proving evolution as just a "theory"

[doubtingmerle]

Why don't you provide an example of an animal evolving into a different species. Do not forget to include the science that made it possible.

For instance:

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
​

This, and many more examples found here: Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is SO GOOD! I have found that to be so true! All the links ever say is that it happened or give suppositions. They NEVER provide any evidence that it really did happen. It's all assumptive.

Have you ever provided evidence that species began the way you think they began (other than quoting a book that said it happened that way)?

For the record, here is evidence on evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is no evidence shown that we all evolved from a common ancestor. There is a lot of supposition and assumption but no actual observed evidence that it did occur. None.

29.

 

[rjs330]

What all is part of the "cat group"? Are a jaguar and leopard both part of the same "cat group"? Are a tiger and lion both in the same "cat group"? Is a house cat and lion in the same "cat group"? Could a house cat and bobcat have the same ancestor? How about a bobcat and lion? Where do you place the dividing line?


Wait, what? Do you accept that all moths could have the same ancestor? That is quite a lot of evolution.

Was the sabre tooth tiger an ancestor of the lion or the tiger or a puma? I don't know. Could be I suppose. They didn't need their large teeth after a while so they lost them. Or maybe they all went extinct without any adaptation.

Could all cats have the same ancestor? I doubt it. You know God created all kinds if birds. He didn't create one bird and all birds came from that bird. He created all kinds of cats. Not all cats came from the same cat. But they all belong to the cat family or group as it were. All with similar traits and DNA.

God created all kinds of moths. He didn't create one moth and all the rest of them came from the one.

 

[rjs330]

One or a few, it makes no difference.

Why? What difference does it make? "Biblical" creationism is already over. No matter that you attempt to discredit common ancestry, creation of "biblical" kinds 6000 years ago is off the table. What do you think you are defending?

Apparently it's not off the table. And I am defending what the scriptures teach and what Jesus and the apostles believed and taught.

 

[Speedwell]

Was the sabre tooth tiger an ancestor of the lion or the tiger or a puma? I don't know. Could be I suppose. They didn't need their large teeth after a while so they lost them. Or maybe they all went extinct without any adaptation.

Could all cats have the same ancestor? I doubt it. You know God created all kinds if birds. He didn't create one bird and all birds came from that bird. He created all kinds of cats. Not all cats came from the same cat. But they all belong to the cat family or group as it were. All with similar traits and DNA.

God created all kinds of moths. He didn't create one moth and all the rest of them came from the one.

Be careful here; don't forget that you've got to get all those "kinds" on 400 ft. boat.

 

[Jimmy D]

Was the sabre tooth tiger an ancestor of the lion or the tiger or a puma? I don't know. Could be I suppose. They didn't need their large teeth after a while so they lost them. Or maybe they all went extinct without any adaptation.

Could all cats have the same ancestor? I doubt it. You know God created all kinds if birds. He didn't create one bird and all birds came from that bird. He created all kinds of cats. Not all cats came from the same cat. But they all belong to the cat family or group as it were. All with similar traits and DNA.

God created all kinds of moths. He didn't create one moth and all the rest of them came from the one.

Do you seriously believe this vague guessing is any sort of challenge to established scientific knowledge?

You guys!

 

[Speedwell]

Apparently it's not off the table. And I am defending what the scriptures teach and what Jesus and the apostles believed and taught.

No, it's basically over. Even if we gave you special creation, the idea of special creation 6000 years ago followed by a global flood 1500 years later is no longer credible. Forgot biological evolution; there is enough good science from all fields which rules it out.

 

[rjs330]

Have you ever provided evidence that species began the way you think they began (other than quoting a book that said it happened that way)?

For the record, here is evidence on evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Wow, nothing but a bunch of assumptions. Let's just quote one.

every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion).

That is a HUGE assumption. That is not evidence of anything.

 

[pitabread]

Wow, nothing but a bunch of assumptions.

Wow, nothing but a hand-waving dismissal.

Especially since you apparently didn't read more than a couple paragraphs in.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's basically over. Even if we gave you special creation, the idea of special creation 6000 years ago followed by a global flood 1500 years later is no longer credible. Forgot biological evolution; there is enough good science from all fields which rules it out.

A science that is full of assumptions? A science with no evidence that it actually occurred? A science that current observations show it isn't happening? I just quoted an article that said something which was pure speculation as evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm not the one citing it, you are. I tried looking it up and all I can find is that quote in a handle of creationist articles with a reference from 1977.

So what does the full quote say in context or do you even know?

Wikiquote - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Wikiquote - gives a long list of quotations from Grassé (27 November 1895-9 July 1985), whom it describes as 'an antidarwinist neo-lamarckist'. A lot of these quotations are from a book entitled Evolution of living organisms: evidence for a new theory of transformation. Since I am not a biologist I can't make much of these quotations, but from the title alone it looks as if Grassé accepted the transmutation of species over long periods of time (i.e. evolution) but denied Darwin's mechanism of differential reproductive success of small hereditary variations.

It would be interesting to know whether omega2xx agrees with all the quotations listed from Grassé in Wikiquote.

 

[rjs330]

Wow, nothing but a hand-waving dismissal.

Especially since you apparently didn't read more than a couple paragraphs in.

I read the tree also and saw that was nothing but assumption as well. I don't need to read the rest of them especially when the first two were nothing but speculation and assumption.

 

[Speedwell]

A science that is full of assumptions? A science with no evidence that it actually occurred? A science that current observations show it isn't happening? I just quoted an article that said something which was pure speculation as evidence.

Assumptions? Take geology, for example. Geology as a formal discipline began about 250 years ago with research conducted to find evidence of recent creation and a global flood. That was the assumption. That assuption was completely dispelled by the evidence to the dismay of the geologists, many of them clergymen, who could not honestly reject it.

Geology is, to a large extent, an applied science. But nobody uses creationist flood models of geology to find oil and other minerals. Nobody, not even Christian geologists--because they don't work. Successful applied science cannot rest on mere "assumptions" and geology is a successful applied science.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's basically over. Even if we gave you special creation, the idea of special creation 6000 years ago followed by a global flood 1500 years later is no longer credible. Forgot biological evolution; there is enough good science from all fields which rules it out.

Please provide one example of anything evolving out of it's original group that had been observed.

 

[pitabread]

I read the tree also and saw that was nothing but assumption as well. I don't need to read the rest of them especially when the first two were nothing but speculation and assumption.

Straight out of the creationist handbook: hand-waving dismissals followed by willful ignorance.

 

[Speedwell]

Please provide one example of anything evolving out of it's original group that had been observed.

That question contains an ill-defined assumption, "original group" which makes the question unanswerable.

But failure to provide an answer would prove biblical creationism exactly how?

 

[rjs330]

Assumptions? Take geology, for example. Geology as a formal discipline began about 250 years ago with research conducted to find evidence of recent creation and a global flood. That was the assumption. That assuption was completely dispelled by the evidence to the dismay of the geologists, many of them clergymen, who could not honestly reject it.

Geology is, to a large extent, an applied science. But nobody uses creationist flood models of geology to find oil and other minerals. Nobody, not even Christian geologists--because they don't work. Successful applied science cannot rest on mere "assumptions" and geology is a successful applied science.

Apparently geology is not settled either.

Ancient Chinese Megaflood May Be Fact, Not Fiction

 

[rjs330]

Straight out of the creationist handbook: hand-waving dismissals followed by willful ignorance.

That stuff is straight out of the evolutionist handbook of supposition and assumption with no actual evidence.

 

[rjs330]

That question contains an ill-defined assumption, "original group" which makes the question unanswerable.

But failure to provide an answer would prove biblical creationism exactly how?

Because the Bible says what happened and the current actual observations show that.