Evolution vs. God [Full]

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    that's not a straw man. he was asking for observable evidence of evolution. you don't get to just change the definition of a word as you see fit. the term 'evolution' isn't defined by which parts creationists object to.

    as far as changing from one kind to another...

    1) 'kind' is not a scientific term, it's an ambiguous term used by creationists which is at best undefined and at worst incoherent.

    2) it takes a long time, which means you can't just watch it happen. that doesn't mean you can't test that theory with other observations (e.g. fossil record, dna, molecular biology, etc).

    3) it happens by the same exact process as the 'adaptions' you're already willing to accept. i've yet to ever hear a compelling reason for why a series of minor adaptions over millions of years couldn't radically transform a species over time.
    test
  2. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    If it happens than you would have proof of it happening. but it isnt about transforming a species its about changing it to something else entirely.
    which u dont.
    test
  3. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    what kind of proof exactly?
    test
  4. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Well... whales is pretty solid proof.

    There is one thing though, that is absolutely proof of evolution. I'll have to look it up because it uses big words and stuff. But basically, it's something that happened that can't be explained except through evolving species. (Unless, of course, you believe in magical sky fairies, in which case you can always use the old fashion "goddidit" excuse.)

    One moment please.
    test
  5. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Ah... originally I was going to post http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses]endogenus retroviruses[/url] as that undeniable proof I was speaking of. (And I did, if you check the link.)

    But I managed to come across something interesting, utilizing totally common sense techniques. So... @TheBigPayback, you're saying that one species can not evolve into another species? I imagine anything scientific would go over your head, and you'd be unable to understand it. Yet, you want proof. So how can we settle this? I would have to provide proof, right? But not just any proof, proof within your capability to understand. So why not provide proof of animals speciating? Which is to say, evolving?

    You'll find a smorgasborg here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_speciation

    Some interesting animals to look at are the Blackcap, Madeira House Mouse, and Mollies. Because they're not bugs, they are birds, mammals and fish, respectively. You can't not say there is nothing to it. Especially in regards to the mice.
    test
  6. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    No, other than speciation or adaptation. These are not debated characteristics. What is debated is the extent that these processes go.
    You say infinitely, from one kind/type of animal into another. We say to an extent, limited to the family.
    test
  7. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    seriously though.. answer my question. if the 'change of kinds' evolution were to occur, what kind of proof do you think we would have for it?
    test
  8. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Read the post above yours. Check the links. In particular the one species that evolved into six different species.
    test
  9. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Transitional species with characteristics of the two families it evolved into and from.
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I read the wiki page the other link wouldnt open.
    test
  11. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    test
  12. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Yes that would be more along the lines of transition. So is the concensus of the scientific community that those are pre-transitional forms of the whale?
    test
  13. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i believe the scientific consensus is that those are distant ancestors of whales.

    there is also a pretty decent collection of hominid fossils in different transitional stages - to the point that different creationist critics actually have a hard time agreeing with each other in regard to which specimens are 'apes' and which ones are 'humans.'
    test
  14. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well thats good. thats what I have been getting at. and from that particular article I gather the first two were thought to be land dwelling relatives of the grey whale, with the main similarities being the structure of the skull, ear, and transition in placement of the nostrils from top of the snout to the middle of the skull?

    is there any more information about since this creature would have to lose its hair, its backbone flexibility and its tail; the long front legs would have had to change into flippers, the back legs would have had to disappear, and the external ears would have had to become internal.
    other changes that would allow a mammal to live under water, changes to the breathing, skin and hearing..birth of babies from land to under water as well as feeding and diet.

    do we know anything about these changes that had to occur within transition?
    test
  15. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    test
  16. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    an interesting clue in re
    actually from what i understand the relationship is also corroborated by molecular comparisons.

    i don't know much about the specifics of how it evolved, but i do know that regarding each of these changes there are important clues that point to evolution.

    for example:
    the bones in the front flippers resemble mammalian limbs more so than fish fins. this is similar to how the bones in bat wings resemble mammalian limbs more than bird wings.
    the shrunken remains of the hind legs still exist in whales today, and actual hind legs have been identified on the fossils of prehistoric (yet completely aquatic) relatives to modern whales.
    the whale propels itself with an up and down motion of the tail (like the motion of other mammals when they run), rather than the side to side motion seen in fish.
    test
  18. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,138
    Here's the thing. Is evolution real? Yes Nobody can deny evolution. However there is allot of unproven theories that are added to the darwin evolution that people feel they can't debate or argue. People blindly accept whatever ideas are sent from the science community without any thought of them being in error

    Many people debate macro evolution. Not microevolution.
    test
  19. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    yes but macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution extended over a longer period of time. it's not like you have to assume anything other than the fact that the changes observed as micro-evolution will accumulate over time. i've yet to hear a good reason why that wouldn't be the case.
    test
  20. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    sorry to interrupt, but where did i read someone say that lobsters were immortal?

    that shit was funny
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)