I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[John53]

In 50 million years cetaceans evolved from dolphin size to great blue whale size. The difference in length can be up to 20 times. Meanwhile in only 10,000 years man has bred dogs that vary in size this much:

Just think what could happen in a time span 5,000 times as long.

And they can't breed with each other. Change of "kind"?

 

[Deeje]

She is a JW. Trying to get a JW to understand and accept science is like trying to get a blind person to understand color.

Keep it up and I'll report you for trolling.

 

[Deeje]

And they can't breed with each other. Change of "kind"?

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos John 53? He saw finches with different shaped beaks...but they were still very much of the same "family" as the finches on the mainland. They were all varieties of finches. Just because they can't interbreed doesn't make them a different "kind".
Same with the iguanas and tortoises.....they were not turning into different creatures...they still aren't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos John 53? He saw finches with different shaped beaks...but they were still very much of the same "family" as the finches on the mainland. They were all varieties of finches. Just because they can't interbreed doesn't make them a different "kind".
Same with the iguanas and tortoises.....they were not turning into different creatures...they still aren't.

And just because you can't breed with other apes does not mean that you are a "different kind". You and other apes are all of the ape kind.

Of course this is the problem with "kinds" as @Deeje uses the term. By her definition she is an ape, and she can't have that.

 

[metis]

the truth is, science also has insufficient evidence to claim that kind of victory.

Take your "evidence" apart and see what science is really saying....its not as conclusive as you have been led to 'believe'. Smoke and mirrors is in the terminology and in misleading interpretation of supposed evidence.

It's been shown to you over and over again by many here at RF, including many links, but all you do is virtually ignore them and ramble on with your proselytizing spiels. And then when we ask you to provide scientific evidence for your assertion that "micro-evolution" miraculously stops before getting into "macro-evolution", you don't produce one shred of evidence-- because you can't because it simply doesn't exist.

And now you're being hypocritical again because I point out the absurdity of your positions, which you chafe at, and yet you rant and rave about how scientists are supposedly ignorant or corrupt plus make fun of people who disagree with you with your little cartoons and your complaining. Is it no wonder why we get upset with your disingenuous tactics. So, let's get real, Deeje.

You are using your computer, so where did the technology come from, Deeje? your JW leaders? Nope-- from scientists. And the internet you are using, where did that some from? the technology for your phone? the satellites that your signals are relayed by? How about the fact that life expectancies in the west have almost doubled in the last two centuries? How about the reductions in child mortality rates? How about the increased supply of food to feed the world? increased technology to help schools? etc. etc.

Where did these come from, Deeje? your JW leaders? Na, as I would suggest that they come from the work of dedicated scientists throughout the world. You know, those scientists that you bad-mouth on a regular basis here at RF, especially those in fields relating to biology. It's as if they've learned nothing and you know so much more than they.

So, why do you believe in your JW leaders more than they? You know, that same group that predicted when Jesus would come again whereas he didn't, and then making up lame excuses as to why that didn't happen. And the same group that has taught you from their bigoted falsehoods against other churches and religions, such as your bogus claim that Catholics worship the sun, amongst other such false claims. And their willingness to feed more division in a world with their "my way or the highway" approach, whereas the world needs less division and more understanding and mutual cooperation.

So, between the myriads of scientists working in biological-related areas and the anti-science and divisive JW leaders, you have chosen the latter. I left my anti-science church many decades ago, so there is life when slipping away from religious leaders who fabricate stories to accepting the known reality of science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Metis...can you provide real evidence for what you believe? I haven't seen any.

You have already said that you will never accept any observation as evidence for evolution, no matter what it is. Your request is very disingenuous.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos John 53? He saw finches with different shaped beaks...but they were still very much of the same "family" as the finches on the mainland.

Chimps and humans are primates, as was our common ancestor. We are still in the primate kind.

Humans and bears are both mammals, as was our common ancestor. We are still in the mammal kind.

Humans and trout are both vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. We are still in the vertebrate kind.

 

[Jose Fly]

She is a JW. Trying to get a JW to understand and accept science is like trying to get a blind person to understand color.

Ok, now this is two RF posters with Solaire avatars. What's going on here?

And I likened trying to explain science to a Jehovah's Witness to offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew.

 

[1robin]

And we have observed evolution beyond that directly. Once gain ring species is an example. The Bible is not "correct" in that. When you have been shown to be wrong you need to admit it if you want people to keep being civil

I have been out of pocket for a while and have dozens of people to respond so this will be brief.

You have yet to show anything. You just keep claiming things that happen too slow to be observed over the entire history of humanity are known. Stop telling me what you think and actually post a single piece of evidence that anything you have said is true. I know you won't because you can't but I have been patient but not for much longer.

Perhaps if you did not use undefined terms you would not be so lost. "Kind" has no definition that is not worthless.

Arbitrary taxonomy definitions are irrelevant because on at least 3 occasions I have explained exactly what I am talking about. You can't post a single actual piece of evidence so your trying to cover it up by referring to semantic technicalities.

And it occurs to the point where they can no longer breed. By your definition they are no longer the same "kind". Please don't keep repeating nonsense such as the Bible is true when it is not. Leave the Bible out of it for now.

How many times do I have to point things out? I have said over and over that I am talking about the BIBLICAL application of the term kind. It is most often translated as a breeding population. I am not talking about biblical doctrine not etymology. The bible says things only evolve within breeding populations and that is all that has ever been observed or ever will be.

Did you read the link on ring species? It shows that you are wrong. And on. You have faith. That is belief without evidence. There are mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and no scientific evidence that supports your beliefs.

I do not remember seeing a link on "ring species". However if it showed that one breeding population evolved into another you can post it again. But you better make sure that what it shows. If your link turns out to fail showing this like every other link others have posted I will not follow another one from you.

 

[1robin]

No, I am not the confused one here. I am also not the one that has made errors.

You claim to be error free and expect me to take anything else you say seriously?

You have used terms that you do not understand, such as "macroevolution". Creationists have tried to redefine the term because macroevolution does exist and has been directly observed. The person that coined the phrase is the one that gets to define it and he defined it as evolution at and above the species level:

I have spelled out exactly what I mean so many times I am getting close to giving up on you. You know exactly what I am claiming and pretending otherwise is costing you credibility.

"Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups"

I didn't say anything about the scale of evolution or geological time, the definition of species is irrelevant, and I specifically said I am not talking about taxonomy. For the tenth time I am talking about evolution between breeding populations.

Macroevolution - Biology-Online Dictionary

Irrelevant semantics.

Creationists use to deny that evolution happened even at that level so when shown to be wrong they tried to redefine the term.

Not that this is relevant either but creationists are not some monolithic group who believe the same things.

Post some actual evidence against what I keep saying and stop circling the drain of irrelevant semantic technicalities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been out of pocket for a while and have dozens of people to respond so this will be brief.

You have yet to show anything. You just keep claiming things that happen too slow to be observed over the entire history of humanity are known. Stop telling me what you think and actually post a single piece of evidence that anything you have said is true. I know you won't because you can't but I have been patient but not for much longer.

I have posted evidence. But like many other creationists you may not understand what is and what is not evidence. And ring species are a clear example of macroevolution in action. If you don't understand please feel free to ask questions, but you should not jump to incorrect conclusions or make claims that others have not presented evidence when they have. It would be better if we went over this one point at a time. You may be getting lost since you are trying to cover to many questions at once.

Arbitrary taxonomy definitions are irrelevant because on at least 3 occasions I have explained exactly what I am talking about. You can't post a single actual piece of evidence so your trying to cover it up by referring to semantic technicalities.

But they are not arbitrary. What makes you think that they are? Once again you should be asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions. And no, I am not playing semantic games. Properly defined terms are a must in the sciences and that is why when terms are used in the sciences they have very limited meanings. I have plenty of evidence, but you need to understand even that term.

How many times do I have to point things out? I have said over and over that I am talking about the BIBLICAL application of the term kind. It is most often translated as a breeding population. I am not talking about biblical doctrine not etymology. The bible says things only evolve within breeding populations and that is all that has ever been observed or ever will be.

There is no consistent biblical application of the word "kind". If you only base it upon an ability to "reproduce after their own kind" in other words if two different groups can no longer interbreed then by that definition they are no longer the same "kind" and that has been observed. If you expand the term beyond that then you are making man and other apes the same "kind". Again, you are the one that is not being consistent or properly defining your terms. I tried to give a working definition of it but you did not like that because it supports the theory of evolution. Here is a hint, creationists won't make a proper working definition of the term because every one tends to support the theory of evolution.

I do not remember seeing a link on "ring species". However if it showed that one breeding population evolved into another you can post it again. But you better make sure that what it shows. If your link turns out to fail showing this like every other link others have posted I will not follow another one from you.

I will gladly post it again. But you seem to be unclear in what you expect to find. Of course it shows one population evolving to the point where some sub-populations can no longer interbreed with other sub-populations. That is macroevolution by definition:

Discovering a ring species

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claim to be error free and expect me to take anything else you say seriously?

I did not claim that. I have pointed out in our discussion that you are the one making errors, not me. There is a big difference.

[qute]

I have spelled out exactly what I mean so many times I am getting close to giving up on you. You know exactly what I am claiming and pretending otherwise is costing you credibility.[/quote]

Sorry, but you haven't. And you do not get to define proper terms. Macroevolution was defined by the man that coined the term. It has been observed.

I didn't say anything about the scale of evolution or geological time, the definition of species is irrelevant, and I specifically said I am not talking about taxonomy. For the tenth time I am talking about evolution between breeding populations.

Oh my. You don't appear to be following the conversation at all.

Irrelevant semantics.

Um no, that explains how the term describes the "evolution between breeding populations" exactly what you asked for.

Not that this is relevant either but creationists are not some monolithic group who believe the same things.

Post some actual evidence against what I keep saying and stop circling the drain of irrelevant semantic technicalities.

You need to quit demanding evidence and demonstrate that you understand the term.

Here is a simple question: Is "Lucy" scientific evidence for the scientific hypothesis of the evolution of man sharing a common ancestor with other great apes?

 

[John53]

What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos John 53? He saw finches with different shaped beaks...but they were still very much of the same "family" as the finches on the mainland. They were all varieties of finches. Just because they can't interbreed doesn't make them a different "kind".
Same with the iguanas and tortoises.....they were not turning into different creatures...they still aren't.

That's the problem with using the term "kind".... it is undefined in meaning. Unless you want to define it for me?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Stop telling me what you think and actually post a single piece of evidence that anything you have said is true.

These changes seen in the fossil record took more than 3 million years:

Arbitrary taxonomy definitions are irrelevant because on at least 3 occasions I have explained exactly what I am talking about. You can't post a single actual piece of evidence so your trying to cover it up by referring to semantic technicalities.

What you have shown is that if you can call two species by the same name then they are in the same kind. Therefore, humans and trout are in the same kind because I can call them both vertebrates.

It is most often translated as a breeding population.

There are different breeding populations of finches on the Galapagos, yet you claimed they were in the same kind. Therefore, that can't be one of your criteria. The only criteria I have seen you use is if you can use the same word to describe more than one species.

However if it showed that one breeding population evolved into another you can post it again.

"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."
Observed Instances of Speciation

Production of two isolated breeding populations, just as you requested.

 

[1robin]

And this is why it is virtually impossible to have any serious discussion with you. It's "the Bible" or else with you, which simply in and of itself cannot be verified in any way in the area of "creation" because none of us was there at "creation", including the author(s) of Genesis.

And misstating my views is why it is hard to talk with you. I have not been making any dogmatic claims.
This is very simple.

1. The bible suggests that evolution only occurs within breeding populations.
2. Evolution between breeding population is all that ever has or will probably ever be observed.

I'm a retired anthropologist who came from such paradigm as you are using, and what you are continuing to propose is simply hogwash. Just for starters, I've had subscriptions of Scientific American for over 50 years now, and pretty much in every single issue you'll find an article on evolution of some type, often including genetic information. Even in my introductory biology classes during my undergrad years, we had to learn at least basic genetics.

Making claims about your employment does not substitute for evidence that anything I said is wrong. Nor does mentioning the existence of a class.

You want scientific articles dealing with "macro-evolution"? Well, here's just one of many that one can access simply by googling "genetics+ macroevolution": Macroevolution - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics There's many many more.

No because I am talking about biological facts not semantics or etymology. It should be very simple and easy to destroy my claims but after years of begging others to post it I am eventually going to have to give up the effort. Nothing in your post is even an attempt to post evidence against my claim. I want this evidence not claims about what magazines you like.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And misstating my views is why it is hard to talk with you. I have not been making any dogmatic claims.
This is very simple.

1. The bible suggests that evolution only occurs within breeding populations.
2. Evolution between breeding population is all that ever has or will probably ever be observed.

If I sat at a construction site for 5 minutes and didn't see a complete building being made from start to finish, can I say that buildings must be created by God?

It should be very simple and easy to destroy my claims but after years of begging others to post it I am eventually going to have to give up the effort. Nothing in your post is even an attempt to post evidence against my claim. I want this evidence not claims about what magazines you like.

Consider them destroyed:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Subduction Zone]

These changes seen in the fossil record took more than 3 million years:

What you have shown is that if you can call two species by the same name then they are in the same kind. Therefore, humans and trout are in the same kind because I can call them both vertebrates.


There are different breeding populations of finches on the Galapagos, yet you claimed they were in the same kind. Therefore, that can't be one of your criteria. The only criteria I have seen you use is if you can use the same word to describe more than one species.



"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)."
Observed Instances of Speciation

Production of two isolated breeding populations, just as you requested.

It is always easier to call terms "arbitrary" rather than learning the proper definition of terms and why they were defined that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And misstating my views is why it is hard to talk with you. I have not been making any dogmatic claims.
This is very simple.

1. The bible suggests that evolution only occurs within breeding populations.
2. Evolution between breeding population is all that ever has or will probably ever be observed.

I see your problem. You have unrealistic expectations. You are demanding to directly observe a form of evolution that would refute the theory of evolution. That is extremely unrealistic. You also have an overly limited definition of the word "observe". We can observe the sort of evidence that you demand in the fossil record.

Making claims about your employment does not substitute for evidence that anything I said is wrong. Nor does mentioning the existence of a class.



No because I am talking about biological facts not semantics or etymology. It should be very simple and easy to destroy my claims but after years of begging others to post it I am eventually going to have to give up the effort. Nothing in your post is even an attempt to post evidence against my claim. I want this evidence not claims about what magazines you like.

Common ancestry is a biological fact. It is supported by literally mountains of evidence. If you refuse to learn you will not be able to understand your errors. Understanding what is and what is not evidence is a must. So is understanding the concept of observation.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for demonstrating that you really do not understand the process.

And finally, it you believe that there is some sort of magical wall that prevents micro from becoming macro, please present it. I've given you a link and how to google access other such scientific links, now let's see what you can produce here, 1robin.

You demanded scientific evidence, I produced it, so now it's your turn. My guess is that you'll either not respond or do some song & dance to avoid this request.

I wish you would limit the color commentary for at least the sake of time. You have not posted any evidence what so ever (not even a single piece of bad evidence) for evolution between breeding populations. I don't have the slightest idea what it is you could possibly think your referring to. I am really short on time and can't chase you down all these other irrelevant rabbit holes nor should I. Do you not even know what I am asking for?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I wish you would limit the color commentary for at least the sake of time. You have not posted any evidence what so ever (not even a single piece of bad evidence) for evolution between breeding populations.

Here are 29:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent