Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[Dale Martin]

It really doesn't matter what kind of evidence there is for evolution, it's never going to be enough. If we could see a mouse turning into a "non-mouse," creationists would say, "Well, you never see a dog turn into a pine cone!"

There is no such thing as macro-evolution. It is an invisible boundary that only exists in the minds of creationists. Evolution either exists, or it doesn't.

Your problem is that you will not see a mouse turning into a "non-mouse," It will NOT Happen Because that would be Macro evolution. Only in your mind does "MACRO" evolution not exist. If you do not know the difference in the two that is only of your own ignorance. That is like saying there is no difference between growing a watermelon and making a car. . .

 

[Dale Martin]

I guess you agree now? (at least for the mouse example)

They are still mice and there DNA does not show them to be anything but mice so I guess you agree now, this is not evolution.

 

[Carico]

Your problem is that you will not see a mouse turning into a "non-mouse," It will NOT Happen Because that would be Macro evolution. Only in your mind does "MACRO" evolution not exist. If you do not know the difference in the two that is only of your own ignorance. That is like saying there is no difference between growing a watermelon and making a car. . .

Exactly. Evolutionists are so busy trying to analyze the trees that they miss the forest completely. Apes are still around today and so are cats & horses. So how did we 'evolve" from them if they are still around today? The theory of evolution, of course, contradicts basic reproductive principles. But in the imagination ANYTHING'S possible.

 

[Tomk80]

Your problem is that you will not see a mouse turning into a "non-mouse," It will NOT Happen Because that would be Macro evolution. Only in your mind does "MACRO" evolution not exist. If you do not know the difference in the two that is only of your own ignorance. That is like saying there is no difference between growing a watermelon and making a car. . .

Indeed, mice will always give birth to mice. Just as dinosaurs always give birth to dinosaurs. You see them flying around everyday.

 

[Event Horizon]

Exactly. Evolutionists are so busy trying to analyze the trees that they miss the forest completely. Apes are still around today and so are cats & horses. So how did we 'evolve" from them if they are still around today?

Who says we evolved from them? Evolution doesn't. It says we evolved from common ancestors of them. Your source is bad.

 

[Tomk80]

Exactly. Evolutionists are so busy trying to analyze the trees that they miss the forest completely. Apes are still around today and so are cats & horses. So how did we 'evolve" from them if they are still around today? The theory of evolution, of course, contradicts basic reproductive principles. But in the imagination ANYTHING'S possible.

First off. Please don't use the 'if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?'-argument. It is the stupidest ever. Did your parents stop existing directly after you were born, ofcourse not. Neither would apes suddenly stop existing after the human lineage split off. It is clear that the only thing which contradicts basic reproductive principles is your post.

 

[notto]

Exactly. Evolutionists are so busy trying to analyze the trees that they miss the forest completely. Apes are still around today and so are cats & horses. So how did we 'evolve" from them if they are still around today? The theory of evolution, of course, contradicts basic reproductive principles. But in the imagination ANYTHING'S possible.

You better tell the wolves that they should all be dead then.

Read a book.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

Nothing in evolutionary theory contradicts any known reproductive process.

One subpopulation evolving separate from a parent population does not mean the parent population must become extinct.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. Evolutionists are so busy trying to analyze the trees that they miss the forest completely.

Arguments aside, I got a little chuckle out of this quip.

Apes are still around today and so are cats & horses.

So? How is this a problem for the theory of evolution?

So how did we 'evolve" from them if they are still around today?

What requires one species to die off if another species changes?

The theory of evolution, of course, contradicts basic reproductive principles.

How?

But in the imagination ANYTHING'S possible.

Of course, why do you think people still believe in a young earth?

 

[william jay schroeder]

I gave an example of a beneficial mutation that confers resistance to a herbicide in the weed, yellow starthistle here: http://www.christianforums.com/t1177661-evolution-mutations-equalibrium-and-adaptation.html&page=12. The mutation is only useful if the herbicide is present, however, it confers no known detriment in the absence of the herbicide.

we did not evolve from a plant so try another one.

 

[Tomk80]

we did not evolve from a plant so try another one.

So you're going to play the 'running goalpost'-game?

 

[Split Rock]

we did not evolve from a plant so try another one.

Do you agree that plants evolve then? Is it just human evolution that you object to?

 

[Loudmouth]

we did not evolve from a plant so try another one.

No, but we do share a common ancestor with plants. Both animals and plants evolved from the basal eukaryotic organisms called protists. These include amoebas and euglenia, to name a few.

 

[Carico]

Arguments aside, I got a little chuckle out of this quip.



So? How is this a problem for the theory of evolution?



What requires one species to die off if another species changes?



How?



Of course, why do you think people still believe in a young earth?

Because you miss the basic differences between horses, cats, & humans today. Because you miss that these species have not died out but are alive & well & STILL breed their own species today! No one has yet seen anything but a horse come from a horse, or anything but an ape come from ana ape or anything but a cat come from a cat. Yet your assertion that men came from apes is based on what?

Evolution contradicts the basic fact that an egg & sperm of of a species is what produces offspring. So what sperm & egg produced a human being from an ape? Or is this the ONLY instance where the principles of biology don't apply? If so, why? And one of the underlying theories of evolution is the survival of the fittest. In that case, how have human beings not bred super humans? And how is man any more fit today than he has been in thousands of years in recorded history when he now has the capacity to destroy more people in an instant than ever before?

 

[Split Rock]

Because you miss the basic differences between horses, cats, & humans today. Because you miss that these species have not died out but are alive & well & STILL breed their own species today!

Actually, none of these species are around today. The horse and cat families are still around, but the species that existed millions of years ago are long gone.

No one has yet seen anything but a horse come from a horse, or anything but an ape come from ana ape or anything but a cat come from a cat. Yet your assertion that men came from apes is based on what?

Of course horses come from horses and cats come from cats, etc. What a horse or cat is, however, has changed over time. The fossil record shows us that cats and horses were very different in the past. Where are the sabre-tooth cats today? Where are the three-toed horses? They are all extinct, and have been replaced over time. Evolutionary theory explains how.

Evolution contradicts the basic fact that an egg & sperm of of a species is what produces offspring. So what sperm & egg produced a human being from an ape? Or is this the ONLY instance where the principles of biology don't apply? If so, why?

Again, this is just silly. No scientist claims that apes give birth to humans. Every new birth is different from its parents. Every population changes in response to its environment. Apes have changed the same way over millions of years.

And one of the underlying theories of evolution is the survival of the fittest. In that case, how have human beings not bred super humans? And how is man any more fit today than he has been in thousands of years in recorded history when he now has the capacity to destroy more people in an instant than ever before?

What would a "super human" look like? remember, human evolution has to work within the physical constraints of the vertebrate body. We may well destroy ourselves and render the human species extinct. But guess what? Extinction has been the ultimate end to the vast majority of species on this planet.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you miss the basic differences between horses, cats, & humans today. Because you miss that these species have not died out but are alive & well & STILL breed their own species today!

But yet we see new species being formed on a routine basis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

No one has yet seen anything but a horse come from a horse, or anything but an ape come from ana ape or anything but a cat come from a cat. Yet your assertion that men came from apes is based on what?

My assertion is based on fossil and DNA evidence which support both common ancestory and the change of physical characteristics over time.

Horse evolution

A whole list of transitional species

Transitional fossils from ape-like ancestor to human

And a more general list of evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Evolution contradicts the basic fact that an egg & sperm of of a species is what produces offspring.

Bacteria don't have either egg nor sperm. How do they reproduce?

So what sperm & egg produced a human being from an ape?

Again, we did not come from apes. We are cousins to the apes. Small changes over time accumulated into large changes over long periods of time. This is what happens when mutations occur. You might as well ask how french, italian, and spanish came from latin. Through changes. As different populations acquired changes the different populations were no longer able to talk to each other. The same in evolution. Different mutations are acquired in each population until there are noticeable differences.

Or is this the ONLY instance where the principles of biology don't apply? If so, why?

Evolution is the overriding principle applied throughout biology.

And one of the underlying theories of evolution is the survival of the fittest. In that case, how have human beings not bred super humans?

Why do we need to, we are surviving just fine.

And how is man any more fit today than he has been in thousands of years in recorded history when he now has the capacity to destroy more people in an instant than ever before?

We are actually weaker because modern medicine prevents weaker individuals from being eliminated from the gene pool. Memetic evolution (the evolution of ideas and technology) is now more of an influence on humans than biological evolution.

 

[notto]

Because you miss the basic differences between horses, cats, & humans today. Because you miss that these species have not died out but are alive & well & STILL breed their own species today! No one has yet seen anything but a horse come from a horse, or anything but an ape come from ana ape or anything but a cat come from a cat. Yet your assertion that men came from apes is based on what?

Evolution contradicts the basic fact that an egg & sperm of of a species is what produces offspring. So what sperm & egg produced a human being from an ape? Or is this the ONLY instance where the principles of biology don't apply? If so, why? And one of the underlying theories of evolution is the survival of the fittest. In that case, how have human beings not bred super humans? And how is man any more fit today than he has been in thousands of years in recorded history when he now has the capacity to destroy more people in an instant than ever before?

The term 'ape' is not a species term. There are several species of apes (including men) - you are not comparing apples to apples (or species to species).

Humans evolved from a common ancestor that we share with other species of apes just like dogs and cats descended from a common ancestor that all cat species share or all canine species share.

You also don't understand 'survival of the fittest'. You should actually read a book on evolutoin to understand it - try Darwins 'Origin of Species'. It would clear up most of your misconceptions about evolution and allow you to stop repeating them.

 

[A4C]

I find it funny to see a defender of the 'craters are sinkholes' theory make such a statement.

I find it funny that you think the sink holes are apparently the target area of cosmic warmongers hurling meteors at us.
I also find it funnier that you ask where all the water went then you ridicule the obvious answer.

 

[william jay schroeder]

So you're going to play the 'running goalpost'-game?

you have a name for everthing dont you. do you all get a manual to use agaisnt creationist. If you cant really answer the question do this tactic. He did not answer my question but gave something not even related to it. We did not evolve from plants did we. I have never seen your tree of evolution from a comman ancestor involve plants. Plants you say went one way while animals went another and im dealing with animals not plants. so who is doing what. My post #167 in 17 i think.

 

[Loudmouth]

you have a name for everthing dont you. do you all get a manual to use agaisnt creationist.

Yes, it is a list of logical fallacies.
You can find the list here : http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

"Moving goal posts" or more accurately "(Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection) "

We find logic to be our friend since creationism can not be logically defended.

If you cant really answer the question do this tactic.

If in answering your question we do not satisfactorially support the theory, then it is you who asked a poor question.

He did not answer my question but gave something not even related to it. We did not evolve from plants did we. I have never seen your tree of evolution from a comman ancestor involve plants. Plants you say went one way while animals went another and im dealing with animals not plants. so who is doing what.

How is speciation in plants any different than speciation in animals? You answer my question this time.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He is indeed right. A dinosaur is not a species of fish. Both are species of invertebrates, however. Same with protozoa. Protozoa and fishes split off from each other earlier. Both are eukaryotes, but fishes are not classified as protozoa. But maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

He is using the notion of a pool from which related species can emerge. I am just noting that there can be larger pools than he is allowing for. There doesn't have to be a separate one for dinosaurs and fish. While a dinosaur is not a species of fish (his term, not mine) it is in the same clade as fish and does have a common ancestor with fish.