Another case of observed speciation

[Subduction Zone]

Wild Fox, you are talking about adaptation. Speciation is about new varieties of the same taxonomic family of creatures, created by those external forces. No matter how much time elapses science has no real evidence that one species can ever morph itself into a different taxonomy.

If you have real life examples, then please produce them.

I do believe that @Deeje has me on ignore, but I must correct this post and perhaps someone can relay this to her. What she is proposing is the creationists strawman version of evolution with a "change of kind". There is no change of kind in evolution. One species never can "morph itself into a different taxonomy". That is simply incorrect. She demonstrates a clear ignorance of cladistics People, and this would include Deeje, are still apes, they are still primates, they are still mammals, they are still tetrapods, heck they are even still "fish" but let's call them "vertebrates to make it easier to understand, they are still chordates, they are still animals, and they are still eukaryotes. There was no morphing into another taxonomy anywhere in the process. Perhaps when the cell or cells that became eukaryotes first encircled an archaea that could be called such a change of kind, but even that is explainable without magic.

The sort of change that Deeje wants to observe to confirm the theory of evolution would actually refute it. That makes her demand self contradicting and self defeating.

 

[Bear Wild]

I do believe that @Deeje has me on ignore, but I must correct this post and perhaps someone can relay this to her. What she is proposing is the creationists strawman version of evolution with a "change of kind". There is no change of kind in evolution. One species never can "morph itself into a different taxonomy". That is simply incorrect. She demonstrates a clear ignorance of cladistics People, and this would include Deeje, are still apes, they are still primates, they are still mammals, they are still tetrapods, heck they are even still "fish" but let's call them "vertebrates to make it easier to understand, they are still chordates, they are still animals, and they are still eukaryotes. There was no morphing into another taxonomy anywhere in the process. Perhaps when the cell or cells that became eukaryotes first encircled an archaea that could be called such a change of kind, but even that is explainable without magic.

The sort of change that Deeje wants to observe to confirm the theory of evolution would actually refute it. That makes her demand self contradicting and self defeating.

I agree. Anything that shows that evolution theory is correct has to be ignored otherwise the clear answer is that evolution is correct. If you believe creationism you have to ignore so much otherwise you will accept evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. Anything that shows that evolution theory is correct has to be ignored otherwise the clear answer is that evolution is correct. If you believe creationism you have to ignore so much otherwise you will accept evolution.

Thank you. But I do not think that Deeje will be able to see the post you quoted. The ignore button protects the delicate sensibilities of those that use that option from even such indirect methods. All she will see is your response. You could paraphrase my argument. There is no need to credit me with the post.

That strategy is very common among creationists. Since the actual theory is too reasonable a strawman of it needs to be made that can be refuted or denied.

 

[Jainarayan]

Are you kidding? Its one of my favorites! I have exposed the scientist's creativity concerning this evolutionary chain in many posts. Its not obvious unless you know what you are looking at. They make it sound so plausible...yet when you really examine it, its laughable.

You’re serious aren’t you!?

But tell me, what do I look for?

 

[Jainarayan]

Why do architects use the same framework and engineering principles when constructing different buildings.....from a doghouse to a skyscraper? If the principle works for all construction, why not use it?

The bones of birds are designed to be light so as to facilitate flight, whereas the bones of land dwelling creatures the bones are quite dense. Just a co-incidence? Or planned that way?



That is what God used to created Adam....if we weren't made up of the elements of the earth then that would rule out creation. But it reinforces it.



Why did God create creatures to live in the spirit realm and then decide to create matter? Their bodies are spirit but we are a different creation because we are meant to live on a material earth.



Probably for the same reason why males and females share other traits. Like hair on their heads and under their arms and around their genital area. Males may have facial and chest hair but that is due to testosterone.
Stem cells in the formation of a fetus know exactly what they are supposed to be, though in recent times the whole gender issue has gotten a little out of hand. Our genetics are being messed up by man made environmental factors, no doubt...along with some weird ideas.



Because the principles of the reproductive process work across many species. All begin as microscopic eggs and sperm.Yet all reproduce only according to their "kind", just as Genesis says.



We all have the same Creator, using the same basic materials for all his living creatures. The "blueprint" again works across all species. DNA is a code. It is the transmission of information received by the cells in the construction of new cells, all of which are pre-programmed to produce a part of a living creature. Every creature can replicate itself, true to its "kind", with all its individual cells in the right place. If you think that this process is a product of blind chance, then what is there left to say?

You just described chemical and evolutionary processes that preclude the need for a creator God.

 

[Deeje]

Never meant who?

The Creator...you know, the one you don't believe in.

And what do you mean Him? Have you meet him and talked to him?

Yes I have. He introduced himself to me when I was quite young. He intervened in my life in an extraordinary way by answering the prayer of a young child, begging for his help. I never forgot it, and from then on, I knew he was real.....and when I learned more about him as an adult, I talked to him often. He kept guiding me, even when I didn't know he was.

What you seem to not to comprehend that that the universe has always been.

Science knows that the universe has NOT always existed. This earth has not always existed....but you knew that...right?

No need to come up with a mythical creator. And how do you know it is a him. Does he have a y chromosome?

The Creator presents himself as male even though he has no gender. He doesn't need one except that he portrays himself to mankind as a "Father" figure....the head of his human "family". Since he has no physical form, he's got no chromosomes either.

Humans did not come up with a mythical Creator. He has always existed and the human race has known him since their creation. If you believe that the universe has always existed, then I can believe the same of the Creator who put it there.

I thing a female as the creator makes more sense if you need a creator but of course you don't because everything is explained by natural forces which you want so hard to ignore.

God has no gender but manifests the traits of either parent. Did you know that the Bible speaks of God's "wife"? (Metaphorical of course)

Who created those "natural" forces? Did they just pop up out of nowhere like the creatures on this planet?
What laws that govern human behavior had no lawgiver? Did the law of gravity just invent itself? Explain to me how it just happens to keep us from flying off into space.

Maybe if you relook at the evolution therapy again with an open mind you finally find the truth. So which goddess created the universe?

Perhaps if you looked at creation through a different lens you would find much more satisfying answers to your questions. Evolution is an unsubstantiated belief system. You have to have faith in order to believe something you cannot prove.

Is there some reason why you think I would join evolutionists on a road to nowhere? No thanks.

For someone who was a believer....you sure don't know much about the God you rejected....

 

[Deeje]

You’re serious aren’t you!?

Very.

But tell me, what do I look for?

Here is a small sample......

"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

Now please mull over what is said in the highlighted and underlined sections. This is what they teach kids.

You have what appears to be an evolutionary chain (in the evogram) that they admit are not related to one another.

It is an assumption that whales were at first land dwellers. There is nothing linking these creatures except science's imagination. (as demonstrated in the graph)

The only thing they had to link Pakicetus with a whale was a similar looking ear bone......so you tell me...how compelling is their evidence? "Seemingly minor features provide critical evidence"......? Do they? Really?

Here is a picture but look at the caption....

Skeletons of two early whales.

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Note in the evogram the relative sizes of the creatures on their graph.....but this gives you some idea of the real size differences. (click on the image to enlarge it)

Pakicetus is the size of a dog. Any wonder people believe that humans are related to bananas....or that amoebas can morph themselves into dinosaurs if you add enough zeros to the timeline.

What a load of rubbish!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very.



Here is a small sample......

"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

The evolution of whales

Now please mull over what is said in the highlighted and underlined sections. This is what they teach kids.

You have what appears to be an evolutionary chain (in the evogram) that they admit are not related to one another.

Correction, cladogram. At least use the right terminology.

It is an assumption that whales were at first land dwellers. There is nothing linking these creatures except science's imagination. (as demonstrated in the graph)

That is false. In fact when you claim "assumption" the burden of proof is upon you to prove that it is an assumption. It was a deduction based upon the evidence. You should try to find out what the evidence is and what it says. You can't refute that which you do not understand. Also creationists should never say "assumption" unless they are willing and able to prove that it was an assumption. In fact any derogatory term used against the theory of evolution puts the burden of proof upon the person making it.

By the way, this applies to others as well. If an atheist calls your God an "imaginary friend" you are right to call him out on that. He would need to prove that claim. Stating that one does not believe in God since there is no evidence for him is reasonable. Stating there is no God without being willing to back it up is not. I just wanted to show that I can be fair there.

The only thing they had to link Pakicetus with a whale was a similar looking ear bone......so you tell me...how compelling is their evidence? "Seemingly minor features provide critical evidence"......? Do they? Really?

Here is a picture but look at the caption....

Skeletons of two early whales.

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Note in the evogram the relative sizes of the creatures on their graph.....but this gives you some idea of the real size differences. (click on the image to enlarge it)

Pakicetus is the size of a dog. Any wonder people believe that humans are related to bananas....or that amoebas can morph themselves into dinosaurs if you add enough zeros to the timeline.

What a load of rubbish!

If the only thing that you had was an ear bone you might have a valid point. But then you show a series of fossils that all fall in appropriate dates that are evidence for whale evolution. We can see that the ear bone is not the only evidence. We can see that the progression slowly lost their feet and developed flippers. If one checks on can see the nostrils migrate and become a blowhole. An expert could tell you what else can be seen. And then you totally ignore the evidence that tells us that hippos are their closest relatives.

Does anyone know what that evidence was? I do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I already explained why God needs no proof. He leaves "belief" up to us. We all believe what we want to believe, for our own reasons.

If things exist, they leave some evidence somewhere of their existence. Even your god, if he intervenes with anything in the natural world, "he" should leave a mark behind somewhere.

God may need no proof for you, because you already believe, and because you want to believe what you want to believe, as you say here I do not believe things because I want to believe them. I believe things when the evidence indicates that the thing is a part of reality. I cannot believe things for which there is no (good) evidence.

Most in the scientific community claim that evolution is a fact. What they don't say, is that only a small portion of what science presents is a fact that is actually backed up by experiments carried out in a lab. That small portion is called "adaptation". They have observed "speciation"....but never have they seen one organism morph itself out of its own taxonomy.

Evolution is a fact. As I've pointed out countless times now, what you refer to as "adaptation" is simply evolution.

We have no issues with what science can 'prove'....but to then claim that adaptation can and must result in something for which the evidence is manufactured in the minds of scientists, is an exercise in wishful thinking, delivered to a gullible public, by those who are themselves convinced that what they imagine is true...it must be true because the alternative is unthinkable! They will make sure that all "evidence" is squeezed into the evolution box.

Nope. Evolution is not "manufactured in the minds of scientists," rather, it is demonstrated by evidence accrued from multiple fields of science that all point to the same conclusion. Scientists haven't deposited any gods into the equation because gods haven't been required in their explanations - it all works just fine without having to complicate everything by including an invisible deity which also would require an explanation.

You're the one engaging in wishful thinking. Which you've actually admitted when you say you believe what you want to believe.

"Well supported" by whom and with what? The so-called evidence is interpreted by those with a theory to uphold.....who would dare not support it if they don't want to be laughed out of their chosen career?

You can't seriously be asking this question at this point. It's well supported by the EVIDENCE, of course. And it is evidence that has been accumulated over the last 150+ years by multiple different groups of scientists in multiple different fields of science all over the world. You should ask yourself why all this evidence points in the exact same direction - toward evolution being a reality of life.

As I've pointed out to you umpteen times and I have no idea why I'm even bothering to repeat it yet again .... Any scientists who could falsify the theory of evolution would become world famous and would most likely win a Nobel Prize. It would be HUGE.

You yourself claim to have been a "Christian" at one time. But were you? Does a question like that make former "Christians" uncomfortable? Could they have exchanged one lot of misinformation for another...in effect jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire?

I don't see the relevance. I still accepted evolution back when I considered myself a Christian anyway, as many do.

Do they throw the baby out with the bath water? How sad would it be if they did? You see, "feelings" play more of a role in this question than you might think.

Throwing God away is a big deal because you must do it thoroughly. You must kill him off completely, because if you allow even a small vestige of him to remain, it carries with it a lot of uncomfortable baggage.
I understand why former believers fight for evolution so vigorously.

What does any of this have to do with what I said regarding theories, gravity, or germs, or anything to do with observed speciation?

My acceptance of evolution has nothing at all to do with my lack of belief in gods. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Your own belief system is based on "unsupported claims"....denying that doesn't make the Creator go away.

LOL
Evolution is not my belief system. It's not anyone's belief system. It's a scientific theory that explains biodiversity. That's it.

I believe that he is waiting for the right people to find him. You might be one of them. He has never been where most people imagine him to be....you just have to look in the right place.....usually in the most unlikely place, with what appears to be the least likely people. He has never been "mainstream".

Okay great. So when "he" feels like finally coming out of his hiding place, be sure to let me know. I've never been much of a fan of that game.
Until then, or until you can demonstrate that this god exists, I'm gonna stick with observable, demonstrable, verifiable evidence.

 

[Bear Wild]

The Creator...you know, the one you don't believe in.



Yes I have. He introduced himself to me when I was quite young. He intervened in my life in an extraordinary way by answering the prayer of a young child, begging for his help. I never forgot it, and from then on, I knew he was real.....and when I learned more about him as an adult, I talked to him often. He kept guiding me, even when I didn't know he was.



Science knows that the universe has NOT always existed. This earth has not always existed....but you knew that...right?



The Creator presents himself as male even though he has no gender. He doesn't need one except that he portrays himself to mankind as a "Father" figure....the head of his human "family". Since he has no physical form, he's got no chromosomes either.

Humans did not come up with a mythical Creator. He has always existed and the human race has known him since their creation. If you believe that the universe has always existed, then I can believe the same of the Creator who put it there.



God has no gender but manifests the traits of either parent. Did you know that the Bible speaks of God's "wife"? (Metaphorical of course)

Who created those "natural" forces? Did they just pop up out of nowhere like the creatures on this planet?
What laws that govern human behavior had no lawgiver? Did the law of gravity just invent itself? Explain to me how it just happens to keep us from flying off into space.



Perhaps if you looked at creation through a different lens you would find much more satisfying answers to your questions. Evolution is an unsubstantiated belief system. You have to have faith in order to believe something you cannot prove.

Is there some reason why you think I would join evolutionists on a road to nowhere? No thanks.

For someone who was a believer....you sure don't know much about the God you rejected....

The creator - You mean the goddess Danu of course and I never said I did not believe in her.
Ok so you are saying you met god face to face or did you just feel her precence? He appears as a Father but not a mother. This is a patriarcial god so maybe you are not talking about Danu. So he can appear as a female if god wants to or as a crow or whale or anything. So we should be careful what we try to kill. And now you are hearing god talk directly to you? Can you ask god why he bothered placing fossils in the ground in the first place? Can you also ask god why he made up so many disease and cancers when he or she or it could have made the genetic code perfect assuming he, she or it can do things perfectly. And did god of the Jews want us all to follow the Jewish code to the letter of the law?

The natural forces have been and will always be of course. Science has never shown there was nothing before - No need of a god or goddess. Yes I am aware the earth has not always existed thank you. The word law is given as a description of what science has found by humans who did not create it and these forces have always been in existence in one form or another.

I have looked at both views as well as others. One was myth called a creation story and the other is how life developed. I choose the true was rather than the mythical made up way and thus rejected creation stories.

 

[tas8831]

Now, is that the dumbed-down version that you will then dismiss for not using enough scientific terminology, or the actual publications that you will dismiss for having too much jargon?

Here is your favorite dumbed-down site:

The origin of birds

And here is some jargony research-based stuff, but still sort of dumbed-down:

Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Just a sampling:

The first birds shared the following major skeletal characteristics with many coelurosaurian dinosaurs (especially those of their own clade, the Maniraptora, which includes Velociraptor):

1. Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
2. Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
3. Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
4. Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
5. Hollow, thin-walled bones.
6. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
7. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
8. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
9. S-shaped curved neck.
10. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
11. Similar eggshell microstructure.
12. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
13. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
14. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
15. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
16. Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
17. Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
18. Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
19. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
20. Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."

But sure, it is all guesswork and jargon...




And your lying eyes:

Also - still waiting for you to explain how bacteria "make themselves immune" to antibiotics.​

STILL waiting...

 

[tas8831]

The thing is.....I don't need to. God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone. His creation speaks for itself. You either look and listen or ignore, just as you do with science.

Just a precious just-so story to justify your Dunning-Krugerism...

 

[Deeje]

But sure, it is all guesswork and jargon...

Yes it is....like your list which I am supposing is to prove that birds and dinosaurs are somehow related because of similarities in bone structure etc. Who says that they are related? Who invented the clades?

The definition of a clade is..."a group of organisms believed to comprise all the evolutionary descendants of a common ancestor."
"Believed to"? See...evolution is a belief.....not a fact.

The last point on your list demonstrates this nicely....."Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."

You guys never see the suggestions.....you just gloss over them.

And your lying eyes:

Why are my eyes lying when all creatures have the same Creator, are made with the same materials and lots of similar features. None of which makes them related on some imaginary timeline. Guesses and suggestions.

Since the diagrams I see for evolution consistently show that things begin small and get bigger and better....tell me how T-Rex evolved into a chicken? Seriously. No one has to make a fool of evolution...it does so all by itself.

Also - still waiting for you to explain how bacteria "make themselves immune" to antibiotics.STILL waiting...

Waiting for what?

Last time I looked it was called adaptation. The ability to alter some feature of an organism to allow it to survive in a changed environment. Bacteria are able to make themselves immune to things like antibiotics by adapting to how they respond to them.

Its what has created the "superbugs" we now see claiming hospitals as their main breeding ground. If you are sick, the last place you want to be these days is a hospital. Clever little bugs. The future is looking grim because of human stupidity....along with the misuse of science. So who is dumb?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why are my eyes lying when all creatures have the same Creator, are made with the same materials and lots of similar features. None of which makes them related on some imaginary timeline. Guesses and suggestions.

Except that there is only one known mechanism which results in living organisms being related and sharing features: reproduction.

Until you have an observed instance of a living thing being created out of nothing spontaneously by God, the assertion of God can be dismissed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes it is....like your list which I am supposing is to prove that birds and dinosaurs are somehow related because of similarities in bone structure etc. Who says that they are related? Who invented the clades?

Carolus Linnaeus is considered the father of taxonomy. He first laid out his classification system in 1735 in his work, Systema Naturae. He was a Christian.

German taxonomist, Willi Hennig later developed cladistics.

Linnaean taxonomy - Wikipedia
Willi Hennig - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why are my eyes lying when all creatures have the same Creator, are made with the same materials and lots of similar features. None of which makes them related on some imaginary timeline. Guesses and suggestions.

Since the diagrams I see for evolution consistently show that things begin small and get bigger and better....tell me how T-Rex evolved into a chicken? Seriously. No one has to make a fool of evolution...it does so all by itself.

Evolution doesn't demonstrate things beginning small and getting "bigger and better."
So your personal observations are inaccurate, but you'll stick with them anyway, for some reason.

Waiting for what?

Last time I looked it was called adaptation. The ability to alter some feature of an organism to allow it to survive in a changed environment. Bacteria are able to make themselves immune to things like antibiotics by adapting to how they respond to them.

You should check again, because it's just called "evolution."

 

[Deeje]

Except that there is only one known mechanism which results in living organisms being related and sharing features: reproduction.

And all things reproduce "according to their kind".....nature demonstrates this without fail. Small adaptive changes do not result in creatures of one "family" morphing into another.
If you have direct evidence of this, please provide it.

I keep hearing about "speciation" as if it somehow proves the possibility of macro-evolution. But all it does is provide a new variety of creature within its own taxonomic family. Show us where this is not so.

Until you have an observed instance of a living thing being created out of nothing spontaneously by God, the assertion of God can be dismissed.

Yes science is trying to demonstrate spontaneous generation to explain how life began....go figure

"Poof".....and no God required. You guys crack me up.

Are we allowed to dismiss science's suggestion here...that undirected chance is a better explanation than an Intelligent Creator directing what requires intelligence and planning to produce? Seriously?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And all things reproduce "according to their kind".....nature demonstrates this without fail. Small adaptive changes do not result in creatures of one "family" morphing into another.
If you have direct evidence of this, please provide it.

Everything that reproduces does so with variation, and we have directly observed speciation multiple times.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

I keep hearing about "speciation" as if it somehow proves the possibility of macro-evolution.

Except speciation IS macro-evolution. Speciation is literally a form of macro-evolution by definition:

"Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above."
SOURCE: Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level."
SOURCE: What is macroevolution?

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population."
SOURCE: Macroevolution - Wikipedia

I have explained this to you before, multiple times.

But all it does is provide a new variety of creature within its own taxonomic family. Show us where this is not so.

Deeje, why do you keep asking for evidence of things that I have already explained to you - again, MULTIPLE TIMES - evolution doesn't claim. Things don't evolve "outside" of their taxonomic family. They produce VARIATIONS WITHIN their taxonomic family. I have explained this to you so many times now that I can only assume you are being obtuse and dishonest at this point. It really shouldn't be this hard to understand something so simple.

Yes science is trying to demonstrate spontaneous generation to explain how life began....go figure

Since you seem to think childish tone and use of emojis makes your arguments more cutting, I'm going to borrow your tactics in the hopes of imparting to you how it actually does the opposite and just undermines you.

Firstly, "spontaneous generation" has nothing to do with anything. It was a medieval theory that claimed that certain organisms in nature formed in certain environments rather than being born by preceding organisms. It was used to explain things like why flies and maggots would always seem to "appear from nowhere" in dung - people assumed the flies and maggots were somehow born from the dung itself.

Abiogenesis theory, on the other hand, asserts no such thing. It is a theory still currently being worked on and has come closer than any other theory or hypothesis to actually understanding how the earliest life formed from proteins. It doesn't say that contemporary organisms arose from dung.

So, now that you know that, I assume that you will forget it straight away and keep making the claim anyway becuase you can never accept being wrong or misleading about anything because you literally think you're perfect.

"Poof".....and no God required. You guys crack me up.

Not as much as thousands of years of theists coming up with... ZERO evidence of God! Seriously, where are your scientific papers? Where's your evidence? And we don't even say that there "definitely isn't a God" - evolution has never been about God regardless of how many times you mindlessly assert that it is because you're incapable of actually dealing with the science. It's simply that we have no reason at all to ASSUME a God's involvement. It's perfectly possible for evolution to be true AND for there to be a God at work pulling the strings in a way that is either undetectable or - which makes more sense - in a way such that evolution is actually an expression of God's will. Wouldn't that be something? A God who simply breathes something into creation, and what to him is simply a single act of creation manifests in nature as a billions of years long biological process? Doesn't that make God way more powerful and interesting?

But, oops, I forgot, the God YOU want to believe in isn't the all-powerful creator of the Universe who can create whatever he wants in whatever way they want. It's the fairy tale version of God who HAD to do things in this ONE very specific way that you think makes you more special, because any other way makes you feel less special, and ultimately your belief is less about actual deification or deference to the possibility of a higher power as much as it is about you and your desperate desire to feel special and superior. To you, God is just a convenient device to assert your own superiority, and so if it can't be precisely the God you want it to be, it cannot possibly be any kind of God at all.

Which is a shame.

Are we allowed to dismiss science's suggestion here...that undirected chance is a better explanation than an Intelligent Creator directing what requires intelligence and planning to produce? Seriously?

Only if you're uneducated enough to assume that all science says is that it's "undirected chance" rather than "the natural result of forces acting upon each other in a space governed by physical laws". Fortunately, you don't have to assume that, because all you have to do is go and read what the science ACTUALLY says. Which you won't do. Or you maybe WILL do, but then all you'll actually do is skim through it, pick out all the "perhaps', maybes, might haves, probably's and suggests'" and cut and paste them here, as if admitting uncertainty about a conclusion is the same as admitting your conclusion is made up rather than being honest and openly acknowledging that there is a chance you could always be wrong. Because, as we all know, only people who state things as ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVES can claim to have a Monopoly on truth. So let's try and pander to you here and end the debate once and for all.

EVOLUTION AND COMMON ANCESTRY ARE ABSOLUTELY, DEFINITELY TRUE.
HUMANS ABSOLUTELY AND DEFINITELY EVOLVED FROM EARLIER ORGANISMS AND SHARE COMMON ANCESTRY WITH ALL OTHER LIVING THINGS ON EARTH.
EVOLUTION ABSOLUTELY AND DEFINITELY OCCURS DUE TO THE COMBINATION OF RANDOM MUTATIONS AND NATURAL SELECTIVE PRESSURES WHICH LEAD TO ALLELE FREQUENCY CHANGES OVER TIME IN POPULATIONS.

There, now you can't possibly use that argument ever again and you must accept what I've said as true. I'm glad we finally agree!

Welcome to the family!

 

[tas8831]

Yes it is....like your list which I am supposing is to prove that birds and dinosaurs are somehow related because of similarities in bone structure etc. Who says that they are related? Who invented the clades?

So typical...

The religious fanatic that hates science simply ignores and handwaves context.

Who "invented" clades? Nobody. Clades are one way to group related organisms. Which you would know if you were actually informed.
Even the more honest and educated and intelligent creationists admit that creatures change over time - they just place arbitrary limits on how much change is allowed.

Do you think ALL living things were independently created as-is from dust? I do hope so, for you will have sunk your previous silly ark myth.

The definition of a clade is..."a group of organisms believed to comprise all the evolutionary descendants of a common ancestor."
"Believed to"? See...evolution is a belief.....not a fact.

So precious - the usual keyword parsing.
OK, so evolution is a belief, just like the belief that the Hebrew tribal deity, Yahweh, is the actual one true god that created the universe in 6 days and all that.

The difference is that the 'belief in evolution' at least has lots of evidence in its favor, whereas the Yahweh-cult has only ancient tall tales and self-delusion.


Curious that you opted for a dictionary definition instead of your usual parsing-target of dumbed-down info:


"A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor. Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade. Imagine clipping a single branch off the phylogeny — all of the organisms on that pruned branch make up a clade."

It is almost as if you chose the dictionary because it had the word "believed" in it. Your antics are pretty transparent.

The last point on your list demonstrates this nicely....."Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."

You guys never see the suggestions.....you just gloss over them.

And you guys ignore the evidence and do word searches that you think you can exploit.

Just because your sources say "God did" and not "we believe God did" does not make your sources true.

You do understand that, right?

Why are my eyes lying when all creatures have the same Creator, are made with the same materials and lots of similar features.

Because your lying eyes rely on logical fallacies to give them comfort - in this case, the fallacy of begging the question.

Also, you know, because why should birds have scales?

None of which makes them related on some imaginary timeline. Guesses and suggestions.

Imaginary timeline. Right. Totally made up for no reason other than to deny the TROOF of ancient middle eastern tall tales and numerology. OK.. makes sense.

Since the diagrams I see for evolution consistently show that things begin small and get bigger and better....tell me how T-Rex evolved into a chicken? Seriously.

Really? Sounds like you only see what you want (no surprise there).

Giant ground sloth?

No one has to make a fool of evolution...it does so all by itself.

Oh - har har har! So clever!

Ignorance really is bliss, I see.

Also - still waiting for you to explain how bacteria "make themselves immune" to antibiotics.​

STILL waiting..

Waiting for what?

Last time I looked it was called adaptation. The ability to alter some feature of an organism to allow it to survive in a changed environment. Bacteria are able to make themselves immune to things like antibiotics by adapting to how they respond to them.

Love it!

The religionist is so wrapped up in ego gratification that she cannot see the obvious -

1. Adapt - that is EVOLUTION, not creation.
2. Bacteria have no immune system, so they CANNOT actually BE immune to anything.

As you like dictionaries:

im·mune
Dictionary result for immune

adjective: immune

resistant to a particular infection or toxin owing to the presence of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells.

Bacteria do not produce antibodies.

Bacteria ARE cells, they do not have white blood cells.


Your hatred and ignorance of science coupled with your massive ego makes for some rather frustrating but hilarious outcomes.

. So who is dumb?

The person that claims cladograms are 'made up'?
The person that claims bacteria are immune to antibiotics?

 

[tas8831]

And all things reproduce "according to their kind".....nature demonstrates this without fail. Small adaptive changes do not result in creatures of one "family" morphing into another.
If you have direct evidence of this, please provide it.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."



If history is to be honored, if you do not ignore this, you will look up something on Wiki and then do some word parsing and bolding to 'justify' you dismissal of this.

Odd that you can never provide any evidence for the Yahweh being real.