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

Integral,The bottom line is, neither side can prove what you are asking for.Evolutionists will point out all the small changes that occur and then say that it is up to creationists to prove that there is a line between species/kinds, otherwise small changes become large changes over time.Creationists say it is up to the evolutionists to prove that the small changes can lead to large ones, and evolutionists have yet to do so.

I asked for examples demonstrating evolution across the lines of species in this thread: http://EvC Forum: Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread) -->EvC Forum: Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread)I was told by you and others (some of the posts were lost when the thread was lost) that these examples would never be seen because either we don't have enough time to witness them (because they take thousands of generations) or because modern day species are not under the same pressure to evolve as species back then.If you have these "many" examples, by all means bring them up in that thread so they can be discussed.

Once again, the examples given are "microevolution" (I use that term for lack of a better one)."Ring species" or not, it is still just microevolution. You start with a salamander and you end with a salamander. You start with a greenish warbler and end with a greenish warbler. (and in the link above that, they started with E Coli and ended with... E Coli) The fact that a few traits change between them is irrelevant. Microevolution is completely affirmed by creationists.I've used this example before, and I'll use it again: If I breed Cocker Spaniels and get a Cocker Spaniel that is 6 inches taller. Does that mean Cocker Spaniels could be bred for milllions of years and we could get a 60 foot taller one eventually? 99.9% of scientists would say no. Because there are limits.It is not a limit you can point at and say "there's the final limit". It is not a limit that would be easy to define. But it is a limit nonetheless.So if I can't assume that the height of a dog can increase indefinitely, why can evolutionists assume that small changes mean that something the size of a virus could evolve into something like a human (if given enough time)?Biologically, it cannot be demonstrated. Citing examples of "microevolution" does not help. Integral's question still stands.

If you look back at my first post on this thread, this was the point I was making to start with. Both creationists and evolutionists claim their side is correct, but neither side can prove it.I cannot scientifically "prove" that there is a line between kinds any more than evolutionists can scientifically "prove" that an elephant and a lemur evolved from the same ancestor.I am perfectly willing to accept that my side takes some faith. Evolutionists seem afraid to admit that theirs does.

Yes, that is an accepted definition for macro-evolution.I'm not sure what sort of definition you want for "kind". It is a very difficult thing to classify every organism on earth no matter what system you use. There is no one single trait that you can look at to identify the "kind" just the same as there is no one single trait that classifies a "species" or a "genus".Often times "kind" matches up with the biological classification of "Family" (as in: Species, Genus, Family). So house cats, lions, tigers, etc. would all be "cat kind". But I'm sure I could find exceptions without much trouble.

I looked up "Family" on wikipedia and got this: In biological classification, family (Latin: familia, plural familiae) is a rank, or a taxon in that rank. Exact details of formal nomenclature depend on the Nomenclature Code which applies.Example: "Walnuts and Hickories belong to the Walnut family" is a brief way of saying: the Walnuts (genus Juglans) and the Hickories (genus Carya) belong to the Walnut familyIn Biology online, I got this: a taxonomic group containing one or more genera; sharks belong to the fish family.In Encarta, I got this: in biological classification, group of genera with related characteristics. The family is below the order and above the genus in biological groupings. The names of families in modern classification are usually derived from a genus of the family, called the type genus. The family names of animals always end in idae, as in Equidae, the horse family; those of plants almost always end in aceae, as in Dipsacaceae, the teasel family.The style of their definitions are not all that different to mine. Evolutionists will accept a bland definition in that case, but not from a creationist, I guess.

Is the definition of "kind" really the issue here?I asked for biological evidence that something the size of a virus evolved into what we have today (i.e. an elephant, a whale, etc.)Crossing the boundary of "kinds" is just one small step in that entire process. If biology can demonstrate that a bacterium can evolve into an elephant, you should certainly have no trouble demonstrating evolution beyond "kinds", whether I define it at genus, family, or even higher.If you cannot show this, than just admit to the OP that biology can only demonstrate tiny changes. You are then ASSUMING that those tiny changes will eventually cause organisms to change in much larger ways, but you cannot demonstrate it biologically.Edited by wardog25, : clarified wording

This thread is in the biology discussion area, correct? So that is what we are asking for, correct? BIOLOGY evidence. If you want to say that we can observe smaller changes and then assume that macroevolution happens because of what we see in other areas of study (i.e. geology, paleontology, etc), you are welcome to do it. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are looking for biological evidence only.Note: Please be aware that I'm not saying that this method of deduction is useless. I just don't think it applies here. I've noticed when you nail down a geologist or a paleontologist on the evolutionary assumptions in their area of study, they love to say "Oh, well we can assume this because there is a HOST of evidence in biology and genetics for evolutionary theory."So that's all I want to know. What is this "host" of evidence.So far I've only received answers such as bacteria gaining resistance, and ring species. When I ask why we don't see more than that, I get answers like "we don't have enough time" and "we don't have the right conditions". "But we know it happens."The Logical conclusion from those statements is: We are ASSUMING it happens because of other areas of study.So this "host" of evidence from biology and genetics is only microevolution, which is affirmed by creationists?Is what i'm asking for clear yet? I want BIOLOGICAL evidence. For example: the statement "we know macroevolution happens because of what we see in geology" is all well and good, but it's not evidence from BIOLOGY. It is an ASSUMPTION in biology because of EVIDENCE from geology. (assuming the evidence from geology is actually there, which is a topic for a different area)Edited by wardog25, : spelling

Bluegenes and 1 or 2 others seem to be some of the few who grasped what I was trying to say. I've generally heard biology and paleontology listed as separate (not unrelated, just separate) areas of study, so I was treating them that way. Sorry if that was confusing to people.So as much as I appreciate all the extreme right-wing religious references, I do actually study the fossil record as well. I was simply trying to exclude it from this particular discussion to learn what exactly the CURRENT/PRESENTLY OBSERVABLE biological evidence is. (allow me to reiterate: this is NOT because the fossil record is irrelevant, but simply because evolutionists say that there is VISIBLE, OBSERVABLE, PRESENT DAY evidence for evolution that we can currently see demonstrated in biology and I want to know what it is. Yet when asked, evolutionists seem to only point out what I'm already aware of.)Let me try and boil this down to the simplest bottom line. And here it is:I think that MOST visible biological evidence (visible, observable, evidence that we could personally watch or test) for evolution is all affirmed by creationists, so is basically irrelevant to this debate.All dogs came from a common ancestor. That's true. Creationists have been saying that for centuries.All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too. Why are these things all of a sudden evidence for evolution?Finding 50 finches with different beaks, colors, songs, etc, etc is no more evidence for evolution than it is for creation.So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order?I do realize that the fossil record cannot ultimately be excluded from this discussion, but why is it that when you tell an evolutionist that there is minimal evidence from LIVING biology (once again, this means present-day living things that we can watch and observe), they get up in arms. Yet, when I ask for the evidence, I get answers that creationists already affirm.

Not acknowledge. Affirm. Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution. It may be a different way of looking at it. But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides. What you call "evolutionary natural history", I call the Theory of Evolution. Yes, the official definition of the word "evolution" is different, but I generally try to go by what is meant by the word "evolution" 95% of the time I hear it. Most people mean a lot more than "change in gene frequency over time" when they say the word evolution. The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind". If all dogs are the same kind, certainly a weak bacteria and a hardy bacteria are the same kind. Same thing with a salamanders of varying colors or birds with different mating calls (simplified explanation, I know, but I am in a hurry and have no time to quote the article verabatim)

We've been over this earlier in the thread. I said "kind" was somewhere around "family" with some exceptions. I think Ken Hamm says it is around "genus", and I believe a lot of people have it somewhere in between.Anyway, I was told I can't ask for evidence if I don't SPECIFICALLY define my terms. This is interesting to me, because many of the taxonomic ranks are not exact definitions, but are often defined by the animals in them.Sounds either like a double standard or an excuse to avoid trying to produce evidence that was asked for. (I mean, if you have evidence for macro-evolution beyond "family", just give it rather than argue about where exactly a "kind" is defined)

You are right. I meant "higher" primates, but I guess that is a bad example, because I don't call "humans" primates. (well, they are by classification, but are not related. This is a long discussion I have no time for, but it looks like it comes up in later posts about genetic inheritance which I hope to some day have time to respond to.)I suppose some creationists would differ on whether apes and monkeys are of the same "kind". So I admit it was a poor example. The original point still stands, but I'm sure some people will be glad to attack this rabbit trail.

Let me provide a simplistic example.Assume I find a turtle in my back yard. I point him toward Beijing (I live in Orlando, FL) and let him go.I walk behind him and observe him covering 2 miles of the distance (roughly 0.025% of the way) and he doesn't change course.Can I walk back home and assume he went the whole way? Can I even assume he is CAPABLE of going the whole way, just because he can walk and he can swim?In my opinion, this is what evolutionists are doing. But the beginning that they have observable (microevolution) is extremely tiny compared to the evolution of all organisms from a single cell.Yes,I understand that evolutionists say because of OTHER evidence (i.e. fossil record, geology, etc), you can then ASSUME it happened.But here's the kicker: If I go nail down a paleontologist on the MANY areas of the fossil record that are lacking in transitional forms, do you know what answers I would get? The same ones you guys are giving me. "We can assume such-and-such, because of our knowledge of genetics." "We can assume such-and-such because of our knowledge of geology." They would say it more scientifically than that, but that is the bottom line.So everyone is building their house of cards on someone else's shaky foundation. And if you nail each area down to what EXACT evidence they have, all you get is a few shreds of evidence and a lot of assuming.So that is what I've been doing. I just want people to tell me what evidence they actually have without pointing to another area of study.The sum can only be found if you know the exact value of the parts.(sorry for the rabbit trail, but I felt it contributed to some things brought up in other posts as well)

It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view. All I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that there is no God and the evolutionist point of view comes into focus fairly easily. I don't agree with it, but I understand where they are coming from.The diversification of animals after the flood did not follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history (for those who are calling it that). It mostly involves a process that we can test and observe every day.Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair? Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.If I crossbreed several dogs and get a new breed, did I cause a new breed to evolve? No, I just mixed and matched genes that were already there. So really, it all just depends on what genes the parents were carrying. Since I don't know what the parents looked like, I can't really expound much further.

Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.