The battle of evolution vs creationism

[metis]

...guess what? Dogs produce dogs...

But if one really understands evolutionary theory, the implication of what you wrote here is completely irrelevant because it indicates that you don't really understand the workings of the ToE. Of course dogs produce dogs-- so?

What's missing is something that any geneticist will tell you: genes evolve over time, thus new species and "kinds" eventually emerge. We have seen this happening with some insect species whereas some that were of the same species back X number of years cannot reproduce with some from the same lineage. We know this because it has been observed in experiments, so it's simply not speculation. Where I did my graduate work in anthropology, this was observed with some experiments with fruit flies.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There has been no scientific debate for over a hundred years about evolution.

So basically, the theory of evolution has never been in debate by scientists that believe in evolution??? Ha.

So you are factually wrong dogs and cats are in a state of evolution, they evolved from pervious species, and they very well may evolve into another species.

Well when it happens, I will believe it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You really didn't take in a word of my post, did you? You are doing exactly what I predicted.

Read every single word of it.

You are the only one suggesting that things were possible in the past that don't happen today: that idea forms no part of evolutionary theory. Animals millions of years ago were indeed doing the things that animals today do: that is, their populations' gene pools changed over time, just as we observe today. For that change in genome to result in what you would call a change of "kind" takes longer than any human can observe, but no creationist has identified any limit on the extent of genetic change that would prevent it from happening; and the fossil record (which exists as a record of change over time whether you like it or not) confirms that it happens.

Regardless of how you justify it...the change itself is something that we DON'T SEE. You just said it "takes longer than any human can observe". So why are you making it seem as if I am misquoting your post or responding ignorantly to what you said. I said exactly what you JUST said and what the THEORY predicts, which is large scale changes over millions of years.

 

[adi2d]

I have to call POE here.

 

[Parsimony]

I find it very curious how Call_of_the_Wild ignored my post. Perhaps he will respond if I repost the question:

Can you explain why God would fill dolphin DNA with thousands of broken genes that would have never served any function if dolphins had always lived their lives in water?

If Creationism is correct, this should be easy to answer, right?

If you don't end up addressing this, I will consider your silence to be synonymous with an admit to defeat.

 

[outhouse]

So basically, the theory of evolution has never been in debate by scientists that believe in evolution??? .

I did not say that.

In the last hundred years, there has been no credible debate.


Too date, there is no credile replacement hypothesis.


Evolution is fact now.

 

[outhouse]

I have to call POE here.

Its actually wilful ignorance in the extreme. Sadly it is not POE

 

[outhouse]

There is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than an animal miraculously producing something different than what it is some 150 million years ago.

Your factually incorrect.

There is no credible evidence anyone has ever rose from the dead, ever. :slap:


Evolution is Fact.

Jesus rising from the dead has not ever been placed outside of mythology scientificaly speaking.

 

[outhouse]

Look, I am not in to bio-babble. I am using "dog" to describe a kind of animal. There is a "dog" kind, a "cat" kind, a "elephant" kind, and a "turtle" kind. There are many different varieties of animals within those kinds. That is why we have big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, etc. There is no reason to distingiush a wolf from a coyote, or a coyote from a german shepard, other than to say that all are different kinds of the SAME ANIMAL. That is micro evolution. That is what we see. That is what we can observe. That is science. We observe animals producing many different varieties within their own kind. That is microevolution. We don't see animals producing different kind of animals, which is what you and others on here believe happens ever 150 million years or so. If you want to believe it, fine, believe what you want. But don't call it science, because it isn't. Science doesn't predict such large scale changes, nor has it ever been observed. It is just a theory that is used as a way to provide an explanation for how the heck did living organisms acheive their current state, if you negate the existence of a Almighty God.

A wolf, a coyote, a fox, a jackal, a german shepard are all part of the "dog" kind. I understand that biologists want to complicate things to make themselves look more smart than they are by trying to categorize animals in a dozen different ways...family...genus...species...etc. There is no need for all of that.

A lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, jaguar are all part of the "cat" kind. A cat will only produce a cat, and a dog will only produce a dog. No exceptions. Anything beyond that is speculation and unscientific.

I will place my faith in Jesus Christ and evolutionists will place their faith in Charles Darwin. Let the chips fall where they may.

This utter rubbish isnt worth a reply.

Your just saying your not into education, knowledge and reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Call it what you want, because it is down right predictable that every time someone disagrees with the theory of evolution they will be accused of being stupid, dumb, ignorant, or any other synonym one can think of. It is as if evolutionists are the smart ones and anyone that doesn't believe in it are the dumb ones. Not to mention the fact that, I mean lets face it...even evolutionists have never seen these large scale changes on the macro level. Yet they believe it because if you take out the God hypothesis, they have no other way of explaining how living and breathing organisms got here.

Well, in your case, it's warranted, given that you openly admit that you are ignorant on the subject of evolution and refuse to read anything about it.

Evolution is one of the most (if not the most) well evidenced scientific theories in existence. Evolution is fact. So yeah, you look kind of ignorant when you just keep repeating "dogs produce dogs" over and over again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look, I am not in to bio-babble. I am using "dog" to describe a kind of animal. There is a "dog" kind, a "cat" kind, a "elephant" kind, and a "turtle" kind. There are many different varieties of animals within those kinds. That is why we have big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, etc. There is no reason to distingiush a wolf from a coyote, or a coyote from a german shepard, other than to say that all are different kinds of the SAME ANIMAL. That is micro evolution. That is what we see. That is what we can observe. That is science. We observe animals producing many different varieties within their own kind. That is microevolution. We don't see animals producing different kind of animals, which is what you and others on here believe happens ever 150 million years or so. If you want to believe it, fine, believe what you want. But don't call it science, because it isn't. Science doesn't predict such large scale changes, nor has it ever been observed. It is just a theory that is used as a way to provide an explanation for how the heck did living organisms acheive their current state, if you negate the existence of a Almighty God.

A wolf, a coyote, a fox, a jackal, a german shepard are all part of the "dog" kind. I understand that biologists want to complicate things to make themselves look more smart than they are by trying to categorize animals in a dozen different ways...family...genus...species...etc. There is no need for all of that.

A lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, jaguar are all part of the "cat" kind. A cat will only produce a cat, and a dog will only produce a dog. No exceptions. Anything beyond that is speculation and unscientific.

I will place my faith in Jesus Christ and evolutionists will place their faith in Charles Darwin. Let the chips fall where they may.

You have no idea what science is. Biologists aren't doing things to try to look smart, they're just doing biology. Nobody cares if you don't like specific categorizations of animals that are in fact, necessary.

Stop listening to Ken Hovind. He doesn't know what science is either. People who accept evolution aren't placing any faith whatsoever in Darwin, despite what Dr. Distortion might be trying to tell you. That's ridiculous. We rely on EVIDENCE. You should check it out sometime.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, in your case, it's warranted, given that you openly admit that you are ignorant on the subject of evolution and refuse to read anything about it.

Evolution is one of the most (if not the most) well evidenced scientific theories in existence. Evolution is fact. So yeah, you look kind of ignorant when you just keep repeating "dogs produce dogs" over and over again.

Pfft - and you continually ignore the fact that no one has ever seen a kumquat give birth to a yak. If yaks don't come from kumquats, then they obviously were created by a particular mythologized god-figure of a specific religious sect that arose 20 centuries ago. Duh.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Pfft - and you continually ignore the fact that no one has ever seen a kumquat give birth to a yak. If yaks don't come from kumquats, then they obviously were created by a particular mythologized god-figure of a specific religious sect that arose 20 centuries ago. Duh.

Are you insinuating that I'm ignorant? How dare you, sir!

 

[Skwim]

I don't disagree with evolution because of what I don't understand, I disagree because of what I DO understand.

Then all more's the pity.

The outright lies comes directly from the textbooks itself.

Well, yes, there are creation-oriented textbooks out there, but thankfully not that many.

I don't recall any rational behind evolution...

I hope you realize that this comes as no surprise.

Remove myself? Nope, I feel right at home. In fact I am taking my shoes off and putting a dent in the couch.

*** Staff Edit***

Evolutionist on his own ground? Oh please.

Well it sure ain't creationist territory; although, considering that the best argument creationists can muster is "God did it," it's obvious why they seek to co-opt evolution's domain: they have no other place to go. Just clean up after yourselves. Thank you.

 

[Parsimony]

Today I was doing some thinking and I came up with a few predictions about evolution. If evolution is correct, then there should be lots and lots of broken genes in all extant species. A few of the more interesting possibilities I came up with are:

The genes to form hard eggshells in placental mammals.
If geneticists ever find the genes required to form eggshells in placental mammals, this would mean multiple things. Firstly, it would mean that all mammals (humans included) had ancestors that laid eggs (which is in line with the idea that mammals evolved from reptiles). Secondly, it would mean that the placenta had to come about via evolution (if you laid eggs first, then you don't need a placenta). I wonder if creationists would then try to argue that Cain and Able were hatched from eggs...

The genes to form teeth in baleen whales.
The presence of the genes needed to form pearly whites would be proof that baleen had to come into existence via evolution, as the genes for hard teeth couldn't get there by accident; their ancestors must have had them.

The genes to form gills in reptiles, birds and mammals.
This one's a longer shot because of how much time has elapsed since gills were needed in these classes. It's possible that mutation could have made all of the gill genes unrecognizable by now. However, if enough of them are intact to be confirmed, then the creationists would have a real mess on their hands. I have absolutely no idea how they could posit that Adam and Eve had gills, for example.

Take note that I am not aware that any of these things have actually been found. However, creationists and evolutionists alike should keep their eyes peeled for any news about it. The human genome has been completely sequenced, so now its just a matter of time before we figure out what each and every gene does.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You might be interested in the presence of non-erupting teeth in the platypus.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have to call POE here.

A ToE POE?

 

[adi2d]

A ToE POE?

His friends call him T.P.

 

[McBell]

There is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than an animal miraculously producing something different than what it is some 150 million years ago.

Only if you pick and choose what is and is not evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I said cats produce cats...a tiger and a lion reproducing is two cats producing a cat.

But a tiger isn't a lion.

A kind is whatever can reproduce or move the goalposts to fit your argument.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything beyond this is to deny reality and resort to some fantasy Alice in Wonderland nonsense.

"I am open to evidence."
*evidence*
"Fall back on what I said before while ignoring the evidence"

Dogs produce dogs, outhouse. Have you ever observed anything beyond this in your years?? No. So why think that you would have observed such a thing 150 million years ago?

You don't. Though I am glad to know that you are simply a clone of one of your parents. Because any variation at all would mean you are wrong.

There is more evidence for my reality than there is for yours...and my reality isn't science...but yours is. So therefore, I expect to see observational evidence supporting your theory, but I don't..and neither do you.

Nope. You haven't produced any evidence. dogs producing dogs is actually evidence for evolution.

The story involving the Garden of Eden is a fable based on what? A nonbeliever who doesn't believe in the bible?

I have never seen a garden of eden. Ergo its false. Your logic turned against you.

You do understand what it means to lie to students in the text books, don't you?

I see it all the time in those fake private YEC schools.

So if you believe that Jesus told parables in the bible, you should also believe that Jesus rose from the dead, because that is from the bible also. The bible tells us that Jesus told parables and that he was crucified, buried, Resurrected, and was seen by believers and skeptics alike. So either we are going to use the bible in its entirety, or not use it at all.

I think the latter is the best option availible to us.

Um, the bible isn't a scientific book, although coincidently, it does provide us with the first reference of an expanding universe that we've seen in ANY ancient book. While the scientists that you love like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were telling us that the universe is static and eternal...the prophets that I love like Moses and Isaiah were telling us that not only is the universe finite and had a beginning (Genesis 1:1), but it is expanding (Isaiah 40:22).

Nope.

When I want to know about how the universe works, I will pick up a text book (and hope I am not being lied to), but when I need an adaquate answer on the absolute origins of the universe.....bible.

So when you have a question you go to google but assume its a lie if you don't like the answer. when you wish for comfort in your own bed of lies you go to a book of fables.