Carnivores in Creation

quote:

---

Is there evidence to show animals turning into other animals?"

---

Do you mean new species forming from existing species?

'Tell us that you don't believe it, not because there is any logical argument against it, but because you simply don't like the conclusions.'Lol, is that a yes, there is evidence?
You say evidence has been put forth on this sight, here is your oppurtunity to name it. However you will have to show me how a human has evolved. And recent data about so called 'human ancestors' has definately not been helpful to that theory. If anything the evolutionary path of humans as shown with the finds, is not helpful to evolution, the path from ape to human is without doubt - not straight.

I mean, can you show me physical evidence of transitional creatures. If so, why has this data been hiding from me.

It's a yes or no question - are you talking about the emergence of a new species from another species? "Transitional" is meaningless unless you specify the transition you're looking for.So, are you talking about the emergence of a new species from another species?

Yes,Obviously I am talking about lets say, an ape becoming a human. So far I have seen ape skulls and such, but no ape men. I have seen notions put forth as evidence. The fact is the fossil record doesn't lie. If I am wrong and there is definately transitionals in the fossils, please, in all honesty tell me of this truth. or show me the website, as I have been looking for one.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003]

Well. let me back up then, because you're zooming over what I'm trying to get from you.I don't want a *specific example* of a transition that you want proof for. Surely you agree that any specific transition may or may not have evidence for it. I'm looking for a definition of the *type* of transition you're looking for.You've already implied that you have no problem with an herbivore turning into a specialized carnivore, a transition I view as a pretty huge change. So I'm unclear as to what kind of transition you have a problem with."Species" typically means organisms that no longer reproduce with each other, although other definitions are used in different contexts. So I'm asking if that's the "transition" you think is uncrossable - a new group of organisms that can no longer reproduce with a "parent" group. If that's not the kind of transition you think is uncrossable, what is the transition you think lacks evidence and is uncrossable?(BTW, if you're especially interested in the evidence for human evolution, start a topic on it; just ask the question you've already posed. That would firmly throw this thread off-topic, but is worth discussing elsewhere.)

'You've already implied that you have no problem with an herbivore turning into a specialized carnivore, a transition I view as a pretty huge change. So I'm unclear as to what kind of transition you have a problem with. 'Full marks, I absolutely lose, lol,10 points! I indeed did suggest a carnivore could be a herbivore. Although there is a big difference in what an animal can eat and what an animal can change in to, would you agree?
The problem I do have is, a 'kind' becoming another kind. For e.g can a chicken evolve into a new species? I know there is lots of types of chickens, but it doesn't matter how many you will breed, your never going to see one become anything else but a chicken. As suggested by the fossils, where there are, to my knowledge no evidence of evolution.Yes you get full marks and win this one, but still as I said earlier I'm not too bothered about the lion story, as my main point is that they used to be herbivore. - remember the Bible suggests God changed the animals , or so it said in my qoute from answersin G.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003]

MTW. Are you still under the false impression that men descended from apes?[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-05-2003]

Alas, this puts the discussion back at Rei's post #21, on the cut off between micro and macro evolution. "Kind" doesn't have any agreed-upon definition, so asking for a transition between "kinds" doesn't mean much.The original topic was about the origin of specialized carnivores, if at one time all animals were herbivores. I take you accept that evolution can occur to a degree and at a rate sufficient enough to create specialized carnivores, with different teeth and gastro-intestinal systems, in a rather short period of time. That naturally leads to Rei's question - if evolution can do this much, why not more?Two possibilities from here.
1. We talk about what limits evolution. (see Rei's post 21)
2. We talk about what the evidence is like for large scale change. This has been done to death at various times...but we could talk about some specific line that you agree "counts", even if we can't agree on what a "kind" is. I suggest the evolution of whales from land mammals, to shore animals, to specialized water dwellers, but other transitions would work as well.However, option #2 should be a new topic.

'I take you accept that evolution can occur to a degree and at a rate sufficient enough to create specialized carnivores, with different teeth and gastro-intestinal systems, in a rather short period of time. That naturally leads to Rei's question - if evolution can do this much, why not more?'I have said it was a POSSIBLE tool that God could have used.What we talk about is up to you, you got the 10 points remember.

come again?

POST# 32
Lol, is that a yes, there is evidence?
"You say evidence has been put forth on this sight, here is your oppurtunity to name it. However you will have to show me how a human has evolved. And recent data about so called 'human ancestors' has definately not been helpful to that theory. If anything the evolutionary path of humans as shown with the finds, is not helpful to evolution, (the path from ape to human is without doubt) - not straight."POST# 35
Yes,Obviously I am talking about lets say, (an ape becoming a human.) So far I have seen ape skulls and such, but no ape menI have parenthesised the areas that imply you understand humans to have descended from apes.This is not what evolution shows yet you persist in the assumption.

'This is not what evolution shows yet you persist in the assumption.'Oh, is this the convenient common ancestor again? If not , what did we evolve from in evolutionist terms?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003]

MTW What makes you think this is a convenient stance to take since it relugates the evidence to the distant past?Convenient is the falling back upon a supernatural origin for life since you do not have to put forth any mechanism to show the means by which youm would explain the world. I tell you what .Why don't you find me people who believe in God and the bible who would be willing to tackle an emergent disease and work out a means of identifying and finding a cure for it without resorting to modern biochemistry with its uses of evolutionary understanding.Obviously you would be not allowed to assume the idea that organisms mutate into different forms. Let me know of such a group and what they have accomplished in this field.Heck why don't you show me peer-reviewed investigation in any field?Anyway here is a website listing the evidence as well as references.www.antiquityofman.com/ape-human.hml

'Convenient is the falling back upon a supernatural origin for life since you do not have to put forth any mechanism to show the means by which youm would explain the world.'But I didn't come up with the Bible, it's been here a while. And I don't have to explain the world,lol. Besides , you don't want me to mention 'supernatural' and to talk of only what we can see, but I can't see the evidence for evolution, yet you want me to believe it? Isn't there a problem with this logic?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-05-2003]