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

[gluadys]

....it says right in teh bible that god is NOT a liar... god CANT lie!

That's why I accept evolution as the way God created diverse species.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Dinosaurs and fish are both "species" within the phylum Chordata. That means that fish and dinosaurs are in the Chordata pool.

 

[gluadys]

Dinosaurs and fish are both "species" within the phylum Chordata. That means that fish and dinosaurs are in the Chordata pool.

That's the idea. I haven't see a response from Mark T yet.

 

[Tomk80]

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

I don't get a manual. However, we have a list of debating fallacies. Debating fallacies are very common amongst creationists, so people debating creatonists for a longer period of time become aware of the different names. Ah, I see Loudmouth already posted it.

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.

All species developed through the same mechanism. Hence, if you want an example of a beneficial mutation and we give you one in plants, we have answered your question. If beneficial mutations can occur in plants, what reason do you have to state that it could not occur in humans? Be specific.

Now, if you wanted a beneficial mutation in a specific species, you should have said so. It's not our answer which was incorrect, but your question which was inadequately phrased. So, apparantly you want something more specific. So you want a beneficial mutation in which species? And what criteria should that mutation give? Be specific.

As an encore. We have a common ancestor with plants, it's just very, very far away. Here to be exact.

 

[Tomk80]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[william jay schroeder]

I don't get a manual. However, we have a list of debating fallacies. Debating fallacies are very common amongst creationists, so people debating creatonists for a longer period of time become aware of the different names. Ah, I see Loudmouth already posted it.


All species developed through the same mechanism. Hence, if you want an example of a beneficial mutation and we give you one in plants, we have answered your question. If beneficial mutations can occur in plants, what reason do you have to state that it could not occur in humans? Be specific.

Now, if you wanted a beneficial mutation in a specific species, you should have said so. It's not our answer which was incorrect, but your question which was inadequately phrased. So, apparantly you want something more specific. So you want a beneficial mutation in which species? And what criteria should that mutation give? Be specific.

As an encore. We have a common ancestor with plants, it's just very, very far away. Here to be exact.

That site was pretty neat. Though i dont see how we are from them on some tree. God is a God of order not disorder so i would very much agree that we all share many of the same charaistics. All these simple organism are still around and havent changed much at all. Bacteria supposidly the first organism hasnt changed and is even in side of us. Its a fact that bacteria cant become nothing more then a bacteria and all the other simple cell organism are the same. We have never seen them change to anything else no matter how hard we have tried in the labs to make them. This i quess doesnt bother you. And the change i am looking for is a mutation to change the reptile to a mammmal. like the kidney to excrete urea instead of uric acid, the diaphram to be created as well as the mammary glands and breasts and nibbles, the imbilicalcord the overies, and such. All these the reptiles do not even have or express in any way, So this would be to me NEW information.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

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?

Because evolution does not require the extinction of one species in order for another to evolve from its common ancestor, if you think it does then your grip on the theory is tenuous.

The theory of evolution, of course, contradicts basic reproductive principles. But in the imagination ANYTHING'S possible.

The theory of evolution does not contradict the basic reproductive principles at all, it depends on them. Then again, your posts are riddle with clues that you do not have the first clue what the theory you are trying to debunk actually claims.

Why do people do that? Why do they categorically deny the possibility of a theory that they clearly don’t know anything about?

If you think evolution violates basic reproductive principles and requires that an ancestral population only spawns a single offshoot, then you need to read up on what the theory actually says, because you are wrong on two very big counts.

Ghost

 

[Loudmouth]

That site was pretty neat. Though i dont see how we are from them on some tree. God is a God of order not disorder so i would very much agree that we all share many of the same charaistics.

Don't you love it, one minute Special Creation is as obvious as the nose on your face. The next minute, Special Creation looks exactly like evolution.

All these simple organism are still around and havent changed much at all. Bacteria supposidly the first organism hasnt changed and is even in side of us. Its a fact that bacteria cant become nothing more then a bacteria and all the other simple cell organism are the same.

Care to support that claim. Can you please show me the first bacterial species so that I can compare the two? Can you please show me why it is impossible for bacteria to form multicellular systems.

We have never seen them change to anything else no matter how hard we have tried in the labs to make them. This i quess doesnt bother you.

Yoohoo, forget about the bacteria who can't digest nylong and who changed into bacteria who CAN eat nylon? How is that not a change?

And the change i am looking for is a mutation to change the reptile to a mammmal. like the kidney to excrete urea instead of uric acid, the diaphram to be created as well as the mammary glands and breasts and nibbles, the imbilicalcord the overies, and such. All these the reptiles do not even have or express in any way, So this would be to me NEW information.

So you think that reptile to mammal required a single mutation?

So let's name the actual changes that mater, out of your list. Mammary glands are needed, and are quite obviously a variation on sweat glands. Even amphibians have diaphrams, so I'm not sure where you are going with that one. Urea to uric acid is interesting, I'll have to look into that one. The duckbill platypus is a mammal and it doesn't require breasts, nipples, or an umbilical cord, so those are all mammalian characteristics that developed after the split with reptiles. Don't forget, there are egg laying mammals.

Can you please show us what new information would look like at the DNA level? For instance, could you print out a DNA sequence and then add information to it, showing us what it looks like before the new information is added and what it looks like after the new information is added.

 

[MarkT]

Many people who accept evolution have faith in a supreme creator, they just accept that he used evolution as his method of creating because he is smart enough and incite full enough to do so, and honest enough not to have left faked evidence in his creation, and powerful enough not to have let demons plant it in his creation, as some one hypothesises.

Those people would be wrong. God created everything by His Word. His Word became one of us.

Jesus did not evolve from a jellyfish.

 

[Split Rock]

Those people would be wrong. God created everything by His Word. His Word became one of us.

Jesus did not evolve from a jellyfish.

What is this supposed to mean? No individual has evolved from anything. Populations evolve not individuals.

 

[MarkT]

notto

What 'pool' would a dinosaur with feathers belong to? If you can't answer this question, then your 'pool' concept is meaningless.

It would belong to a species of dinosaur/lizard that had wings and could presumably fly.

 

[MarkT]

notto

What 'pool' would a dinosaur with feathers belong to? If you can't answer this question, then your 'pool' concept is meaningless.

It would belong to a species of dinosaur/lizard that had wings and could presumably fly.

 

[MarkT]

Is a kind limited to one single species? Or are wolves, coyotes and beagles all species of the dog “kind”?

If kind can be more than one species, why can’t bears and dogs come from the same bear-dog gene pool?

A kind does refer to more than one species. Dogs and bears are a kind of animal.

However, it doesn't mean they are related as species. A species has to look alot like the parent population ie. the family it belongs to.

So a pool begins with a family and it ends with the species that come out of it.

That would be the way I see it.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would belong to a species of dinosaur/lizard that had wings and could presumably fly.

I could describe birds in the same way.

 

[WaZoO]

Don't you see the huge problem with that whole "kinds" theory? There's no way that much evolution could have taken place in 10,000 years, there would be new species forming every day and that's not what we observe. Another problem is that there isn't any reason why chimps wouldn't fit into the same "kind" as human when you look at the standards that people use to identify the kinds.

 

[A4C]

As I watch what evolutionist say in answer to creationists pointing out gaping holes in their "theory" I am reminded of a dance floor full of couples doing the waltz. When at full speed they come up to another couple doing a stationary sequence, they briefly stop , do a side shuffle, twirl around, then proceed at their original pace. I must say the side shuffle bit is impressive though.

 

[notto]

notto



It would belong to a species of dinosaur/lizard that had wings and could presumably fly.

So a bird with teeth then. We have fossils of those as well.

In fact just about any graduation between dinosaur and bird has been found in the fossil record in just the order evolution would expect. No clear cut kinds between dinosaurs and birds.

Why would a dinosaraur kind have feathers and fly? Why not just call it a bird?

Why would a bird have teeth and claws? Why not just call it a dinosaur?

or . . Why not just give up the clearly unsupportable concept of kinds for something that can accurately describe what we find in the fossil record - a nested hierarchy of related species.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I watch what evolutionist say in answer to creationists pointing out gaping holes in their "theory" I am reminded of a dance floor full of couples doing the waltz. When at full speed they come up to another couple doing a stationary sequence, they briefly stop , do a side shuffle, twirl around, then proceed at their original pace. I must say the side shuffle bit is impressive though.

The only dancing I have seen was your jitterbug when confronted with the sorted fossils in the geologic record. Dare I bring up craters . . . err, I mean sinkholes?

 

[A4C]

The only dancing I have seen was your jitterbug when confronted with the sorted fossils in the geologic record. Dare I bring up craters . . . err, I mean sinkholes?

nice shuffle there

 

[william jay schroeder]

Don't you love it, one minute Special Creation is as obvious as the nose on your face. The next minute, Special Creation looks exactly like evolution.

evolution is real as in small changes over time already stated by me. the theory that we all came from one ancestor is what not right. Speciation is evolution but will never go beyond the structure or sytems with in itself.

Care to support that claim. Can you please show me the first bacterial species so that I can compare the two? Can you please show me why it is impossible for bacteria to form multicellular systems.



Yoohoo, forget about the bacteria who can't digest nylong and who changed into bacteria who CAN eat nylon? How is that not a change?

Well bacteria can change in our stomach to digest a multitude of things so i dont see the problem or concern that this proves the theory from a comman ancestor. Change is not the problem. Show me a bacteria that is a multicellular system. Most simple cells are the same now or very nearly the same as the ones in the fossil record arre they not.

So you think that reptile to mammal required a single mutation?

So let's name the actual changes that mater, out of your list. Mammary glands are needed, and are quite obviously a variation on sweat glands. Even amphibians have diaphrams, so I'm not sure where you are going with that one. Urea to uric acid is interesting, I'll have to look into that one. The duckbill platypus is a mammal and it doesn't require breasts, nipples, or an umbilical cord, so those are all mammalian characteristics that developed after the split with reptiles. Don't forget, there are egg laying mammals.

Can you please show us what new information would look like at the DNA level? For instance, could you print out a DNA sequence and then add information to it, showing us what it looks like before the new information is added and what it looks like after the new information is added.

Are obviouse your and others opinion. So i quess they acguired other means to sweat at the same time. I said reptiles to mammals not amphibians, and this is a problem since you say reptiles came from amphibians so they deevolved this and then evolved it back. There is one egg laying mammal. and if this is true then what you believe to be reptile fossils could well be mammals, and this duckbill platypus could be the last of this type of mammal because they didnt adapt well after the flood. Why do i need to present this info when it is you that suggest that DNA gets new info When all you show is deletions duplicastion and lose ect. none which is new info just the same read different. I can say just the same as you in that it isnt and you say it is because we can not prove either or for fact. We do not know all about the DNA as of yet or ever so it is all still speculation on our parts.