Macroevolution:

[DogmaHunter]

Now that I can agree with 100%. IOW, that is why those who believe life came from nothing are never interested in discussing, and providing proof, of how an intelligent being evolved from nothing. They have no answers, only speculation and conjecture, would you agree?

That literally made no sense in context of the quote you are responding to.
It also doesn't help to argue a strawman.

I can accept that, so, what species did the first born come from?

The species of its direct parents.
"being born" kind of implies that you came from parents.

Do you have verifiable evidence for your answer or is it, "not known"?

I have verifiable evidence that newborns are of the same species as their direct parents. No exceptions. It's also by definition of what a species is. It's not an individual. It's a population.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Some unnecessary words but I got the answer, you cannot because there are not any. Have I ever made the assertion that Pluto completes an orbit, if not why would you ask me the question? Is that not rather "bizar"?

I have no doubt that it is...for some folks, especially those who do not want to start, "in the beginning".

Just as I expected, you did not understand the problem with the question.
Let me help you...

The process of speciation, just like the process of Pluto completing an orbit, is a process that takes a certain amount of time to unfold/complete.

A picture, is a still image.

Do I really still need to explain it, why you can't be shown a picture that depicts a process that lasts several dozens/hundreds/thousands/millions of years????

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really, I asked you that? I do not believe I did so can you quote my exact words or the post number where I asked you that?

Sure.

Can anyone provide a link that has an unaltered photograph of a "transitional fossil"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

Although I did make this statement, some posts back. Do you notice that "transitional fossils" were in quotes?

So? Does it mean something else then transitional fossil if you enclose it in quotes?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So there's no changes at the atomic level in evolution?

No, there's no nuclear fusion going on in our bodies, if that's what you are asking.
Honestly, I have no clue what you are asking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He said "1" change, implying a macro change.

No. I just answered your question.

Your question was: Have you counted the number of chemical, biological (even electrical) changes that must occur before an observable change occurs in an organ, tissue, or cell?

A single mutation certainly has the potential to trigger changes in organ, tissue, cell,...

As for a "macro change", that is by definition the result of a set of changes, since macro is the accumulation of micro over the generations.

My contention is that any change requires multiple changes, even into the millions

Which is demonstrably wrong.
You can believe what you want of course.

A modern organism would require trillions of successful changes. The smallest change would need a chain of changes a mile long. I need every one of these changes to be observed and cataloged. As it is evolution is shot through with miraculous changes, like the cartoon portrays.

GIGO: garbarge in, garbage out.

If you are going to approach this with fundamentally flawed ideas on how evolution supposedly works as well as with seriously mistaken concepts on how genetics works, then the only possible conclusion you can draw, is going to be one that is completely opposed to what reality actually is about.

This is why people laugh at creationists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's use the caterpillar/ butterfly process instead.

Not an evolutionary process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Arguing, but not explaining much. He too has directed me to go 'study' evolution.

I'ld advice you to do the same, so that you actually could understand what it is that you are talking about.

The alternative would be to give you a biology course in forum posts - and that's not gonna happen.

Alternatively, you could also not do the effort of studying up on the basics of biology, but then also be honest about it and don't pretend as if you are qualified to argue against it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

not at all. what if you have a big hole in the middle?

what hole?

 

[DogmaHunter]

why not?

Because nested patterns are inneficient in designed product lines.
But inevitable in an evolutionary process.

a car--> a fighter jet--> a space shuttle. very simple. but doesnt prove any evolution.

These things don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not true and that is why I pointed out that the question to you and to DH was not the same. Since many of you make such a big deal about "kind" and "transitionals" etc.. I even provided the biology definition that I am using for DH, something you conveniently ignore, but it seems to matter not. It is nothing more than a diversion tactic, IMO. When I say a different "kind" it is not a huge mystery what I am suggesting but it is an opportunity to throw in semantics to deflect the conversation.

The problem is that you have a seriously warped idea concerning what a transitional fossil actually is.

You are asking for an example of a crockoduck.
Like always with creationists, the type of evidence you demand to support of evolution, would actually falsify evolution if such evidence were ever found.

It just goes to show how little understanding you have of the theory you insist on arguing against.

 

[DogmaHunter]

View attachment 205925

If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?

Left with no proper definition of the word "kind", I (=not a biologist) would automatically interpret the word in such a way that the question actually makes sense.

And then, my answer would be: yes, they are of the same "kind". They are both land animals, vertebrates, build from eukaryote cells, ...

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK, thanks, therefore, it seems to me that asking that would result in most everything being of the same "kind".

Yep. Again, lacking a precise definition of the world in context of biological taxonomy, we are left simply interpreting it in the most sensible fashion.

"kind" is so vague that one could apply it to just about any taxonomical level.
So when you say "things reproduce after their own kind", then you are absolutely correct:
- eukaryotes produce more eukaryotes
- vertebrates produce more vertebrates
- mammals produce more mammals
- ...

Is that not very convenient for those who promote evolution as there is no need to explain how any one entity evolved into a totally different entity because they are all the same?

In biological evolution, things never evolve into something "totally different".
See, this is why I keep repeating that you should really leanr the basics of this subject before insisting on arguing against it.

Evolution, as you currently understand it, indeed does not happen.

With the chicken and horse example, would it be appropriate to ask if they were of the same "species"?

Clearly they aren't the same species.

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK, if I understand you correctly, when I ask if someone can provide evidence of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind", they know very well what I am adking so are just using, "what is your defintion of kind" as a deflection.

No. "Kind" is not proper jargon in context of biological taxonomy.
As said multiple times, when you use that word in such a question, nobody knows what you are talking about.

Therefore, from what you have given, from now on I will ask, can you provide an unaltered image of one species evolving into a different species and that should get a straight answer, correct?

No, a still image can not depict a process that takes a significant amount of time to unfold.

 

[Jimmy D]

We have very different views of the subject Jimmy and the only way that you can convince me that my views are incorrect is to ask me questions that I cannot give plausible, clear, verifiable answers to. OTOH, you cannot convince me that your views are correct unless you can answer every question that I may ask with the same kind of answers.

With that being said, I will enthusiastically engage in a serious discussion with you on the subject if you will agree to that simple request with an honest intent to honor the agreement. What say you?

Your challenge was to present a photo of a transitional fossil I believe (althlough I didn't actually post it in my orignal post), here's one, Orohippus....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Got it, no such thing exists, it is all speculation, thanks

If what you asked for (= basically crockoducks) DID exist, evolution theory would be falsified.

Bottom line, adaptation, which most everyone agrees with but no evolving from one species to a different species, I can agree with that.

Google "observed instances of speciation".

 

[lesliedellow]

Google "observed instances of speciation".

Not likely. It wouldn't tell me what I want to hear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

By golly it seems to me that someone has been blowing smoke. A chicken and a horse are not the same species, they are different.

[Defining a species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.]

Defining a species

Has anyone ever seen a horse breed with a chicken?

Nobody here has ever said that chickens and horses are the same species.
What do you hope to accomplish with such dishonesty?

 

[Jimmy D]

We have very different views of the subject Jimmy and the only way that you can convince me that my views are incorrect is to ask me questions that I cannot give plausible, clear, verifiable answers to. OTOH, you cannot convince me that your views are correct unless you can answer every question that I may ask with the same kind of answers.

With that being said, I will enthusiastically engage in a serious discussion with you on the subject if you will agree to that simple request with an honest intent to honor the agreement. What say you?

I've already attempted to engage you in a serious discussion, you asked for a transitional fossils and I presented some, why not just address what I posted? I'll ask again....How do you explain thousands of fossils, in chronolgical order, that show a clear gradual development from Eohippus to the modern horse?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And I will do that if you can quote me asserting "that Latin evolved into present day French". How absurd can one get?

You are not aware that the roman languages (french, italian, spanish,...) all derive from Latin?

What did they teach you in school, I wonder...

 

[DogmaHunter]

We have very different views of the subject Jimmy and the only way that you can convince me that my views are incorrect is to ask me questions that I cannot give plausible, clear, verifiable answers to. OTOH, you cannot convince me that your views are correct unless you can answer every question that I may ask with the same kind of answers.

The problem is that your questions flow from a seriously flawed idea of how evolution works. Therefor, your questions are irrelevant in context of actual biological evolution.

With that being said, I will enthusiastically engage in a serious discussion with you on the subject if you will agree to that simple request with an honest intent to honor the agreement. What say you?

There is no "serious discussion" possible, as long as you continue to argue against the strawman version of evolution.