Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! You are not even trying. That man may have a PhD in chemistry, but he has to deny almost all of science. He is of all things a Young Earth Creationist. There is no real difference between YEC's and Flat Earthers, they are all extreme science deniers.

The point is, speciation isn't proof of evolution, it is in fact part of the creationist model. And can you please stop comparing creationists to flat earthers, it is inaccurate.[/QUOTE]


Actually it is since it is by definition "evolution". And why do you think it is inaccurate to compare creationists to Flat Earthers? It is actually quite accurate. Take you for example. You have no idea that science does not work on "proof". It works on evidence. And there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism. And three are also mountains of scientific evidence for a spherical Earth and none for a flat one. So once again, what is the difference?

I would suggest that you take a break from claims that only demonstrate a lack of education and work on the basics first. As I said science is evidence based. To understand the science one must first understand the concept of evidence? Are you ready to learn? It really does not take very long to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of "evolution is a fact" talk, yet, no one will put it all on the table for discussion...wonder why that is?

Kenny you need to learn the basics first if you want to make demands.

A person that cannot understand evidence is in no position to demand any.

 

[Speedwell]

A lot of "evolution is a fact" talk, yet, no one will put it all on the table for discussion...wonder why that is?

I did, and you ignored me.

It's a fact that there were species once living on the Earth but do so no longer. The fossil record is clear enough on that point.
It's also a fact that many species now living on the Earth have not always lived on the Earth. The confirmation of that is that new species have been observed to form since humans began to interest themselves in the question. Further confirmation is added by the observation that many living species are absent from the fossil record.
One possible conclusion from those two facts is that life has changed and diversified over time.
What is your argument?

So do you agree with the conclusion that life on Earth has changed and diversified over time?
Do you take exception to either of the two facts which support that conclusion?

 

[Ophiolite]

I would suggest that you take a break from claims that only demonstrate a lack of education and work on the basics first. As I said science is evidence based. To understand the science one must first understand the concept of evidence? Are you ready to learn? It really does not take very long to do so.

I suspect you have, like me, little hope of Kenny replying positively to your offer, but are writing more for the undecided, but interested bystander. For that person here is a list I prepared some years ago for another forum of what evidence is not and, briefly, what it is.

Evidence is not a belief.
Evidence is not a desire.
Evidence is not an opinion.
Evidence is not dogma.
Evidence is not an anecdote.
Evidence is not a suspicion.
Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.
Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.
Evidence is not an idea.
Evidence is not what someone told you in a pub.
Evidence is not a You-Tube video.
Evidence is not a majority opinion.
Evidence is not a minority opinion.

Evidence is a quantifiable, verifiable, validated observation, or suite of observations.

 

[pitabread]

A lot of "evolution is a fact" talk, yet, no one will put it all on the table for discussion...wonder why that is?

People have. You ignore it.

You're just looking for attention.

 

[Ophiolite]

People have. You ignore it.

You're just looking for attention.

Looking for attention and thereby creating a tension.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

Folks, the topic is in the OP. Stick to the topic.

​

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Actually it is since it is by definition "evolution". And why do you think it is inaccurate to compare creationists to Flat Earthers? It is actually quite accurate. Take you for example. You have no idea that science does not work on "proof". It works on evidence.

Almost every time I have a discussion like this we seem to be unable to agree on a definition. Please give me your definitions for speciation, evolution, natural selection in you next post to bring some clarity.
And poorly chosen words are hardly justification for saying someone is ignorant.

And there are mountains of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism.

Elephant Hurling.

And three are also mountains of scientific evidence for a spherical Earth and none for a flat one. So once again, what is the difference?

You do realise someone could easily say 'There are mountains of evidence for a flat earth, and none for a spherical earth' and walk away. They would be wrong, of course (Refuting flat earth - creation.com) but I have no more reason to believe your earlier statement without you providing any evidence than I do for accepting the flat earther's.

I would suggest that you take a break from claims that only demonstrate a lack of education and work on the basics first. As I said science is evidence based. To understand the science one must first understand the concept of evidence? Are you ready to learn? It really does not take very long to do so.

You talk a lot about evidence, but you haven't provided much, if any so far. No evidence for evolution, no evidence for their being no evidence for creation, no evidence for me not understanding evidence (which I do)
Please do so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Almost every time I have a discussion like this we seem to be unable to agree on a definition. Please give me your definitions for speciation, evolution, natural selection in you next post to bring some clarity.

JFYI, neither species nor speciation are well-defined scientific terms, the definition will vary according to the particular field of study, or even individual preference; but the most popular definitions are along the lines that speciation occurs when two or more populations derived from a shared ancestral population can no longer interbreed to produce reproductively viable offspring (or generally do not interbreed given the chance), but there are many variations.

 

[Speedwell]

You talk a lot about evidence, but you haven't provided much, if any so far. No evidence for evolution, no evidence for their being no evidence for creation, no evidence for me not understanding evidence (which I do)
Please do so.

It's a fact that there were species once living on the Earth but do so no longer. The fossil record is clear enough on that point.
It's also a fact that many species now living on the Earth have not always lived on the Earth. The confirmation of that is that new species have been observed to form since humans began to interest themselves in the question. Further confirmation is added by the observation that many living species are absent from the fossil record.
One possible conclusion from those two facts is that life has changed and diversified over time.

So do you agree with the conclusion that life on Earth has changed and diversified over time?
Do you take exception to either of the two facts which support that conclusion?

 

[Kylie]

Almost every time I have a discussion like this we seem to be unable to agree on a definition. Please give me your definitions for speciation, evolution, natural selection in you next post to bring some clarity.

Speciation: a species that has been split into two reproductively isolated populations, and each population evolves in different ways to the point where members from two different groups would not reproduce even if they were brought into contact with each other. For example, if there was a population of spiders, but flooding created a river which thereafter flowed through the middle of their range, dividing them into two different groups, each group would be reproductively isolated. Members of one group would not be able to reach members of the other group and so they couldn't interbreed. Each group would continue evolving in their own way, and would face different pressures. For example, one group might have to face a species of predatory lizard that the other group, protected by the river, did not face. Over time, the two different populations of spider would evolve differences, and many generations later, the differences would mean that a spider from Group A would not mate with a counterpart from Group B, even if a researcher collected specimens from both groups and put them in the same box. They might have evolved physical differences which make them physically incompatible, or they might have evolved different mating behaviour, meaning one spider would simply not see the other as a potential mate.

Evolution: The way animals change over many generations as they face different pressures in their environment. One of the things that causes the change is natural selection, described below. And I cannot emphasize enough, it is a change over many generations. An individual animal will NOT evolve.

Natural selection: Each individual in a population is born with a unique set of traits. It might have slightly better stamina than others in the group, or slightly poorer eyesight. These traits create benefits or disadvantages in the individual. If a benefit means that the animal has a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, the genes that cause this trait have a good chance of being passed to the offspring. This means that the trait will appear in more and more individuals as the offspring grow and have offspring of their own and pass on the genes yet again. However, if a trait causes a disadvantage in an animal, then it might end up meaning the individual is more likely to die before it can reproduce. And so, the genes that cause these disadvantages are much less likely to be passed on, because any animal that has them isn't likely to produce any offspring to pass them on to. So, genes that create advantages are more likely to be selected by the natural pressures to spread throughout the population, and traits that cause disadvantages are more likely to be removed from the population by killing the individuals who have them before they can pass them on.

I think just about anyone who understands these concepts would agree with what I have written here, I hope this clears it up for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Almost every time I have a discussion like this we seem to be unable to agree on a definition. Please give me your definitions for speciation, evolution, natural selection in you next post to bring some clarity.
And poorly chosen words are hardly justification for saying someone is ignorant.

Please, no false accusations. That is not honest. If you do not understand a specific term it is hypocritical to complain when one's ignorance is pointed out. Ask your questions one post at a time. And it is rather odd that you never take me up on your most obvious area of ignorance. Why are you afraid to discuss the concept of evidence?

Elephant Hurling.

Hardly. That is a fact. If you understood the concept of evidence you could not honestly deny that fact. You would have to openly lie to deny the fact that scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. That is why creationism is as big of a joke as the Flat Earth in the scientific community.

You do realise someone could easily say 'There are mountains of evidence for a flat earth, and none for a spherical earth' and walk away. They would be wrong, of course (Refuting flat earth - creation.com) but I have no more reason to believe your earlier statement without you providing any evidence than I do for accepting the flat earther's.

Yes, but I don't walk away. So your point fails. I recognize that those I am speaking to do not even understand the concept of scientific evidence or the scientific method. I offer to go over those ideas so that they can learn to see their own errors. Sadly, creationists as a rule do not want to learn, they only want excuses to believe.

Are you looking for education or excuses?

You talk a lot about evidence, but you haven't provided much, if any so far. No evidence for evolution, no evidence for their being no evidence for creation, no evidence for me not understanding evidence (which I do)
Please do so.

That is because there is no point in providing evidence to someone that does not understand the concept. And no, I am very sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence, especially you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. I do not think that you are a liar, you are only uneducated and presently appear to be afraid to learn.

Once you understand the concept of scientific evidence I will gladly supply you with endless examples.

Here is a question:

Is the observed changes in the fossil record scientific evidence for evolution? Support your answer with reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

JFYI, neither species nor speciation are well-defined scientific terms, the definition will vary according to the particular field of study, or even individual preference; but the most popular definitions are along the lines that speciation occurs when two or more populations derived from a shared ancestral population can no longer interbreed to produce reproductively viable offspring (or generally do not interbreed given the chance), but there are many variations.

One point about the definition of species. It is hard to pin down due to the fact that life is the product of evolution. We can find examples of two different similar populations that fill almost the whole spectrum of being able to interbreed with no problem, to limited interpopulation fertility, to completely inability to interbreed. Where does one draw the line? The theory of evolution predicts this.

Meanwhile if creationism is true then we would see clear cut "kinds". Creationists should be able to tell us a clear test to tell whether two populations are the same kind or not. They cannot seem to do that. I think that they don't because their definitions either fail by being too strict, and the real world does not work that way, or they would have to admit that chimpanzees are the same "kind" as people. And we cannot have that

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have developed what I call "Rule Number One" when it come to creationists. If they repeatedly demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence they can no longer legitimately demand any. They first need to learn the concept. And this is where I run into a wall of denial.

Creationists that obviously do not understand the concept of evidence do not only deny any evidence presented. They refuse to even discuss the topic. It appears that they know that there is evidence against them. Yet they really do not want to lie. Their mind can see the danger to their beliefs so they refuse to even discuss the concept.

 

[pitabread]

One point about the definition of species. It is hard to pin down due to the fact that life is the product of evolution. We can find examples of two different similar populations that fill almost the whole spectrum of being able to interbreed with no problem, to limited interpopulation fertility, to completely inability to interbreed. Where does one draw the line? The theory of evolution predicts this.

Meanwhile if creationism is true then we would see clear cut "kinds". Creationists should be able to tell us a clear test to tell whether two populations are the same kind or not. They cannot seem to do that. I think that they don't because their definitions either fail by being too strict, and the real world does not work that way, or they would have to admit that chimpanzees are the same "kind" as people. And we cannot have that

I've always found it odd when creationists criticize the lack of a clear definition of species. They don't seem to realize that the inability to draw perfect boundaries between populations is an indictment of creationism, not evolution.

Labeling different species is simply for human convenience to make it easier to talk about about biological organisms.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

It's a fact that there were species once living on the Earth but do so no longer. The fossil record is clear enough on that point.
It's also a fact that many species now living on the Earth have not always lived on the Earth. The confirmation of that is that new species have been observed to form since humans began to interest themselves in the question. Further confirmation is added by the observation that many living species are absent from the fossil record.
One possible conclusion from those two facts is that life has changed and diversified over time.

So do you agree with the conclusion that life on Earth has changed and diversified over time?
Do you take exception to either of the two facts which support that conclusion?

I do agree with both of those facts. The Bible does not teach fixity of species.

 

[Speedwell]

I do agree with both of those facts. The Bible does not teach fixity of species.

View attachment 273777

I like that little sketch at the bottom of your post. I think of it as a picture of a tree growing behind a fence, which hides all but the tips of the upper branches.

 

[Kylie]

I do agree with both of those facts. The Bible does not teach fixity of species.

View attachment 273777

Alas, this idea does not fit what we see in reality. Let me show you something...

See the green part on the left? There are two branch tips in that group. We can look at the different species represented by each branch tip and compare them, and we see clear evidence that they shared a common ancestor. And that common ancestor is represented here by the point where the branch actually splits.

And we'd find similar results if we compare the two blue branch tips, or the two purple ones, or the two orange ones.

But the problem is that if we compare the green branch tips to the blue branch tips, we find that they also share indications of a shared common ancestor. However, there is no point at which this ancestor could have lived. This idea is utterly incapable of explaining how there could be any evidence between species from two different colours. According to this idea, such connections can not possibly exist, yet the clear evidence from reality says there must be a connection.

So either this idea is wrong, or reality is wrong.

And I doubt reality is wrong.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Please, no false accusations. That is not honest. If you do not understand a specific term it is hypocritical to complain when one's ignorance is pointed out. Ask your questions one post at a time. And it is rather odd that you never take me up on your most obvious area of ignorance. Why are you afraid to discuss the concept of evidence?



Hardly. That is a fact. If you understood the concept of evidence you could not honestly deny that fact. You would have to openly lie to deny the fact that scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. That is why creationism is as big of a joke as the Flat Earth in the scientific community.



Yes, but I don't walk away. So your point fails. I recognize that those I am speaking to do not even understand the concept of scientific evidence or the scientific method. I offer to go over those ideas so that they can learn to see their own errors. Sadly, creationists as a rule do not want to learn, they only want excuses to believe.

Are you looking for education or excuses?



That is because there is no point in providing evidence to someone that does not understand the concept. And no, I am very sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence, especially you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. I do not think that you are a liar, you are only uneducated and presently appear to be afraid to learn.

Once you understand the concept of scientific evidence I will gladly supply you with endless examples.

Here is a question:

Is the observed changes in the fossil record scientific evidence for evolution? Support your answer with reasons.

What have I said that implied that I don't understand the concept of evidence?
How To Argue On The Internet: A Step-By-Step Guide
The linked satire article above is heavily exaggerated and not meant to attack you, but it has a point. If you want to convince someone of your position, comparing them to an ignorant flat earther doesn't generally do so.
Anyway, observed changes in the fossil record aren't evidence for evolution alone because change over time is part of the Biblical model. The Bible teaches fixity of 'kinds' however we cannot equate that with species. The diagram below is helpful.

 

[Kylie]

@Qwertyui0p you asked earlier for definitions of species and speciation, evolution, and natural selection. I've provided them, in post 351. Did you have some purpose in mind in asking for those definitions? If so, what was it?