proving evolution as just a "theory"

So many think that evolution and God's creating are to separate issues. My faith is in accord with God creating all things over billions of years (I've not seen much instant action from him in the Bible he seems to take a long time to do anything), making sure the conditions were ripe for life on this planet and that life would evolve. I don't see how he could not be involved with getting it all started.

rjs330 said:

Evidence that what you claim is true. How do you know that is the common ancestor?

Click to expand...

What are you looking for, a birth certificate?

The Hyracotherium is part of a long series of fossils. If you arrange them by date of the fossils, you see an incremental pattern leading up to the horse and zebra, as well as many side branches, just as evolution predicts. But this is not what your view predicts, is it?

If it is, that doesn't prove common ancestry between men and spiders.

Click to expand...

I didn't say hyracotherium led to men and spiders. You asked for a common ancestor. I gave you one. You didn't say you wanted one between men and spiders.

Let's just for argument sake say your right. It's still a member of the horse family.

Click to expand...

Bzzzt.

Sorry, Hyracotherium is actually a member of another family. But as the division is arbitrary, they could have easily moved the dividing point and made this part of the horse family.

So do you accept that Hyracotherium is the ancestor of the modern horse and zebra, or don't you?

BradB said:

My understanding is that ancient sand deserts thought to be laid down by wind became "sand stone" after being burried under pressure. For example the Coconino sandstone. The interesting thing about Coconino is there is evidence it was laid down under watery conditions.

Click to expand...

Hold it right there, cowboy.

Actually the huge Coconino sandstone layer has been shown convincingly to be of eolian (windblown) origin. We have found great numbers of fossil footprints in the layer. How can there be animals walking around in sand that is being deposited by a flood? Also we see marks of rain falling on the sand, and signs of the slump of the sand on the downwind side of the dunes. All this strongly suggests this was a large wind blown sand formation. How this can appear in the middle of deposits of Noah's flood is beyond me. See Small-Scale Structures in the Coconino Sandstone of Northern Arizona on JSTOR .

xianghua said:

you are welcome to believe anything you wnat. the fact is that they dont found any gene remains. so i base my claim on a fact and they dont.

Click to expand...

Except all the evidence as pointed out in the peer reviewed research paper you don't want to acknowledge...

xianghua said:

i think someone is indeed lack any knowlage about this topic. fortunately i dont think its me.

Click to expand...

Delusions of grandeur and self-deception aside, are you seriously expecting me to believe all the evolutionary biologists, molecular biologists, medical researchers and geneticists who have decades of education and experience in this field, producing tangible results from their endeavours are all wrong and You, an armchair amateur, who produces nothing of substance in this field whatsoever, is the one that has it right?

LOL! Where's your peer reviewed paper then?? You're the one going against the mountains of evidence in favour of evolution, so it's up to you to substantiate your claim.

Speedwell said:

But if the theory of evolution was true, and evolutionary development proceded from a common ancestor by the process of variation and selection it describes, then those similarities you noted would be exactly what one would expect.

Click to expand...

Pretty big if especially if you have no real evidence if it ever occurring. Besides observation also shows no evidence of it occurring. No one has been able to make a testable model of it occurring. All they have is common design. The rest is pure conjecture, assumption and speculation.

pitabread said:

And to add to this, a designer could arguably have created things that would blatantly violate common descent (i.e. chimeric organisms). For example, why don't things like whales & dolphins have the same gill structures as fish? It would make a lot more sense given they are aquatic organisms. But for whatever reason, the designer decided to make them appear like they descended from terrestrial animals, air-breathing and all.

Click to expand...

Just goes to show how magnificent the designer is. The designer could have made nothing but bears. But he didn't. He made a myriad of animals to populate the seas, skies and the land. He even gave some of the sea creatures the ability to breath air and interesting enough they had exactly what they needed in order to breath the same air as the bear. Common design because it is what was needed.

doubtingmerle said:

What are you looking for, a birth certificate?

The Hyracotherium is part of a long series of fossils. If you arrange them by date of the fossils, you see an incremental pattern leading up to the horse and zebra, as well as many side branches, just as evolution predicts. But this is not what your view predicts, is it?

I didn't say hyracotherium led to men and spiders. You asked for a common ancestor. I gave you one. You didn't say you wanted one between men and spiders.

Bzzzt.

Sorry, Hyracotherium is actually a member of another family. But as the division is arbitrary, they could have easily moved the dividing point and made this part of the horse family.

So do you accept that Hyracotherium is the ancestor of the modern horse and zebra, or don't you?

Click to expand...

No I asked for a common ancestor where you can show the split between what it was and what it becomes as two separate things. Either that or show me the common ancestor of all life.

Your Hyracotherium is just another evolutionary assumption. You don't actually have the evidence of the evolution of it from where it came from and where it split. Nice try though. You certainly follow the evolutionary pattern of assumptions and suppositions.

But like I said, if I accepted you argument, which I don't, it doesn't mean all things came from the same ancestor. If it did helping to the horse family as an ancestor then it was part of the horse family. It was part of the dig family or cat family.

rjs330 said:

Just goes to show how magnificent the designer is. The designer could have made nothing but bears. But he didn't. He made a myriad of animals to populate the seas, skies and the land. He even gave some of the sea creatures the ability to breath air and interesting enough they had exactly what they needed in order to breath the same air as the bear. Common design because it is what was needed.

Click to expand...

Right, so life was designed with the appearance of evolution.

Makes you wonder why a designer would go through all the trouble of creating individual species only to imbue them with the appearance of common ancestry. Was the designer operating under some unknown constraints? Are they trying to trick us? Is there some other reason?

pitabread said:

Right, so life was designed with the appearance of evolution.

Makes you wonder why a designer would go through all the trouble of creating individual species only to imbue them with the appearance of common ancestry. Was the designer operating under some unknown constraints? Are they trying to trick us? Is there some other reason?

Click to expand...

The designer created life with common design. The so called appearance of common ancestry evolution is a man devised system which negates common design. Just the fact you don't believe the common design is evidence of assumption than anything but common design is at play. It's very simple. Because once you accept common design you have to start asking who the designer is. It's inevitable.

rjs330 said:

The designer created life with common design. The so called appearance of common ancestry evolution is a man devised system which negates common design.

Click to expand...

And yet life retains the appearance of evolution and we don't see things that a design could do in direct violation of that. Like modern whales/dolphins with fish gills.

It's funny how you guys keep claiming all this stuff about "common design" yet still are unable to demonstrate how it's supposed to be in any way different than biological evolution.

Because once you accept common design you have to start asking who the designer is. It's inevitable.

Click to expand...

And? Even if we ever did detect intelligent design in biological life, it doesn't imply any specific theology is true or even that the designer was supernatural. I mean, if *that's* what you're trying to get at.

rjs330 said:

Pretty big if especially if you have no real evidence if it ever occurring. Besides observation also shows no evidence of it occurring. No one has been able to make a testable model of it occurring. All they have is common design. The rest is pure conjecture, assumption and speculation.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that common design is observed. But "design" is your inference. All you can really observe is phenotypical and genetic similarities. You then go on to assert the the inference to common ancestry which science makes from those same similarities lacks evidence and a plausible mechanism. The merits of that assertion should be gone into, but first you have to realize that at this point you don't have anything more than an inference, yourself. You need to be prepared with evidence and a mechanism of your own.

rjs330 said:

No I asked for a common ancestor where you can show the split between what it was and what it becomes as two separate things. Either that or show me the common ancestor of all life.

Click to expand...

Ah, you were looking for a transitional. Here are a few:


Mesohippus is transitional between Hyracotherium and Merychippus.
Merychippus is transitional between Mesohippus and Piohippus.
Piohippus is transitional between Merychippus and Equus.

You happy now?

The Genesis story was told by neolithic man who was groping for knowlede about the world and his place in it. I do not understand why anyone could give precedence to a fable over that of modern science.

Bugeyedcreepy said:

A way to apply this definition to organisms to determine if they are of the same "kind" or not. A wishy-washy list of examples you can count on one hand is in no way a substitute for a rigorous framework that can be applied as best practice in defining what a 'kind' is. That's what'll make it useful...

I've never been able to get an answer on Ring species, Species A can reproduce with Species B, Species B with Species C, Species C with D, D with E, yet Species E can't reproduce with Species A. Are they the same species? If no, then you accept that speciation occurs. If yes, then what happens if the species in between are wiped out or go extinct? Then are they different species?

Click to expand...

The simple fact that the far ends of these ring species can't interbreed is actual bona-fide evidence that speciation happens. It happens in both plants and animals and there are numerous examples of this. The genetic diversity in these ringspecies is quite diverse, so saying it's because of reduced genomic variation is just nonsense, they have a more diverse genome than we humans do.[/QUOTE]

There is no doubt speciation is a fact. The question is does it result in a new species. The inability to reproduce does not constitute a new species. This can be caused by to much interbreeding. In the ring species of salamanders, the salamanders remained salamanders, That is not evidence of evolution.

Oh, Yeah! I can't wait to see how the Bacteria Kingdom fits into this setup, especially since it has more species than both the Animal and Plant Kingdoms combined...

Click to expand...

The usual example given for the evolution of bacteria is that some seem to become a new species based on their ability to resist antibiotics. For all we know some of them already had that ability or they would have died from the antibiotics. In any case, the bacteria, like the salamanders remained bacteria. No evolution.

Great! Show us by example how you can get a handful of 'designed' things that we've created and group them into a tree-like hierarchy as we do with evolution (which is how we test that by the way...)

**EDIT:
Dang! you beat me to it...

Click to expand...

The evolution tree is as a joke because you have no fossil links joining any of them to each other. I thought evolution had even abandoned that in the theory.

Why don't you explain how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea creature. Genetically of course. Maye you can include how and why land animal surviving quite well on land could become a sea creature. That refutes natural selection, another evolution fantasy that should start with "one upon a time."

pitabread said:

And yet life retains the appearance of evolution and we don't see things that a design could do in direct violation of that. Like modern whales/dolphins with fish gills.

Click to expand...

we actually find many cases of that violation. so accorrding to your criteria evolution is false?

pitabread said:

You must be new.

Click to expand...

Yep hence the name Newbie. I'm guessing from your comment that the rules aren't enforced much. I thought maybe they were because the first thread I started posting on got shut down due to some sort of infractions.

pitabread said:

Which again only makes sense in the context of both a starting point and a mechanism for conservation of genetic sequences.

So under your "design model" what is your starting point and what is your mechanism of genetic conservation?

Click to expand...

in this case i dont even need a starting point. i only need to show a conservation as evidence for important rule. if we will look at many genes in several species, and we will find out that one specific gene is the same were other are different- we can conclude that this sequence has an important rule. otherwise why its so conserve compare to other genes? i think we may even find such examples in human- made objects. a wheel shape for instance is very conserve among vehicles (car\truck\airplane) were other parts such as steering wheel is less conserve (in airplane for instance its different- a joytsick). this is because a wheel shape is very important when a steering wheel can be made in many shapes without a real problem. so here you have a functional reason under the design model.

MichiVetKat said:

So many think that evolution and God's creating are to separate issues. My faith is in accord with God creating all things over billions of years (I've not seen much instant action from him in the Bible he seems to take a long time to do anything), making sure the conditions were ripe for life on this planet and that life would evolve. I don't see how he could not be involved with getting it all started.

Click to expand...

So is your faith in God's Son Jesus Christ by whom we are told is salvation and there is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved? (Acts 4:12) The reason I ask is this; The Gospel message is that the first man Adam sinned and passed his sin on to all of his descendants of whom we are told we are all of. Kind of the same way an alcoholic passes his alcoholism on to his children. The children are not culpable for their father's actions but they learn from dad to be the same alcoholic. Likewise when we were children we learned from our parents to sin. Mom said don't lie and yet we watched her call her boss and say she was sick when she wasn't or don't steal and yet we saw mom or dad lie to the IRS on their taxes etc. Because of Adam's original sin, sin nature and death has entered into the world. (Rom. 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21) The entire creation was effected by that sin. (Gen.3:17, Rom. 8:18-23) Jesus came and died on the cross to correct this. All those who trust in His blood shed on the cross will receive eternal life and one day all death will again be abolished. The problem is that if you have God creating the world and universe not in 6 days but rather 6 day ages (billions of years through evolution) then you are now saying that creation was NOT good as God said in Gen. 1, but rather now you have disease, death, and chaos in the universe long before Adam ever could have sinned, and you have just rendered the cross of Christ pointless.

Could God have created life through billions of years of evolution? Of course He could, He's God He can do what He wants. But the fact of the matter is that is not what He told us He DID DO. He told us He created the universe and life in 6 literal 24 hour days and rested on the 7th from all of His work. He was done creating. There are not new things still being created right now He was done. So we have to come to grips with the fact this is what the text "SAYS" He did. If we discover through observation that the text is wrong then of course we must toss the text out and hold fast to that which we can observe to be true. But guess what? The claims put forth in the theory of Evolution do not hold up to observation when examined in light of the possibility of creation. All evidences put forth in support of evolution are based completely on similarity arguments which also fit within the frame work of a Creator. Life can be similar because it has a common creator just as easily as because it has a common ancestor. Therefore to settle the debate in favor of evolution we would need at least one example of either a finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another, or an example of an observed random mutation adding new gene increasing type information to the genome of a multi celled organism. Neither of which has ever been reported.

TerryWoodenpic said:

The Genesis story was told by neolithic man who was groping for knowlede about the world and his place in it. I do not understand why anyone could give precedence to a fable over that of modern science.

Click to expand...

To understand, just means to look at human psychology. When someone, has a very close personal belief they have held, that is rooted in a deep need to believe the same, it is quite painful to abandon this belief, even if presented with boatloads of evidence, that belief is wrong. Then, you see the defense mechanisms kick in to protect the belief, in the face of all the contradicting evidence and this thread is a terrific example of the same.

When and if the point ever comes, where it becomes too painful for a person who holds these beliefs to keep denying well evidenced reality, then they will adjust their belief and accept the evidence. Some get there, some don't.

doubtingmerle said:

Ah, you were looking for a transitional. Here are a few:

Mesohippus is transitional between Hyracotherium and Merychippus.
Merychippus is transitional between Mesohippus and Piohippus.
Piohippus is transitional between Merychippus and Equus.

You happy now?

Click to expand...

That is nothing more than speculation. There is no real evidence that the evolution shown in the picture ever occurred. Much like the animal trees often shown. The horse evolution is a perfect example of assumptive evolution. The fossils found with various bones supposedly have been linked even though they have been found at different places all over the world. They find one fossil here and then a different fossil with some different bone structure there and then say"oh look evolution". No where have they found the process in sync. In fact they have found fossils of of different types in the same place. It's all assumption with no real evidence of it actually happening.
Horse Non-Sense

The evolution of the horse - CMI Mobile