Evolution vs God

[Subduction Zone]

In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA).

You went too far back.

 

[USincognito]

You went too far back.

I guess by his logic, plants - being starstuff and all - are eating themselves whenever they undergo photosynthesis.

 

[Svt4Him]

I call a steaming pile of rotting garbage a steaming pile of rotting garbage when I see it.



Do you know the difference between a derisive - and earned - knickname and an ad hominem? I didn't say, "Bananaman insults the intelligence of his audience because he's a stupid dummyhead".

Hard to argue with such amazing facts and science.

 

[USincognito]

Hard to argue with such amazing facts and science.

You're certainly providing evidence supporting that.

Would you care to address any of the other things I've written on this thread about Creationism and Evolution or would you rather myopically focus on my criticism of Bananaman and his content free propaganda film?

It might be hard to argue with facts and science, so some people choose to tone troll rather than do so.

 

[Strathos]

The entire title and concept is ridiculous.

Evolution vs. God?

Why not gravity vs. God?

Or Nuclear physics vs. God?

Or the universe vs. God?

These are not things that are opposed to God, these are things that God created!

 

[gluadys]

But it isn't....it is a change in beak size. Not a totally new type of beak or lips where the beak would be. Those finches already had built in mechanisms for survival of changes in their environment. But those mechanisms will never change the Finch into a dog.

Ah, the wonders of the evolution of creationist vocabulary.

Way back before 1940 it was "Species don't evolve. Species don't change into other species."

When that could no longer be denied it became "Ok, so there is microevolution within the kind, but no macroevolution beyond kind boundaries."

By the 1990s "microevolution" became "adaptation" and instances of evolution within the species were described as "adaptation, not evolution". Never mind that adaptation is a consequence of evolution under positive natural selection. No evolution=no adaptation.

Maybe they got that message, because you don't see it a lot anymore. What's coming down the pipe now is "Those finches (or whatever) already had built in mechanisms for survival of changes in their environment."

Well, of course they did. And what built in mechanisms would those be? I bet they were inheritable variations in DNA sequences along with selection favoring variations most suitable to the changed environment. IOW evolutionary mechanisms.

Modern creationism seems to be an effort to acknowledge the fact of evolution without using the dreaded E-word.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not suggesting anything because the answers to those questions can't be observed, tested nor repeated.

Why not? It would seem to me that a quick comparison of their genomes should give us a rough estimate for the time since common ancestry as an example of one test that could be done.

What I believe is . . .

We are more interested in what you can demonstrate through evidence.

Is your question any more crazy than what evolution says? That all living things originated from a common ancestor?

Since we can observe common ancestry in action, it is not as crazy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not using a straw man argument. Am I misrepresenting a position about the Finch? Can the Finch become something other than a Finch? Or rather can a Finch become something other than a bird?

You never evolve out of your ancestry. What the theory says is that if the finch clade is successful that the there will be more and more finch species, and the diversity of finches will increase over time.

This is exactly what happened in the mammal clade. At one time, there was a single species of mammal. Just one. The descendants of that single species were very successful, and they diversified into the tens of thousands of mammalian species that we see today. However, THEY ARE STILL MAMMALS. You do not evolve out of your ancestry.

Is beak variation any type of mechanism that will or can change the Finch into something other than a bird?

If it did then it would falsify evolution.