I do not practice any organized religion, so I am not caught in the trap of trying to prove/disprove the existence of a god.....nice try though..
This coming from a guy who's opinions are so laughably ridiculous, that I am actually convinced he is not a human, but really some reverse logic autoresponder machine, sitting under a desk in somewhere in Eastern Europe.
The Following User Says Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
The axiom of your 'example' would get laughed out of any philosophy class, and the 'proof' of your example would get laughed out of any science class.
You know as well as I do, the change from a baby to a adult human, to a donkey is a ridiculous paradigm of any situation.
Educate yourself sir.
I agree, it is ridiculous. Which is what macro-evolution proposes. Given enough time micro-evolutionary changes would somehow make the transition to a brand new species, breaking through any genetic boundaries.
No, they haven't Photon. Real species boundaries have never been breached, especially in nature.
Yup, they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
But I guess I would expect someone like you, who blindly followed the teachings in Theology class, to now blindly follow a different source of information. Like a leaf blowing in the wind.
Ah I see, you aren't after a discussion, you just want to throw insults and stir the pot.
"I would expect some like you, who can't even put together a coherent and supported argument on a hockey forum, to blindly follow your bias."
Is that what you're after? Disappointing...
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I agree, it is ridiculous. Which is what macro-evolution proposes. Given enough time micro-evolutionary changes would somehow make the transition to a brand new species, breaking through any genetic boundaries.
First of all, I'm pretty sure we didn't agree on anything.
Secondly, I feel like I'm missing something, I can't figure out the context of your last post.
Ah I see, you aren't after a discussion, you just want to throw insults and stir the pot.
"I would expect some like you, who can't even put together a coherent and supported argument on a hockey forum, to blindly follow your bias."
Is that what you're after? Disappointing...
Mind showing me some proof of these entirely new species? Not just a mutated sub-species like the example of flies or shellfish which are obviously still flies or shellfish.
And I'm disappointed you read that uncalled for personal attack before I deleted it. No, it's not what I was after and I apologize.
Mind showing me some proof of these entirely new species? Not just a mutated sub-species like the example of flies or shellfish which are obviously still flies or shellfish.
The science journals have tons of them. Most biology text books will have good examples, and there's tons of good books written to a general audience. If you really want to know then I would recommend Finding Darwin's God (written by Ken Miller who is a believer), or Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin (which is excellent for an introduction into the genetic evidences).
It would seem though that what you are expecting isn't what evolution actually is. You say an entirely new species, but any species that evolves from a bird or a fly or a shellfish is still going to be a bird or a fly or a shellfish; that's how evolution works.
If you're expecting a donkey to evolve from a human then you don't understand what evolution is in the first place. If a donkey evolved from a human then that would disprove evolution.
One good definition of species is if a population cannot breed with another population and produce viable offspring, then those two populations are different species (of course nature doesn't always fit within simple definitions). In that definition, it has been observed.
EDIT: If you want evolution at a higher level, like dinosaurs to birds or amphibians to reptiles then you need a lot more time and you won't observe that in a lab in real time. But the other evidences all tell the same story of evolution and common descent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
And I'm disappointed you read that uncalled for personal attack before I deleted it. No, it's not what I was after and I apologize.
Fair enough.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Richard Dawkins is the worst thing to happen to Atheists. "Let's join together, essentially creating a religion about hating religion to stop tyranny."
This is what happens when people join together to "eliminate" something. Stupidity wins out.
The Following User Says Thank You to spotthefan For This Useful Post:
The science journals have tons of them. Most biology text books will have good examples, and there's tons of good books written to a general audience. If you really want to know then I would recommend Finding Darwin's God (written by Ken Miller who is a believer), or Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin (which is excellent for an introduction into the genetic evidences).
It would seem though that what you are expecting isn't what evolution actually is. You say an entirely new species, but any species that evolves from a bird or a fly or a shellfish is still going to be a bird or a fly or a shellfish; that's how evolution works.
If you're expecting a donkey to evolve from a human then you don't understand what evolution is in the first place. If a donkey evolved from a human then that would disprove evolution.
One good definition of species is if a population cannot breed with another population and produce viable offspring, then those two populations are different species (of course nature doesn't always fit within simple definitions). In that definition, it has been observed.
Photon, I'm not close-minded. Although I believe in ID, it doesn't mean I don't continue to read and research new journals. I'll give those two books a read.
Quote:
It would seem though that what you are expecting isn't what evolution actually is. You say an entirely new species, but any species that evolves from a bird or a fly or a shellfish is still going to be a bird or a fly or a shellfish; that's how evolution works.
For life to form from cosmic ejaculate billions of years ago, entirely new species would have to be created. What we have today is proof of evolution below a species level which, doesn't prove anything at all about the origin of life.
Quote:
EDIT: If you want evolution at a higher level, like dinosaurs to birds or amphibians to reptiles then you need a lot more time and you won't observe that in a lab in real time. But the other evidences all tell the same story of evolution and common descent.
Shades, I don't mean for this to sound trollish, but you really should properly educate yourself about what the theory of evolution is (and just as importantly, what it isn't) before you continue this discussion. From your posts, it's abundantly clear that you don't have even a high school biology class level understanding of evolution.
My apologies if that sounds like I'm belittling you, but you are very obviously misinformed about evolutionary theory.
There have been numerous examples of observed speciation (see for example http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Even in larger mammals, several populations of wolves, for example, are arguably now distinct species. The whole concept of species is pretty nebulous though - the "classical" definition of species taught in school is pretty outdated.
For more significant changes, albeit with human help, just look at dogs and all the different varieties that have been created by breeding for specific traits. While they aren't "natural", they do illustrate the types of mechanisms and change that can occur - just accelerated and directed when compared to "natural" evolution.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
I don't know what ya'll are takin about with Micro versus Marco evolution.
But birds did evolve from the dinosaurs, so wouldn't we consider them to be a new species that evolved from another species?
Birds evolving from dinosaurs would be an example of macro-evolution, something that scientists still haven't been able to replicate in the lab with any plants or animals.
Micro-evolution would be small changes within a species levels. Breeding dogs to suit, or Darwin's finches that adapted as the climate changed. Ultimately, the dog is still a dog, a finch is still a finch.
