• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Why Evolution is True

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by dad, Nov 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    You are denying that there are observations. How are fossils not observations?
     
  2. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    How are fossils not observations?
     
  3. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    Where in the scientific method does it say to document the hypothesis?
     
  4. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    How are fossils not evidence?
     
  5. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    That doesn't answer the question.

    If we split a population of dogs and keep them separate for 10 million years, what is stopping each population from accumulating different mutations through microevolution that result in a lack of fertility between the two populations when they are reunited 10 million years later?
     
  6. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    No, it isn't. That is something you dreamt up out of whole cloth.

    If macroevolution is true, we would expect the lack of hybrids between distantly related genera.

    We don't have to have hybrids with chimps in order to share a common ancestor with chimps. That is something you have invented out of whole cloth.
     
  7. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    No, you aren't. No definition says that macroevolution is the production of a hybrid between two genera.
     
  8. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    Your qualification is something that macroevolution doesn't do, and isn't required for macroevolution.
     
  9. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    Like I said, show me where in the scientific method you document the hypothesis.
     
  10. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    gradyll,

    Just to make this clear, are you saying that the proposed mechanism of macroevolution for the evolution of humans was modern humans mating with Australopithecines to produce H. erectus?
     
  11. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,320
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I have to go out for a bit, I won't address all of your posts but this one for now. I defined macro evolution as per current university trends. Namely: evolution above the species level. Genus is above the species level, do you agree? Do you agree on the U.C. Berkleys definition of macro evolution? Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry. But if you don't want a proven ancestry inherent in the example you can take as many steps as needed, with as many years as needed to show two organisms of different genra share common ancestry. Does that answer your questions? Thanks for the comment.
     
  12. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    Then use that definition. Using that definition, the production of two non-interbreeding populations from a single population is macroevolution. That is what the definition is.

    Using the definition that you already agreed with, we would expect macroevolution to produce two populations that could NOT produce hybrids. So why would you require an observation as proof of macroevolution when macroevolution would not produce that observation?
     
  13. PsychoSarah

    PsychoSarah Chaotic Neutral

    +2,551
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Being able to form hybrids is suggestive of common ancestry, but isn't necessary for it to be true.
     
  14. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,320
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    no one is saying it is. I simply am asking for a hybrid or any transition to prove your point, now you can attack hybrids, and transitions and the definition of macro evolution, but you still come up short. With no evidence.
     
  15. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,320
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    so here you have it folks, a confession that macro evolution in fact is not, and cannot be observed, nor have observations. And since observation is a prerequisite to science (as per the definitions from schools and colleges I provided), macro evolution is not a science. No further questions your honor.
     
  16. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    You are asking for a hybrid that shouldn't exist if macroevolution is true.

    Why aren't transitional fossils evidence? Why aren't shared ERV's evidence?
     
  17. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    That is not what I said.

    I said that if macroevolution is true then two distantly related species should NOT produce a hybrid.

    You might as well ask me to prove gravity by showing you an anvil that floats in mid air.

    Fossils are observations. Genome sequences are observations. Homologous features in different species are observations. The distribution of species across the globe are observations.

    We have the observations.
     
  18. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,320
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    like I said, in order to prove macroevolution as possible it must be observed. But the next best thing is provide a fossil etc of a transition. Namely, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry. The next best thing, if you don't want a proven ancestry inherent in the example you can take as many steps as needed, with as many years as needed to show two organisms of different genra share common ancestry. That means 2000 steps if needed, or 2000 transitions between an ape and a man. OR a whale and a doglike creature, or a dinasaur and a bird. This is the definition of macro evolution. I remember you doubting that definition a day or so ago, have you changed your views of macro evolution since I provided professional sources that agree in my definition of macro evolution? I await your response.
     
  19. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,320
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    well then you would simply be wrong. A hybrid is a transition between kinds, species, genra and the like. Not just a genus hybrid. Here is the definition:

    Hybrid | Define Hybrid at Dictionary.com

    secondly you said the following:

    and thus you would have to retract this statment that can be interpreted as you not believing in observations of macroevolution of any kind. If you do believe, please provide one.

    then please provide one observation, for scrutiny. Thanks Otherwise we will take your word for it, namely that observations cannot exist for macroevolution.
     
  20. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,567
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Thanks Loudmouth, you just ruined the work of Darwin and science over the last 150 years and have shown the 99% of biologists who are members of the national academy of sciences to be wrong about evolution.

    I guess this will be front page news tomorrow, but who is getting the Nobel prize?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...