Eric, you're moving the goal posts... about 5 posts ago, you said you don't see how a species could evolve into another species.
I provided a fossil record of it, and now you poo poo that and want proof of species evolving onto a whole new family?
Also, it's actually not that hard to extrapolate...
How about the fish fossils that have legs? That's the start of a whole new family.
Not to mention how we categorize species is a human tool. At the end of the day, something that didn't hadn't legs evolved into something with legs. Again, that's a huge step in terms of evolutionary progression.
Quote:Eric, you're moving the goal posts... about 5 posts ago, you said you don't see how a species could evolve into another species.
I provided a fossil record of it, and now you poo poo that and want proof of species evolving onto a whole new family?
I don't think I am a snake with legs is still a reptile that's not evolution on the progressive scale I've called a theory. I've maintained evolution happens within species we often call it adaptation but it's still a species evolving to its circumstances. What we have never observed or we have no evidence of (that I'm aware of but I'll keep an open mind) is a species evolving into a new species.
Quote:Also, it's actually not that hard to extrapolate...
How about the fish fossils that have legs? That's the start of a whole new family.
Not to mention how we categorize species is a human tool. At the end of the day, something that didn't hadn't legs evolved into something with legs. Again, that's a huge step in terms of evolutionary progression.
Good point species are human tools, again I don't deny evolution happens I guess my problem is how much evolution really happens over a period of time. As a creationist ( not to be confused with religion) I simply acknowledge that intelligent design had to be an origin point. That doesn't mean species haven't evolved or changed but I can't support the theory that everything came from a singe celled organism.
Believe it or not, my study of biology and physics during college had a huge effect on my first time experiencing a higher power. I'll just leave it at that.
I don't think one must exclude some faith in an intelligent designer in order to see that evolutionary theory is so far the best theory we have to explain how the designer created us, the universe, and everything...
This is a great conversation, I hope we haven't moved to far into coc issues...
I got to get to work!
Quote:Good point species are human tools, again I don't deny evolution happens I guess my problem is how much evolution really happens over a period of time. As a creationist ( not to be confused with religion) I simply acknowledge that intelligent design had to be an origin point. That doesn't mean species haven't evolved or changed but I can't support the theory that everything came from a singe celled organism.
The really important thing is how much of evolution we can blame on
Man-made Global
Warming Climate Change.
FTFM.
Quote:Good point species are human tools, again I don't deny evolution happens I guess my problem is how much evolution really happens over a period of time. As a creationist ( not to be confused with religion) I simply acknowledge that intelligent design had to be an origin point. That doesn't mean species haven't evolved or changed but I can't support the theory that everything came from a singe celled organism.
How do you know an Intelligent Designer (and I hope I'm not getting too much into religion here) didn't design a single cell organism that would evolve into the millions of species we have today?
Quote:How do you know an Intelligent Designer (and I hope I'm not getting too much into religion here) didn't design a single cell organism that would evolve into the millions of species we have today?
Exactly!!
As has been pointed out by others, certain ideas aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. There are plenty of reasons that one could, say, be a vegetarian without having ethical concerns about the consumption of meat.
Quote:The really important thing is how much of evolution we can blame on Man-made Global Warming Climate Change.
FTFM.
Trolling Level:
3/10
You can do better. Stealing gimmicks used by other posters is well beneath a troll of your caliber.
More ignorane. Natural selection is a process of selecting traits. The emergence of truly new traits is a proposed function of beneficial mutation (deformity doesnt count.) a single fossil or similar features does not inherently prove mutation and conmon ancestry. You would need to genetically map the lineage of the two organisms and determine that in fact they were related and that tge trait in question arose spontaneously from the pre existing gene pool and them facilitated reproductive isolation of the new subpopulation of organisms (speciation) "they look similar" was good enough in the 19th century.
Quote:Trolling Level:
3/10
You can do better. Stealing gimmicks used by other posters is well beneath a troll of your caliber.
Another classic leftist ploy, disagreement is trolling. You're like a case study.
Quote:How do you know an Intelligent Designer (and I hope I'm not getting too much into religion here) didn't design a single cell organism that would evolve into the millions of species we have today?
Sure that's a possibility but I just have never seen or read enough evidence to convince me evolution works like that.
Quote:Creationism doesn't ignore evolution it argues against man being monkey a million years ago, there is no evidence man was ever a monkey it's all theory's
There is a lot of evidence actually that we evolved over time and did not look very much like we look now. There's a period of time based on skeletons like Lucy which provides evidence of when we started to stand upright which was a huge deal in our evolution. Now whether we were a monkey or something very close is up for debate. But evidence, pretty key in logical thought, points to us evolving from something we wouldn't recognize as "human" today.
Quote:Good point species are human tools, again I don't deny evolution happens I guess my problem is how much evolution really happens over a period of time. As a creationist ( not to be confused with religion) I simply acknowledge that intelligent design had to be an origin point. That doesn't mean species haven't evolved or changed but I can't support the theory that everything came from a singe celled organism.
What evidence do you have that we started as a complex organism rather than a single celled organism? Just poof magically we are here? If so what do you base that on?
Quote:Another classic leftist ploy, disagreement is trolling. You're like a case study.
You did not disagree with anyone. You tried to cross pollinate topics in a manner to get a rise out of people. You didn't because your lame attempt at trolling was apparent. Just own it.
Quote:What evidence do you have that we started as a complex organism rather than a single celled organism? Just poof magically we are here? If so what do you base that on?
:yes:
Quote:More ignorane. Natural selection is a process of selecting traits. The emergence of truly new traits is a proposed function of beneficial mutation (deformity doesnt count.) a single fossil or similar features does not inherently prove mutation and conmon ancestry. You would need to genetically map the lineage of the two organisms and determine that in fact they were related and that tge trait in question arose spontaneously from the pre existing gene pool and them facilitated reproductive isolation of the new subpopulation of organisms (speciation) "they look similar" was good enough in the 19th century.
The above is so much post modern gobble de gook, that it's hard to even begin to try and to make sense of...
You speak in terms of evolutionary science, but the understanding is lacking.
Mutations are not the only catalyst. Mapping genes and understanding how certain genes express traits is great for 2 species that are not extinct. Doesn't really work at the fossil level of extinct species, now does it?
You realize the fossil record has been used in several situations to confirm evolutionary theory. You should read up on arborreal monkeys and the drastic increase in primate brain capacity.
But I'm sure you can regurgitate some more information that you don't have a grasp on. Continue, it makes me smile.
I'm ready for a presidential candidate who is serious about education reform. We should not be putting our youth in mountains of debt just to be educated. Instead of encouraging education we discourage it. How messed up is that?
Quote:The above is so much post modern gobble de gook, that it's hard to even begin to try and to make sense of...
You speak in terms of evolutionary science, but the understanding is lacking.
Mutations are not the only catalyst. Mapping genes and understanding how certain genes express traits is great for 2 species that are not extinct. Doesn't really work at the fossil level of extinct species, now does it?
You realize the fossil record has been used in several situations to confirm evolutionary theory. You should read up on arborreal monkeys and the drastic increase in primate brain capacity.
But I'm sure you can regurgitate some more information that you don't have a grasp on. Continue, it makes me smile.
Well gosh anchor *blushes* Im glad i make you smile.
1.) I was on my phone earlier so forgive me for not achieving Dickens.
2.) the fact that you want to be taken seriously when you use terms like gobble de gook makes me smile too!
3,) You're right in certain instances its hard to find full genetic blue prints to fully prove or disprove genetic lineage, at the same time i fundamentally disagree that LOOKS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO ME is a good enough measure to fully prove a theory. I went out to the Junk yard today and a 99 Mazda Protege sure looks like a 99 Ford Ranger. But that doesn't inherently mean that mommy and daddy had special time.
4.) Mutations are the primary theorized catalyst for new traits and according to the modern theory of punctuated equilibrium (short periods of rapid mutation) its proposed to be a lot more violent than the gentle bed time story of general millenia long natural selection one small deviation at a time. That's to account for the gaps in the fossil record that you have been reading up on so much.
5.) I looked in the mirror this morning and I told myself i was pretty, is that kind of like an evolutionist naming a new species because a tail bone was misshapen?
6.) in the contemporary, examples of traits emerging that facilitate reproductive isolation are dubious at best.