Evolution, not a fact??????

[Ophiolite]

Jan,
I would like you to read this very carefully, then re-read it. If there is anything about it you don't understand, or are reluctant to accept let me know.

1) We can demonstrate that evolution has occured purely from a study of fossils. The evidence is in the literature: study it.
2) We can demonstrate evolution has occured purely through comparative anatomy of living creatures.The evidence is in the literature: study it.
3) We can demonstrate evolution occurs, from a studies within microbiology. The evidence is in the literature: study it.
4) We can demonstrate evolution purely from an examination of genetic code. The evidence is in the literature: study it.

We do not require each individual one of these to demonstrate evolution. Any of them will do. Yet we have all four. We have tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands of research papers addressing evolution, demonstrating its reality and its detailed mechanisms. The evidence is in the literature: study it.

How welcoming do you imagine many of us feel when we encounter the claim, yet again, "there is no evidence". It can become depressingly boring. You, however, have it within your grasp to make several evolutionists very happy, by going away, studying the evidence with a truly open mind, then reporting back here with your conclusion. Good luck.

 

[KennyJC]

Why?

If you think a species appearing from nowhere suddenly is less amazing than macroevolution, then it's little wonder you are not fit for any debate on evolution...

Please explain why you think i am a fundie, an where have i discounted macvol, I say if it is a scientific fact then provide the scientific evidence.

I have read your other posts on religion and you are a fundie. You don't want to expose your fundi-ism in this debate because you fear it will lose you any credability you have to discuss evolution and expose your bias.

Either way you cant keep yelling like a little girl for evidence when people keep giving you it.

Macvol is regarded as scientific fact yet no one can provide scientific evidence that it actually occured. So what exactly do you know?

I just presented you with one small bit of evidence which of course you discounted because it had nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

How can you regard the odd, mouth, leg bone, hip bone, or knee joint fragments as solid evidence of macvol.

Please read up on the fossil record.

That's very nice, but it is not scientific.

It is common sense based on scientific evidence.

The urls do not provide scientific evidence of macvol

Yes they do.

Now go read the bible like a good Christian

 

[TW Scott]

I have long ago decided that a lot of religious nuts are just that. Then again I have also figured that all atheist are as nuts if not more so,

I am one of the few people you will find who absolutely knows there is a God and knows macroevolution is how every living thing came about. It's easy to understand. God created the universe, which means God created all the rules of how are universe works. Then God created life and watched it evolve according to God's plan. Like any good craftsman, God may have tinkered a little here and there to guide things along. But in the end it is God and Macroevolution that created Man.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you think a species appearing from nowhere suddenly is less amazing than macroevolution, then it's little wonder you are not fit for any debate on evolution...

I aked why it would it not be a more fantastic claim that species just suddenly appear from nowhere - rather than slowly branching out over millions of years?
Do you think you can answer it?
Or have you forgotten how to give a straight answer to a straight question?

I have read your other posts on religion and you are a fundie.

That does not answer why you think I'm a fundie.

You don't want to expose your fundi-ism in this debate because you fear it will lose you any credability you have to discuss evolution and expose your bias.

I disagree with your critisism of me, so I cannot go any further until you explain why you regard me as a fundie.

Either way you cant keep yelling like a little girl for evidence when people keep giving you it.

Why a little girl, and not a little boy, a man, or woman?
Do you have something against little girls?

I just presented you with one small bit of evidence which of course you discounted because it had nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

You have two problems;

1) you don't know the meaning of "actual" as in "actual evidence"

2) You don't understand the basic principles of religion and spirituality.

Please read up on the fossil record.

Again you have avoided my question with the age old trick of assuming I have not.
I'm not going to stop asking, so either give up, or answer.

It is common sense based on scientific evidence.

Its still not scientic evidence.

Yes they do.

If you believe so, then bring foreward a point.

Now go read the bible like a good Christian

Maybe you should read the bible, or better still let someone with some measure of understanding explain the basics to you, instead of copying what others say.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have long ago decided that a lot of religious nuts are just that. Then again I have also figured that all atheist are as nuts if not more so,

I am one of the few people you will find who absolutely knows there is a God and knows macroevolution is how every living thing came about. It's easy to understand. God created the universe, which means God created all the rules of how are universe works. Then God created life and watched it evolve according to God's plan. Like any good craftsman, God may have tinkered a little here and there to guide things along. But in the end it is God and Macroevolution that created Man.

What is your definition of God?
And how did come by that definition?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

The evidence HAS been supplied to you - in at least one of the links that you claim to have read.

That is your opinion, not mine.

You have defined your understanding of Macro-evolution:
"The difference between micro and macro-evolution is micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. If macroevol is the same as microevol, then we are wasting time."
i.e. speciation.

Yet you conveniently define "speciation" so as to disallow the scientific evidence supporting it, and instead require us to have been around for millions of years conducting the observations.

How so?

As soon as an organism branches such that one "variation" can't propagate with the other - this is SPECIATION - and you have two distinct species from the same origin.

I'm not disputing this, but a dog is a dog, not something else,
it doesn't explain or demonstrate how a whale becomes a land creature etc... This is what is banded as scientific fact, but where is the scientific evidence to support this idea.

Now, instead of merely disregarding the links and saying: "I have read this, and there is no evidence to support this idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT, IMO, which is the reason for my enquiry." - detail exactly why - in YOUR opinion - this does not constitute sufficient evidence of speciation.

Why is that important, especially in light of the fact that you haven't answered any of my questions?
I will gladly go into the links, but first at least answer my questions,
then at least we have a specific area to deal with.
You are the one who believes it to be fact, and you are the one i'm talking to.
Would you like me to revert to scriptoral authority everytime you asked me a question regarding religion, spirituality or God?

The evidence has been presented - and we are awaiting your detailed rebuttal of each and every piece of evidence.

I'm sorry, but posting links, and saying things like "..its true because it says so in the fossil records" does not constitute evidence as to why you think it is a scientific fact.

Jan.

 

[TW Scott]

What is your definition of God?
And how did come by that definition?

Jan.

God is the nearly Omniscient, completely Omnipotent force that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Where I got it from same place you do, I just paid attention.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God is the nearly Omniscient, completely Omnipotent force that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Where I got it from same place you do, I just paid attention.

I assume you are referring to the bible, right?
How do come to this idea?

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

Observe, with interest A Darn Jane's debating style.
Refuse to answer any question directly.
Refuse to study the evidence, whilst implying the evidence has been studied.
Characterise the evidence as opinion.
Deny everything.
Answer questions with another question.

The technique is effective on two levels.
a) It frustrates those presenting a counter argument, as they are unable to penetrate her obfuscation and misdirection. [Not that they need to.]
b) It allows A Darn Jane to comfortably maintain her own delusions. [Although even the casual observer can see, not the holes in her logic, but the entire absence of logic.]

In general though, A Darn Jane's views do provide an interesting illustration of the evolutionary limitations of intelligence.

 

[hypGnosis]

I'm not disputing this, but a dog is a dog, not something else,
it doesn't explain or demonstrate how a whale becomes a land creature etc... This is what is banded as scientific fact, but where is the scientific evidence to support this idea.

I'm a newb here; and have read most of this controversy. Interesting.

Jan, perhaps you meant to type, "... how a land creature became a whale..."?

It seems like you're looking for evidence of some truly heavy-duty Macro-macro evolution... something much greater than mere speciation, something that spans Orders, Families, and such.

Isn't evidence of speciation sufficient to convince you?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I'm not disputing this, but a dog is a dog, not something else,

Is a dog a kind of wolf? Or is a wolf a dog?

Do you think that domestic dogs evolved from wolves? Or do you believe they are forever separate species, each individually created? Or something else?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Isn't evidence of speciation sufficient to convince you?

Maybe you can point out how speciation convinces you .

Is a dog a kind of wolf? Or is a wolf a dog?

Do you think that domestic dogs evolved from wolves? Or do you believe they are forever separate species, each individually created? Or something else?

I think they are variations of the same thing.
What do you think?

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

If someone today was adamant that the Earth was flat, and completely denied any proof that it was round and continually asked you to prove it, would you not give up?

I think it's time to give up on the madman.

 

[hypGnosis]

Maybe you can point out how speciation convinces you .

Sure, but you still owe me a 'yes' or 'no' answer to my question, "Isn't evidence of speciation sufficient to convince you?"

How I'm convinced: It's the point of regeneration where the offspring of one sexual union can no longer mate with a remote member/offspring of a common ancestor, but the offspring can reproduce with members of its local population.. Where there was one species, there are now two (or more) species. The notion of speciation was hypothesised and then (viz. talkorigins.com) is verifiable in a labratory for plants and animals.

Another question for you, Jan.:

Is the biological classification of life forms (taxonomy) acceptable to you as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, & Species or do you prefer 'kind' as the best way to classify life?

 

[hypGnosis]

Maybe you should read the bible, or better still let someone with some measure of understanding explain the basics to you, instead of copying what others say.
Jan.

Jan, would you share with the members responding to this thread, what the 'basics' are?

 

[Jan Ardena]

hypGnosis,

Sure, but you still owe me a 'yes' or 'no' answer to my question, "Isn't evidence of speciation sufficient to convince you?"

It depends what you mean by "speciation", and what I'm supposed to be convinced of. The best thing to do is give an example.

How I'm convinced: It's the point of regeneration where the offspring of one sexual union can no longer mate with a remote member/offspring of a common ancestor, but the offspring can reproduce with members of its local population.. Where there was one species, there are now two (or more) species. The notion of speciation was hypothesised and then (viz. talkorigins.com) is verifiable in a labratory for plants and animals.

That's fair enough, but then how do you go from there to microevol?

Another question for you, Jan.:

Is the biological classification of life forms (taxonomy) acceptable to you as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, & Species or do you prefer 'kind' as the best way to classify life?

I haven't thought about it, but having briefly looked at them I would say all the biological classifications have areas which appear acceptible, and some not. Maybe I would be more inclined to accept "kind", but we would have to go into what you mean by "kind".
I hope that answers you question.

Jan, would you share with the members responding to this thread, what the 'basics' are?

The basis of religion is faith in God, and the basis of spirituality is self-realisation, which means understanding the difference between spirit and matter.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If someone today was adamant that the Earth was flat, and completely denied any proof that it was round and continually asked you to prove it, would you not give up?

This implies that there is scientific evidence of large scale change, that I purposely deny. But everyone knows the truth is that no scientific evidence has yet been produced in this thread. Offense, defence, and divertion on the part of the evolutionists, has been the only produce.

I think it's time to give up on the madman.

Ah, the last bastion of evolutionist arguement; if we ignore him he will go away.

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan:

You think wolves and dogs are "variations of the same thing"?

Are domestic cats and lions also "variations of the same thing", according to you?

What about sharks and tuna?

Human beings and chimpanzees?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan:

Are domestic cats and lions also "variations of the same thing", according to you?

What about sharks and tuna?

Human beings and chimpanzees?

No.

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

How do you account for the similar anatomy between domestic cats and lions?