The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

But existing life is not evolving.

Except that it is.
Every newborn comes with a set of mutations and their offspring inherits those and subsequently adds their own. Migration patterns continue. Adaptions to environments happen all the time. The fittest have the most chance of survival and reproduction.

Rabbits have been rabbits forever and will always be rabbits.

Well, yes... rabbits are rabbits are rabbits. And descendents of rabbits will remain rabbits or sub-species of rabbits.

Distant ancestors of rabbits however, weren't rabbits.
But they were mammals.
Distant ancestors of mammals weren't mammals. But they were vertebrates.

But since you incorrectly classify the different infraspecific taxa in the species as seperate species in the fossil record, you come to the false belief of evolution.

We don't actuall need the fossil record. Our collective DNA is more then enough to demonstrate common ancestry.

You and I both understand that many infraspecific taxa exist in every species living today. So please show me the infraspecific taxa in the species in the fossil record?

I don't know what you are refering to.

Or is the classification of the fossil record so far divorced from reality that you can't provide that?

 

[Jimmy D]

Obfuscation and childish remarks get you nowhere except to prove to all you have no response as to why the fossil record is divorced from reality.

But if I was watching birds mating right in front of my eyes and ignoring the DNA data too and refusing to accept it, I'd probably obfuscate too.

We've been over this, I and many others have typed many posts in this thread trying to explain to you that your quibbles over classification have no bearing on the validity of the TOE. Can you not remember? Whether we call your finches different species, 'infra specific taxa, breeds, kinds or feathered rats has no effect on the way we can measure their inter-relatedness or lineages.

You eventually admitted that you believed in some sort of super genome despite the fact that you couldn't show any evidence to support it. How about you stop crying over what you feel is wrong with biolgical classification (we all know how you feel by now) and explain to us how your 'super genome idea' works, how we can test it, and how it explains the diversity of species we see around us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since God created both man and ape from the same Dust, they come to the incorrect conclusion that they share a common ancestor.

That's how some become atheists.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Professing themselves to be wise men (Homo sapiens), they end up becoming atheists.

 

[Loudmouth]

We share 97% of genes with mice, more than with apes,

Reference?

(Of course, I know no such reference exists. You are playing word games, as you so often do. You will try to confuse the readers about the difference between DNA base differences and DNA gene differences. Humans and chimps have over 99% of the same genes while they share 96% of the same DNA bases. If you compare the human and mouse genome you get a much lower percentage for the base to base comparison.)

But if you understood that everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons, it would be no surprise to you that we could find similarities with all life on this planet. Since apes and mice were created from the same molecules, why wouldn't they share common DNA?

There is no reason that you would need to use the same DNA to produce a similar looking species, that's why. For example, you could completely change the codon tables:

Instead of UUU for phenylalanine could just as well use AAU, or CCG. There is no physical law or constraint that forces a deity or intelligent designer to use UUU and UUC as codons for phenylalanine. You could produce the exact same proteins from DNA that differs by 50% or more.

That is only in genes. For introns, you could completely change the sequence since it is clipped out to make mature mRNA. You could completely change the bulk of the DNA that is interspersed between genes.

On top of that, there is no reason that a designer or deity would be forced to make DNA fall into a nested hierarchy. Even human designers regularly violate a nested hierarchy when they design organisms.

You are under the false assumption creation demands everything be unique, when all were created from the same dust.

Why would it require a nested hierarchy? Why not create a species with three middle ear bones and feathers?

Plus we won't get into the fact that those shared sites you toute as proof come from virus insertions.

We know they come from random viral insertions. That's what makes them such compelling evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

God created apes with basically the same parts as He created man.

Why would God need to reuse any parts?

Evolution says they are linked by DNA, whereas creation says they are two separate creations.

The facts of reality say that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's how some become atheists.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Professing themselves to be wise men (Homo sapiens), they end up becoming atheists.

Nope, wrong verse again. It does not support your claim. If anything it is an attack upon you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would God need to reuse any parts?

What?

Are Michelin tires on a Ford reused Michelin tires on a Dodge?

The facts of reality say that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

Or a common designer.

 

[Loudmouth]

What?

Simple question. Why would God need to reuse any parts?

Are Michelin tires on a Ford reused Michelin tires on a Dodge?Or a common designer.

Why couldn't God create completely unique tires for every vehicle?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why couldn't God create completely unique tires for every vehicle?

Just how big do you want the Periodic Table to be, anyway!?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just how big do you want the Periodic Table to be, anyway!?

How big would it need to be to have a different tread pattern on every tire?

 

[AV1611VET]

How big would it need to be to have a different tread pattern on every tire?

You mean:

How big would it need to be for me to believe God didn't use ontological reduction?

BIG!

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean:

How big would it need to be for me to believe God didn't use ontological reduction?

BIG!

You are ducking the question.

Why would God need to reuse any parts?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are ducking the question.

Why would God need to reuse any parts?

Loudmouth, I appreciate a genuine intellectual curiosity.

But if you're going to persist in this style of questioning, I'm going to ignore you.

You know as well as I do that God isn't "reusing" any parts.

I believe I've given you enough terminology and explanation as necessary for you to figure out what I believe.

Your Statler (Zone) and Waldorf (Valentine) tactics I find childish.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know as well as I do that God isn't "reusing" any parts.

"God created apes with basically the same parts as He created man."--AV1611VET, post 893

Why would God need to use basically the same parts he built apes with in order to make humans?

More importantly, why couldn't he mix and match parts from many different species groups? Why would God have to create species so that they fall into a nested hierarcy?

 

[AV1611VET]

"God created apes with basically the same parts as He created man."--AV1611VET, post 893

Why would God need to use basically the same parts he built apes with in order to make humans?

How

big

do

you

want

the

Periodic

Table

to

be?

Please answer this, for in so doing, you'll see the fallacy of your question.

Or don't answer it, and I'll just sit back and let you ask these types of questions all night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What?

Are Michelin tires on a Ford reused Michelin tires on a Dodge?Or a common designer.

So now you are claiming that your God is incompetent.
Nice.

 

[Loudmouth]

How

big

do

you

want

the

Periodic

Table

to

be?

It wouldn't have to be any bigger. That's the whole point. Humans create organisms all of the time that violate a nested hierarchy, and they use the same protons, neutrons, and electrons that everything else is made of. Same elements.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

No, they're not like dogs, they're at the boundary of speciation.

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

Arbitrary in closely related populations. There is no single unambiguous definition.

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

Not my classification. As I said, evolutionary biologists are split on whether to consider them species or not - but it doesn't matter.

So useless?

Clearly not. It's ambiguous in edge cases, but adequate to distinguish and identify the vast majority.

... describe them for what they are, merely one single species that never underwent evolution and is not in the process of evolution.

That would be incorrect, because the populations are clearly evolving and are different.

All misclassifications of infraspecific taxa as well.

Not so.

 

[Speedwell]

Or a common designer.

Or both.

 

[Kylie]

A common designer, using ontological reduction.

Do you remember my snowman challenge thread, where a person (common designer) makes both a snowape and a snowman from the same blanket of snow (DNA); giving the impression that B cam from A when, in fact, A and B were created separately?

If that doesn't show you have no understanding of evolution, I don't know what does.

Did the person include fossil snowmen? Snow-DNA?

Or do you think that the only evidence we have for evolution is based on just looking at animals?

(BTW, I'm still waiting for you to reply to post #874.)