Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Breathe]

Wait a minute, someone one here told me that the wolf (non-dog) gave birth to a dog.

After a long time, yes, but it doesn't appear like that. Nothing like a crocoduck.

According to the theory, but not according to the evidence.

According to whom? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Overwhelming evidence supporting microevolution.

There's no distinction between "micro" and "macro". These are creationist terms not applicable.

There is an argument, called the “Argument from Design”, check it out.

"Fine tuned"? Heh. Humans have a blind spot.
Why would that be deliberately designed?

A con.

Wishful thinking.

Actually, that is how it works, it just doesn’t happen in a short time span, according to you.

It still appears you don't understand what evolution actually is. Human existence is irrelevant.

Well, suppose man “adapts” to look like a tiger. Based on your logic that can happen if the circumstances permit it.

It still appears you don't understand what evolution actually is; there would be no need to adapt, plus we're from a completely different genetic lineage.

Anyone’s observation. No one has ever seen it. Not one.

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Observed Instances of Speciation

Slight variations within the kind.

Define "kind".
Evolution and Philosophy: Why are natural kinds supposed to stay fixed?

Hold your breath and don’t breath again until you notice a change.

Again, this isn't evolution.

PS, sorry about not responding, I keep losing this thread and going to the "Evidence" thread.

 

[Sculelos]

Evolution = 2, Energy changing from a lower point to a higher point to a higher point then gaining more energy then repeating the process again.

We gave actually seen this happen before. However time and natural selection have very little to do with it. Remember the law of averages mean that something can only bend so much before it breaks. The curse of getting larger and larger is that you need more and more to survive, eventually your energy supplies run low and then the largest dies out. That or the genes get saturated to the point where they can not tolerate any more data and simply the host goes sterile.

 

[Sha'irullah]

And as far as I can tell, it doesn’t work your way either. You are saying that long ago when no one was around to observe it, it happened. Then you go on to say that no one that is alive today will ever see it occur either. This is almost like a con-artist tactic. “No one has ever saw it, nor will anyone EVER see it, but it happened.” What kind of con-artist scheme is this?

No body witnessed the murders of many people yet we still have evidence. Do you not believe inf forensics?
Fossils do not lie and I can assure you that nor does DNA.

Did you jelly fish near Japan are slightly evolving in their size and acquiring different attributes such as more tentacles and some loosing their stingers? They are now becoming a top killer for fish instead of the Japanese themselves.

In Madagascar new species are found often with the primary ones being salamanders and lizards in general. How does a new species pop out of nowhere in well explored areas? Why are their variations between species now?

 

[johnhanks]

And as far as I can tell, it doesn’t work your way either. You are saying that long ago when no one was around to observe it, [non-dog giving birth to dog] happened...

No, no-one is saying that. I know you react badly to being told this, but your understanding of evolution is really very poor indeed.

Evolutionary change occurs in populations, not individuals. Individual animals in a population come and go: what persists is the gene (and genotype) pool, and that is what changes over long periods of time. So yes, once there was a population of non-dogs whose gene pool coded for a non-doggy body (a miacid body, perhaps). Over very many generations that gene pool was gradually altered into a gene pool coding for a doggy body; every generation born was recognisably similar to its parents, but if you could compare an individual from generation 0 to one from (say) generation 1 000 000 they'd look very different.

And remember - the difference between a non-dog population's gene pool and a dog population's gene pool is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. All it needs to turn one into the other is time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

After a long time, yes, but it doesn't appear like that. Nothing like a crocoduck.

But we all allegedly came from a common ancestor though.

According to whom? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Everything but the observation part lol.

There's no distinction between "micro" and "macro". These are creationist terms not applicable.

Okey Dokey

"Fine tuned"? Heh. Humans have a blind spot.
Why would that be deliberately designed?

I don’t know what a blind spot is. All I know is I can see.

Wishful thinking.

I can say the same thing to you and the ToE lol.

It still appears you don't understand what evolution actually is. Human existence is irrelevant.

Who said it was?

It still appears you don't understand what evolution actually is; there would be no need to adapt, plus we're from a completely different genetic lineage.

I understand what it is, I just don’t believe it.

Define "kind".
Evolution and Philosophy: Why are natural kinds supposed to stay fixed?

Dog kind, cat kind, fish kind, horse kind, snake kind.

Again, this isn't evolution.

Sure it is.

PS, sorry about not responding, I keep losing this thread and going to the "Evidence" thread.

No prob.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No body witnessed the murders of many people yet we still have evidence. Do you not believe inf forensics?

Fossils do not lie and I can assure you that nor does DNA.

Evidence for murder is not the same as evidence for evolution. Evidence for murder is a “who did it.” Evidence for evolution is “where did it come from”.

Did you jelly fish near Japan are slightly evolving in their size and acquiring different attributes such as more tentacles and some loosing their stingers? They are now becoming a top killer for fish instead of the Japanese themselves.

Are those jelly fish changing to a different kind of animal? Not at all.

In Madagascar new species are found often with the primary ones being salamanders and lizards in general. How does a new species pop out of nowhere in well explored areas? Why are their variations between species now?

Variations within the kind…no new kind of animal is being created.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, no-one is saying that. I know you react badly to being told this, but your understanding of evolution is really very poor indeed.

If we all share a common ancestor then obviously my “take” on evolution is completely in line with the theory. If me and my dog share a common ancestor, then obviously me and my dog came from something that was neither human nor dog, thus, an “animal” producing different kind of animals. How on earth is my understanding of evolution poor when I am completely in line with the bogus theory? If you say “we share a common ancestor”, what the heck do you mean then if the way I take it is incorrect?

Evolutionary change occurs in populations, not individuals. Individual animals in a population come and go: what persists is the gene (and genotype) pool, and that is what changes over long periods of time.

And my point is there is a limit to the change. I am going by what humans have observed since we inhabited this earth. All we have ever seen is an animal producing its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. The only changes that we see occur is the change within the kind…and different variation of the same kind of animal.

So yes, once there was a population of non-dogs whose gene pool coded for a non-doggy body (a miacid body, perhaps). Over very many generations that gene pool was gradually altered into a gene pool coding for a doggy body; every generation born was recognisably similar to its parents, but if you could compare an individual from generation 0 to one from (say) generation 1 000 000 they'd look very different.

That is a cool theory. But there is no observational evidence for it, so how is this science? I have a theory too. God created different kind of animals, and made every kind of animal capable of producing different variations of its kind. Neither one of our theories were observed, yet yours is called “science” and mines get rejected because it has an ID factor in it. Yet, postulating ID does not stop science, because even if God created the wolf and all dogs are descendents of the wolf,that is STILL science.

You said “once there was a population of non-dogs whose gene pool coded for a non0doggy body…”

You were not there, so how do you know? That is your presupposed interpretation, not empirical or observational evidence.

And remember - the difference between a non-dog population's gene pool and a dog population's gene pool is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. All it needs to turn one into the other is time.

Of course, time.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm thoroughly convinced that there are just people out there who don't pass the cognitive threshold which allows one to understand the concepts involved in evolution. It seems simple once you understand it, but it requires the ability to combine and conceptualize a number of abstract ideas. Just as only a very few people are really capable of understanding the special theory of relativity, only a subset of people can really grasp evolution enough to get it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Evidence for murder is not the same as evidence for evolution. Evidence for murder is a “who did it.” Evidence for evolution is “where did it come from”.



Are those jelly fish changing to a different kind of animal? Not at all.




Variations within the kind…no new kind of animal is being created.

You fail to understand that evolution DOES result in new species. Given enough time this will occur. Jelly fish have no evolved into a new species but they are definitely changing without significant environmental changes.
Also humans are not outside of the loophole of apes. We are not separate creature and are nothing else but a form of primate.
You really fail to understand the basics of evolution

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm thoroughly convinced that there are just people out there who don't pass the cognitive threshold which allows one to understand the concepts involved in evolution. It seems simple once you understand it, but it requires the ability to combine and conceptualize a number of abstract ideas. Just as only a very few people are really capable of understanding the special theory of relativity, only a subset of people can really grasp evolution enough to get it.

When you take away all of the technical fluff and feathers and let the smoke clear, what you have is a theory that is telling us that every living species today share a common ancester. What that means is.....long ago, animals started producing different kind of animals. There is nothing else to "grasp". That is what the theory means.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Do you seriously not understand evolution? It is quite far from a theory actually. You are essentially denying solid evidence and rejection that species of animals exist

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You fail to understand that evolution DOES result in new species. Given enough time this will occur. Jelly fish have no evolved into a new species but they are definitely changing without significant environmental changes.
Also humans are not outside of the loophole of apes. We are not separate creature and are nothing else but a form of primate.
You really fail to understand the basics of evolution

Thanks for telling me your religion. Here is mines: A supernatural Creator of the whole universe created the universe and creatures to inhabit it. He created an original "kind" of each animal and gave every "original" kind the capability to create a wild variaties of animals within its kind..which is why we have big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS.

That is my religion. We have just shared religious views. The world is a beautiful place to live in when you can share your religious views with others.

 

[adi2d]

Thanks for telling me your religion. Here is mines: A supernatural Creator of the whole universe created the universe and creatures to inhabit it. He created an original "kind" of each animal and gave every "original" kind the capability to create a wild variaties of animals within its kind..which is why we have big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS.

That is my religion. We have just shared religious views. The world is a beautiful place to live in when you can share your religious views with others.

Can you expand a little? How about bugs. Are all bugs one kind? Are all fish the same kind? Maybe a list would be helpful. How many kinds can we come up with?

 

[Ouroboros]

All life is of one kind: the life kind. From there, we all "micro-evolved" into different species.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Thanks for telling me your religion. Here is mines: A supernatural Creator of the whole universe created the universe and creatures to inhabit it. He created an original "kind" of each animal and gave every "original" kind the capability to create a wild variaties of animals within its kind..which is why we have big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS.

That is my religion. We have just shared religious views. The world is a beautiful place to live in when you can share your religious views with others.

How does these varying animal create differ subspecies of each other? This is the issue. If you you say through inherent changes over time you have described evolution.
Please provide to me the basic evidence for your claims as well
Also I have never told you my religious views

 

[adi2d]

All life is of one kind: the life kind. From there, we all "micro-evolved" into different species.[/QUOTE


I get it now. Thanks. So there isn't dogkind catkind horsekind etc. Its all lifekind and notlifekind. Its so clear now

 

[johnhanks]

If we all share a common ancestor then obviously my “take” on evolution is completely in line with the theory. If me and my dog share a common ancestor, then obviously me and my dog came from something that was neither human nor dog, thus, an “animal” producing different kind of animals. How on earth is my understanding of evolution poor when I am completely in line with the bogus theory? If you say “we share a common ancestor”, what the heck do you mean then if the way I take it is incorrect?

I was referring specifically to your insistence that at some stage in evolution a non-dog had to give birth to a dog. Yes, you and your dog can trace your ancestry back to a common ancestor that was neither - probably a Cretaceous insectivore - but no individual animal on the way had to give birth to a different "kind" (whatever that means).

And my point is there is a limit to the change.

Since the change we are talking about is the sequence of nucleotides in a gene pool, and such change can be observed from generation to generation, what sets that limit?

That is a cool theory. But there is no observational evidence for it, so how is this science?

As I said, we have ample observational evidence of changes in gene pools: the only difference between a wolf population's gene pool giving rise to the genome of domesticated dogs, and a non-canine population's gene pool giving rise to that of the first canines, is one of degree. You claim there is a limit on how much a genome can change - that, say, ATCCCGTAGGCT is allowed to change as far as ATCGGGTAGGCT but not as far as ATATAGGTAGTAT. Please explain how that limit works.

 

[johnhanks]

When you take away all of the technical fluff and feathers and let the smoke clear, what you have is a theory that is telling us that every living species today share a common ancester.

The "technical fluff and feathers" make the difference between a just-so story and a workable mechanism which explains the diversity of life on earth. We realise that it is very important for you not to understand the technical fluff and feathers: that way you can continue to pretend that there is no such mechanism.

What that means is.....long ago, animals started producing different kind of animals. There is nothing else to "grasp". That is what the theory means.

I have explained here what the theory means. For you, it seems, there is a lot still to grasp.

Edit: nearly forgot - still waiting for your definition of bird kind.

 

[Ouroboros]

I get it now. Thanks. So there isn't dogkind catkind horsekind etc. Its all lifekind and notlifekind. Its so clear now

Or biochemical reactions and non-biochemical reactions.

One point to make about evolution is that it has been proven through DNA. There are several methods that have been used to confirm genetic relationships in the phylogenic tree. The same methods that have been used to determine interrelationships within "kinds" of species, also applies exactly the same to throw a larger net.

 

[Breathe]

But we all allegedly came from a common ancestor though.

Nothing like a duck and crocodile together ancestor. For one, they're in different classes. They're millions of years away in terms of evolution.

Everything but the observation part lol.

"Evolution has never been observed."​

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Source: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution​

I don’t know what a blind spot is. All I know is I can see.

Put your left hand over your left eye (so, seeing only out of your right eye), look at the +, and move your face towards the monitor, slowly.

The circle will disappear.

Because humans have a blind spot; there's an area we don't actually see.

Who said it was?

You seemed to.

I understand what it is, I just don’t believe it.

Apparently not, though.

Dog kind, cat kind, fish kind, horse kind, snake kind.

Are dogs and wolves a kind? Dingoes? Foxes?
What about domestic cats and lions? Tigers? Hyenas, cheetahs, Meerkats?
Goldfish, lamprey, tuna, stingrays, seahorses? Sharks? Hagfish?
Horse, zebra, onager, African wild ***?
Pythons, cobras, vipers, boa constrictor, milk snakes? The reticulated python, at 30 feet long, and the Barbados threadsnake, less than a quarter in size?

I don't know what a Biblical 'kind' is, but congrats, there's gotta be evolution involved, or aliens.