CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Coloradomtnman]

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

I don't understand your premise. If the species is still alive then I would say it has adapted quite effectively.

It took billions of years to survive.
Prove it.
Show the stages of adaptation.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

 

[Indeependent]

You're smarter than that.
One BIG aspect of Evolution id adaptation to survive.
But adaption takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.
And the non-adapting species still survives.

I don't understand your premise. If the species is still alive then I would say it has adapted quite effectively.

It took billions of years to survive.
Prove it.
Show the stages of adaptation.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't understand your premise. If the species is still alive then I would say it has adapted quite effectively.

It took billions of years to survive.
Prove it.
Show the stages of adaptation.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't understand your premise. If the species is still alive then I would say it has adapted quite effectively.

It took billions of years to survive.
Prove it.
Show the stages of adaptation.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Yes, that is a "key phrase," but the focus of it is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor. We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist. Magicians can seem to materialize a bird out of a handkerchief or thin air, but there were no magicians around either. LOL

 

[Indeependent]

It took billions of years to survive.
Prove it.
Show the stages of adaptation.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Yes, that is a "key phrase," but the focus of it is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor. We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist. Magicians can seem to materialize a bird out of a handkerchief or thin air, but there were no magicians around either. LOL

I never heard that there were eons where birds didn't exist anywhere on planet earth.

 

[320 Years of History]

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Yes, that is a "key phrase," but the focus of it is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor. We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist. Magicians can seem to materialize a bird out of a handkerchief or thin air, but there were no magicians around either. LOL

I never heard that there were eons where birds didn't exist anywhere on planet earth.

Well, now you know there were. You learn something every day.

Geologic Time - EnchantedLearning.com

 

[jwoodie]

We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist

Circular argument, begs question of evolution vs. intervention.

 

[S.J.]

It took billions of years to survive.
Prove it.
Show the stages of adaptation.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

Back to the argument that evolution wins by default. Inability to disprove it does not equal proof of it, but "line of reasoning" DOES equal speculation.

 

[Indeependent]

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Yes, that is a "key phrase," but the focus of it is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor. We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist. Magicians can seem to materialize a bird out of a handkerchief or thin air, but there were no magicians around either. LOL

I never heard that there were eons where birds didn't exist anywhere on planet earth.

Well, now you know there were. You learn something every day.

Geologic Time - EnchantedLearning.com

Seriously?
Bunch of theories based on University Donor Agenda.
Should I post a Creationism PowerPoint image?

 

[320 Years of History]

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Yes, that is a "key phrase," but the focus of it is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor. We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist. Magicians can seem to materialize a bird out of a handkerchief or thin air, but there were no magicians around either. LOL

I never heard that there were eons where birds didn't exist anywhere on planet earth.

Well, now you know there were. You learn something every day.

Geologic Time - EnchantedLearning.com

Seriously?
Bunch of theories based on University Donor Agenda.
Should I post a Creationism PowerPoint image?

Do you agree that at for eons or epochs in Earth's history there existed only single cell creatures?

Do you believe that any of those single cell creatures meet the criteria needed to call them birds?

Would you not call the time period from when there were only single celled animal life forms to the time that birds appeared anything other than one or more "eons" or "epochs," or something similarly long or longer?

Is it lost on you that nothing remotely resembling birds could have survived on Earth during the Hadean age yet microbial life did exist, survive and thrive?

• When did eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei and other internal organelles) first evolve? What do we know about how they evolved from earlier life-forms?
• http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386.abstract
• Romano, Antonio H.; Conway, Tyrrell (July–September 1996). "Evolution of carbohydrate metabolic pathways". Research in Microbiology (Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier for the Pasteur Institute) 147 (6–7): 448–455.
• Hahn, Jürgen; Haug, Pat (May 1986). "Traces of Archaebacteria in Ancient Sediments". Systematic and Applied Microbiology (Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier) 7 (2–3): 178–183.
• Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment

The truth is that I picked the earlier site because I thought "surely this is easy enough to read and the central point -- that there was a very long span of time on Earth during which life existed and birds and other complex forms of life weren't part of that life on Earth -- would be patent enough that the details of when and in what sequence any given form of complex life's subsequent appearance would be understood by you as irrelevant to the point I made above. That point being as follows:

Yes, that in the statement "Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family,:" "thought to have" is a "key phrase," but the focus of that phrase is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor.​

Clearly, however, I thought wrong, for you've now shown us that you are among the folks for whom even the most basic of things must be spelled out in utmost detail; moreover, you have shown us that rather than question whether your own understanding might be incomplete, you'd sooner cling to it and challenge the source from which information refuting what you previously understood comes.

That behavior/"lack-of-critical-thought" pattern comprises a huge share of the issue I have with nearly every creationist I've encountered. You see, I don't take exception at all with creationists, theists, ascribing to the idea that God created all that we see and that evolution isn't the way life came to be what we observe today. I take exception with theists who, in the face of all the evidence that shows evolution is the mode of development nature used to effect the lifeforms we see now, cling to and articulate what amounts to a revisionist sequence of the story of life's emergence on Earth rather than merely accepting that it is faith, not science that enables their belief.

That there is nothing wrong with having faith of that nature, that there is absolutely not one reason why one must have a logical reason for having any given set of faith-based beliefs, are two reasons why creationists really have no call to even engage in a debate about evolution vs. creationism. Quite simply, faith in whatever one takes from one's book(s) of scripture doesn't require reason; it requires only faith. One either has it or one doesn't, and whichever that be for an individual just is what it is. Indeed, the only time there arises a conflict is when one needs a scripture to be not only about dogma and theology, but also a writing about science and fact. And the fact, within the context of yours and my discussion is that life on Earth existed for millions of years with no damn birds ever having been a part of it.

 

[320 Years of History]

We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist

Circular argument, begs question of evolution vs. intervention.

Actually, what I wrote wasn't an argument, nor did I intend it as one, it is a conclusion to an argument, an argument I hadn't at that point in the discussion presented. I hadn't presented it because I didn't know if it might be referring to an Old or Young Earth Creationist, or with someone who accepts that life existed on earth beginning in the Hadean period. I just wasn't keen to take the time to present the facts that lead to the conclusion "we know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird."

(I can't believe you wrote that. You and I both know that if I'm going to make an argument, it'll be far more fully developed than what I wrote in that post)

If by some stroke of the imagination you are referring to an argument pertaining to the veracity of the linguistic meaning I applied, I don't intend to argue one way or another on that. I'm sure that other astute readers who bother to read the passages involved will know I'm not mistaken, and those who aren't astute enough to realize that aren't folks I'm going to knowingly and willingly engage anyway.

 

[Indeependent]

Key phrase, "are thought".

Yes, that is a "key phrase," but the focus of it is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor. We know that birds evolved from something that was not a bird, quite simply, because there are eons, epochs (not days) of history during which birds just didn't exist. Magicians can seem to materialize a bird out of a handkerchief or thin air, but there were no magicians around either. LOL

I never heard that there were eons where birds didn't exist anywhere on planet earth.

Well, now you know there were. You learn something every day.

Geologic Time - EnchantedLearning.com

Seriously?
Bunch of theories based on University Donor Agenda.
Should I post a Creationism PowerPoint image?

Do you agree that at for eons or epochs in Earth's history there existed only single cell creatures?

Do you believe that any of those single cell creatures meet the criteria needed to call them birds?

Would you not call the time period from when there were only single celled animal life forms to the time that birds appeared anything other than one or more "eons" or "epochs," or something similarly long or longer?

Is it lost on you that nothing remotely resembling birds could have survived on Earth during the Hadean age yet microbial life did exist, survive and thrive?

• When did eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei and other internal organelles) first evolve? What do we know about how they evolved from earlier life-forms?
• http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386.abstract
• Romano, Antonio H.; Conway, Tyrrell (July–September 1996). "Evolution of carbohydrate metabolic pathways". Research in Microbiology (Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier for the Pasteur Institute) 147 (6–7): 448–455.
• Hahn, Jürgen; Haug, Pat (May 1986). "Traces of Archaebacteria in Ancient Sediments". Systematic and Applied Microbiology (Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier) 7 (2–3): 178–183.
• Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment

The truth is that I picked the earlier site because I thought "surely this is easy enough to read and the central point -- that there was a very long span of time on Earth during which life existed and birds and other complex forms of life weren't part of that life on Earth -- would be patent enough that the details of when and in what sequence any given form of complex life's subsequent appearance would be understood by you as irrelevant to the point I made above. That point being as follows:

Yes, that in the statement "Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family,:" "thought to have" is a "key phrase," but the focus of that phrase is that it's unclear from exactly which non-bird ancestor they evolved, not that it's unclear that they evolved from some non-bird ancestor.​

Clearly, however, I thought wrong, for you've now shown us that you are among the folks for whom even the most basic of things must be spelled out in utmost detail; moreover, you have shown us that rather than question whether your own understanding might be incomplete, you'd sooner cling to it and challenge the source from which information refuting what you previously understood comes.

That behavior/"lack-of-critical-thought" pattern comprises a huge share of the issue I have with nearly every creationist I've encountered. You see, I don't take exception at all with creationists, theists, ascribing to the idea that God created all that we see and that evolution isn't the way life came to be what we observe today. I take exception with theists who, in the face of all the evidence that shows evolution is the mode of development nature used to effect the lifeforms we see now, cling to and articulate what amounts to a revisionist sequence of the story of life's emergence on Earth rather than merely accepting that it is faith, not science that enables their belief.

That there is nothing wrong with having faith of that nature, that there is absolutely not one reason why one must have a logical reason for having any given set of faith-based beliefs, are two reasons why creationists really have no call to even engage in a debate about evolution vs. creationism. Quite simply, faith in whatever one takes from one's book(s) of scripture doesn't require reason; it requires only faith. One either has it or one doesn't, and whichever that be for an individual just is what it is. Indeed, the only time there arises a conflict is when one needs a scripture to be not only about dogma and theology, but also a writing about science and fact. And the fact, within the context of yours and my discussion is that life on Earth existed for millions of years with no damn birds ever having been a part of it.

The universe started as an explosion of such intensity that it took billions of years for sub atomic particles to start forming and becoming more complex.

ADAM was made from the elements in the earth, just as plant life, animals and what we called inanimate objects such as rocks.
Were other humans somewhere along the non-Adam line a result of evolution?...Maybe, but not yet verified.

Of course one must be able to read the Torah in Hebrew in order to come to these observations.

 

[320 Years of History]

The universe started as an explosion of such intensity that it took billions of years for sub atomic particles to start forming and becoming more complex.

ADAM was made from the elements in the earth, just as plant life, animals and what we called inanimate objects such as rocks.
Were other humans somewhere along the non-Adam line a result of evolution?...Maybe, but not yet verified.

Of course one must be able to read the Torah in Hebrew in order to come to these observations.

You've now shown us that you are among the folks for whom even the most basic of things must be spelled out in utmost detail; moreover, you have shown us that rather than question whether your own understanding might be incomplete, you'd sooner cling to it and challenge the source from which information refuting what you previously understood comes.

I rest my case.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Seriously, what are you talking about? What exactly took bilions of years to survive. Can you clarify what exactly it is you are asking.

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

Back to the argument that evolution wins by default. Inability to disprove it does not equal proof of it, but "line of reasoning" DOES equal speculation.

It isn't the "argument that evolution wins by default" that I was putting forth, but a question to illustrate that for someone to off-handedly dismiss as baseless speculation a century and a half of work and hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers by tens of thousands of scientists, many of whom are religious Christians (such as Francis Crick, a born again Christian who decoded the human genome and it a highly respected scientist) who only followed where the evidence lead them. It isn't speculation, it's the height of human achievement.

What other scientific theories are so controversial? What other theories are so continuously challenged? And yet the theories of evolution are still the widely accepted best theory that explains the evidence and with which the most accurate predictions have been made?

I accept that none of the above means the theories are true, but they are hardly speculation.

 

[S.J.]

How long did it take the birds that can fly to grow wings?

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

Back to the argument that evolution wins by default. Inability to disprove it does not equal proof of it, but "line of reasoning" DOES equal speculation.

It isn't the "argument that evolution wins by default" that I was putting forth, but a question to illustrate that for someone to off-handedly dismiss as baseless speculation a century and a half of work and hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers by tens of thousands of scientists, many of whom are religious Christians (such as Francis Crick, a born again Christian who decoded the human genome and it a highly respected scientist) who only followed where the evidence lead them. It isn't speculation, it's the height of human achievement.

What other scientific theories are so controversial? What other theories are so continuously challenged? And yet the theories of evolution are still the widely accepted best theory that explains the evidence and with which the most accurate predictions have been made?

I accept that none of the above means the theories are true, but they are hardly speculation.

You can call it whatever you want but you can't call it proof.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe started as an explosion of such intensity that it took billions of years for sub atomic particles to start forming and becoming more complex.

ADAM was made from the elements in the earth, just as plant life, animals and what we called inanimate objects such as rocks.
Were other humans somewhere along the non-Adam line a result of evolution?...Maybe, but not yet verified.

Of course one must be able to read the Torah in Hebrew in order to come to these observations.

You've now shown us that you are among the folks for whom even the most basic of things must be spelled out in utmost detail; moreover, you have shown us that rather than question whether your own understanding might be incomplete, you'd sooner cling to it and challenge the source from which information refuting what you previously understood comes.

I rest my case.

Next time READ my post before typing in a knee-jerk response.
I'm am NOT shocked by Evolutionists who cannot tolerate another POV.
Thank you for not shocking me.

 

[320 Years of History]

Next time READ my post before typing in a knee-jerk response.
I'm am NOT shocked by Evolutionists who cannot tolerate another POV.
Thank you for not shocking me.

I"m sure someone thinks that has something to do with "the price of tea in China...."

 

[Coloradomtnman]

They didn't grow wings, per se. Modern birds that fly are thought to have evolved from the same ancestor as the crocodile family. Over the course of millions of years, these dinosaurs developed first feathers, which fossil evidence suggests may have been for insulation (though they probably served other purposes as well such as camouflage or species recognition) and then the skeletal frame work that eventually favored aerial flight to running only on hind legs.

This isn't special to the evolution of birds alone because pterodactyls evolved flight independently, just as certain insects and mammals, such as bats, have also. Then there are animals such as flying fish and flying squirrels which, given the enough time and the right conditions, may be in the process of evolving into fully flying species.

Key phrase, "are thought".

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

Back to the argument that evolution wins by default. Inability to disprove it does not equal proof of it, but "line of reasoning" DOES equal speculation.

It isn't the "argument that evolution wins by default" that I was putting forth, but a question to illustrate that for someone to off-handedly dismiss as baseless speculation a century and a half of work and hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers by tens of thousands of scientists, many of whom are religious Christians (such as Francis Crick, a born again Christian who decoded the human genome and it a highly respected scientist) who only followed where the evidence lead them. It isn't speculation, it's the height of human achievement.

What other scientific theories are so controversial? What other theories are so continuously challenged? And yet the theories of evolution are still the widely accepted best theory that explains the evidence and with which the most accurate predictions have been made?

I accept that none of the above means the theories are true, but they are hardly speculation.

You can call it whatever you want but you can't call it proof.

Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. Theories are not facts. They explain facts. That's why Natural Selection is a theory: it explains evolution, a fact. Only facts are proved.

Evolution is a proven fact no matter how much one denies that, or quibbles over the exact meaning, or splits hairs about the use of the word, or disputes the extent of how far or how much a population evolves. Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

 

[S.J.]

Key phrase, "are thought".

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

Back to the argument that evolution wins by default. Inability to disprove it does not equal proof of it, but "line of reasoning" DOES equal speculation.

It isn't the "argument that evolution wins by default" that I was putting forth, but a question to illustrate that for someone to off-handedly dismiss as baseless speculation a century and a half of work and hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers by tens of thousands of scientists, many of whom are religious Christians (such as Francis Crick, a born again Christian who decoded the human genome and it a highly respected scientist) who only followed where the evidence lead them. It isn't speculation, it's the height of human achievement.

What other scientific theories are so controversial? What other theories are so continuously challenged? And yet the theories of evolution are still the widely accepted best theory that explains the evidence and with which the most accurate predictions have been made?

I accept that none of the above means the theories are true, but they are hardly speculation.

You can call it whatever you want but you can't call it proof.

Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. Theories are not facts. They explain facts. That's why Natural Selection is a theory: it explains evolution, a fact. Only facts are proved.

Evolution is a proven fact no matter how much one denies that, or quibbles over the exact meaning, or splits hairs about the use of the word, or disputes the extent of how far or how much a population evolves. Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

Not to the extent evolutionists claim. There's no solid evidence of species evolving into other unrelated species. That has never been observed.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Right. Are thought, but not just speculation. There is evidence to support this line of reasoning. If that is your best argument why the theories of evolution aren't valid scientific theories and that all of the evidence supporting these theories is misinterpreted then I suppose you have something better?

Back to the argument that evolution wins by default. Inability to disprove it does not equal proof of it, but "line of reasoning" DOES equal speculation.

It isn't the "argument that evolution wins by default" that I was putting forth, but a question to illustrate that for someone to off-handedly dismiss as baseless speculation a century and a half of work and hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers by tens of thousands of scientists, many of whom are religious Christians (such as Francis Crick, a born again Christian who decoded the human genome and it a highly respected scientist) who only followed where the evidence lead them. It isn't speculation, it's the height of human achievement.

What other scientific theories are so controversial? What other theories are so continuously challenged? And yet the theories of evolution are still the widely accepted best theory that explains the evidence and with which the most accurate predictions have been made?

I accept that none of the above means the theories are true, but they are hardly speculation.

You can call it whatever you want but you can't call it proof.

Of course not. Science doesn't work that way. Theories are not facts. They explain facts. That's why Natural Selection is a theory: it explains evolution, a fact. Only facts are proved.

Evolution is a proven fact no matter how much one denies that, or quibbles over the exact meaning, or splits hairs about the use of the word, or disputes the extent of how far or how much a population evolves. Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

Not to the extent evolutionists claim. There's no solid evidence of species evolving into other unrelated species. That has never been observed.

You're right, no one has lived long enough to observe a new species evolve from a known species (that takes millennia); but it has been inferred from the fossil record and from DNA. And there is no reason to believe that there is some arbitrary boundary at which evolution stops: that all canine populations are subject to genetic mutation and environmental pressure over time, but only so far as human beings still recognize the species as "dog".