One thing never evolves into something else!

[Lilandra]

in the China cabinet shinbits.

Everything in the definition you've given for evolution is true. I completely agree with everything that this definitition says.

Except the part about populations become increasingly more distinct from thier ancestors. We have no organisms that have been studied by man, to become increasingly more distinct from thier predecessors with each generation. At best, some may be able to find a hybrid, or a freak mutation from one generation to another, but never a steady increasing distinction.

On top of which, a steady increase in distinction must be shown in hundreds of different animals, in order to have some basis to say that all creatures have evolved.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Everything in the definition you've given for evolution is true. I completely agree with everything that this definitition says.

Except the part about populations become increasingly more distinct from thier ancestors. We have no organisms that have been studied by man, to become increasingly more distinct from thier predecessors with each generation.

Yes we do. In fact, we have man himself!

At best, some may be able to find a hybrid, or a freak mutation from one generation to another, but never a steady increasing distinction.

How many examples would you like?

On top of which, a steady increase in distinction must be shown in hundreds of different animals, in order to have some basis to say that all creatures have evolved.

We've got that in spades! Seiously! You've no idea the quantity and quality of that which I can show you upon request. And don't be afraid to be specific, because then I can show you exactly what you're looking for.

I can show dozens more examples of this if you like. And if you need to, we can go on to look at hundreds of them, and we can examine them all in meticulous detail to prove the point. But so far its seems you already agree that the definition of evolution is correct, and that isolated populations will inevitably become distinct from each other, and also from their ancestors. We've already personally witnessed this with dogs, cats, cattle, mice, flies, people, fish, and all sorts of other things. Go ahead and challenge me on any of them if you need to.

Now what about the OP of this thread? Was there anything wrong with that?

 

[shinbits]

Yes we do. In fact, we have man himself!

What you've shown in those lovely pictures is varience in the same species, which are humans. What you still have not shown, is that each generation is becoming increasingly varied from ancestors---

Chinese kids are still just as Oriental as their grandparents have been, and thier features are just as Oriental as the first accurate picture of an Oriental person that we have.

The same with every race. Each race is just as much like thier race was, as far back as when humans could first record the specific features of a race. There are of course, people who are bi-racial and such, but that is not in anway evolution, just mixing.

Each generation of children is not becoming more distinct then thier parents.

 

[shinbits]

Do you need to be spoon-fed this stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolites

For starters. Use the search engine at www.google.com for more. All you need to do is go to that site and type in key search words like "stromatolites" or "Precambrian fossils" or the like and hit "Google search." You will then be given a list of websites that contain the relevant information you are searching for.

If it is that easy to come up for evidence of what you guys claim, then just post it yourself.

 

[Aron-Ra]

What you've shown in those lovely pictures is varience in the same species, which are humans.

Read the definition again.

Biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphology, physiology or development, -which (compiled over successive generations) can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Did you see the word, "species" in there?

What you still have not shown, is that each generation is becoming increasingly varied from ancestors---

So you're saying that even though all these people look different from each other, they don't look different from their furthest ancestors? How is that possible?

Chinese kids are still just as Oriental as their grandparents have been, and thier features are just as Oriental as the first accurate picture of an Oriental person that we have.

The same with every race. Each race is just as much like thier race was, as far back as when humans could first record the specific features of a race. There are of course, people who are bi-racial and such, but that is not in anway evolution, just mixing.

Each generation of children is not becoming more distinct then thier parents.

Ohhhh kay! You actually believe that each "race" of people was created separately?!

Do your views represent those of any other Christians? Any particular denomination I should be scared of?

 

[Dr.GH]

Yes we do. In fact, we have man himself!

Those are all cute kids, but the phenotipic variation in humans is vanishingly small over large samples. One can take a small sample from limited geographic areas and generate "races." But these categories are more apparent than real.

Best to stick with real species rather than politically motivated "races."

PS: Yeah I see the direction you are going- still, better to stick wwith species and not the more subtle sub-species, and minor races/variaties.

 

[Mallon]

Each generation of children is not becoming more distinct then thier parents.

So, then, you do not believe that all races are descended from Adam and Eve, correct? You are obviously insisting that this is not the case.

 

[shinbits]

Read the definition again.

Biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphology, physiology or development, -which (compiled over successive generations) can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Did you see the word, "species" in there?

You're leaving out that this must be done over from one generation to the next. As I've said, there is nothing indicating that humans are getting more and more varied from thier ancestors with each generation.

So you're saying that even though all these people look different from each other, they don't look different from their furthest ancestors? How is that possible?

The earliest records of how any specific race looks, show that the features are the same.

Ohhhh kay! You actually believe that each "race" of people was created separately?!

Never said or even implied it.

 

[Dr.GH]

This link doesn't even attempt to explain the position you've held, that single-celled organisms were around billions of years ago, and how or why this is believed.

Wrong! You can't be this clueless and type, so I amend my statement: You are either insane or a liar.

 

[shinbits]

So, then, you do not believe that all races are descended from Adam and Eve, correct? You are obviously insisting that this is not the case.

As I've explained, what I do not believe is distinction to the point of being an entirely different creature from our ancestors.

Adam and Eve were humans, not apes, not hairy creatures. Though we are varied from Adam and Eve, we are still just as human as them in every physical trait. We are no more and no less human then them.

 

[shinbits]

Wrong! You can't be this clueless and type, so I amend my statement: You are either insane or a liar.

Then copy and paste, then post it. Show where it says how we know that microbes are the first organisms and that they lived billions of years ago.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Those are all cute kids, but the phenotipic variation in humans is vanishingly small over large samples. One can take a small sample from limited geographic areas and generate "races." But these categories are more apparent than real.

Best to stick with real species rather than politically motivated "races."

PS: Yeah I see the direction you are going- still, better to stick wwith species and not the more subtle sub-species, and minor races/variaties.

I like to show how subtle evolution can be, that it doesn't just apply to species-level variation (which he implied) but can start off as a simple deme or even a peculiar family trait.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Read the definition again.

Biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphology, physiology or development, -which (compiled over successive generations) can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Did you see the word, "species" in there?

You're leaving out that this must be done over from one generation to the next. As I've said, there is nothing indicating that humans are getting more and more varied from thier ancestors with each generation.

Excuse me, but the definition says "compiled over successive generations" not "with each generation", and the clarifier to that is the subsequent word, "eventually", which means it doesn't involve every generation. Nor could it according to population mechanics. You know, you really should try to have at least some idea what you're talking about before you start acting like you trump one of the more complex sciences. Maybe all those Nobel laureates and doctoral specialists in their fields know something about this that you don't yet, hmm?

The earliest records of how any specific race looks, show that the features are the same.

That will be an important point to remember if we start talking about the flood, and how everyone of every race is supposed to be descended from three Semetic brothers in 2900 BCE. That's a neat trick when we already had city-states in Ireland, Africa, China, Japan, India, Egypt, and all around the Mediterranian centuries before that, as well as European, African and Australian tribesmen tens of thousands of years before that.

But baring that in mind, how do you explain these guys?

Ohhhh kay! You actually believe that each "race" of people was created separately?!

Never said or even implied it.

Yes you did. You said, "Chinese kids are still just as Oriental as their grandparents have been, and thier features are just as Oriental as the first accurate picture of an Oriental person that we have.
The same with every race. Each race is just as much like thier race was, as far back as when humans could first record the specific features of a race."

Then you added the clincher statement, "There are of course, people who are bi-racial and such, but that is not in anway evolution, just mixing." You've left no option that these demes could share common ancestry because its just mixing, or hybrids between two kinds of people. Because you say they are distinct, and have always been as they are and that they have not become distinct from their ancestors.

Either these distinct groups did become different from their common ancestor or they didn't have a common ancestor. Which is it?

 

[Dr.GH]

Then copy and paste, then post it. Show where it says how we know that microbes are the first organisms and that they lived billions of years ago.

I gave you a text, and two website URLs. There are many more resources available, but I won't wipe your chin for you. If you refuse to understand that is your problem not mine.

"You can lead a fool to learning, but you can't make him think."

 

[Aron-Ra]

I gave you a text, and two website URLs. There are many more resources available, but I won't wipe your chin for you. If you refuse to understand that is your problem not mine.

I'm curious about this too. I only barely remember something about red Australian reefs and how they were supposed to be the world's biggest fossil of the world's tiniest organisms, and also the oldest, at about two billion years, right? I don't remember any others off-hand.

 

[shinbits]

Either these distinct groups did become different from their common ancestor or they didn't have a common ancestor. Which is it?

They have a common human ancestor. I explained answered that already.

 

[shinbits]

I gave you a text, and two website URLs. There are many more resources available, but I won't wipe your chin for you. If you refuse to understand that is your problem not mine.

You refuse to copy and paste because you have no proof to support what you've said. So you cop out and put people on wild goose chases.

 

[shinbits]

Excuse me, but the definition says "compiled over successive generations" not "with each generation",

I really don't care about micro-evolution. That's not proof that humans came from apes, or were ape-like.

 

[Nooj]

Show where it says how we know that microbes are the first organisms and that they lived billions of years ago.

We know microbes lived billions of years ago because we have found fossils of them. Or rather, the structures they have left behind. Stromatolites (mmmm...tomatoes) have been found as fossils. The only known organisms to create stromatolites are micro-organisms.


There are a few living stromatolite colonies, a throwback to the Pre-Cambrian time. One of which is in Shark Bay, Western Australia. I did a school project for Shark Bay.


This might also be of interest:

Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).

[SIZE=-1]Ancient Fossil Bacteria : Pictured above are two kinds cyanobacteria from the Bitter Springs chert of central Australia, a site dating to the Late Proterozoic, about 850 million years old. On the left is a colonial chroococcalean form, and on the right is the filamentous Palaeolyngbya. [/SIZE]​

 

[Aron-Ra]

Either these distinct groups did become different from their common ancestor or they didn't have a common ancestor. Which is it?

They have a common human ancestor. I explained answered that already.

Then you were wrong when you said that the diversity between distinct human demes was "in no way evolution". You now admit that it is. So now you agree that isolated populations do become distinct, both from their sister groups, and of course from their ancestral groups also. So now that we agree the definition of evolution is completely correct, what about the OP of this thread? Are there any errors you can reveal there?

I really don't care about micro-evolution. That's not proof that humans came from apes, or were ape-like.

Why not? Would you concede that our ancestors must have been apes if we are still apes right now?