Um, no it hasn't. You said that difference in color represented the different changes over time...and those are the very changes that no one has ever seen.
I gave birth to two children who are not exact copies of me.
There is a little change right there.
That is not a change from blue to green, just a small change in shade.
You went from a non-dog to a dog...now, no one has ever seen this, yet you slipped it in there as if it was a fact.
Yes I went from non-dog to dog. But the change is GRADUAL. At no point did a non-dog look at its puppies and thin, "hey!, those are dogs." As far as I know, there is no clear definition of what a dog is (which is also why you and PolyHedral can argue about whether a wolf is a dog or not) so it is
If you were to see the change from blue to green you would have to observe the evolution of a creture with enough generations for the change to be visibal over a human lifespan, otherwise you are stuck with circumstantial evidence of which there is a lot.
For example, if humans only produce humans, then why do you not find human remains from from the time of the dinosaurs? Where did humans come from if they didn't exist then? They did not exist then, they do exist now and you find a lot of remains from human-like cretures which become more and more human-like the closer we get to the present time.
I find it har to explain that without resorting to evolution, but maybe you have a better explanation...
Science is long gone at that point. It is something that is believed to have occurred, but there is no evidence that it did. The notion that just because we see small scale changes from within the kind would also suggest that long ago there were these large scale changes is pure speculation. You can believe it all you want, but don't pass it off as science because this has not been proven
Because, from my experience, and yours, and anyone else that has ever walked this earth, we only see animals produce other animals that are within the same kind that it is. No one has ever observed an animal produce a different kind of animal. So why are we to believe that it happened long ago when no one was around to see it happen?? Science is what we can OBSERVE. No one has ever observed this voo doo stuff that is said to have took place.
From the
dictionary:
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
The theory of evolution certainly fits in here, so stop saying it is not science.
It is not magical, luna ...so let me ask you this, do you believe that the human "species" will EVER be able to produce a non-human??? I dont care how long it takes for it to happen. Do you believe that long from now...there will be a sudden change in the offspring off human, and that it will gradually result in a evolutionary phenomenon of a non-human? Do you believe this could happen? Actually, you already believe that humans evolved from something that wasn't a human so I guess you would.
Yes of course I do as I have already explained, but not in the sense that a mother will give birth one day and say "Hey! that thing is a non-human" (well not unless she took part in some strange genetic experiment, then maybe she could
, but I assume we are talking offspring made the old-fashioned way)
Well, can humans reproduce with apes?? We are apes, right??
I am not sure how to read this. This was you answer to me asking "If the descendants of dogs were to split into two lines that couldn't reproduce with each other, would you still call both lines dogs? If so you would have two different species but only one kind."
Does your answer mean that you see humans and apes as one kind?
Ape can both mean the hominidae family to wich humans belongs, but it can also mean those furry creature which climb around in trees and which does not include humans.
To me it means the latter.
So to me humans and apes are different species which cannot reproduce with each other.
They split from one species some time between 5 and 10 million years ago.
Since I didn't understand your answer I will try the question again:
If the descendants of dogs were to split into two lines that couldn't reproduce with each other, would you still call both lines dogs? If so you would have two different species but only one kind.
Thats a good point luna. Can it happen in the future? I don't think so. I don't believe that you can reconcile the Genesis account with the evolutionary account, so being the Christian that I am, I don't see any point in the theory of evolution. But, if it does happen and I am alive to see it happen, I would be an evolutionists. At least I would have a reason to, becuz it will be based on the observational evidence, which is supposed to be what science is all about anyway.
Since it seems clear to me that it happened in the passed I think it will also happen in the future.