Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Uhm, because I asked you a question? Do people normally supply the answer with the question for you? You were POSTIVE that every person would mention the fossil record. I said I wouldn't and wondered if you knew what my answer was. You never gave it, so I finally supplied it. After which you basically called me a liar rather than admitting your mistake.

Well first off, you say that the first thing you'd mention is genetics, and I just simply don't believe you. If I can be proven wrong (which is impossible), then I would admit I was wrong.

Second, it doesn't matter if you mention genetics first, second, or third....regardless, offering genetics as evidence for evolution is poor. Why? Because of reasons I've already mentioned; which is that any similarities in anatomy or genetics could very well mean common designer as opposed to common ancestry.

Third, the fact that you want to spend so much time on this is starting to look like a herring that is red.

Actually we do know. It can't happen. The fact that you think evolution says "who knows?" means you really don't understand the theory even after repeatedly saying you do.

Oh, so it is okay to believe that a hundred million years ago, a reptile can evolve into a bird....but when I postulate the same exact thing (iguana to a bird) in future hundred million year timeframe, now all of a sudden; "it can't happen".

Well, if a reptile can't evolve into a bird a hundred million years into the future, then it couldn't have evolved to a bird a hundred million years in the past.

Of course, I am saying it didn't happen at ALL...but don't make it seem as if my scenario is so crazy and out of the realm of possibility when it is the exact same thing you believe had occurred on the opposite end of the timeline spectrum.

A modern day pigeon can't appear down another evolutionary line. Something that looks like it may appear, but it won't be called a pigeon (if the taxonomist who names it knows what they are doing).

It may not be a pigeon, but it would still be a bird. There are many different varieties of birds, and unlike you, I understand the irrelevance of trying to pin down exactly what "type" of bird it will be...because the idea that it can evolve into a bird (generally speaking) is absurd enough on its own merit, so trying to pin down exactly what kind of absurdity it will be is silly.

In this case it would still be an iguana with a new sub classification.

Irrelevant. A dog, wolf, and coyote can be classified as a different "species", but they are clearly still the same "kind" of animal.

Calling it a pigeon would be wrong and confusing as it's not an ancestor of modern day pigeons. The only common thing you could call these two things would be whatever common ancestor they share way up in the evolutionary tree.

I see you are still stuck on this "pigeon" thing. Go ahead...you win. It won't be called a "pigeon". Cool? Happy now?

Evolution simply says that the ancestors of modern day birds (pick one of the many, many different species) did not look like modern day birds because over many generations the features evolved. You yourself admit to this being valid when looking at dogs.

But at the end of the day, you start with a bird, you end with birds. The birds of x million years go didn't begin to lose their beaks and feathers and develop smooth skin and snouts. They are still birds.

Maybe we need to approach this differently. What exactly constitutes a 'bird' in your eyes? Does it have to have feathers? A beak? Talons? Please tell us what makes a bird a bird since you seem to know how to classify things at the 'kind' level - which I assume is what you are attempting to do.

Exactly. Beaks, feathers, talons, two legs, wings. Those are the main identifiers of "birds".

Look, it's pretty simple. Is a parrot an eagle?

No, but a parrot and an eagle are the same "kind" of animal.

Somehow you are admitting that birds have branched out with "micro" evolution, but want to stop understanding the taxonomy with "bird". Unless you believe that every single named species of bird we have today also existed at creation, you have the same problem you are trying to say "macro" evolution has.

At what point did the parrot and eagle share the same ancestor? What was it called? Even if you don't know that, you seem to be fine admitting there was such a thing. Why you stop there when going backwards generationally is baffling.

You are correct, I have no problem admitting such a thing. First off, I don't know how many original "kinds" (or prototypes) which existed at creation. So in the case of birds, I don't know how many original prototypes of birds which were created by God.

Maybe there was an original prototype of an "ostrich", which is/was a large, flightless bird (lets call this prototype "emustrich"), and maybe this emustrich is the evolutionary predecessor of the modern day ostrich and emu.

That would be an excellent example of microevolution, where you start with an original "kind" of which other varieties of this kind branched off to. But at the end of the day (and beginning of the day), you start with the original kind (bird), and you end with the original kind (bird).

Now again, I don't know how many original kinds there were, nor do I know how many varieties of this kind can and will result....all I know is what has been the consistent pattern of occurrence for as long as man has existed on this earth...and that is the consistent pattern of no animal EVER producing a fundamentally different animal than what its ancestors were.

So that is all I can go on. Now, if you want to believe otherwise, feel free. But not me.

See above questions about what a 'bird' is. You are hung up on naming, but insist on your own naming scheme. In essence, you are right. What the ancestors were called is 'irrelevant', yet we as humans name things and know each living thing had an ancestor. You don't seem to like the names of some of the ancestors and want to stop at 'bird' when going backwards.

Huh?

Again, you have the cart before the horse.

How much evolution (micro or macro if you prefer) takes place over 10,000,000 years for an organism that does not reproduce? If the answer is 0, you have made my point. If the answer is not 0, we are back to you not knowing what evolution is.

Straw man. The fact that I keep stating (to your annoyance) that "dogs produce dogs" should be enough to tell you that animal reproduction is embedded in my knock against the theory.

Don't know why you are so stuck on this.

I understand perfectly what you are trying to do, but you are failing as my further questioning pointed out. Your definition included hand wavy "reptile to bird transformation". So it doesn't appear to cover fruit flies.

Ok, "fruit flies produce fruit flies". Now, fruit flies have been covered.

I don't believe anything that is not observable so I guess "macro" evolution is not a real thing nor what I'm talking about when talking about evolution. The science makes no such distinction. Only people trying to deny the ToE start making up definitions like this.

We accept the ToMe (Theory of Microevolution). We accept what we can actually observe, experiment, and predict. You know, actual science.

How about an analogy.

If I wander into the TD&D subforum and start claiming certain sins are not 'real' sins because there are macrosins and microsins and only microsins are 'real'. Those macrosins are unobservable in nature. Since not all sin is observable, Jesus can't possibly cover all sin, thus Jesus is limited in what sin can be forgiven. Since Jesus is limited in what sin can be forgiven, an all powerful god cannot be involved. If God is not all powerful, then God is not a real god. Macrosin destroys the entire theology. Only microsins can be forgiven so you will end up in hell if you accidentally macrosin.

The above is the type of argument you are making when talking about macro/micro evolution. It sounds ridiculous and undefined, but you think it somehow calls into question the actual science.

LOL. Actually, Christians have in house debates and discussions all the time about things like this....what should be constituted as a "sin". Can an unbaptized believer be saved? Should Christians celebrate Passover?

And we all know, Christians are all over the place when it comes to acceptable doctrine. To be honest, your analogy is not far fetched....and it goes a little something like this..

"Are some sins greater than others (which would be a micro/macro distinction), or are all sins equal in God's eyes".

Answers to this question may very among believers....but that is where the validity of your analogy falters, because you talk about certain sin being unobservable when Scripture tells us that there is nothing hidden from God (Heb 4:13).

So, nice try. Close, but no cigar.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In a sense I agree with you, but I think you need to up your game.

Appearances can be deceiving, after all. Not everything like is like, (and conversely, unlike things can be like). After all, both salt and sugar look exactly the same. They smell the same, I think. The only difference is taste, appearance wise (yet they are chemically completely different). Also there is such a thing as brown sugar.

Reality needs to be scrutinized, not eye-balled, in my opinion. That's whether you are a creationist OR evolutionist.

I feel you. But how long has man existed on this planet? Whatever answer you give, that is the amount of years behind countless observations of animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

In that case, appearances aren't deceiving..it just simply is what it is.

[Clownboat]

I feel you. But how long has man existed on this planet? Whatever answer you give, that is the amount of years behind countless observations of animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

I'm afraid that answering this question would just confuse you further as what humans call things seems to be an issue for you.
For example, was Homo erectus a 'man'? How about Homo neanderthalensis, were they what you would call 'man'?

You seem to struggle with Archaeopteryx being called a bird after all and you seem to struggle with the idea that if birds were to evolve drastically over the next millions of years and not resemble a bird of today, they came about by birds giving birth to birds like what we observe happens today and like the theory of evolution predicts (which you don't seem to grasp as you keep alluding to dogs producing dogs and so on as if evolution suggests something different). A dog a millions years from now may not resemble dogs of today much, and perhaps humans will have started to 'call' them something else. They still came about by dogs giving birth to dogs, like evolution predicts. Again, humans assigning names (bird/dinasour) to these things is what is preventing you from understanding that dogs do in fact produce dogs and why the TOE predicts such a thing.

Most importantly!
What mechanism would you propose in place of evolution that would better explain not only what we see in the animal kingdom today, but also the fossil record? I would like to compare your proposed mechanism.

I trust you are not here to just complain about the Theory of Evolution.

[Miles]

In a sense I agree with you, but I think you need to up your game.

Appearances can be deceiving, after all. Not everything like is like, (and conversely, unlike things can be like). After all, both salt and sugar look exactly the same. They smell the same, I think. The only difference is taste, appearance wise (yet they are chemically completely different). Also there is such a thing as brown sugar.

Reality needs to be scrutinized, not eye-balled, in my opinion. That's whether you are a creationist OR evolutionist.

I feel you. But how long has man existed on this planet? Whatever answer you give, that is the amount of years behind countless observations of animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

In that case, appearances aren't deceiving..it just simply is what it is.

One question:

Considering that Noah could not have carried anywhere near the number of species in the world aboard the ark, which is now estimated to be 8.7 + million (plus adding say 3/4 of that again for breeding purposes (those requiring males and females) making the total at least 15 million) wouldn't there have to have been a whole of evolving going on after he hit dry land? And all within 2.400 years or so---I'm assuming all this evolving would have been finished by the time Jesus arrived.



.

[The Barbarian]

Exactly. Beaks, feathers, talons, two legs, wings. Those are the main identifiers of "birds".

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'm afraid that answering this question would just confuse you further as what humans call things seems to be an issue for you.

"You are confused. You just don't know what evolution is."

As I said, it never fails.

For example, was Homo erectus a 'man'? How about Homo neanderthalensis, were they what you would call 'man'?

Don't know, don't care.

You seem to struggle with Archaeopteryx being called a bird after all

Um, no I don't. If the findings of the alleged archaeopteryx is true (as some question its validity), then it looks like a bird to me.

I say it is an ancient bird. You say it is a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird.

At this point, we are just going off of mere observation, so how is your observation any better than mines?

It isn't; is the answer.

and you seem to struggle with the idea that if birds were to evolve drastically over the next millions of years

Stop!! Hold it right there!!! Lets take a couple of seconds and look at what just happened here. This has happened a few days ago as well, and I can't remember whether it was you or someone else who did the same thing.

Do you see what just happened...it happened so fast, you didn't even catch it..in the blink of an eye....you said "if birds were to evolve drastically over the next millions of years".

With that one hypothetical scenario, you've just left science and walked right into the door which has "religion" written on it.

What we have here is "Time of the gaps".

Since there is obviously no observational evidence that the changes in question can occur, the evolutionist appeals to their God...which in this case, is "time".

They are using "time" to fill in the gaps; which is why in the ToE scenario, you have a million year gap into the past...and in the current scenario which you gave, you also have a million year gap into the future.

"God of the gaps" = we cant explain it, therefore, God did it

"Time of the gaps" = no one will ever see it happen, but sprinkle a hundred million year timeframe in there, and it happens.

and not resemble a bird of today, they came about by birds giving birth to birds like what we observe happens today and like the theory of evolution predicts (which you don't seem to grasp as you keep alluding to dogs producing dogs and so on as if evolution suggests something different).

You are being disingenuous here. When I say "dogs produce dogs", I am not saying that evolution says something different, at least in day-to-day observations...as no sane person can deny that dogs produce dogs...but evolution is saying that modern day canines came from ancient non-canines, which is completely contrary to "dogs producing dogs".

That, my friend, is unscientific. Now, I certainly understand that you'd like everything to be nice and scientify...but this just isn't.

A dog a millions years from now may not resemble dogs of today much, and perhaps humans will have started to 'call' them something else.

So, after you apparently walked through the door of "religion" that I mentioned above, now you are taking your shoes off, and relaxing on the couch.

I am already in this room and I see you. Here, have a beer *passes beer*.

They still came about by dogs giving birth to dogs, like evolution predicts. Again, humans assigning names (bird/dinasour) to these things is what is preventing you from understanding that dogs do in fact produce dogs and why the TOE predicts such a thing.

Yeah man, I am sure you will enjoy your stay here. Lots of good, religious folks in here.

Most importantly!
What mechanism would you propose in place of evolution that would better explain not only what we see in the animal kingdom today, but also the fossil record? I would like to compare your proposed mechanism.

The mechanism is God and his power, creating the universe and life on planet earth...and commanding the living creatures to bring forth after their kind.

I trust you are not here to just complain about the Theory of Evolution.

No, that is only part of the fun.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Considering that Noah could not have carried anywhere near the number of species in the world aboard the ark, which is now estimated to be 8.7 + million (plus adding say 3/4 of that again for breeding purposes (those requiring males and females) making the total at least 15 million) wouldn't there have to have been a whole of evolving going on after he hit dry land? And all within 2.400 years or so---I'm assuming all this evolving would have been finished by the time Jesus arrived.

.
I am going to assume that you are a man, and by you stating that "Noah could not have carried anywhere near the number of species in the world aboard the ark", I am going to assume that you are saying that the feat would have been impossible.

So, I made two assumptions..

1. You are a man.
2. You are saying that the Noah story (from start to finish) would have been an impossible feat.

My response is simple..

Matt 19:26 “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

[We_Are_VENOM]

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

And my point is; they could have been distinct, separate creatures from both birds and reptiles. Have you guys even considered that possibility...why is that not even a consideration...or do you have the "everything must point to evolution" mentality?

I bet if the platypus never existed in modern days, and we found fossils of it from x million years ago, you guys would be trying to push the agenda of those fossils being transitional from a beaver to a duck.

Why not? That is the same thing you do with everything else.

[Miles]

Considering that Noah could not have carried anywhere near the number of species in the world aboard the ark, which is now estimated to be 8.7 + million (plus adding say 3/4 of that again for breeding purposes (those requiring males and females) making the total at least 15 million) wouldn't there have to have been a whole of evolving going on after he hit dry land? And all within 2.400 years or so---I'm assuming all this evolving would have been finished by the time Jesus arrived.

.
I am going to assume that you are a man, and by you stating that "Noah could not have carried anywhere near the number of species in the world aboard the ark", I am going to assume that you are saying that the feat would have been impossible.

So, I made two assumptions..

1. You are a man.
2. You are saying that the Noah story (from start to finish) would have been an impossible feat.

My response is simple..

Matt 19:26 “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Sorry but your supernatural wand waving just doesn't cut it, as in "poof," Noah was able to gather and pack 15 million forms of life aboard the ark. AND feed and water them all for 150 days.

OR was it that after the hundred or so representative species got off the ark god tapped each one they all changed into 15 million species?

Heck, why didn't god simply direct Noah to find and keep one mammal, one bird, one reptile, one amphibian, one fish, one insect one tree, one mushroom, etc, and then after the flood by tapping each they would instantaneous transform them into millions of species. For instance, that one insect species would become the 5,500,000 insect species now roaming the earth. That he didn't speaks of a very inefficient and not too bright of a god. But, hey, I don't ever remember reading in the Bible that god was necessarily efficient or bright. Do you?

And if in fact, with God all things are possible, instead of going to all the bother of building a boat, and then gathering "seven pairs, of every kind of clean animal. And getting one pair of every other animal on the earth." And "gathering seven pairs of all the birds," why didn't he simply destroy them all with the wave of his and, and with the wave of his other hand recreate them all?



.

[Difflugia]

And my point is; they could have been distinct, separate creatures from both birds and reptiles. Have you guys even considered that possibility...why is that not even a consideration...or do you have the "everything must point to evolution" mentality?

In the sense of "anything's possible," but it's on par with the possibility that leprechauns live in my shoes or that the moon is made of cheese.

I bet if the platypus never existed in modern days, and we found fossils of it from x million years ago, you guys would be trying to push the agenda of those fossils being transitional from a beaver to a duck.

Why not? That is the same thing you do with everything else.

No. That's what creationist apologists would have you believe, but it's not. What "we" do is painstaking analysis to derive mathematical relationships that resolve into relationship trees. If you'd like to see one of the analyses involving Microgui species, you can download a dry, boring-as-church, 200-page report from the American Museum of Natural History. The detailed report describes each genus included, as well as descriptions of each character included in the analysis. This is the same technique that evolved into molecular phylogenetic analysis using DNA. "We" can't do molecular analysis with fossils (lack of DNA and all), but molecular techniques have since validated the cladistic techniques used in the linked report by overwhelmingly producing the same results for living organisms as we get when we include fossils.

If you are comfortable believing that DNA analysis can reliably match you to other members of your family, then you should be just as sure about this. It's essentially impossible that the patterns revealed by these kinds of analyses are mere coincidence. Evolution not only neatly explains them, but nothing else comes close. If God created Microraptor gui as a separate kind from other dinosaurs and birds, then He did so in such a way that it looks exactly like evolution is at fault. "We" aren't fishing for evolutionary explanations or peering in any glass darkly, but are looking at the smoking gun, the hand in the cookie jar, and the fifth ace and the only conclusion "we" can reasonably draw is that evolution dunnit.