What has evolution theory produced?

Looks to me as if you are the liar. See below. Well, perhaps they've known what speciation is, but as late as the 1940's many were denying that it ever happened, as I pointed out in this message ... and I included my reference. That's the second time I've seen you claim this, but you haven't provided the reference in either of the threads in which you've made this claim. Looks to me as if you're lying. Please provide a link to the place where you've previously provided this reference.

It is probably good manners to suggest that someone you disagree with has made a mistake rather than conclude they are lying. At least, until you have further evidence.If you think that "creationists" have supported speciation for 200 years you may be mixing up two different meanings of the word "creationist".I think I have pointed out elsewhere that, by your definition, Darwin was a creationist.Rather than lead this off topic even further I have opened a new thread What is a Creationist?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2003]

Easy to explain JonF. The definition of species is ambiguous at best. Lions & tigers are allegedly different species however they can breed and produce fertile offspring. IOW what you may call speciation Creationists would call variation. It is basically a semantics issue.Here is the reference on Linne- again:In his early years, Linnaeus believed that the species was not only real, but unchangeable -- as he wrote, Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit (The invariability of species is the condition for order [in nature]). But Linnaeus observed how different species of plant might hybridize, to create forms which looked like new species. He abandoned the concept that species were fixed and invariable, and suggested that some -- perhaps most -- species in a genus might have arisen after the creation of the world, through hybridization. In his attempts to grow foreign plants in Sweden, Linnaeus also theorized that plant species might be altered through the process of acclimitization. Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus investigated what he thought were cases of crosses between genera, and suggested that, perhaps, new genera might also arise through hybridization.Carl Linnaeus

Darwin may have been a creationist at one time. However theories on evolution have been around for thousands of years.

That may be. But it's only the modern theory that is of importance because that's the theory supported by observation and fossil evidence.

crashfrog:
That may be. But it's only the modern theory that is of importance because that's the theory supported by observation and fossil evidence.John Paul:
LOL! There isn't any observational evidence that supports the ToE. The fossil record only supports it if you first assume it.one (of many) example:
No one observed a procaryote evolve into a eucaryote. It can't be tested, repeated or verified. There is nothing in the fossil record to support it.

From "Detailed information on hybridization in big cats:"

quote:

---

No fertile male ligers have yet been found and it is assumed all are sterile. This is not the case with females and a 15-year-old ligeress at Munich Zoo produced a li-liger after mating with a lion.

---

So you're only half-right. It's impossible to have a breeding population of ligers, therefore lions and tigers are different species under the Biological Concept of Species.

quote:

---

No one observed a procaryote evolve into a eucaryote. It can't be tested, repeated or verified. There is nothing in the fossil record to support it.

---

What sort of barrier do you see on the process? Slime molds manage it just fine all of the time.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Some humans are sterile- does that make them a different species?Your claim is only an assertion - no one can say we can't have a breeding population of ligers.

Slime molds, as you have been told, are just aggregates of the same type of single-celled organism. They are not indicative of a metazoan.

You don't know what the Biological Concept of Species is, do you? Why didn't you just say so instead of looking like an idiot? Well, we don't have one now. We've never seen one. Again, this is you making the positive claim. If you think that a population of ligers that breeds true exists, then it's up to you to prove it.Me, I'm content with the fact that the biological species concept matches the folk species concept in the case of lions and tigers. A blurring of the species lines does absolutely no good for your position, you know. The more you remove species boundaries the closer you get to a common ancestor for all life. But, dig your own hole. I'm happy to sell you the shovel...

No, but it's a half-step. What's with you? When you ask for half-steps, you complain that they're not full steps. When you get a full-step, you wonder where the half-step is.I suggest you start thinking a little clearer about what you want before you ask for evidence. That creaking sound you hear in the background is you moving the goalposts time and time again.

John Paul declares:

quote:

---

Creationists say the alleged great transformations aren't science- they were never observed and can't be objectively tested, repeated or verified. The alleged great transformations are a belief.

---

I'm increasingly frustrated that this debate is centering on metaphysics. The truth remains, John Paul, that a 'belief' in the common ancestry of all life on Earth does postulate testable mechanisms such as DNA recombination and natural selection. It explains the patterns of change we see throughout the fossil record and reliably predicts which fossils we should find in which strata. It explains the often bizarre complexity we see in nature, and through examination of interrelations among existing species, has often inferred the existence of organisms that were later found in the field or fossilized. It explains the mountain of genetic data that is accumulating every day and has often predicted the existence of genetic links that later proved true. People from every religious or philosophical background perform research in the field of evolutionary biology and evidently have no problem reconciling Darwin's theory with their faith.Creationism, on the other hand, does not offer a better explanation for natural phenomena other than "it was created." It does not offer a framework for systematizing scientific data. It does not propose any testable mechanisms. It depends for its support only on the ridiculous assertion that accepting common ancestry is rejecting God.One 'belief' is the product of centuries of empirical evidential inquiry, John Paul, and the other is motivated solely by the urge to exploit religious guilt.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

OK, then please do so. Your post did not address the issue. You claimed that "Educated Creationists have known about speciation for over 200 years." Showing that one creationist believed in speciation does not support your claim; you need to present some survey of creationist beliefs over the last 200 years.I pointed out that "educated" creationists were denying any speciation, however you want to define it, as late as the 1940's, with a reference, twice. Your claim is falsified by that reference ... unless you want to show why that reference is wrong.If what you posted is your "previously provided reference", it's sadly lacking.

Are you saying that a response to you must remand some kind of common notion of "education" for finishing the learning of any given creationist in any time in history?? If you were suggesting that the creationist (any) who writes a 200 year history of how views on current creationist speciation exist (in the creationist's tradition)then I dont think THAT is that impossible that does seem to come to my mind if I must define "educated" based on some 1930or 40 standard. Are we assuming any more than the ability to communicate here???