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.
YEA!
Someone with a brain.
Are you saying mankind observed this change from whatever common ancestor to dogs and cats, or is this completely hypothetical?
Too bad that's a fallacy on your part (straw man), because nowhere in the Theory of Evolution does it show dogs evolve into cats or vice versa. It shows they share a common ancestor. There's a difference.
I also like how you don't even know that you were just being made fun of in the post you quoted.
Originally Posted by Cabal http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-post56131186/#post56131186
Oh sure. I just wanted to see them dance around the issue. They've already been told that evolution works by speciation as listed, if they want to resort to anything else, it's a strawman.
Yes, but speciation does not change one species to a completely different species.
That is why I have given you the chance to give 1 observed example, otherwise, it has never been observed to happen, and is a complete hypothesis, right?
Originally Posted by Freodin http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-post56130977/#post56130977
Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?
YEA!
Someone with a brain.
There is however, the fossil record, which is in every way as reliable as forensic science (in fact, it's nearly the same thing), which shows gradual transitions from as far back as Maelestes Gobiensis, a common ancestor to most (if not all) placental mammals on earth today.
Originally Posted by Delphiki http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131986
There is however, the fossil record, which is in every way as reliable as forensic science (in fact, it's nearly the same thing), which shows gradual transitions from as far back as Maelestes Gobiensis, a common ancestor to most (if not all) placental mammals on earth today.
And this forensic science you speak of, is it the same system that dated a living snail to be 27,000 years old?
Actually, it would be more an ad hominem... LOL
CAN'T YOU GET ANYTHING RIGHT!!!?!!! LOL My goodness...
Fine, the total common ancestor would be the first Macro-Micro-Organism, that eventually became EVERYTHING.
Has anyone observed a Macro-Micro-Organism become anything other than a Macro-Micro-Organism?
And if I am being made fun of, I hardly believe you would be the person to catch it.
[/color]Yes it does. When a section of species A can no longer reproduce with the rest, it has become a new species, species B. The process that generates species B is speciation.
He gave you a whole list.
You do realise that cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, right? Thats why we dont ever see it its impossible.
Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131993
[/COLOR]Yes it does. When a section of species A can no longer reproduce with the rest, it has become a new species, species B. The process that generates species B is speciation.
So if a person can not reproduce, they are a different species. Hmmmm Sounds like equivocation to me. I asked for one species to a completely different species. Evolution starts with a macro-micro-organism that became everything. Obviously we are very different than a macro-micro-organism. So i ask for one, just 1, observed instance of this type of change.
Originally Posted by
Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131993
He gave you a whole list.
argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131993
You do realise that cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, right? That’s why we don’t ever see it – it’s impossible.
I am not out to falsify evolution, condemn, or prove, I ask for 1 observed instance where one species became a completely different species. So far, only one person has had the intelligence to understand what is asked. You reverted to equivocation.
Uhh. That's kind of what ad hominem is, champ.
YEA! You got one right, I'm proud of you.
Wait, wait.. Are you saying you actually accept that there is evidence for a common mammalian ancestor now and are just moving the goal post further back in time? Please tell me this is so. Because if it is, then I've finally accomplished part of my purpose for being on this forum.
Sadly, it is often Creationists who have to teach evolution to those who claim to support it. Like when you didn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis for example.
As I stated, and this group seems to want me to debate about, is that we do not empirically know, and evolution should be taught for what it is, a hypothesis, and not for what it is NOT, a Theory.
Throughout my posts I have asked for 1 instance of one species being observed to evolve into a completely different species. Now this HAS to happen in the hypothesis, otherwise, there would be only one species of life. I ask for one observed instance of this fully happening...
and every fallacy in the book has been thrown at me.
I have studied the equivocation fallacies of 'speciation', fruit flies that prefer no light, birds reproducing until they can not reproduce with the first type. What people do not get is you still have a fruit fly and you still have a bird, AND the process can be reversed and brought back to the original place. None of these qualify for what evolution teaches as complete changes of species.
I know there are none, but if you want to keep making yourselves look like idiots, continue.
Did you miss the part where I did catch it and you didn't?
It is only a 'catch' if I didn't understand the concept. Sadly, it took that post for you to catch up.
Now is evolution a hypothesis?
[/color]Nope, because proper scientists are not foolish enough to make mistakes like radiometrically dating a living creature. If you understood anything about carbon dating youd know why that wouldnt work.
Yes, but speciation does not change one species to a completely different species.
That is why I have given you the chance to give 1 observed example, otherwise, it has never been observed to happen, and is a complete hypothesis, right?
[/color]I note youve neatly stripped out my suggestion to ignore all the examples except the top one. That would meet your request. Why wont you address that one example?
argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
So if a person can not reproduce, they are a different species. Hmmmm Sounds like equivocation to me.
I asked for one species to a completely different species. Evolution starts with a macro-micro-organism that became everything. Obviously we are very different than a macro-micro-organism. So i ask for one, just 1, observed instance of this type of change.
argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
I am not out to falsify evolution, condemn, or prove, I ask for 1 observed instance where one species became a completely different species. So far, only one person has had the intelligence to understand what is asked. You reverted to equivocation.
I don't have to know anything about carbon dating to know the snail is not 27,000 years old.
But it has been done.
The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.
Uh, yes - it does.
It has been observed, which means evolution is a theory, as evolution is based on facts.
Um, no it doesn't.
You take a bird, reproduce with a different type, keep the process going until you have a type that can not reproduce with the first type of bird...
BUT YOU STILL HAVE A BIRD!
And you can reverse the process.
Major FAIL on your part.
You can not provide 1 observed example, yet you claim you have.
THAT is what is wrong with Science vs Naturalism. Science would want actual evidence, not a fallacy based version.
1 - Equivocation is apparently not what you think it is.
Maelestes Gobiensis eventually evolved in to both cats and dogs
Oh, you mean like where you asked for an example of speciation, then I provided it, so you changed the subject to "macro-micro-organisms"? Yeah.
I'm telling you that nobody has directly observed one species becoming a completely different species.
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?