Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Tiberius]

The truth is, all the evidence is for adaptation......all the experiments are about adaptation.....we have no problem with adaptation because it is an inbuilt mechanism designed to create new members of a family of creatures, which helps them to populate a new area with a new food source. There is no 'actual' evidence for macro-evolution.....it is all based on suggestion and assertions about how far you can stretch adaptation with no proof that it is even possible.

You provide no evidence for your claims (which aren't even clear in the first place) Are you suggesting that evolution exists to produce new food sources for animals?

And there is no mechanism to limit the degree to which evolution can change a population of animals over enough generations.

Especially when it shows you that you believe that things "appeared"...it was your own words coming back to you.

Your response to me saying that all you can do is quibbling over wordplay is to quibble over the same thing again?

Yes it does. The creatures are related and can produce new species of the same family....it can't cross over to a new family no matter how much time you throw at it. Even if the new species can't breed with the old species...they still belong to the same family.

No it doesn't. No two animals will breed and produce a new species. A new species comes about by many small changes adding up over many generations.

What tests did scientists do on the apes that they assumed were early man? The fact is they couldn't tell the difference.

These guys are a figment of a vivid imagination. I do not believe that humans were all apish cave dwellers in the dim dark past. Some people are still primitive in this modern world......it doesn't mean that all humans were primitive cave dwellers.
There is no proof whatsoever that early humans were ape-like. Neanderthals for example, were not stooped over as many textbooks indicated, but were fully human and upright. They were not 'apish' at all.

When it was ascertained that early man was less ape-like than they first thought, the illustrations changed to depict more upright apes. Not because they found apes that were more upright, but because it looked better on the illustration, carrying the idea of this upright ape ancestor, which never actually existed.

This doesn't even come close to answering my question.

In what way can I test two animals to see if they are the same kind or not?

They can adapt, but they will never become a new creature. The new species will be related to the old species....

Agreed. We are all related to the species that came before. That doesn't mean we aren't a new species.

So how do you account for the early beginnings of evolution where there were only cells.....how did those cells decide to become what science claims they did. What were the ancestors of the established species?
I hear about these "common ancestors" but no one seems to know who they were. Shouldn't they at least have been able to identify them? There must be thousands of them....

Actually, there would be fewer of them. Your great great great grandmother is the common ancestor of lots of people who are alive today (most likely), yet there was only one of her.

You guys seem to think that if you throw a few million years at something it can become whatever you will it to. Amoebas can become dinosaurs......with no actual proof that they ever did. Its all guesswork.....

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution.

A lab cannot duplicate evolution but it can show you adaptation.....and in its adaptation it remains true to its original species.....and always will.

There have been several examples of observed speciation.Observed Instances of Speciation

It doesn't really....all it needs is the truth....no one wants to hear the truth....its very inconvenient.

The fact that people don't want to hear what you have to say does not mean you are right.

 

[Shad]

I cannot understand how anyone might suggest that evolution proceeds purely by 'fluke', if that is what is being suggested here. It would be simply mind-boggling that anyone could do that and still believe they were discussing evolution.

That is because they do not understand evolution nor wish to. They completely ignore the species that are extinct thus never draw a proper comparison. This always makes such debates in bad faith or outright ignorance.

 

[Shad]

No it doesn't. No two animals will breed and produce a new species. A new species comes about by many small changes adding up over many generations.

Hybrids. The mule for example. There are natural hybrids as well. Deeje is using family as per taxonomy.

Taxonomy (biology) - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I predict that no one with any interest and knowledge of science will ever adapt the nonsense term 'look and see science'.

Yep...couldn't agree more. Evolutionary science has become what it condemns.....a 'belief system' based on "I think this "might have" happened because it is suggested by my pet theory, and allows me to delete an Intelligent Creator confidently from any conversation".

You can see by the length of the replies how determined they are to diminish ANYTHING that will put their beloved theory into question. That's not science...that is a religion. They are desperately trying to uphold a theory with so many holes that cannot be filled with anything but supposition.....but trying to pretend that evolution is a fact.....IMO, the real fact is...there are no real facts....just conjecture and assumptions backed up with faith in their own belief system.

Look who you have to turn to in order to find support. The inventor of nonsense terms invented to maintain a personal religion. Just wow!

Look at the length you go to. You are frightened of science, because, down deep, you recognize the power of science and the validity of the knowledge acquired using it.

 

[cladking]

You can see by the length of the replies how determined they are to diminish ANYTHING that will put their beloved theory into question. That's not science...that is a religion. They are desperately trying to uphold a theory with so many holes that cannot be filled with anything but supposition.....but trying to pretend that evolution is a fact.....IMO, the real fact is...there are no real facts....just conjecture and assumptions backed up with faith in their own belief system.

And all they need is one single experiment to show many small changes over a long time adds up to a new species! All the experiments and observation shows something else but we each see what we want to see.

One of tyhe things we want to see is that reductionism works.

 

[cladking]

...you recognize the power of science and the validity of the knowledge acquired using it.

One can not acquire knowledge using "science". Theory requires experiment.

 

[PureX]

But its the elephant in the room....

I agree. But it's not an elephant that science is capable of addressing.

 

[Tiberius]

Hybrids. The mule for example. There are natural hybrids as well. Deeje is using family as per taxonomy.

Taxonomy (biology) - Wikipedia

But since the mules are typically sterile, it's irrelevant. A species requires a breeding population, which is impossible with mules. Horses and donkeys are two separate species because they can't mate and produce fertile offspring. The fact that they can produce offspring at all indicates that the horse/donkey split was comparatively recently. It is entirely consistent with evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hybrids. The mule for example. There are natural hybrids as well. Deeje is using family as per taxonomy.

Taxonomy (biology) - Wikipedia

It is a recent assertion of creationism that kind means taxonomic family. But there is nothing in the Bible to indicate this or what is meant by kind. It is another attempt to force a scientific concept to fit the biblical narrative without any reason for it to fit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will curse God for cancer when you praise Him for sunsets.

Well thanks for such a fantastic non-response.

 

[Shad]

It is a recent assertion of creationism that kind means taxonomic family. But there is nothing in the Bible to indicate this or what is meant by kind. It is another attempt to force a scientific concept to fit the biblical narrative without any reason for it to fit.

Irrelevant. Mules are considered a species and a member of the same family as the parent species. The claim was two species couldn't produce a new one. That is not a biblical issue but one of biology. I answered with biological facts.

 

[Shad]

But since the mules are typically sterile, it's irrelevant.

Nope. The claim was two species could not produce a new one. That is factually incorrect.

A species requires a breeding population, which is impossible with mules. Horses and donkeys are two separate species because they can't mate and produce fertile offspring. The fact that they can produce offspring at all indicates that the horse/donkey split was comparatively recently. It is entirely consistent with evolution.

I pointed out there are natural hybrid not created by humans. The Lonicera fly which is fertile is one example. You didn't bother doing any research only sticking with one point while ignoring other points. Try again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? So you are admitting that God is responsibile for cancer, you just won't curse him for it until @SkepticThinker praises him for sunsets?

What you seem to be saying, then, is if SkepticThinker doesn't believe in God, you are fine with the God you believe in being the author of all evil, as well as good. Well, that's a start...

I'll paraphrase for your benefit:

Christians and atheists have this in common, they question misfortune. Usually, Christians don't complain, "God, why did you bless me so much?!"

But the incessant whining of skeptics about trouble in the world proves this challenge valid:

I will curse God for the world's evil as soon as skeptics praise the Lord Jesus Christ for making babies, rainbows and sunsets!

 

[McBell]

I'll paraphrase for your benefit:

Christians and atheists have this in common, they question misfortune. Usually, Christians don't complain, "God, why did you bless me so much?!"

But the incessant whining of skeptics about trouble in the world proves this challenge valid:

I will curse God for the world's evil as soon as skeptics praise the Lord Jesus Christ for making babies, rainbows and sunsets!

sadly for you, your paraphrase merely reinforced Evangelicalhumanist point...

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As for speciation, I'll refer you back to the law of monophy. Species can not outgrow their ancestry.
All descendents of canines will remain canines.
All descendents of eukaryotes, will remain eukaryotes.
All descendents of ape, will remain apes.
All descendents of mammals, will remain mammals.

Exactly!

But do you believe all descendants of fish are....fish?
You do if you believe in Common Descent.

 

[Tiberius]

Nope. The claim was two species could not produce a new one. That is factually incorrect.

A species requires a breeding population. You haven't provided one.

I pointed out there are natural hybrid not created by humans. The Lonicera fly which is fertile is one example. You didn't bother doing any research only sticking with one point while ignoring other points. Try again.

Given that the two parent species are extremely closely related, I'm not too surprised. It's interesting, of course, but it's entirely consistent with evolution that when a population is separated, they don't immediately become incapable of cross breeding.

 

[Tiberius]

Exactly!

But do you believe all descendants of fish are....fish?
You do if you believe in Common Descent.

Actually, there's no such thing as a fish. Actually, There's No Such Thing as a Fish, Say Cladists

 

[Deeje]

Actually, there's no such thing as a fish. Actually, There's No Such Thing as a Fish, Say Cladists

Excellent article! Everyone should read this.....
"Fish. They seem so innocent and harmless. But secretly, they're subverting scientific law and order."

"That's according to a group of scientists nicknamed *cladists for their support of a scientific classification system of species based on clades."
* https://www.conservationmagazine.org/2009/11/science-vs-instinct/

"A clade is a fancy term for all of and only the modern species descended via evolution from a specific common ancestor."

OK so here we have "cladists" who support the "scientific classification system of species based on clades"....so who invented the the classification system? Not evolutionists surely???? Is that a red flag?

What other gems can we glean...?

"This is where fish get into trouble. A lot of trouble. Trouble the size of an elephant, a whale, and an emperor penguin all put together.

That's because all life evolved out of the water. Reptiles, mammals, birds - even dinosaurs - all came from something that we would say looked pretty much like a fish. And there's so much more diversity among what we call "fish" in every day conversation that they spread far around the outskirts of these subgroups.

Here's a simplified depiction of the problem at hand:

Petter Bøckman/Wikimedia Commons/Tech Insider

I know which makes more sense to me....

Who said that all vertebrates must be related?

As you can see, there's no way to draw a clade that will encompass everything we call a fish without snagging a mouse or a manatee along the way.

So for the cladists, either there is no such thing as fish - or we're fish too."

I have heard that we are related to bananas as well....how amazing. Am I eating a relative with my breakfast cereal?

"Of course, the cladists' approach to species is useful for asking certain questions. When evolution has literally built everything you are thinking about, classifying all those things based on how evolution works makes a lot of sense.

But it's hard not to find the proclaimed death of the idea of a fish a little absurd."

I couldn't agree more......absurd is a good description IMO. What a brilliant finish.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irrelevant. Mules are considered a species and a member of the same family as the parent species. The claim was two species couldn't produce a new one. That is not a biblical issue but one of biology. I answered with biological facts.

Why is the recent attempt by creationists to assert that kind means taxonomic family irrelevant? You mentioned that kind was being used as taxonomic family and I elaborated on that comment. My comments on that subject are not irrelevant.

What are you going on about? I made no mention of mules. I made no claims about hybrid speciation, nor did I mention anything about hybrid speciation being biblical. You are attacking points I never made.

Actually, mules are not considered a separate species, because they are usually sterile and cannot sustain breeding populations. A biological fact. However, not all hybrids result in sterile offspring and hybridization can lead to the evolution of a new species. A recent speciation event in North American Tragopodon involved hybridization between two introduced species resulting in breeding populations of a new species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. The claim was two species could not produce a new one. That is factually incorrect.



I pointed out there are natural hybrid not created by humans. The Lonicera fly which is fertile is one example. You didn't bother doing any research only sticking with one point while ignoring other points. Try again.

I wonder if there are any entomologist on this forum that might be familiar with this fly species?