Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Speciations"Here is a truncated copy of a list of observed speciations originally posted by Lucaspa:
You asked for examples of speciation and that is what you got. Although speciation supports common descent, the evidence for common descent lies not with speciation occurring today. It lies with the twin (morphology and genetic)-nested hierarchy, the fossil record, embryology, biogeography, etc.I mean no disrespect to anyone in this thread. However, from what I have observed in discussions, such as this thread, it seems that pro-evolutionist want to take examples of speciation and leap to classic macro-evolution – ape begets man. I know I over simplified that, but let me continue. As we move the discussion forward to its conclusion we will get to the beginning of life.
Yes, though that would be abiogenesis, not evolution.What I find troubling with evolution is that, eventually, it requires that non-living chemicals organized themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from some ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the DNA information in living things today.
I understand what you are trying to say. However, I want to keep going further back in time. Keeping with the pro-evolutionist viewpoint, we still have to get to that first something. Who created that first something?
Science does not provide 'definitive proof'. Are you new to this?...I have not seen any definitive proof that humans evolved from some non-human life form
What does "biblically supported position of creation" mean to you? For starters, how old do you think the earth is?... I will continue to defend Biblically supported position of creation.
Never been proven in the lab, so it's called religion.
I dont seriously whether those on either side of the evolution/creation difference of opinion will change their minds. However, I submit this, for consideration, to all those that support evolution aside from a creator.
How does evolution square with DNA? Human cells contain 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. Each pair is responsible for certain activities in the body. Any defect in the chromosome pairs results in irreparable damage. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body has been mathematically determined to be 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, means in practice "zero" probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."
Think about what you are reading in this thread right now. How would you regard someone who claimed that letters have come together by chance on their own to form this writing? It is evident that it was written by an intelligent and conscious person. This is no different from the status of DNA.
From The Miracle of Creation in DNA by Harun Yahya consider this:
To show that this claim [macro-evolution] is unreasonable, let us again compare DNA to a book. We have already mentioned that DNA is made up of letters lined up sideways just as in a book. Mutations are like the letter errors that occur during the type-setting of this book. If you like, we can do an experiment on this subject. Let us ask for a thick book about the history of the world to be type-set. During the type-setting, let us intervene several times and tell the type-setter to press one of the keys blindfolded and at random. Then let us give this text containing letter errors to someone else and have him do the same thing over again. Using this method, let us have the book type-set from the beginning to the end several times, thus having a few more letter errors added to it at random each time...
Could this history book ever develop by this method? For instance, would an additional chapter emerge, named, "The History of Ancient China," when it had previously not been present?
I thought you liked these simple little tests.
Why didn't it work?
Another reference from a bible will be accepted as abdication. Circular logic makes me dizzy.
You have just banned all they have.
I understand what you are trying to say. However, I want to keep going further back in time. Keeping with the pro-evolutionist viewpoint, we still have to get to that first something. Who created that first something?
Who? If we assume it is possible for there to be an eternal and all powerful being or a realm that is more powerful than ours, you can posit and infinite amount of ways to kick the universe off.I understand what you are trying to say. However, I want to keep going further back in time. Keeping with the pro-evolutionist viewpoint, we still have to get to that first something. Who created that first something?
The devil already tried it, and it didn't work -- qv Matthew 4.
I thought you liked these simple little tests.
Why didn't it work?
Another reference from a bible will be accepted as abdication. Circular logic makes me dizzy.
You have just banned all they have.
A response to what? some newbie acting like he knows me?I'm sure AV has a response.
I don't do my 'post count thing' in a closet -- like everything else, I air my laundry right up in the front window; and for the record, your link is invalid.He's just off in the closet doing his post count thing.
No, thanks -- I've got nothing to hide -- do you?We know it feels good, AV, but you really should do those things in private.
I've got more information in my profile than [probably] your longest post.
A response to what? some newbie acting like he knows me?
Was there a valid question I should have responded to?
I don't do my 'post count thing' in a closet -- like everything else, I air my laundry right up in the front window; and for the record, your link is invalid.
No, thanks -- I've got nothing to hide -- do you?
Your profile is certainly lacking information -- mine isn't.
I've got more information in my profile than [probably] your longest post.
And make up my mind, will you?
Should I 'do these things' in private, or not?
It seems you're whining about I posting in a closet, but then you want me to post in private --
Do you speak for everyone here?
We are in a forum that is full of people actively attempting to provide evidential support for their beliefs. I am here to give mine a good shake. Let's test them.
And yet only 1% of your posts have words.
I'll let you shake mine first.Do YOU speak for everyone here?
Well, why don't you tell us your beliefs then and we'll try to help you give them a good shake.
Do you speak for everyone here?
We are in a forum that is full of people actively attempting to provide evidential support for their beliefs. I am here to give mine a good shake. Let's test them.
Of what value is a claim that can't be tested?
None.
You made the claim, not me. I was speaking of you and me. Have you never tried to support your beliefs?Do YOU speak for everyone here?
I believe that the Christian God is a character in a book. Movies, too.Well, why don't you tell us your beliefs then and we'll try to help you give them a good shake.
Can I use that same test regarding unsupported Christian beliefs? Because so far you've rejected it (and failed it) every time.And just because you say that does not make it true. Why don't you try talking about yourself instead of AV.
Let's do a test... I'm going to say exactly what you said about AV and you tell me how true it is.
Here goes...
"And yet only 1% of your posts have words."
Now there you go... just because I posted it does it make it true. I'd say "not." Just like I'd say "not" about yours. What does that tell us??
I'd say it tells us that you made a ridiculous claim about AV's posts.
End of test.
Did I welcome you back to CF?And just because you say that does not make it true. Why don't you try talking about yourself instead of AV.
Let's do a test... I'm going to say exactly what you said about AV and you tell me how true it is.
Here goes...
"And yet only 1% of your posts have words."
Now there you go... just because I posted it does it make it true. I'd say "not." Just like I'd say "not" about yours. What does that tell us??
I'd say it tells us that you made a ridiculous claim about AV's posts.
End of test.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?