proving evolution as just a "theory"

[doubtingmerle]

not realy. both kinds of ears need at least 3 parts for their minimal function: a part that can detect sound wave. a part that can transmit a signal to the brain and a part in the brain that can detect the signal and process it. so evolution cant explain it.

So what is your claim? That God used special creation to form 3 basic parts of the ear, and then left the rest of the mammallian middle ear to evolve over many millions of years? As Paul and I have pointed out to you, the evolution of the mammal's ear from the reptile-like ancestor is well documented.

 

[doubtingmerle]

lets say that this is an authentic for the sake of the argument. as you can see: even in this case they dont claim that evolution is false. they just claim for convergent evolution or missing fossils. so as i ask: if fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution, why fossils in the wrong order should not be evidence against it?

We have been over this time and time again.

Again, the most likely explanation is that the claimed early tetrapod tracks are not actual tracks, as I documented above.

But if they are early tracks, then there is no contradiction in saying that other creatures retained intermediate characteristics long after this first creature walked on earth. This has been explained to you many times, and has nothing to do with convergent evolution. You just ignore what we say.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Easy. He's a descendant of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were made from Water on the 5th Day according to Gen 1:21...UNLESS you have a better Theory.

If Homo habilis such as KNM-ER 1470 were part of the "prehistoric people" that mated with humans, why do we find a number of habilis fossils before 1.5 million years ago, but none after that? How can we have mated with Habilis when they had gone extinct a million years before the first human?

 

[David_M]

I always eventually get that remark when the evo can't provide any evidence for what the must accept by faith alone. FYI I took and passed 3 college courses that discussed evolution.

The basic doctrines of the TOE are so simple even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it.

And yet you manifestly fail to understand it.

You don't know the difference between inbreeding and inter-breeding, and as the latter is fundamental to the definition of what a species actually is I would question that any of those college courses" were of any worth as that is something I learnt at school before I was 16.

 

[David_M]

What is absurd and specifically scientifically absurd is thinking eating fish for any reason can cause a land animal to evolve into a sea creature. During such a transition period , which according to evolution would take hundred if not million of years, pakicetus would have entered an environment(the sea)hostile to its survival. Those legs would not have become fins over night.

So Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris) are impossible? Hunts fish in the sea, has legs.

You don't get it do you? It is not what they eat or where thy eat it. It is that no diet is a mechanism for a change of species. In the supposed transition from land to sea, pakicetus would be very vulnerable to land and to sea animals. The only thing it would evolve into would be lunch for other predators.

See, you don't understand what ToE says, you need to get a refund on those college courses. No one claims that diet is "a mechanism for a change of species". Diet is a contributor to selective pressure and thus one of the drivers for natural selection.

Otters seem to manage fine, still not extinct.

 

[BradB]

Ah, so I can imagine you were quite disappointed when you found this:

And then, when you saw your prediction had failed, did you change your mind?

Disappointed at your cartoon drawing? Umm no. How about a link where I can get a look at the actual fossils?

 

[David_M]

At least he was honest and admitted there are no intermediate fossils. Refute what he says and we can continue.

He said no such thing.

Provide your source for such a claim.

Before you try read Gould's own words:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Stephen J Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

 

[David_M]

i taking about new parts . for instance: a minimal sense of hearing will required at least few parts. so if we will need about 3 new parts to evolve such a system we will need at least 3 new mutations that code for those parts.

Salamanders have hearing yet lack an outer ear and a tympanic middle ear, so your claim is obviously wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

lets say that this is an authentic for the sake of the argument. as you can see: even in this case they dont claim that evolution is false. they just claim for convergent evolution or missing fossils. so as i ask: if fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution, why fossils in the wrong order should not be evidence against it?




in the ape to human case i will agree that this isnt evidence for evolution since they are clearly different kinds under the creation model.

I'm sorry, but without a clear definition of what a "kind" is in the creationist model you can't say they are clearly different kinds.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

i can say the same for those who believe in evolution.

Is this an assertion that there are no individuals who are both scientists, evolutionists, and Christians?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Creation theory

Biblical creation theory is the theory that the universe and life was formed as described in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. It theorizes that upon comparing those claims in the Bible, which are feasibly testable with science, to current scientific observations, that the claims of the Bible and the observations will harmonize.

Science has shown us evolution. In your eyes, evolution is falsified by the Bible. Hence, your religion is falsified by science. Not a good position to be in, philosophically, and obviously a hindrance to your evangelical witness.

Claim 1. There is an external source of the universe (God) that possesses an infinite nature.

We agree there.

Claim 2. The infinite source of the universe possesses intelligence.

We agree there!

Claim 3. All life was formed as individual kinds by God.

Sorry, you haven't made a claim about "kinds" until you have a definition of a kind. A definition that will establish what the limits are for a kind and gives a reason why those limits cannot be exceeded. As it is, you're just playing with words until you can do that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, since they made these translations BEFORE the "increased knowledge" of the last days which unlocks God's scientific Truth in Genesis.

Sounds like it was all a waste of time before you came along...

 

[doubtingmerle]

Disappointed at your cartoon drawing? Umm no. How about a link where I can get a look at the actual fossils?

Here. Tiktaalik roseae: Meet Tiktaalik

Or here. This fish crawled out of the water…and into creationists' nightmares

 

[omega2xx]

He said no such thing.

Provide your source for such a claim.

Before you try read Gould's own words:


Stephen J Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

His theory has been criticized and IMO he was walking it back in what you quoted.

Ernst Mayr, who some consider the current dean of evolution said, "Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates in his book, "What evolution is," p.189. He also said the fossil record is woefully inadequate, p.89.

If evolution was true the great majority of fossils would be intermediates, and today you have none.


He also said this:

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

 

[omega2xx]

So Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris) are impossible? Hunts fish in the sea, has legs.

If you think flippers are legs, you need to make an apointment witha good optician.

See, you don't understand what ToE says, you need to get a refund on those college courses. No one claims that diet is "a mechanism for a change of species". Diet is a contributor to selective pressure and thus one of the drivers for natural selection.

It is you who needs a refund on any courses that convinced you that evolution is based on science and is true. Nothing, especially diet contributes to natural selection. You can't prove natural selection is true.

Otters seem to manage fine, still not extinct.

of course they do in the environment they were designed for. They could not survive on land. In fact they do not go on land for food. In fact if they did. land predators would make the extinct.

 

[omega2xx]

And yet you manifestly fail to understand it.

You don't know the difference between inbreeding and inter-breeding, and as the latter is fundamental to the definition of what a species actually is I would question that any of those college courses" were of any worth as that is something I learnt at school before I was 16.

I may not use some the evo definitions correctly at times, but the professors teaching them were far better qualified in science than you are.

The ability to breed is fundamental to what a species is, but the lack of that ability does not constitute a new species. The inability to breed can be caused by other factors.

In any case the salamanders remained salamanders and no new species evolved.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

His theory has been criticized and IMO he was walking it back in what you quoted.

Ernst Mayr, who some consider the current dean of evolution said, "Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates in his book, "What evolution is," p.189. He also said the fossil record is woefully inadequate, p.89.

If evolution was true the great majority of fossils would be intermediates, and today you have none.


He also said this:

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Here Mayr is arguing for punctuated equilibrium. And, he's talking about fossils that are intermediate between species. If gradualism is true, then we'd see slow change in fossils, rather than (geologically speaking) quick emergence of species. There are plenty of intermediate fossils, meaning fossils between major groups such as Tiktaalik. And these fossils are still being found today, meaning that the fossil record is much more complete than it was when Mayr was researching.

You appear to be trying to use the quote from Mayr to argue against evolution as a whole. If so, that is a blatant quote mine. Mayr is talking about the speed of speciation, not saying that there isn't a well defined evolutionary tree. Note that in the same book where the above quote came from, Mayr says:

It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact (p. 275).

Mayr in no way doubts evolution. The quote that you quote mined is talking about the speed of emergence of new species, and is comparing the theories of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Jimmy D]

"He also said this:

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)"

OOOH, "quotes", how convincing, they surely beat evidence!

You do realize that you have been duped into lying and misrepresenting people's views by your dishonest sources. It speaks volumes that you're comfortable with that.

Do you see those four full stops in your Gould quote, do you know what that means? Does it not strike you as strange that a bit has been snipped out?

What it tells me is that you merely copied it from some Creationist propagada site without bothering to check anything, just swallowing what they tell you with out question.

Well, newsflash, repeating their lies makes you a liar. How does the religion you're trying so desperately to defend feel about that?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Science has shown us evolution. In your eyes, evolution is falsified by the Bible. Hence, your religion is falsified by science. Not a good position to be in, philosophically, and obviously a hindrance to your evangelical witness.

That's an interesting and impressive argument there. There are many Christians, presumably including yourself, who accept evolution, assigning God a different role than a six day creator of everything as per literal reading of Genesis. However, for YEC, their particular religion is actually falsified by evolution.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

of course they do in the environment they were designed for. They could not survive on land. In fact they do not go on land for food. In fact if they did. land predators would make the extinct.

Why then do fishing cats swim specialise in obtaining their food from water even though they are not well fitted to that environment? E.g. their dentition.

BTW: Otters could easily survive on land if they lacked competition. If a new land mass appeared and otters colonised it, once the population rose there would be otters hunting on land, and evolution into fully land-based otters. See, e.g., the evolution of bats in New Zealand before mankind arrived bringing land based mammals with them.