Creation vs. Evolution

[CraftyLandShark]

In reality, it is scrutiny of the claim and that which is submitted as evidence to support it. So far there is nothing near substantive enough to legitimately establish the scope of the claim and plenty of evidence to disprove the claim.
Thats just the true reality of the facts in evidence.


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php

I've unfortunately seen the movie, which absurdly redefines evolution to cover concepts as disparate as abiogenesis and cosmology. I've also had enough conversations with ID/Creationism folks that I can say with reasonable confidence that what really gets to you guys, at heart, is the idea of speciation. If you want one of us to provide you with factual information about the various fascinating, elegant and observable mechanisms by which new species arise, I'm sure we'll be glad to oblige. My guess, though, is that you'd simply ignore it, as you seem to do when confronted with any specific, credible argument. That, or you'd broadly and vaguely redefine the terms of the discussion.

In light of that, I feel like the only thing I can do at this point is, again, insist that you make a positive argument. Let's grant for a moment your absurd claim that there's no credible evidence for evolution. Why is ID/creationism correct?! Show us the evidence that you keep talking about!

Oh, and if I see the words 'bacteria' and 'flagellum' anywhere near each other, I think I'll probably spontaneously combust.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The facts in evidence that you choose not to scrutinize. You still haven't answered why you can cross breed a horse and a donkey to get a mule.

I can't believe you are still harping on that one.
At any rate, enlighten me as to its relevance.

The last two are especially juicy. Since there is proof. And since "science" doesn't have "complete trust" in anything. Ever. The scientific method is based on questioning.

In this case its also answering and its not scientifically particular about the answer it provides.

Maybe I should copy paste all my answers and repeat them every time you repeat the question? Since you choose to not acknowledge these answers or explain how "faith" has anything to do with "evolution", the net result will be the same.

If one realizes evolution is only in theory an "abstract possibility", then there is no relevance to faith.
However if one embraces it as proven and true in light of the facts to the contrary, then "faith" is the only means by which you can do so.

I've unfortunately seen the movie, which absurdly redefines evolution to cover concepts as disparate as abiogenesis and cosmology. I've also had enough conversations with ID/Creationism folks that I can say with reasonable confidence that what really gets to you guys, at heart, is the idea of speciation.

The movie only points out the obvious weakness and dilemma of the whole evolutionary claim. Science should be open to all intellectual inquiry, scrutiny and debate concerning this claim. However in reality, there is a clear indication from the the gaurded position it takes, that it is rather a "belief system" not based in "scientific fact". This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from such a stance.

If you want one of us to provide you with factual information about the various fascinating, elegant and observable mechanisms by which new species arise, I'm sure we'll be glad to oblige. My guess, though, is that you'd simply ignore it, as you seem to do when confronted with any specific, credible argument. That, or you'd broadly and vaguely redefine the terms of the discussion.

As to the scope of the evolutionary claim your speciation example is not going to even come close, but if you really think you can, then by all means proceed.

Just remember you are attempting to prove something contrary to every established law and principle in the field of scientific endeavor as well as every established law and principle in the universe.

As to redefinition, I'm not redifining anything. The definitions were established before I came along.

In light of that, I feel like the only thing I can do at this point is, again, insist that you make a positive argument. Let's grant for a moment your absurd claim that there's no credible evidence for evolution. Why is ID/creationism correct?! Show us the evidence that you keep talking about!

So far I would prefer to stay on one subject at a time. That has been to debunk the claims of evolution. All in good time.

Oh, and if I see the words 'bacteria' and 'flagellum' anywhere near each other, I think I'll probably spontaneously combust.

On this I could not concur, unless an ignition source was present,
but then again that would not be "spontaneous" would it?

 

[niky]

I can't believe you are still harping on that one.
At any rate, enlighten me as to its relevance.

Because you claimed, eleventy million pages ago, that all species reproduce of their own kind. Which means that there are no "transitional species". I'm pointing out that different species can reproduce with each other, producing offspring which are sterile. This indicates that they are incomplete genetic matches, and are therefore species derived from a common ancestor (some millions of years ago) in the process of speciation,

In this case its also answering and its not scientifically particular about the answer it provides.

Science is not scientifically particular? That's the most contrived statement I've heard yet.

If one realizes evolution is only in theory an "abstract possibility", then there is no relevance to faith.
However if one embraces it as proven and true in light of the facts to the contrary, then "faith" is the only means by which you can do so.

Ah, there it is. Facts to the contrary.

So far, you haven't provide a single fact to the contrary. All you've done is cast doubts about the evidence given, without explaining why the evidence is invalid... in a scientific way.

Which is why I'm interested in your answer regarding the issue of interspecies interbreeding and partial genetic compatibility between a wide variety of inter-related species. As this is proof of ongoing speciation occuring in the here and now.

So far I would prefer to stay on one subject at a time. That has been to debunk the claims of evolution. All in good time.

Now that you've broached the subject and mentioned "evidence", you are obligated to follow it up.

 

[orimarc]

without explaining why the evidence is invalid... in a scientific way.

But he can't! Because that would be answering with science. And the answers wouldn't be "scientifically particular"

Question for SCJ:

You say that the scientific branches that are involved in evolution are based on faith. Does that mean that ALL scientific branches (biology, geology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc.) are based on faith? If not, why?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The movie only points out the obvious weakness and dilemma of the whole evolutionary claim. Science should be open to all intellectual inquiry, scrutiny and debate concerning this claim. However in reality, there is a clear indication from the the gaurded position it takes, that it is rather a "belief system" not based in "scientific fact". This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from such a stance.



As to the scope of the evolutionary claim your speciation example is not going to even come close, but if you really think you can, then by all means proceed.

Just remember you are attempting to prove something contrary to every established law and principle in the field of scientific endeavor as well as every established law and principle in the universe.

As to redefinition, I'm not redifining anything. The definitions were established before I came along.

If you truly think the bolded statement is correct, you close your mind to any evidence of ANYTHING that can't be physically "looked at" with the human eye over the scope of a single human lifetime. If you wish to limit yourself to that sort of view of reality, I won't bother, because you've already decided that no heaping amount of specific credible information will meet your twisted standard of evidence, which brings me to my next point:

So far I would prefer to stay on one subject at a time. That has been to debunk the claims of evolution. All in good time.

So DO IT, already! Debunk it. Give us the actual physical evidence to debunk evolution.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Because you claimed, eleventy million pages ago, that all species reproduce of their own kind. Which means that there are no "transitional species". I'm pointing out that different species can reproduce with each other, producing offspring which are sterile. This indicates that they are incomplete genetic matches, and are therefore species derived from a common ancestor (some millions of years ago) in the process of speciation.

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.
How much speciation do you suppose can be spawned from sterile offspring.
If anything it proves evolution isn't possible.
The only thing it indicates is that the mule is the end of the speciation.

So far, you haven't provide a single fact to the contrary. All you've done is cast doubts about the evidence given, without explaining why the evidence is invalid... in a scientific way.

I don't know where you have been.
The evidence is either substantial to establish and support or it isn't. If not it is doubtful. So far it is too unsubstantial to establish evolution as anything other than an "abstract possibility".

Which is why I'm interested in your answer regarding the issue of interspecies interbreeding and partial genetic compatibility between a wide variety of inter-related species. As this is proof of ongoing speciation occuring in the here and now.

??????????????? If you click your heels together, maybe that will make it so.
I repeat. How much speciation to you suppose can be spawned from sterile offspring.
All evidence in the observable, demonstrable, and repeatable is to the contrary.

Now that you've broached the subject and mentioned "evidence", you are obligated to follow it up.

Thats for me to decide.

I would also like to add that German researchers have been studying European black-capped chickadees. All of these birds used to migrate to Spain for the winter in the past. However, with the advent of people putting birdfeeders in their gardens, a significant portion now stay year-round in England rather than migrating south.

What's more, because they stay isolated into early spring, this sub-population tends to breed almost exclusively with itself, rather than mingling with the birds from continental Europe.

After 50 years or so, there are consistent and measurable differences in beak width, wing length, and feather coloration between the two sub-populations.

This is a good example of the assumptive speculation, that must be engaged to believe in evolution. The example proves that changes can and do occur within species in response to enviroment. However these changes as clearly observed do not indicate any change of a evolutionary nature nor indicate the probability of it. They only show changes of a limited scope and within the dynamical boundaries of the reproductive mechanism of this species of bird. This is what would be expected from the observation as factual and consistant with established scientific principles and universal law. There is absolutely nothing to infer anything more than that now or 50,000 years from now. Any conclusions drawn beyond that can only be based in assumptive speculation, not from factual evidence, scientific or otherwise, because there isn't any.

Coincidence? Divine intervention? I think not. Natural selection.

Hmmmm, I wonder where that bird came from? Coincidence? Divine intervention? Natural selection?

Of course, we'll probably hear that these birds are still chickadees, not half-chickadee-half-chackadoo, so this is still not evidence of evolution.

Sorry to disappoint you but, its not even close.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Let's look at the London Underground "molestus" mosquito, then. This is a relative of the native "surface dwelling" species of Culex pipens mosquito. A number of them migrated into the subterranean environment of the London underground when it was first constructed, geographically isolating themselves from the pipens population. Over the course of little more than a century, the molestus population has become a behaviorally and genetically new species. Whereas the pipens mosquitos feed only on birds and are cold-resistant winter hibernators, the molestus mosquitos require warmer conditions, do not hibernate, and have a much more diverse diet including rodents and humans. More importantly though, it's impossible for the pipens and molestus species to interbreed except by artificial intervention, demonstrating clearly that these are two distinct species. This is speciation, within evolution, by means of natural selection, clearly at work in the modern world. Want more examples? There are plenty. Want to take a glance at the genetic side of this example? That's not a problem either.

One does not have to employ 'faith' to make a reasonable projection about what this sort of process could cause over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Duke]

This is a good example of the assumptive speculation, that must be engaged to believe in evolution. The example proves that changes can and do occur within species in response to enviroment. However these changes as clearly observed do not indicate any change of a evolutionary nature nor indicate the probability of it. They only show changes of a limited scope and within the dynamical boundaries of the reproductive mechanism of this species of bird. This is what would be expected from the observation as factual and consistant with established scientific principles and universal law. There is absolutely nothing to infer anything more than that now or 50,000 years from now. Any conclusions drawn beyond that can only be based in assumptive speculation, not from factual evidence, scientific or otherwise, because there isn't any.

Changes which Creationism can't even begin to explain other than to say "God some Intelligent Designer did it."

50 years != 50 million years. I reiterate my comment from some time back. Creationists swallow crap like "eternity" whole yet cannot fathom a really long time. That's not science's failure; it's creationism's failure.

Hmmmm, I wonder where that bird came from? Coincidence? Divine intervention? Natural selection?

That last one.

Sorry to disappoint you but, its not even close.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is just another data point that completely supports the concept of evolution / natural selection and utterly fails to discredit it.

Let's look at the London Underground "molestus" mosquito, then. This is a relative of the native "surface dwelling" species of Culex pipens mosquito. A number of them migrated into the subterranean environment of the London underground when it was first constructed, geographically isolating themselves from the pipens population. Over the course of little more than a century, the molestus population has become a behaviorally and genetically new species. Whereas the pipens mosquitos feed only on birds and are cold-resistant winter hibernators, the molestus mosquitos require warmer conditions, do not hibernate, and have a much more diverse diet including rodents and humans. More importantly though, it's impossible for the pipens and molestus species to interbreed except by artificial intervention, demonstrating clearly that these are two distinct species. This is speciation, within evolution, by means of natural selection, clearly at work in the modern world. Want more examples? There are plenty. Want to take a glance at the genetic side of this example? That's not a problem either.

One does not have to employ 'faith' to make a reasonable projection about what this sort of process could cause over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

Unsubstantiated guesswork. God the Intelligent Designer something mystic made those mosquitos that way. Obviously. If this proved anything (which it doesn't) all it would prove is that evolution is impossible.

Hey, that was pretty easy. Maybe I'll switch sides. It's less work.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If you truly think the bolded statement is correct, you close your mind to any evidence of ANYTHING that can't be physically "looked at" with the human eye over the scope of a single human lifetime. If you wish to limit yourself to that sort of view of reality, I won't bother, because you've already decided that no heaping amount of specific credible information will meet your twisted standard of evidence, which brings me to my next point:

Contrary to what you might think, and I have already stated it, I can clearly see the evidences for which many of you have based your belief in evolution and how they can persuade you to do so.

Like definitions, the standards of factual evidence (not my twisted standards) were established before I came along. I'm not to blame if your evidences don't meet the standard.

I don't believe it will serve any good purpose to allow "the theory of evolution" a "free pass" as to its feasability, credibility, or factuality, just because it has been deemed "scientific".

So DO IT, already! Debunk it. Give us the actual physical evidence to debunk evolution.

I've already done that repeatedly.

Question for SCJ:

You say that the scientific branches that are involved in evolution are based on faith. Does that mean that ALL scientific branches (biology, geology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc.) are based on faith? If not, why?

To my knowledge, all other scientific branches acknowledge the fact that everything in the universe operates within the confines of dynamical boundaries. Many of which are pretty narrow for the most part. This is clear and establishable from the study and experimentation of the observable, demonstrable, and repeatable processes. Evolutionary science declares this as irrelevant and proceeds to proclaim that reproduction of species is the exception to all that is known or established. It is unlimited in its scope and apparently has no boundaries. Since factually it can be demonstrated that it clearly does, the abstract time frame is used in an attempt to circumvent the establishable boundaries. I don't see how this could be viewed as "scientific" or in any way credible.
This approach from other disciplines of science certainly isn't likely to make its way into a textbook.

Let's look at the London Underground "molestus" mosquito, then. This is a relative of the native "surface dwelling" species of Culex pipens mosquito. A number of them migrated into the subterranean environment of the London underground when it was first constructed, geographically isolating themselves from the pipens population. Over the course of little more than a century, the molestus population has become a behaviorally and genetically new species. Whereas the pipens mosquitos feed only on birds and are cold-resistant winter hibernators, the molestus mosquitos require warmer conditions, do not hibernate, and have a much more diverse diet including rodents and humans. More importantly though, it's impossible for the pipens and molestus species to interbreed except by artificial intervention, demonstrating clearly that these are two distinct species. This is speciation, within evolution, by means of natural selection, clearly at work in the modern world. Want more examples? There are plenty. Want to take a glance at the genetic side of this example? That's not a problem either.

One does not have to employ 'faith' to make a reasonable projection about what this sort of process could cause over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

It is still a mosquito. Since there is nothing to indicate in hundreds of millions of years it still won't be a mosquito, as reasonable as you may consider it, faith as well as assumptive speculation is what you are employing if you believe it will evolve beyond that.

Your example provides evidence for adaptive changes. This can clearly be the result of, capabilities within the dynamical boundaries of the reproduction mechanism, not evolution or natural selection. There is no evidence present in the example to factually support any changes will take place to evolve beyond the mosquito category in 100 years or a 100 million years.

Hey, that was pretty easy. Maybe I'll switch sides. It's less work.

Come on over, the waters fine over here.

 

[Famine]

It is still a mosquito.

And I'm still a primate.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And I'm still a primate.

Sounds like you might be warming up to come on over too.

Maybe we should initiate a signing bonus, just to sweeten the pot a bit.

 

[Famine]

Sounds like you might be warming up to come on over too.

Not really.

Crafty's mosquitoes may still be mosquitoes, but they're different species. Just as an orang and I are still primates, but are different species.

And the former happened within the lifespan of people still alive today.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Not really.

Crafty's mosquitoes may still be mosquitoes, but they're different species. Just as an orang and I are still primates, but are different species.

And the former happened within the lifespan of people still alive today.

Assuming his case is documented, that is true.
However evolutionary claims stretch well beyond his example, do they not?

 

[wfooshee]

I can't believe you are still harping on that one.
At any rate, enlighten me as to its relevance.

He's not saying crossing a horse with a donkey produces a new species and thus proves evolution. He's saying that a horse and a donkey, different species, have enough shared genetic material that they can interbreed. The reason they have enough shared genetic material is that they share a common ancestral species recently enough to have not diverged so far [i.e. are transitional] as to be unable to interbreed. The fact that their offpring is sterile is irrelevant. The fact that they can produce offspring is the point. They are not the same species, but pretty dang close.

As to redefinition, I'm not redifining anything. The definitions were established before I came along.

You have yet to use a single scientific term in the same manner as scientists use them. So now not only have we shown that you don't know what "theory" means, or "scientific method," we're not even sure you know what "redefine" means. You've done it, and claimed not to.

So far I would prefer to stay on one subject at a time. That has been to debunk the claims of evolution.

You have debunked nothing. You've presented no evidence for your position, nor removed any from ours. You've only stated that our "beliefs" are incorrect, when they are not "beliefs" at all.

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.

As is much of this science, I'm afraid.

How much speciation do you suppose can be spawned from sterile offspring.
If anything it proves evolution isn't possible.
The only thing it indicates is that the mule is the end of the speciation.

As already stated, the result of the interbreeding is not the point, it's the fact that they are close enough to each other to be able to interbreed. They are recently diverged from a common ancestor, recently enough to almost still be the same species, but not quite.

Interbreeding is not evolution. If you thought that was what was being shown, then you missed the point. Again.

I don't know where you have been.
The evidence is either substantial to establish and support or it isn't. If not it is doubtful. So far it is too unsubstantial to establish evolution as anything other than an "abstract possibility".

Using your definitons, possibly so. Yet you have not offered any reason why it's unsubstantial, nor have you picked any single piece of the process and said "That right there, that statement, that conclusion, is incorrect, and here's why: " and then proceed to explain why it's wrong. you just keep saying it can't be right because too much is assumed.

We keep saying that nothing is assumed, it all fits the evidence. Evidence we see in fossils, in genes, in real-world examples of observed change. No one has said "You're wrong, we're right, deal with it!" We've shown you facts, which you have access to, to demonstrate the correctness of our position. You've done nothing of the kind, merely refuted over and over that evolution is wrong, that it's speculation, that it's a belief system, without ever presenting anything to back it up, or refuting anything presented to you.

Thats for me to decide.

Copout of the first degree. You've presented nothing, ignored real information, and pressed us to show you evidence (that doesn't exist) to fit (your incorrect understanding of) evolution. Repeatedly saying "You're wrong!!!" does not make someone wrong. Show us a conclusion in evolution that doesn't fit the physical evidence. You have not yet come close to doing so.

Evolutionary science declares this as irrelevant . . .

No, it does not. The entire community can see the fossil record. The entire community can see the genetic material. The entire community has every opportunity to pick any segment of the evidence and test it against the theory, try to prove that it doesn't fit. I could get a grant, pick a species (I pick domestic cats) and work out the genome, examine the fossils of other cats, examine the information of currently living cats, look at their environments, their DNA, their structures, and try to prove that domestic cats have no possibility of having shared genetic material with other types of cats, both current and extinct, or try to determine if domestic cats have been just as they are for all eternity, unchanged, and unrelated to any other cat.

Were I to attempt to do so, I would fail, but the fact is, I could make the attempt. That is the scientific method: I would question a previous conclusion, examine the evidence which led to that conclusion, and try to discredit it, or at least present an alternate.

It's quite clear that I would be an idiot to make the attempt. We already know the domestic cat's place in the "tree of life" very well. Everything we know about its structures, genes, behaviors, and similarities to other modern cat species, all fit with its descent from earler types of cats.

There is no way that evolutionary science has thrown out the scientific method in favor of abstract speculation or uncreditable assumption. It just ain't so!

This approach from other disciplines of science certainly isn't likely to make its way into a textbook.

Yet it's in so many of them! Since it's the same approach: look at the evidence and see what conclusion it supports. Look for reasons the conclusion would break down. Look for contrary evidence. That's exactly why it makes it into a textbook.

It is still a mosquito.

But it's not the same mosquito. It was the same 60 years ago, and in the generations it's existed in the different environment, descendants with different characteristics have been favored, eventually enough different that it's not the same mosquito. That's Famine's point when he said he's still a primate. He's not a member of the species which is a common ancestor of ourselves and other primate species. We've changed. We didn't come from moquitos, not immediately anyway. We came from some species far enough back that some of its descendants became chimps, some became gorillas, some became orangutangs, and some became humans. And yet not one chimp, gorilla, orangutang, or human baby was born to that species.

Assuming his case is documented, that is true.
However evolutionary claims stretch well beyond his example, do they not?

He's shown the mechanism of change that results in speciation. Something you've asked for all through this thread. Now that you have it, you say it's not enough.

It's EXACTLY enough!!!!!!

You have now publicly accepted something contrary to your your earlier statement of each from his own kind, and kind produces kind only. And it didn't take thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. Poeple live today that were living before the new mosquito even existed!!!!

That level of change, compounded over millions of generations of offspring, in millions of different conditions, in millions of different kinds of living things, is what drives evolution.

No Culex pipens produced a "molestus" offspring, yet the species Culex pipens produced the molestus through the mechanism of Natural Selection brought about by a change in habitat.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Assuming his case is documented, that is true.
However evolutionary claims stretch well beyond his example, do they not?

No. The example shown is exactly evolution. It makes no claims as to where a species should wind up, but simply that it does.

 

[niky]

How you draw that conclusion is beyond me.
How much speciation do you suppose can be spawned from sterile offspring.
If anything it proves evolution isn't possible.
The only thing it indicates is that the mule is the end of the speciation.

You don't speciate by mixing species. You get partially divergent species by speciation from a common ancestor.

It proves that those species aren't entirely separate species, but are also not entirely the same. Ba-dum-tish.

It indicates that they're compatible enough to have offspring, but not viable offspring. And why would that be if they're separate species?

I don't know where you have been.
The evidence is either substantial to establish and support or it isn't. If not it is doubtful. So far it is too unsubstantial to establish evolution as anything other than an "abstract possibility".

And adding 2+2 together a million times and getting 4 still doesn't make 2+2=5 untrue, apparently.

??????????????? If you click your heels together, maybe that will make it so.
I repeat. How much speciation to you suppose can be spawned from sterile offspring.

All evidence points to those species having a common ancestor. The evidence is there, physiologically and genetically. The fact that they can no longer produce viable offspring with each other points to random genetic abberations built up over time within each sub-species that causes them to be genetically incompatible.

Just because a Spaniard can only partially understand what a Frenchman is saying, doesn't mean that their languages don't have the same roots. Or maybe you're going to say partial understanding is proof that Spanish and French can't evolve by mingling with each other. (while they can, it's completely missing the whole point... which is that they have the same Latin roots)

Again, looking for a cause we're not telling you is there while ignoring the effect.

All evidence in the observable, demonstrable, and repeatable is to the contrary.

And you've just been provided observable, demonstrable and repeatable evidence of evolutionary change and speciation occuring within just a few decades.

Thats for me to decide.

AUP:

* You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Ergo, if you claim there is evidence to the contrary, you have to prove that your claim is true and provide said evidence to the contrary.

 

[Denur]

I must admit that I love reading this topic, and it is like reading ones favorite book over and over again. And through re-reading that same book, one gets to recognize the strong points and flaws in reasoning and arguments surfacing all the time. Although I'm tempted to join the discussion, I will not do that because all has been said many times and I have no hopes that anything will change a person's views when he/she has been brainwashed into a certain believe from the crib.

Instead I'll just show this video (split into three parts) on common flaws in creationists' reasoning. If they have been posted before, it doesn't hurt to view them again. 👍

And I urge the creationism supporters to watch it carefully as it will help you not to step into the same pitfalls.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You have debunked nothing. You've presented no evidence for your position, nor removed any from ours. You've only stated that our "beliefs" are incorrect, when they are not "beliefs" at all.

See below.

Interbreeding is not evolution. If you thought that was what was being shown, then you missed the point. Again.

The point is, its not evidence of anything.

There is no way that evolutionary science has thrown out the scientific method in favor of abstract speculation or uncreditable assumption. It just ain't so!

The facts show otherwise.

But it's not the same mosquito. It was the same 60 years ago, and in the generations it's existed in the different environment, descendants with different characteristics have been favored, eventually enough different that it's not the same mosquito. That's Famine's point when he said he's still a primate. He's not a member of the species which is a common ancestor of ourselves and other primate species. We've changed. We didn't come from moquitos, not immediately anyway. We came from some species far enough back that some of its descendants became chimps, some became gorillas, some became orangutangs, and some became humans. And yet not one chimp, gorilla, orangutang, or human baby was born to that species.

He's shown the mechanism of change that results in speciation. Something you've asked for all through this thread. Now that you have it, you say it's not enough.

It's EXACTLY enough!!!!!!.

In the light of true facts of reality, and the "claims of evolution", its not even close.
You need to provde factual evidence to prove the the "claims of evolution", not speciational changes on the level the example shows. As I pointed out to Famine, the claims go way beyond this example.
Perhaps you didn't read my reply on this. Here it is again:

"It is still a mosquito. Since there is nothing to indicate in hundreds of millions of years it still won't be a mosquito, as reasonable as you may consider it, faith as well as assumptive speculation is what you are employing if you believe it will evolve beyond that.

Your example provides evidence for adaptive changes. This can clearly be the result of, capabilities within the dynamical boundaries of the reproduction mechanism, not evolution or natural selection. There is no evidence present in the example to factually support any changes will take place to evolve beyond the mosquito category in 100 years or a 100 million years."

Here is the other one on Duke's example:

"This is a good example of the assumptive speculation, that must be engaged to believe in evolution. The example proves that changes can and do occur within species in response to enviroment. However these changes as clearly observed do not indicate any change of a evolutionary nature nor indicate the probability of it. They only show changes of a limited scope and within the dynamical boundaries of the reproductive mechanism of this species of bird. This is what would be expected from the observation as factual and consistant with established scientific principles and universal law. There is absolutely nothing to infer anything more than that now or 50,000 years from now. Any conclusions drawn beyond that can only be based in assumptive speculation, not from factual evidence, scientific or otherwise, because there isn't any."




My comment is still true and supported substantially and completely by the factual evidence." Everything reproduces after its own kind"
The reason it does is because contrary to the "claims of evolution", there are dynamic boundaries within the reproductive mechanism.

You have now publicly accepted something contrary to your your earlier statement of each from his own kind, and kind produces kind only. And it didn't take thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. Poeple live today that were living before the new mosquito even existed!!!!

That level of change, compounded over millions of generations of offspring, in millions of different conditions, in millions of different kinds of living things, is what drives evolution.

No Culex pipens produced a "molestus" offspring, yet the species Culex pipens produced the molestus through the mechanism of Natural Selection brought about by a change in habitat.

And it will still be a mosquito, albeit possibly different from todays.


Sooner or later you guys are going to have to face the "facts of reality", which are inconsistant with your "beliefs" as an evolutonist.

You will have to come out from behind the curtain of millions and billions of years and clear the insurmountable hurdle of evidence needed to meet the claim and show that the mosquito as well as all other life forms, will change, not just species, but jump into a new frog, or whatever new family of being you claim will result. Just to claim the process will take place on that scale from a extremely limited change example, far removed from the scale of claim, is clearly "assumptive speculation" void of any factual evidence.
Not to mention, where this common ancestor came from.

You can add "scientific" to it if you like, or claim its "redefinition", it won't change what it actually is.

 

[Famine]

And it will still be a mosquito, albeit possibly different from todays.

You missed the point. "Mosquito" isn't a species - it's a family with over 40 genera and 3,000 species therein. And those 3,000 species of mosquitoes cannot interbreed and, due to the mechanisms of evolution, are all different - yet share significant numbers of characteristics, enough for you to lump them all together as one. Similarly "Hominidae" is a family with 4 genera and seven species therein - including us. And those seven species of hominidae cannot interbreed and, due to the mechanisms of evolution, are all different - yet share significant numbers of characteristics, enough for you to reject lumping them all together as one.

You're confusing yourself with your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

You can add "scientific" to it if you like, or claim its "redefinition", it won't change what it actually is.

Similarly, you can emphasise whatever you wish, but nothing you've yet claimed is true, except if you redefine things to your own standards.

 

[orimarc]

EDIT: Argh, I need a break for reading/writing multipost-quotes.

SCJ, please, go read some books, take a class or something. You're confusing everyone (including yourself) with your lack of facts.
Question:

If evolution is false...

WHERE THE *bleepity bleep* DO ALL THE ANIMALS COME FROM?!

God? Allah? Flying Spaghetti Monster? A wizard did it? No one has an idea?

 

[niky]

The point is, its not evidence of anything.

It's evidence that this claim is patently false.

My comment is still true and supported substantially and completely by the factual evidence." Everything reproduces after its own kind"

Because a zebra can beget a zebramule, a tiger can beget a liger, and a horse can beget a mule and so on and so forth. Such cross-breeds are patently not members of either of the parent species, not entirely, since they cannot reproduce with their parent species or even after their own kind.

I'm surprised you even brought this up again, after I've reminded you for the nth time that it isn't true. And you keep asking me why I keep bringing it up...

Your example provides evidence for adaptive changes. This can clearly be the result of, capabilities within the dynamical boundaries of the reproduction mechanism, not evolution or natural selection. There is no evidence present in the example to factually support any changes will take place to evolve beyond the mosquito category in 100 years or a 100 million years."

Bingo. So you finally admit that evolution occurs! Because evolution is the description of the process of adaptive change.

What is the "mosquito" category? Is it like "mesquite", only it flies?

I guess the dynamic boundaries of the reproduction mechanism allow an organism to adapt to the point that it can no longer cross-breed with the base species? Call me crazy, but aren't species differentiated by the fact that they can't reproduce with each other? There are thousands of different mosquito species. To say that a mosquito is a mosquito is a mosquito misses the fact that there are thousands of genetically distinct, physiologically different and non-interbreedable species of mosquito out there.

You will have to come out from behind the curtain of millions and billions of years and clear the insurmountable hurdle of evidence needed to meet the claim and show that the mosquito as well as all other life forms, will change, not just species, but jump into a new frog, or whatever new family of being you claim will result. Just to claim the process will take place on that scale from a extremely limited change example, far removed from the scale of claim, is clearly "assumptive speculation" void of any factual evidence.

Ho-hum. Hundreds of millions of fossil specimens showing adaptive change in thousands of species over hundreds of millions of years and this is all you can come up with? "We need more evidence."

Same song and dance you've been playing over the past several pages... no evidence. Nothing but semantics to support your argument.

Not to mention, where this common ancestor came from.

From its mother, silly.

 

[Duke]

I've already done that repeatedly.

You haven't even done it once. Not a single time. Not with anything approaching scientific or even logical validity.

 

[DK]

God? Allah? Flying Spaghetti Monster? A wizard did it? No one has an idea?

Well, the teaching of evolution is banned in several Muslim countries, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

 

[Dotini]

WHERE THE *bleepity bleep* DO ALL THE ANIMALS COME FROM?!

God? Allah? Flying Spaghetti Monster? A wizard did it? No one has an idea?

This is a superb question!
Scientists will tell you no one knows how life originated on Earth, but that in any case evolution took place after that to lead us where we are today.

Creationists will say that the spark of life came from God, and that all those fossils of dinosaurs and such were put there by God to amaze and bemuse us.

Into such a maelstrom of adult disagreement and ignorance it is defensible (and quite charming) to say that a wizard or Flying Spaghetti Monster was implicated.

To see how the Muslims feel about it, click on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Ditto your feelings on the multiquote posts, Orimarc And speaking of "much easier", I find I like making a post and coming back to find it's already been defended so strongly that I don't have to say anything else on the subject!


So let's boil this down.

SCJ, first of all, show us the goods. You say you already have, but I don't see 'em anywhere. Show us a single instance where a scientist has cast reasonable, substantial doubt on the validity of evolutionary theory and not been shown to be either totally misguided or championing the "science" offered by a 2000 year old book.

Next, quit dodging the question and offer us a substantial argument for your own viewpoint, which we can only assume to be creationism. (You wanna talk about "assumptive speculation"? Wait 'til you hear the nonsense a creationist will assume and base his speculations on.)

Thirdly, please enlighten us as to what the "facts in evidence" are, as you seem to be so quick to rely on them to support your rote arguments. Are the "facts in evidence" enough to deny a fossil record comprising umpteen-gazillion species across hundreds of millions of years arranged logically and systematically into a progressive architecture backed up by mathematically undeniable DNA evidence, with a 4.5 billion year geological record as the framework? I didn't think so. By your standard of evidence, which appears to be limited to what one human can look at, unaided by any sort of instrument or predictable mechanism, in one lifetime, we'd have to reject every single bit of science and mathematics from Ancient Greece to the Galapagos.

Unless, that is, a 2000 year old book tells us differently.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You missed the point. "Mosquito" isn't a species - it's a family with over 40 genera and 3,000 species therein. And those 3,000 species of mosquitoes cannot interbreed and, due to the mechanisms of evolution, are all different - yet share significant numbers of characteristics, enough for you to lump them all together as one. Similarly "Hominidae" is a family with 4 genera and seven species therein - including us. And those seven species of hominidae cannot interbreed and, due to the mechanisms of evolution, are all different - yet share significant numbers of characteristics, enough for you to reject lumping them all together as one.

I don't think so. Are mosquitos "like kind'? I would have to say they are.
Your statement "due to the mechanisms of evolution" is purely assumptive.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that all of the changes observed are
not within the boundaries of "like kind" reproduction.

You're confusing yourself with your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

Well then, I will ask you again: Do the "claims of evolution" go far beyond the factual evidence of the example, or do they not?

Similarly, you can emphasise whatever you wish, but nothing you've yet claimed is true, except if you redefine things to your own standards.

The evidence stands on its own as to what it shows, supports, substantiates, proves or disproves. To the contrary, I'm not assuming or speculating on anything beyond that, and claiming it as a inevitable result.

Again to the contrary, redefining is what evolutionary claims seek to do.

Ditto your feelings on the multiquote posts, Orimarc And speaking of "much easier", I find I like making a post and coming back to find it's already been defended so strongly that I don't have to say anything else on the subject!

Do you mean to say "defended" or "refuted".

So let's boil this down.

SCJ, first of all, show us the goods. You say you already have, but I don't see 'em anywhere. Show us a single instance where a scientist has cast reasonable, substantial doubt on the validity of evolutionary theory and not been shown to be either totally misguided or championing the "science" offered by a 2000 year old book.

Wow, what a request. So far that cannot be provided.
Not for the sake of "Validity" or "Science" but apparently the "Holy Grail".
As documented, any attempt to question the established "belief system" of the "Evolutionist organization" is met with the same objectivity you could expect from the "Catholic Church"........"Excommunication".

So far in this round, I have only stated one claim of the "old book" as you refer to it, which as pointed out repeatedly, is consistant with what "the factual evidence shows, not what is assumptive and speculative beyond what it shows. "Everything reproduces after its own kind."
Obviously changes can and do occur, however, as established by factual evidence, will not go beyond those boundaries.

That being the case, I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim the "old book" is any less "scientific" than the the so called "Scientific theory of evolution".

As already pointed out as the reality, in this one respect the "old book" is more credible scientifically, than the "Scientific theory of evolution" is.

Oh but wait, thats just semantics and redefinition. Hmmmm
Validity?

Next, quit dodging the question and offer us a substantial argument for your own viewpoint, which we can only assume to be creationism. (You wanna talk about "assumptive speculation"? Wait 'til you hear the nonsense a creationist will assume and base his speculations on.)

I just did.

Oh but wait, thats just semantics and redefinition. Hmmmm
Oops, I forgot one, rote argument.

Thirdly, please enlighten us as to what the "facts in evidence" are, as you seem to be so quick to rely on them to support your rote arguments. Are the "facts in evidence" enough to deny a fossil record comprising umpteen-gazillion species across hundreds of millions of years arranged logically and systematically into a progressive architecture backed up by mathematically undeniable DNA evidence, with a 4.5 billion year geological record as the framework? I didn't think so.

Since you appear intent on answering your own question here, considering what has already been pointed out, I doubt it would serve any useful purpose to reiterate.

By your standard of evidence, which appears to be limited to what one human can look at, unaided by any sort of instrument or predictable mechanism, in one lifetime, we'd have to reject every single bit of science and mathematics from Ancient Greece to the Galapagos.

My standard of evidence?
May I inquire? What is "the" standard of evidence?

"unaided by any sort of instrument or predictable mechanism"
Predictable based on what? Evidence of abstract possibility? Or evidence of conclusiveness?
Which one is of a truly predictable basis?

I believe you exaggerate the case here considerably regaurding rejection.

Which plane would you prefer to fly on? One built on the predictability of abstract possibility? Or one built on the predictability of conclusiveness?

Unless, that is, a 2000 year old book tells us differently.

Relevance is not necessarily determined by the source.

 

[dylansan]

I don't think so. Are mosquitos "like kind'? I would have to say they are.
Your statement "due to the mechanisms of evolution" is purely assumptive.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that all of the changes observed are
not within the boundaries of "like kind" reproduction.

The word "kind" is not a useful term. It only makes your posts more unintelligible. Please see video. And please stop using it.

 

[Famine]

I don't think so. Are mosquitos "like kind'? I would have to say they are.

Define "like kind". And, for that matter "mosquitos".

If you mean "species", then no. There are 3,000 species of mosquito and they cannot interbreed.

 

[Joel]

OKay SuperCobraJet, I ask you this. SInce you say, "everything reproduces after it's own kind", I'd like you to define "kind" for me. Please, I'm looking forward to it.

And please stop dodging the questions.

 

[Touring Mars]

OK, so still no positive supporting evidence for the so-called "credible alternative" that is Intelligent Design. What a surprise.

As documented, any attempt to question the established "belief system" of the "Evolutionist organization" is met with the same objectivity you could expect from the "Catholic Church"........"Excommunication".

Ben Stein would be most gratified to see atleast someone is prepared to swallow his garbage. It is, of course, complete and utter bollocks.

Let me ask you this. How can it be that every aspect of evolution theory can be falsified by evidence, and yet you can still make a ridiculous claim like this? Evolution theory is only as strong as the facts that support it, and the evidence that informs it. Let's be clear about this - you are the one portraying evolution theory as if it is written in stone and unchallengable dogma, not us. We've said time and time again that evolution theory is considerably open to challenge - as evinced by the current scientific literature, which is full of examples of where current "dogma" is challenged.

In the meantime, if your own blinkered view of what science is is the best "evidence" for a credible alternative to evolution theory that you can muster, then forgive me if I ignore it. I can only assume that you don't bother to read the scientific literature, because if you did, you'd realise that challenging dogma and doctrine is commonplace - it is the rule, not the exception.