"Best" evidence for evolution.

Remember those standardized English tests given in high school? There was always a section where you'd have to read a passage of a page or two, then answer questions about it. Inevitably there'd be a question that seemed to have no unambiguous answer, leaving one reading and rereading the passage searching for clues.I was just reminded of these tests, because when I finished reading your post it I feared it would be followed by the question, "What does RAZD believe is the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution?" for which I would have no answer.For me the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution comes from its foundational book, Origin of Species. A huge amount of evidence is described there, so if I were asked to choose just one it would be where Darwin describes how both animal breeding and evolution in the wild draw upon the same principles.--Percy

I don't think we're interpreting "foundational" the same way.--Percy

Dogs do kill and eat sheep.--Percy

There are 35 animal phyla. One very large phyla, the chordata, includes all vertebrates, meaning fish, frogs, lizards, birds, lions, tigers and bears - oh my. If kind is the same thing as phylum then a toad could give birth to a human and it would still be according to the Bible.Maybe you want to rethink this?--Percy

Are you really this ignorant of the Bible? Here:

quote:

---

Gen 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

​

Gen 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

---

Take this and add to it your claim that "kind===phylum" and it turns the meaning of these Biblical passages into a claim that all chordate species are the same kind, e.g., a fish is the same "kind" as a mouse.These passages distinguish between sea creatures, birds, livestock and wild animals, and they say that each of these categories includes multiple kinds, thereby making it impossible for "kind===phylum" without contradicting the Bible.Usually creationists ignore science but not the Bible. You seem to be ignoring both.--Percy

I wasn't sure what you said that dwise1 thought a lie, but AZPaul3 thinks he was referring to this from you in Message 764:

quote:

---

The various phylum appear suddenly (no evidence of a line of gradual evolutionary progression) in the fossil record, and contrary to the evolutionist propaganda, there is no fossil evidence of "branches" connecting phyla to form the single "tree" of common ancestry of Darwinist folklore. The fossil evidence looks more like an orchard than one lone tree.

​

In short, the creation of separate "kinds" explains the fossil evidence better than universal common descent.

---

I'm not sure why dwise1 called it a lie. It's seems more like a true statement followed by a misinformed conclusion. It's true that the higher levels of classification like phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record, but this is true of huge numbers of species, too, which are at the opposite lowest level of classification (only subspecies and races are lower). There's nothing unusual about sudden appearance because whether a continuous line of descent appears in the fossil record for anything, be it species or phylum or any of the other classification levels, is serendipitous. Complicating matters is that we often can't tell direct descendants from cousin branches.A phylum can be thought to begin with the oldest fossil species of that phylum. Since most phyla are near the base of the tree of life and their progenitors therefore amongst the oldest life, the likelihood of fossil preservation of continuous lines of descent for plylum origination is unlikely in the extreme.It's important to note that the oldest fossil of a phylum is unlikely to be the first species of the phylum. The oldest fossil of a phylum is merely the oldest we've found so far. Oftentimes even in the absence of direct evidence we can guestimate from other evidence when a phylum first formed, even though we never find its first species.--Percy

You really only have one choice, that kind is equivalent to the lowest level of classification for a given lifeform, such as species, subspecies, race or breed. Let me explain.Let's say you have a dog, a Tibetan Terrier female, and it has puppies with a Tibetan Terrier father. According to the Bible it will reproduce according to its kind. So of course the puppies will be Tibetan Terriers, right?But if kind===species, which for your Tibetan Terrier is canis lupus (wolf, and dogs are a large grouping of subspecies of wolf)), then if the Tibetan Terrier mother had Fox Terrier puppies it would still be in the same kind. If she had Great Danes it would still be the same kind. If she had wolves it would still be the same kind.So it must be that kind===subspecies, at least for canis lupus. For some organisms there might be no subspecies and therefore species would be the lowest level of classification for that organism. I'm having trouble making sense of this. If you think the creatures we see today are not the same as those you think were originally created by God, then how do you think they became different?--Percy

I'm still having trouble making sense of this. Aren't the problems with your view obvious? For example, isn't there an absence of any evidence that the creatures you believe were created only 6000 or so years ago are any different from those of today? Or maybe you're thinking of the changes within a species wrought by breeders (which is still evolution, but by directed selection instead of natural selection)?And because changes over time recorded in the fossil record (though not often in just 6000 years because that's usually too short a period for detectable change) are explained by evolution, why do you say, "I don't think anyone else knows either"? Are you just casually stating an opinion, or do you think you possess information invalidating evolution and believe you are stating a fact? If the latter, what is that information?For the sake of discussion let us say that the creatures you believe God created 6000 years ago have changed over time to a degree greater than can be brought about by breeders. Given that that's the definition of evolution, how is that not evolution? It would be an unusual amount of evolution for just 6000 years, and such rapid evolution would require explanation, but it would still be evolution.--Percy

When I drop phrases you've used into a search engine I find them all over the Internet. There are many flavors of creationism, the two major groups of thinking being YEC vs OEC, but why do you think you represent a unique one that hasn't already been seen here many times?--Percy

Not really the topic of this thread, but find an appropriate thread or propose a new one and present your evidence for a) God; and b) God creating new organisms. It might be more accurate to say that you reject scientifically developed hypotheses and theories of how novelty arises.Evolution effects change through tiny incremental changes. Scientists have no had no trouble developing hypotheses and theories for the origin of all organs and body plans.--Percy