Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Isaiah60]

Spontaneous generation has never been the backbone of biological evolution. How much of the professional literature have you read in evolutionary biology? It better be a lot more than "zero" if you're lecturing biologists about what's central to their own field.

I see you live in denial. That's fine. Nothing new. Just another atheist denying his own belief system.

 

[sfs]

I see you live in denial. That's fine. Nothing new. Just another atheist denying his own belief system.

A) I'm not an atheist. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make up stories about me.
B) You didn't answer my question. You claim that spontaneous generation is the backbone of biological evolution. You can only know that if you're familiar with the content of the science of biological evolution, which lies in the scientific literature. So please have the integrity to support your own arguments: what fraction of the scientific literature about evolution has anything at all to do with the origin of life?

 

[The Barbarian]

Spontaneous generation has always been the backbone of biological evolution.

Nope. Darwin's five points don't address how living things came to be. In fact, he never even discussed it, until the final sentence of his book. Here it is:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

That's it. Darwin's only comment on how life came to be, was to suggest that God did it. You've been badly misled on this.

I noticed how evolutionists online like to deny this out of embarrassment but its true. Evolution theory has always been about the origin of life.

Nope. As you now realize, that was Darwin's only comment on how life began. Evolutionary theory assumes that life began somehow, and describes how living populations change. Darwin's book was about how new species appear, not how life appeared:

Case and point: "The Origin of Species" from Darwin says it all in the title.

And if I was wrong about what I said here, then why is there debate over this?

Because a lot of creationists have no idea what Darwin actually wrote. So they make up things like that. As I noted earlier, people are usually down on things they aren't up on.

Why do atheist reject God?

I'm guessing it's because they don't believe in God. But you could ask them.

So as you see you are embarrassed to admit that spontaneous generation is the only explanation evos have to explain how the first forms of life arose.

I'm guessing you're embarrassed to learn that Darwin's comment on the origin of life was that God did it. His theory has nothing at all about that. Could I suggest you do a little reading and get up to speed on what he actually said about it?

But Dr.Pasteur proved it could not happen and yet its still being taught under the technical name "abiogenesis" which is the same thing as the generic term "spontaneous generation."

No. Abiogenesis is a theory on the way life began. Spontaneous generation was the belief that complex metazoans could develop in decaying organic material. God isn't neutral on this issue; He says that the Earth brought forth living things. Which is pretty much what abiogenesis says.

As usual, God had it right before we did.

And without spontaneous generation there is not biological evolution.

Wrong again. If God just poofed the first living things into existence,(as Darwin suggested) it wouldn't matter to evolutionary theory at all.

Forget your politics and your Marxism. They aren't part of the theory, either.

 

[Job 33:6]

Spontaneous generation has always been the backbone of biological evolution.

This is just embarrassing. Biological evolution and abiogenesis are completely independent of one another. God could create life, and that life could then evolve, hypothetically. Evolution doesnt depend on the origin of life, its just something that occurs after life already exists.

 

[pat34lee]

Is evolution a fact or theory?

No. Trans-species evolution doesn't really even
qualify as a hypothesis. It's sleight of hand using
adaptation as a grounding point to reality.

Evolution is like, if you take this road and keep
going east for fifteen thousand miles, you get
to a certain destination. The problem is that
the road is only a hundred miles long. There
is no way to get there from here.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. Trans-species evolution doesn't really even
qualify as a hypothesis.

It's been directly observed. Even creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research admit that speciation is a fact.

Evolution is like, if you take this road and keep going east for fifteen thousand miles, you get
to a certain destination. The problem is that the road is only a hundred miles long.

Show us that. Sounds like another creationist fairytale.

 

[Isaiah60]

This is just embarrassing. Biological evolution and abiogenesis are completely independent of one another. God could create life, and that life could then evolve, hypothetically. Evolution doesnt depend on the origin of life, its just something that occurs after life already exists.

Evolutionists due duped you. Both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are interchangeable words that means the exact same thing. Abiogenesis is the technical term while Spontaneous Generation is the generic. Here's the proof:

Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

Definition of ABIOGENESIS

spontaneous generation

abiogenesis

Spontaneous generation definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Abiogenesis definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

the definition of spontaneous generation

the definition of abiogenesis

These dictionaries online say the same thing as your College dictionary offline. They both mean the same thing and both words have been interchangeably used to describe the same thing. Evolution theory was done gone over after Pasteur and Lister destroyed the theory. But evolutionists began to take advantage of ignorance and illiteracy and started using the technical term as to fool people with word play as they always do. Truth is, you cannot graduate medical school without learning about the demise of evolution theory in biology. When science is held accountable, evolution theory is tossed to the wayside like trash. BUT...over in the sociology room evolution theory is taught as fact. When science is not held accountable evolution theory is always true.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists due duped you. Both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are interchangeable words that means the exact same thing. Abiogenesis is the technical term while Spontaneous Generation is the generic. Here's the proof:

All you have to do in your "proof" is to show us that spontaneous generation was part of Darwin's five points in his theory.

Show us that.

If you can't do that, then you're pretty much left with nothing but your imagination.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's weird when people say that. "Evolutionists duped you" or "the scientists are conspiring". It's like, what do you mean? I am the scientist. Do you mean I duped myself and am fooling myself in some sort of a conspiracy I don't know about?

@Isaiah60
It doesn't matter what you think, the simple fact is, biological evolution is something that occurs through descent with modification. You can't have descent with modification if life does not get exist. Darwin's studies were on current day living animals, not on the origins of prokaryotes.

Life could.literally have appeared yesterday, and evolution would still be true, because origins are irrelevant to the question of if today's life forms are evolving.

 

[NobleMouse]

No one here has treated him that way.
No matter how frustrated one gets, that kind of abuse is never a good idea.

What the intent of your or my responses may be; however, does not change how they are received. This is not central to getting at the truth, so we'll move on...

You've never used that sort of language, nor have I. Nor has anyone else in these conversations.

I may not have used this exact language, but we all bring our own "flavor" of sharp or sarcastic responses. I think to a degree we've all convinced ourselves that we're as good at hiding our 'feelings' in responses as we are at detecting it in others'.

It precisely showed what Wise thinks.

But he was honest enough to admit that numerous series of transitional forms (he listed many of them) are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. He merely expressed hope that someday there would be reasonable creationist explanation for them.

So far, he hasn't found the hoped-for explanation. He points out that no amount of evidence would change his personal interpretation of scripture. I find that kind of integrity in a creationist to be commendable.

Of course. He's just honest enough to openly admit that the numerous series of transitional forms are a serious problem for YE creationism, one that remains to be explain by them.

Wise is a young earth creationist, and I don't get the sense he is double-minded on this topic:
Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com
Regardless of what quip or quote can be dug up from the past, a young earth creationist is his position and he does indicate there are scientific reasons for believing a young earth. We're still off course here as far as getting at the truth, so we'll move on...

Barbarian observes:
facts are what make a scientific argument work.

Nope. For example, the oxygen isotope ratios we discussed are not at all influenced by "assumptions." They are measurable, and we can check on estuary-living organisms today to see if they accurately tell us about the fossil. Turns out that they do.

This is verifiably false, right now: Did you see a dinosaur evolve into a bird? Did you see the "wing" structure evolve in life forms when no life form at that time ever had anything like a wing, and later learned to fly? Did you see a land creature start spending more time in the water and then gradually see it lose it's hind legs, develop blubber and a large lung capacity, have it's nostrils move to the top of it's head, etc...? No, no, and no. Hence, there is a degree of assumption being made every single time you say something happened, yet never you never saw it and no human has ever seen it repeated even once.

God says nothing about protons or hemoglobin, either. But both of those are just a real as macroevolution. There are many things that are true, that are not in scripture.

In your example here, biblical creationists do not discount the existence of protons or hemoglobin. Why do you suppose that is? Hint: Where the Bible is silent on a matter, then general revelation through our perception may be true; however, where the Bible is not silent (creation, for example), special revelation (God's word) is always going to be true. Does your version of evolution fit into a 6-day window of time? No. You realize both protons and hemoglobin are verifiable here in the present, can be tested and experimented upon and in case you doubt their existence, you can look at them under a microscope again, repeatedly to your hearts' content. I do not see either as a parallel or analogy with a hypothesized idea that requires billions of years, has never been seen, and cannot be repeated.

I believe that many people are rational enough to consider evidence. Gallup seems to support this, since there's a gradual increase in the number of people in America who accept evolution.

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
38% of Americans support a creationist view of human origins.
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

You can believe people are rational, but so far the only observable conclusion throughout history is that people are easily deceived. You're familiar with Adam and Eve, and their descendants (ie. everyone), yes? To have any sense of truth, there is really only one source and He has already told us how creation took place.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution has been observed directly, but it does not depend on any particular age of the Earth.

This isn't controversial. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the the evolution of new taxa, such as species, genera, etc. Even most creationists now admit it's a fact.

The first directly noted example was O. gigas from O. lamarkana, by a poloyploidy event.

I was able to find some information on Ortalotrypeta Gigas, but not Ortalotrypeta Lamarkana... so I cannot really comment other than I'll bet the resulting fly came from... a fly (not a spider, not a fish, not a lizard).

I mean that the number could be billions of years off, and evolution wouldn't be affected.

Kelvin thought that it could be as young as 10 million years. Darwin showed that it couldn't be that young, based on the diversity of living things. Much later, Darwin won the argument when radioactivity was discovered, invalidating Kelvin's calculations.

Thank you for clarifying a little. So you still assert very long periods of time are needed for evolution, correct?

Anyone familiar with Christian theology would know that. St. Augustine, for example. He is highly regarded by all three major branches of Christianity, and he showed that it was impossible to interpret the "yom" of Genesis as literal days, since it was absurd to claim mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

And when he published, not one other theologian argued against him. For good reason; he was the foremost Christian theologian of his time, and remains one of the greatest theologians of our faith.

Still no scriptural support - nothing from Genesis, nothing from the NT, or anything Jesus said? Still, thank you for citing Augustine's opinion as the basis for your interpretation.

No, that's wrong. I don't use that kind of abuse on others.

You may have misunderstood me - I'm not saying you use the exact same language as in the responses you get back. You will disagree (saying "Nope, that's wrong.") and give a response with no substantive support. What many will do is say to themselves, "well, this guy is just arguing to argue and will dogmatically refuse to admit he is wrong even when it is as plain as day that he is", and so sharp/sarcastic responses are fired back in return.

I think there were always people who adjusted it to a literal history. They just weren't very well accepted. Even today, most of the world's Christians accept it as written; a figurative account.

I don't see how scripture mentioning a parable, would convert it to a literal history. Since (as Augustine pointed out) God resting was a symbolic passage, observing a day of rest would be in accord with His word.

If you revise it to make it a literal history. But that's not what it is, as early Christians like St. Augustine showed. He correctly saw it as describing categories of creation, not literal days.

Now we're getting at where things mean something - God's word. Just so you realize, you did not provide a response to how one would recognize and observe the Sabbath under the interpretation that days are figurative. All 10 commandments require an action or withholding an action... you shall NOT murder, you shall NOT covet, you shall LOVE the Lord your God, you shall HONOR your mother and father, you shall OBSERVE the Sabbath, etc....

So, I'll ask again, how does one observe the Sabbath under the view that days are figurative? When is this Sabbath?

Not a physical image. As Jesus says, God is a spirit, and He says a spirit has no body. In Genesis, God says that man is like Him, in knowing good and evil, and in being a living soul.

To clarify, I didn't say physical image. As far as image goes, all I mentioned was Adam was made of the dust of the ground (not the beasts of the field).

I'm pretty much in accord with the Modern Synthesis, including neutralist ideas and punctuated equilibrium. The earliest organisms are over a billion years old. And the evidence shows that all living things we have found so far, have a common ancestor.

If you'd like some elaboration on any of this, start a new thread and we'll go deeper into it.

Thank you this is fine, and does help - appreciated.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Evolution (meaning macroevolution, meaning common descent) is a fact. Shall we we test which of us understands science better? There are objective measures available.

Baloney. There is not a shred of evidence for macroevolution, except in the minds of the highly imaginative. Macroevolution has never occurred, and never will.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

It's weird when people say that. "Evolutionists duped you" or "the scientists are conspiring". It's like, what do you mean? I am the scientist. Do you mean I duped myself and am fooling myself in some sort of a conspiracy I don't know about?

I suspect you have been duped.

@Isaiah60
It doesn't matter what you think, the simple fact is, biological evolution is something that occurs through descent with modification. You can't have descent with modification if life does not get exist. Darwin's studies were on current day living animals, not on the origins of prokaryotes.

Life could.literally have appeared yesterday, and evolution would still be true, because origins are irrelevant to the question of if today's life forms are evolving.

There is no evidence of macroevolution.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No one here has treated him that way.
No matter how frustrated one gets, that kind of abuse is never a good idea.

What the intent of your or my responses may be; however, does not change how they are received.

How one takes discourse is one's responsibility. However, there are things that are clearly rude or abusive, and those reflect on the one saying them.

I may not have used this exact language, but we all bring our own "flavor" of sharp or sarcastic responses.

None of us have been as abusive as this fellow.

Barbarian observes:
But Wise was honest enough to admit that numerous series of transitional forms (he listed many of them) are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. He merely expressed hope that someday there would be reasonable creationist explanation for them.

So far, he hasn't found the hoped-for explanation. He points out that no amount of evidence would change his personal interpretation of scripture. I find that kind of integrity in a creationist to be commendable.

He's just honest enough to openly admit that the numerous series of transitional forms are a serious problem for YE creationism, one that remains to be explain by them.

Wise is a young earth creationist, and I don't get the sense he is double-minded on this topic

He's not. He firmly believes that YE creationism is the truth. He's just honest enough to admit that those dozens of series of transitionals are "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

Regardless of what quip or quote can be dug up from the past,

This was a paper written for a creationist journal. He has never recanted a word of it. He's honest enough to face the facts, even if he admits that the facts won't sway his beliefs.

Barbarian observes:
facts are what make a scientific argument work.

For example, the oxygen isotope ratios we discussed are not at all influenced by "assumptions." They are measurable, and we can check on estuary-living organisms today to see if they accurately tell us about the fossil. Turns out that they do.

This is verifiably false,

As you see, it's verifiably true. Oxygen isotope ratios can tell you if a fossil whale lived mostly in fresh-water, salt-water, or estuaries. No point in denying the fact. As you see, we can check that by looking at those ratios in living things.

right now: Did you see a dinosaur evolve into a bird? Did you see the "wing" structure evolve in life forms when no life form at that time ever had anything like a wing, and later learned to fly? Did you see a land creature start spending more time in the water and then gradually see it lose it's hind legs, develop blubber and a large lung capacity, have it's nostrils move to the top of it's head, etc...?

Sorry, I don't buy the story that "if you didn't see it happen, you can't know anything about it." As Wise says, we have "strong evidence" for all of that. And he only mentioned one source of evidence among many. Would you like to learn about other evidence?

Does your version of evolution fit into a 6-day window of time? No.

Neither does the creation story in Genesis. If you let the text interpret itself, you see that it's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings before there was as sun to have them.

You realize both protons and hemoglobin are verifiable here in the present, can be tested and experimented upon and in case you doubt their existence, you can look at them under a microscope again, repeatedly to your hearts' content.

So is evolution. It's directly observed. Macroevolutionary events have been documented as well.

In your example here, biblical creationists do not discount the existence of protons or hemoglobin. Why do you suppose that is?

Because those things usually don't cause problems for their new interpretation of Genesis. Usually. However, sometimes they do. For example, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex fossil. When checked it was closest to that of a bird, rather than like that of other repties. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. It's just that most creationists are unfamiliar with the details.

You can believe people are rational,

Except when they have a religious or emotional bias. Wise is just honest about his; most creationists have a hard time facing the fact.

I was able to find some information on Ortalotrypeta Gigas, but not Ortalotrypeta Lamarkana...

Oenothera gigas.

so I cannot really comment other than I'll bet the resulting fly came from... a fly (not a spider, not a fish, not a lizard).

If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. But saying "it's still just a fly" would be like saying the evolution of humans from Australopithecines wouldn't be evolution. Just a hominin giving rise to another hominin. Rock and a hard place for creastionists.

Barbarian obeserves:
I mean that the number could be billions of years off, and evolution wouldn't be affected.

Kelvin thought that it could be as young as 10 million years. Darwin showed that it couldn't be that young, based on the diversity of living things. Much later, Darwin won the argument when radioactivity was discovered, invalidating Kelvin's calculations.

Thank you for clarifying a little. So you still assert very long periods of time are needed for evolution, correct?

For common descent of all organisms. Evolution is observed daily. Darwin's theory explained why the family tree of living things, discovered by Linnaeus, looks like a family tree. Because it is. Knowing this, Darwin pointed out that Kelvin's claim had to be wrong. Later on, other evidence confirmed Darwin's prediction.

Still no scriptural support - nothing from Genesis, nothing from the NT, or anything Jesus said?

Genesis neither confirms nor denies evolution and most forms of creationism. It only denies YE creationism, and there are now some YE creationists who don't believe in life ex nihilo.

Still, thank you for citing Augustine's opinion as the basis for your interpretation.

Given his love of God and his scholarship, much more credible than the opinion of people who invented YE creationism.

You may have misunderstood me - I'm not saying you use the exact same language as in the responses you get back. You will disagree (saying "Nope, that's wrong.") and give a response with no substantive support.

Notice that I've lavishly cited literature, facts, and cases. And I've frequently offered to provide more information if anyone desires. So there is that.

On the other hand, a certain person posting here will simply say "baloney", with no support or citations at all. It's not surprising that many have concluded, "well, this guy is just arguing to argue and will dogmatically refuse to admit he is wrong even when it is as plain as day that he is."

Barbarian observes:
I think there were always people who adjusted it to a literal history. They just weren't very well accepted. Even today, most of the world's Christians accept it as written; a figurative account.

I don't see how scripture mentioning a parable, would convert it to a literal history. Since (as Augustine pointed out) God resting was a symbolic passage, observing a day of rest would be in accord with His word.

If you revise it to make it a literal history. But that's not what it is, as early Christians like St. Augustine showed. He correctly saw it as describing categories of creation, not literal days.

Now we're getting at where things mean something - God's word. Just so you realize, you did not provide a response to how one would recognize and observe the Sabbath under the interpretation that days are figurative.

That shouldn't be difficult for a Christian. Suppose Jesus made up a parable about a hated Samaritan having mercy on a Jewish traveler, saving him and paying for his care. How would one recognize and observe charity under the interpretation that this was a parable, not an actual even?

When you know that, you'll have your answer.

To clarify, I didn't say physical image. As far as image goes, all I mentioned was Adam was made of the dust of the ground (not the beasts of the field).

Hm...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no evidence of macroevolution.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The tables and photos don't match his claims. For example, the chart showing repose of dunes indicates much steeper slopes than he claims.

Nonsense.

Contary to his claims, dolomite does not form in floods, but from alteration of rocks by magnesium-rich groundwater.

Says who?

And so on. Why Whitmore missed these things is difficult to understand. Even a first-year geology student would know that dolomite would not be the result of a flood.

He didn't miss anything. I don't understand why you cannot understand his plain language is difficult to understand. Perhaps you do not want to understand.

How do you think dolomite forms? Certainly you do not believe the scam that the layers formed over millions of years, do you?

Barbarian suggests:
The "blah,blah,blah", "baloney", and the like really hurt your credibility. I think you can do better.

Not nearly as much as your "Barbarian this and that" silliness.

Your choice. You just make it easier for me.

You really should study the Bible, instead of parroting false doctrine.

So does God. It appears you worship the creation more than the creator. Hence "creationist."

More false doctrine. God did not say the earth brought forth all living things. God said HE made all things, not "Mother Earth", as atheist dogma dictates:

"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." -- Gen 2:3 KJV​

"Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding." -- Isa 40:28 KJV​

"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." -- Isa 45:12 KJV​

"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?" -- Mal 2:10 KJV​

"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" -- Eph 3:9 KJV

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" -- Col 1:16 KJV

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." -- Rev 4:11 KJV
​

Just so there would be no misunderstanding, God specifically stated he made these creatures, as well as man:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:21 KJV

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:25 KJV

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:27 KJV​

You are a false teacher, Barbie.

Barbarian notes the abundant evidence that Darwin was correct about stasis: Wrong again. For example, the effect Darwin predicted is the basis of the Hardy-Weinberg principal. It predicts, given the allele frequencies of an existing population, the allele frequencies in the next generation, if there is no selective pressure. If the other conditions hold, and the allele frequency is different than the predicted frequency, it indicates selection working on the genome. Would you like to learn about that?
Yes, it turns out Darwin's theory was the way to demonstrate selective pressure. A deviation from the Hardy-Weinbert predictions is evidence of selective pressure.

On the other hand, creationists merely claim,without evidence that such selection can't exist.

There is no evidence of common descent, nor macroevolution, without which evolutionism is little more than a religious cult. In other words, evolutionism is a religious cult.

Sorry, not in science.

Like I said, evolutionism is not science, but a religious cult.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise listed over a dozen series of them. Not a dozen transitionals, a dozen series showing many transitionals. No point in denying the fact.

(Barbarian suggests that facts would be better than faith for science)

You still quoting that old 1995 paper, Barbie? Shame on you for misleading everyone:

"All examples of evolutionary links that have ever been claimed, such as australopithecines (between tree-dwelling apes and earth-dwelling humans), archaeocetes (between quadrupeds and modern whales), mammal-like reptiles (between reptiles and mammals), Archaeopteryx (between reptiles and birds), and Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (between fish and amphibians) are, in fact, mosaics, not links." [Kurt P. Wise, "Mystifying Mosaics." Answers in Genesis, 2008] ​

That's good enough for creationism,but not good enough for science. As they say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." When Gish was talking about the lack of transitional whales, he thought he was secure, but a few years later, all sorts of them were found.

Gish is secure in the Lord's heavenly kingdom, Barbie; and his reputation on earth will forever be secure. No whale transitional fossils have been found, nor will they ever be found. A few have been imagined (or faked): most, if not all, by the Gringrich Novelty Company; but none have been found, nor will they ever be found:

Whale evolution fraud - creation.com​

The unlearned may not realize how impossible it is for a land animal to magically turn into an air-breathing, deep diving sea creature. Dr. David Berlinski, post doctoral fellow in Math and Molecular Biology from Columbia University, explained some of the complexities, here:

Barbarian observes: Yep. For example, the evolution of a new enzyme system in Hall's bacteria. The evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of lizards. The evolution of a gene that provides immunity to bubonic plague. Lots of others.

Where is the macroevolution? There is none.

Sorry, no bunny trails today. Your assertion is demonstrably false. (Suggests that evolution is a dog becoming a cat) Barbarian chuckles: Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. I'm wondering if understand Darwin's basic points.

There is as much chance of a dog becoming a cat, a fruit fly becoming a butterfly, a rodhocetus becoming a whale, or a chimpanzee becoming a human. In each case the probability is ZERO!

No, that was discovered long before Darwin. Linnaeus was the first to discover it, but didn't have an explanation why it looks like a family tree. Later on, all sorts of evidence such as genetics, transitionals,etc. showed that it looks like a family tree because it is a family tree.

No, Barbie. Current research shows a bush (or a forest), not a single tree, exactly like is is written in God's creation story. In the following video, biogenetist and evolutionist Dr. J. Craig Venter schooled atheist Richard Dawkins on the fictional evolutionary icon called the "tree of life", by labeling it appropriately as a "bush of life" (Venter's conversation begins at the 7:48 mark):

Notice Dawkins' astonishment that Venter would question the existence of the cherished "tree of life" icon. Listen until 11:50 for the complete segment. It ends on a very funny and revealing note.

If you don't even understand the basic points of Darwin's theory, isn't that an important thing for you to consider?

I understand the basic points of Darwin's theory of magic, which is, all living creatures magically evolved from a glob of protoplasm, which magically appeared from inorganic chemicals, which magically appeared out of nothing.

As Stephen Gould points out (and Kurt Wise confirms) transitional forms are all mosaics. A designer might produce a smooth transition of all characters at once, but evolution works in stepwise fashion, with some things changing before others. This is why Wise correctly notes that transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution. I imagine the AiG folks didn't realize what he was saying.

Quit dreaming, Barbie. Dr. Wise said those mosaics are NOT links. You would do well to pay attention to this 2017 lecture by Dr. Wise:

I suppose it did. I mentioned this years ago to Jon Sarfati (who was posting on another board edit: under an different name), and he wasn't too happy when he realized what it was.

Why would Dr. Sarfati be unhappy that Dr. Wise said mosaics are NOT links? All creation scientists believe that macroevolution is a myth?

So do all biologists I know about. Smooth alteration of baupläne is a belief of IDers, but I can't think of a single instance in real evolutionary change.

(Barbarian shows that there are many transitionals leading to modern fish, one of which Kurt Wise mentioned as strong evidence)[/QUOTE]

Gibberish.

I'm just showing you that Gish didn't know what he was talking about.

Duane Gish was not fooled by the evolutionism cult.

All those transitional forms to fish. Exactly what Gish claimed did not exist. He had no idea. We see all sorts of transitional forms leading to fish. Would you like me to show you again?

There are no transitional forms, Barbie, except in the minds of the highly imaginative.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This is just embarrassing. Biological evolution and abiogenesis are completely independent of one another. God could create life, and that life could then evolve, hypothetically. Evolution doesnt depend on the origin of life, its just something that occurs after life already exists.

That is called "Theistic Evolution", which contradicts the Word of God.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

It's been directly observed. Even creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research admit that speciation is a fact.

More bait-and-switch.

Show us that. Sounds like another creationist fairytale.

There are no creationist fairy tales. Evolutionism has claimed them all for itself.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

That is deceptive. Barbie knows that was from an old 1995 paper by Kurt Wise before he had properly researched the issue. Now Dr. Wise is convinced that there are no macroevolutionary links. The handful that appear to be links are merely stand-alone Mosaics!

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

And many many more!

 

[Job 33:6]

That is called "Theistic Evolution", which contradicts the Word of God.

Dan

Hypothetically, God could create life and it could evolve. This is a factual statement that is independent of the question of how life began.

The other young earther believes that the theory of evolution depends on an abiogenic origin of life which simply isn't true, as they are two independent lines of research.

Do you think that the theory of evolution depends upon an abiogenic formation of life?

If you think so, then you're wrong.