Evolution taken on Faith

[metis]

im not influenced by evolution...not in the slightest.

Actually you have been but just don't realize it. It would be as mistaken as saying "I'm not influenced by the sun... not in the slightest".

Directly or indirectly, you are influenced by both.

 

[johnhanks]

what organisms have you observed change from one type into another?

Evolution does not involve "organisms" changing from one "type" into another. Evolution is genetic change in populations, such that over many generations the members of a population may become very different from the ancestral form: at no stage in this process does an organism change from one "type" into another.

If you want an example of animal populations in which this has been observed, the house mice of the Faroe Islands are very well documented: the island mice are indeed a distinct type from those on the mainland. (And if you're going to tell us that's not what you mean by "type", then perhaps you can also take the opportunity to tell us precisely what the term is supposed to mean.)

what organisms have you observed change from one type into another?

A different approach to the same question: like (probably) yourself, I have observed caterpillars change into butterflies. No, it's not evolution, but you'd be surprised how recent is the general awareness that a butterfly and its caterpillar are the same species ("type" if you prefer): in the Middle Ages it was widely believed that a caterpillar was a kind of worm, while adult butterflies were thought to be flowers that had taken wing. What makes insect metamorphosis germane to your question is that it shows how a small shift in the way a genome is read can cause a major change in body form: and if that can happen within a single organism's life cycle, imagine how much more change can be effected in a whole population over very many generations.

 

[averageJOE]

the question posed was; can you give 1 example of one type of animal changing into another type of animal?

Can you give one example?

Do you understand that if an animal "changed" into another animal, or gave birth to a different type of animal in a single life time, that it would shatter the theory of evolution?

 

[averageJOE]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

Science is based on 'observable and demonstrable evidence. But evolution is not based on such evidence....it requires faith - blind faith at that.


Watch the video and decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

Typical Ray Comfort. Asks a question, cuts them off mid-answer with "NOO!!! That isn't observable because it was 65 million years ago!!", then skirts off to the next question. Guy is a joke.

 

[dust1n]

I have one. It is impressive what can be done with selective editing and picking and choosing citations to display them out of context.

Who knew editing could make someone look ill-prepared to speak on a subject asked randomly while in the park on peculiar in subjects in which individuals may not specialize in.

Perhaps they should have an interviewed a class in biology. I found what they were looking for now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgHd6HKtvE

It's an entire semester of being in Yale learning about evolution. Have at it, creationists.

 

[outhouse]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

Only for theist who want to remain willfully ignorant to biology.

Science is based on 'observable and demonstrable evidence. But evolution is not based on such evidence....it requires faith - blind faith at that.

This is an example of your willful ignorance on the topic at hand.

Evolution is both fact and theory, and evolution has been observed.




We cannot make you accept the education and knowledge, and people who pervert science like the vid you posted, are partially to blame for your refusal of facts at hand.

 

[Ouroboros]

Every single person is a "kind". We are all genetically unique (that's why DNA testing can be used for criminal investigation). Every individual of a species is a "kind" within the population. Using "kind" to apply to some essence of a species was refuted about 40-50 years ago (IIRC). Any essentialism where's there a saltation of "kinds" does not fit the evidence that's been found in research.

Comfort and Cameron from the Way of the Master are infamously known for the "banana argument" which was a huge pie in their faces and they had to remove the videos.

So... should they be trusted to understand science or evolution? Not one iota.

Especially not after that they released a reprint of Darwin's book where chapters had been edited out and a foreword twisting Darwin's words.

 

[Ouroboros]

Typical Ray Comfort. Asks a question, cuts them off mid-answer with "NOO!!! That isn't observable because it was 65 million years ago!!", then skirts off to the next question. Guy is a joke.

He's an expert on spinning and misconstrue data and people's opinions.

I wouldn't trust his views the slightest.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think you know what faith means, Pegg. You're the one whose worldview is based on faith. You haven't the slightest shred of evidence for your Bible beliefs. It's the opposite with scientific theories such as evolution.

 

[Pegg]

The past leaves traces in the present. The genetics of modern organisms show the genetic history of their lineages. This amounts to observation of evolution.

Evolution is observable, and has been observed, in organisms with short generation times.

This "not observable" canard is a sign that you have been conned.

they can study the genetics of modern organisms because they can extract genetic material from them.... but what genetic material can they extract from fossils? Zilch.

So yes its true that living things can be traced, its not true that fossils can be traced.

And likewise, observing evolution in organisms with short generation times only shows how those organisms can adapt over a short time. You dont see those organisms change from an organism of one family into a completely different family. That has never been observed.

 

[Pegg]

Don't play dumb, Pegg. It's beneath a child, let alone an adult. I'm still waiting for your answer.

if i was playing dumb, i'd just accept that Evolution was true and not ask any more questions about it

 

[Pegg]

Evolution does not involve "organisms" changing from one "type" into another. Evolution is genetic change in populations, such that over many generations the members of a population may become very different from the ancestral form: at no stage in this process does an organism change from one "type" into another.

I can agree with that, 100%

But its unfortunate that evolutionists take this clear simple truth one step too far when they claim that this same process changes a fish into a mammal or a monkey into a man.

If you want an example of animal populations in which this has been observed, the house mice of the Faroe Islands are very well documented: the island mice are indeed a distinct type from those on the mainland. (And if you're going to tell us that's not what you mean by "type", then perhaps you can also take the opportunity to tell us precisely what the term is supposed to mean.)

by 'type' i mean the difference between a cat and a dog, or a horse and cow, or a bird and fish. Im not talking about 'species' but completely different families.

A different approach to the same question: like (probably) yourself, I have observed caterpillars change into butterflies. No, it's not evolution, but you'd be surprised how recent is the general awareness that a butterfly and its caterpillar are the same species ("type" if you prefer): in the Middle Ages it was widely believed that a caterpillar was a kind of worm, while adult butterflies were thought to be flowers that had taken wing. What makes insect metamorphosis germane to your question is that it shows how a small shift in the way a genome is read can cause a major change in body form: and if that can happen within a single organism's life cycle, imagine how much more change can be effected in a whole population over very many generations.

catapilars always produce a butterfly. They dont start changing into birds or any other type of flying insect....they remain butterflies generation after generation.

 

[Ouroboros]

they can study the genetics of modern organisms because they can extract genetic material from them.... but what genetic material can they extract from fossils? Zilch.

True. But... bones have features that are guided by genes. Those features can be studied and compared. For instance, the suborbital constriction on the skull, or the sutures, or the dental arc, or number and shapes of cusps, or ...

When two very similar species have many shared features but some different, and then you have a third species that share features with the second one but not the first one, and so on, then you know they are related. It's like how the textual comparison of the Biblical fragments are done to date and compare which one was copied from which. If this doesn't work for evolution and the fossil record... well, then it doesn't work for Biblical historical research either.

So yes its true that living things can be traced, its not true that fossils can be traced.

Yes, they can. The bones, both in shape and composition (you can study trace elements and chemical composition to find out diet and other things), can tell more than you think.

Secondly, the fossils are organized in layers that are of different ages. It doesn't matter if you believe in dating methods or not, the deeper strata is older strata, and older strata contains simpler lifeforms and simpler forms of the newer species. It's like looking at a movie, picture by picture, still frame by still frame, and see how it slowly changes to simpler forms.

And likewise, observing evolution in organisms with short generation times only shows how those organisms can adapt over a short time. You dont see those organisms change from an organism of one phylum into a completely different phylum. That has never been observed.

The adaptation that you're talking about is genetic change. The shape of a person, being, species is defined by the genes (hox genes and such). And those genes do mutate as well. So if the genes that controls your body shape can mutate and do mutate, then those mutations cause now body shapes. Simple. And this has been studied too. Change hox genes in a fly and you can give them extra legs or wings. Change them in a chicken and you can give them teeth (they have the gene for teeth, but they're dormant=turned off).

 

[Ouroboros]

I can agree with that, 100%

But its unfortunate that evolutionists take this clear simple truth one step too far when they claim that this same process changes a fish into a mammal or a monkey into a man.




by 'type' i mean the difference between a cat and a dog, or a horse and cow, or a bird and fish. Im not talking about 'species' but completely different families.




catapilars always produce a butterfly. They dont start changing into birds or any other type of flying insect....they remain butterflies generation after generation.

Types and "kinds" are defined by familiarity. There are differences with all individuals in a population, but because of compatibility the differences aren't a hinder. When the compatibility fails because of environmental niches and selective pressure, you can get a fork in the population which creates two separate lines of variations over time.

 

[Pegg]

Types and "kinds" are defined by familiarity. There are differences with all individuals in a population, but because of compatibility the differences aren't a hinder. When the compatibility fails because of environmental niches and selective pressure, you can get a fork in the population which creates two separate lines of variations over time.

within a family or type, there are many differences, yes.

But the differences between families (ie dogs and cats) are enormous and they are not linked biologically.

And this is the part of evolution that they cannot observe or test by experiment. They have never observed the big changes needed to change one family into another yet they still claim thats how the variety of families arrived.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

they can study the genetics of modern organisms because they can extract genetic material from them.... but what genetic material can they extract from fossils? Zilch.

So yes its true that living things can be traced, its not true that fossils can be traced.

And likewise, observing evolution in organisms with short generation times only shows how those organisms can adapt over a short time. You dont see those organisms change from an organism of one family into a completely different family. That has never been observed.

Nor would it be observed if evolution were true. Evolution does not change one family of animal into another family - that's not how it works. Evolution produces variation within the phenotype, not change from one phenotype to another. For example, dogs evolved from wolves. This means that dogs are a kind of wolf - a variation on them. At no point will any dog produce a non-dog (or a non-wolf), however, they will produce variations of dogs, just as the first dogs were the result of wolves producing variations of wolves. Do you understand?

 

[Pegg]

Nor would it be observed if evolution were true. Evolution does not change one family of animal into another family - that's not how it works. Evolution produces variation within the phenotype, not change from one phenotype to another. For example, dogs evolved from wolves. This means that dogs are a kind of wolf - a variation on them. At no point will any dog produce a non-dog (or a non-wolf), however, they will produce variations of dogs, just as the first dogs were the result of wolves producing variations of wolves. Do you understand?

of course, thats exactly what im saying.

Yet evolutionists would have us believe that fish in the ocean climbed out of the ocean, developed lungs and began walking on land.

 

[averageJOE]

of course, thats exactly what im saying.

Yet evolutionists would have us believe that fish in the ocean climbed out of the ocean, developed lungs and began walking on land.

Not in a single life time or generation!!!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pegg.

This is from Understanding Evolution at Berkeley edu.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.CORRECTION:*This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we*can*study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit*our news story on climate change,*our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or*our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To*learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.

 

[Pegg]

Not in a single life time or generation!!!

hence, unobservable, right?

And that is the point of the thread. Evolutionists are not following the scientific method.

The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to make these conclusions, just like you will use the Scientific Method in your science fair project. You will think through the various possibilities using the Scientific Method to eventually come to an answer to your original question.

The observation is done first so that you know how you want to go about your research.
The hypothesis is the answer you think you'll find. The prediction is your specific belief about the scientific idea: If my hypothesis is true, then I predict we will discover.....
The experiment is the tool that you invent to answer the question, and the conclusion is the answer that the experiment gives.

The scientific method requires an observation first. But evolutionists cannot observe the creation of new families.... they have invented something that doesnt exist and claim that it is 'scientifically' proven when its not even scientifically observable. IOW, its not 'real' science....its make believe akin to a myth.