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

Hi wardog25, 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 SurviveEdited 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

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

Hi seekingfirstthekingdom,I'm am not an admin, but I have to remind you that you were asked to stop posting to this thread. The administration team at EvC do not mess about. If they ask you to stop posting, they mean it.Fortunately, there is a new thread set up specifically for you to air your grievances about evolution. You can find it here.I hope this helps.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

Hi Peg,I don't want to swamp you, so I'll keep this "short and sweet".

quote:

---

If thats the case, why is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?

---

Mod and Bluescat have already touched on this, but I just wanted to spell it out.So far as evolution is concerned there is no "inferior" or "superior", at least not in the way you seem to mean. There is only one test; can the organism survive and reproduce? Those organisms that manage to do this very successfully will prosper and become more populous, those that do badly will become rarer and eventually they may die out entirely and become extinct.It is tempting for us to see our ape-man ancestors as inferior because they were less intelligent, but this is an illusion. Nature doesn't care how smart you are or how you make a living. The only things that matter for evolution are survival and reproductive success.Looked at this way, blue-green algae is much more successful than humanity. It has survived for billions of years compared to our few hundred thousand.Mutate and Survive.Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed really ugly typo.

---

"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

You ask a fair question.

quote:

---

I understand that you are saying they are separate issues, one being how species developed/evolved, the other, how life began

​

and yet, if you follow the evolutionary chain, they all lead you back to an original source... what came before the original source?

---

Here are some potential answers:

• God did it.
• Some other god did it.
• A whole bunch of gods did it in concert.
• Life came from another planet.
• Life was implanted into our reality via the hyper-dimensional ovipositor of the Queen of the Machine Elves.
• The planet Earth is sentient and one day it just decided to grow life upon its surface.
• A process of many chemical reactions created organic molecules of gradually increasing complexity until they eventually reached the level of complexity that we term "life".

Now I admit that some of these explanations are more likely than others. I especially admit that the first one was pretty way out . The point is that any one of these explanations could be true and life would still evolve. Evolution is, by definition, what happens when you already have life. For evolution to take place all you need is a population of organisms which reproduce with modification and differential reproductive success; it doesn't matter how that life got there.The Theory of Evolution simply does not concern itself with life's first origins. A question such as "what came before the original source?" is beyond it's scope. The ToE cannot answer your question, nor should it be expected to. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues. Related issues yes, but still separate.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

Peg, you have got to stop allowing creationist websites to spoonfeed you shite.

quote:

---

these scientists hold doubts over evolution and some could be creationists...

​

quote:

---

Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.

---

---

Scientist? I think not. Here are what some other sources have to say about Hitching. It appears that Hitching is just another crank. He's not a scientist. Whichever creationist website you got this claim from is either lying, incompetent or (most likely) both. And that's just the first on the list.Face facts; the overwhelming majority of experts in biology are convinced that evolution occurs, including most of those who believe in God. Quoting a few kooks and quote-mining a few scientists won't change that.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

Hi Percy,I think there is another reason why creationists seek to conflate evolution and abiogenesis; it's simply that evolution can be simply demonstrated in any reasonably well equipped biology lab. Abiogenesis can't. Evolution is also fairly easy to understand (at a basic level anyway). Abiogenesis is necessarily quite complex.This is why they are so keen to pursue the link. So long as abiogenesis is un-replicable and mysterious, creationists will be able to sow doubts by forcing the two topics into one.Abiogenesis still provides a little gap for the Gap God to live in. Fortunately it's a doomed tactic, since science is quickly closing in on this particular gap...Mutate and SurviveEdited 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

Oh grow up Agobot.

---

One thing is made clear by this thread; creationists have some very strange ideas about what the theory of evolution actually says. The real ToE has hardly been discussed. Most of the thread has been devoted to creationist misapprehensions, conflations and straw men, as well as people saying "Evolution doesn't work like that" until they are blue in the face.This is kind of tragic. To disagree with a theory, one must surely first understand what it actually says. Only then can the creationist claim to be making a reasonable judgement about it. Even if, after learning all about the ToE, the creationist is still unconvinced, surely, with a clearer understanding of the issue, they will be all the more effective in opposing it. For this reason alone, any creo worth their salt should be keen to learn what evolution is really all about.This thread has seen some open-mindedness and willingness to learn on the part of the creationist side. It has also seen quite a lot of bull-headedness and hubris. It would be nice to see a bit more of the former, since there is no point in debating this issue unless both sides are talking about the same theory.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Belatedly noticed admonishment against replies. Hastily edited to minimise Admin's grumpiness.

---

"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