If asked...

[Bunyip]

It does explain origins..the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...does that title ring a bell, dear evolutionist? lol

The origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE sparky.

The origins of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

No it wouldn't. If a biology teacher that doesn't believe in intelligent design is making a case for naturalism in his classroom, with evolution as the main culprit, he is using that platform as a way to teach HIS religion...which is just as unconstitutional as you say my religion being taught in classrooms are.

Only if you are deluded enough to believe that evolution could possibly be a religion, which is absurd.

Again, what is the title of the evolutionists bible? lol

Erm....the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE.



[/quote]Why do I have to keep imagining? I want observational evidence...not some Alice in Wonderland fairytale.[/quote]

Buddy, you don't need to imagine - you need to go a study. The observational evidence is all, there, but you refuse to learn even what the terms you are denying mean.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE sparky.

First, if you are a naturalist, and if you don't have a viable theory on a naturalistic origin of life, then there is no way you can have a naturalistic viable theory for evolution. Second, as I said, evolution teaches about the origin of species, and that is taught in classrooms...and if someone think that this is wholly unscientific, then they are being taught someone else' belief about their own origins.

The origins of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, but since you brought it up, lets talk about it. As I said, if you negate the existence of God, then that would mean that life came from non-life...but this has yet to be scientifically proven...so if you can't scientifically prove that life can come from nonlife, then you can't scientifically prove evolution.

Cart before the horse fallacy.

Only if you are deluded enough to believe that evolution could possibly be a religion, which is absurd.

It is...you are a species, right (according to the theory)...so evolution is an attempt to explain the origins of YOU. Christianity is also an attempt to explain the origins of YOU. Both sounds religious to me.

Buddy, you don't need to imagine - you need to go a study. The observational evidence is all, there, but you refuse to learn even what the terms you are denying mean.

All I see are dogs producing dogs. That is the only kind of observation I see. If you want me to additionally believe that long ago, a non-dog produced the first dog, then I need addtional evidence, which you or anyone else has provided as of yet.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you still insisting that science is a religion?

It relies on the unseen (macroevolution)

It attempts to explain the origin of species (you and I)

It has its own fare share of devout followers (you and countless others0

Yup...religion.

I mean, we all know that you are a bit confused on the religion issue and cannot separate make-belief from reality and all that. But even you ought to be cognizant of the difference between facts and myths.

I repeat; if it looks like a duck...

Biology teachers who are creationists are not what I want around my kids. They should go back to their religious pals and preach their version of fairy tales to those who want to exist in ignorance caused by blind faith and the fear of having to acknowledge that they are nothing special in the greater scheme of things. All that god-made-me-so-I’m-special whining is just annoying.

Ok so I have a question for you...is your life any more special than a house fly?

One more time, in case you’re mind slipped into that creationist fugue you like to occupy: science is not a religion, hence it can be taught without any qualm. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you cherry-pick from science what you can use, so why the hypocrisy? Without science you would not be posting here, and I am sure you never questioned science when you needed the medical field to help you or people you know.
Is your attitude concerning science in general and evolution in particular predicated on your Bible Bullies United membership?

Oh please. You believe that a dog came from a non-dog, right? Have you ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal? Science is supposed to be about observation and repeated experiment...the only thing we observe is animals producing their own kind. God said "they will bring forth after their kind" in Genesis...and that is EXACTLY what we see...dogs producing dogs, cats-cats, etc. I never saw an exception to this and I certainly don't believe that there were exceptions to this before my existence, and there will be exceptions after my existence. Coincidently there has never been an exception DURING my existence.

I have no problems with science...but evolution isn't science. It is "associated" with science, just like hot dogs are associated with baseball, but hot dogs aren't part of the actual game itself.

It is a con.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not to the extant that you think, because I'm aware of the similarities that go beyond looks. You're not.

Looks are important. Organisms tend to look similar to what is producing them. Anyone care to argue against that?

Generally speaking, it's true. Occasionally, parts can get lost, but on the grander scale, organisms are more basic earlier in time.

I don't know about organisms.

Proof?

[youtube]ecH5SKxL9wk[/youtube]
Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - YouTube

No. The first organism doesn't have everything an elephant has. But the elephant has everything the first organism has.

Ok, but two elephants that copulate and have an offspring, the offspring will have everything that its parents had. So why would the first organism NOT have the same thing that its offspring has, but the offspring of the parents DOES have the same thing that its parents has. Makes no sense.

Not bogus. Despite differences, crocodiles and elephants share characteristics. Endo skeleton, same number of vertebrates, iron based-blood, amniotic eggs, triune part of the brain.

I remember back in the day when I had a Chrysler Concord...then I had a Mitsubishi Endeavor...they had the same characteristics...four tires, four doors, windshield...engine...transmission...alternator...starter...so I guess since the Concord was a 96 model and the Endeavor was a 04 model, the Endeavor evolved from the Concord within the 8 years in-between. Got it.

I don't see what you're getting at here.

You were asking why would God plant fossils here or something like that.

Except over 90 percent of your genes are useless and don't do a damn thing. And another large percentage of your genes are for ancestral traits like the gene to develop a tail, or teeth genes in chickens and other birds.

Right, and these "developments" you are referring to all contain information...it is a blueprint on the developement of all of the different traits that makes the animal what it is...where did this information come from? How can you get specified information like that from a mindless and blind process? Makes absolutely no sense to me :no:

And ERVs are useless genetic information planeted there by viruses, not by a god, even if creationism were true.

And?

The notion of creationism begs these questions. Why would the fossil record be layed out to make it look like Evolution happened?

That is your interpretation...ask a person that doesn't believe in ToE, and it doesn't look like that at all.

Why are there ancestral genes in the genomes such as hind legs in dolphins, or teeth in chickens?

Again, presuppositions. If you already assume common ancestry, you will interpret everything to fit this presupposition...you presuppose common ancestry, so you call them "ancestral" genes...see how that works?

All Evolution needs is a self-replicating system that doesn't make perfect copies. From there, no more intervention is needed.

It also needs life...and again, I am still wondering at what point does consciousness comes into the picture.

There's computer programs that do this where once it starts running, no more intervention is needed.

You can argue that god started life. Much like said computer programmer. But once the program is running, Natural Selection takes over in accordance with unchanging laws.

Hey, we all have our beliefs.

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing is definitive to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First, if you are a naturalist, and if you don't have a viable theory on a naturalistic origin of life, then there is no way you can have a naturalistic viable theory for evolution.

Total nonsense. You don't need to understand how the first life started in order to observe and understand how life changes over time.

Second, as I said, evolution teaches about the origin of species, and that is taught in classrooms...and if someone think that this is wholly unscientific, then they are being taught someone else' belief about their own origins.

Do you apply the same logic to people who believe that the world is flat? Or that the earth is only a few thousand years old? Or geocentricism? Evolution is a fact of reality, and if you believe differently you deserve no more special attention than you would deserve for not believing in gravity.

It relies on the unseen (macroevolution)

Macroevolution is observed in the fossil record and genetics.

It attempts to explain the origin of species (you and I)

It explains how life naturally develops into a wide variety of forms. It explains how humans came to have the functions and shape that we have. It doesn't explain "origin" in the sense that you are implying it does.

It has its own fare share of devout followers (you and countless others0

Because it's an observable fact. Denying evolution is like denying the existence of germs.

Yup...religion.

Not even close. You obviously need to try and tighten up your definition of religion.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Looks are important. Organisms tend to look similar to what is producing them. Anyone care to argue against that?

Sure. The wish bones, feet and feathers of theropod dinosaurs look "similar" to modern birds.

I don't know about organisms.

You need to look into fossils more then. Even if you reject evolution, you can still see that fossils of animals from earlier times have simpler features.

Therapsids are similar to mammals, but they have simplier skeletal features. They lack a secondary plate in their mouth, which allows modern mammals to breath and chew at the same time.

There's a general trend of a plate developing in later therapsid fossils.

They also couldn't move their jaw from side to side. It could only open and close. So they could only bite, not chew.

In short, animals had less sophisticated features back then.

[youtube]ecH5SKxL9wk[/youtube]
Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - YouTube

Many of those scientists in the video even said it holds up well to the ToE. It's just that it had a few inaccuracies.

Also, the video doesn't address why things like hind-legs show in dolphin embryos or why birds have claws instead of wings before hatching.

Ok, but two elephants that copulate and have an offspring, the offspring will have everything that its parents had. So why would the first organism NOT have the same thing that its offspring has, but the offspring of the parents DOES have the same thing that its parents has. Makes no sense.

Because of mutations. Mutations are genetic characteristics that are not inherited.

Do you doubt mutations happen?

I remember back in the day when I had a Chrysler Concord...then I had a Mitsubishi Endeavor...they had the same characteristics...four tires, four doors, windshield...engine...transmission...alternator...starter...so I guess since the Concord was a 96 model and the Endeavor was a 04 model, the Endeavor evolved from the Concord within the 8 years in-between. Got it.

That's besides the point. You were trying to insist how different crocodiles and elephants are.

My point is, animals are more similar than you think, regardless if god made them that way or because of evolution. Meaning, you can't keep insisting how different a crocodile and an elephant are.

I'm guessing since you fell back on how crocodiles and elephants have a common designer due to similarities, it means you at least accept that they are very similar in more ways than being different. That's a step forward.

So if I explain how they have a common ancestor, now you can't say that it was completely different.

Also, it's funny how those cars don't have a common designer. Are you trying to say that there's a god that makes crocodiles and another that makes elephants?

Right, and these "developments" you are referring to all contain information...it is a blueprint on the developement of all of the different traits that makes the animal what it is...where did this information come from? How can you get specified information like that from a mindless and blind process? Makes absolutely no sense to me :no:

It's really not hard to understand. Animals reproduce with slight variation. Some confer to advantages and some don't. The disadvantaged ones tend to die out easier, leaving the more evolved ones to live on and reproduce.

Then the process repeats.

And?

And we share ERVs with Chips in identical genome locations.

Are you proposing that a viruses planted a gene in the ancestors of chimps, then a separate virus did the same thing to human ancestors that happened to have identical genetic information, and put it in the exact same location on the DNA?

That is your interpretation...ask a person that doesn't believe in ToE, and it doesn't look like that at all.

I don't doubt that. I don't expect people who don't look into the information to accept Evolution.

Again, presuppositions. If you already assume common ancestry, you will interpret everything to fit this presupposition...you presuppose common ancestry, so you call them "ancestral" genes...see how that works?

So whale fossils with legs is a presupposition?

It also needs life...and again, I am still wondering at what point does consciousness comes into the picture.

Consciousness is a subjective term. We can't go anywhere with that.

Nothing is definitive to me.

Be more specific.

 

[Simurgh]

It relies on the unseen (macroevolution)

It attempts to explain the origin of species (you and I)

It has its own fare share of devout followers (you and countless others0

Yup...religion.

I repeat; if it looks like a duck...

Science is no religion even if the simple minded are too dumb to understand the difference here. Your duck analogy is the same thing as your “kind” obsession. It’s a non sequitur and just plain ridiculous.
Facts and reality have never gotten between you and your fairy tales before. Why strain your brain now.

Ok so I have a question for you...is your life any more special than a house fly?

In the greater scheme of things no, my life is no more special on the level of they exist and I exist. So why would I think that I am “more special”? I am merely a different life form that exists within the same basic framework but at another level of consciousness.

Oh please. You believe that a dog came from a non-dog, right? Have you ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal? Science is supposed to be about observation and repeated experiment...the only thing we observe is animals producing their own kind. God said "they will bring forth after their kind" in Genesis...and that is EXACTLY what we see...dogs producing dogs, cats-cats, etc. I never saw an exception to this and I certainly don't believe that there were exceptions to this before my existence, and there will be exceptions after my existence. Coincidently there has never been an exception DURING my existence.

I have no problems with science...but evolution isn't science. It is "associated" with science, just like hot dogs are associated with baseball, but hot dogs aren't part of the actual game itself.

It is a con.

Since there have been so many posts about this confusion and ignorance that you display in your posts, it is redundant to go into this again. Yes there are common ancestors from which existing members of the current life forms evolved, and what has that to do with your religious texts again?

You are so hung up on your dogs and cats and this bible stuff that you cannot think straight. So don’t. Live in your fairytale kingdom and be happy. Yes, you have a problem with science since you see it as a religion and you apparently think that science is not the “right” religion to have. Yet you exist and benefit from its results. So just stop being a hypocrite. You use science daily, but you rail against it as if it were a heresy. You make no sense. Either you stick to that god of yours and live in make-belief country where science is banned, or you accept the fact that you benefit from the very thing that you condemn and stop being such a fake.

 

[Bunyip]

First, if you are a naturalist, and if you don't have a viable theory on a naturalistic origin of life, then there is no way you can have a naturalistic viable theory for evolution.

That is just ridiculous, there is no reason whatsoever why that should be the case - and you offer no reason. Evolution is about cHanges in SPECIES, not the origins of life.

Second, as I said, evolution teaches about the origin of species, and that is taught in classrooms...and if someone think that this is wholly unscientific, then they are being taught someone else' belief about their own origins.



And I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, but since you brought it up, lets talk about it. As I said, if you negate the existence of God, then that would mean that life came from non-life...but this has yet to be scientifically proven...so if you can't scientifically prove that life can come from nonlife, then you can't scientifically prove evolution.

Of course you can. Evolution and abiogenesis are just different fields. You are inventing very poor excuses.

Cart before the horse fallacy.



It is...you are a species, right (according to the theory)...so evolution is an attempt to explain the origins of YOU. Christianity is also an attempt to explain the origins of YOU. Both sounds religious to me.

No I am not a species, I am an individual. And no evolution is not an attempt to exp,ain my origins. It is not about where life came from, that is a different field called abiogenesis.

All I see are dogs producing dogs. That is the only kind of observation I see. If you want me to additionally believe that long ago, a non-dog produced the first dog, then I need addtional evidence, which you or anyone else has provided as of yet.

You are repeating yourself. Of course all you see are dogs producing dogs, tha is what the theory predicts. I do not want you to beleive that at any time a dog produced a non dog, because that is impossible. No one is providing evidence for it,because it didn't happen.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Total nonsense. You don't need to understand how the first life started in order to observe and understand how life changes over time.

Actually, you do. We don't have a clue as to how life could have originated naturally. So based on this ignorance, it is open to question as to whether life COULD have originated naturally at all. So if it is POSSIBLE for abiogenesis (life from nonlife) to be a FALSE, then it is also POSSIBLE for the ToE to be false, since the ToE would depend on life from nonlife, if you negate the existence of God. I mean, you can't have evolving life if there is no life to evolve.

Without God, the ToE is explicitly dependent upon abiogenesis, and if abiogenesis is false (life from nonlife) then ToE cannot be said to be true, or a given.

Now you can avoid this by postulating theistic evolution...but that would mean that you believe in intelligent design, which is what I know you want to avoid.

So either way, it isn't looking good for the team that is wearing the "Darwin" jerseys.

Do you apply the same logic to people who believe that the world is flat? Or that the earth is only a few thousand years old? Or geocentricism? Evolution is a fact of reality, and if you believe differently you deserve no more special attention than you would deserve for not believing in gravity.

The only fact of reality I know in this regard is that dogs produce dogs, cats-cats, and as of yet I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

Macroevolution is observed in the fossil record and genetics.

Then you should have transitional fossils for every living organism that is alive today, and even that would be open for debate because you don't know whether any fossil that you dig up had any children, and you certainly don't know if it had DIFFERENT children. Of all the animals that exist today, there were even more animals that died in the long ancestral chain that it took to get to the current "products" that we have today. And according to the Cambrian explosion, there is no fossil record..even though a fossil wouldn't prove anything anyway.

It explains how life naturally develops into a wide variety of forms.

Based on unseen speculation.

It explains how humans came to have the functions and shape that we have. It doesn't explain "origin" in the sense that you are implying it does.

Then it has more explaining to do.

Because it's an observable fact. Denying evolution is like denying the existence of germs.

Observation and repeated experiment. How does macroevolution fit these two criteria?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is just ridiculous, there is no reason whatsoever why that should be the case - and you offer no reason. Evolution is about cHanges in SPECIES, not the origins of life.

Wait a minute, lets take this slow now, because this is key...

If I ask you or any scientist to go on a lab and produce life, you won't be able to, right? Or if I asked you how could life come from nonliving materials, you will say "I don't know", which is honest, and fair..

So since we don't know whether life can come from nonlife...we are agnostic in this regard...it could be true, or it could be false, right? We just dont know...now..

Now if evolution is true, and God doesn't exist, then this would mean that life came from nonlife...BUT the premise of "life came from nonlife" has yet to be demonstrated to be true...so if you cannot demonstrate how life can come from nonlife, then you cannot logically state what happened "after life came from nonlife", which is exactly what you are doing.

You see how that works?

Of course you can. Evolution and abiogenesis are just different fields. You are inventing very poor excuses.

One field depends on the other, Bun.

No I am not a species, I am an individual.

A talking gorilla can tell you the same thing.

And no evolution is not an attempt to exp,ain my origins. It is not about where life came from, that is a different field called abiogenesis.

I understand...

You are repeating yourself. Of course all you see are dogs producing dogs, tha is what the theory predicts. I do not want you to beleive that at any time a dog produced a non dog, because that is impossible. No one is providing evidence for it,because it didn't happen.

A dog never produced a non-dog...but the ancestor of the dog was a non-dog? Wow.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, you do. We don't have a clue as to how life could have originated naturally. So based on this ignorance, it is open to question as to whether life COULD have originated naturally at all. So if it is POSSIBLE for abiogenesis (life from nonlife) to be a FALSE, then it is also POSSIBLE for the ToE to be false, since the ToE would depend on life from nonlife, if you negate the existence of God. I mean, you can't have evolving life if there is no life to evolve.

You seem so confused. Let me repeat - The theory of evolution does not discuss the origins of life. Evolution and abiogenesis are seperate fields.

As to how life emerged naturally, sceince has in fact learned a great deal about that.

Without God, the ToE is explicitly dependent upon abiogenesis, and if abiogenesis is false (life from nonlife) then ToE cannot be said to be true, or a given.

No. The ToE is not dependant on abiogenesis at all. It is a different field.

Now you can avoid this by postulating theistic evolution...but that would mean that you believe in intelligent design, which is what I know you want to avoid.

Erm....1 plus 1 equals 5?

So either way, it isn't looking good for the team that is wearing the "Darwin" jerseys.

Wow! Darwin Jerseys? Dude Darwin died more than a century and a half ago. Do you call people who accept that gravity exists Newtonists? Am I wearing the Newton jersey because I do not deny gravity?

The only fact of reality I know in this regard is that dogs produce dogs, cats-cats, and as of yet I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

And of course the theory agrees with you and does not expect to see dogs produce non dogs either.

Then you should have transitional fossils for every living organism that is alive today, and even that would be open for debate because you don't know whether any fossil that you dig up had any children, and you certainly don't know if it had DIFFERENT children. Of all the animals that exist today, there were even more animals that died in the long ancestral chain that it took to get to the current "products" that we have today. And according to the Cambrian explosion, there is no fossil record..even though a fossil wouldn't prove anything anyway.

Dude the Cambrian explosion came before there were boney animals. So how can the Cambrian layer, which is stacked full of fossils disprove the existence of animals that
had not evolved yet?


[quote[Based on unseen speculation. [/quote]

Not at all, the ToE is entirely drawn form observation.

Then it has more explaining to do.

Wow. You are still confusing abiogenesis for evolution. The ToE does not need to explain abiogenesis, itis a different study.

Observation and repeated experiment. How does macroevolution fit these two criteria?

Yes of course it does.

 

[Looncall]

You seem so confused. Let me repeat - The theory of evolution does not discuss the origins of life. Evolution and abiogenesis are seperate fields.

As to how life emerged naturally, sceince has in fact learned a great deal about that.



No. The ToE is not dependant on abiogenesis at all. It is a different field.



Erm....1 plus 1 equals 5?



Wow! Darwin Jerseys? Dude Darwin died more than a century and a half ago. Do you call people who accept that gravity exists Newtonists? Am I wearing the Newton jersey because I do not deny gravity?





And of course the theory agrees with you and does not expect to see dogs produce non dogs either.




Dude the Cambrian explosion came before there were boney animals. So how can the Cambrian layer, which is stacked full of fossils disprove the existence of animals that
had not evolved yet?


[quote[Based on unseen speculation.

Not at all, the ToE is entirely drawn form observation.




Wow. You are still confusing abiogenesis for evolution. The ToE does not need to explain abiogenesis, itis a different study.





Yes of course it does.[/QUOTE]

I think you are giving creationists far too much credit by saying they are confused.

I have come to the opinion that creationism is a political stance in support of religion and not a science-related one at all.

In short, I think many of them understand fine, but are lying through their teeth to buttress their superstitions.

 

[Desert Snake]

In short, I think many of them understand fine, but are lying through their teeth to buttress their superstitions.

Nah I disagree. Macroevolution requires belief. I don't know why so many people are reluctant to accept that. There are other problems with evolution as well, no reason to be overstating the case for evolution imo. That's one thing that would give me pause right off the bat, it's suspicious. I can't fully accept evolution as fact myself, has nothing to do with religion or politics.

 

[Bunyip]

Nah I disagree. Macroevolution requires belief. I don't know why so many people are reluctant to accept that. There are other problems with evolution as well, no reason to be overstating the case for evolution imo. That's one thing that would give me pause right off the bat, it's suspicious. I can't fully accept evolution as fact myself, has nothing to do with religion or politics.

You are mistaken. Macro requires zero belief. Macro evolution is an observable phenomenon. There are no 'problems' with evolution, it is an observable, testable fact.

Looncall is quite correct, the entire notion of macro evolution as some kind of barrier to adaptation is no more than a fraud. Creationism is a political weapon, nothing more.

 

[Desert Snake]

I also find it odd that there is resistance to say that cats are evolved from one cat ancestor. They probably are. /Smilodon type/

 

[fantome profane]

I also find it odd that there is resistance to say that cats are evolved from one cat ancestor. They probably are. /Smilodon type/

And what did that "one cat ancestor" evolve from?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, you do.

No, you don't. No matter how many times you repeat something that is false, it doesn't make it true.

We don't have a clue as to how life could have originated naturally. So based on this ignorance, it is open to question as to whether life COULD have originated naturally at all.

Sure, if you like. But there's no point jumping to a conclusion before we understand enough about it, and there's definitely no logic in jumping to a conclusion which requires us to accept the existence of magic.

So if it is POSSIBLE for abiogenesis (life from nonlife) to be a FALSE, then it is also POSSIBLE for the ToE to be false, since the ToE would depend on life from nonlife, if you negate the existence of God. I mean, you can't have evolving life if there is no life to evolve.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Evolution does not DEPEND on "life from non-life". It only requires life to first exist - regardless of the means by which it came to exist. If life started naturally or through some supernatural agency, that has no affect whatsoever on the fact that evolution, from that point on, is responsible for how that life changed over time. The exact same process would be responsible regardless of whatever means is responsible for the original life forming.

Once and for all: EVOLUTION IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE IDEA THAT LIFE CAME FROM NON-LIFE, only that life exists.

Without God, the ToE is explicitly dependent upon abiogenesis, and if abiogenesis is false (life from nonlife) then ToE cannot be said to be true, or a given.

What does God have to do with any of this? Nobody here has asserted that God doesn't exist, and evolution says nothing about the subject of God whatsoever. And, once again, evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.

Why do you have such difficulty separating these two simple ideas? Can you imagine a ball being created and a ball rolling down a hill? If you can imagine those two things separately, then you should be able to comprehend the extremely simple idea that the origin of life and how life develops from that point on are two separate things.

Now you can avoid this by postulating theistic evolution...but that would mean that you believe in intelligent design, which is what I know you want to avoid.

Wrong. Intelligent design doesn't mean "theism", it a specific, theistic movement that is opposed to the theory and teaching of evolution. Intelligent design is a specifically anti-evolution movement. Accepting intelligent design is not the same thing as accepting theistic evolution, as ID-advocates deal specifically in arguments intended to refute evolutionary claims.

The only fact of reality I know in this regard is that dogs produce dogs, cats-cats, and as of yet I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

Your inability to grasp the simple ideas I have explained to you dozens of times is astounding. Why is it so troubling for you to grasp what I have explained to you? Is it really so hard for you to admit when you're wrong?

Then you should have transitional fossils for every living organism that is alive today,

Wrong. Do you have any idea how rare fossilization is? It's astonishing we've been able to unearth any time all, let alone the thousands that we have.

and even that would be open for debate because you don't know whether any fossil that you dig up had any children, and you certainly don't know if it had DIFFERENT children.

To assert that living organisms - entire populations of them - never had any children is ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that all of these organisms failed to reproduce, and the subsequent generations of very similiar-looking organisms that fit perfectly within evolution predictions just appeared out of thin air? Have you ever observed a species appearing out of thin air, or is it reasonable to assume that life reproduces and that this results in changes in allele frequency - both of which are observed facts. Since you're clearly such a fan of only believing what we observe, the latter conclusion must, by default, be more reasonable than the former.

Of all the animals that exist today, there were even more animals that died in the long ancestral chain that it took to get to the current "products" that we have today. And according to the Cambrian explosion, there is no fossil record..even though a fossil wouldn't prove anything anyway.

You obviously don't know anything about the Cambrian explosion, despite it being explained to you dozens of times. The Cambrian explosion was a rapid speciation event evidenced by the existence of a multitude of varied fossils appearing within a relatively short space of time (that was still several million years) in the geological column. It's ridiculous to say "the Cambrian explosion says there is no fossil record" when the Cambrian explosion is, itself, a fossil record.

Observation and repeated experiment. How does macroevolution fit these two criteria?

Fossils, genetics.

 

[fantome profane]

The reason Call of the Wild cannot understand that Evolution is not dependent on Abiogenesis is because he thinks that Evolution is a "world view". He thinks that this is a belief system being put up as an alternative to his belief system.

But Evolution is not a "world view", it is not a "belief system". Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more and nothing less. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the development and diversity of life. And it does this very well. That is enough for a scientific theory.

 

[Looncall]

The reason Call of the Wild cannot understand that Evolution is not dependent on Abiogenesis is because he thinks that Evolution is a "world view". He thinks that this is a belief system being put up as an alternative to his belief system.

But Evolution is not a "world view", it is not a "belief system". Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more and nothing less. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the development and diversity of life. And it does this very well. That is enough for a scientific theory.

I wonder if COTW's problem is that his religion has degraded his ability to think. This and other examples I have encountered incline me to think so.

I have read that NGOs in Afghanistan find the Afghans unable to take in new information unless it is presented in the context of the quran. Same effect?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The reason Call of the Wild cannot understand that Evolution is not dependent on Abiogenesis is because he thinks that Evolution is a "world view". He thinks that this is a belief system being put up as an alternative to his belief system.

But Evolution is not a "world view", it is not a "belief system". Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more and nothing less. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the development and diversity of life. And it does this very well. That is enough for a scientific theory.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Anything beyond this is relying on the unseen. It is faith.