Nope. I don't actually give a rat's behind what you believe about our origins. I'm more concerned with finding the truth myself, then beating others over the head with it. However, I do want you to stop abusing this thread by consistently avoiding the topic and raving against your hopelessly flawed understanding of the theory of evolution.
When it comes down to it, this thread isn't even about the validity of evolution. I really tried as hard as I could to reach common ground with believers of a divine creation.
For the purposes of this thread: I am not assuming that life arose from non-life. I am not assuming that all life-forms evolved from a common origin. I am not assuming that your beliefs about creation are wrong.
The moment you start raving about your personal beliefs you lose credibility in my eyes. It shows that not only are you ignoring posts that many of us have spent precious time writing, but you are also unwilling to address the topic.
As the creator of this thread I would ask you to avoid the following:
1. Avoid raving about the origins of life 2. Avoid raving about the lack of evidence for macro-evolution
Instead focus on the following:
1. Concede or contest my basic assumption that kinds are clades (at some level) 2. Concede or contest that neither evos nor creos believe species will cross clade lines at any time in the future (let's not worry about the past) 3. If you would like to give a general description of terms like "kinds" or macro-evolution, please do so without drifting off-topic.
Remember that contesting something is more than just saying "no". As this is a science thread, simply using faith to "prove" your point is not sufficient. If you do not believe your beliefs are supported by anything but faith, then don't bother arguing them in a science thread.
You may remember, in message 43:
But I agree with you that, if I go around showing examples of these and saying: ''In everything I have shown you, the species always remained the same kind, therefore, the ToE is false'' would be a strawman.
Slevesque is a creationist too, who also will not accept evolution for one minute. However, he understood what this thread was about and conceded that a common misconception about evolution should not be used as an argument. Note that mine and slevesque's opinions about evolution still differ, but he has my respect for being honest and not raving off topic. I hope you will follow his example and address the topic, but if not, well there are plenty of other virgin threads out there that have yet to be raved in by any man.
Then you shouldn't mind one whit if I do not jump on the evolution bandwagon until somebody produces scientific verifiable reproducible evidence of how life began to exist on earth.
But one doesn't have to do with the other!! Why do you keep conflating the two? Evolution works NO MATTER HOW or even when life started, so what does it matter how or when it started? It just makes no sense.
So far science has not been able to produce one spark of life with all the equiptment and manpower devoted to that end.
It's a new field that has been seriously looked at for only a very short time. You must have a very high level fo esxpectation for scientists if you expect them to figure out all the intircacies required to create life if you expect them to do it in only a couple decades. You must consider them nigh on gods.
It doesn't depend on my definition of macroevolution. I read on the link RAZD posted that there was no evidence macroevolution had taken place.
I doubt RAZD would post a link saying there was no evidence of macroevolution when he consistently says there is. Speciation has been observed, is that macroevolution? What amount of change is required for you to consider it macroevolution, and why would you expect that amount of change isn't possible?
ICANT's quote mine writes:
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life. It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.
And the very next line says:
quote:Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Seems to be listing the evidence for macroevolution. That's weird, if it is trying to say there isn't any.
Since you don't know it took place, and you have no evidence it took place then you only have faith that you are correct in your conclusion that it did take place.
If this were true, I'd agree with you. Isn't it lucky, then, that we DO know how it took place and have evidence for it? We can't see the entire process of something that takes thousands of years, however, we can see each and every step if we look at different areas of thew world, and we can see the effects of it. You don't have to be able to see the whole thing to be able to put the puzzle together, otherwise I'd never have been able to do it as a kid without looking at the top of the box.
So tell me why I am borderline diabetic when none of my ancestors has ever had any diabetes?
I did say "likelihood," ICANT. But, no matter... this is off-topic.
Macroevolution would be required for Darwin's theory to work even if God created the first single cell life form on earth and then let it evolve.
Let's talk about the principles of the argument for a second.
The Theory of Evolution, as currently constituted, does not include your definition of "macroevolution": it only includes variation in amounts and types of "microevolution."
Nevermind whether or not this fits with the physical evidence for the time being.
If we are proposing a theory that one type of organism can diversify into a number of forms without changing its type, then do you not agree that you should not say that our theory states that organisms change their type?
Remember: we're just talking about the theory right now, not the evidence.
Hi penstemo, and welcome to evcforum. Hopefully you'll find this place as fun and informative as I have.
Your question is a good one, and can easily be answered if you think of all life as a tree. You can take any tree, and look at its branches. It has many branches, and they're all connected (via the trunk). Each branch on the tree (including the whole tree itself) is a clade. New branches split off of older branches to form new clades, however they are still part of the bigger branch (clade).
In the case of humans, we are a part of the primate clade, which is also a part of the mammal clade. Each clade is inside a larger clade, but clades never cross. Ergo, we will always be mammals, and primates, and humans (although perhaps not as we picture humans). No species can ever leave its clade to become something entirely different.