Yep. They sure do. I will point out again, and hopefully for the last time, that my point was not to prove creationism wrong. However, much of evolutionary theory would be disproven if my observation could not be made. And that's a critical distinction, which hopefully one day we'll get to...
I'm pretty much done arguing this point. My original intent, which apparently was futile, was to make a distinction between those things which are simple observations, and those things which are inferences from those observations. These two things are observations: that trilobites once existed...
Well, now that we've apparently argued to a standstill, I'll like to repost an earlier post of mine that got lost in the shuffle, which dovetails with Autodidact's discussion of the DNA evidence for evolutionary theory:
The principal assertion evolutionary theory makes is that all life on...
Why can't you understand that I'm not arguing that god could not have "piffed" or "zapped"? That is not what I am saying.
I am not saying the observation that different life forms have existed at different times is evidence that evolutionary theory is correct, and that god didn't "piff" or...
And that's exactly where you're wrong. We will likely never actually observe gross morphological change in real time. Macroevolution takes place far too slowly. We can infer that change by virtue of the fact that we can observe, through the fossil record, that different kinds of organisms have...
Did you miss my correction of your clearly incorrect understanding of what I've been saying? The first five or six times I corrected that misunderstanding?
The wave function evolves over time. It also changes over time. That is the sense in which I am using the term.
You are still confusing the distinction between evolution and evolutionary theory.
Do I refer to what change? You seem to have left out a referent. Or are you asking whether I'm...
And which assertion, Jay, would that be? That life has changed over time? Is that the idiotic assertion you think I'm making that is utterly without observational support?
Or perhaps was there some other assertion you mistakenly thought I was making? Could that be it?
Yes, you're being unfair, as I have answered this question ad nauseum over and over and over again in the past 24 hours.
One more time: I AM NOT ARGUING THE CHANGE (OR EVOLUTION, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO CALL IT) FROM TRILOBITE TO BUNNY.
In fact, based on evolutionary theory (which...
You're not waiting for anything. I've answered this question half a dozen times already today. I have no difficulty understanding my own words, but you apparently do. This is what I am saying:
1) There were organisms alive in the past that no longer exist.
2) There are different organisms...
Then why do you keep disagreeing, if you think it's so obvious?
Or, and I'm beginning to think this is the case, do you deny that there are organisms in existence today that did not always exist?
You're sure sounding like you deny this, so if you don't, it would be nice of you to state so.
Rabbits are not different from trilobites? I'm not saying, and have never said, the the trilobites today are different from the ones in the past, and I'm not saying, and have never said, that the rabbits from today are different from the ones in the past.
What I am saying, and which no one...
And yet, somehow, no one has explained how or why they're wrong. Apparently not a single one of you can figure out the distinction between an observation, and a theory intended to explain that observation.
Maybe it's me, maybe I'm the idiot, but I would have thought such a distinction would...
it's exactly what I have asked everyone to agree with. I have asked for nothing other than that evidence that organisms existed in the past which no longer exist today, and that organisms exist today which did not exist in the past, is evidence that life has changed over time.
That is all I...
I understand the distinction between change and evolutionary theory. I'm beginning to think I'm the only one here who does.
That is exactly the point I cannot seem to make. I'm not inferring any mechanism that accounts for the change in organisms over time. I'm not there yet. You seem to...
You are still not getting it. I am trying, and failing, to get you to understand the distinction between an observation and a theory intended to explain that observation. The "inherited traits" part is theory. It's well-supported theory, but it's still theory.
It's the change that is the...
That is exactly what I did say. I said the fact that there were organisms in the past which do not exist today, and there are organisms today which did not exist in the past, is conclusive evidence that life has changed over time. That is ALL I have been saying.
It's also irrelevant.
I...
You're still not getting it. No matter how hard I try, you're still not getting it.
One more time, because hope springs eternal: do you, or do you not, understand the distinction between the observed evolution of organisms over time, and the theoryevolutionary theorythat attempts to explain...