Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[lasthero]

How does the evolutionary theory fit in? Have scientists perfected the tree of life? Do they have a perfect model of what the supposed ancestors of certain species are? No. They have constantly shifted where plants/animals fit in taxonomically. It's still a work in progress.

They can hypothesize about where certain species split off from each other, but they don't really know. Genetically, they can see that things are similar, but that doesn't mean they were ever related.

None of this answers any of the questions I posed.

 

[lasthero]

Many actually are. It's a work in progress. Just as evolutionists have no real idea what the ancestors are in the evolutionary tree. It's merely hypothetical.

It really comes down to the fact that nobody was there. Nobody knows for sure. We know some animals have gone extinct, and it's like putting a puzzle together without all the pieces. Evolutionists have the same material. Yet, the only "evolution" they have evidence for is either by reproduction or natural selection within a species. At the end of the day, they still have just a different kind of whatever they started with.

You can say that about anything. Cats and dogs and whales are just different kinds of mammals

 

[Loudmouth]

None of those is proof of macroevolution. It is proof that a species can change over time, but regardless of those changes, each species is still genetically its own.

How do you determine that they are "genetically their own"? What does that even mean?

 

[Loudmouth]

I said it was like the example of the horse/donkey hybrid. Regardless, this is not evolution. There was no mutation, no steady transition from one species to another.

How did you determine that? Also, why would it have to be steady?

More to the point, why are there the separate species of horses and donkeys instead of a single species?

No evidence of the terms evolutionists claim to happen to support evolution. This is just am example of two compatible species breeding.

How do you get two compatible but separate species? Why are their offspring sterile?

 

[Job8]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Since God is not the Author of doubts, but of faith, you should know where your doubts are coming from. Satan caused Eve to doubt God's words from the get go. Now he wants you to do the same. Evolution is MAJOR DECEPTION. Walk away from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sexual reproduction, regardless of the outcome, is not indicative of evolution. Evolution claims that single-celled organisms amassed information over time from their environment, and through a series of mutations that added genetic information and useful characteristics, evolved into ever-more complex living organisms.

Those mutations are exemplified in the genetic differences between humans and chimps.

Since modern taxonomy is not based on creation, it's difficult to relate kinds to species or genus, because it is built on different assumptions.

That is true enough. Taxonomy is based on evidence and observations. Creationism is built on religious dogma.

 

[Job8]

Have scientists perfected the tree of life?

Some (not all) scientists have perfected the Tree of Lies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Speciation...big deal. It happend after the animals got off the ark. Basic micro-evolution. No mutation required.

Speciation is macroevolution.

Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution

On the other hand.....ask the evos to show how a species can change to the point that it is classified as a new genus, order or family.

Just repeated speciation events. Each speciation event produces more diversity.

Also, everything above the level of species is completely invented. They don't exist in nature. A genus, family, order, etc. are all human contrivances.

 

[Loudmouth]

Humans and apes are closely related, too. Closer than foxes and dogs. I doubt you'd consider us the same kind, though.

More importantly, chimps and humans are more closely related than chimps and gorillas. If chimps and gorillas belong to the ape kind, then so do humans since we are within the genetic diversity of apes.

 

[-57]

We can't know for sure what was the same kind because we weren't there. However, since dogs and foxes are so closely related, it stands to reason they are the same kind.

Evolution claims many very small, genetic mutations occurred over a vast amount of time. The mutations that aided in survival, which is determined by the environment, allowed certain mutations to flourish and others to die off.

Information is genetic.

I'm not saying evolution requires a change in kinds. What I'm saying is evolution claims all live came from one single cell. This cell evolved into bananas and bats and whales. That kind of evolution is not possible.

The evolution of two sexually compatible species breeding and producing something new is fully within creation, and also not new. Just a different portrayal of what was already there.

Natural selection, where one species develops a new coat color or longer beak, is also within creation. The information was already present, and the individuals with that characteristic were better adapted to the area, and survived.

The point where creation theory and evolution theory disagree is evolution by mutation into every living organism on earth. There is no evidence, and whatever evidence presented for evolution is usually right in line with creation.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

The problem for the evolutionist is showing that it's possible for mutation to add up and make the "macro" changes.
They fail to realize just how many need to occur in just the right place at just the right time...just how many places they can occur....and how few so-called beneficial mutations are.

 

[-57]

Speciation is macroevolution.

.

By the "textbook" definition. In reality...nope.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Speciation is macroevolution.

Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution



Just repeated speciation events. Each speciation event produces more diversity.

Also, everything above the level of species is completely invented. They don't exist in nature. A genus, family, order, etc. are all human contrivances.

Speciation as a result of breeding is not macroevolution. It's just breeding.

 

[-57]

Speciation as a result of breeding is not macroevolution. It's just breeding.

The evo-minded will say anything to make macro-evolutionism a reality.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Speciation as a result of breeding is not macroevolution. It's just breeding.

True, it's artificial selection.

Speciation as a result of environmental change, however, is macroevolution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The evo-minded will say anything to make macro-evolutionism a reality.

The problem for the evolutionist is showing that it's possible for mutation to add up and make the "macro" changes.
They fail to realize just how many need to occur in just the right place at just the right time...just how many places they can occur....and how few so-called beneficial mutations are.

1+1=2, correct?

1+1+1+1+1.....+1+1+1+1=1,000,000... true or false?

 

[Loudmouth]

Speciation as a result of breeding is not macroevolution.

I just showed you this isn't the case. The production of two species from one species is macroevolution BY DEFINITION.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

True, it's artificial selection.

Speciation as a result of environmental change, however, is macroevolution.

It would be, if one species amassed enough mutations to transform into an entirely new genetic being. If a fish became a bird, for example. Or a single cell amoeba became a multi-celled plant. Or any transformation had been observed that follows the tree of life pattern where single cells become trees which become people. A bird becoming a different kind of bird is still a bird.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evo-minded will say anything to make macro-evolutionism a reality.

Would you be willing to participate in a one on one formal debate where you would have to address the actual evidence that I would present?

 

[-57]

I just showed you this isn't the case. The production of two species from one species is macroevolution BY DEFINITION.

Quite a poor definition.

How about something higher than the species level?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I just showed you this isn't the case. The production of two species from one species is macroevolution BY DEFINITION.

But if it's through breeding, then it has no bearing on the theory that new animals mutated from old ones. So, you can call it macroevolution, but it's just the result of animals doing exactly what God created them to do.