Creationists, please provide evidence

[McBell]

STILL waiting for evidence that supports creation...

 

[Venatoris]

STILL waiting for evidence that supports creation...

Any questions?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Any questions?

 

[McBell]

Any questions?

Just one....

If it is true that the Earth is tilted on it's axis, then why don't we have to shorten the legs on one side of our tables?

 

[Venatoris]

Just one....

If it is true that the Earth is tilted on it's axis, then why don't we have to shorten the legs on one side of our tables?

How certain are you that we dont? Take a closer look.

 

[McBell]

How certain are you that we dont? Take a closer look.

Curses, foiled again....

 

[evolved yet?]

Is it just me or is this the most successful evolution vs. creationism thread ever? We need I think about 300 more pages to beat the Frubal Orgy.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

STILL waiting for evidence that supports creation...

Something tells me that you're going to be waiting a while....

 

[fantome profane]

Is it just me or is this the most successful evolution vs. creationism thread ever? We need I think about 300 more pages to beat the Frubal Orgy.

Define “success”.

 

[evolved yet?]

Define “success”.

Longest thread ever, my apologizes.

 

[Falvlun]

Creationists commonly argue that evolutionists class every variation of a creature as a new species. Re birds, the size of beaks should be irrelevant or too trivial to desribe a new species. Rather it is variation of the same species that has adapted. The fact that researchers desperately call every varaition a 'new species' is not a creationist concern. Nor, do some creationists, think that whether or not it can or cannot ,will or will not, mate is irrelevant to the concept of the creation of the first kinds. A kind is not a species a s such so these arguments are irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

This is simply not true: Every variant is not dubbed a "species". In fact, a lot of time has been devoted this past half century in cleaning up the species ranks by consolidating variants into one species-- the exact opposite of what you charge. Separate species are pretty clearly defined by non-interbreeding (either b/c they can't, they do but produce sterile offspring, or rarely, the could, but just don't.)

The fact that you can find exceptions only shows the fluidity of nature: it was not meant to be stuffed into neat little human-made boxes. Species do flow into each other-- precisely as evolution predicts!

Take the Horse, Equus, that you use as an example. A zebra has been a zebra for a heck of a long time, regardless of being heavier or taller. The genetic research supports this FACT. If science proves that zebras, horses, quagga, donkeys came from a common ancestor, that is fine by me. That supports that perhaps this common ancestor, by what ever name or genus you want to name it, couls have been the kind God created. If there is no common ancestor then perhaps God made them separately. So far research supports a common ancestor so I'd say the first of this kind whatever this ancestor was. This creature spread differsified and all arguments re what can mate with what are no longer relevant because that does not matter to the argument of God creating the first kinds.

Ok. So you are fine with the fact that the wide variety of equines changed and diversified from a common ancestor. This was accomplished through evolution-- change over time, with random mutation, natural selection, and isolation.

Now, as to your "kind". God certainly could not have made all of these "kinds" at the same time: we don't see eohippus hanging out in the Cambrian with the brachiopods.

So, do you think that God sent down different "Kinds" at different times: Eohippus just poofed into existence next to a crocodile whose kind had similarly just poofed into existence millions of years back?

Here's the question: why would God use such an inefficient method of poofing at random times when he already had a method set up-- evolution-- to change those kinds into separate and distinct species? Also, where do you set the marker for "kind"? How do you know that Eohippus was the "first" horse-kind, and it wasn't something further back? How do you know the first horse-kind wasn't as far back as some blue-green algae?

 

[painted wolf]

BCF (birds came first) has a long way to go to make headway. Like finding a pre-dinosaurian ancestor that fits the bill. Accounting for the shared derived features, hosts of other non-avian maniraptor dinosaurs. And so on.

But it sounds like a really interesting paper, I'll have to give it a read.

Here is some recent research re the classification of the erronous classification of the Cape Zebra as distinct from the modern Plains Zebra. This research likely has ramifications for the entire Equus taxa. The sooner researchers sort this mess out, the sooner creationists will be able to clarify 'kind' according to scientific research!

Equus is a genus that includes all the modern 'horses'.. so this is just clearing up species and subspecies level. This particular story only confirms what anatomists already decided in 2006.
Churcher CS (2006)Distribution and history of the Cape zebra (Equus capensis) in the Quaternary of Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 61:89-95

Dracovenator: From the galleries of the BPI: The Cape Giant Zebra

again, cool paper.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Falvlun ..so you say..."Separate species are pretty clearly defined by non-interbreeding (either b/c they can't, they do but produce sterile offspring, or rarely, the could, but just don't.) "

Note your own words "pretty clearly defined"...in science means "not well defined' which is one point I made that you have supported buy your own arrogant statement. Thanks
__________________________________________________
Falvlun Quote: "This is simply not true: Every variant is not dubbed a "species". In fact, a lot of time has been devoted this past half century in cleaning up the species ranks by consolidating variants into one species-- the exact opposite of what you charge. "

Are you a liar or just ill informed? This summation from Wiki speaks to RECENT changes..what on earth are you on about sprooking about the past 50 years????

A little more help for you Falvlum, From Wiki "Species".
Traditionally, researchers relied on observations of anatomical differences, and on observations of whether different populations were able to interbreed successfully, to distinguish species; both anatomy and breeding behavior are still important to assigning species status. As a result of the revolutionary (and still ongoing) advance in microbiological research techniques, including DNA analysis, in the last few decades, a great deal of additional knowledge about the differences and similarities between species has become available. Many populations formerly regarded as separate species are now considered a single taxon, and many formerly grouped populations have been split. Any taxonomic level (species, genus, family, etc.) can be synonymized or split, and at higher taxonomic levels, these revisions have been still more profound.

The classification of species has been profoundly affected by technological advances that have allowed researchers to determine relatedness based on molecular markers, starting with the comparatively crude blood plasma precipitation assays in the mid-20th century to Charles Sibley's ground-breaking DNA-DNA hybridization studies in the 1970s leading to DNA sequencing techniques. The results of these techniques caused revolutionary changes in the higher taxonomic categories (such as phyla and classes), resulting in the reordering of many branches of the phylogenetic tree (see also: molecular phylogeny). For taxonomic categories below genera, the results have been mixed so far; the pace of evolutionary change on the molecular level is rather slow, yielding clear differences only after considerable periods of reproductive separation. DNA-DNA hybridization results have led to misleading conclusions, the Pomarine Skua – Great Skua phenomenon being a famous example

So you see there really have been changes. ...and they are RECENT And continuing AND it is not just at the level of species either..it has taken recent advances in genomic testing to clarify many misconceptions.

AND most importantly you are wrong!

 

[painted wolf]

If every subtle variation was labeled a new species... we wouldn't have subspecies or superspecies levels in taxonomy.

wa:do

 

[ninerbuff]

Many Creationists don't really realize that it's only been in the last century that we've been actively searching for physical proof of evolution. There's a lot of digging to be done and less than a handful of diggers actually doing the footwork to help the cause. I am more than sure that we will find non contested evidence of human evolution in the future.

 

[Skwim]

Many Creationists don't really realize that it's only been in the last century that we've been actively searching for physical proof of evolution. There's a lot of digging to be done and less than a handful of diggers actually doing the footwork to help the cause. I am more than sure that we will find non contested evidence of human evolution in the future.

Not from fundamentalists we won't. Almost all creationists are committed to the dogma that evolution is not right and will never be right. So the presentation of evidence will remain a waste of time.

 

[McBell]

Not from fundamentalists we won't. Almost all creationists are committed to the dogma that evolution is not right and will never be right. So the presentation of evidence will remain a waste of time.

I just wish that creationists would actually present some evidence FOR creationism.
Instead they merely present cherry picked articles that they think shows evolution is wrong.
Sad really.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I just wish that creationists would actually present some evidence FOR creationism.
Instead they merely present cherry picked articles that they think shows evolution is wrong.
Sad really.

For me the worry is children. I have a daughter and the idea that she could be indoctrinated in Creationist thinking because of a lapse in vigilance by educators or by the manipulations of those idiots at the Texas Board of Education worries me quite a bit.

 

[Skwim]

I just wish that creationists would actually present some evidence FOR creationism.
Instead they merely present cherry picked articles that they think shows evolution is wrong.
Sad really.

Because the evidence FOR creationism is not there to present, what else do they have? If you can't show you're right, show the other guy is wrong. But what's amusing is how bad they come off when they try. It's a lose-lose situation for them, but entertaining for the rest of us.

 

[David M]

Falvlun ..so you say..."Separate species are pretty clearly defined by non-interbreeding (either b/c they can't, they do but produce sterile offspring, or rarely, the could, but just don't.) "

Note your own words "pretty clearly defined"...in science means "not well defined' which is one point I made that you have supported buy your own arrogant statement. Thanks
__________________________________________________
Falvlun Quote: "This is simply not true: Every variant is not dubbed a "species". In fact, a lot of time has been devoted this past half century in cleaning up the species ranks by consolidating variants into one species-- the exact opposite of what you charge. "

Are you a liar or just ill informed? This summation from Wiki speaks to RECENT changes..what on earth are you on about sprooking about the past 50 years????

A little more help for you Falvlum, From Wiki "Species".
Traditionally, researchers relied on observations of anatomical differences, and on observations of whether different populations were able to interbreed successfully, to distinguish species; both anatomy and breeding behavior are still important to assigning species status. As a result of the revolutionary (and still ongoing) advance in microbiological research techniques, including DNA analysis, in the last few decades, a great deal of additional knowledge about the differences and similarities between species has become available. Many populations formerly regarded as separate species are now considered a single taxon, and many formerly grouped populations have been split. Any taxonomic level (species, genus, family, etc.) can be synonymized or split, and at higher taxonomic levels, these revisions have been still more profound.

The classification of species has been profoundly affected by technological advances that have allowed researchers to determine relatedness based on molecular markers, starting with the comparatively crude blood plasma precipitation assays in the mid-20th century to Charles Sibley's ground-breaking DNA-DNA hybridization studies in the 1970s leading to DNA sequencing techniques. The results of these techniques caused revolutionary changes in the higher taxonomic categories (such as phyla and classes), resulting in the reordering of many branches of the phylogenetic tree (see also: molecular phylogeny). For taxonomic categories below genera, the results have been mixed so far; the pace of evolutionary change on the molecular level is rather slow, yielding clear differences only after considerable periods of reproductive separation. DNA-DNA hybridization results have led to misleading conclusions, the Pomarine Skua – Great Skua phenomenon being a famous example

So you see there really have been changes. ...and they are RECENT And continuing AND it is not just at the level of species either..it has taken recent advances in genomic testing to clarify many misconceptions.

AND most importantly you are wrong!

Underlined and bolded is the section in your own source that says that this activity has been going on for the last 50 years.

Falvlun was entirely correct, as you have demonstrated with a spectacular own-goal. An apology should be given for your accusations of lying levelled at Falvlun.