Do you agree with these statements?

Kylie said:

Given that you've demonstrated a bit of a lack of understanding about how evolution actually works, I have to wonder if you are in a position to justly say that my example is invalid.

Click to expand...

I understand how Evolution works, a brilliant idea, but all I see are abrupt, sudden, explosions of life. That is the hard evidence, that is what the fossil evidence tells us.

Your looking through evolutionary glasses and seeing events that the fossil record denies.

klutedavid said:

But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.

This profound transition is impossible.

Click to expand...

Wow. That's really a blast form the past. It's been a while since I heard any form of the "dragging around a useless half-formed limb waiting for just the right mutation to come along" argument.
But if there are no incremental increases in fitness, what do you suppose drives evolution during that vulnerable period of transition you have conjured out of your imagination? Why, nothing, of course, because that's not how evolution works. Each stage in the development represents a fully functional phenotype.

klutedavid said:

But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.

This profound transition is impossible.

Click to expand...

Why do you think so? Is there some critical transitional niche between fully terrestrial and fully aquatic that isn't currently successfully occupied by a mammal species?

Kylie said:

So?

Are you suggesting that is evidence against evolution?

Click to expand...

No, only that it is a theory... with lots of holes in it, if you allow yourself to see them.

inquiring mind said:

No, only that it is a theory...

Click to expand...

Do we have to explain what "theory" means in a scientific context again?

with lots of holes in it, if you allow yourself to see them.

Click to expand...

"Allowing oneself to see them" seems to equate with "completely misunderstand and/or ignore the science involved".

There is a reason why beliefs in creationism are correlated with lack of understanding of science and evolution.

klutedavid said:

But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.

This profound transition is impossible.

Click to expand...

Your claim doesn't hold up when when looks at the variety of semi-aquatic animals around the world fully capable of both running and swimming.

Eared seals for example have literal half-flippers/half-legs. They seem to do just fine.


Your entire argument seems based on not knowing that certain animals exist.

klutedavid said:

Are there predators in the water or on land. Obviously a Zebra with shorter legs is not swimming very fast, nor running for that matter. So how does this species survive?

Where does the Zebra raise its young, at the water's edge. Or does it travel inland and bear it's offspring?

Click to expand...

If you want a comparable example, take the tapir. They have shorter legs than Zebras and engage in semi-aquatic behaviors. Do you think this animal shouldn't exist?


Or how about the water chevrotain? This video depicts it escaping an eagle by diving underwater:


If you really want to understand the ecology of semi-aquatic animals, I suggest just reading up on them. There are a whole variety of animals to choose from. If you want hoofed mammals specifically, you can read up on the behaviors of:

* Tapirs
* Water deer
* Marsh deer
* Chevrotain
* Water buffalo
* Moose

etc.

pitabread said:

Do we have to explain what "theory" means in a scientific context again?

Click to expand...

You don't have to explain anything... I was just referring to it by the name it goes by (TOE), and that as a theory it has holes in it, no matter how sold on it you are.

inquiring mind said:

You don't have to explain anything... I was just referring to it by the name it goes by (TOE), and that as a theory it has holes in it, no matter how sold on it you are.

Click to expand...

If by "holes" you are referring to the fact that it's incomplete or that there are things we don't yet know, that's true of every scientific theory, including gravity.

So what's your point?

pitabread said:

If by "holes" you are referring to the fact that it's incomplete or that there are things we don't yet know, that's true of every scientific theory, including gravity.

So what's your point?

Click to expand...

That your take on it is questionable.

inquiring mind said:

That your take on it is questionable.

Click to expand...

The scientific theory of evolution is the best and most well-supported explanation for the diversity of biological life on Earth and even has real world applications.

There's nothing better on the table.

pitabread said:

"Allowing oneself to see them" seems to equate with "completely misunderstand and/or ignore the science involved".

Click to expand...

Or misinterpreting the scientific evidence altogether, and refusing to admit it.

pitabread said:

There is a reason why beliefs in creationism are correlated with lack of understanding of science and evolution.

Click to expand...

And, there is a reason why an unwavering adherence to scientific-thought-only correlates with the lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.

inquiring mind said:

Or misinterpreting the scientific evidence altogether, and refusing to admit it.

Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.

And, there is a reason why an unwavering adherence to scientific-thought-only correlates with the lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.

Click to expand...

Understanding in regards to divine creation seems to mean little more than rejecting science and making up whatever one wants. There is a reason why there is no consistency among creationist ideas.

If creationists want to bring something superior to the table, the onus in on them to do so. They've failed in that respect.

inquiring mind said:

Or misinterpreting the scientific evidence altogether, and refusing to admit it.


And, there is a reason why an unwavering adherence to scientific-thought-only correlates with the lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.

Click to expand...

I would call the notion that God could only have created according to a literal reading of Genesis a lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.

pitabread said:

The scientific theory of evolution is the best and most well-supported explanation for the diversity of biological life on Earth and even has real world applications.

There's nothing better on the table.

Click to expand...

Hey, I didn’t completely disagree with Kylie’s questions. In fact, I agreed with some of them… even got a thank you for it. I merely pointed out that the evolutionary process has holes in it and that it is not as ‘cut & dry’ as you apparently think. Some form of evolution (I prefer variation and adaptation) occurs… just not to the point of nullifying the creation account. As I said, my take is not an either/or world.

inquiring mind said:

I merely pointed out that the evolutionary process has holes in it and that it is not as ‘cut & dry’ as you apparently think.

Click to expand...

Again, if you're referring to the fact that the scientific theory of evolution is incomplete and there is more to learn, the same is true of every scientific theory including gravity.

So again, what's your point?

Some form of evolution (I prefer variation and adaptation) occurs… just not to the point of nullifying the creation account.

Click to expand...

If you're suggesting that life forms were created individually, there is currently no scientific theory that supports that.

The scientific evidence supports all life forms sharing common ancestry; that's just the way nature looks.

If creationists want to argue otherwise, the onus is on them to come up with something better that the scientific theory of evolution. They haven't done that.

klutedavid said:

But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.

This profound transition is impossible.

Click to expand...

Amphibians aren't really known for being great aquatic swimmers, nor are they known for being great terrestrial runners either. But they manage to get by in their respective environments. The same would apply for transitional cetaceans.

An animal doesn't have to be an apex predator to survive in the world.

Speedwell said:

I would call the notion that God could only have created according to a literal reading of Genesis a lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.

Click to expand...

I believe what the Bible tells us, Genesis included, as understanding it in the context that it is written. As far as the mechanism involved, the extent of it, timeframe, etc., my take (beyond faith) is just like yours… speculation only and has holes in it.