Could it be that all the consistent patterns of anatomical relationships are due to having been designed by the same Designer? Man designed Fords and Ferraris, to use a stupid analogy. Man also designed a lot of other stuff with similar relationships, but don’t expect your Ford to evolve into a Ferrari. (Nor your toaster into a TV.) It would take much more faith to believe the “transitional” hypothesis connected to variation within species (which, by the way, is what happens when bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics) proves that one species can change into another, (This has never been observed, only imagined.) than it would take to believe that God created all this stuff. Perhaps evolution is a new religion. It was most certainly created/designed by man. (Forgive the run-on sentence.) (Oh, I just realized that a radio is a transitional form. Learn something new every day.)
Just trying to impart what little wisdom I can before my trial subscription runs out. Barring an absolute miracle, I couldn’t go on like this. I can hear the sighs of relief from ExapnoMapcase and BrainBlutton. Oops. Darn these computers. They can’t spel very well. To mini misteaks.
Is it true that the “geologic column” only exists in textbooks? Is it consistant all over the earth? Do we date the fossils by the layer in which they are found, or the layer in which they are found by the types of fossils it contains? Does it seem like this is going around in circles? It must have come from the East>
The only explanation (other than evolution) for all the converging lines of evidence we see is an Intelligent Designer who for some inscrutable reason created the world in such a way so that it looks exactly like living things evolved, even though they didn’t really.
Speciation has not only been directly observed but is confirmed by genetic evidence such as retroviral genes . The commonality of retrogenes between two different species (such as humans and chimps) can only be explained by common descent.
If you want to pursue the canard that “microevolution” can occur eithout leading to speciation, you’ll have to explain what would stop it. If mutation and heridity are subjected to a sorting mechanism (such as Natural Selection) then speciation must occur eventually. It’s a rock rolling down a hill.
No. Religion implies faith. There is no faith involved with evolutionary theory.
So was religion.
Evolution was not “created” or “designed” it was OBSERVED. That species adapt overtime and turn into new species is a directly observed phenomenon, not a belief. Evolutionary THEORY is the (overwhelmingly confirmed) explanation for WHY it happens.
The intent of the alleged wanted poster or the intent of my question as to its language?
If you’re asking the former, I have no idea. Perhaps it had some satirical intent. Perhaps it was something else. I don’t know and it really doesn’t matter.
If you were asking the latter, my intent was to point out that nothing written in English could have any ancient Roman (or Palestinian) origin.
I think he was more asking the skeptics: most of us all understand evolution to be the scientific definition of biological evolution.
:rolleyes:
The ark story is not only not supported by the evidence, it’s roundly contradicted by it. Dogs branched off from wolves tens of thousands of years before the literalistic genesis story implies the earth even existed, and they didn’t do it coming off an ark after a worldwide calamity.
There’s nothing preposterous about common descent: unless you grossly misunderstand what it is saying.
Well, of course, you can certainly make this claim, but the fact is that all of this is based on evidence of a sort which, as I said, is far far stronger than most of the sorts of evidence we are used to dealing with in everyday life. That’s because the evidence provides ample opportunity for self-checking and coverging in ways most factual claims just are not broad or long lasting enough to provide.
Keep in mind that you are talking about a very specific kind of “evolution” which is changes within a species, not changes from one species to another. There is no evidence for or chance of repeating or reproducing the latter. That requires a significant leap of faith.
No. There are many places on the earth where the column is “complete” but this isn’t particularly necessary anyway, because we have ways of conclusively piecing it all together even if no place had every possible layer.
Yes, if by consistent you mean that it all appears to fit into the same pattern of evidence and tell the same story of past history.
This is a common creationist myth. Yes, we CAN and sometimes DO use one to easily date the other as needed, but this is only because these relationships have ALREADY been proven to be so certain and constant that we can safely make such assumptions for the sake of expediency. Dating can always be tested directly, and generally is anyway. It just isn’t particularly pressing because, as I noted, the relationship is very reliable and consistent. Given that the only people who think this is questionable are generally against the entire premise of science and the idea of dating things anyway, it’s not much of a concern.
Kinda like Sam Ting, who ran Horst Svensens Chinese Laundry. He followed a tall blond guy through immigration, and when they aske him his name, he said…
Yes, although most columns are incomplete from various natural processes.
Both the layers and the fossils can be conclusively dated independently of each other but sometimes layers can be assigned an estimated age based on fossils. This is only a kind of “shorthand,” though. The dates are always confirmed by other methods.
You’ve already been pointed at several examples of new species. Heck, the basic experiments on speciating fruit flies were not only pretty simple, but widely reproduced.
As DtC said, there is no faith here. It’s faith that is required to believe that there is some magical barrier that prevents speciation that no one has seen or observed.
And, more importantly, the evidence of speciation having happened and it in fact being a major force in the diversity of life is solid.
Most likely, you aren’t clear on what speciation is, or why it’s not so simple a concept as, for instance Biblical “kinds.”
Shrug. From all your other comments, it seems that you have a very lot to learn about what evolution actually is and how scientists really go about studying it. You seem to have hold of a boatload of misconceptions and recycled creationists candards which color your understanding and lead your reasoning astray when judging this or that aspect of evolutionary theory.