ring species and bacterial resistance (which pretty much prove what you’re looking for) don’t count. It seems like you want evidence that fits a random suite of arbitrary conditions that you just pulled out of your head. What possible benefit could there be for such a discussion?
The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind". If all dogs are the same kind, certainly a weak bacteria and a hardy bacteria are the same kind. Same thing with a salamanders of varying colors or birds with different mating calls (simplified explanation, I know, but I am in a hurry and have no time to quote the article verabatim)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2008 3:26 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 12-29-2008 5:24 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 87 by fallacycop, posted 12-29-2008 6:22 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 88 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-29-2008 6:25 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2008 6:26 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 90 by Blue Jay, posted 12-29-2008 11:50 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2008 2:06 PM wardog25 has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 493 (492263)
12-29-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind". If all dogs are the same kind, certainly a weak bacteria and a hardy bacteria are the same kind. Same thing with a salamanders of varying colors or birds with different mating calls (simplified explanation, I know, but I am in a hurry and have no time to quote the article verabatim)
What you seem to be looking for is a an example of biological evolution that you would consider to be beyond explanation by a 'theory of kind'?
To answer this even remotely objectively we first need to know what the limits of 'kind' actually are. Can you define the term 'kind' and the objective biological limits that define one kind from another?
Without this I don't see how anyone can even attempt to answer your question in any way that can be deemed objectively satisfactory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 1:05 PM Straggler has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 87 of 493 (492268)
12-29-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
You may have to spell out what kind of evidence you are looking for. Please do that without using the word kind or, (even better) define the word kind in a consistent way and then go ahead and use it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 88 of 493 (492269)
12-29-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Not acknowledge. Affirm. Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution. It may be a different way of looking at it. But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
So you not only believe in the biological evolution (genetic change) of animal species a.k.a "kinds" in less than 6000 years (estimated date by creationists of Noah's flood) but you believe in a much more rapid i.e. super evolution of species a.k.a. "kinds" than what the scientific community has accepted. Creationists (i.e. Ken Ham and and the fellon Kent Hovind) in their attempt to try to "prove" the Bible, are so adamant that they have shot themselves in the foot in the process by advocating some form of rapid evolution of species after their ark landed on Mt. Ararat 6000 years ago.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 12-30-2008 12:07 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 89 of 493 (492271)
12-29-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


What creos say
Not acknowledge. Affirm. Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (
No they have not. Once upon a time close enough to all Christians said that all animals as they appear now were on the ark. That is all species were present and immutable.
Then more and more Christians realized this wasn't the case.
Finally by the middle 20th century a large majority of Christians had accepted an old earth and the full 3 billion years plus of natural history.
At that point the minority creationists had been still insisting on the immutability of species. But facts caught up with them. Species have been shown to arise and change; it was clear that the numbers involved made the ark impossible, etc.
Only then did they start to talk about "kind" being at a higher taxonomic level than species. Since then they've been keeping "kind" as rather loosy goosy. Generally at the family level but not at the family level if it means having humans and apes related. They lost to the facts and half a century later haven't been able to admit it. In any case they are a minority now and certainly do not represent Christians as a whole.
Edited by NosyNed, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 90 of 493 (492309)
12-29-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


95% Percent of the Time.
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
Not acknowledge. Affirm.
You're right: I wrote the wrong word. I'll rephrase:
So, as long as they affirm it, it's... not evidence? What?
-----
wardog25 writes:
Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution...
...But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
This is bull crap and you know it.
I'd be interested to know how you think hereditary change over time within a population confirms creationism.
Clearly, it doesn't. It confirms evolution. No, check that: it is evolution.
Clearly, this evidence has place in the evolution vs creation debate.
-----
wardog25 writes:
Yes, the official definition of the word "evolution" is different, but I generally try to go by what is meant by the word "evolution" 95% of the time I hear it.
And, 95% of Americans think the "j" in "Beijing" is pronounced like a French "j." They're still wrong, too.
-----
wardog25 writes:
The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind".
That's because they changed the definition of "kind" when they learned about ring species, not because baraminology is a robust scientific idea.
Most IDists accept that changes accumulate, because it has been proven that changes accumulate. But, they don't accept that changes can continue to accumulate beyond a certain, unspecified level (usual a different level for most "kinds," too: insects get lumped into a few "kinds" while mammals get split up into a whole bunch).
But, once you've proven that changes accumulate, why do you have to prove that they continue to accumulate?
What is the difference between "accumulate" and "continue to accumulate"?

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by caffeine, posted 12-30-2008 8:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024