CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[S.J.]

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".

"Inferred", "believe", etc. It's still speculation, and it requires faith. That may be fine for some, but not others and the others should not be forced to accept what is based largely on faith (even if it doesn't SEEM like faith to you).

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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".

"Inferred", "believe", etc. It's still speculation, and it requires faith. That may be fine for some, but not others and the others should not be forced to accept what is based largely on faith (even if it doesn't SEEM like faith to you).

If I believed in the theories of evolution, you would have a point. I don't believe in them. I evaluate them based on their merits and tentatively accept them as being the currently best explanation of the available evidence. If I believed in a scientific theory, I would be doing it wrong. Science is open to doubt and revision, and these are features of science not problems. I believe in human rights, in justice and fairness, in self-determination, and other ideals and principles. Not theories.

Inference is accepted scientific reasoning. Einstein inferred Relativity. Newton inferred calculus. Atomic theory is inferred through mathematical models. No one has seen an atom. Inference in this context isn't just "yep, the evidence kinda looks like what I thought it should", but a convergence of evidence from different fields: geology through sedimentary layering and constituent make-up, paleontology through the fossil record, chemistry through dating methods, biology through DNA and numerous other biological sub-disciplines, and many other contributions which all fit together to paint a picture of an approximate history of the planet and the life on it. A true seeker of knowledge follows where the evidence leads, he doesn't lead the evidence to his conclusions. And if he does, other scientists will gladly point it out.

There is no reason why evolution would arbitrarily stop. If mutation happens to DNA, if the environment puts pressure on organisms to survive, and if time doesn't stop, evolution continues. It doesn't stop just before a dog population has evolved into a new species of dog or a new genus of canine or even a new kind of mammal.

 

[jwoodie]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

There isn't a lot of information with which to answer that question. There are several hypotheses, but no real hard evidence.

One hypothesis is that early ancestors to modern humans were semi-aquatic and like dolphins and whales hair is not a helpful to survival. That one doesn't seem very viable to me.

Another is that unlike our forest-dwelling cousins, we developed on the savannahs and the hair caused us to be too hot.

Another is that because we are a tribal species parasites like lice and fleas would've been a real problem. We lost the hair to minimize those kinds of parasites and then sexual selection may have accelerated the process cause who likes hairy women, right?

 

[pinqy]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

There isn't a lot of information with which to answer that question. There are several hypotheses, but no real hard evidence.

One hypothesis is that early ancestors to modern humans were semi-aquatic and like dolphins and whales hair is not a helpful to survival. That one doesn't seem very viable to me.

Another is that unlike our forest-dwelling cousins, we developed on the savannahs and the hair caused us to be too hot.

Another is that because we are a tribal species parasites like lice and fleas would've been a real problem. We lost the hair to minimize those kinds of parasites and then sexual selection may have accelerated the process cause who likes hairy women, right?

The aquatic ape theory never gained much traction or any acceptence from the scientific community. Personally, I don't think there was any detrimental reason causing humans to lose hair, but rather that having hair gave no reproductive advantage. If it doesn't make any difference, then by sheer randomness general loss of hair could arise. Sexual selection could well be the answer as well.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

They didn't. Although alopecia most often affects one's head, and it is normal that mammals lack hair on their palms and soles, humans have hair all over their bodies unless they do something to remove it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

They didn't. Although alopecia most often affects one's head, and it is normal that mammals lack hair on their palms and soles, humans have hair all over their bodies unless they do something to remove it.

That kind of avoids the question though considering we have a LOT less hair than any of the other apes. It would stand to reason that our shared ancestor had a lot more hair than we do (in both volume and density).

 

[320 Years of History]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

They didn't. Although alopecia most often affects one's head, and it is normal that mammals lack hair on their palms and soles, humans have hair all over their bodies unless they do something to remove it.

That kind of avoids the question though considering we have a LOT less hair than any of the other apes. It would stand to reason that our shared ancestor had a lot more hair than we do (in both volume and density).

Well, the fact remains that humans have hair all over their bodies, notwithstanding its lesser density and coarseness in comparison to other primates, and the question asked was why did humans lose their hair, not why is it less fur-like, less dense, less coarse, or whatever, that other primates. .

Some folks have presented an answer to the question JWoodie didn't ask and that it's plausible to assume she intended to ask:

• The Naked Truth: Why Humans Have No Fur
  
• Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways
  
• Why Don't Humans Have as Much Hair as Other Primates?
  
• Why aren't people more hairy?

FWIW, it's sometimes difficult to assume what folks do and don't know/mean on this site. From your posts and our discussions, had you asked that question, I'd have inferred that you meant "less dense" or whatever. You've shown a commitment to intellectual integrity, even when you and I don't concur, and that allows me to feel safe giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[james bond]

Why did humans lose their body hair?

They kept adding more blades to their shavers until the hairs gave up.

Seriously, the debate between Creation Science vs Evolution is because of evolutionists wanting to teach the Theory of Evolution in public schools. We have been taught bits and pieces of evolution in our science classes, but there is no Evolution 101 in the US, so far. Here is one curricula that has been created -- Welcome to Evolution 101! . Thus, creation scientists want equal time. The battle for our young minds is worth fighting for!!!

So far, the differences become apparent when looking at the evolutionary process that is taught in American public schools.

"A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life."

To counter, creationists put together their own curriculum.

"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.

1. The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
2. Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
3. Separate ancestry for man and apes.
4. Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
5. A relatively recent inception of the earth and living."

McLean v. Arkansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[320 Years of History]

creation scientists want equal time.

If the stuff they were putting forth rose to the level of being science, then by all means, given them a spot in the public school systems' science curriculum. Unfortunately, none of the theories offered by creation science have at least one essential characteristic of anything that is a scientific theory: falsifiability. (See also: Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki and Falsifiability of evolution - RationalWiki) If and when it becomes okay to teach religion (as contrasted with teaching comparative religion) in the public school systems, then fine, give the creationists and every other faith-based and theist belief system a spot in the curriculum.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

 

[alang1216]

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

If you learn to read the fossil record the transitions are there to see, and that is a fact. Even just looking at the animals around us we see species in the process of separating into unique species.

I'm curious why you claim it is "physically impossible"? You must know something I don't.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

All species are currently in transition to a new species; some, like sharks and crocodiles, are just very slow about it. Cockroaches have slowed so much as to seem to have almost stopped. Each offspring of each species is slightly different than it's parent(s). Over thousands of generations, the offspring may no longer be recognizable as the same species as its ancestors.

Species is just a word we use to categorize organisms into a group. There is no hard boundary between species in nature just a spectrum of organisms varying increasingly in morphology and biology from each other the further away from each other on the spectrum they fall.

A common misconception is that one species transitions into another already extant species. Cats do not evolve into dogs or vice versa. Species only evolve into new species that have not yet existed as a category in the current body of biological knowledge.

There are ancient fossils of a four-footed mammal that resembles whales in many ways: teeth, skull shape, etc. More fossils that were dated to more a recent species show another mammal that resembles both the four-footed mammal and whales, only whales more closely. There are even more fossils that show transition between the early organism and modern whales. Now, either these were all very similar species that simultaneously existed at some time in the past and species evolve.

Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

 

[320 Years of History]

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

If you learn to read the fossil record the transitions are there to see, and that is a fact. Even just looking at the animals around us we see species in the process of separating into unique species.

I'm curious why you claim it is "physically impossible"? You must know something I don't.

Merely finding transitional fossil records, in and of itself, doesn't validate or fail to validate the Theory of Evolution (ToE). The critical thing that the ToE was developed before they were found; however, it predicts that they would be found. Thus what's most compelling about the transitional fossils' having been found is not the fossils' mere existence, but that they were predicted by the ToE before they were known to exist, and low and behold, they exist/existed exactly as predicted. The existence of transitional forms is not the only prediction the ToE makes or implies. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of predictions that issue directly or via valid deductive reasoning from the ToE. Here are some more of them:

• Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
• Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
• There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
• Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
• Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
• Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
• Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
• Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
• In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
• It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
• From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
• In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
• Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
• In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
  
  This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
• Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
  
  The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
• A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
• The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
  
  This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
• An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
  Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
  
  Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
  
  It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus,Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

It's not just that the ToE says humans derived from "lesser" primates. It's that in order for the ToE to be correct and accurately so, myriad other things must also be so. Thus, as seen in some of the examples above, the ToE leads to things non-biological also needing to be so, and those things too prove to be so in complete concurrence with a scientific theory put forth long before it was determined whether those things were indeed so. In other words, the ToE's predictions are testable and time and time again, every test's outcome reaffirms the prediction.

In contrast, Creation so-called Science's premises have been tested over and over and found wanting.

• "Everything" was made in six days some thousands, not millions, not billions, of years ago. --> Simply measuring the distance light can travel over time tell us there is "stuff" in the universe that is older than it possibly could be were that light created only some thousands of years ago. And what is the "scientific" response Creation Scientists give for that?
  • We don't know what "a day" means. Really? They call themselves scientists yet ask us to rely on the uncertainty of what "a day" means to a God who purportedly dictated a book to folks on Earth knowing fully that for whatever they knew or didn't know those folks knew damn well what "a day" is: the length of time it takes the sun to rise, set and rise again. Nobody needed to have divided a day into 24 congruous hour long segments to know that a day is a span of time to which they had a very keen ability to relate. Any God with half a brain would have said "many, many, many days, more than you and all your family will be alive," or something that conveys the idea of "a very long time." The God of scripture isn't at once omniscient and a complete idiot when it comes to communicating.
  • God created "everything" --> That isn't even testable. The Easter Bunny could just as facilely have created "everything."
• "Ginned up" criticisms with the methodology a given study used. That might hold some weight were it so, but as far as I can tell, there's not one Creation Science theory study that actually has nearly as rigorous and stridently objective approaches to arriving at its conclusions. Call me crazy, but I expect that if "you" are going to find fault with "my" methodology, you'd at least not incorporate rational lapses of sound reasoning in "your own" so-called studies. Everyone can make a mistake, but you'd expect they'd recognize their own mistakes were they so committed to "good science." But do Creation Scientists do that? Not in the least!

Those are just two examples of the nonsense Creation Science tries to assert.

I don't have the least bit of a problem believing there is a God. I, like everyone, can believe damn near anything and my believing it makes me feel better somehow and I know that. I also don't have any trouble believing that the ToE is spot on right.

What does that mean for me? It means that in spite of the Nicean Council having pronounced the Bible (and by extension the Torah and Quran) as being "the word of God," the words in it may not accurately depict what He said or all that he said. It means that determining that some of the events described (not predicted in advance of their happening or being found to have happened) even upon being found to have happened are, more or less, events that did occur.

If I write in my journal that "such and such" happened and I ascribe its means and mode of happening to the Easter Bunny, and if millennia later someone finds my journal, and even later finds out that "whatever" did in fact happen, it means I accurately to at least some degree wrote down and described actual events. My attributions of causality, however, aren't validated by one's determining the events did occur. Such is another major problem with considering Creation Science as science. It is what it is, but what that is isn't science.

 

[S.J.]

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

If you learn to read the fossil record the transitions are there to see, and that is a fact. Even just looking at the animals around us we see species in the process of separating into unique species.

I'm curious why you claim it is "physically impossible"? You must know something I don't.

If that's what you want to see, then you probably see it but it's still speculation. You've yet to even remotely meet any burden of proof.

 

[FA_Q2]

Very good post 320.

 

[FA_Q2]

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

If you learn to read the fossil record the transitions are there to see, and that is a fact. Even just looking at the animals around us we see species in the process of separating into unique species.

I'm curious why you claim it is "physically impossible"? You must know something I don't.

If that's what you want to see, then you probably see it but it's still speculation. You've yet to even remotely meet any burden of proof.

That is the other way around.

What is there supports evolution. That is what makes evolution a valid scientific theory. Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it. Stating things like it is impossible for one species to change into a different one assumes something is impossible yet there is no proof of that whatsoever. I have already shown you one that is doing that right now. There is a ton of data on bacteria changing as well and creating new information through mutation - the real basis for a specie to change into something else.

As colorado points out (and I have as well) the term species is not helpful in this context anyway - there is no real line between one species and another. They are little more than ways for people to categorize things.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

No- it is well documented

The case of the horse is so well documented it was established in the 19th century.

You can ignore the fossil evidence- but it is certainly there.

 

[S.J.]

Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it.

Sorry, but that is exactly what evolutionists do. They conclude the theory is accurate, then jump to the conclusion that species transition into other species as a way to tie their theory together. Problem is, that conclusion requires a whole lot of faith (the very thing they dismiss when arguing against creation).