Topic: 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution - page 18. (Read 18771 times)

Micro-evolution (very small changes in a small time scale) x Long time period = Evolution.

There is no "dogs turning into fish" or other such (to use your language) 'kinds' turning into 'kinds.

Look, read this, even Pope Benedict XVI thinks creationism is absurd because "there is so much scientific proof in favour of evolution":
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html

Enjoy your epiphany on the house.

I will admit that he does say afterwards that the true origins of life and the universe are still open to elements of creationism, but this is not something any evolutionary scientist can scientifically refute, and no-one does.

What they will refute is asinine beliefs that the world is only 6000 years old (WE ******* KNOW IT ISNT) and that evolution did not happen (apart from "micro-evolution") because fossils. The same rubbish you have been indoctrinated with and are repeating here.

This is not a matter of religious sect or denomination.  Berlinski's critique of modern evolutionary theory could be applied to any of the lab based sciences.  This includes biology, chemistry, and physics.  He says evolution is wrong because it cannot be mathematically modeled.  He says one can not create a simple model that yields the variety of life forms we see in the world around us today.  What he fails to understand is that the mechanism of genetics is not a rigid phenomenon.  The Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel, realized this back in the late 1800's.  Heritability is a matter of probabilities.  Therefore, the odds of creating a computer model that can predict the outcome of a massive number of probabilities, combined with selective forces, yielding what we observe around us today is pretty much a mathematical impossibility. (Perhaps quantum computation could solve this problem).  

Ultimately, any result that is measured has a certain level of uncertainty, whether it is the mass of a subatomic particle, or the allelic frequency of a certain gene within a population.  This is due to the inherent imprecision within the measuring tool and the uncertainty of human observation.  Yet, people are still willing to trust the results of such tests when it comes to things like crash tests on cars or the safety of wireless internet and cell phone usage.  By Berlinski's logic, because we cannot mathematically prove every possible outcome of a car crash, we should never drive a car, or that radio waves definitively don't cause adverse health effects, we should not use mobile devices.    

Exactly. You can observe tons of examples of "horizontal" (different dog breeds for example) fossil variation, but none at all that would show an indication of change from one kind to another. There just isn't any physical evidence to back up the Darwinian Theory.

I confess I am limited in my expertise.  Hence why at the beginning of this thread this video was posted:  Dr. Berlinski is a professor at Princeton.  He is Jewish so he does not have the same "Christian" angle that I confess colors my worldview if you want to call it that. 

Plenty of things to think about here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

There is only one universal response to all of these questions.... Bahahaha

A degree should not be required to support or refute scientific evidence.  That being said, Ms. Bitchick has provided substantially little data to support her claim.   

What scientific degree do you hold that makes you an expert to confirm or deny evolution?

You wouldn't even need to go to such an extreme.  A simple embryology text would suffice.  If you compare the embryologic morphology of a chicken to say that of a human, it is difficult to tell the two apart until the later stages of gestation.  These two organisms are very far apart from an evolutionary standpoint, yet they both use similar mechanisms of development.  This conserved process suggests a common ancestor.  Genetic sequence analysis lends further evidence to this assertion.  These two organisms will share a much larger component of their DNA than say a human and a sponge (technically an animal).  This correlates with a diversion much more recently than the pre diploblast (sponge)/pre triploblast (all other animals) split.  

All of them have the same answer: "Because you are too dumb to use Google." Sorry if I am repeating another post.

I see no evidence in the fossil record to confirm macro-evolution by honest observation.

I shall add something that the OP also seems missing (education ? Come on...)

Both the mentioned fish and the dog are already relatively high in the evolution chain/tree. That means a fish has actually never turned into a dog, as both are developed indivdual species with distinct genetic footprints and different compexity.

So looking for a fossil of a fish that later developed into a dog (regardless of time involved) is futile. A dog is a mammal, not a fish.
You'd need a willing laboratory and some sort of frankenstein experiment to either make a dog breathe water or make a fish bark

Anyway, I stand by what I wrote earlier. This is not a serious discussion.
The Thread title should rather read 22 funny Messages from convinced believers** to people who actually have an education
** self-contradictory, but that little detail never bothered a believer

macro-evolution is repeated confirmed by the fossil record and by molecular genetics studies.

A theory is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

How is macro-evolution repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation?  

This is why I keep asking for just ONE transitional fossil that shows how a fish became a dog, or cat or anything other than a fish?  I do not get anything that is repeatedly confirmed through observation for that at all.

I am not even sure it should even be a "theory" at all.  The evidence is so weak to support it.

I mentioned that study as an example of people observing evolution. Evolution is such a long term process that observing it directly is very hard to do. Instead, we must look at related evidence: fossil record and genetics. The fossil record does not show every animal that ever lived, most animals leave no trace behind, but clearly there is an order in which species appeared and disappeared. But you can look at the genetics of current animals: by finding commonalities and differences you can group animals in clades, species A and B have this sequence in common, but species C does not, so A and B are more closely related to each other than C. Thus we can build a genetic tree showing which animals are related to each other. Amazingly, this tree matches what we observed from the fossil record! We see fossils which have characteristics of A and B from the same time we see a fossil which resembles species C, so that supports the theory that A and B are related.

tldr: you see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs because you are not looking at all the evidence.

You also lack understanding on what a scientific theory is, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

In all of this the only real scientific data you can give me is one type of bacteria becoming another type of bacteria.  It is still bacteria.

And the changes in dogs?  They are still dogs.

I see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs anywhere.

Have you seen the study done by researchers at Michigan State University where they reproducibly saw the evolution of one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria when they carefully constrained the food sources available to the microbes?

To understand evolution, keep in mind it is generally a divergent process, so species A becomes species B and C, not a convergent one where species A and B join to make species C (except on the microscopic level, like how amoeba-like organisms joined with blue-green algae to form plants). An easily understood example is the split between the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo: they were one species until less than a million years ago, but then two populations were separated by the Congo river, with the bonobos on the south and the chimpanzees on the north. Neither can swim such a large river, and so the populations could not intermingle. The two areas have different climate and food options, and so the two populations diverged into two species.

OK, since you are about the same understanding level as a 6 year old, this is how I explain evolutionary paths to my daughter in 1st grade: If you go back in the fossil record, you will find a time when there were fish but no dogs (or any other land animals). There were many types of fish, some ray-finned fish like a goldfish, and some lobe-finned fish like the lungfish. Lobe-fins look like legs, in fact some of these creatures moved onto land and adapted to breathing air and walking and they became salamanders. Some of the salamanders stayed salamanders, but some of them developed scales and eggs with shells, which allowed them to live away from the water, those we call reptiles. Some of these reptiles stayed reptiles, some developed hair so they could stay warm and milk to feed their babies, these became mammals. The first mammals might have looked something like large shrews. Some of these survived by eating meat of other animals and developed into the carnivore class, like wolfs. At some point some wolves and people started living together and the people selectively chose the animals which were good companions and we now have the modern dog.

A somewhat related note, I was once watching a documentary about dogs, they mentioned that the dog family has a stretch of genes where the physical characteristics are stored (size, shape, color), but unlike most animals the dogs have this section copied a whole bunch of times, causing a huge amount of variability. So many changes can be made to the dog physical appearance and bred to what is desired. This is why breeding dogs has led to such a huge variance in dog appearance in a single species, while other animals like cats or horses have a much smaller range of breed-able variance.

One can be observed the other cannot.  One is fact the other is theory.  What used to be taught as a "theory" is now taught as fact.  People now believe a "theory" as fact.  People have faith in this theory above all other theories.

There are HUGE differences.

 

There is no different whatsoever between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the same mechanism are in place, only the time frame being analyzed differs.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions.