Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[Jimmy D]

Entrenched in my world view that my ability to think objectively is crippled by cognitive dissonance? I don't know Jimmy, I used to think that both Evolution and the Big Bang made sense, and tried to fit it in the Bible like many Christians are doing, especially now with the Pope having announced both theories as how God would have done Creation.
"God is not a magician!" he said approving both 'magical' theories.

Maybe "crippled by cognitive dissonance" is a bit harsh on reflection, sorry about that, I'd like to retract crippled and replace it with "clouded".

I don't understand why you think evolution is magical?

Evolution is change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

That's all, it's hardly magical.

This is a good example of the: "Can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome.
You are not only standing with your nose right up to the tree, but magnifying it, using an electronic microscope, and then using math and chemistry to get an idea of what happens to the things that even the electronic microscope won't show you, to try to explain the forest to me.

I know, I know, you could say: "well how else could I show you the forest besides examining the tree, .. this is science!" and as logical as that may sound to most people, it no longer works with me. Like thay say: "Been there, done that!"

Remember I am NOT disagreeing that we all, both animals and humans evolve, adapt, change, and I gave you examples like eunuchs:

- In reality, there are more castrated men alive today that at any other point in history. As many as 600,000 men in North America are living as eunuchs for medical reasons. ... "A castrated adult male will lose muscle but gain fat.

Also we have all the GEO-Mutilation like the Chem-Trailing that's going on, or this, .. this going out of control "trans-gender agenda" (see the Olympics for examples), .. or the GMO with our food, which eventually will either make us adapt to fake fruits and vegetables, or we go extinct.

Nothing to do with what I posted.

And of course the examples you just gave, and I agree that we were all carefully designed and built to adept, .. yes, and I can show you humans like Filipinos who never seen snow, move to the Netherlands, or even to Yakutsk Russia (Coldest big city in Russia), and they adapt to their environment.

Adaptation and natural selection, yes... or as we call it... evolution.

God built us with the incredible ability to adapt.

I personally don't share your belief in God, but sure, no problem.

Out of seven siblings, all none smokers, but I have one brother that smokes, and has been chain-smoking since he was like 12 years old (hiding it from mom and dad) and now he is 70. Now imagine finding him in frozen ice a thousand years from now, let's say 900 years after smoking went out of style, and no cigarettes have been manufactured for all that time, and examining his lungs to determine the atmosphere that this evolving animal of the ape family used to live in? I'm sure Evolutionists would make up some really fantastic stories about him.

Who's making up fantastical stories? It appears to be you fantasizing about what "evolutionists" might say. Red Herring.

There are many reasons why one species of animals and even as you can see, humans would stop mating and reproducing with their own kind, including impotency caused by chemicals in our food, in our water, air and so on.

What has this got to do with evolution?

Take all the domesticated dogs we have and release them into the wild, you think the Great Dane will mate with the Teacup-Poodle? But examining their dried up skull and bones a thousand years from now, Evolutionists would really have something to talk about, .. trying to fit their bones in with the rest of their transitional fossils (you know, the fossils that are transitioning, not the living creatures, because if that happened, it would disprove evolution!) So they stick to fossils.

You present a frankly stupid and twisted parody of what scientists actually do, did you read the examples and links I presented? There was none of this garbage in there.

How about we go back to Dawkins "Common Ancestor", at that "T" where it branches off into two 'distinct' groups, human and chimp/bonobo: "What was the species of that animal?"

I'm not asking about the rest that went on staying whatever species the Common Ancestor was, but the population that changed, some turning/speciating into human, and the other chimp and bonobo, .. only that particular population of Common Ancestor. What species were they?

I answered this already in the topic that got closed down - We don't know as it has yet to be discovered.

I'd suggest a bit of reading into why we know such a creature existed at that point on our family tree.

If you can't show me evolution/speciation from the 7 billion humans who were carried away by the same tectonic plates and living all over the world in the same environments, same food they eat, same meteor showers they have experienced including the Ice Age for the past 4 billion years, who by-the-way are living right next to all the Apes, rats, lizards and amoeba, and have been since known history, then just know that you are doing nothing different than let's say an African (Gods Must be Crazy) Bushmen examining a rusted car he found under a rubber tree, and taking it apart, he tells a fantastic story to his villagers of how he believes this car evolved over the millions and billions of years, .. proving how smart he is by showing how "this screw goes into that there nut like so! And maybe even tearing the whole engine apart and re-building it to convince others he knows what he is talking about" where the villagers would obviously just stare in amazement.

LOL.

If you can't give me the names of all your paternal ancestors going back to the year 1066 then you don't obviously don't exist. (Yes, it is a ridiculous thing to say).

That is exactly how I feel coming from your above presentation, as if you really do see me as a dumb evolving animal, .. an ape or something with all that you posted.

Of course I don't see you like that, I see you as a fellow human, what makes you say that?

Or when showing me dried up skull & bones and fossilized creatures, .. this does not prove that we evolved from amoeba to gorilla, to human. It is your religious belief, and should not be taught in biology.

There you go again with your ridiculous parody of what biologists do, did you not see the links I posted? You have no excuse for this behaviour now.

Biology should be to help us get physically healthier,

Er, if you read the links I posted they are doing exactly that, using evidence provided from natural selection.

not to prove your Religious beliefs like how many vestigial organs and body parts an atheist-Evolutionist surgeon could cut out and throw away while we're under anesthesia, since he thinks we no longer need it!

In the past 100 years, because of the influence of this BB-Evolution Religion, our Hospitals have turned into Veterinary clinics where they euthanize the elderly like vets do to sick and other unwanted pets, not to mention all the abortions of children.

My links demonstrated that evolutionary research is science, and you have done nothing to refute that. You don't like it, we get that, but throwing around perjorative terms won't help. It just makes your arguments seem weak and shallow.

Please try again, it's a simple question I am asking here, no need to convince me how awesome and how Intelligently our Creator made us, .. I already know!

Whoah, try again? I didn't try to convince you of anything. I joined the conversation because you asserted that "evolution isn't science" or some such thing. I posted a tiny fraction of scientific papers that show, with empirical results, that your assertion is utterly wrong.

Until you show me why those examples of Evolutionary research aren't science (without all the red herrings and subject changing) I'll consider that you have conceded the point.

Not that I think that it really matters anyway, you don't get to say what science is or isn't, especially when you are demonstrating that you barely understand what it is, the reason why you are coming up with all these PRATTS is obvious.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not mathematically, but by simple observation, including reading notes/info/Revelations taken from Prophets, which they got from the Creator Himself!

Should be interesting.

- God created all things by rules and laws, each and every particle that makes up the atoms are just rules and laws that the Creator established, which only He, or those He gives authority to can change.

This altering of Gods rules and laws in creation we call "miracles", because there are no 'natural' explanation for them, for they brake 'natural rules and laws'.

No, nothing that demonstrates or suggests this weird universe without gravity or minus the big bang

It is very much like how a Gaming Programmer creates his own gaming-world, including his characters/creatures in the game, by a program written in a language with it's own rules and laws.

A character in the game cannot walk through a wall, unless the Creator/Programmer changes the rules for that occasion, which the other gamers would consider a miracle since their characters cannot do that.

Same principle, Infinite God has created Word (John 1-) language of laws and rules which define every particle in our universe which are nothing but words/codes/rules/laws and every particle has its place (just like we have in a gaming world program).

Still nothing.

So you can better visualize this, picture this from left to right, .. on the left is the less important laws/rules or lower (which are the heavier elements like the earth). And to the right is the higher, or more important rules, ones that are used as standards, which is higher/up spiritual, or what we call Heavenly.
Not much miracle going on there since God does not mess with His Standards.

The more important programming rules and standards are called "up", or "high" (obviously), and the less important ones, that God likes to alter and eventually will rewrite is called "down" or "lower".

Each created law has a hierarchy, and taken out of place, they return to the place they belong. Like a rock belongs to the less important elements/laws, and should we move them towards the right, or to the 'up/higher' elements/particles/laws, they will tend to move back to the left, the lesser important elements/rules/laws, or lower, or "down".

Still nothing? Are you sure about this?

We can mix and match many of these rules/laws like put helium into a balloon and make it pull a basket go towards the right, or towards the "up/higher", while the heavier laws will want to go back to where they belong, or lower/down to the left.

Still nothing.

Now Satan created another universe where Gods "Word" (laws/rules/order) does not apply in a story he planted in mans already corrupted minds. This universe does not have higher/more important rules/laws, so there is no "up", or "down", but everything is viewed from their own perspective, or like Einstein described the speed of light (Light-Gods Word) always should be considered relative to your own perspective (lying, cheating, killing, abortion, etc.)

Still nothing.

This is why Satan's universe starts out with a Big-Bang, which is a Big-Explosion of all Gods rules/laws and order, and then through no ones will or plan, (taking God and His son Word out of it) they recreate all this order (universe) through chaos.
lol, it's funny really, like stubborn children stumping their feet wanting it their way!

So there was a big bang after all, I thought that you said there wasn't?

Oh well, we have free will and can make up our own imaginary universe, with magical non-existent force like Gravity, and the other two forces are; Weak and Strong, .. the unholy trinity of the Big-Bang Evolution Religion.

Sorry, are you really saying that gravity is imaginary?

 

[Arius]

Maybe "crippled by cognitive dissonance" is a bit harsh on reflection, sorry about that, I'd like to retract crippled and replace it with "clouded".

I don't understand why you think evolution is magical?

Evolution is change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

That's all, it's hardly magical.

To claim that we humans evolved from amoeba that popped out of a wet rock into the primordial soup, then grew legs by slowly creating hundreds of billions of cells which are all placed exactly where they need to be through no design, or will of anyone or anything, but the evolving environment (Mother Nature and Father Time) is magical, it's a fantasy.

YES, .. observing by dissecting, magnifying tissues of animals to learn their make up is science, it's the story how all this appeared out of nowhere, and over the 14 billion years it all assembled itself is the magic.

Nothing to do with what I posted.

So what I write is irrelevant?
Thanks.

Adaptation and natural selection, yes... or as we call it... evolution.

God created us with the ability of "natural selection", and when that breaks down (AIDS, Cancer etc.) no nature will help you, besides, why would she? It's not like she cares, or has you in mind, right?

I personally don't share your belief in God, but sure, no problem.

That's fine, .. many are called, but only a few are chosen.

Who's making up fantastical stories? It appears to be you fantasizing about what "evolutionists" might say. Red Herring.

You know well, Lucy and the hundreds of Red Herring stories of dried up jaw bones of roasted pigs found in the dirt. I shown you the videos in the other post. I go by what they say about as simple as a jawbone with a half row of teeth, so I derived from that; Oh what stories my brothers frozen lungs would create for Evolutionists!

What has this got to do with evolution?

You were trying to convince me of evolution because two birds, or lizards of the same species stopped mating in another country.

You present a frankly stupid and twisted parody of what scientists actually do, did you read the examples and links I presented? There was none of this garbage in there.

Example of your "same species that don't mate with each other" because they are evolving. You are not much up on evolution are you, like the Post Human 2.0 and other trans humanistic projects.
Go to a Burning Man event and you will understand the latest in the past four billion years of "human-evolution".

I answered this already in the topic that got closed down - We don't know as it has yet to be discovered.

Yet you are certain of man evolving from amoeba, lizard, rat, gorilla, ____(common ancestor)____ human, right? Only that last one is missing, .. with all the eight million living species, right?

I'd suggest a bit of reading into why we know such a creature existed at that point on our family tree.

Yes, because your Religion called Evolution wouldn't work without it. So you say it's there, only can't prove it, and don't know what it is, .. right!?

LOL.

If you can't give me the names of all your paternal ancestors going back to the year 1066 then you don't obviously don't exist. (Yes, it is a ridiculous thing to say).

Again for the hundredth time, I don't care what their name was, Lucy, Edna, Koko whatever is fine, I asked you what "species" it was?

Of course I don't see you like that, I see you as a fellow human, what makes you say that?

So with all this knowledge about human development, and evolution for the past 4.2 billion years and you don't consider me an evolving ape, an animal of the Homo family? I'm hurt.
So what do you consider this 'fellow human' originated from, can't think of anything lower than an amoeba, which evolved to apes, ..
You see, if I was an Evolutionist, and put a sign on my store door: "No Animals Allowed", you can bet no animals would come in, .. hair or hairless!?

There you go again with your ridiculous parody of what biologists do, did you not see the links I posted? You have no excuse for this behaviour now.

Er, if you read the links I posted they are doing exactly that, using evidence provided from natural selection.

No, .. it proves that animals were created after their kind!

Providing evidence how one species evolves/morphs/gives birth to another species would prove evolution of species by natural selection.

Showing same species changing, adapting to their environment is not "speciation into another species". I went into the hot Arizona mountain wilderness for many months, and I adapted to the harsh environment to where I could run up the side of the mountain where I would sneak up to deer resting in the thorn bushes in front of me, and could hike all day in the hot sun without any food or water.

I asked for evidence of "HUMAN" evolution/speciation from what you guys claim we evolved from, why you keep avoiding my request, .. giving me all these same but different animals "after their kind" and their makeup?

Like Dawkins in his video: "Why are there Chimpanzees?" Who asked him that anyways, it is all hand waving to distract us from the real issue, that "No species has ever evolved into another species, and never will"
If you categorize a human as an animal of the Ape family, stick with it. But I asked you to show me how I speciated millions of times over the 4.2 billion years from amoeba to human, yet you cannot show me any actual evidence of that.

You give me millions of color gradients between two species and try to justify this by showing me a few dried up bone fragments, hardly the evidence for the color gradients, .. and then tell me that even those few transitional species have died out!
Really?
Then Dawkins shows only THREE, the gorilla, the common ancestor, and a human lady, but can't even name the ONE in-between species he calls "the Common Ancestor" that gave rise to human. That's just ONE, and you don't even know what species that was???

My links demonstrated that evolutionary research is science, and you have done nothing to refute that. You don't like it, we get that, but throwing around perjorative terms won't help. It just makes your arguments seem weak and shallow.

Yes, observing same and different species, dissecting them for study etc. is science, but their fantastic claims how this dissected animals cells and bones have evolved from that there different species of cells and bones is NOT science.
Science would be actually showing this happening, where it would be revealed on the macro scale too. Like a gorilla turning into a human, one day gorilla, and finally after 4 billion years, .. whala! Look people, the entire population of gorillas have finally made that genetic switch, and it is now human! Yesterday the DNA of a Gorilla, and today, after 4 billion years, .. look, the DNA shows it is a human!

But because it never happened and never will, they put African Negro Pigmies to show it happens.

Whoah, try again? I didn't try to convince you of anything. I joined the conversation because you asserted that "evolution isn't science" or some such thing. I posted a tiny fraction of scientific papers that show, with empirical results, that your assertion is utterly wrong.

You showed me empirical evidence of birds (and whatnot) after their kind, NOT Evolution.
Up to that point I agree it is science. It's the Evolution/Speciation of one distinct species into a completely different species that's NOT science.
Simply because it never happens even after waiting 4 billion years, and never did.

Until you show me why those examples of Evolutionary research aren't science (without all the red herrings and subject changing) I'll consider that you have conceded the point.

Not that I think that it really matters anyway, you don't get to say what science is or isn't, especially when you are demonstrating that you barely understand what it is, the reason why you are coming up with all these PRATTS is obvious.

But I can remind Evolutionists what science is can't I?
The research is science, the results they make up from the research on Evolution is not. So you have failed to prove "Evolution as science". Just because a surgeon who belongs to the Evolution Religion worked on me and fixed me up does not mean I evolved from an amoeba, a rat, then a gorilla.

PRATTS? .. how about show me just ONE time, just one speciation, not a thousand!?

Thanks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To claim that we humans evolved from amoeba that popped out of a wet rock into the primordial soup, then grew legs...
...
<argument from incredulity & ignorance>
...
how about show me just ONE time, just one speciation, not a thousand!?

Here are a few observed examples, some of speciation in progress, some of speciation completed: Evidence from observed speciation.

 

[Jimmy D]

Blah,blah,blah. repetition of previous posts?

PRATTS? .. how about show me just ONE time, just one speciation, not a thousand!?

I said that you can believe what you like, I've got no desire to try and convince you of anything, especially when you ignore what I say and plough on regardless with your strange parody of evolution.

I joined this thread to point out that what you said about speciation is wrong (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that given your ignorance of the topic you weren't lying)......

But no, .. none of the 8.2 million scientists alive today is even looking for actual speciation which would prove Evolution scientifically, instead of blindly rely on prearranged, and rearranged fossils lined up to match their Religious preconceived notions.
Why?

This is wrong because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers showing examples of speciation, of which I provided a few examples......


What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity | BioScience | Oxford Academic

Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

...........

Populations of the same species occur on different islands, and in some cases they have different ecologies. This allows us to investigate the reasons for their divergence. Closely related species occur together on the same island and differ. This allows us to investigate the nature of the reproductive barrier between them and the question of how and why species stay apart. Thus, considering populations across the entire archipelago, we can see all stages of the speciation process, from start to finish, at the same time.

.............

Speciation is completed when two populations that have diverged in allopatry can coexist with little or no interbreeding. Medium ground finches and cactus finches occupy different ecological niches, although their diets overlap. The ecological differences presumably permit coexistence in sympatry, in an environment (e.g., Daphne Major) whose food supply fluctuates in abundance and composition. To paraphrase David Lack (1947), the species are ecologically isolated through niche differences that evolved by natural selection in allopatry. The differences may have been enhanced by selection in sympatry, thereby reducing interspecific competition for food. But how do the species maintain coexistence without interbreeding? What are the differences that keep them reproductively isolated, and how did the differences evolve?

..............

The radiation began when the initial species split into two lineages of Certhidea warbler finches (figure 8) after the initial pathway had been taken. One group of populations (Certhidea olivacea) inhabits moist upland forest, and the other group (Certhidea fusca) occupies lower habitats on other, mainly low, islands. Remarkably, despite their long separation, the two groups have retained similar mate recognition systems, and for that reason we refer to them as lineages and not species .

.............

One of the warbler finch lineages gave rise to all other finch species. Early products of the diversification were the vegetarian finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias inornata) on either Galápagos or Cocos Island (Grant and Grant 2002b), and the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis). The most recent products were a group of ground finch species (Geospiza) and a group of tree finch species (Camarhynchus and Cactospiza) (figure 8).

...............

According to the standard allopatric model, speciation begins with the establishment of a new population, continues with the divergence of that population from its parent population, and is completed when members of two diverged populations can coexist in sympatry without interbreeding. We stand a virtually negligible chance of observing the whole process under natural circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to make relevant observations in nature of all steps in the process. We have described the strong role played by environmental change at each of the three steps in the speciation of Darwin's finches.

.......................................................

We have also observed examples of speciation in the fossil record, especially in locations that are favourable to fossilization....

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

.......................................

We can observe speciation unfolding in real time...

Speciation in real time

The Central European blackcap spends its summers in Germany and Austria and, until the 1960s, had spent its winters in balmy Spain. About 50 years ago, however, backyard bird feeding became popular in Britain. With a ready supply of food waiting for them in Britain, blackcaps that happened to carry genesthat caused them to migrate northwest, instead of southwest to Spain, were able to survive and return to their summer breeding grounds in central Europe. Over time, the proportion of the population carrying northwest-migrating genes has increased. Today, about 10% of the population winters in Britain instead of Spain.

This change in migration pattern has led to a shift in mate availability. The northwest route is shorter than the southwest route, so the northwest-migrating birds get back to Germany sooner each summer. Since blackcaps choose a mate for the season when they arrive at the breeding grounds, the birds tend to mate with others that follow the same migration route.

In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. Pointier wings are favored in birds that must travel longer distances, and rounder wings, which increase maneuverability, are favored when distance is less of an issue — as it is for the northwest migrators. Changes in beak size may be related to the food available to each sub-population: fruit for birds wintering in Spain and seeds and suet from garden feeders for birds wintering in Britain. The northwest migrators' narrower, longer beaks may allow them to better take advantage of all the different sorts of foods they wind up eating in the course of a year. These differences have evolved in just 30 generations and could signify the beginning of a speciation event.

.........................

 

[xianghua]

Nope, it is based on observation and evidence.

There was so much evidence for it that Darwin was beaten by someone else publishing on it. It was only by showing a lifetime of work on the theory that he got credit.

but we have no empirical evidence for change of kinds (by creationists meaning)

 

[bhsmte]

Do you reject the scholarship outlining the historicity of Jesus Christ?

The historicity of Jesus, should be tested using the historical method, like all other written claims.

When this method is applied with any level of rigor, the majority of NT historians will agree the following has historical credibility:

-Jesus was likely a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond the above, there is little if anything about Jesus, that meets even minimum standards of historical review and credibility.

 

[Paulos23]

but we have no empirical evidence for change of kinds (by creationists meaning)

And how would you define change of kinds? I have run into many definitions used by creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

but we have no empirical evidence for change of kinds (by creationists meaning)

We have no empirical evidence that "kinds" (by creationist meaning, whatever that is) even exist.

 

[JackRT]

If you can't give me the names of all your paternal ancestors going back to the year 1066 then you don't obviously don't exist. (Yes, it is a ridiculous thing to say).

Actually, I can.

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually, I can.

Damn you genealogy websites!*

(* actually, I'm sure it took a lot of effort and is quite an interesting endeavour)

 

[xianghua]

We have no empirical evidence that "kinds" (by creationist meanin, whateve that is) even exist.

why not? kind= a group of species who belong to the same family (in general).

 

[xianghua]

And how would you define change of kinds? I have run into many definitions used by creationists.

a change at the level of family basically.

 

[Paulos23]

a change at the level of family basically.

That is a new one to me, and I had to look it up.

This article indicates that that definition of kinds is based on a misunderstanding of how science works.

https://www.quora.com/With-regards-...m-one-order-or-class-or-even-genus-to-another

To sum it up, a change in family does not happen all at once, it happens slowly and requires a die off of the connecting species. So you won't see a species change into an existing family, but it is possible for it to change into a whole new family, over time.

 

[JackRT]

Damn you genealogy websites!*

(* actually, I'm sure it took a lot of effort and is quite an interesting endeavour)

It was no effort on my part at all. It had all been researched and published in book form in 1922 --- "The Lords of the Isles and Their Descendants". From AD 167 up to and including my father.

 

[Speedwell]

a change at the level of family basically.

So what would a change at the level of family look like?

Start with a species. That species evolves into two species, by speciation. Now you have two species--and you can create a genus. Keep that process going until you have so many and such a variety of species that one genus isn't enough and so you classify your species into two genera. If you have two or more genera you can create a family. More speciation and more genera and one family isn't enough so you classify your genera into two families. If you have two or more familes you can create an order. All this happens just through repeated speciation. I don't even understand what "change at the level of family would look like. Clearly it is impossible for a species to change from one existing family to another existing family. The only way a species can move to a different family is if that family is created de novo.

 

[HitchSlap]

Likewise.

Great. So if we don't have any contemporary eyewitness accounts, where is this "overwhelming" evidence you're referring to?

 

[daleksteve]

Hello Zoii.

You said.

No evidence you say?

What do you call the new Testament, that is not evidence?

Its not evidence because you can't prove that what is written in it is true?

Neither you or i were around when the new testament was written. Therefore there are no witnesses to interview or anybody to be able to support that the events happened as they were written.

Therefore its just down to personal Faith and trust that its true.

 

[Hieronymus]

Together with the quantum hoax, science is turning into science fiction gnosticism.

 

[daleksteve]

Ive always thought there was room for science and religion to cohabit. The Big bang which many Christians find so contentious I believe works well with the scriptures in Genesis.

There was nothing. Then there was a singularity which with rapid expansion evolved to mass, then stars ..."let their be light"

For the big bang to happen there needed to be hydrogen and other stuff to be there for it to happen, so god is still very much in the picture as it needed someone to put those elements there.