The evidence for Evolution.

[Justatruthseeker]

Right. And since it came about by some different process which propels evolution, it's worthy of being an independent field of study.

Which is based on maybes, what ifs and dreams.....

 

[Speedwell]

Which is based on maybes, what ifs and dreams.....

Right. There is currently no coherent theory of abiogenesis. Your point?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you claim you came from dust, you have no knowledge of science whatsoever and are not in any position to debate science.

And the first life form in evolution came from what? The same electrons, protons and neutrons that make up.... dust?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right. There is currently no coherent theory of abiogenesis. Your point?

Without a start you have just as much of a miracle as I do, but at least I admit it.

 

[Speedwell]

And the first life form in evolution came from what? The same electrons, protons and neutrons that make up.... dust?

Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Calcium, and trace amounts of some other elements.

 

[Speedwell]

Without a start you have just as much of a miracle as I do, but at least I admit it.

Well, it's unexplained, but as far as I am concerned the existence of the universe and everything in it is a miracle, whether science can explain it or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's unexplained, but as far as I am concerned the existence of the universe and everything in it is a miracle, whether science can explain it or not.

Science can't tell us how we got our moon, let alone the whole universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science can't tell us how we got our moon, let alone the whole universe.

That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and as usual you are wrong to boot.

 

[Kylie]

And the first life form in evolution came from what? The same electrons, protons and neutrons that make up.... dust?

What was the first life form? No idea. Of course, if we don't have every single answer, that must mean it's all wrong!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But heaven forbid evolutionists correct their incorrect classifications when it comes to Darwin's Finches, or any incorrect classification they believe points to their false belief.

So who was it that did the research that led them to suggest that Darwin's ground finches might be an example of Sisyphean evolution? Yes, it was evolutionary biologists.

There has been considerable research looking at this issue, which once again highlights the essentially arbitrary nature of species categorization in closely related populations. Nature does not always neatly divide into human category pigeonholes, as ring species and Darwin's ground finches demonstrate. The word 'species' is more a taxonomic convenience than a scientific definition, there is no version of it that clearly distinguishes even all eukaryotes.

As for Darwin's ground finches, whether you describe them as a case of persistently interrupted speciation (Sisyphean evolution), or a case of speciation complicated by extensive interspecies allele sharing, is not as important as recognising the evolutionary mechanisms at work. If you want clear examples of unequivocal speciation in the Galapagos, there are, as previously mentioned, thousands of other examples that do not exhibit interspecies allele sharing (or Sisyphean evolution, whichever terminology you prefer).

 

[AV1611VET]

What was the first life form?

God.

The second life form are the angels.

 

[Kylie]

God.

The second life form are the angels.

Citation needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Citation needed.

What law was broken?

 

[Kylie]

What law was broken?

Let me rephrase it...

Provide evidence that what you say is correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Convienent, except without the existence of those very life forms to start their is no theory of evolution.

"Convenient" is a strange word to use in such context.

It's no applicable either way.

Life factually exists and we can study it - no matter where first life came from.

Just like we don't need to know the origins of matter in order to study and observe the effects of mass and gravity.

Where matter came from and how existing matter behaves, are 2 different questions.

The same goes for life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without a start you have just as much of a miracle as I do, but at least I admit it.

Arguments from ignorance are a poor way to argue.

We don't know "therefor miracle!!!" is a rather ridiculous position.

If you don't know, just say you don't know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Calcium, and trace amounts of some other elements.

Dust.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, it's unexplained, but as far as I am concerned the existence of the universe and everything in it is a miracle, whether science can explain it or not.

Oh agreed, without a doubt.

I am just waiting for the day science finally understands the things made... Romans 1:20

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What was the first life form? No idea. Of course, if we don't have every single answer, that must mean it's all wrong!

Nor a single "common ancestor" on any of the evolutionary trees, but that hasn't stopped them from imagining them either.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So who was it that did the research that led them to suggest that Darwin's ground finches might be an example of Sisyphean evolution? Yes, it was evolutionary biologists.

You mean who's trying to avoid having to admit they are simply different infraspecific taxa in the same species just like dogs and there is no evolution going on? Yes, it was evolutionary biologists. Sisyphean evolution: just a fancy way of saying we will make up anything to not have to admit no speciation is going on and never occurred to begin with.

There has been considerable research looking at this issue, which once again highlights the essentially arbitrary nature of species categorization in closely related populations.

Arbitrary in basically a useless classification system, since its arbitrary?

Nature does not always neatly divide into human category pigeonholes, as ring species and Darwin's ground finches demonstrate.

The only thing Darwin's Finches demonstrate is your unwillingness to admit to your error in your "arbitrary" classification.

The word 'species' is more a taxonomic convenience than a scientific definition, there is no version of it that clearly distinguishes even all eukaryotes.

So useless? Did you find something unclear about them mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes? Did you find something unclear in the DNA data which could not distinguish between any of them and showed they had been interbreeding since the start? Or is it you just don't want to admit they made a mistake in classification so are obfuscating?

As for Darwin's ground finches, whether you describe them as a case of persistently interrupted speciation (Sisyphean evolution), or a case of speciation complicated by extensive interspecies allele sharing, is not as important as recognising the evolutionary mechanisms at work.

Or describe them for what they are, merely one single species that never underwent evolution and is not in the process of evolution. But whatever helps you believe your own stories....

If you want clear examples of unequivocal speciation in the Galapagos, there are, as previously mentioned, thousands of other examples that do not exhibit interspecies allele sharing (or Sisyphean evolution, whichever terminology you prefer).

All misclassifications of infraspecific taxa as well. Each and every one as you put it and admitted to an "arbitrary" classification which holds no meaning whatsoever.....

Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system: