Creation vs. Evolution

[wfooshee]

Yeah, I didn't get anywhere, either . . . . .

 

[Grand Prix]

In a discussion such as this, one must realize that people aren't going to change their opinions that easily. It is futile to attempt to change that. Just discuss and argue for the fun of it and nothing more. Otherwise you'll go bananas.

Although seeing the same arguments over and over can get tiresome sometimes. I know for a fact that this thread has made me too jaded to even care about the creation vs. evolution discussion, even outside of the internet. Whenever someone brings it up I'm like "yeah whatever."

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Surely flies will be flies tomorrow, but in a million years, they might very well be something else.

Might?
That definitely sounds very Scientific, not to mention conclusive.

The changing genes don't prove that will be different, but it proves that they don't have to be the same. There is no limit on how many genes can change over those 1,000,000 years, so there is no basis for the idea that only a very small number of changes are possible for a certain type of organism.

What basis there is, indicates limited changes, not wholesale changes.

Glenn Beck!

http://www.gluckman.com/galapag.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/gps/tortoise.htm
http://www.galapagos-islands-tourguide.com/galapagos-islands-finches.html

Before giving an opinion in a public forum you may want to do some research.

Oh wow, thanks for the info.

I didn't realize the Turtles on galapagos were in the process of evolving into a Handsome Prince.
Just need a few more million years I guess.

Does that mean people with long necks are on there way to being Giraffes?

The ultimate problem with any further discourse of this nature is that, depending on whatever standard of measure you use—which is has not been elucidated or clarified—to qualify something as fact, nothing or anything may fall under its definition.

(That is why this is absurd.)

What you understand 'theoretical' to mean is fundamentally different than what a scientific theory is.

It does not mean conceptual.

I've already gone over this in various tones, and you've yet to acknowledge it; your assertion that what is not fact is therefore [your understanding of] theory does not mean anything [to this discourse on a scientific subject], since a scientific theory—not the layman meaning of the term which approximates that of a hypothesis—is composed of facts. You have yet to acknowledge this difference, despite your constant conflation of the two.

To here you tell it, one would wonder how Scientific Theory was so erroneously named. It should have had the tag: Scientific infallable, deistic,
perfect, never failing, take it to the bank, explanations.

The basis for my assertions, concerning the Theory of Evolution stem from the absense of substantative supporting facts, not the proliferation of them.
Likewise the factual evidence, infers nothing to the extent of Evolutionary Claims, as far as I can tell.
In light of that, the logical conclusion is one of conceptual, hypothetical, and IMO, a speculative basis.

If you wish an acknowledgement of the purported difference, then you must provide the substantative basis for it, beyond stating, that it has basis in fact.
If it does, then what is it. However I believe in the case of the Theory of Evolution, you would be hard pressed to do so.

That is why your objection to the Theory of Evolution is epistemologically invalid. Those are the clearest and plainest, cinema-allusion-free terms I can express that in.

In this case, big surprise, I disagree.
To the contrary I believe it more valid than invalid.

 

[Exorcet]

Might?
That definitely sounds very Scientific, not to mention conclusive.

Scientific it is, as it's backed up by evolution. There is virtually zero chance that flies will be replaced with some other species tomorrow morning, but the probability that modern flies will be around in 1,000,000 year is not 100%.

Conclusive; what part of evolution says anything about knowing exactly what something will evolve into. The future is an unknown currently. If modern flies are the best suited to survive the next million years, then flies might not change much at all.

What basis there is, indicates limited changes, not wholesale changes.

No it does not. You're inferring that it does.

What we have:

There are organisms > They undergo changes

What you [want to] see:

There are organisms > They undergo changes > These changes stop at some limit.

There is no observed limit, and I have not seen an attempt to define/show/point out this limit (ie, no one is spelling out what exactly can and cannot change in an organism).

Also, I'm being unfair to myself because I'm ignoring the fossil record in the "What we have" folder up there.

Going back to the computer screen example. If you watch the screen for a year, and see only 52 pixels fade, you cannot conclude that 52 pixels is the maximum number of pixels that can die on the screen. You only know that pixels can fade, and the logical conclusion is to assume that all the pixels can eventually fade. Especially if you can dig up old monitors in the garbage dump that are completely, or nearly completed faded./

 

[niky]

To the contrary, it most certainly does assume.

It does not assume. It postulates an axiom: "Organisms change over time." as an observation of data. When a theory postulates such that is not observable and that does not match observable phenomenon, it is categorized as a hypothesis. If it matches observable data, it is upgraded to a theory. Perhaps the media is to be blamed for the confusion, but a "theory" as used in the common tongue is not a "Theory", merely a "Hypothesis."

Check your reality meter, the physical law of gravity is a bonafide fact.

No it isn't. The effects of gravity are fact. Newton's Law Gravity is the theory that explains the action of gravity. And yet, this has been disproven. While Newton's Law still works on a macroscopic scale, the preponderance of evidence on the subatomic scale and on the galactic scale indicates that "Newton's Law" is flawed enough not to match all observations.

As is readily apparent, theories of explanation may vary as to any factuality.
The claims of the Theory of Evolution, as compared to the factual observable isn't even close.

This ones a real hoot.
You will never view the process that evolution claims, because it doesn't exsist.
Even so you still can't change the beliief in ideas that it does.

Only to you. There are observations and genetic data that show mutation of organisms occuring within the human lifetime. Observable. Obvious. Before you declare: "Mutation is not evolution..." It is. If one species mutates enough so that it can no longer bear offspring when mated with a member of the source species, it becomes a new species in its own right. That's the taxonomical definition of "species".

And guess what.
You will still have like species, a hundred, a thousand, or million years from now.
Thats the observable factual as far back, and as forward as reasonably determinable.

As observed by you? Do you know that species existed before you were born? Do you know that they will exist after you die? You're basing this "belief" in inferential statements made by scientists and observers based on fossil data and historical record. Not on firsthand observation. Much the same as this "Evolution" you do not believe in.

Mind you, there is no evidence that demonstrates the bonds of the reproductive dynamic will break ranks and cross boundaries of like species.
Which is what is claimed.
Flys reproduce flys, horses reproduce horses, etc.,etc.
Always have, always will.
Again, thats the observable factual.

Where in Evolutionary Theory does it claim that horses mate with flies? You're just pulling that one out of thin air.

 

[Touring Mars]

To here you tell it, one would wonder how Scientific Theory was so erroneously named. It should have had the tag: Scientific infallable, deistic, perfect, never failing, take it to the bank, explanations.

Again, a profound (and some may think by now deliberate) misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what science is. A real scientific theory, as properly defined and understood, is by its very nature, fallable, imperfect, and never complete (although where you got deistic from, I don't know). Your inability to grasp this is what sets you apart from most other people in this thread. But, even with these things in mind, evolution theory remains by far the most compelling explanation of the origin of present day species. Not because it is perfect, not because it is complete, not because it is infallable (as it is none of these things), but because it is the only extant real scientific theory that explains the enormous wealth of evidence, and has survived despite being permanently open to the possibility of falsification through evidence.

The first point - the weight of evidence - has accumulated over centuries, and has grown massively in recent decades. That some choose to ignore it, deny that it exists or simply refuse to accept the value/meaning of such evidence, is obvious - but the evidence remains nevertheless, and will forever be a tremendous embarrasment to those who deny it. The second point - the susceptibility to falsification - is a defining property of any real scientific theory. Some branches of evolution theory have indeed been falsified - hypotheses are falsified all the time, and theories are rectified so as to remain consistent with all the available evidence, or even abandoned completely in the face of overwhelmingly incompatible data. It is this feature of constantly being open to challenge (completely contrary to the way science is so often maligned by creationist critics) that makes the continuing validity of evolution theory so awesomely impressive.

Will present-day evolution theory ever be falsified by new data? Some aspects of it almost certainly will. But, will the core premises - that species evolve over time, and that multiple distinct species share common ancestry - ever be disproven? I doubt it. Science and technology have provided a wealth of new data, but with each new technique and with every new result, the theory of evolution is challenged - every single time. That the core premises of evolution theory remain intact is testimony to the astonishing accuracy of the theory. When a theory is this accurate, most people would concede that the reason is because the theory must be close to the truth. It is a great pity that some people won't accept this, and it must be a source of terrible frustration to those for whom such a truth is inconsistent with their personal beliefs.

 

[orimarc]

In very simple terms, a scientific theory goes like this:

1) You have X
2) You make an hypotesis for X.
3) You test the hypotesis.
3a) If the hypotesis is correct, you accept the hypotesis.
3b) If it's not, you make another hypotesis, and test it.
4) If you get Y, repeat steps 1 to 3 including Y.

 

[TheCracker]

The basis for my assertions, concerning the Theory of Evolution stem from the absense of substantative supporting facts, not the proliferation of them.
Likewise the factual evidence, infers nothing to the extent of Evolutionary Claims, as far as I can tell.
In light of that, the logical conclusion is one of conceptual, hypothetical, and IMO, a speculative basis.

Then where does that leave the Creationist belief?

 

[AndersonG22]

This question is for creationists, who created your creator? How did god come in to existence?

 

[BobK]

The answer a creationist would give you is the creator has always been there, and always will be. No beginning and no end.

 

[AndersonG22]

The answer a creationist would give you is the creator has always been there, and always will be. No beginning and no end.

That sounds remarkably similar to empty space millions of light years from our universe.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It does not assume. It postulates an axiom: "Organisms change over time." as an observation of data. When a theory postulates such that is not observable and that does not match observable phenomenon, it is categorized as a hypothesis. If it matches observable data, it is upgraded to a theory. Perhaps the media is to be blamed for the confusion, but a "theory" as used in the common tongue is not a "Theory", merely a "Hypothesis."

Sadly, it does not take into account the factual observable limits of the change.
Thats where "assumption" comes in.
I don't think the media is to blame for that.

No it isn't. The effects of gravity are fact. Newton's Law Gravity is the theory that explains the action of gravity. And yet, this has been disproven. While Newton's Law still works on a macroscopic scale, the preponderance of evidence on the subatomic scale and on the galactic scale indicates that "Newton's Law" is flawed enough not to match all observations.

I didn't say Newton's law of Gravity, I said the law of Gravity.

Only to you. There are observations and genetic data that show mutation of organisms occuring within the human lifetime. Observable. Obvious. Before you declare: "Mutation is not evolution..." It is. If one species mutates enough so that it can no longer bear offspring when mated with a member of the source species, it becomes a new species in its own right. That's the taxonomical definition of "species".

Again, this is limited, and the species jumping claims of Evolution, are evidentially unsupported.

As observed by you? Do you know that species existed before you were born? Do you know that they will exist after you die? You're basing this "belief" in inferential statements made by scientists and observers based on fossil data and historical record. Not on firsthand observation. Much the same as this "Evolution" you do not believe in.

I'm well aware of that.
This only reinforces the truly, inherent weakness of the theory, being based in and subject to, the interpretatively derived value of evidence in fossil data and historical record.
Even under the assumption of legitimacy in the interpretation, there is still no first hand collaborating evidence to substantially support any degree of conclusivity.
Wherein also as has been pointed out before in this thread, the absence of ample said evidence, is the opposite of what it should be under the claims, and another inherent weakness.
Consequently, the theory is stuck in evidentiary limbo. Certainly not provable by any stretch, but also not completely unprovable, since it is claimed in an abstract untestable time frame.

Where in Evolutionary Theory does it claim that horses mate with flies? You're just pulling that one out of thin air.

No, rather out of the factual record.
Horses or flies or whatever, mate and produce like kind or of the same kind.
They will never produce anything else.
Unless I'm mistaken, Evolutionary Theory claims you could start out with one and in a few million or billion years end up with the other.

This question is for creationists, who created your creator? How did god come in to existence?

I have no idea.

But is your inquiry, the relevant priority?

The real priority question is: Does he exsist?

And if he does, then what are the implications of that for me, both in the here and now, as well as the hereafter?

Then where does that leave the Creationist belief?

The same place it leaves the Evolutionist belief.

Take your pick. Its your choice to believe one, or the other.

 

[AndersonG22]

Correct me if Im wrong here.

We were created in his image meaning he looked like us. That means he was one of us, which means we created him and the bible. I wish there was a god and I got to drive Nurburging in an F1 car after I die until the end of time, and chill with bob marley even though I dont listen to his music... Religion was created by man to control the masses through fear of eternal damnation, look at the evidence. There may not be enough evidence to convince you of evolution, but there is enough evidence to convince you religion is man made but you choose not to accept it. You choose to live your life for god (other people) rather then yourself because you want to live forever.

 

[Exorcet]

Sadly, it does not take into account the factual observable limits of the change.

Again you mention limits but forget to tell us what they are. If they're so clearly observable, you should be able to list them right?

I'm well aware of that.
This only reinforces the truly, inherent weakness of the theory, being based in and subject to, the interpretatively derived value of evidence in fossil data and historical record.
Even under the assumption of legitimacy in the interpretation, there is still no first hand collaborating evidence to substantially support any degree of conclusivity.
Wherein also as has been pointed out before in this thread, the absence of ample said evidence, is the opposite of what it should be under the claims, and another inherent weakness.
Consequently, the theory is stuck in evidentiary limbo. Certainly not provable by any stretch, but also not completely unprovable, since it is claimed in an abstract untestable time frame.

Is history a fraud?

No one has watched a species over 10,000,000 years in person and seen it evolve. So what? All you need to determine something is constraints. We know organisms can change. There is no observed limit to these changes. We know that fossils come from dead organisms. These fossils all share similarities that we can trace back pretty far in time (and accurately too, with carbon dating, etc). Evolution fits like a glove.

It's true that that does not rule out the idea that we're all someone else's dream and that things only "look" the way they do, but if that was the case it wouldn't matter because we could never prove/disprove it and there would be no reason to pay it any mind.

No, rather out of the factual record.
Horses or flies or whatever, mate and produce like kind or of the same kind.
They will never produce anything else.
Unless I'm mistaken, Evolutionary Theory claims you could start out with one and in a few million or billion years end up with the other.

You're forgetting mutations. And mules.

 

[orimarc]

Wherein also as has been pointed out before in this thread, the absence of ample said evidence, is the opposite of what it should be under the claims, and another inherent weakness.
(...)
Consequently, the theory is stuck in evidentiary limbo. Certainly not provable by any stretch, but also not completely unprovable, since it is claimed in an abstract untestable time frame.

What it should be? Scientific evidence gathering take years. And years. And years. Just because we haven't found every single fossil of every single species to roam the earth since it was possible to live in it doesn't mean that the ones that have been found are useless to start a theory on.

Unless I'm mistaken, Evolutionary Theory claims you could start out with one and in a few million or billion years end up with the other.

Some animals "changing" into other animals =/= any animal can "change" into any other animal.

A wolf could "change" into a fox, or a coyote, or a dog, but not into a zebra.

 

[BobK]

the species jumping claims of Evolution, are evidentially unsupported.

The theory of evolution makes no such claims of "species jumping". It does, however, say that one species can give rise to a new species. Reminds me of a guy I know who thought that the theory of evolution meant that lions could turn into tigers, for instance. This is of course patently ridiculous, and not at all what the theory really says.

Horses or flies or whatever, mate and produce like kind or of the same kind.
They will never produce anything else.

How can you be so sure of that? "Never" is a pretty long time.

Unless I'm mistaken, Evolutionary Theory claims you could start out with one and in a few million or billion years end up with the other.

You're mistaken. It says no such thing.

 

[Touring Mars]

Horses or flies or whatever, mate and produce like kind or of the same kind. They will never produce anything else.

"Like kind"... do you mean by that, 'similar but not exactly the same'? If so, then you'd be right... and that is the entire basis of evolution summed up quite nicely right there. Tiny changes that are imperceptible on short timescales (like Exorcet's great pixel metaphor from earlier on) mount up over time, such that they become evident over longer periods of time. That these time periods are so long as to be literally unobservable does not mean that there is not evidence of it having occurred, though. The patterns of genetic distributions within extant species is directly observable evidence that extant species share common ancestry.

It is an unequivocal fact that some species are more similar to others than they are to the rest - humans and bonobos, chickens and turkeys, lions and tigers, tuna and great white sharks etc. Their genes prove that this similarly is not merely skin-deep, but is written in their DNA and is the result of heredity - just like you are more similar to your parents than you are to mine, and vice versa. Go up a level and you see that all mammals share more similarities than they do to fish, and all fish share more similarities than they do to mammals etc. Ultimately, it boils down to one inescapable conclusion - that all life on Earth is related, and that the distance between species in time is proportional/related to the difference in their genetic composition.

The only other possibility that explains the observed patterns of gene distributions seen in nature is to postulate that such patterns were specially designed so as to precisely mimic the appearance of common ancestry... but while that remains a possibility, it does not detract from the fact that evolution theory explains the observed patterns extremely well, hence the 'evolution illusion hypothesis' is rendered completely redundant.

 

[AndersonG22]

Come on guys stop wasting your time, they wont change there religious belifes no matter what you say. Besides, evidence for evolution is all around us if you look out side.
The animals didnt just appear out of thin air and start breeding lol.

 

[ell470]

Come on guys stop wasting your time, they wont change there religious belifes no matter what you say. Besides, evidence for evolution is all around us if you look out side.
The animals didnt just appear out of thin air and start breeding lol.

Hey, don't ruin the fun, I find these kind of discussions hilarious to read!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Well, well TM, how are you old Chum?
Your commentaries never fail to be inciteful, and I can see this one is no exception.

Again, a profound (and some may think by now deliberate) misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what science is. A real scientific theory, as properly defined and understood, is by its very nature, fallable, imperfect, and never complete (although where you got deistic from, I don't know). Your inability to grasp this is what sets you apart from most other people in this thread. But, even with these things in mind, evolution theory remains by far the most compelling explanation of the origin of present day species. Not because it is perfect, not because it is complete, not because it is infallable (as it is none of these things), but because it is the only extant real scientific theory that explains the enormous wealth of evidence, and has survived despite being permanently open to the possibility of falsification through evidence.

Contrary to what you may believe, I have a firm grasp on scientific theory, particularly the fallability part.

The first point - the weight of evidence - has accumulated over centuries, and has grown massively in recent decades. That some choose to ignore it, deny that it exists or simply refuse to accept the value/meaning of such evidence, is obvious - but the evidence remains nevertheless, and will forever be a tremendous embarrasment to those who deny it. The second point - the susceptibility to falsification - is a defining property of any real scientific theory. Some branches of evolution theory have indeed been falsified - hypotheses are falsified all the time, and theories are rectified so as to remain consistent with all the available evidence, or even abandoned completely in the face of overwhelmingly incompatible data. It is this feature of constantly being open to challenge (completely contrary to the way science is so often maligned by creationist critics) that makes the continuing validity of evolution theory so awesomely impressive.

As pointed out before, evidence is one thing, interpretation of it is another.

Perhaps in lieu of your awsome impressiveness, you could be so kind as to expand on some of this massive weight of evidence.
Possibly a list of unlike species that have evolved recently?

I guess Creationist challenges to the inherent frailties of Evolutionary Theory just can't be tolerated.

Will present-day evolution theory ever be falsified by new data? Some aspects of it almost certainly will. But, will the core premises - that species evolve over time, and that multiple distinct species share common ancestry - ever be disproven? I doubt it. Science and technology have provided a wealth of new data, but with each new technique and with every new result, the theory of evolution is challenged - every single time. That the core premises of evolution theory remain intact is testimony to the astonishing accuracy of the theory. When a theory is this accurate, most people would concede that the reason is because the theory must be close to the truth. It is a great pity that some people won't accept this, and it must be a source of terrible frustration to those for whom such a truth is inconsistent with their personal beliefs.

Don't you mean: Will present-day evolution theory ever be substantiated?

Commonalities and similarities among species champions the cause of common Creator.

I think you may have pegged the "Visions of Grandeur" meter TM.
Common ancestor is yet to be proven, so there is nothing to disprove.

I sure am thankful most of Science is a lot more accurate and closer to the truth than this theory is.

"Terrible frustration"?
You must be mistakenly referring to the Evolutionist side.
"Truth"? What truth? Evolution couldn't be any more void of it.

Oddly enough, that brings me back to my original question:

Most of my family and some of my best friends are Christians who readily accept science, and would sooner accept a scientific explanation of our origins than a biblical one. Interestingly, of all my scientist workmates who are religious (including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and a Buddhist), all of them accept evolution theory - without exception.

Hmm, I'm curious how you reconcile that? For the Christians that is?

 

[AndersonG22]

Hey, don't ruin the fun, I find these kind of discussions hilarious to read!

I see what you mean, check out my sig for more comedy.

 

[Encyclopedia]

One thing that bothers me greatly about creationists is their great inconsistensy in evidence standards. They apply one standard of evidence to their own beliefs (basically no demand for evidence) yet a completely different one for the contrary "belief" evolution, often demanding a completely unreasonable level of evidence like being able to see an animal morphing into a new species in front of their own eyes.

Not to mention the way a lot of creationists argue, putting words in the mouth of their adversary and deliberately misunderstanding the theory of evolution.

It's so incredibly dishonest.👎

 

[ell470]

One thing that bothers me greatly about creationists is their great inconsistensy in evidence standards. They apply one standard of evidence to their own beliefs (basically no demand for evidence) yet a completely different one for the contrary "belief" evolution, often demanding a completely unreasonable level of evidence like being able to see an animal morphing into a new species in front of their own eyes.

Not to mention the way a lot of creationists argue, putting words in the mouth of their adversary and deliberately misunderstanding the theory of evolution.

It's so incredibly dishonest.👎

+1

I don't view evolution as a belief, but if I don't believe in god and all that it stands for, what's left for me?

 

[Encyclopedia]

+1

I don't view evolution as a belief, but if I don't believe in god and all that it stands for, what's left for me?

Hopefully your life, your friends and family and your interests.

 

[Denur]

@SuperCobraJet (and others). A recent study shows an evolutionary process in yeast. And it doesn't take a zillion years.

source (in Dutch) http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/2549283/snelle-evolutie-kan-soorten-helpen-overleven.html
and their source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6035/1327

It comes down to this: Yeast has a very well known DNA and reproduces in mere hours. They exposed thousands of populations of yeast cells to a pollutant (salt), in a slowly increasing concentration. It showed that after only 50 to 100 generations the yeast was able to survive salt concentrations that would have killed their ancestors from before the experiment.
They also pointed out that some contact with other yeast populations in the experiment was good, but too much contact was bad.

 

[ell470]

Hopefully your life, your friends and family and your interests.

Yeah, I didn't mean it like that!

I have lots going on in my life, no problem!

I just meant, if I don't believe in creationism, I'm just left with the option of evolution. Or do people have a 3rd alternative?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Yeah, I didn't mean it like that!

I have lots going on in my life, no problem!

I just meant, if I don't believe in creationism, I'm just left with the option of evolution. Or do people have a 3rd alternative?

Well you could make something up yourself. Or you could just not think about it at all.

 

[Encyclopedia]

@SuperCobraJet (and others). A recent study shows an evolutionary process in yeast. And it doesn't take a zillion years.

source (in Dutch) http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/2549283/snelle-evolutie-kan-soorten-helpen-overleven.html
and their source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6035/1327

It comes down to this: Yeast has a very well known DNA and reproduces in mere hours. They exposed thousands of populations of yeast cells to a pollutant (salt), in a slowly increasing concentration. It showed that after only 50 to 100 generations the yeast was able to survive salt concentrations that would have killed their ancestors from before the experiment.
They also pointed out that some contact with other yeast populations in the experiment was good, but too much contact was bad.

The problem is that the yeast didn't turn into a horse, so the argument won't work on SCJ.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, well TM, how are you old Chum?

I'm good, thanks I trust you are well, too 👍

Perhaps in lieu of your awsome impressiveness, you could be so kind as to expand on some of this massive weight of evidence. Possibly a list of unlike species that have evolved recently?

I don't mean to split hairs or be pedantic, or misunderstand your question, but every living species has 'evolved recently'... I guess you mean, can I name two distantly related species and demonstrate their relatedness by listing their evolutionary pathways to a point of common origin? That is a hefty task, but it is a question that is continually being addressed/answered as more genomes are being studied and published in the literature. Richard Dawkins' book, 'The Ancestor's Tale', is a good place to start if you want to know more about how present day species are related to each other, and also presents evidence of common ancestry between various closely related species. It also references some 327 books and articles on the general subject of relatedness and evolutionary pathways too. Also, if you haven't done so already, take a look at this site http://tolweb.org/tree/ for an overview of the hierarchical branching structure of the so-called tree of life. As for direct evidence that 'unlike' present-day species are genetically related, you need only look at the genomes of two unlike species and see that they share many common gene sequences - they are, literally, related insofar as they share common genes - that this could not happen by chance is very strong evidence of a mechanism by which genes are shared across generations i.e. heredity.

Hmm, I'm curious how you reconcile that? For the Christians that is?

I guess it is not for me to reconcile - you would need to ask them. I believe that my religious friends have their own views on the nature of God and do not blindly accept everything that their church or religion says, especially if it happens to contradict what is demonstrably more rational and compellingly presented by modern day science.

One thing that bothers me greatly about creationists is their great inconsistensy in evidence standards. They apply one standard of evidence to their own beliefs (basically no demand for evidence) yet a completely different one for the contrary "belief" evolution, often demanding a completely unreasonable level of evidence like being able to see an animal morphing into a new species in front of their own eyes.

Not to mention the way a lot of creationists argue, putting words in the mouth of their adversary and deliberately misunderstanding the theory of evolution.

It's so incredibly dishonest.👎

That is a good point. While there are plenty dishonest scientists out there too, it is slightly jarring when demands for evidence come from those who are either unable or (much more likely) unwilling to accept it, no matter how compelling it is.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The theory of evolution makes no such claims of "species jumping". It does, however, say that one species can give rise to a new species. Reminds me of a guy I know who thought that the theory of evolution meant that lions could turn into tigers, for instance. This is of course patently ridiculous, and not at all what the theory really says.

TM seems to be insistant on the common ancestor as part of Evolutionary Theory. This patently implies cross species forming from unlike species.
Perhaps, some of you need to clarify this major point.

You're mistaken. It says no such thing.

Then I'm mistaken.

How can you be so sure of that? "Never" is a pretty long time.

Maybe I should amend it to: as long as life exsists and continues in its present form.

You're forgetting mutations. And mules.

A mule is an exception, as well as a dead end.

The problem is that the yeast didn't turn into a horse, so the argument won't work on SCJ.

I'm good, thanks I trust you are well, too 👍

Yes I am thanks.