• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
outhouse said:
No you do.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14419987117129&key=ae542f5a52c8f753389759c2b8699195&libId=ieg0sw3p0100z0g7000DA8sa7g8xh&loc=http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/evidence-showing-evolution-from-one-species-to-another.179987/page-6&v=1&out=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html&ref=http://www.religiousforums.com/forums/evolution-vs-creationism.65/&title=Evidence showing evolution from one species to another | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com&txt=<b>Evolution is a Fact and a Theory</b>
Click to expand...

What has the author proved? Absolutely nothing. He bases his facts on assumptions. That's called an argument from assumption and is fallacious.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
leibowde84 said:
Yeah ... I've seen that. They start with what is an incorrect assumption about the meaning of the word "fact". Here is what makes something a fact, imho.

"A thing that is indisputably the case".
Click to expand...

Yes and macroevolution is very disputable. We're disputing it right now.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
First Baseman said:
Great. So because these flies have different allele frequencies the author speculates that one must have evolved from the other. More assumption, no proof.
Click to expand...

"The biological sciences now generally define evolution as being the sum total of the genetically inherited changes in the individuals who are the members of a population's gene pool. It is clear that the effects of evolution are felt by individuals, but it is the population as a whole that actually evolves. Evolution is simply a change in frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm

No really. You just don't know what evolution means, apparently.

"At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern."

1. This could be explained in several ways. First, it could be an entire new species not yet discovered but assumed to have mutated.
Click to expand...

Not only did they observe the population numbers, they predicted future population numbers with the size of the islands:

J. Albert C. Uy, Luis E. Vargas-Castro. Island size predicts the frequency of melanic birds in the color-polymorphic flycatcher Monarcha castaneiventris of the Solomon Islands. The Auk, 2015; 132 (4): 787 DOI: 10.1642/AUK-14-284.1

2. Show how the single amino acid mutated to create an entirely different kind of insectivore and prove it happened.
Click to expand...

Anyway, neither of these two examples is an example of one kind of animal changing entirely into a new kind of animal. Rather, you've just shown, if you've shown anything, is how Noah got all the animals on the ark.[/quote]

Nope, haven't been around long enough to see a complete specification of animals (highly complex organisms) in our lifetime. Just evolutionary theory predicts things like the changes in allele frequency mentioned above, and comes out right sometimes, as opposed to the Bible, which has never cured a single disease, by the way.

He only needed one of each kind.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a kind in science. Sorry. There has never been, ever discovered any line where genetic mutations can't happen or stop happening keeping one "kind" from "another".
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
First Baseman said:
Yes, it does. Genus and species do not necessarily differentiate between like kinds of animals which is why I don't use those terms.
Click to expand...
But, you are using circular reasoning. The term "kind", which is erroneous, assumes your argument in its definition. Thus, it is a bit unreasonable to expect me to use this erroneous term, or even grant it any valid meaning. The evidence shows evolution from species to species, even between the species that eventually became Humans. We can look directly at the movement from one species to another.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
First Baseman said:
Fail. Try again?
Click to expand...

dust1n said:
So what hard facts did you need that God provided, and by what manner did you go about testing these hard facts?
Click to expand...

By the way, are you going to contently blatantly ignoring my question?

You were mad because others didn't use tests for their hard facts. Yet you have all the hard facts you need from your God. So what are those hard facts, and by what manner did you go testing each of them. I'm curious about you seemed disappointed about the state of science doing this, but then you appear to basically be doing that. At the same time, appear to be claiming to know anything about science, when you clearly haven't studied any of it, nor have you provided a single scientific source for any claim.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
outhouse said:
Your refusal of academia does not mean academia is up for debate.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Aristotle and Plato made a living off of debate about academia. Your acceptance of academia does not make it fact.

There was a time when academia laughed at Galileo and assumed the world was flat. There were wrong, too.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
leibowde84 said:
But, you are using circular reasoning. The term "kind", which is erroneous, assumes your argument in its definition. Thus, it is a bit unreasonable to expect me to use this erroneous term, or even grant it any valid meaning. The evidence shows evolution from species to species, even between the species that eventually became Humans. We can look directly at the movement from one species to another.
Click to expand...

No, you can only assume it happened. There is zero proof that it did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top