Resources on Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

here is a phylogenetic tree:

(image from Home)

as you can see its just a general hierarchy: mammals, reptiles etc.

It's a hierarchical tree.
Also called a nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

It's a hierarchical tree.
Also called a nested hierarchy.

this is also a hierarcihal tree:

so what is your point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

this is also a hierarcihal tree:
View attachment 246754

That "tree" was pulled out of your behind.

so what is your point?​

That you pretended that it was "just" some "general" hierarchy instead of a nested one.
​

 

[Speedwell]

this is also a hierarcihal tree:
View attachment 246754

so what is your point?

That your "tree" is imaginary and is not constrained by the actual development history of those objects.

 

[xianghua]

That "tree" was pulled out of your behind.

whats wrong with this tree?

 

[Speedwell]

whats wrong with this tree?

Your "tree" is imaginary; it is not constrained by the actual development history of those objects.

 

[xianghua]

Your "tree" is imaginary; it is not constrained by the actual development history of those objects.

so what? its still a tree.

 

[Speedwell]

so what? its still a tree.

Yeah, but not the kind of tree we are talking about.

 

[pitabread]

so what? its still a tree.

You know what is also a tree? A tree.

 

[pitabread]

That "tree" was pulled out of your behind.

That you pretended that it was "just" some "general" hierarchy instead of a nested one.
​

And his attempts at posting "trees" of vehicles was thoroughly debunked ages ago, yet here we are.

 

[46AND2]

You know what is also a tree? A tree.

It might be a robot tree...

 

[Skreeper]

It might be a robot tree...

All I can see is a self-replicating robot penguin tree which obviously points to design.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

You know what is also a tree? A tree.

But what if you push this tree back 80m years, then is it a bear?

 

[mark kennedy]

I am an Old Earth Creationist and do not believe in what I've learned is macro-evolution; micro-evolution from what I understand is about gene mutation and natural selection and definitely can be observed and documented. Admittedly I am no science expert!

With that said, I am desiring to read some "pro evolution" articles to give me an idea of what most scientists and non-Creationists believe. Right now I'm already in the middle of a few books but if any of you can suggest a layman's book about the topic I'd be open to reading it in the future. My strength is definitely not science so any resources that get real technical are going to be above my head.

This thread is definitely NOT about debate so please refrain from voicing such opinions.

My experience, always go to the source material. It's bumpy in these discussion but if you can get into the abstract and discussion of a peer reviewed scientific paper, that's where the good stuff is. Don't abandon the Scriptures, there are answers that and you don't have to believe in a young earth and still believe God created life some 6,000 years ago. Any questions, I'm available both in the thread and don't hesitate to contact me via PM.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[46AND2]

But what if you push this tree back 80m years, then is it a bear?

Certainly not falsifiable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But what if you push this tree back 80m years, then is it a bear?

But then we can just claim convergent evolution!

 

[pitabread]

It might be a robot tree...

A self-replicating robot tree at that.

 

[46AND2]

A self-replicating robot tree at that.

You know what I find hilarious about his argument is that he doesn't even realize that he is arguing for theistic evolution. Sure, the FIRST car may be designed, but then they are left to SELF-replicate...