Evolution's Brick Wall

[VirOptimus]

This is getting sooo repetitive. AV did a great job with the definition he provided in post #774.

AV? Are you serious?

He dont know anything about science (or theology really).

 

[inquiring mind]

AV? Are you serious?
He dont know anything about science (or theology really).

Well, he impresses me... maybe you should pay more attention.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, he impresses me... maybe you should pay more attention.

No, I'm not ignorant. I learn from real sources and real education.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, I'm not ignorant. I learn from real sources and real education.

Of course you do.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course you do.

Yes, and I'm not the one who tries to argue against observed physical reality, in my mind, thats a stupid thing to do.

 

[Jimmy D]

You just don't get it. There is no doubt some form of micro evolution occurs. It's "evidence" showing the change from one kind to another kind that is lacking... and that is evolution's grand theme brick wall.

But it's not lacking, maybe you don't want to acknowledge it, maybe you don't fully understand, but it's not lacking....

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."


http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx

 

[Job 33:6]

We have observed mutation and the fixation of beneficial mutations. We have observed speciation. We have our DNA which can be compared to see where mutations have occurred. We have things like phylogenies constructed through erv studies, we have the fossil succession (see figure below), we have biogeographic distributions such as those of marsupial fossils transitioning across continents, we have predictions made by protein studies on rates of evolution and the timing of common ancestry which align with the fossil record and biogeographic distributions of fossils etc.

 

[pitabread]

By saying "share," which is using a very broad brush, are you kinda admitting that no direct line actually exists?

No, I'm not saying that at all. A common ancestor implies direct descent via two lineages.

 

[Job 33:6]

The list of evidence goes on and on and really only common ancestry can explain this.

Well, he impresses me... maybe you should pay more attention.

AV is well off the deep end. I remember him suggesting that after a global flood, God teleported animals to their respective geographic locations around earth. Even though the fossils of marsupials extend from North America, down to South America, across Antarctica and over to Australia in a succession, he just ignored all that and opted for the teleportation explanation.

And of course as others have stated, he isn't knowledgable of science.

 

[Job 33:6]

AV also suggested that all animals on the ark were babies and eggs, because adults of course wouldn't be able to fit. One had to wonder how Noah would've incubated thousands of eggs on the ark for the year it allegedly occurred. We all must have missed the verses discussing that part of the story, as well as how these eggs rolled to the ark from thousands of miles away on their own.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You just don't get it. There is no doubt some form of micro evolution occurs.

I'm not talking about micro/macro. I'm talking about evolution, the process and the common ancestry of all species.

It's "evidence" showing the change from one kind to another kind that is lacking...

That's because the goal posts of what a "kind" is keeps changing.
Biologically, the term has no meaning at all.

and that is evolution's grand theme brick wall.

No, that's the religious brick wall. Straw wall, actually.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, he impresses me... maybe you should pay more attention.

Maybe you should try being impressed by actual evidence, instead of the opinions of our village ...errr... fundamentalist.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

It looks like AV gave the definition of genus as a description of what "kind is".

well, eohippus is a different genus and therefore a different kind than equus. As is mesohippus and merychippus and pliohippus.

But of course theyre all horses of the "horse barn". So a kind must be something more than a genus.



View attachment 239373

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

7 million years ago, there was no man-kind, nor was there a chimp-kind. There was only life that was both man and chimp.

In the mesozoic there was no bird kind nor mammal kind. There were only bird-reptile hybrids like archaeopteryx and mammal-reptile hybrid kinds like synapsids.

Before that (in the Permian) there was no reptile kind, there were only reptile-amphibian kind Hybrids, like gerobatrachus.

Before then (in the devonian) there was no amphibian kind, just amphibian-fish hybrids like tiktaalik. And so on...

So the argument of things being different "kinds" is irrelevant because such different "kinds" didn't exist in the past. There was no chimp and man, there was only Sahelanthropus, chimp and man combined in one species.

And those hybrids have since diverged over time into birds mammals reptiles amphibians mankind, chimpanzee and every other species around today.

 

[Job 33:6]

And if anyone disagrees with the above succession, refutation should be easy. All you have to do is find a man or chimp before sahelanthropus, find a bird before the jurassic, find a mammal before the Triassic. Find a reptile before the Carboniferous, find an amphibian before the devonian.

Otherwise, the evidence supports common descent and evolution.

 

[sfs]

Another post stating DNA evidence with a a foundation of conjecture.

When you have a theory that does as good a job as common descent at predicting DNA data, let me know. Until then, you have nothing to contribute.

 

[sfs]

This is a Creation & Evolution board. If some type science degree is required to question evolution, then a theology degree should also be required to dispute creation.

But we're not disputing creation, which is a theological doctrine. The dispute in this thread is about scientific evidence for evolution. If you want to attack the scientific evidence, then yes, you really do have to understand the science involved if you want to have anything relevant to say.

 

[tas8831]

Well, he impresses me... maybe you should pay more attention.

As you are willing to admit that AV impresses you, I suggest that we pay you no more attention at all.

 

[inquiring mind]

The list of evidence goes on and on and really only common ancestry can explain this.




AV is well off the deep end. I remember him suggesting that after a global flood, God teleported animals to their respective geographic locations around earth. Even though the fossils of marsupials extend from North America, down to South America, across Antarctica and over to Australia in a succession, he just ignored all that and opted for the teleportation explanation.

And of course as others have stated, he isn't knowledgable of science.

Have you never read of the large floating mats (capable of supporting animal life) on the lake near Mt. St. Helens?

 

[inquiring mind]

As you are willing to admit that AV impresses you, I suggest that we pay you no more attention at all.

That's okay... I've paid you none for quite sometime now.