|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No Witnesses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
If macro-evolution went on trial who would the witnesses be that it indeed does happen? If it's really happening as to how the ToE says it does then this shouldn't be so hard. That the evolutionists can't even agree on this says something.
Evolution within species particularly land mammals like dog, fox, cat, horse ect depending on the real seperation of the species/kinds does happen. To what extent I don't think is known exactly but the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation including a common ancestor for chimp and man. The cat to fox for example you still see similar traits that show evolution could have occurred. Chimp and man there is to much seperation and it doesn't fit with the other groupings as neatly as the canine or feline classification. It's the odd ball out IMO as well as land to water and water to land mammals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Modulous writes: We don't rely on witnesses. We instead would refer to the overwhelming DNA evidence: and all the other forms of evidence besides that. Yeah, I get that. And some interpret a common ancestor. We Creationists interpret a common designer. Not a random process that is non-intelligently non-directed.
I think it is faulty reasoning to suppose that we should have witnesses for an event that almost by definition, precedes the existence of witnesses. Ok. So then macro-evolution cannot be witnessed the way the ToE describes then?
I think that calling it 'speculation' because of the lack of witnesses is very unfair. Science is pretty much all about establishing facts and explanations with more reliability than witness reports. Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated?
How have you ascertained that the separation is 'too much'? Modulous, just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc... You think us and the chimps (other than genetics created by a common designer) are similiar in what way that you think we should be classified together?
As far as I am aware the most distantly related cats are about as equally related to one another as chimps are to humans, in fact cats may be more diverse. I have a feeling you've come to this conclusion on a 'gut instinct' level and probably haven't done or seen any analysis that would lead to that conclusion. Not really. I can witness how chimps act and how humans act. It's not a "gut instinct". It's reality. My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans. Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: They have always meant "speciation" because they thought we could never see it. They think that there is some block to biology that prevents a new species from arising. They insist all mutations are deleterious and it is impossible to have enough of them collect to the point that you have a new species. Can you give an example of macro-evolution being witnessed today as happening like the ToE says it does? Don't say the moths either, or even a poodle from a wolf, that's just variation within a kind. Macro-evolution is a cow, slowly over long periods of time, becoming a whale. Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Yes, I know that, but Rrhain says it's been witnessed. I'm just wondering what it is he means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Well, how about any land mammal to sea mammal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Because I still don't know what it is, that's why. I've asked, i've made statements, yet no one explains it. This thread here isn't helping either.
Are you saying land mammal to water mammal and vice versa didn't or doesn't happen? Are you saying all species evolve within their own species and they/we all evoloved from common ancestors and they/we all split off into different directions yet evolved within our own species? That each species has their own common ancestor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Tangle, this was a message to me from Panda when I questioned land to water and water to land mammals. These pictures was his answer to if this happens.
I don't know what it means. It's just three pictures. Can you explain it to me?
Panda writes:
Chuckles writes:
...the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation...Chuckles writes:
It's the odd ball out IMO as well as land to water and water to land mammals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Granny Magda writes: Can we show you eyewitness evidence of macro-evolution (where "macro-evolution is taken to mean change above species level)? Yes we can, if you are interested. I am, yes.
Can we show you eyewitness evidence of macro-evolution (where macro-evolution is taken to mean a sequence of events equivalent to a land-based mammal evolving into a highly adapted aquatic mammal)? No, we can't, nor would we expect to be able to show you eyewitness evidence of that since the ToE predicts that it would take place over a period of time greater than any human lifespan. Fine. I'm just asking if it happens, and if it does, how is it determined, and why the ToE predicts it. Why does it have to predict such a thing? Is it necessary that land to water or water to land mammmals be predicted to make that transition? Why are they combined(water and land)? Is this a prediction or does evidence suggest it happened or happens? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: It's pretty obvious. It shows three different mammals with different levels of adaption to life at sea. Which adds to the plausibility of a transition from land to sea. Ok, thanks PaulK. So Scientists are using pictures to determine that they evolved from land dwelling creatures to become sea dwelling creatures? I thought there was more to it.
Add in the evidence from fossils genes and morphology and you have a pretty strong case for the transition. So the fossils come with name tags?
And your only argument against it is that the process takes too long to have been directly observed ? Really ? Why should we take such an argument seriously ? Do you even apply that standard to your own views on the matter ? Well, I have a completley different argument now. Mainly using pictures as evidence, and unlabled fossils. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: I already did, many posts ago. You do read the thread before you respond, yes?
29+ Evidences for MacroevolutionObserved Instances of Speciation Some More Observed Speciation Events Creationist Claim CB910: No new species have been observed. Can you break those articles down for me in your own words? There so long and a little hard to understand. I'd rather not just exchange articles. I can get some to for my position.
The moths? No, that wouldn't be speciation. Isn't that adaptaion? Or we would say variation within a kind.
But the evolution of dogs from wolves? That is speciation. Yeah.
Or are you going to move the goalposts again? Speciation is, by definition, "macro-evolution." Dogs are a different species from wolves. Before you respond, you have some homework to do: Look up "ring species" and make sure your response isn't immediately countered by what you find. Huh? I don't doubt speciation happens. Can you explain "ring Species" to me? Tell me why you are using it in your argument. What does ring species have to do with anything? Is ring species an example of macro-evolution?
You say that as if that were the only thing. Indeed, a terrestrial ungulate becoming an aquatic cetacean would be an example of macro-evolution. Do you have an example you could show me?
But any speciation event is an example of "macro-evolution" because that's the definition of the term: Evolutionary processes that happen at or above the species level. Any time you ever see speciation happen, you've witnessed macro-evolution. Ok. I don't want to debate the definition of words or what they mean. I don't have a problem with speciation. I don't even know if the term macro-evolution needs to be used. I'm interested in change. What is changing? I don't care what it's called. What animals change into what animals and how far outside of the species boundry can they go for speciation to occur? Do you know how far the boundries for speciation to occur in animals is?
Well, we've seen it. You've been given the evidence you claim doesn't exist. How far are you going to move the goalposts? Moving the goalposts? I don't know where the goal posts are. If you want to discuss what words mean what I think that's for another thread. If you want to call speciation macro-evolution fine. I agree with speciation. I don't need to use the term "macro-evolution". Maybe it is causing some confusion here.
Me personally? My bio classes didn't go in that direction. Biology is a big field and not everything is population genetics. But surely you aren't saying that I'm your standard of evidence, are you? No, i'm not.
When was the last time you were in a library let alone a science library? When was the last time you read a journal? Which one? Which article? If you haven't bothered to pay attention to the state of the science as to what has and has not been published, then what makes you think you are in a position to say what has and has not been observed? I'm not in a position to say anything. I'd like discuss how far speciation can occur in species and what the limits are when it comes to speciation. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024