Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by ken10


Of course there's a difference, the difference is Macro evolution has never been observed. Never has any scientist's observed one species, in the transitional stage of becoming another species and still being alive.

And by the way evolution just means "change" it's not a magic word that suddenly disproves a creation account.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

Stop derailing the thread or ill report your post.

well you ignored what i said before

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by spyder550

 

I think you will find "creationists" accept the "Micro Evolution" you describe, that part is irrefutable....So they (creationists) cleverly invent/claim a differential between Micro and Macro evolution.


I have seen this argument before and nothing changes, It is their core belief ......The "Book" is right no matter what evidence is put forward to the contrary.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this new trend. Here, there's a catholic program on TV teaching them how to counter sciency arguments. Maybe I should check it again, see what they're up to in these times of trial when the pope is accused of crimes against humanity.

reply to post by aorAki


Exactly but we all supposedly came from a single celled organism, so if evolution is true plants came from that organism too? Or where did the plant life come from.

Also why out of 2 million species is Humans the only one's that developed language, how is this possible?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


So how do you explain Vestigial leg bones in snakes and whales ?

Or did the creator have a few spares to get rid of.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by ken10


Do you even know what Vestigial means?

reply to post by Chrysalis


Awesome, luckily the pope isn't apart of my faith.

This video disproves evolution:

I will give it a shot though I don't see the point since you look like you won't listen anyway.
By the way just because someone understands the principals behind evolution it does not necessarily make them an atheist there are several people of faith that also believe evolution is valid.


Ok
1.Snails can both be found in aquatic and terrestrial environments meaning at some point snails left there aquatic environment and migrated to a terrestrial environment.
In the process they lost there gills and developed lungs to breath on land.

2. You know those rolley pully bugs that you find under dead logs and rocks they are actually crustaceans who's closest relatives are lobsters and crabs. All crustaceans have ten legs where as other arthropods like insects have six and arachnids have 8 legs.
Anyway pillbugs still have gills meaning that at some point they must have lived in water and migrated to land.
They must constantly keep themselves moist otherwise they die they have a relative that is huge and lives deep in the sea.
And it looks like this.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa019537b3d1.jpg[/atsimg]


3.While we are on the topic of crustaceans there are many species of land crabs but each one still requires that their young develop in water. A fine example of this is the Christmass Island crab who spends most of it's adult life on land in forests but must return to the ocean to lay eggs.
Most crabs are aquatic but a few have manged to evolve to live on land.


4. Last I will deal with amphibians such as frogs newts and salamanders.
Each one of these has an aquatic stage to their life where they have gills for example frogs lay eggs in water
that turn in to tadpoles eventually tadpoles develop legs and lose their gills and migrate to land.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb1b44be91dd.jpg[/atsimg]


Then there are amphibians like this that don't even bother to lose their gills
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0230809ac68d.jpg[/atsimg]

There is evidence that amphibians are a class that is found between fish who live in water and reptiles that live on land.
Since an amphibian spends part of it's development in water then eventually migrates to land.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by ken10

 

Do you even know what Vestigial means?

Biology Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.

ie: the last remaining vestiges/remains of fully functional legs.

And once again the fact that speciation has been observed gets ignored. He wants evidence of observed instances of speciation and I know I have provided it to him on a number of occasions. As I'm not going to do your grunt work for you anymore I will just say that you should start your search with Drosophilia.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

Apart from fossils, which is purely speculative at best.

That's so funny..and ironic..i just wanted to give archaeopterix as an example which is between a dinosaur and a bird. HOWEVER since you reject this as "speculative" why even bother. I could as well debate with my cats. (Which, by the way, are domesticated from wild cats thousands of years ago..but of course you will deny that also... )

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

Apart from fossils, which is purely speculative at best. Is there actually any evidence of a mutation in an animal to cause it to become another genus of animal? Say a mouse for some reason has 3 legs, its still a mouse is it not? that would be considered a mutation according to you?

sorry i missed it, did you ask if my eyesight was poor because a person with bad vision cant accept the body of god?
well humans have altered the natural mutation by adding stuff like radiation etc..so some of what we see today is not relevant, a mutation of 3 legs would not be beneficial so it would be a defect and not passed down genetically as this mouse would probably not live.
when you look at the way cells and animals interact you can see its not to different to evolution. put an organism in a situation and it will adapt. evolution is simply long term adaption.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


1) The way that genetics works and the way that genes affect biological traits and the way that those traits affect an individuals ability to reproduce are thoroughly confirmed and tested under the conditions that you identify with the only valid scientific method on a regular basis. Evolution follows necessarily from these basic underlying mechanisms, therefore the theory is epistemologically sound, even by your strict definition of what constitutes scientific validity.

2) Several posters have identified clear cases of what you call "micro-evolution," but you've decided those aren't dramatic enough. Here's the thing: those small changes accumulate - we observe this - and it follows that large differences will exist after this happens for a very long time. The kinds of dramatic changes you think you need to see to be convinced don't happen; plants don't become animals. Genetic mutations are limited in scope, and the more dramatic they are in a single step, the less likely the organism to survive. A dog just doesn't have the genes to give birth to a dinosaur, and the mutations simply can't take place all at once.

3) The theory of evolution, like all theories, is an explanation of how things happen. The theory has successfully predicted the existence of intermediate traits. This is the prediction and confirmation that you claim the theory is lacking. These successful predictions are reproduced every time intermediate traits are discovered.

4) Ultimately, science is concerned with which explanation is most consistent with the evidence. Evolution is the answer in this case. It is the best explanation that has been proposed, so it is the accepted theory. No theory, even gravity, can be confirmed in an absolute sense, because there are an infinite number of explanations for any observation. We don't know without a doubt that no theory will come along which is more consistent with the available data, or that observations won't be made that are inconsistent with evolution. However, until that time, we have more reason to believe in evolution than in any alternative theory purporting to explain the same observations. Since we have the most reason to believe in evolution, we are fully justified in being evolutionists, even if you've never seen a plant turn into a dog.

I have learned over the years that it is pointless trying to present evidence to people like you. So rather than waste my time showing you overwhelming evidence. I would like to ask 'why are you so opposed to the theory of evolution'? I don't want to see some ready made argument copy/pasted from some creationist site, put all arguments and counter arguments aside, and tell us the reason why you can't accept it. I don't expect an honest answer Creationism is the total rejection of rational thinking and is the ultimate form of intellectual cowardice.

After taking a look at your thread/post history, I believe you are either king of the trolls or mentally ill...

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by aorAki

 

Exactly

Thanks, so I showed you an example and you have changed the goalposts....

Originally posted by RevelationGenerationAlso why out of 2 million species is Humans the only one's that developed language, how is this possible?

Cetacean language

That is just one example.

Also, why do I keep replying? I guess I'm ashamed there is such ignorance

reply to post by ELahrairah


Sorry but that hasn't been observed so its pure speculation/faith.

Lots of animals enjoy both aquatic environment's and land environments, turtles for example, but that doesn't mean at some point they had gills, that's a huge leap in faith to suggest that. I like water to, does that mean i once had gills? Sorry don't answer that, i already know what you'll say.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Now you did it.



This completely Debunks Religion. And the stolen concept of a God. Enjoy it

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69

 

So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.

Holy crap.

What more evidence do you want? Your above paragraph illustrates how you think. You imagine that we are going to see like half n half species. Part alligator and part oak tree. Its just ridiculous to think that evolution is impossible.

I really don't know why evolution is approached as something farfetched, it at the very least appears plausible.