Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Monk Of Reason]

yes the literal version of pretty much everything in Genesis we know is impossible thanks to science. The earth is older than 6k years old, we evolve so there was no 2 original humans that begat the rest of us.

Many sects of christianity have backtracked to say this is merely the symbolic version of the "truth". Though even then its a stretch and a half.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So please tell me what those words mean and how you define them as such. I've already explained to you that "dogs" are a subspecies of grey wolf, so we already know that dogs came from something that is not categorized as a dog.

A wolf isn't categorized as a dog because scientists that already presuppose evolution made the categorization. Tell me; what reason do you have to conclude that all dogs evolved from grey wolf? I admit, all dogs may share a common ancestor with the wolf, but not in terms of macroevolution. The grey wolf was already a DOG.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzzwrxFa6H1qgzqeto1_500.jpg

This is not macroevolution....this is microevolution. Every single one of them are dogs.

Why would we expect to? All variation occurs WITHIN that particular taxonomic rank.

But no new kind of animal is being created.

It's not an exception - everything reproduces a copy of itself, but with variation. The only difference is that you have decided that you believe that this variation is somehow limited, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary in the fossil record, genetics and anthropology.

It is limited, a dog has never been able to produce a non-dog. Why do you believe that in the distant past animals were doing things that the animals of today haven't been able to do??

You have yet to demonstrate exactly what mechanism prevents speciation, and you cannot define your terms well enough to provide any kind of test of them. Your words are meaningless and based on ignorance of evolution and of biology.

I agree, speciation is science. We can see it, we can observe it. But it has limitations.

The more you repeat lie does not add to its credibility. It's extremely telling that I asked you for a definition to your terms, and you failed spectacularly - instead just choosing to restate your argument, avoiding the fact that you simply do not know what you are actually talking about.

Me lie? No, the TOE has been plagued with lies over its history. Lies that are still found in text books today. There is a "dog" kind...a "cat" kind...and a "snake" kind. Each animal can only produce within its kind. Only the dog kind will produce dogs, and the cat kind will produce cats, etc. Now what part of this don't you understand?

You have no definition of "kind", and your argument is based not on facts but on words and phrases which have no practical meaning, so you can make them mean whatever you want. You have already been utterly refuted.

As I said above, there is a dog "kind", and cat "kind". Dogs will only produce dogs, cats will only produce cats, etc. If that is all we've EVER observed, then why is it necessary to conclude that LONGGGGGG ago, when you or me was around to witness it, animals were doing things then that the animals of today can't? Is evolution shy? It doesn't like people watch it or something??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If we did, that would be a big against for evolution. Not a for.
Evolution doesn't teach this; it's a misunderstanding of what evolution teaches that leads to this misconception.

Misunderstanding? Wait a minute, I thought the TOE is that all the animals of today share a common ancestor? Well, to get so many different kind of animals, obviously there had to be some voodoo stuff going on.....animals were producing different kind of animals.

I just want an exception to dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc. When you breed dogs and one of the offspring comes out with partial feathers and a snout-beak, then I will gladly accept evolution. The problem with evolution is the theory is there, but the observation is lacking. Science is supposed to be about observation too, right? At least thats what I thought. Apparently with evolution it is just about theories....no observation....just theories. "Well, we've never saw it occur, but we believe it happened". How is that rational?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

@Call of the Wind.

There is no such thing as macroevolution. That is a made up word created by creationists. There is only microevolution. However microevolution accumulates over time to create an illusion of macroevolution. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

@Call of the Wind.

There is no such thing as macroevolution. That is a made up word created by creationists. There is only microevolution.

Those are two different concepts and each word describes the context.

However microevolution accumulates over time to create an illusion of macroevolution.

Stop right there!!! It happens allllll the time. With this one assertion, you've just left science and stepped in to the world of religion. It happened so fast you didn't even know it. It was almost faster than the speed of light. You said "microevolution accumulates over time to create an illusion of macroevolution".....that is the theory, but where is the observation? Welcome to the world of religion. Four walls closing in, right?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Those are two different concepts and each word describes the context.

Unfortunatly wrong. Macroevolution doesn't "happen" it is the accumulation of microevolution

Stop right there!!! It happens allllll the time. With this one assertion, you've just left science and stepped in to the world of religion. It happened so fast you didn't even know it. It was almost faster than the speed of light. You said "microevolution accumulates over time to create an illusion of macroevolution".....that is the theory, but where is the observation? Welcome to the world of religion. Four walls closing in, right?

There an overwhelming slew of evidence for the theory. So much so that the theory is now fact. It is just a theory but it is also fact. The idea that micro evolution can't accumulate is illogical with no basis in science or reason. The fossil record shows accurately the way the process works. I don't believe in evolution because I am able to understand why it is true. Belief is not necessary for truth. Its like Gravity, the Germ Theory and the Atom theory.

 

[Breathe]

Misunderstanding? Wait a minute, I thought the TOE is that all the animals of today share a common ancestor? Well, to get so many different kind of animals, obviously there had to be some voodoo stuff going on.....animals were producing different kind of animals.

Not quite the correct interpretation of it, and no 'voodoo stuff' is necessary.

Yes all animals of today share a common ancestor, but it's not like one day the ancestor of wolves gave birth to a wolf, and the ancestor of cats gave birth to a cat. This isn't how evolution works; it takes a long time, a very long time, and it's tiny things happening, slowly.

These images should give you a bit of an idea about how it works; please excuse the argumentative tone of the first image. Note the second colour of the first image: evolution is change + time.

Spoiler: Slightly large image

I just want an exception to dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc. When you breed dogs and one of the offspring comes out with partial feathers and a snout-beak, then I will gladly accept evolution.

If that happened, I think there would be a lot of questioning of our current understanding of evolution; that's way too much change.

The problem with evolution is the theory is there, but the observation is lacking. Science is supposed to be about observation too, right? At least thats what I thought. Apparently with evolution it is just about theories....no observation....just theories. "Well, we've never saw it occur, but we believe it happened". How is that rational?

The problem is, though, that evolution has been observed. Massive transition, however, not yet, simply because it takes time. We have people here who know more about evolution than I do, though -- we're fortunate enough to have at a few biologists -- so it may be worth asking them for more in-depth specifics.

I hope this helps a bit.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A wolf isn't categorized as a dog because scientists that already presuppose evolution made the categorization.

It's not a presupposition if it's what the evidence leads to. Their categorization actually has a factual basis, so where is the factual basis for your use of categorization?

Tell me; what reason do you have to conclude that all dogs evolved from grey wolf?

Mitochondrial DNA sequencing and archaeological evidence. There's plenty of scholarly articles and academic papers on the subject if you don't mind a little heavy reading:
Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog
Dog Domestication and History
Canine evolution - Google Scholar

I admit, all dogs may share a common ancestor with the wolf, but not in terms of macroevolution. The grey wolf was already a DOG.

No, a grey wolf is a grey wolf. If they were dogs, then they would be categorized as dogs - but they aren't. Modern dogs came FROM grey wolves, and therefore modern dogs are a sub-species of grey wolves. Grey wolves are not a kind of dog, unless you want to give me a very concise, practical definition of what constitutes a dog and how the grey wolf qualifies as one.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzzwrxFa6H1qgzqeto1_500.jpg

This is not macroevolution....this is microevolution. Every single one of them are dogs.

So microevolution is when something reproduces a near copy of itself? If so, then there's no issue whatsoever. Macroevolution is the exact same process, just over a longer period of time. Do you even realize how much variation there is in that picture you linked to alone, and that that level of variation happened over such a short period of time that we observed it happening?

But no new kind of animal is being created.

Nonsense. We see and find new species practically every day.

It is limited, a dog has never been able to produce a non-dog.

Firstly, you have to clearly demonstrate HOW and WHY it is limited.

Secondly, evolution doesn't (and never has) claimed that something can produce something that isn't its own species. This has been explained to you a dozen times by multiple posters. Everything is a variation on the categorization of what produced it - this is exactly what evolution claims. Case in point: the first dogs were produced by grey wolves, but that didn't mean the grey wolves were producing "another species". The grey wolves were producing a sub-species of grey wolf that we categorize as "dog". This is how categorizations work in evolution.

Why do you believe that in the distant past animals were doing things that the animals of today haven't been able to do??

I don't, and if you understood science you'd know that already.

I agree, speciation is science. We can see it, we can observe it. But it has limitations.

So you accept that one population can evolve into separate species, but you believe it has limitations? Fine. All you have to do is demonstrate those limitations and what genetic mechanism causes them, and how you account for all the evidence that contradicts the claim such the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA sequencing.

Me lie? No, the TOE has been plagued with lies over its history. Lies that are still found in text books today. There is a "dog" kind...a "cat" kind...and a "snake" kind.

Those are species (or sub-species), not "kinds". DEFINE YOUR TERMS. If I told you there was a "hippy" kind, a "soldier" kind, and a "former member of the Beatles" kind, have I adequately defined "kind" so that you can clearly tell what the word means? No, I haven't.

Each animal can only produce within its kind. Only the dog kind will produce dogs, and the cat kind will produce cats, etc. Now what part of this don't you understand?

I understand it perfectly well. What you don't seem to understand is anything about how science works, since if that's your definition of "kind" then evolution fits perfectly with it, since every living organism ultimately belongs to the same "kind" of thing that produced it, going to back the origin of life.

As I said above, there is a dog "kind", and cat "kind". Dogs will only produce dogs, cats will only produce cats, etc. If that is all we've EVER observed, then why is it necessary to conclude that LONGGGGGG ago, when you or me was around to witness it, animals were doing things then that the animals of today can't? Is evolution shy? It doesn't like people watch it or something??

You really don't know what "define your terms" means, do you? Why are you so incapable of answering a simple question?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's not a presupposition if it's what the evidence leads to.

That isn't what the evidence leads to because you haven't ruled out Intelligent Design. I don't believe in evolution one bit but even if I did I would still conclude there was an Intelligent mastermind behind it. But to past the theory off as a brute fact is just flat out disingenuous because there is at least one more alternative which is not even considered in the equation.

Their categorization actually has a factual basis, so where is the factual basis for your use of categorization?

I think the interpretation of the evidence is presupposed and there are not facts supporting the theory.

Mitochondrial DNA sequencing and archaeological evidence. There's plenty of scholarly articles and academic papers on the subject if you don't mind a little heavy reading:
Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog
Dog Domestication and History
Canine evolution - Google Scholar

DNA only makes the problem more difficult to solve for the evolutionists. And btw, posting links don't really do much for me, because I can easily post links that are contrary to your position, so where do we go from there?

No, a grey wolf is a grey wolf. If they were dogs, then they would be categorized as dogs - but they aren't.

And just who is making the categorization? Those that already believe the theory. If you already believe in something you will interpret everything to fit your presupposed belief. Nothing new here.

Modern dogs came FROM grey wolves, and therefore modern dogs are a sub-species of grey wolves.

I can agree that modern dogs came from grey wolves, but not in the sense of "evolved" from. Just like I believe that modern people came from Adam and Eve, but no one is saying that modern people "evolved" from Adam and Eve. To say that all modern dogs evolved from the grey wolf is pure speculation. You can believe it all you want, but don't call it science because no one has ever observed such a thing. All we observe are dogs producing dogs, and if you maintain that the wolf is not a dog then we "should" have every reason to believe that long ago, wolves were producing wolves. As far as we've ever seen, there has never been an exception to this.

Grey wolves are not a kind of dog, unless you want to give me a very concise, practical definition of what constitutes a dog and how the grey wolf qualifies as one.

If you are talking based on mere definition then the definition of a Siberian Husky as it is defined as a "dog kind" would also apply to the grey wolf.

So microevolution is when something reproduces a near copy of itself? If so, then there's no issue whatsoever.

The basic definition of microevolution would be "variation within the kind", as there is all kind of dogs....big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, tall dogs, etc, but they are all DOGS. They probably did all come from the grey wolf, but they are all dogs.

Macroevolution is the exact same process, just over a longer period of time.

That is no evidence of this large scale change over a long period of time. You are free to believe it, but that is not science. The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one has been observed, and the other one hasn't.

Do you even realize how much variation there is in that picture you linked to alone, and that that level of variation happened over such a short period of time that we observed it happening?

And that is microevolution, variation within the kind. No problems there. I was trying to demonstrate the fact that it is obvious they are the same kind of animal. A DOG.

Nonsense. We see and find new species practically every day.

And they are always within the same kind. No new "kind" of animal is being produced.

Firstly, you have to clearly demonstrate HOW and WHY it is limited.

Did you ever see a dog produce a non-dog? That is how it is limited.

Secondly, evolution doesn't (and never has) claimed that something can produce something that isn't its own species. This has been explained to you a dozen times by multiple posters.

First off, "species" isn't even a clearly defined term in biology. All I know is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. The evolutionist believes that the process takes so long that no one will ever see it occur, and also it happened so long ago that no one saw it occur. Its like a card trick..."no one has ever saw it, nor will anyone ever see it, but it happened". Please.

Everything is a variation on the categorization of what produced it - this is exactly what evolution claims. Case in point: the first dogs were produced by grey wolves, but that didn't mean the grey wolves were producing "another species". The grey wolves were producing a sub-species of grey wolf that we categorize as "dog". This is how categorizations work in evolution.

Why the need to categorize sub-species and such? Why can't the grey wolf be called a "dog"? If the grey wolf produced the Siberian Husky, why are we to call the Siberian Husky a dog, but not the grey wolf? Why the barrier? There is no answer to this. Any person that looks at the Siberian Husky and the grey wolf WITHOUT presuppositions will determine that these two animals are the same kind of animal. The only reason why there are all these categorizations is because the unproven theory was over-sold.

I don't, and if you understood science you'd know that already.

So what does it mean when evolutionists say "all living things share a common ancestor?" Please explain.

So you accept that one population can evolve into separate species, but you believe it has limitations? Fine. All you have to do is demonstrate those limitations and what genetic mechanism causes them, and how you account for all the evidence that contradicts the claim such the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA sequencing.

First off, there is no fossil records. Fossils don't tell us anything other than "this thing died"....you don't know if those fossils had any children, and you certainly don't know if they had different children. Second, I believe that mitochondrial DNA sequencing is evidence of common DESIGNER, not common ancestor.

Those are species (or sub-species), not "kinds". DEFINE YOUR TERMS. If I told you there was a "hippy" kind, a "soldier" kind, and a "former member of the Beatles" kind, have I adequately defined "kind" so that you can clearly tell what the word means? No, I haven't.

We can go with whatever traditional definition used to describe dogs, cats, fish, whatever.

I understand it perfectly well. What you don't seem to understand is anything about how science works, since if that's your definition of "kind" then evolution fits perfectly with it, since every living organism ultimately belongs to the same "kind" of thing that produced it, going to back the origin of life.

I know observation has a lot to do with science, wouldn't you agree? So have you ever observed a cat producing a non-cat? I will wait on your response.

You really don't know what "define your terms" means, do you? Why are you so incapable of answering a simple question?

However you define dog, cat, fish, bear, snake......however you define them I will go with...but the problem comes when you think the husky is a dog, but the grey wolf isn't. Presuppositions.....all through the theory.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not quite the correct interpretation of it, and no 'voodoo stuff' is necessary.

Sure there is

Yes all animals of today share a common ancestor, but it's not like one day the ancestor of wolves gave birth to a wolf, and the ancestor of cats gave birth to a cat.

So basically you are saying we all share a common ancestor, meaning that every animal (human included) that is alive today gets its origins from something different than what they are....thus, in order for animals to arrive at their present state, they had to come from animals that were different from what they are. You don't see the religion in that? The faith it takes? If that isn't voodoo science, I don't know what is.

This isn't how evolution works; it takes a long time, a very long time, and it's tiny things happening, slowly.

I know, it takes so long that it didn't happen.

The problem is, though, that evolution has been observed. Massive transition, however, not yet, simply because it takes time. We have people here who know more about evolution than I do, though -- we're fortunate enough to have at a few biologists -- so it may be worth asking them for more in-depth specifics.

I hope this helps a bit.

I admire your religious faith, Odion lol.

 

[sonofdad]

I like this creationist tactic. You know full well that you are not going to beat the theory of evolution with plain science, if creationists did actual science they would prove themselves blatantly wrong, so instead you simply try to drag it down to your level.
If you can convince people that it's merely a tug between two religions, then they are simply choosing between two religions.
Then of course in the mind of a creationist, the theory of evolution covers everything from the non-existence of GOD to the origin of the universe to the origin of life to the non-existence of an afterlife.
So if you manage to convince people that evolution is a religion, on one hand they have a religion which promises an all loving god, jesus, an eternal life and all that fancy stuff. On the other you have a religion which promises that you will forever die, everyone you know will die, eventually your species will go extinct and the universe will die a heat death.
Seriously though, if scientists didn't care about the truth at all, wouldn't they go with something a little more comforting?

So basically you are saying we all share a common ancestor, meaning that every animal (human included) that is alive today gets its origins from something different than what they are....thus, in order for animals to arrive at their present state, they had to come from animals that were different from what they are. You don't see the religion in that? The faith it takes? If that isn't voodoo science, I don't know what is.

Every organism comes from something different than they are.
You are different from your parents. Your parents were different from their parents. Their parents different from their parents. And on and on and on. Go back like this a million generations and you would find something drastically different from you.

 

[Sha'irullah]

So why would one deny the evolution of man and yet the fact still stands that animals evolve all of the time? New species and subsets are found fairly regularly all the time.
I believe the only answer left is vanity. Many religions have always taught that man is special but this is not true, nothing bends to our will and we are not s superior species of anything. The body is flesh and is composed of various chemicals and compounds ranging from amino acids to proteins. Humans are not biologically different than animals or else we would not be viewed as mammals.
Man and beast are essentially the same on a biological level.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am disappointed. You didn't respond to me.

But unfortunately you are just wrong to assume what you are assuming Call of the Wind. There is evidence that points out and supports evolution perfectly. Every discovery made has actually supported it. Because it is true. Creationism has zero basis what so ever.

No one has to consider Creationism because there is no evidence for it. Science works with the basis of evidence.

 

[propheticeve]

Hi All

As a sikh I don't believe in Adam, there is only one reference of Adam in sikh scriptures but only as a reference point. But I know a lot of other religions have the belief that god created Adam with its own hand and that he was the first human being ever.

This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it. Where does this leave the beliefs and how do they contradict with evolution?

I read a lot and watched some debates regarding this and everytime evolution comes on top. Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?

Um, it depends on what evolution you are talking about. Only human evolution has so far demonstrated itself to be a problem for Adam's case. Yet, the specific details of human evolution are required if we are to assess the case fairly. The evidence for evolution is strong for other species, but for the evolution of Homo sapiens, we still haven't received enough information to say for sure. I hope to learn more about this, looks interesting.

 

[McBell]

Um, it depends on what evolution you are talking about. Only human evolution has so far demonstrated itself to be a problem for Adam's case. Yet, the specific details of human evolution are required if we are to assess the case fairly. The evidence for evolution is strong for other species, but for the evolution of Homo sapiens, we still haven't received enough information to say for sure. I hope to learn more about this, looks interesting.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Um, it depends on what evolution you are talking about. Only human evolution has so far demonstrated itself to be a problem for Adam's case. Yet, the specific details of human evolution are required if we are to assess the case fairly. The evidence for evolution is strong for other species, but for the evolution of Homo sapiens, we still haven't received enough information to say for sure. I hope to learn more about this, looks interesting.

Becoming Human

Learn and be free my friend!

 

[Ouroboros]

The evidence for evolution is strong for other species, but for the evolution of Homo sapiens, we still haven't received enough information to say for sure. I hope to learn more about this, looks interesting.

I'd say we have a lot of information about the evolution of Homo sapiens. If you look at H. erectus, Australopithecus, and many other intermediate forms of humans, and the different attributes and changes in the bones and mostly the skull, it's all rather obvious.

 

[Sand Dancer]

My take on it is that no matter what his name was, he was the first creation to have God's spirit breathed into him, hence he was different from animals.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That isn't what the evidence leads to because you haven't ruled out Intelligent Design.

We also haven't "ruled out" that everything came into existence in my toilet bowl last weekend. We go where the evidence leads, we do not have to "rule out" a possibility for which there is no evidence.

I don't believe in evolution one bit but even if I did I would still conclude there was an Intelligent mastermind behind it.

Well, you clearly DO accept it "a bit" since you're willing to admit that "microevolution" occurs. You just suppose there are limits to it. Your believing in any kind of God should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your belief in evolution. Many people, including many scientists, believe in theistic evolution.

But to past the theory off as a brute fact is just flat out disingenuous because there is at least one more alternative which is not even considered in the equation.

What's "disingenuous" is to claim that something is a viable "alternative" despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to support it. By that logic, my toilet bowl theory is also an alternative that has yet to be ruled out. Science doesn't work that way. You've already accepted evolution as a fact, you just deny common descent.

I think the interpretation of the evidence is presupposed and there are not facts supporting the theory.

Then you are wrong, and have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

DNA only makes the problem more difficult to solve for the evolutionists.

No it doesn't. Evolution has added so much credibility that leading biologists (including theists) say that the DNA evidence alone is enough to demonstrate the truth of common descent.

And btw, posting links don't really do much for me, because I can easily post links that are contrary to your position, so where do we go from there?

We can do what I have done and look at both and try to discern which one holds the monopoly on facts. In my experience, it's science. Not creationists.

And just who is making the categorization? Those that already believe the theory.

Because without the theory all of modern biology makes no sense.

If you already believe in something you will interpret everything to fit your presupposed belief.

Which is exactly what you are doing, not the scientists. This is why you cannot give a single definition of "kind" and yet keep using the term, while the terms that scientists use are far more clearly defined and testable.

I can agree that modern dogs came from grey wolves, but not in the sense of "evolved" from.

Then please explain to me what you would call the process of genetic variation caused by environmental pressures and natural selection. It's called evolution.

Just like I believe that modern people came from Adam and Eve, but no one is saying that modern people "evolved" from Adam and Eve.

Because to do so would be utterly ridiculous considering there's absolutely no reason to believe that any of the magical myths in the book of genesis are true by any scientific standard.

To say that all modern dogs evolved from the grey wolf is pure speculation.

You yourself have already said that you accepted that modern dogs came from grey wolves, you just arbitrarily choose to define grey wolves as a "kind of dog" despite the fact that it's dogs that are a kind of grey wolves. THAT'S CALLED EVOLUTION.

You can believe it all you want, but don't call it science because no one has ever observed such a thing.

Yes we have. We've observed speciation dozens of times.

All we observe are dogs producing dogs, and if you maintain that the wolf is not a dog then we "should" have every reason to believe that long ago, wolves were producing wolves. As far as we've ever seen, there has never been an exception to this.

I agree. AND SO DOES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Why do you have so much trouble with this? It's a very simple idea. No grey wolves ever produced anything that WASN'T a grey wolf, but instead eventually they produced a dog - WHICH IS A KIND OF GREY WOLF. In turn, dogs only produce dogs, but there are many different breeds - WHICH ARE ALL KINDS OF DOGS.

Are you starting to finally understand how evolution works, or are you going to keep playing ignorant?

If you are talking based on mere definition then the definition of a Siberian Husky as it is defined as a "dog kind" would also apply to the grey wolf.

Why?

The basic definition of microevolution would be "variation within the kind", as there is all kind of dogs....big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, tall dogs, etc, but they are all DOGS. They probably did all come from the grey wolf, but they are all dogs.

So, then, microevolution is completely the same as macroevolution since all evolution is the result of variations within that particular classification.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is no evidence of this large scale change over a long period of time.

You're right. The mitochondrial DNA and the fossil record are evidence of that.

You are free to believe it, but that is not science.

You are free to believe that it isn't science, but it is.

The difference between microevolution and macroevolution is one has been observed, and the other one hasn't.

No, the difference is one takes a longer period of time than the other. We have observed speciation.

And that is microevolution, variation within the kind. No problems there. I was trying to demonstrate the fact that it is obvious they are the same kind of animal. A DOG.

But they are VARIATIONS within that "kind". So, please tell me, exactly where you predict this variation to end?

And they are always within the same kind. No new "kind" of animal is being produced.

Since you have not yet defined "kind" adequately, this claim cannot be validated.

Did you ever see a dog produce a non-dog? That is how it is limited.

I've already said that I accept that. How does that demerit common descent?

First off, "species" isn't even a clearly defined term in biology.

It's constantly being worked on, but the most practical definition is a population separated by inability to produce fertile offspring.

All I know is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. The evolutionist believes that the process takes so long that no one will ever see it occur, and also it happened so long ago that no one saw it occur. Its like a card trick..."no one has ever saw it, nor will anyone ever see it, but it happened". Please.

No one ever saw Pluto make a full rotation of the sun, but we know how long it takes and what kind of orbit it has - because we have the evidence and the testable predictions to demonstrate it.

If the grey wolf produced the Siberian Husky, why are we to call the Siberian Husky a dog, but not the grey wolf?

For the same reason that if you were blonde and gave birth to a brunette child we wouldn't call you brunette.

Why the barrier? There is no answer to this.

Considering you've never given me an answer to what, exactly, defines "kind", this is a hilariously ironic thing to say.

So what does it mean when evolutionists say "all living things share a common ancestor?" Please explain.

It's pretty self-explanatory. All life shares ancestry with the same population of living organisms billions of years ago.

First off, there is no fossil records. Fossils don't tell us anything other than "this thing died".

If you cannot understand how fossils tell us more than that, you are not remotely educated enough to be talking about any kind of science. That's like saying "this bloody knife doesn't mean anything other than this knife is bloody". That's willful ignorance and you know it.

you don't know if those fossils had any children, and you certainly don't know if they had different children.

Because it's not like living things reproduce, is it? No, we should just assume that everything that ever lived failed to produce offspring.

Second, I believe that mitochondrial DNA sequencing is evidence of common DESIGNER, not common ancestor.

So, when and where has this common designer been observed? What proof do you have? Have you ever observed any living thing being "designed" rather than "reproduced". ? Essentially you're saying "living things were designed" despite the fact that every single instance of a living thing ever observed in all of human history has been the result of another living thing, and not once have we ever seen a living thing magically appear from nowhere. Your own logic refutes your own claim.

I know observation has a lot to do with science, wouldn't you agree? So have you ever observed a cat producing a non-cat? I will wait on your response.

No. AND EVOLUTION DOESN'T CLAIM THAT WE SHOULD. What we DO see is cats PRODUCING VARIATIONS OF CATS, and that's exactly what we expect to find according to evolution theory.