If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Phred]

Then, you have no proof either, correct? Or was that your proof?

We have mountains of proof but you're just going to look at a lizard evolving into another species of lizard and you'll say that it's still a lizard. When that population of lizards can no longer interbreed with the original population no, it's speciated. Since any changes that occur within that population can no longer transfer back to the original population they can only get more and more different. But you won't see that. You won't understand that. You will use words like "micro" and "macro" to describe evolution when there is no such thing. They are the same thing. But, again, you want a dog to give birth to a cat and that's your misunderstanding of what evolution SHOULD be. I'm not up for playing with creationist nonsense about how you want the world to be. I'm sorry. So no, I'm not going to research articles and post them and have you dismiss them in favor of the way you want evolution to be.

Until you accept you don't know what evolution is I can't show you what you want.

 

[Phred]

speciation is just variation of the same family. so its not evolution if terms of new kind of creature.

And there's the predicted response.

 

[xianghua]

Say what exactly? That they don't contain evidence for Intelligent Design?

Probably not, I would imagine.



You need to re-read the Berkeley site: An introduction to evolution

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.​

And they include common descent because it is part of modern evolution theory. But only part of it. Evolutionary theory is a broad subject which includes various individual topics.

Again, none of this is up for debate. This is just what it is.



You keep trying to make this argument based on the False Equivalence fallacy. As long as you base your argument on a logical fallacy, it will never be a valid argument.

so again: evolution is true even if the bible is true (according to this definition).

 

[Phred]

speciation is just variation of the same family. so its not evolution if terms of new kind of creature.

So say you have two lizard populations that have speciated. How do changes among one group get back to the original population?

Don't bother. They can't. The two populations can only get more different. This creationist nonsense that these are variation in the same family is cute but frankly, ignorant. Once they have speciated they cannot pass information back and forth and thus are forever destined to become more and more different. Because change is inevitable. One group will go one way, one will go another. They are no longer the same family.

You want a dog to give birth to cat. What you want can't happen.

 

[xianghua]

And there's the predicted response.

So say you have two lizard populations that have speciated. How do changes among one group get back to the original population?

Don't bother. They can't. The two populations can only get more different. This creationist nonsense that these are variation in the same family is cute but frankly, ignorant. Once they have speciated they cannot pass information back and forth and thus are forever destined to become more and more different. Because change is inevitable. One group will go one way, one will go another. They are no longer the same family.

You want a dog to give birth to cat. What you want can't happen.

. think about this analogy: lets say that we will have a self replicating car with dna. do you think that such a car will evolve into a submarine after millions of years? if not, a fish will not evolve into human by millions of years too.

 

[Phred]

. think about this analogy: lets say that we will have a self replicating car with dna. do you think that such a car will evolve into a submarine after millions of years? if not, a fish will not evolve into human by millions of years too.

Already happened. Whales.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Until you accept you don't know what evolution is I can't show you what you want.

LOL...classic.

This stuff just keeps getting better, and is always followed by no proof whatsoever.

We have mountains of proof but you're just going to look at a lizard evolving into another species of lizard and you'll say that it's still a lizard.

No, actually, I'll say "Where can I "look" at that?

 

[Phred]

LOL...classic.

This stuff just keeps getting better, and is always followed by no proof whatsoever.



No, actually, I'll say "Where can I "look" at that?

Speciation

 

[Speedwell]

LOL...classic.

This stuff just keeps getting better, and is always followed by no proof whatsoever.

What good will "proof" do you if you don't know what is being claimed?

 

[Kenny'sID]

We have mountains of proof but you're just going to look at a lizard evolving into another species of lizard and you'll say that it's still a lizard.

Speciation

Is that proof of evolution?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What good will "proof" do you if you don't know what is being claimed?

Back up the accusation.

 

[Speedwell]

Back up the accusation.

Aren't you the one who is arguing over on P&LS right now that the theory of evolution claims we evolved from a monkey?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Aren't you the one who is arguing over on P&LS right now that the theory of evolution claims we evolved from a monkey?

Just back up the accusation please.

 

[Speedwell]

Just back up the accusation please.

I just did. The theory of evolution does not claim that we evolved from a monkey. What you are saying about the claims of evolutionary theory is incorrect. You demand "proof" for something the theory of evolution doesn't claim and then sneer because it is not forthcoming. Over and over and over...

 

[pitabread]

so again: evolution is true even if the bible is true (according to this definition).

The theory of evolution describes an observable process, and that observable process will always be "true" in the sense that it's just something that exists. To deny it would be to deny observable reality.

It's also worth noting that modern Young Earth Creationists not only require evolution to be true, but require it to happen extremely rapidly to get all modern species from pairs of ancestors from Noah's Ark. In fact they require it to be far more rapid in fact than is normally observed in nature.

In effect, Young Earth creationists are hyper-evolutionists.

 

[pitabread]

I just did. The theory of evolution does not claim that we evolved from a monkey. What you are saying about the claims of evolutionary theory is incorrect. You demand "proof" for something the theory of evolution doesn't claim and then sneer because it is not forthcoming. Over and over and over...

This is the brick wall of creationists. Creationists keep demanding evidence or proof or whatever, but they have no idea what they are demanding evidence or proof of.

In order to understand what constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution, one must first understand what the theory of evolution says. And good luck finding a creationist that can demonstrate that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I just did. The theory of evolution does not claim that we evolved from a monkey. What you are saying about the claims of evolutionary theory is incorrect. You demand "proof" for something the theory of evolution doesn't claim and then sneer because it is not forthcoming. Over and over and over...

No, you did not.

You've taken two threads, tried unsuccessfully to confuse some issues, and accuse me of saying things I didn't say, all in your desperation to find some type of fault with me, because none of you can prove your evolution.

The twist, how does my saying people claim we came from a monkey equate to what you claim? It does not and you waste yet more of my time with your inaccurate accusations.

I have plenty of shortcomings, but back to topic, can you prove evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

The twist, how does my saying people claim we came from a monkey equate to what you claim? It does not and you waste yet more of my time with your inaccurate accusations.

Very clever. But since it is only creationists who say that evolution claims we evolved from a monkey, what else could your point have been?

...can you prove evolution?

LOL! I can't prove that we evolved from a monkey.

But what part of evolution do you want proved?

The fact of evolution itself (as we discussed earlier)
The production and heritability of randomly distributed variation
The action of natural selection
Speciation and the inference of common ancestry
What else?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Very clever. But since it is only creationists who say that evolution claims we evolved from a monkey, what else could your point have been?

Seemed clear enough to most.

But what part of evolution do you want proved?

What part of "prove evolution" was not clear?

All of it, beginning to date, as in, well...prove evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Seemed clear enough to most.



What part of "prove evolution" was not clear?

All of it, beginning to date, as in, well...prove evolution.

All right. Let's start with the first point: Do you believe that life has diversified since it began? Do you accept that there are more species alive now than "in the beginning" whenever that was?