Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

Welcome!So science has learned something about the details of whale evolution. Most folks would think that was good.Now which model of "origins" is supported by this new information? That of the bible and "kinds" or that of the theory of evolution, within which this new information fits quite well.

---

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

Your analogy fails.Micro-evolution is accepted by pretty much everyone. Macro-evolution is denied by fundamentalists on religious grounds, but accepted by biologists and other scientists most familiar with the field.If fundamentalists want to show that micro-evolution can't add up, over time, to macro-evolution they need to show a mechanism that prevents such change. I have yet to see such a mechanism proposed and withstand scientific testing.But you can be the first, and you can have a special Nobel prize coined in your honor. Just show where micro-evolution hits the brick wall and has to stop, lest it wander into macro-evolution territory.And your analogy, like the tornado in a junkyard, fails because living organisms don't react in the same way as do manufactured items. Not even close. Living organisms change minutely with each generation, and those changes are acted upon by the environment. This diversity, interacting with the environment, is often referred to as natural selection. I have yet to see random parts in a junkyard, or even at Intel, evolve on their own.So, your task is to show a specific biological mechanism that prevents the diversity generated by micro-evolution from extending to macro-evolution.

---

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

Lucy, there just isn't anything in your post worthy of a response.

---

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

1) Google "On Your Knees Cave" and find the article by Kemp et al. They sequenced mtDNA about 10,300 years old from this cave in southern Alaska. The mtDNA matched living individuals from Santa Barbara to the tip of South America.2) There was no global flood. That's a religious belief that has failed utterly when confronted with scientific evidence.3) This is all off topic here. If you want to discuss this further find a flood-related thread for a reply.Edit to add:Kemp, B. M., Malhi, R. S., McDonough, J., Bolnick, D. A., Eshleman, J. A., Richards, O., Martinez-Labarga, C., Johnson, J. R., Lorenz, J. G., Dixon, E. J., Fifield, T. E., Heaton, T. H., Worl, R., Smith, D. G. 2007. Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 132, no. 4, pp. 605-621. Edited by Coyote, : Add reference

---

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