Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[westwall]

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Don't be deliberately obtuse PC, it is unbecoming of you. At one time there was the prototypical horse, then through time, many more types of horse have evolved. Man too has had a hand in that. Percherons and Clydesdales were bred for size to become the heavy warhorses of the medieval knights, the Morgan was bred by an American farmer to be the best possible work horse.

They are all "horses" but they are also all different in some fasion that enabled them to compete in their particular environment. A Mongolian Steppe Pony is far hardier and can travel for far greater distances in the most atrocious weather then any fine bred Arabian (once again anothe man derived species going back over 4500 years ago).
But, the Arabians are faster by a long mile then a steppe pony.

Here is some further reading that has more of what I have been saying.

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."




29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Woyzeck]

1. You are free to pretend that the argument is not proven, i.e., that science, physics, cosmology, does not use the same mechanisms that theologians use, that would be faith and belief, same has been documented throughout the thread.

Oh stop with your excuses. If I'm wrong, tell me why. Don't just repost what you already said, come off your goddamn ivory tower and give me an actual rebuttal. You never even touched what I said in reply. Baby? Bathwater? Did you even read my reply? My original reply, before you just reposted your post and called it a day?



That? Remember that? I don't think you do, because you never acknowledged it. You insulted me, said I must not have understood what you said. Despite the fact that I agreed with you that the Standard Model didn't explain everything. That is why it's only a partial theory of everything.



Oh look. Someone else's words. Yawn.

Theoretical physicists. Theoretical. Y'know, the field of physics based on math? Whose theories aren't accepted until presented with observations and evidence? Einstein's theory of relativity? Ringing any bells?

Once again, I challenge you to not apply a niche field of science to the whole subject.



Oh, yeah. You're all butthurt cuz of the mean old atheists and their science. Boo--hoo.

That is the argument, right there.

4. And, for you....the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
I just know you'll be back...or just admit the truth.
You'll be in good company.

Cut the cutesy passive-aggressive insults and fucking debate me already. You're argument so far has been "the standard model has problems, but scientists still use it as a theory, therefore they have faith in it." I pointed out why they still keep it, and how many of the issues with it resolve around many of the unsolved problems of physics. You just reposted the same thing and ignored me.

It's entertaining how you use exactly the arguments that make my point, and fail to see how you doom yourself.

You argue that parts of science are correct, so why 'throw the baby out....blah, blah, blah..."
So, if parts cannot be proven, and remain connected only as belief and faith...
...why do you and your ilk attack religion?

Even a bad and/or flawed scientific theory contributes towards advancing human knowledge. Look at the string of early modern European astronomers. It's a conga of failed theories, but that doesn't mean they were all useless. Science is built on such failures, because at the heart they still advance the cause.

The Standard Model does not remain held up by scientists because they have faith in it. It's because we don't have enough information about the issues with the model (like the Higg boson, or dark matter) to piece together a new, better theory. Hell, the Large Hadron Collider just went operational a few years ago, and one of the purposes of its construction was to find the Higgs boson.

You seem to dislike the Standard Model. Do you know of an alternative theory that better explains the evidence at hand? Chances are no. If you took everything we knew about physics and tried to make a theory of everything, you'd come up with the Standard Model. Because the issues with the model still concern the many unsolved problems of physics.

Ooh, me and my ilk. This question is entirely irrelevant to the conversation. As Photonic pointed out, atheist scientists are in the minority, and most just don't give a shit.

If God is not proven, many of the other aspect of religion are, as in the efficacy of the following:
"Do unto others as you would have others do into you."

And now this is turning into a "does god exist thread" instead of a sciencey thread. I usually have fun with both.

C'mon, get real. Do you really want to argue that since being nice people generally works out, that it means religions are valid because they say the same thing?

But enough chit chat...It is time, I believe, for you to don those horrid white orthopedic walking shoes, and matching belt, and waddle off, ‘else you may miss the ‘Early Bird Special’!

Oh. Hey. Another insult. Isn't it ironic you went on a tangent about my language when you've been insulting me this entire thread?

 

[Woyzeck]

You see parents genes never seem to have a problem reproducing offspring that are the same whether they are cat's,dog's,horses,or humans.

That is why genetics are no friend of the evolutionist.

Actually they are. Mutations occur all the time and evolution has been shown in many creatures in the here and now. Natural selection is not about creating the critter that will fill this niche.

Natural selection is about all these critters are being mutated all the time and every now and then one of those mutations gives one particular critter a massive advantage over his competitors. That critter prospers and the rest die out. That is an evolutionary step. The Galapagos Islands are a miniature lab of evolution. They are closely tied in geography but each island has species of finches that have evolved to take advantage of whatever that particular island has to offer.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

So, do you ever use your own words, or do you just rely on other people to argue for you? Let's begin.

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

Funny, there actually has been lots of laboratory evidence of speciation and evidence of speciation out in the wild. Google 'Richard Lenski.' He's been doing an experiment with e. coli bacteria for the past two decades. It's still ongoing, and he's had some utterly fascinating discoveries. Some of the non-harmful (to humans) e. coli colonies acquired the ability to process citrate, something with demarcates them from the harmful e. coli.

And oh, the fruit fly thing again, hm? Cute. The experiment was over... 600 generations I believe? Lenski's experiment it took 30,000 generations to produce the trait I spoke of above. Evolution takes time.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

I don't think you have enough knowledge of biology to know how funny this is. Seriously. Go try looking at pictures of what domesticated animals and plants looked like before humans started controlling their breeding and suiting it to own purposes. They don't look like what they do now, so his assertion that there hasn't been evolution is just silly.

Also, his examples of what evolution should have happened? Now he's just being retarded.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all.

Ah, the old creationist tactic of quoting from biologists themselves, and trying to appeal to their authority. Someone's new at this game.

They've clipped his quotes right up. We don't know what the survey was about, how it was conducted, or even what the result was. To begin with, all we can get from this paragraph is that specific traits by themselves don't increase or decrease chances of reproduction or survival. But the author of the paragraph tries to make it mean natural selection is false. Which doesn't work when we don't what Kingsolver was even testing for. It's also interesting to note that he probably tested humans (i.e., individuals), and if he did, than the point is moot. Civilization tends to have a negating effect on natural selection.

So, anyone got a link to the research survey? Citation pleeeeease?

Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

So how is Thomas Ray not honest? How do they fall apart if they are honest? What constitutes an honest computer simulation? This excerpt you've quoted makes a lot of unbacked and uncited statements.

 

[Gadawg73]

Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Loki, gadawg and westwall calling anyone, let alone PC, "stupid"?????

I know it gives me chuckles.

Where preytell did i call anyone stupid? I merely replied that Gawdawg has made some stupid posts, about the same number as PC. That doesn't make him stupid, or you stupid, or me for that matter. We all make stupid posts from time to time.

You are correct. I have made some stupid posts, many of them.
Like the last one where I inquired if someone had any idea how stupid they appear with their posts.
I definitely used the wrong word.
Dumb ass would have been more appropriate and fitting.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Don't be deliberately obtuse PC, it is unbecoming of you. At one time there was the prototypical horse, then through time, many more types of horse have evolved. Man too has had a hand in that. Percherons and Clydesdales were bred for size to become the heavy warhorses of the medieval knights, the Morgan was bred by an American farmer to be the best possible work horse.

They are all "horses" but they are also all different in some fasion that enabled them to compete in their particular environment. A Mongolian Steppe Pony is far hardier and can travel for far greater distances in the most atrocious weather then any fine bred Arabian (once again anothe man derived species going back over 4500 years ago).
But, the Arabians are faster by a long mile then a steppe pony.

Here is some further reading that has more of what I have been saying.

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."




29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Oh my God you turned to something that has been refuted and at best is evidence of micro-evolution ?

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

 

[Youwerecreated]

Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Loki, gadawg and westwall calling anyone, let alone PC, "stupid"?????

I know it gives me chuckles.

Where preytell did i call anyone stupid? I merely replied that Gawdawg has made some stupid posts, about the same number as PC. That doesn't make him stupid, or you stupid, or me for that matter. We all make stupid posts from time to time.

You are correct. I have made some stupid posts, many of them.
Like the last one where I inquired if someone had any idea how stupid they appear with their posts.
I definitely used the wrong word.
Dumb ass would have been more appropriate and fitting.

You don't gain any points in debating with insults,this is something your side needs to learn. present your case or back out.

 

[LOki]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Oh my God you turned to something that has been refuted and at best is evidence of micro-evolution ?

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

Youwerecreated's "refutation" refuted.

Also:

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't see a single prediction in the link you provided. I see a religious person rationalising scientific discoveries and explaining how they don't negate creationism.
For your information I have no views on creationism or creationists. I've worked with quite a few and they were wonderful people to work with.

The ones I worked with in the earth sciences were fond of saying "how long is one of Gods days? A billion years?" They had no problem reconciling what we knew of geologic history and creationism, they just weren't tied down to the dogma that Bishop Usher had promulgated where the Earth was a mere 6,000 years old. As they stated, he was a nice man but had no idea of the scientific discoveries that would come along and push back into the distant history the creation of the universe.

You contend that man is not evolved from apes yet the DNA evidence says we are 98% similar. That has been "proven" to the best degree possible but once again, a new technique may come along that disproves that. We don't know. That's why we are allways seeking.

Really ? because they are there and at the end of the page the evidence was given for the predictions.

The bible comes right out and say's how long a day is to God.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight are as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So if God used his days of creation not mans,man was not created until the 6th day if God used his timeframe for a day the earth would have been created 5,000 years before man that would put the earth at 11,000 years old.

Oh and creationist predict similarity because we are created by one designer. It's like someone leaving their finger prints on the evidence. God created with the same substances for all that is why your side thinks we are all related. The big difference is the DNA information we are vastly different even though their is microbiological similarity as well as with our DNA.

You do realise that predicting something that is known is not really predicting anything right? That is rationalisation that is not prediction. Prediction is telling us that football team "X" will win the Super bowl before the season has started. That is a prediction.

Predictions long before your theory from the bible that can be confirmed.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Is that not what we see today ?

More predictions from the bible that have been confirmed.


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

 

[LOki]

Really ? because they are there and at the end of the page the evidence was given for the predictions.

The bible comes right out and say's how long a day is to God.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight are as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So if God used his days of creation not mans,man was not created until the 6th day if God used his timeframe for a day the earth would have been created 5,000 years before man that would put the earth at 11,000 years old.

Oh and creationist predict similarity because we are created by one designer. It's like someone leaving their finger prints on the evidence. God created with the same substances for all that is why your side thinks we are all related. The big difference is the DNA information we are vastly different even though their is microbiological similarity as well as with our DNA.

You do realise that predicting something that is known is not really predicting anything right? That is rationalisation that is not prediction. Prediction is telling us that football team "X" will win the Super bowl before the season has started. That is a prediction.

Predictions long before your theory from the bible that can be confirmed.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Is that not what we see today ?

More predictions from the bible that have been confirmed.


Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

None of these have been confirmed to be predictions. The claim that they are predictions is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Don't be deliberately obtuse PC, it is unbecoming of you. At one time there was the prototypical horse, then through time, many more types of horse have evolved. Man too has had a hand in that. Percherons and Clydesdales were bred for size to become the heavy warhorses of the medieval knights, the Morgan was bred by an American farmer to be the best possible work horse.

They are all "horses" but they are also all different in some fasion that enabled them to compete in their particular environment. A Mongolian Steppe Pony is far hardier and can travel for far greater distances in the most atrocious weather then any fine bred Arabian (once again anothe man derived species going back over 4500 years ago).
But, the Arabians are faster by a long mile then a steppe pony.

Here is some further reading that has more of what I have been saying.

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."




29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

"...transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically,..."

Bogus.


Do you know the definition of species?

As I said...there is no example of speciation.

 

[Photonic]

You miss his point.There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.” selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

All species are transitional species.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scientists (at least good scientists) don't "believe" in things they can't see.

Of course they do.

No one has seen a magnetic field - yet none of us here doubt that it exists for even a second. Why? Because we can see, measure and test the effects of the magnetic field. No one has seen a quark, yet there is no doubt they exist, we can observe their effect on other objects.

MUCH of science deals with things that cannot be seen.

A hypothesis is generated and an experiment is devised to attempt to discover if that unseen thing that was hypothesised does in fact exist. If the experiment fails (the vast majority) then the hypothesis and the experiment are reviewed to determine if the hypothesis is incorrect or the experiment was flawed in some way. Then the process is repeated.

Many times it depends on the reward. If the experiment fails, but success is required for funding or for political power grabs, then the results are simply falsified.

See the East Anglia CRU for a prime example of experiments disproving a hypothesis with the results being falsified to support a political agenda.

Then, if everything works out and a desired result is achieved, other scientists are invited to replicate the experiment themselves. That was the downfall of the "cold fusion" fiasco years ago, and will be the downfall of the anthropogenic global warming movement today, they have gone so far away from the scientific method that not only can you not replicate what they have done (they will not release their source materials or computer model code) but they have taken both sides of a hypothesis thus generating a NON- FALSIFIABLE theory. That is the essence of a pseudo science.

Well said.

The problem that non scientists have is they get most of their information from the media (which doesn't know squat about the scientific method) or from bad scientists who have been able to get themselves into the public eye and will continue to make stuff up to please their media handlers.

Yep.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

All species are transitional species.

So how is this evidence for human macro-evolution ?

We all can agree that information in DNA contains a lot of information the burden of proof is on you to show humans contain information of living organisms that we descended from.

Remember similarity is not proof of ancestry.

This is just evidence the designer of life used the same substances to create but he managed to make the genes of parents vastlt different.

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

What is your evidence that all living organisms are transitional ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

PotatoheadChic!!

That's just a whiff of your own breath!

I'm curious; did you have to study to become so utterly banal, or does it come naturally to you?

 

[LOki]

Do you know the definition of species?

As I said...there is no example of speciation.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Here's an example for you to ignore so you can keep claiming "...there is no example of speciation."[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

Lololololol

 

[westwall]

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Don't be deliberately obtuse PC, it is unbecoming of you. At one time there was the prototypical horse, then through time, many more types of horse have evolved. Man too has had a hand in that. Percherons and Clydesdales were bred for size to become the heavy warhorses of the medieval knights, the Morgan was bred by an American farmer to be the best possible work horse.

They are all "horses" but they are also all different in some fasion that enabled them to compete in their particular environment. A Mongolian Steppe Pony is far hardier and can travel for far greater distances in the most atrocious weather then any fine bred Arabian (once again anothe man derived species going back over 4500 years ago).
But, the Arabians are faster by a long mile then a steppe pony.

Here is some further reading that has more of what I have been saying.

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."




29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

"...transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically,..."

Bogus.


Do you know the definition of species?

As I said...there is no example of speciation.

Watch the video that Loki posted. It is quite enlightening.

 

[westwall]

Scientists (at least good scientists) don't "believe" in things they can't see.

Of course they do.

No one has seen a magnetic field - yet none of us here doubt that it exists for even a second. Why? Because we can see, measure and test the effects of the magnetic field. No one has seen a quark, yet there is no doubt they exist, we can observe their effect on other objects.

MUCH of science deals with things that cannot be seen.

A hypothesis is generated and an experiment is devised to attempt to discover if that unseen thing that was hypothesised does in fact exist. If the experiment fails (the vast majority) then the hypothesis and the experiment are reviewed to determine if the hypothesis is incorrect or the experiment was flawed in some way. Then the process is repeated.

Many times it depends on the reward. If the experiment fails, but success is required for funding or for political power grabs, then the results are simply falsified.

See the East Anglia CRU for a prime example of experiments disproving a hypothesis with the results being falsified to support a political agenda.

Then, if everything works out and a desired result is achieved, other scientists are invited to replicate the experiment themselves. That was the downfall of the "cold fusion" fiasco years ago, and will be the downfall of the anthropogenic global warming movement today, they have gone so far away from the scientific method that not only can you not replicate what they have done (they will not release their source materials or computer model code) but they have taken both sides of a hypothesis thus generating a NON- FALSIFIABLE theory. That is the essence of a pseudo science.

Well said.

The problem that non scientists have is they get most of their information from the media (which doesn't know squat about the scientific method) or from bad scientists who have been able to get themselves into the public eye and will continue to make stuff up to please their media handlers.

Yep.

Actually you can see a magnetic field. Take iron filings (the more you use the more defined the fields become) and sprinkle them liberally over a magnet. You will see the magnetic lines form. It's pretty neat in point of fact!

Quantum mechanics is a touchy issue. Most physicists will agree with you but there are some who find great difficulty with the Standard Model because it is so sloppy. Dangling constants here, unfinished mathematical proofs over there...etc. etc. etc. It is so far one of the most successful "theories" ever proposed, but, there are all sorts of mathematical tricks that must be used to make it work. And please note the emphasis on "theory", no one "believes" in quarks etc. Physicists observe the behaviors of sub atomic particles and assign a name to that behavior. The existence of the quark was predicted mathematically but until the behavior was observed it was not a matter of belief. It was a quest to spot the predicted behavior. So yes you are correct it is something unseen but the behavior IS SEEN by it's interactions with other particles. However, if the instruments get better and some other particle or wave form is dicovered that mimics that behavior the understanding must be updated.

Please note that when I described the sequence of an experiment I was referring to GOOD scientists!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I got his point quite well. He and you don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Critters don't suddenly become some other critter for no apparent reason. 55 million years ago horses evolved from some other critter (forgive me but my paleontology is weak) and they were tiny little dudes the size of a cat. Through time they split into many different types of horse and grew in size because that gave them a competative edge.

Horses today are basically the same as horses from 55 million years ago genetically. However, the species has grown in complexity and size to where they are today. They will remain horses until they die out due to some horrendous catastrophe or some other critter comes along that out competes them and they go the way of the Moa.

"He and you don't understand ...(forgive me but my paleontology is weak)"

So, horses have remained horses?
No new species, huh?
So....where is the 'evolution'?

You're not another zombie who has fallen under the sway of concepts that he doesn't quite understand are you?

But...I'm perfectly happy to have you believe whatsoever you choose to...just realize that you are accepting based on faith.

But, to help you in your search for knowledge......

. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14-15

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

All species are transitional species.

So, the argument that you put forward is 'by definition, I win'?


Idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't be deliberately obtuse PC, it is unbecoming of you. At one time there was the prototypical horse, then through time, many more types of horse have evolved. Man too has had a hand in that. Percherons and Clydesdales were bred for size to become the heavy warhorses of the medieval knights, the Morgan was bred by an American farmer to be the best possible work horse.

They are all "horses" but they are also all different in some fasion that enabled them to compete in their particular environment. A Mongolian Steppe Pony is far hardier and can travel for far greater distances in the most atrocious weather then any fine bred Arabian (once again anothe man derived species going back over 4500 years ago).
But, the Arabians are faster by a long mile then a steppe pony.

Here is some further reading that has more of what I have been saying.

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."




29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

"...transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically,..."

Bogus.


Do you know the definition of species?

As I said...there is no example of speciation.

Watch the video that Loki posted. It is quite enlightening.

Based on your reaction to the Brit accent in the silly vid, I bet you've purchased a whole bunch of 'As Seen on TV' cookware, huh?


Instead, check out the following from the bulletin of the Chicago Museum of Natural History:

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Again?
" By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

Westy, stop behaving like a martinet of the ideology, the creation myth of our time, and consider what the lack of evidence implies.