Macroevolution:

[tevans9129]

No one should accept any data without question.

I agree but I have never seen one that believes in one species evolving into a different species that questioned anything coming from a pro evolution viewpoint. Have you seen that in this group?

Do you have any issues with the data presented, there are links to the papers referenced in the article if you would like to check.

I am not sure what data you are referring to, can you be more specific? Although, to be up front, I am not in the habit of reading lengthy articles unless, they are suggested by one that is willing to answer all questions that I may ask about the article and so far, I have never seen anyone willing to do that.

 

[tevans9129]

Before we move on to additional questions, do you accept that modern horses descended from Hyracotherium?

Not without questions, but, I would if those questions could be answered with verifiable evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

That sounds very convenient to me but the bottom line is there is no evidence for a species that evolved into the Eohippus. Just one species adapting to the environment. Ok, I can agree with that "evolution" because in the Creationist's vernacular, it is still the same "kind".

Creationists are wonderfully reluctant to give a biological definition of "kind". Probably with good reason. Something suitably vague and ill defined suits their purposes just fine.

 

[USincognito]

OK, what is the species that evolved into the Eohippus? Yes, it did, but where did it say, and show evidence of any of those fossils evolving into an Eohippus?

Wheee! Look at those goalposts run.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds very convenient to me but the bottom line is there is no evidence for a species that evolved into the Eohippus. Just one species adapting to the environment. Ok, I can agree with that "evolution" because in the Creationist's vernacular, it is still the same "kind".

You do realize that eohippus was not a horse, don't you? It was ancestral not only to modern day horses, but to rhinos and hippos too.

 

[bhsmte]

Wheee! Look at those goalposts run.

You bet. Another game of pigeon chess as we have seen countless times before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds very convenient to me but the bottom line is there is no evidence for a species that evolved into the Eohippus. Just one species adapting to the environment. Ok, I can agree with that "evolution" because in the Creationist's vernacular, it is still the same "kind".

"Kind" is a creationist term. There is no "evolving into a different kind of animal". You share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That ancestor was an ape. Chimpanzees are apes, you are an ape, no "change in kind".

 

[USincognito]

So you have no answer for my question...

I coined So's Law for situations like this.

S0's Law - whenever a comment begins with "So...", the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

 

[USincognito]

Before we move on to additional questions, do you accept that modern horses descended from Hyracotherium?

No one post Todd Wood's baraminological analysis of horse fossils. His head will explode.

 

[USincognito]

They are trying to increase evolution in medical training by force. Not by persuasion. By applying top down pressure thru licensing and funding agencies. It is useless to already overburdened medical students who have real things to learn.

"They" who?

 

[USincognito]

Where can i find half dog half cat ,it was nice cartoon when i was child

1. Such an observation would falsify evolution.
2. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of your supposed memory.

 

[USincognito]

I think like , why did these animals stop evolving and all are fully evolved all at the same time as we live right now , shouldn't there be leftovers from animals that evolved still alive ? Or why there are no new species evolving now into for example better human beings ?

Ugh, why do people who don't even understand evolution think they're in a position to critique it?

 

[USincognito]

Where can i purchase my doggo-cat then?

I'd suggest you purchase a high school level biology textbook first.

 

[USincognito]

Well , your ignorance in 150 year unproven theory in change of kinds is even greater

Oh wow, they think science proves things and that "kinds" is a scientifically useful term.

 

[USincognito]

Well it was not proven for 150 years maybe it's about time to discredit it ?

Nothing is ever proven in science and there's no such thing as scientific proof.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nothing is ever proven in science and there's no such thing as scientific proof.

I would like to see proof that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. That really would be something.

 

[USincognito]

Not anywhere near a positive case for your faith.

I love when these guys use asinine hyperbolic rhetoric like this and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[USincognito]

So you are blaming the audience for your failures.

Isn't it funny how so So's Law is self-evidencing.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" is a creationist term. There is no "evolving into a different kind of animal". You share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That ancestor was an ape. Chimpanzees are apes, you are an ape, no "change in kind".

Kind = genus.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not without questions, but, I would if those questions could be answered with verifiable evidence.

OK, the fossil record seems to paint a clear picture to me though. Thousands of fossils demonstrating a gradual change from Hyracotherium to the modern horse chronolgically, there is no other feasible explanation that I can think of. I used the horse example because the fossil record of their development is particularly vivid, but for all animals the similar patterns can be observed although their fossil examples found might be more sketchy. Please bear in mind that we have only skimmed the surface of the research done into these fossils in a very superficial manner, focusing on just one family of animals.

Of course it would be naive to suggest that one specific area of research is enough to "prove" the Theory of Evolution. We haven't even touched on the bigger picture, that is that evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry (genetics etc), comparative anatomy (nested hierarchies, vestigial structures homologous structures etc) , biogeography (continental distribution, ring species etc).

I appreciate that your mind is already made up, but to anyone prepared to look at the facts (by which I mean empirical evidence) without bias or preconceptions the fact that life has evolved from a common ancestor is inescapable.

 

[lesliedellow]

Kind = genus.

Is that so? Why don't creationists say "genus" then, instead of trying to muddy the waters?