Challenging Evolution

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Good day to you all.There are your verses.

JesusPosse said:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Good day to you all.There are your verses.

Click to expand...

Ohhhhh. Well, I did suspect that your personal interpretations were the root cause of your incorrect statements. I guess I was right.

you know what?God bless

JesusPosse said:

you know what?God bless

Click to expand...

Thank you (I think you are sincere). You should know that I really am not trying to bait you. But you made some statements that can't stand without clarification or substantiation. If you do not want to have a discussion, that's cool.

Take care,
-Ish

JesusPosse said:

I pray for all of you,coming in here and trying to explain away what the Bible says.Whether or not you beleive in Creation no longer bothers me.I will have sent a letter to one of the Aministraters that me get me kicked off of here.But I cannot standby and let this stuff go on in a website devoted to God.This may be the last time we speak,so I am praying for all of you,that you find your way back to the light.

-Jesusposse-

Click to expand...

the light being your interpretation of the bible, rite?

JesusPosse said:

THe Beleifs!THe facts!You never hear anybody debating whether the sky is blue,or the sun is bright.Those things never change(well,the sky is and exception)

Click to expand...

Beliefs are not facts. Facts are repeated observations. The examples you used are observations that everyone can make under approximately the same set of circumstances. And everyone can experience the circumstances.

But the "observations" in the Bible are not open to everyone. We can't go back to the Parting of the Red Sea and watch. We can't put our hands in the nailholes in the Risen Jesus' hands. We can't have the same experience on the road to Damascus that Paul had. So Christianity is a belief. Not a fact.

Just like the bible,yes some interpretations change,yes the dietary rules change but the hard truth,the base of the bible does not change.

Click to expand...

Sure it did. It changed dramatically between the OT and the NT. Suddenly you have not just God, but God's Son. Nothing like that in the OT. And don't tell me it was prophecied. If it had been that clear, and that clear that Jesus fit the bill, the vast majority of Jews would not have rejected Jesus. And the dietary laws are not small things. They helped define who God's chosen people were. And you left out the Reformation and the argument over Trinity, didn't you? Those are also major things.

The Bible is true in All times.It has proven its prophecies over and again in the Bible.What it prophesizes in Revelation,some of it is already happening.

Click to expand...

You can claim the Bible is theololgically true, but I would be wary of claiming the prophecies. Again,

It is tru All the Time.Sin is Sin.

Click to expand...

Sin changes too. Remember those dietary laws. Failure to follow them was a sin.

Jesus is the only way to Heaven.He is coming back for us.

Click to expand...

That is your belief. That I share that Jesus is a way to Heaven and is coming back someday doesn't change that it is a belief.

Satan and all those who don't repent will go to Hell.Those things are tru all the time.

Click to expand...

See? That is a belief that has no always been with Christianity and isn't with all of Christianity. I don't share that particular belief. Satan changes in the Bible, too.

Yet the Beleifs in the Bible never changed.

Click to expand...

Sure they did. The belief that only the Jews were the chosen people changed when Paul began converting the Gentiles. Remember all the trouble he had with the Jerusalem disciples over that?

The Fact that Jesus is the only way to God never changeed.

Click to expand...

Sure it did. In the OT Jesus is not even mentioned as the way to God.

JesusPosse said:

Yes! That is it!It is a theory,a unproven human scientific Theory!No matter what you guys bring into this forum,pictures of skulls,Dna Tests,all that,it does not matter.You have no hard proof that anything Evolution suggests is true.

Click to expand...

Uh, the skulls, DNA tests, etc. is hard proof! That evidence could not possibly be in God's Creation unless evolution is true.

they are doing nothing but guessing,trying to explain away all the religions of the world they are too scared to face.

Click to expand...

Another one who has not read Darwin. Please read these and tell me how Darwin is trying to explain away all the religions of the world:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

JesusPosse said:

Which religions?When it comes down to it,Evolution can only be latched onto a few religions without contradicting itself.Whichreligions are right and which ones are wrong?

Click to expand...

You still haven't told us what "Evolution" means to you.

Without contradicting evolution? Then Christianity is one that evolution can be "latched onto". http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp
Most Christians accept evolution.

It's a matter of which religion you believe is right or wrong. Science, including evolution, won't tell you. Science will tell you that an interpretation of a scripture is wrong, however. See the first quote in my signature.

razzelflabben said:

And what evidence, apart form the fossil record with is inconclusive evidence, do you offer that horses and donkeys are indeed came from the same ancestor.

Click to expand...

Sheesh! The mule IS the evidence!!!

If the horse and donkey were not related through common ancestry, they could not produce the mule!!.

razzelflabben said:

Now DNA testing can be done on blood, so I think that the fossil record is the blood, thus ruling out DNA. phylogenies, let's talk, what do you want to claim here as proof that is unique to the TOE?

Click to expand...

You're conflating the two evidences.

- The fossils demonstrate common descent through mesurably progressive changes in morphology.
- The DNA demonstrates common descent through genetic similarities like ERVs and pseudogenes that could only exist common descent is true.

As far as the phylogenies go. We could not construct them with fossil and DNA evidence if all species were suddenly and seperately created. Instead of branching lines on a bush of life, we would have nothing but straight lines from older versions of species to newer ones. But when we do the comparisons, we find that everything fits. Sometimes a branch needs to be pruned or redirected, but on the whole, phylogenies can be constructed accurately. This is something that could not be done if sudden, special creation were true.

razzelflabben said:

Okay, you are right, I am wrong, all the questions I raised about the TOE were not asked

Click to expand...

Do you mean "not answered"? What questions were not answered?

Or do you really mean "not asked"? Do you have more questions you haven't asked yet?

you have accepted the original theory of C as put forth in the bible

Click to expand...

I am using the definition you gave as a working definition of TOC. That does not mean I accept the theory.

You understand my point about "new" species that cannot reproduce becoming extinct, because I am too dense to understand that reproduction is not necessary for life to continue. Yeah, I got it all wrong, please accept this formal appology. I'm sorry

Click to expand...

Come on. No one is saying you are dense to say what cannot reproduce must become extinct. That is something we all agree is self-evident. All we are showing you is that it is not a problem for evolution because there are still plenty of species reproducing and evolving.

You did not understand that species usually begin as populations not pairs of one male-one female. So you saw what seemed to be a real problem. But now, you see, I hope, that it is not a problem, because there are lots of organisms in the new species, so reproduction continues easily.

We just didn't understand why you were seeing a problem none of us could see.

The original theory says, that kinds reproduce after themselves. And that life was created after it's kind. Therefore, kind would be living organisms that reproduce similar offspring. But you already addressed that definition, again I am sorry. I don't recall the post, but I am sure it was there.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I said, the definition of kinds as populations that "reproduce after themselves" is identical to the scientific definition of species. So this says "kinds" = "species".

The problem comes with the next part: "life was created after its kind". You see we know from observation that some species (=kinds) were not directly created. We know from observation that they have evolved from other species (=kinds).

So if "kinds" = "species" then the TOC has been falsified because we know of existing "kinds" which were not directly created. We know they evolved from other "kinds".

My only real issue with you is that you tend to get off topic by trying to prove that E is possible when I have no issue with that. My issue is that the "proof" we have is not sufficient to call E truth.

Click to expand...

Well, this is related to my issue with you. You claim that evolution is not a fact. But it is. You have claimed that someone who says evolution is a fact does not understand the TOE. But most people who say evolution is a fact understand the TOE very well. I am not trying to show you evolution is possible. You already know that. I am trying to show you that evolution has happened and is happening and will probably continue to happen as long as there is life on earth.

That is not going off topic.

But the fossil record is not enough evidence to claim overwhelming proof. It is enough to say that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the TOE, but these are two completely different things and is the source of much of the argueing between the two theories.

Click to expand...

This only means we have talked too much about one evidence for evolution and not enough about other evidences. I am glad to see you acknowledge that the fossil record does overwhelmingly support TOE. We can move on to other evidences, and you will find this is true of all of them.

The only thing to date that I have not heard from you on, at least as my memory serves, is the definition of kind, and the above clarification on the fossil record.

How do you know that? Where does it say that in the "original theory"?

Click to expand...

Forgot what this was in reference too.

Click to expand...

You said that when the TOC says creatures reproduce after their kind, it did not mean an exact "cookie cutter" copy, but only similarity.

But as far as I can see, TOC only says "reproduce after their kind"? So where does TOC predict that "after their kind" does not mean "exact copy"? Why couldn't it be an exact copy?

Your right again, the plants and animals can be cloning, but man cannot. The would then mean that the TOC would predict that some animals would reproduce via male and female and others would reproduce via cloning.

Click to expand...

No, you are making this up as you go along. How does "reproduce after their kind" become a prediction of "some by cloning and some by sexual reproduction"? The biblical definition says nothing at all about how creatures will reproduce after their kind. You are adding that in. But you can't add it in to a theory until you show how the theory predicts that.

An even more serious objection to TOC is that even if we accept that there are two modes of reproduction (asexual, sexual), TOC still does not tell us how these methods of reproduction assure that offspring will be the same kind as the parent. How can we be sure that a fig tree will produce figs and not thistles? How does the TOC explain the mechanism that makes sure that reproduction will be "after their kind"?

So how then can we have predictions that are observed in science and still have a falsified theory?

Click to expand...

Because, as shown above, the predictions are bogus. You just threw them in. You did not derive them from the theory.

Oh that's right, if the theory of C changes it's predictions to fit the evidence, then it is a flawed theory, but if the TOE does this, it is sound scientific methodology, I keep forgetting this bit of information. Short term memory lose I guess.

Click to expand...

Oh it is perfectly ok for TOC to change to fit the evidence. All good theories do this. What is remarkable is that the evidence has always led the TOC to mimic TOE, never the reverse.

1. Have you read the theory carefully? 2. Animals may or may not be clones. 3. They were created after their kind. 4. Man cannot be cloned. 5. God created male and female. What is disproven from a scientific standpoint? I am really confused by your claims here.

Click to expand...

1. Yes
2. This is not a legitimate part of the theory since it is not derived from the proposition that living things reproduce "after their kind."
3. If "kind"="species", this has been falsified for we know of species which evolved from other kinds instead of being directly created.
4. You want to bet? There is a group (fruitcakes to be sure) which claim they have already cloned a human. They have not produced evidence, so I don't believe they have. But theoretically, it is perfectly possible to clone humans. We have cloned sheep and cats and other animals, so it is likely that unless there is universal agreement not to try, someone will clone a human before the next century is out.
5. The evidence says humans evolved from an earlier species. Humans are not a directly created kind. They are male and female because they evolved from a sexually reproducing species.

Is that enough to clarify the matter?

I would like to know which of these 29 is not 1. related to the fossil record, and 2. is unique to the TOC. That will clear up a lot of things. I have asked several times now but it has gone unanswered unless I haven't gotten to it yet. I'll work at it another 20 min. then must be off.

Click to expand...

You mean unique to TOE don't you? All 29 are unique to TOE. Every single one is a falsification of TOC. As for those which do not depend on the fossil record, I counted 22 of the 29 which are not related to the fossil record.

He doesn't use a straightforward numbering system of 1-29, but divides the material into 5 parts, so that each piece of evidence has a number such as 2.3 or 5.1. Judging only from the titles, the sections I found that seem to fit your criteria are: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.5, all of parts 3 & 4 and all of part 5 except 5.4.

razzelflabben said:

And it is consistant with the TOC.

Again, we see consistancy with the scientific evidence. Hummm.

Click to expand...

Almost forgot this bit.

I explained some time ago, that it is not sufficient for a theory to be "consistent with" observations. The theory must "predict" and "explain" the observations.

Furthermore, if it makes a false prediction (such as "All kinds [=species] were created directly.") then the theory is disproved, because a true theory cannot make a false prediction.

razzelflabben said:

But, they are still reproducing!

Click to expand...

Right. That is why reproduction is no problem for TOE.

razzelflabben said:

I ask for evidence unique to the theory of E and you give me speciation (also acceptable to the original theory of C.)

Click to expand...

Oh, you are going to have to explain this one to me.

You have stated:

Razzelflaben said:

The original theory says, that kinds reproduce after themselves. And that life was created after it's kind. Therefore, kind would be living organisms that reproduce similar offspring.

Click to expand...

Now when a speciation event occurs, part of the kind will no longer reproduce with another part of the kind. (Each part can keep reproducing with its own section of the kind, so there is no problem with reproduction.)

So what is a group that is no longer able to reproduce with another part of the created kind? Is it a new kind? But it was not specially created---and that is another part of the definition of kind. So, how can it be a kind?


And where does the "original theory" of TOC say that speciation is acceptable?

razzelflabben said:

Right, and burial being one of the possible reasons for the observations. But of course you are right again. I am so incredably stupid I don't even know what I am saying in my own posts. A post in which I am putting forth possible theories, is in reallity a post offering red herring. Maybe I am too stupid to know what red herring is too. Do we have a fossil record to prove what red herring is?

Click to expand...

Oh you are far from stupid.

But maybe you do not know what a red herring is, or why we use that phrase to describe a diversionary tactic.

Comes from fox-hunting. Dragging a pungent smoked red herring across a fox's trail could divert the dogs from the trail.

Burial, as I said at the time, is irrelevant. It does not affect the observations in such a way as to erase a single day from that 60 million year gap between the latest dinosaur fossil and the first hominid fossil.

razzelflabben said:

But, if burial occured in caves, it could account for some of the possibilities. But I keep forgetting, I am too dumb to know anything about science and scientific methods. Please forgive the stupid for putting forth questions and ideas.

Click to expand...

The caves would still have to be accessible to people at the time of the burial. In addition, if there were any animal bones in the cave, or if they left "gifts" with the body (as was a common custom), these would be datable to the time of death and burial.

In fact there are many homind fossils which pre-date the beginning of burial customs. So burial, all by itself, shows a recent geological date.

razzelflabben said:

Open to possibility does not equal proof of. Would you be happier if I said, The dinosaurs became extinct before the possible existance of man but this is not a known fact so therefore is only speculation.

Click to expand...

No, because it is not speculation that dinosaurs became extinct before the existance of humans.

Sounds like a lot of words simply to say that what we know is that dino's became extinct before man.

Click to expand...

Half-truth evasion again. What we know is that dinosaurs became extinct about 60 million years before humans existed.

The bolded parts are essential to the full truth as derived from the observed evidence.

To put a little different spin on the dinosaur/human issue, the core problem with your argument razzel, is that it's not the location of the remains, it's the dating of the remains. The only way you could make the point that we might have reason to find humans and dinosaurs in the same geological time period is to argue against dating techniques.

And I want to apologize for being a tad harsh with you when we discussed this last week. I should have focused more on your conclusion and assertion (which are faulty) than your logic (which was correct). I shouldn't have tied them together the way I did.

razzelflabben said:

I don't remember what this is refering too so I can't answer.

Click to expand...

It's about the speciation scenario. Remember

Population A is parent to populations B and C
Population B is parent to population X

B cannot interbreed with A, C or X. But, of course, members of B can and do mate and reproduce with one another, as do those in groups A, C and X.

You said this mimicked TOC.

I am asking where TOC suggests this scenario or is even compatible with it. Everything I have heard about TOC says this contradicts TOC. It doesn't mimic it.

So explain why you think this works from TOC, please?

21 First, this is to assume that population b is breedable within itself. If not, then popluation b becomes extinct,

Click to expand...

Right.

I can't fathom how we don't understand that offspring that cannot reproduce, can survive.

Click to expand...

We do understand that. But evolution does not lead into that kind of dead end. This is what we are trying to show you.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

I understand what you are saying about a, b ,c,and x and any other letter we want to use, but what I am talking about is the inability to be viable breeders.

Click to expand...

And what we are trying to say is that such a situation is not relevant to speciation. The species that result from speciation keep on reproducing each within its own species.

If you don't get continued reproduction, you don't get a new species. No speciation has happened.

If the subspecies cannot reproduce, it dies, dead subspecies, cannot evolve.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about sub-species. Generally speaking, sub-species are still inter-fertile with the parent species. We are talking about new species which can no long inter-breed with the parent species but which do keep on reproducing within their own species.

Now on to the subject of one living cell organisms, First, this is different from what we were taught,

Click to expand...

More likely it is different from what you thought you were taught. If it is what you were really taught you had an extraordinarily ignorant teacher.

secondly, you state that we cannot state taht all life rose form a single living cell. Yet we have overwhelming evidence to say that they did?

Click to expand...

No.

Please note the difference:

a single cell

a single population of single-celled organisms

We cannot state that life descended from "a single cell". For one thing, there was probably never any time in the history of earth when there was only one single cell.

We CAN state that there is very strong evidence that all life rose from a single population of single-celled organisms.

In TOE, "Common ancestor" refers to a population, not to an individual.

How please. It is speculation. We have more problems with the theory when we try to figure out how these single cell organisms not only evolved into creatures, but how did they evolve into male and female? These are more questions that arise that the TOC does predict. What predictions can the TOE offer?

Click to expand...

Well, don't expect everything in one post. And don't expect to get ALL the answers, because we don't have them all yet.

However, we can answer (or suggest very plausible answers) for some of them.

First you need to realize that there were several crucial stages before single-celled organisms evolved into multi-celled creatures.

Some important ones were:

1. How did simple (prokaryote) cells become complex (eukaryote) cells?
2. Why did sex evolve in single cells? (Note that I said sex and not sexual reproduction. I also did not say "gender". Single cells which engage in sharing their genetic material are not male and female.)

Then we can get to:

3. How did multi-cellular organisms come to be?
4. How did multi-cellular organisms engage in sexual reproduction? (Still not talking gender. These animals were not male and female, or, if you prefer, they were both male and female at the same time.)

Then we get to:
5. Gender specialization.

And through all of this we need to keep in mind:

a) the mechanism of heredity in a-sexual and sexual reproduction
b) the mechanisms of variation
c) how natural selection works
d) how species change as a result of a) b) and c)
e) how these changes lead to speciation, and
f) how repeated speciation leads to the phylogenetic tree with its groups of genera, families, orders, classes, etc.


And, of course, through all of this we also need to keep in mind the observations which show that all of this really does happen and has happened in the past.

See why universities need whole libraries to house everything there is to learn about evolution?

What I can assure you is that there IS evidence, convincing evidence, for every item above.

And probably the simplest way for you to learn that is to get a good introductory text on evolution and just start reading it.

razzelflabben said:

And these observations are not inconsistant with the original TOC. It may not predict such, but is not inconsistant.

Click to expand...

It's not?!?!?!?

I am beginning to think you do not know the theory you claim to lean towards.

Also, if TOC does not predict these observations, then, as a theory it is inferior to TOE which does make these predictions. A theory that does not predict observations is useless as a theory as it gives no direction to future scientific research.

And I still need to be convinced that the observations do not contradict (falsify) TOC.

But what you are talking about is interbreeding, I am talking about breeding.

Click to expand...

Please define "inter-breeding" and "breeding". Perhaps the problem is that we are using the words differently.

By "breeding" I mean mating one individual with another individual of the same species. i.e. horse with horse, donkey with donkey.

By "inter-breeding" I mean mating an individual of one species with an individual of a different species. i.e. horse with donkey.

If you agree with these definitions, then I don't see why there would be any problem with the new species being viable breeders. But there is definitely a problem with the new species inter-breeding with the parent species. That is what makes the new species new.

But again, I must be too stupid to understand that species do not have the ability to breed can survive and even better, evolve.

Click to expand...

Would you please can this type of remark. It is childish.