Why Evolution is Impossible part II

[Calypsis4]

Define "kind". Or stop using it. Using a term with no definition is an INCREDIBLY dishonest move, and it doesn't show anything since it doesn't have a definition to show.

I could reply equally: define 'species' or stop using it. Please don't give me orders.

Again, define 'kind'.

Organisms that are classified in the order/family level of the Linneaus classification system. But God's classification is 3,000 yrs older than Linneaus and the Linneaus system is not infallible, being but one of nine different classifications known to science today. Therefore we are not bound by Linneaus.

Evolution predicts nothing of the sort.

You aren't telling the truth. Change from one organism to another is the apex of evolutionary thought. The particular example I gave may not be what evolutionists think bats evolved into...but actually THEY DON'T KNOW! They don't have a clue because the fossil record reveals no change from the bats we have recorded in that record into any other identifiable organism.

Cool! What type of science?

Biology. Physical science. I also taught physics for one year.

Actually, it can't reveal changes within a kind because NOBODY HAS EVER SAID WHAT A KIND IS! So we DON"T know we've seen changes within a kind. We also don't know if we've seen changes within a krixbit, a walgertap, or a shikjee either.

That was an empty statement. We have hundreds of examples of living fossils and examples of organisms encased in amber to go by. All of which reveals no evolutionary change from one kind of organisms to any other kind of organism.

Once you define the term, THEN we can talk about if we've seen it or not. Put the goalposts down.

I can see you are disturbed at having the belief in evolution exposed for what it is. I can offer you no comfort for it is going to get much worse as I proceed.

Metherion

Best wishes.

 

[Calypsis4]

And the same critiques everyone here gave re: the non-uniformity of evolutionary rates apply. It's almost as though you aren't listening.

You are the one who isn't listening; most of all to God's Word.

 

[Calypsis4]

Moving further on our subject:

From the University of California at Berkeley.

A fossil of bacteria that is so much like its offspring that the scientists at Berkeley say that it was not only 'very similar' but that it could 'almost be referred to as living genera'. So where is the evolution in bacteria? Bacteria experiences variation within the kind but has never been observed becoming anything other than bacteria.

Another example of magnolias...the living and the dead. No one can demonstrate that magnolias reveal a step-by-step change from another kind of plant nor can anyone reveal a step-by-step change of magnolias into a different plant.

The living feather star reveals no evolutionary change either.

More example will be coming.

 

[Calypsis4]

Next, the world of insects reveals no evolutionary change either:

Then there is this:

The katydid reveals no evolutionary change. No one can find fossils of organisms that 'evolved' into a katydid and none can find fossils of katydids that reveal a step-by-step change into a different insect. The genetic limitations that the Creator imposed upon living organisms permit a variation within the genetic kind but not a change from one organism to another.

Neither does the scorpionfly reveal evolutionary change:

My source for most of the color photographs is from Living Fossils, Evolution: The Grand Experiment by Dr. Carl Werner.

Still more coming.

 

[laconicstudent]

You are the one who isn't listening; most of all to God's Word.

God's Word speaks to our souls. It isn't a science textbook. What you are doing is like watching the Disney movie "Mulan" and trying to use it as a authoritative source on Chinese history.

Or taking the movie "Prince of Egypt" and trying to use it as a historical record of Ancient Egypt.

 

[pgp_protector]

so how long will this one last

 

[gluadys]

gluadys

Nearly one out of every four species of mammal is a bat. It takes a lot of evolution to generate that much diversity.

That isn't evolution. It is variation within the kind. Evolution does not exist.

Oh, sure, redefine evolution into something that does not exist, and of course it doesn't exist.

According to any standard definition of evolution, what you are calling variation within the kind is evolution. You don't get multiple families, genera and species (not to mention orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms and domains) within a clade without evolution.

Seems you need to brush up on what evolution is.

Why? How have you (or your source) arrived at these figures?

The bat you see in the OP is dated by evolutionists at 52 million yrs. old and they fully acknowledge that it is the first of its kind. If you can find another fossil that is supposedly older than that then you are free to post it for us.

I am talking here about common sense. There is no problem finding fossils of bats...

No one said there was a problem finding fossils of bats. The question was to your claim about the number that should be found. What source establishes how many fossils should be found and on what factual basis? I see you have given no answer to the actual question.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Bat-Cat--31964.jpg

What you WON'T see is something like this:

And as an evolution-denier, this is what you should be looking for to solidify your case against evolution. If you found such a creature it would be a clear case of a species that could not have evolved. There would be no evolutionary explanation for its existence.

If you think this is what the theory of evolution hypothesizes, you need to start from square one learning what evolution really is. You clearly don't know squat.

And direct observation has been made by those who had access to them.

And who among those who had direct access to the fossils have said they are the same species as the modern species?

Look, if you can't show evolutionary change from one organism to another in the most available fossil evidence that we have (living fossils) then how can you justify the claim that such organisms have evolved at all?

Using the actual definition of evolution or your inaccurate definition that does not acknowledge most evolutionary change?

For your information I taught science for 26 yrs. I am retired.

Teaching science doesn't make you a scientist. I taught literature; doesn't make me a writer.

They cannot reveal changes from one kind of organism into another.

Organisms (individuals) don't evolve. At most they show individual variations. Species evolve. It is a populational process, not changes in specific organisms.

Definition: evolution - a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state. A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their ORIGINS in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Mirriam Webster Dictionary

The first part is n outdated definition from a popular (not scientific) dictionary. The publishers should be advised to consult with some biologists and correct the statement. The second part is correct.

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Encyclopedia Britannica

Yes. And this is not the definition you have been using.

"evolution Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones." (Walker, P.M.B., ed., "Cambridge Dictionary of Biology," [1989], Cambridge University Press: New York NY, 1990, Reprinted, pp.105-106. Emphasis original)

The first sentence is correct. And I expect that in all those "identical" fossil/living forms you have shown us, there is a fair bit of change in the genetic composition of those forms over successive generations. Second sentence is historically correct though not essential to a theory of evolution.

"That is, even if we found a living T-Rex, that wouldn't negatively impact the theory of evolution. It would be surprising, to be sure, but it wouldn't undermine evolution. You're thinking of it the wrong way around:"

No. It is your thinking that is in error. If geologists discover the remains of a human being in the belly of a well preserved T-Rex then practically speaking, that is the end of evolution in our world. Hold your breath, for that day is coming.

Not if the T-Rex is alive. It would only undermine evolution if the T-Rex was indeed a 65+ million year old fosssil.

The nested heirarchy argument doesn't help your cause. What is revealed in the comparison of fossils dated millions of yrs and their living offspring reveals exactly what I have posited here: no evolutionary change from one kind to another.

You think so because you think evolution calls for a violation of the nested hierarchy like the cat-faced bat. In fact, that is what would disprove evolution. The fact that there is a natural nested hierarchy of species---which would preclude the cat-faced bat---is evidence that supports evolution very strongly.

You need to learn what the theory of evolution really is. You are presenting strawmen--not anything to do with biological evolution.

There has been no change from one organism to another. Bats change within their kind but are still bats.

Exactly as the theory of evolution says they ought to be.

Drosophila flies change within their kind but remain flies...none have become birds or bees or even gnats.

Exactly as the theory of evolution predicts. Drosophila flies changing into bees would falsify the theory of evolution.

Bacteria changes are observed but they remain bacterium.

Yes, all bacteria have parents which were bacteria. And all animals have parents that were animals. Just as the theory of evolution requires.

Moths change but remain moths, Horses change but remain horses, and so it goes; consistently.

Yes, all consistent with the theory of evolution and common descent.

 

[Calypsis4]

Oh, sure, redefine evolution into something that does not exist, and of course it doesn't exist.

I gave the definition of evolution from three well known sources earlier. Not one of them is a creationist source. They are the classic sources for students everywhere in the English speaking world. You are trying to escape reality because you cannot refute the evidence I have given.


According to any standard definition of evolution, what you are calling variation within the kind is evolution.

It is small change within the kind. That is not the evolution that is defined above. You know it.

You don't get multiple families, genera and species (not to mention orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms and domains) within a clade without evolution.

Yes, we do. It's called 'creation'.


Seems you need to brush up on what evolution is.

I see. Never mind that I am an ex-evolutionist and that I have studied the issue for over 45 yrs.

No one said there was a problem finding fossils of bats. The question was to your claim about the number that should be found.

You're not getting it. It is clear that you don't WISH to get it. The point is that there aren't ANY fossil bats older than the 52 million yr old bat dated at that age by evolutionists. That is a huge problem whether you wish to admit it or not. You are dodging the issue.

What source establishes how many fossils should be found and on what factual basis? I see you have given no answer to the actual question.

How much money do you need for your bills next month? Doesn't common sense dictate that? Common sense tells us that if bats evolved from lower forms of life then there should be a record of those step-by-step changes. There are none either before nor are there any showing a development of the bat into anything other organism. There really isn't anything you can do about it.

And as an evolution-denier, this is what you should be looking for to solidify your case against evolution. If you found such a creature it would be a clear case of a species that could not have evolved. There would be no evolutionary explanation for its existence.

The case is very solid and will become even more apparent as I continue to post evidence that biological evolution has never occured. There are hundreds of such examples and I intend to post many more of those available.


If you think this is what the theory of evolution hypothesizes, you need to start from square one learning what evolution really is. You clearly don't know squat.

Don't give me that. Read what I said above.

And who among those who had direct access to the fossils have said they are the same species as the modern species?

Perhaps I could drag out the dozens of quotes I have by evolutionists who made comments about the fossils they found, who like the author of the encyclopedia of trees commented on the gingko that has not changed in 150 million yrs....? I have about five or six dozen of those in my files.

Using the actual definition of evolution or your inaccurate definition that does not acknowledge most evolutionary change?

Look, your denials are getting tedious. It is not MY definition...

Mirriam Webster Dictionary

Encyclopedia Britannica

Cambridge Dictionary of Biology

Don't try and tell the readers that those classic sources are not up-to-date on the defintion of your theory. If you do you will not be telling the truth.

Teaching science doesn't make you a scientist. I taught literature; doesn't make me a writer.

That's not an issue. The facts are the issue.

Organisms (individuals) don't evolve. At most they show individual variations. Species evolve. It is a populational process, not changes in specific organisms.

Good grief, what planet did that information come from? Do you mean to suggest that small creatures like frogs suddenly developed wings all at the same time...and transformed into birds...at the same time as a 'population'? If not, then what? And what, in the DNA code would allow for such a transformation?


The first part is an outdated definition from a popular (not scientific) dictionary. The publishers should be advised to consult with some biologists and correct the statement. The second part is correct.

'outdated'? Only to the Orwellians who are seeking to change definitions and meanings because they know they have no real evidence to back up their claims of biological evolution and they wish to obscure the issue.

Yes. And this is not the definition you have been using.

They/it is the ONLY definition I have used and applied to this debate. You are not telling the truth.

The first sentence is correct.

You are not the one who determines that. Furthermore, once again, you are not telling the truth. The matter of 'simple to complex' has always been a part of the definition of evolution since the days of Charles Darwin.

I don't agree with the scientists who developed the definition but I don't disagree with that definition. At least they were honest about what evolution is. Modern Orwellians are not honest about what it is.

And I expect that in all those "identical" fossil/living forms you have shown us, there is a fair bit of change in the genetic composition of those forms over successive generations. Second sentence is historically correct though not essential to a theory of evolution.

"And I expect..." In other words you are guessing. But you don't know. Furthermore you can't know.

Not if the T-Rex is alive. It would only undermine evolution if the T-Rex was indeed a 65+ million year old fosssil.

You're living in dream land. You don't know the ropes. But when it happens you will see the collapse of the belief in evolution in the civilized world.

You think so because you think evolution calls for a violation of the nested hierarchy like the cat-faced bat. In fact, that is what would disprove evolution. The fact that there is a natural nested hierarchy of species---which would preclude the cat-faced bat---is evidence that supports evolution very strongly.

How can it when evolution doesn't exist in the first place. If it did exist it would be in direct violation of natural law. It can't. It won't. It never will because it never occured on this planet.

You need to learn what the theory of evolution really is. You are presenting strawmen--not anything to do with biological evolution.

Yawn. Why go further when you aren't giving me anything but opinions?

Exactly as the theory of evolution says they ought to be.

Exactly as the theory of evolution predicts. Drosophila flies changing into bees would falsify the theory of evolution.

But neither you nor any of your comrades in accidentalism can post photos of drosophila's changing step-by-step into ANYTHING other than other drosophila's let alone a fly into a bee!

Yes, all bacteria have parents which were bacteria. And all animals have parents that were animals. Just as the theory of evolution requires.

You are attempting to trivialize a very great problem for evolution theory. It won't work. The available evidence speaks very loudly.

One last thing. Little Billy Bacteria had a daddy. He was a bacteria too! And little Billy Bacteria had a grandpa...he was a bacteria also. And little Billy Bacteria had a great grandpa. He was bacteria as well. All of Billy Bacterias ancestors were...guess what? Bacteria.

Now, prove genetically that his ancestors were ever anything else. Now, prove that Billy Bacterias descendants were anything else.

Yes, all consistent with the theory of evolution and common descent.

Bye.

 

[Calypsis4]

God's Word speaks to our souls. It isn't a science textbook. What you are doing is like watching the Disney movie "Mulan" and trying to use it as a authoritative source on Chinese history.

Or taking the movie "Prince of Egypt" and trying to use it as a historical record of Ancient Egypt.

You are making it clear that direct observational evidence means nothing to you.

God's Word is the written account of the creation, fall, and redemption of man by Christ Jesus who is the Son of God as it is found in the Holy Bible. It gives us the true manner in which the Lord brought the world into existence and it is not obscure nor ambigous about it.

"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11 in the ten commandments.

"But from the beginning of the creation the Lord made them male and female." Mark 10:6

For faithful believers in Jesus that is final.

 

[pgp_protector]

You are making it clear that direct observational evidence means nothing to you.

God's Word is the written account of the creation, fall, and redemption of man by Christ Jesus who is the Son of God as it is found in the Holy Bible. It gives us the true manner in which the Lord brought the world into existence and it is not obscure nor ambigous about it.

"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11 in the ten commandments.

"But from the beginning of the creation the Lord made them male and female." Mark 10:6

For faithful believers in Jesus that is final.

Nope, for your interpretation it's final for you.

 

[Willtor]

"Calypsis4, this understanding of evolution is flawed. It wouldn't matter to evolution even if these species _hadn't_ changed (as you suppose they haven't)."

No, it isn't. Check this out for yourself:

Definition: evolution - a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state. A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their ORIGINS in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Mirriam Webster Dictionary

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Encyclopedia Britannica

"evolution Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones." (Walker, P.M.B., ed., "Cambridge Dictionary of Biology," [1989], Cambridge University Press: New York NY, 1990, Reprinted, pp.105-106. Emphasis original)

The MW definition is not quite right as applied to the field of biology. As it turns out, the term "evolution" is actually older than the biological theory, so you will likely find many people using it loosely and conflating the more traditional meanings with the theory. There is a good primer hosted by Berkley that you might read.

"That is, even if we found a living T-Rex, that wouldn't negatively impact the theory of evolution. It would be surprising, to be sure, but it wouldn't undermine evolution. You're thinking of it the wrong way around:"

No. It is your thinking that is in error. If geologists discover the remains of a human being in the belly of a well preserved T-Rex then practically speaking, that is the end of evolution in our world. Hold your breath, for that day is coming.

If the T-Rex and the human are below the K-T boundary, then yes indeed. But, again, the problem is the anachronism of the human -- not the T-Rex. If, for example, we found a T-Rex that had died last year that had a human in its belly, that would not be a problem for evolution.

"If the species form a nested hierarchy, you should be looking for anachronisms in the other direction. You should be looking for vertebrates -- especially modern-ish vertebrates -- that appear before they were supposed to have evolved. Or you should be looking for species that don't fit into the nested hierarchy (e.g., vertebrates with more than 4 appendages). Those are things that would be harmful to the theory of evolution as it exists, now."

The nested heirarchy argument doesn't help your cause. What is revealed in the comparison of fossils dated millions of yrs and their living offspring reveals exactly what I have posited here: no evolutionary change from one kind to another.

You should read that Berkley link. Certainly, the way creationists understand the term evolution, yes, that is a problem for evolution. But not for the way evolutionary scientists understand it.

"But arguing about something that hasn't changed much* or something that was thought to be extinct that actually survived... that is interesting, but it isn't an argument against evolution."

"much"? There has been no change from one organism to another. Bats change within their kind but are still bats. Drosophila flies change within their kind but remain flies...none have become birds or bees or even gnats. Bacteria changes are observed but they remain bacterium. Moths change but remain moths, Horses change but remain horses, and so it goes; consistently.

When you talk about evolution, you have to think in terms of populations forming clades, not about individuals from one group having children of another group. Again, that's something that creationists think evolution says, but not what the theory actually is.

"* - You should read Mallon's post, carefully. Sometimes two tiny pictures, side-by-side, can be deceiving."

I did.

"Your first example of bats is an interesting choice because, indeed, there are few examples of good transitional bats in the fossil record (fossil bats are hard to come by, given their delicate skeletons). The earliest bats so far discovered appear to be very similar to modern ones. Still, you conveniently neglected to mention that the earliest known bat species, Onychonycteris finneyi, had a simple cochlea incapable of echolocation, a distinctly more primitive feature relative to modern bats: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bat fossil solves evolution poser
So to say that bats haven't changed since they first appeared in the fossil record is, as you would accuse others, a lie. They have changed. They have evolved."

Being incapable of echolocation...it is yet still a bat.

He revealed only change within the kind, nothing more.

Tell me more about "kind." What is that? Are mice and rats the same kind? What about mice and rabbits? What about rabbits and hares? Help me understand what a "kind" is and how it can be recognized.

Best wishes.

You too.

 

[Calypsis4]

Nope, for your interpretation it's final for you.

I didnt give you an interpretation. I merely quoted scripture.

Your attitude reveals that you just don't believe it.

 

[Calypsis4]

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"Calypsis4, this understanding of evolution is flawed. It wouldn't matter to evolution even if these species _hadn't_ changed (as you suppose they haven't)."

No, it isn't. Check this out for yourself:

Definition: evolution - a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state. A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their ORIGINS in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Mirriam Webster Dictionary

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. Encyclopedia Britannica

"evolution Changes in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations. The gradual development of more complex organisms from simpler ones." (Walker, P.M.B., ed., "Cambridge Dictionary of Biology," [1989], Cambridge University Press: New York NY, 1990, Reprinted, pp.105-106. Emphasis original)
​

The MW definition is not quite right as applied to the field of biology. As it turns out, the term "evolution" is actually older than the biological theory, so you will likely find many people using it loosely and conflating the more traditional meanings with the theory. There is a good primer hosted by Berkley that you might read.

'Not quite right'? Who are you to determine that? By what authority do you seek to change what has been the accepted definition of evolution for the last 150 yrs?

The practical consequence of what you are saying is that the average student cannot turn to the classic definitions of evolution as found in the most common sources for those defintions for a proper understanding of what evolution is. That is ridiculous.


Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"That is, even if we found a living T-Rex, that wouldn't negatively impact the theory of evolution. It would be surprising, to be sure, but it wouldn't undermine evolution. You're thinking of it the wrong way around:"

No. It is your thinking that is in error. If geologists discover the remains of a human being in the belly of a well preserved T-Rex then practically speaking, that is the end of evolution in our world. Hold your breath, for that day is coming.
​

If the T-Rex and the human are below the K-T boundary, then yes indeed. But, again, the problem is the anachronism of the human -- not the T-Rex. If, for example, we found a T-Rex that had died last year that had a human in its belly, that would not be a problem for evolution.

"...a T-Rex that had died last year..." And if we did find a 'T-Rex' that died last year the debate between evolution and creation would be, for all practical purposes overwith, for evolutionists insist they became extinct about 60 millions yrs ago and there are NONE existing in the world today.

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"If the species form a nested hierarchy, you should be looking for anachronisms in the other direction. You should be looking for vertebrates -- especially modern-ish vertebrates -- that appear before they were supposed to have evolved. Or you should be looking for species that don't fit into the nested hierarchy (e.g., vertebrates with more than 4 appendages). Those are things that would be harmful to the theory of evolution as it exists, now."

The nested heirarchy argument doesn't help your cause. What is revealed in the comparison of fossils dated millions of yrs and their living offspring reveals exactly what I have posited here: no evolutionary change from one kind to another.
​

You should read that Berkley link. Certainly, the way creationists understand the term evolution, yes, that is a problem for evolution. But not for the way evolutionary scientists understand it.

Not like I haven't read such things before. Since, we believe, living organisms were created as distinguished by the DNA code into the different kinds as I illustrated earlier, then the nested heirarchy issue is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I'll take a look at it.


Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"But arguing about something that hasn't changed much* or something that was thought to be extinct that actually survived... that is interesting, but it isn't an argument against evolution."

"much"? There has been no change from one organism to another. Bats change within their kind but are still bats. Drosophila flies change within their kind but remain flies...none have become birds or bees or even gnats. Bacteria changes are observed but they remain bacterium. Moths change but remain moths, Horses change but remain horses, and so it goes; consistently.
​

When you talk about evolution, you have to think in terms of populations forming clades, not about individuals from one group having children of another group. Again, that's something that creationists think evolution says, but not what the theory actually is.

You aren't thinking. 'Populations forming clades' requires a genetic change in the DNA code. Now demonstrate such a change. Start with drosophilas and work from there. Actually, you can start with ANY species and give evidence that scientists can (even with controlled, intelligent engineering)accomplish the change of one organism into any other kind of organism.

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"* - You should read Mallon's post, carefully. Sometimes two tiny pictures, side-by-side, can be deceiving."

I did.

"Your first example of bats is an interesting choice because, indeed, there are few examples of good transitional bats in the fossil record (fossil bats are hard to come by, given their delicate skeletons). The earliest bats so far discovered appear to be very similar to modern ones. Still, you conveniently neglected to mention that the earliest known bat species, Onychonycteris finneyi, had a simple cochlea incapable of echolocation, a distinctly more primitive feature relative to modern bats: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bat fossil solves evolution poser
So to say that bats haven't changed since they first appeared in the fossil record is, as you would accuse others, a lie. They have changed. They have evolved."

Being incapable of echolocation...it is yet still a bat.

He revealed only change within the kind, nothing more.
​

Tell me more about "kind." What is that? Are mice and rats the same kind? What about mice and rabbits? What about rabbits and hares? Help me understand what a "kind" is and how it can be recognized.

I did this above. Please go back and read it. It disturbs me however that evolutionists harp on this issue that we should not have to explain any more than explaining 'species' or 'organism'.

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

Best wishes.
​

You too.

Goodnight.

 

[Calypsis4]

More blows against the kingdom (evolution):

Angel sharks reveal no evolution even after 'millions of years':

Salamanders, likewise reveal no definable change. There were no fossils of the step-by-step from another organism to this salamander and there have been none revealing a step-by-step change into a different organism since this fossil supposedly formed millions of yrs ago. It appears abruptly in the fossil record just like virtually all other organisms.

Ground lizards haven't changed either:

More coming.

 

[Willtor]

'Not quite right'? Who are you to determine that? By what authority do you seek to change what has been the accepted definition of evolution for the last 150 yrs?

The practical consequence of what you are saying is that the average student cannot turn to the classic definitions of evolution as found in the most common sources for those defintions for a proper understanding of what evolution is. That is ridiculous.

Och, I'm afraid you'll find that with most science, though. We all feel like our fields are poorly represented in the common sources. High school textbooks are notorious, for example. And if they're bad, you know this goes especially for dictionaries.

I'm one to determine what is or is not quite right (to a limited extent) because I've read popular science books written by experts in the field. There are also a couple right here on CF.

The trouble is, by my thinking, (a slight digression) the fact that "evolution" was a word in common usage before the theory was proposed. Evolution was used to mean change or development. You might see this in astronomy or astrophysics where people talk about "the evolution of stars" where there is definite direction -- and it's something that every individual star does. The popular usage, however, is more general than the theory. The theory is best studied in books on the subject rather than dictionary definitions.

"...a T-Rex that had died last year..." And if we did find a 'T-Rex' that died last year the debate between evolution and creation would be, for all practical purposes overwith, for evolutionists insist they became extinct about 60 millions yrs ago and there are NONE existing in the world today.

The reason that paleontologists say they are extinct is that they have no evidence of them beyond the K-T boundary. If they found a living T-Rex it would mean there are significant holes in our knowledge of the intermediate time-frame, but it doesn't alter the notion of pressures of natural selection as a filter for diversity of life. I mean, as long as the living T-Rex is a descendant of the fossilized ones...

Again, the trouble would come by finding something that goes the other way. _That_ would undermine the theory of evolution. But a living T-Rex would not.

Not like I haven't read such things before. Since, we believe, living organisms were created as distinguished by the DNA code into the different kinds as I illustrated earlier, then the nested heirarchy issue is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I'll take a look at it.

Well, even if you are right about "kinds" I hope the link gives you a better understanding of evolution and why the TEs here are complaining about the validity of these arguments.

When you talk about evolution, you have to think in terms of populations forming clades, not about individuals from one group having children of another group. Again, that's something that creationists think evolution says, but not what the theory actually is.

You aren't thinking. 'Populations forming clades' requires a genetic change in the DNA code. Now demonstrate such a change. Start with drosophilas and work from there. Actually, you can start with ANY species and give evidence that scientists can (even with controlled, intelligent engineering)accomplish the change of one organism into any other kind of organism.

That's the whole point of cladistics. Drosophilas will never cease to be drosophilas. If they did, this is another thing that would undermine evolution. Again, this is why I cited the example of a vertebrate with more than four appendages.

What evolution suggests, however, is that two (separate, for the purposes of procreation) populations of fruit flies (or whatever else), over the course of generations will cease to be able to procreate with one another. The single species will become two.

I did this above. Please go back and read it. It disturbs me however that evolutionists harp on this issue that we should not have to explain any more than explaining 'species' or 'organism'.

For the purposes of evolution, you and I are individual organisms. Our species is a group that consists of organisms that are similar to us to the degree that members of the group are able to breed and produce viable offspring. Now, there are other reasons individuals may not be able to produce viable offspring, but evolution is concerned with genetic compatibility.

I'm afraid I can't find where you defined "kind." Is it defined in such a way that I could identify and distinguish "kinds" without asking you for each case? Would we find that we disagree on this particular boundary or that -- and would there be an objective way to choose between us? For instance, if you think that rabbits and hares are one "kind" and I think they are two, how would we decide in a way that is mutually agreeable?

 

[philadiddle]

What you WON'T see is something like this:

YouTube - Kirk Crocoduck

If we found what you and Kirk Cameron claim we should find it would falsify evolution. You better pray we find your Bat-Cat, cause it would vindicate your view.

 

[Calypsis4]

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

'Not quite right'? Who are you to determine that? By what authority do you seek to change what has been the accepted definition of evolution for the last 150 yrs?

The practical consequence of what you are saying is that the average student cannot turn to the classic definitions of evolution as found in the most common sources for those defintions for a proper understanding of what evolution is. That is ridiculous.
​

Och, I'm afraid you'll find that with most science, though. We all feel like our fields are poorly represented in the common sources. High school textbooks are notorious, for example. And if they're bad, you know this goes especially for dictionaries.

Is this some kind of a joke? Are you serious? I quoted (1) Websters dictionary. (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, & (3) the Cambridge University dictionary. Now just what do you think the scholars who put those works together use as criteria?

I'm one to determine what is or is not quite right (to a limited extent) because I've read popular science books written by experts in the field. There are also a couple right here on CF.

You are NOT the one who determines change in a definition that has been the commonly known, commonly accepted definition for 150 yrs. You are fast losing credibility with me by giving me this nonsense.

The trouble is, by my thinking, (a slight digression) the fact that "evolution" was a word in common usage before the theory was proposed. Evolution was used to mean change or development.

We are discussing Darwinian evolution as promoted by the devotees of Charles Darwin who wrote The Origin of the Species in 1859. If you have not been the subject of Orwellian brainwashing which has arbitrarily changed the meaning of evolution from what he and his protagonists thought then why are you having such a problem understanding this?

You might see this in astronomy or astrophysics where people talk about "the evolution of stars" where there is definite direction -- and it's something that every individual star does. The popular usage, however, is more general than the theory. The theory is best studied in books on the subject rather than dictionary definitions.


Originally Posted by Calypsis4

"...a T-Rex that had died last year..." And if we did find a 'T-Rex' that died last year the debate between evolution and creation would be, for all practical purposes overwith, for evolutionists insist they became extinct about 60 millions yrs ago and there are NONE existing in the world today.

The reason that paleontologists say they are extinct is that they have no evidence of them beyond the K-T boundary. If they found a living T-Rex it would mean there are significant holes in our knowledge of the intermediate time-frame, but it doesn't alter the notion of pressures of natural selection as a filter for diversity of life. I mean, as long as the living T-Rex is a descendant of the fossilized ones...

Whatever.

Again, the trouble would come by finding something that goes the other way. _That_ would undermine the theory of evolution. But a living T-Rex would not.
​

You've done nothing in dealing with the evidence that I have presented to this point that reveals that either 'Darwinian' evolution or YOUR definition of 'evolution' has ever occured.

The 'up-dated' definition of evolution, i.e. (in short) 'a change in allele frequency' is woefully inadequate and dishonest for it misleads the student from understanding the issue and the practical outworking of what evolution is supposed to be doing in our world. It's like defining a souped-up 357 Chevrolet as 'an 8 cylinder engine with four wheels.'

I am not going to continue debating this particular point.

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

Not like I haven't read such things before. Since, we believe, living organisms were created as distinguished by the DNA code into the different kinds as I illustrated earlier, then the nested heirarchy issue is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I'll take a look at it.

Well, even if you are right about "kinds" I hope the link gives you a better understanding of evolution and why the TEs here are complaining about the validity of these arguments.
​

This truly is a joke. How old are you, please?

The TE's don't care what God's Word says about the creation. To them, what skeptics say about origins and development is above the words of Moses and Jesus Christ.



Originally Posted by Calypsis4

When you talk about evolution, you have to think in terms of populations forming clades, not about individuals from one group having children of another group. Again, that's something that creationists think evolution says, but not what the theory actually is.

You aren't thinking. 'Populations forming clades' requires a genetic change in the DNA code. Now demonstrate such a change. Start with drosophilas and work from there. Actually, you can start with ANY species and give evidence that scientists can (even with controlled, intelligent engineering)accomplish the change of one organism into any other kind of organism.
​

That's the whole point of cladistics. Drosophilas will never cease to be drosophilas. If they did, this is another thing that would undermine evolution. Again, this is why I cited the example of a vertebrate with more than four appendages.

What evolution suggests, however, is that two (separate, for the purposes of procreation) populations of fruit flies (or whatever else), over the course of generations will cease to be able to procreate with one another. The single species will become two.


Originally Posted by Calypsis4

I did this above. Please go back and read it. It disturbs me however that evolutionists harp on this issue that we should not have to explain any more than explaining 'species' or 'organism'.
​

For the purposes of evolution, you and I are individual organisms. Our species is a group that consists of organisms that are similar to us to the degree that members of the group are able to breed and produce viable offspring. Now, there are other reasons individuals may not be able to produce viable offspring, but evolution is concerned with genetic compatibility.

I'm afraid I can't find where you defined "kind." Is it defined in such a way that I could identify and distinguish "kinds" without asking you for each case? Would we find that we disagree on this particular boundary or that -- and would there be an objective way to choose between us? For instance, if you think that rabbits and hares are one "kind" and I think they are two, how would we decide in a way that is mutually agreeable?

You didn't look very hard. But I am not going to find it for you.
__________________

Bye.

 

[gluadys]

I gave the definition of evolution from three well known sources earlier.

See below

It is small change within the kind. That is not the evolution that is defined above. You know it.

Actually, for the good definitions, it is. See below.

You don't get multiple families, genera and species (not to mention orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms and domains) within a clade without evolution.

Yes, we do. It's called 'creation'.

So actually, you don't accept "variation within the kind" either.

Seems you need to brush up on what evolution is.

I see. Never mind that I am an ex-evolutionist and that I have studied the issue for over 45 yrs.

If it walks like a duck..... You do not present yourself as a person who knows the theory of evolution.

No one said there was a problem finding fossils of bats. The question was to your claim about the number that should be found.

You're not getting it. It is clear that you don't WISH to get it. The point is that there aren't ANY fossil bats older than the 52 million yr old bat dated at that age by evolutionists.

I know that. But you claimed there should be --what thousands? hundreds of thousands? Why? Where did you get the number from? What is the factual basis for saying there should be a large number of bat fossils from more than 52 million years ago? Or at any time?

How much money do you need for your bills next month? Doesn't common sense dictate that?

Nope. My records of previous months' expenditures dictates that.

Common sense tells us that if bats evolved from lower forms of life then there should be a record of those step-by-step changes.

No, common sense tells us those step-by-step changes had to occur. It doesn't say it has to be recorded in the form of fossils. It doesn't say it has to be recorded at all.

The case is very solid and will become even more apparent as I continue to post evidence that biological evolution has never occured. There are hundreds of such examples and I intend to post many more of those available.

It is your time. Waste it however you like.

Organisms (individuals) don't evolve. At most they show individual variations. Species evolve. It is a populational process, not changes in specific organisms.

Good grief, what planet did that information come from? Do you mean to suggest that small creatures like frogs suddenly developed wings all at the same time...and transformed into birds...at the same time as a 'population'? If not, then what? And what, in the DNA code would allow for such a transformation?

No, that would be precisely what I said is not evolution: changes in particular organisms. And co-ordinated too.

But perhaps you would like to tell me how you account for "variation within the kind"? Assuming a polar bear is of the same kind as a black bear (scientists classify them as the same species) how did the polar bear population become white?

The first part is an outdated definition from a popular (not scientific) dictionary. The publishers should be advised to consult with some biologists and correct the statement. The second part is correct.

'outdated'?

Yes. No legitimate definition of evolution today would refer to earlier species being "lower" or "worse" or to new species being "higher" or "better". Such adjectives stem from an early misconception of evolution being a plan of improvement.

Yes. And this is not the definition you have been using.

They/it is the ONLY definition I have used and applied to this debate. You are not telling the truth.

You are incorrect. You have specifically said that changes at the species level are not evolution but "variation within the kind". You account as evolution only what goes beyond the undefined limits of the "kind".

You are not the one who determines that. Furthermore, once again, you are not telling the truth. The matter of 'simple to complex' has always been a part of the definition of evolution since the days of Charles Darwin.

As I said it is historically accurate that life on earth did evolve complex forms. But most of that has been within less than 1 billion years. For nearly two billion years the only major form of life was bacteria. But bacteria evolved thousands upon thousands of diverse variations. That is 2 billion years of evolution without complexity. And for another billion years, while we had complex cells (eukaryotes) as well as bacteria, we still did not find complex organisms. Yet there was ---and still is--plenty of evolution in these unicellular species with no indication that they are becoming more complex.

And I expect that in all those "identical" fossil/living forms you have shown us, there is a fair bit of change in the genetic composition of those forms over successive generations. Second sentence is historically correct though not essential to a theory of evolution.

"And I expect..." In other words you are guessing. But you don't know. Furthermore you can't know.

No, I don't know, first because I have never done a DNA test on a fossil and second because many older fossils have no remnant of DNA in them anyway. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable expectation.

Exactly as the theory of evolution says they ought to be.

Exactly as the theory of evolution predicts. Drosophila flies changing into bees would falsify the theory of evolution.

But neither you nor any of your comrades in accidentalism can post photos of drosophila's changing step-by-step into ANYTHING other than other drosophila's let alone a fly into a bee!

Of course, not. Because the theory of evolution is not false or at least any evidence to falsify it has not turned up yet. So we don't expect the offspring of Drosophila to be anything other than Drosophila. Can be a very changed Drosophila, but still a Drosophila. That is why evolution is also called "descent with modification". The only thing matings of Drosophila can give you is modified Drosophila. Over 300 different species of them in Hawaii I understand.

Yes, all bacteria have parents which were bacteria. And all animals have parents that were animals. Just as the theory of evolution requires.

You are attempting to trivialize a very great problem for evolution theory. It won't work. The available evidence speaks very loudly.

It is a problem for the strawman you label "evolution". It is not a problem for evolution as scientists understand it.

One last thing. Little Billy Bacteria had a daddy. He was a bacteria too! And little Billy Bacteria had a grandpa...he was a bacteria also. And little Billy Bacteria had a great grandpa. He was bacteria as well. All of Billy Bacterias ancestors were...guess what? Bacteria.

Yes, that is what we expect from evolution. But is Billy a Cyanobacteria, a Firmicute, or a Proteobacterium? Or one of the other 20 or so phyla of Bacteria? If he is a Firmicute is he a Lactobacillus, a Bacillus or a Clostridium or one of several hundreds of other genera? And which of these kinds of bacteria were the first generation of bacteria? If they were Cyanobacteria, where did the Bacilli come from? It they were Bacilli where did the Streptococci come from?

 

[Calypsis4]

YouTube - Kirk Crocoduck

If we found what you and Kirk Cameron claim we should find it would falsify evolution. You better pray we find your Bat-Cat, cause it would vindicate your view.

I don't need to 'pray' about anything in that regard. I only need recognize the reality that creation by God according to scripture is true and evolution is false.

Not only will you not find a cat/bat in the fossil record, you won't find any rat/bats, gnat/bats, or any other kind of bats except bat/bats. You WILL find bats of various kinds but are all still bats.

And just what did the bat evolve from if not a rat/rodent of some kind? You don't have a clue from the fossil record because such a thing doesn't exist.

So we find fossils of rodents at the bottom of the chain seen above...and we find fossils of bats seen at the top...but nothing in between. Somehow you and those of your persuasion do not see this as a problem. But like the gentlemen who went on the Apollo 13 mission to the moon, sooner or later you are going to have to admit, "Houston, we've got a problem!" The reason is because this phenomena exists in virtually all organisms on earth.


Bye.

 

[Calypsis4]

Actually, for the good definitions, it is.

So actually, you don't accept "variation within the kind" either.

What in the world are you talking about? Where are you going with this?

Nope. I'm not going to go there again and answer your nit-picky little arguments. You didn't deal with the evidence I posted and it's clear you have no intention of doing so.

Bye.