So evolution within a family is acceptable to you?
As far as the rest, I'm not continuing until you pick up where we last left off:
Post #2204.
OK, so we are dictating the terms of the discussion now are we? I thought all your points had already been well covered....like I said, you are a late-comer to this thread. But just to humor you......
There is no "evolution within a family"...there is adaptation. I believe that all species are created with this ability because self-sufficiency is seen everywhere in nature. Adaptation is the ability to remain self-sufficient and to survive as a species despite changes to the environment. It is a brilliant piece of programming IMO.
I want you to look at what you just said, compare it to your claim that your religious views don't distort your views on science, and explain to me how the two statements are not completely contradictory.
You see science as a completely separate subject to the Creator....I see them as inextricably linked. There is no contradiction to me...only to you.The Creator is responsible for the existence of what you study. Your inability to connect him to creation is not my problem.
Your consistent avoidance of directly answering the question coupled with the above gives me the impression that your view is that when it comes to the work of scientists, a person does not have to understand their terminology or even look at their work at all, in order to properly critique it.
I can critique anything that has no real science to back it up. If you could prove your theory, we might have something on which to build a discussion...but you have no substantive proof that organic evolution (macroevolution) ever took place. If you had, we'd have seen some convincing evidence by now. Convince us Jose. Just keep it on a level that we can all understand.....that is the measure of a good teacher.
All one needs to do is get a rough idea of what the conclusions are, and that's more than enough. Merely doing that makes one fully qualified to evaluate said conclusions.
Is that about right?
All I need is for you to refute what I have said with evidence to substantiate what science claims to be true. If you can't do it at the layman's level, then what do you have? If you have no evidence apart from biased scientific interpretation of fossils and DNA evidence, then I don't think you have anything.
The fossils can speak another language but you can't seem to hear them for some reason.
And you say all that, even though you've not bothered to even look at their work, nor do you understand it. Your process is nothing more than "these conclusions conflict with my beliefs, therefore the conclusions are wrong".
I have looked at a lot of "evidence" presented for evolution but I can see that supposition forms about 75% of it. There is just enough truth to make it sound convincing....the lack of substantive proof doesn't seem to matter to scientists. As long as other scientists say so, that seems to be all that is necessary to swallow the whole scenario.....no real proof is needed apparently.
No. "Microevolution" is evolution below the species level (e.g., the evolution of resistance to antibiotics). "Macroevolution" is evolution above that, i.e., the evolution of new species.
But then, here I am trying to explain something to a person who's already declared they don't need to know anything about it before they can draw uncompromising conclusions about it.
Oh please....what's with the condescension?
You think we don't know what microevolution is? Adaptation is not evolution at all....even though science wants to pretend it is.
Macroevolution is a load of baloney. There is no proof that it ever happened, so unless you want to produce the evidence, instead of a mountain of suggestion backed up by nothing but diagrams and illustrations....all we have heard from you so far is a lot of hot air.
So if a population A gives rise to population B, and population B is physically unable to interbreed with population A (but population B can generate its own fertile offspring), that would be the evolution of a new "kind", correct?
No. There are no new "kinds"....only perhaps new species within their kinds....and only when circumstances forced them to adapt to new environments or food sources. I see what Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands. There were no new "kinds"...only adapted species of already existing "kinds". The finches were still finches and the iguanas were still iguanas. No?
You do not have any proof that evolution can produce a new "kind". There is no such thing as macroevolution....its all made up....and you cannot use adaptation as proof because these are two entirely different propositions. Adaptation never produced a new "kind" of anything. Every experiment science has ever conducted saw only slight modifications in the presentation of creatures (namely flies or fish) within a single species. Show us where science has proved otherwise.
Do you view these as "evolution in action"? These are adaptation in action.....no new creatures here.
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
You keep saying this, but you haven't been clear on what you mean. What is the difference between a population evolving and a population adapting?
You mean you can't tell the difference?
A population adapting is not a population evolving because they are not the same thing. I know science wants to use adaptation as evidence, but it just doesn't stack up. Adaptation produces no new "kinds"......just new species of the same kind.
Again, the irony of you using a computer and the internet to express that view is noted.
Actually the irony is that you believe that the human brain that made the existence of a computer on the internet possible, evolved from an amoeba. I guess that can be duly noted as well......
And you will do so from a standpoint of "it conflicts with my beliefs, therefore it is wrong" and nothing more.
That speaks for itself.
Since you have contributed to this thread for some pages now without a single attempt to provide any real evidence for your position, I guess that also speaks for itself....
