Science vs. Evolution

[Freodin]

Why don't you apply this rhetoric to such things as punctuated equilibrium (hyperevolution) and panspermia?

I like the equivocation.

Punctuated equilibrium is a possible expression of evolution.

Hyperevolution is a creationist idea to fit evolution within the small timeframe after the flood.

They are not the same!

 

[Split Rock]

As i said my purpose was to find common ground, and then start an honest science debate from there. Some of you have admitted with my position that evolution is not observable.

Don't kid yourself. You are not interested in "Honest Debate." When you quote mine from others' responses and then ignore the intend of their argument you are not engaging in "honest debate." I have begun to believe, in fact, that most creationists are incapable of honest debate. You are a good case in point.

Therefore we are in agreement that evolution can not be directly observed, so it is a belief system which falls outside of observation/the scientific method.

No we do not and for all the reasons you have already been given and continue to ignore, while pretending to engage in (ha, ha) "honest debate."

You have also agreed 'common descent' is not directly observable, but is just infered from the evidence.

Yes, it is infered as most science is.

Definition of infered:

''To reason from circumstance; surmise''

"1. transitive and intransitive verb conclude something from reasoning: to come to a conclusion or form an opinion about something on the basis of evidence or reasoning."
infer definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

"To derive by deduction or by induction; to conclude or surmise from facts or premises; to accept or derive, as a consequence, conclusion, or probability; to imply; as, I inferred his determination from his silence. "
Definition of Infer

Again this is not observation or science, it is a mere belief. To reason from circumstance or surmise is highly personal, people 'reasoning' with their interpretation of evidence will get different results.

Where do you see "belief" in any of these definitions, yours included? Can different people arrive at different conclusion? Yes. However, once we have enough evidence and tests of the predictions of an hypothesis, then we can come to a consensus. Common Desent represents the consensus of the biological community, and remains the only scientific theory which adequately explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. If you have a better one, present it.

Since you all have agreed evolution is not directly observable, the next step should be to put forward what you believe to be evidence for evolution. Creationists then counter these claims of evidence. This is normally how a creation vs. evolution debate works.

How about you providing evidence for creationism instead? That would make for a nice change of pace.

Therefore you admit evolution is not observable. Since then we agree it is not observable and scientific, we can treat it as a unproven theory. What you are doing though is entering these debates on this forum thinking evolution is already a proven fact but as i have just demonstrated it isn't, since it isn't observable (which even you agree).

Evolution is observable. We can see evolution in action and we have observed speciation both in the lab and in nature. You have been specifically been asking about past events, and claiming we can not observe them. Well, congratulations! You have brought up a trivial point (that the past cannot be directly observed in the present) and then used that trivial point to claim all of evolution is unobservable. Fail.

 

[Cassiterides]

Don't kid yourself. You are not interested in "Honest Debate." When you quote mine from others' responses and then ignore the intend of their argument you are not engaging in "honest debate." I have begun to believe, in fact, that most creationists are incapable of honest debate. You are a good case in point.

Talking of honesty...see the other thread where i have exposed evolutionists as being so dishonest they can't even define the word 'evolution' properly. Evolutionists rather quote from 21 year old obscure textbooks than from actual proper science dictionaries.

Yes, it is infered as most science is.

"1. transitive and intransitive verb conclude something from reasoning: to come to a conclusion or form an opinion about something on the basis of evidence or reasoning."
infer definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta

"To derive by deduction or by induction; to conclude or surmise from facts or premises; to accept or derive, as a consequence, conclusion, or probability; to imply; as, I inferred his determination from his silence. "
Definition of Infer

Thanks for proving what i already said? I asked for observational evidence for evolution. All you gave me was inference or interpretation.

Common, you seem so sure evolution is a fact, with stacks of evidence but can't provide a single piece of observational evidence for it. Odd indeed.

Common Desent represents the consensus of the biological community, and remains the only scientific theory which adequately explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. If you have a better one, present it.

You aren't reading my posts? I simply asked for some simple observational evidence for evolution, but none has ever been provided.

How about you providing evidence for creationism instead?

All our evidence is what you guys claim is yours, the only difference is the different interpretation and so it is reversed. For example you believe fossils prove evolution, we believe it proves the flood. Two different interpretations, both believe it proves each own theory right. One has to be right, one wrong, but what evolutionists do is this:

Since i believe in X, Y must be wrong.

X = evolution, Y = creationism.

This is the flaw, you don't look at the other side of the debate. You just close your eyes and shut your ears to the other side. This is not how science or a debate works. What matters is the evidence.

Evolution is observable.

So far no evidence has been provided for this claim.

 

[sandwiches]

Common, you seem so sure evolution is a fact, with stacks of evidence but can't provide a single piece of observational evidence for it. Odd indeed.

You aren't reading my posts? I simply asked for some simple observational evidence for evolution, but none has ever been provided.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observed Instances of Speciation

Yea, I know... it's time to move he goal posts. Maybe you can try the tired ol' "But they're still the same 'kind!'" mantra.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

All our evidence is what you guys claim is yours, the only difference is the different interpretation and so it is reversed. For example you believe fossils prove evolution, we believe it proves the flood. Two different interpretations, both believe it proves each own theory right. One has to be right, one wrong, but what evolutionists do is this:

The fossil record provides evidence for common descent and evolution. It does [NOT] prove evolution. However, it does totally falsify the global flood. I have studied creationist attempts to reconcile the fossil record with the YEC/global flood model for more than 25 years and all are completely absurd.

YECs can't explain how both macro and micro index fossils are distributed in geological record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil
They can't explain the existence of trace fossils such as animal tracks, fossilized nests and burrows, especialy U-shaped burrows in supposed flood deposits,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil
They can't even begin to explain the ordering of fish and mammalian fossils as former YEC Glenn Morton points out
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm
There are countless other details in the fossil record that completely falsify flood geology.
The YEC worldwide flood is falsified by paleontology, geology, biodiversity, biogeography, archeology and any other branch of science that applies. It is not just a matter of interpretation. YECs make totally illogical claims, leaving out key data and sometimes make claims that are directly false to try to justify their mythology as science. This is not "interpretation".

Please note the Edit above. I meant to say the fossil record does NOT prove Evolution.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Two different interpretations, both believe it proves each own theory right. One has to be right, one wrong, but what evolutionists do is this:

Since i believe in X, Y must be wrong.

X = evolution, Y = creationism.

This is the flaw, you don't look at the other side of the debate. You just close your eyes and shut your ears to the other side. This is not how science or a debate works. What matters is the evidence.

The logical error of the false dichotomy is actually one of the creationists' favorites. Evolution is accpeted because there is a huge and accumulating body of evidence for evolution and not merely because the YEC model of the young earth and global flood was conclusively falsified long ago.

 

[Raithie]

Science is supposed to be based on observations, and repeatable, reliable experiments, which limits its focus to the present.

The scientific method entered the dictionary in 1810:

''The collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''.

But "Facts" declared about a distant past outside the realm of human experience are not really facts, but strongly advocated faith-points.

Yet nothing a evolutionist believes is scientific, consider the following:

1. That life appeared on earth two or three billion years ago, or that the earth is billions of years is not a truly scientific statement. It was never directly observed to have happened by anyone or anything that can leave a conclusive historical record.

2. The idea that things 'evolve' i.e an ape to a man is not observable. The theory of evolution simply has never been observed. This is something evolutionists even themselves admit from time to time, G. Ledyard Stebbins for example admitted in his Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1:

''No Biologist has actually seen...evolution of a major group of organisms''

Conclusion

The theory of evolution is a faith, a belief (a religious theory). It is NOT a scientific fact. If you disagree, then you would have to explain why the scientific method (see above) does not support the theory of evolution, since evolution is not observable or testable in anyway. This also applies to the age of the earth.

Evolution is science. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution.

Eg:
-Observed instances of speciation
-Transitional fossils
-Comparative anatomy
-Genetics
-Similar morphological features
-Predicted species distribution
-Vestigial organs
-Vestigial behaviours
-Atavisms
-Observed microevolution
-Observed Natural Selection
-Artificial Selection (dog breeding)
-Junk DNA (broken vitamin C gene in particular)
-Effects of sexual selection (eg, women tend to prefer men with wide jaws, broad shoulders, thin waist, good skin, deep voices, hair, etc., which are all signs of high testosterone levels)
-Etc.

For the record - evolution has been observed. You obviously can't expect people to witness huge differences, as that actually goes against evolution predictions. Not enough time has passed.

There is absolutely no evidence contrary to evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

Talking of honesty...see the other thread where i have exposed evolutionists as being so dishonest they can't even define the word 'evolution' properly. Evolutionists rather quote from 21 year old obscure textbooks than from actual proper science dictionaries.

And I showed that the definition you critisized is found in many places outside the "21 year old obscure textbook." (BTW. I used Curtis in college, myself. It was a very popular textbook, so to claim it was "obscure" is another falsehood.) That was just before you abandoned the thread.

Thanks for proving what i already said? I asked for observational evidence for evolution. All you gave me was inference or interpretation.

You asked for observation evidence for Common Descent. In particular, the evolution of man from other apes. Let me refresh your memory:

You need observational evidence to call something science. Check the definition of the scientific method in my original post if you are not sure with what qualifies as scientific.

As some of your posts prove evolution can not be observed. Apes have not been observed to evolve into man. Also your belief in 'common descent' is not scientific, you can not go back in time to observe you share ancestry with an ape, dog, rock (or whatever).

Let's atleast try and find some common ground, science is what is observable. The belief we evolved from apes is not observable. If you want to believe you evolved from something that's your personal belief, but scientifically speaking you have no evidence for it since it's not based on observation.

Remember, now?

Common, you seem so sure evolution is a fact, with stacks of evidence but can't provide a single piece of observational evidence for it. Odd indeed.

Another falsehood. You really don't know what an "honest Debate" is.. do you?

You aren't reading my posts? I simply asked for some simple observational evidence for evolution, but none has ever been provided.

Again, that is NOT what you asked for (see above).

All our evidence is what you guys claim is yours, the only difference is the different interpretation and so it is reversed. For example you believe fossils prove evolution, we believe it proves the flood. Two different interpretations, both believe it proves each own theory right. One has to be right, one wrong, but what evolutionists do is this:

Since i believe in X, Y must be wrong.

X = evolution, Y = creationism.

This is the flaw, you don't look at the other side of the debate. You just close your eyes and shut your ears to the other side. This is not how science or a debate works. What matters is the evidence.

And we are waiting for you to provide the evidence for creationism. So far, you only have asked us to provide evidence for evolution. You wouldn't be trying to use the
"Since i believe in X, Y must be wrong.

X = creationism, Y = evolution" fallacy... would you?

So far no evidence has been provided for this claim.

Watch them goal posts blur!

OK. here is some "observational" evidence for evolution:

Observed Speciation - Posted originally by Lucaspa

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia) — PNAS
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals.
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

 

[Cassiterides]

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observed Instances of Speciation

Yea, I know... it's time to move he goal posts. Maybe you can try the tired ol' "But they're still the same 'kind!'" mantra.

"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" -Origin of Species, 1859, p. 48

So how do you know the difference between a ''species'' and mere variation within the same kind?

 

[Split Rock]

Yea, I know... it's time to move he goal posts. Maybe you can try the tired ol' "But they're still the same 'kind!'" mantra.

"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" -Origin of Species, 1859, p. 48

So how do you know the difference between a ''species'' and mere variation within the same kind?

Sandwiches: Yes, Yes! We have a Winner!!!!

Cassiterides: Define "Kind."

 

[Cassiterides]

The fossil record provides evidence for common descent and evolution. It does prove evolution.

Nope that's just your interpretation.

YECs can't explain how both macro and micro index fossils are distributed in geological record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fossil
They can't explain the existence of trace fossils such as animal tracks, fossilized nests and burrows, especialy U-shaped burrows in supposed flood deposits,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil
They can't even begin to explain the ordering of fish and mammalian fossils as former YEC Glenn Morton points out
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm
There are countless other details in the fossil record that completely falsify flood geology.

I suggest you start by reading Evolution! the fossils say no by Duane Gish. It's only about a 100 pages but it explains most of the points you raised.

The YEC worldwide flood is falsified by paleontology, geology, biodiversity, biogeography, archeology and any other branch of science that applies. It is not just a matter of interpretation. YECs make totally illogical claims, leaving out key data and sometimes make claims that are directly false to try to justify their mythology as science. This is not "interpretation".

That's interesting since paleontology was founded by a creationist (Cuvier) and geology by a young earth creationist (steno).

What did evolutionists ever invent or pioneer?

The archeological record also only goes back a few thousand years supporting the YEC view.

Instead of presenting evidence for evolution, all you guys do is attack creationism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" -Origin of Species, 1859, p. 48

So how do you know the difference between a ''species'' and mere variation within the same kind?

A species is a group of organisms which can breed to produce fertile offspring. During speciation, and with asexual species, the definition gets stretched. But, by and large, the concept is a solid one.

And besides, you're just arguing semantics. It doesn't matter what you call a species, or where you place the boundaries of 'breed' and 'species' and so on, at the end of the day you still have populations of organisms evolving. Call them what you want, the evidence is still there, and it still supports the idea that all life is descended from a single common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago.

 

[Cassiterides]

And I showed that the definition you critisized is found in many places outside the "21 year old obscure textbook." (BTW. I used Curtis in college, myself. It was a very popular textbook, so to claim it was "obscure" is another falsehood.) That was just before you abandoned the thread.

And yet you guys criticize creationists for quoting from old sources. The fact is the definitions evolutionists are using for evolution are not true, they are simplified and distorted to make it appear that evolution has actually been observed - when it hasn't.

I exposed the dishonesty. I can't be wrong, since the definition being used on 'TalkOrigins' is different to what is found in science dictionaries.

You asked for observation evidence for Common Descent. In particular, the evolution of man from other apes. Let me refresh your memory:

Observational evidence of it (evolution) in process, none was presented though.

And the rest of your post presents no evidence for evolution either. At the bottom you provided a list of 'speciation'. I asked for evolution evidence.

See the quote from Darwin i provided. How do you know the difference between 'speciation' and mere variation within the same kind?

 

[Split Rock]

I suggest you start by reading Evolution! the fossils say no by Duane Gish. It's only about a 100 pages but it explains most of the points you raised.

Gish?? You mean the biochemist who never even once went on a fossil dig in his life? yeah, I'm familar with the mound of <staff edit> entitled, "Evolution! the fossils say no." Do you have any particular points from the book you wish to address here?

That's interesting since paleontology was founded by a creationist (Cuvier) and geology by a young earth creationist (steno).

So?

What did evolutionists ever invent or pioneer?

What did creationists ever invent or pioneer utilizing creationism?

The archeological record also only goes back a few thousand years supporting the YEC view.

The earliest known ceramic objects are Gravettian figurines such as those discovered at Dolni Vestonice in the modern-day Czech Republic. The Venus of Dolní V&#283;stonice (V&#283;stonická Venu&#353;e in Czech) is a Venus figurine, a statuette of a nude female figure dated to 29,000&#8211;25,000 BCE (Gravettian industry).[17] The earliest pottery vessel found to date was excavated from the Yuchanyan Cave in southern China and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2009 reports that the ware dates back to 18,000 years ago.[18] Pottery vessels made by the Incipient J&#333;mon people of Japan from around 10,500 BCE have also been found.[19][20] The term "J&#333;mon" means "cord-marked" in Japanese. This refers to the markings made on clay vessels and figures using sticks with cords wrapped around them. Pottery which dates back to 10,000 BCE have also been excavated in China.[21] It appears that pottery was independently developed in North Africa during the tenth millennium b.p.[22] and in South America during the seventh millennium b.p.[23]
Pottery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instead of presenting evidence for evolution, all you guys do is attack creationism.

So, you must have already gone through and discarded all the references I cited demonstrating Observed Speciation, as well as Sandwiches' references.... wow, you are fast! (or something else?)

 

[Split Rock]

And yet you guys criticize creationists for quoting from old sources. The fact is the definitions evolutionists are using for evolution are not true, they are simplified and distorted to make it appear that evolution has actually been observed - when it hasn't.

I exposed the dishonesty. I can't be wrong, since the definition being used on 'TalkOrigins' is different to what is found in science dictionaries.

It was different from a single online reference that we showed was incorrect. I am a biologist. Please do not tell me what the definition of evolution is. That is my job to tell you.

Observational evidence of it (evolution) in process, none was presented though.

You asked for direct observation of events that occurred in the past before written history. Why? Because you knew it was impossible.

And the rest of your post presents no evidence for evolution either. At the bottom you provided a list of 'speciation'. I asked for evolution evidence.

Speciation IS evolution! Did you look up any of those references? Of course not... that would be too much like work. You already have all the answers, and the debate tactics you learned from online "Creation Ministries." Sorry to inform you that those tactics won't work here.

See the quote from Darwin i provided. How do you know the difference between 'speciation' and mere variation within the same kind?

One more time: Define the term "Kind."

 

[gipsy]

I'm not writing a lot here, but I'm still lurking around quite a bit and have learned much about evolution and science in general, but also a lot about debating tactics.
And that's where I have to confess, that I have the uttermost respect for the calmness and objectivity some of you here are still showing.
It is beyond my understanding how most of you are still able to use respect and reasoning when you're confronted with people like Cassiterides and others who are simply unwilling to admit making errors, constantly shifting the goalposts, turning every word of an answer around or simply ignoring most of your replies, and all this with the intention of unwillingness to learn something despite saying otherwise.

I'm sure I would turn rather sooner than later to using sarcasm and name calling.

And you're already doing this for years, constantly being mocked by new members with the same old tactics and "questions".

So once again: RESPECT!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Nope that's just your interpretation.



I suggest you start by reading Evolution! the fossils say no by Duane Gish. It's only about a 100 pages but it explains most of the points you raised.

I read his dinosaurs by design. It's a real hoot. I loved the fire breathing dinosaur on Noah's Ark. Why don't you tell us how Duane "Bullfrog Protein" Gish explains the existence of the fossil record.
Duane Gish's Bullfrog Lie

How does he explain data like these from Glenn Morton on the relationship between the number of extant species from a genera and where that genera is found in the fossil record?
On the genus level the numbers of members of extant mammalian genera in the various geological epochs is:
oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members
Paleocene 213 genera-no living members
Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene 762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene 830 genera 417 extant genera
fish genera present problem for young-earth creationism


How does Gish explain the existence of index microfossils and why they can be used to identify geological eras?

How does he begin to explain the sorting of microfossils?
microstratigraphy and Noah's flood

How does he explain trace fossils such as burrows
Burrows

And insect nests
If the Flood was so Turbulent, Why didn't it rip these Insects Apart?

Does "Bombardier Beetle Blunder Gish" do anything except talk about gaps and mine the writing of scientists like Gould and others for out of context quotes?

Fossils of large Eocine, Oligocene,Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene mammals are extremely common. Fossils of Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Dinosaurs are extremely common. Fossils of large Permian animals like dimetrodon are also very common but they are not found with dinosaurs or large mammals. These segregated fossils are often found in the same geographic regions but never in the same geologic strata. The only mammals found with dinosaurs are small and primative. How does creationist flood geology explain that? How does Gish explain it? Does he rely on the hyrodynamic sorting nonsense or the grass outran velociraptors nonsense?

Unless you can provide me some specific explanations that actually work I am going to say that I don't think Gish actually explains any of the points I raised.

That's interesting since paleontology was founded by a creationist (Cuvier) and geology by a young earth creationist (steno).

Steno lived in the 17th century, by the 18th century even creationists like Cuvier had abandoned the idea of a 6000 year old earth. If you want to know the actual history of the science in this arena I suggest you read
History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth by Evangelical Christian Davis Young.

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth


Added in Edit. In my original post on this subject I meant to say that the fossil record does not prove evolution, however it does falsify young earth creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not writing a lot here, but I'm still lurking around quite a bit and have learned much about evolution and science in general, but also a lot about debating tactics.
And that's where I have to confess, that I have the uttermost respect for the calmness and objectivity some of you here are still showing.
It is beyond my understanding how most of you are still able to use respect and reasoning when you're confronted with people like Cassiterides and others who are simply unwilling to admit making errors, constantly shifting the goalposts, turning every word of an answer around or simply ignoring most of your replies, and all this with the intention of unwillingness to learn something despite saying otherwise.

I'm sure I would turn rather sooner than later to using sarcasm and name calling.

And you're already doing this for years, constantly being mocked by new members with the same old tactics and "questions".

So once again: RESPECT!

Thank you very much for your regards, gipsy. For most of us, our purpose is not to inform creationists (who rarely are open-minded enough to learn anything they don't like), but to inform lurkers like yourself. Otherwise, we would have better things to do than argue with creationists... like repeatedly banging our heads against a hard rock.

 

[Cassiterides]

Do you have any particular points from the book you wish to address here?

How about the simple fact not a single transitional fossil or intermediate link has ever been found?

''...intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."
- Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

YouTube - No Transitional Forms - The Evolution Conspiracy clip 1

The earliest known ceramic objects are Gravettian figurines such as those discovered at Dolni Vestonice in the modern-day Czech Republic. The Venus of Dolní V&#283;stonice (V&#283;stonická Venuše in Czech) is a Venus figurine, a statuette of a nude female figure dated to 29,000–25,000 BCE (Gravettian industry).

You are quoting a modern dating method applied to the pottery. These objects were not found with those dates on them.

 

[The4thrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOLAGYmUQV0&feature=related