Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And as I said, an asinine one.
"Asinine" suffices.
From this response, and those you've made to others here it's obvious you' choose to go off topic to save yourself from having to address uncomfortable issues. So be it. If you can't cope, you can't cope.
But you can take comfort in the fact that you're not the first to resort to the tactic.
So how would you explain the existence of the miacid fossil, and the diverging lineage of fossils into cat-like and dog-like fossils?
And what "traits" are specifically required to identify two animals as belonging to two different "kinds"?
The origins of life are irrelevant when discussing the diversity of life with someone who is scientifically literate. You conflate the two with regards to your horse before the cart comments - instead of addressing the diversity claims you instead attempt to switch topics to origin claims. This is because as a proponent of ID who asserts that evolution is constrained by 'kinds', origins and diversity are intrinsically the same, that diversity of life is achieved through the way in which they originated - they were constructed differently. For an ID proponent conflation is the default position.
Ummm what do you mean by a 'substantiated theory for organic evolution'? We have identified it, demonstrated it, refined it. We have it it is called 'Evolution'.
No, I recognize each of the animals as different to the other, the elephant being the most different of those particular ones you mentioned. The problem is that you are attempting to rely on a subconscious pattern seeking element to create a psuedo grouping to attempt to select some of the organisms and not others, however there is no merit to this approach in terms of actual biology. If you cannot define 'kind' then using it is not merely pointless, it becomes an obstacle to reasoned discussion - because a defined term which relates to biological categorization can be tested within the domain of scientific inquiry and this is something proponents of 'kind' limitations on evolution are keen to avoid - because every time they have done so their definition gets roundly proven to be without merit.
Then 'everyone' is wrong; because they do not know what they are talking about. We do have samples for a huge number of transitions, the problem that you are simply not grasping the fact that all fossils are ALL transitional fossils every single one. The difference is that for some of them, them adhere to a set of characteristics that we have attached a label to and thus we dont really call them transitional fossils anymore. We have far more transitional than non-transitional fossils. There are some transitions about which we have significantly FEWER samples - it is in such transitions that our evidence is far thinner (one of these transitions was the presence of a lower jaw - a sample of which was only recently discovered), but to claim we do not have transitional fossils - let alone that they do not exist? Is manifestly incorrect and simply indicates a gross level of unawareness about the subject. The backrooms in museums are FILLED with transitional fossils (as are universities etc), they are simply seldom on display (because everyone wants to see TRex, not Trex's ancestor who had much longer fore arms, a smaller head, was several feet shorter etc)
Actually, we can identify what it is made of, lets say it was a bone and thus calcium; we can look at the structure of the teeth and notice that they are all sharp teeth made for tearing, so we can make inferences about it's diet, we can also look for similarities with other organisms - such as a finding what looks like a human skull we can say hey you know that was a human, and since it is the remains of a human, just like WE have DNA, so too does it, hopefully sufficiently well preserved so that we can find out more about them. A fossil is more than simply a lump of 'stuff' about which we cannot learn more - your desire to remain unaware of what those fossils might teach us notwithstanding.
DNA is a record of those organisms which had up until that point (where the organism died) succeeded, it is a record of success - this is a hierarchical family portrait (gross simplification) of those traits that were passed on.
Time is the one and only factor which prevents it - microorganisms live a VERY short time, therefore, we can observe changes over many many many generations with relative ease (where six months of research might include hundreds of thousands of generations) - on the other hand with macro organisms they live a LOT longer, therefore observing multiple generations takes an extremely long time.
From this response, and those you've made to others here it's obvious you' choose to go off topic to save yourself from having to address uncomfortable issues. So be it. If you can't cope, you can't cope.
Take care and have a good day.
There is every reason. Picture a population of wild dogs. They have the morphologies they do because of their gene pool. Over the generations, gene pools change: this is observed fact, not conjecture. After very many generations, the gene pool can change so far that the animals' fertilised eggs develop into a body form you would not recognise as a dog. You and other creationists here have been asked many times to give a mechanism that would prevent the gene pool from diverging that far: none has so far been forthcoming.
Call, just fix it so you live fifty million years: I promise you'll observe macroevolution. The distinction is one of scale, not of kind.
Your mastery of evasion is breathtaking. InformedIgnorance asked you a very simple question: why do we see no modern lifeforms among early fossils? Characteristically, you ducked it. And if you really want to know about dating methods (which I doubt), read this. When you've read it, if you have discovered the methods to be invalid you can explain to us what's wrong with them.
You've set the bar pretty high for thoughtless and inane comments, but this one sails over the rest effortlessly. Do you know how improbable it is for a dead animal to fossilise? And then for that fossil, buried in thousands of cubic miles of rock, to come to light? To say you won't believe transitional fossils exist unless you see every one is like refusing to believe in Paul Revere's ride unless someone shows you every hoofprint left by his horse.
Forget the "life from non-life" thing - we're talking about deduction from observation. There is only one credible deduction that can be made from what is observed: your argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
Well, if you look at the history of changing fossils, I'd say it's an inevitable conclusion. How else could you think?
ID is a non-scientific nonsense, invented to try and disprove what was viewed as an atheistic coup de grace. Personally, I don't see that evolution is proof of a non-existence of god, though it does drive a rather large nail into the coffin of the biblical creation story, other than as allegory.
Again, an argument from incredulity - if that's all it takes, well.. there was someone around, eternally, who just happened to be able to make everything? I mean, cmon.