Evolution in action

[DeeTee]

Replace Evolution with Gravity. The sentence reads the same, yet you are not arguing against the theory of gravity

Apples and Oranges. We can feel, experience, fight gravity but you have nothing of the kind with evolution. it is an absurd comparison as everyone experiences gravity while only an elite few declare there is such a thing as evolution.

Thats original, set an impossible standard for evidence and upon its failure invoke "Therefore God".

If it is impossible, then evolution is not true. If evolution were true, you would be able to do it.

No ranting, just want to see real evidence from the actual process.

----------------------
zebothe fat posted a picture trying to describe the impossibility of defining the transitions of evolution but that is just another made up excuse as the evolutionist cannot provide evidence to support his ideas thus he has to resort to a generality to escape the responibility.

Evolutionists make incredible claims yet they cannot or refuse to put up real evidence to support their theory.
--------------------------------------------

First of all, we have transitional fossils

Saying it more than once makes it seem lik eyou are trying to comvince yourself not others. You do not have transitional fossils as NO ONE has ever observed the actual transition. ALll you have is conjecture supported by baseless declaration.

we don't need to observe speciation to know evolution has occurred

Oh so you change the rules when you are required to meet them. Won't fly. If you cannot observe it then it is NOT scientific and you have provided key testimony that evolution is not science.

if you do not observe it how do you know it actually took place or that the supposed process of evolution was responsible for such action? You are tellingpeople --take my word forit as we do not follow our own rules.

Sorry but that is hypocrisy and that disqualifies evolution from existence and science.

You expect ancient civilizations to have recorded evolutionary changes? What an absolutely ludicrous assumption

Your arrogance and superiority complex is showing. You mean to tell me that the ancients could measure the circumference of the globe, chart the stars, build structures to perfection, grow crops, build cities yet could not observe the world around them? You are the one being ludicrious.

If evolution were true, there would be no reason for any creation story to exist.

Modern medicine has no ancient foundation for organ transplants

I would be careful there, you do not know that and since I do know how ancient medicine and dentistry was done you are way out on a limb. Read the book 'Science and Secrets of Early Medicine by Jorgen Thorwald. You would be surprised at what the ancients knew and did medically.

because ancient people had no scientific understanding of the world around them

Really? And you were there to prove this true? You do not know what you are talking about. The ancient Greeks had their own computer, I forget the guy's name off hand but he was a Leonardo Da Vinci long before the latter was born, you really peg the ancients to being really dumb and you are so far wrong it is laughable.

Were you by any chance home schooled?

Going to the insult just removes any credibility you thought you had.

And you want to throw your lot in with ignorant goatherders who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe

The Bible never taught the world was flat or the center of the universe. You forget that the ancients knew they were on a globe. Oh and by the way, the Greeks really didn't invent anything, they got it all from civilizations prior to theirs.
---------------------------------

Except when it leads to technology that works and which we all of us, including you, rely on for our very survival:

Evolution has nothing to do with technology. You are giving credit to a non-existent process you can't experience in any way shape or form. I wouldn't be bragging if I were you.

I do not rely on technology for survival nor does anyone need to and the Amish prove this each day. As do the bushman of Africa and Brazil.

By the way, there is no such thing as bacteria evolving. It is called becoming immune, just like humans do. It is not a super bug, either.

Evolution has never existed, it is a figment of secular man's imagination because they cannot bring themselves to accept the truth.

[Phil]

---

Replace Evolution with Gravity. The sentence reads the same, yet you are not arguing against the theory of gravity

Apples and Oranges. We can feel, experience, fight gravity but you have nothing of the kind with evolution. it is an absurd comparison as everyone experiences gravity while only an elite few declare there is such a thing as evolution.

Thats original, set an impossible standard for evidence and upon its failure invoke "Therefore God".

If it is impossible, then evolution is not true. If evolution were true, you would be able to do it.

No ranting, just want to see real evidence from the actual process.

----------------------
zebothe fat posted a picture trying to describe the impossibility of defining the transitions of evolution but that is just another made up excuse as the evolutionist cannot provide evidence to support his ideas thus he has to resort to a generality to escape the responibility.

Evolutionists make incredible claims yet they cannot or refuse to put up real evidence to support their theory.
--------------------------------------------

First of all, we have transitional fossils

Saying it more than once makes it seem lik eyou are trying to comvince yourself not others. You do not have transitional fossils as NO ONE has ever observed the actual transition. ALll you have is conjecture supported by baseless declaration.

we don't need to observe speciation to know evolution has occurred

Oh so you change the rules when you are required to meet them. Won't fly. If you cannot observe it then it is NOT scientific and you have provided key testimony that evolution is not science.

if you do not observe it how do you know it actually took place or that the supposed process of evolution was responsible for such action? You are tellingpeople --take my word forit as we do not follow our own rules.

Sorry but that is hypocrisy and that disqualifies evolution from existence and science.

You expect ancient civilizations to have recorded evolutionary changes? What an absolutely ludicrous assumption

Your arrogance and superiority complex is showing. You mean to tell me that the ancients could measure the circumference of the globe, chart the stars, build structures to perfection, grow crops, build cities yet could not observe the world around them? You are the one being ludicrious.

If evolution were true, there would be no reason for any creation story to exist.

Modern medicine has no ancient foundation for organ transplants

I would be careful there, you do not know that and since I do know how ancient medicine and dentistry was done you are way out on a limb. Read the book 'Science and Secrets of Early Medicine by Jorgen Thorwald. You would be surprised at what the ancients knew and did medically.

because ancient people had no scientific understanding of the world around them

Really? And you were there to prove this true? You do not know what you are talking about. The ancient Greeks had their own computer, I forget the guy's name off hand but he was a Leonardo Da Vinci long before the latter was born, you really peg the ancients to being really dumb and you are so far wrong it is laughable.

Were you by any chance home schooled?

Going to the insult just removes any credibility you thought you had.

And you want to throw your lot in with ignorant goatherders who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe

The Bible never taught the world was flat or the center of the universe. You forget that the ancients knew they were on a globe. Oh and by the way, the Greeks really didn't invent anything, they got it all from civilizations prior to theirs.
---------------------------------

Except when it leads to technology that works and which we all of us, including you, rely on for our very survival:

Evolution has nothing to do with technology. You are giving credit to a non-existent process you can't experience in any way shape or form. I wouldn't be bragging if I were you.

I do not rely on technology for survival nor does anyone need to and the Amish prove this each day. As do the bushman of Africa and Brazil.

By the way, there is no such thing as bacteria evolving. It is called becoming immune, just like humans do. It is not a super bug, either.

Evolution has never existed, it is a figment of secular man's imagination because they cannot bring themselves to accept the truth.

---

Obviously you haven't read the OP nor have you read what PP posted about ring species. You should also look at this but I am sure you wont. You can believe all the fucking stupid god shit you want but to deny reality you are fighting a losing battle and being an asshole at the same time.

[Thor]

Apples and Oranges. We can feel, experience, fight gravity

But can you explain the gravitational attraction between two bodies? This is what gravitational theory does. It explains, for example, why the moon revolves around the Earth and not the sun. Despite the fact that the sun is much larger than the earth and has a far higher gravitational pull. Gravitational Theory is not just about falling objects. The hole in your scientific knowledge is showing.

but you have nothing of the kind with evolution.

Evolution is a far more proven theory than gravitational theory. So maybe you're right. It may be an apples and oranges comparison.

it is an absurd comparison as everyone experiences gravity

BZZZZTTT!!! Again, gravitational theory is not about "experiencing gravity".

while only an elite few declare there is such a thing as evolution.

What a pile of bullshit. Evolution is accepted by practiaclly everyone in the scientific community. Well, except maybe for the "scientists" who work at AIG, the Discovery Institute or any organization with "Creation" in its name.

Evolutionists make incredible claims yet they cannot or refuse to put up real evidence to support their theory.

Apparently, you've never been to a Natural History museum, read a scholarly journal, attended a scientific symposeum or been to a library.

Saying it more than once makes it seem lik eyou are trying to comvince yourself not others.

Uh... I'm not trying to "comvince" (sic) anyone. I'm just responding to the bullshit you're trying to pass off as the truth.

You do not have transitional fossils as NO ONE has ever observed the actual transition.

What an asinine comment. Do we need to have observed a murder to figure out what happened? NO! WE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! Like I said, we don't even need fossils to know that evolution has occurred. It's a bonus that we have them at all. And despite what you keep (wrongly) repeating, there are transitional fossils. Please go to a museum!

ALll you have is conjecture supported by baseless declaration.

If you're referring to the Babble, I'd say you're correct.

Oh so you change the rules when you are required to meet them. Won't fly. If you cannot observe it then it is NOT scientific and you have provided key testimony that evolution is not science.

Wow! Way to twist things around! We find a house that has burned to the ground. But no one saw it burn. I guess it would be unscientific to determine that the house caught fire.

if you do not observe it how do you know it actually took place

If you didn't observe it, how do you know your deity created the Earth and the universe?

Sorry but that is hypocrisy and that disqualifies evolution from existence and science.

You mean to tell me that the ancients could measure the circumference of the globe, chart the stars, build structures to perfection, grow crops, build cities yet could not observe the world around them?

Sure, they could observe the world around them. But they couldn't explain any of it. They didn't know what the stars are. They didn't know what caused the sun to shine. They didn't know what caused disease. In short, they were ignoramuses concerning much of science.

If evolution were true, there would be no reason for any creation story to exist.

What kind of stupid assertion is this? Creation stories exist because people had no idea where people (or any creature) came from. So they invented outlandish stories to explain it.

I would be careful there, you do not know that

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that ancient people had no idea how to perform an organ transplant.

and since I do know how ancient medicine and dentistry was done you are way out on a limb.

Yes, some ancient cultures performed brain surgery and dental work. So what? Like I said, modern medicine has no ancient foundation for organ transplants.

Read the book 'Science and Secrets of Early Medicine by Jorgen Thorwald. You would be surprised at what the ancients knew and did medically.

You should read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth". You would be surprised at how much evidence there is for evolution.

Really?

Yeah, really. The ancients had no clue what caused volcanoes to erupt, what caused earthquakes, the tides, storms, lightning, etc. They ascribed everything to the actions of various gods.

And you were there to prove this true?

I don't need to have been there.

The ancient Greeks had their own computer

Oh, yeah! The Zeus1000.

you really peg the ancients to being really dumb

I didn't say the ancients were "dumb". I said they were ignorant of the world around them. Big difference. On the other hand, anyone who has access to modern science and runs around proclaiming there is no evidence for evolution.... well, that person is either willfully ignorant or dumb.

and you are so far wrong it is laughable.

Kind of like how so far wrong you are vis-a-vis evolution.

Were you by any chance home schooled?

Going to the insult just removes any credibility you thought you had.

Intersting that you think it's an insult to ask if someone was home schooled. I also notice you didn't answer the question.

The Bible never taught the world was flat or the center of the universe.

I didn't say the Babble taught that the world was flat or the center of the universe. I said the people who wrote the Babble thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

[Godscreated]

In this thread let's ignore all the fossil evidence, DNA (genetic) evidence, homeologic evidence, molecular evidence, all the evidence we can possibly use for evolution and instead focus on the evolution we see all around us. I'll start with two examples that will clearly show evolution and speciation happening right before our eyes.

My first example is the Sockeye Salmon of Lake Washington (east of Seattle Washington). In the 30s and 40s they were first introduced in Lake Washington and fairly quickly they colonized the mouth of the Cedar river. By the mid 50s they had also colonized Pleasure Point beach. By the mid 90s (only 40 years later) these two populations diverged. In the Cedar river where the water flows rapidly, the male Salmon are more slender so they can fight the currents while the females are larger so they can dig deeper holes in the river for their eggs (so the current doesn't take the eggs). The Salmon that live in the warmer, stiller waters of Pleasure Point have males with larger rounder bodies so they can fight of rival males for mating privileges while the females are smaller since they do not have to dig deep holes to protect their eggs. These two distinct populations are genetically isolated and already after only 40 years (as of 1997 to be exact) show differences that would be recognized as distinct species in most organisms. Andrew Hendry of McGill University has shown us that this split (an example of allopatric speciation) has happened in 40 years and within a few generations they will be defined as a separate species.

My second example is a bird quite a few of us are familiar with. It's the common sparrow, specifically the European House Sparrow. The reason I am looking at this bird is because it isn't endemic to North America, or should I say it wasn't. The European House Sparrow was introduced to North America in the summer of 1851 in Brooklyn NY. Since there is only one tree that grows in Brooklyn (it was in a book, look it up), they quickly flew the coop so to speak and spread all over a range from Costa Rica in the south to the boreal forests of Canada in the north. Since we know they all came from one ancestral species and that species was all fairly similar (since the original population was small) and they spread all over North America, we know they are quickly diverging from one another and becoming new species (another example of allopatric speciation). We see the northern Sparrows follow Bergmann's rule (In zoology, Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographic rule that correlates latitude with body mass in animals) and they have larger bodies than those in the south. The reason for this is that larger bodies are needed to conserve heat. The northern Sparrows are darker than their southern relatives. Wing length is different, bill shape and of course length (shades of the Galapagos Finches). Many more difference can be found in the literature and online. The differences between the northern and southern Sparrows tend to be so extreme that bird watchers from the north can't even tell they are looking at the same species as bird watchers in the northern latitudes.

Ok, you have two examples. Let's hear yours.

Still salmon, but different species, the two can successfully mate with each other too, what am I missing here.

Still finches, but different species, the two can successfully mate with each other, again what am I missing here.

[Jackalope]

Still salmon, but different species, the two can successfully mate with each other too, what am I missing here.

Is that a fact, or your opinion? If it's the former, a citation would be appreciated. (Here's a clue for you: there are many species of salmon, who despite sharing a common ancestor, cannot mate and produce offspring, fertile or not.)

Understand this: When biologists speak of one species being different from another species, they generally do not mean just that "this creature has different physical or behavioral characteristics from this other creature". While it is true that the meaning of "species" depends upon the context in which it is used, in evolutionary biology one meaning is quite clear: This creature cannot mate with that creature and produce fertile offspring.

So, I'm left to decide whether the OP was sloppy in his word selection, or whether you're talking out of your nether regions.

Still finches, but different species, the two can successfully mate with each other, again what am I missing here.

What are you missing here? See the bolded part. In a scientific context, words mean things. Specific things.

P.S. It is entirely possible that the OP chose his words carelessly, but in the absence of any real refutation, I tend to think it's the other thing.

[Phil]

Still finches, but different species, the two can successfully mate with each other, again what am I missing here.

Dangerous question to ask but since you did and the OP doesn't speak of finches, I suspect the answer is a functioning brain.

[Godscreated]

Still finches, but different species, the two can successfully mate with each other, again what am I missing here.

Dangerous question to ask but since you did and the OP doesn't speak of finches, I suspect the answer is a functioning brain.

Sorry sparrows, however my statement stands.

[DeeTee]

It explains, for example, why the moon revolves around the Earth and not the sun

Gravity didn't do this. God put the moon in place then created gravity to hold it there. You attribute to gravity what God did.

Evolution is a far more proven theory

Thanks for the laugh. Evolution doesn't have one shred of evidence supporting it. it is all conjecture, assumption, wishful thinking.

Again, gravitational theory is not about "experiencing gravity

You missed the point.

Evolution is accepted by practiaclly everyone in the scientific community

Good thing that the truth doesn't require a majority vote or rule. The truth is the truth even when no one believes it. All you have to do is accept or reject it. By the way, why would you listen to a bunch of people who were not at the origin of the world & life, who look at very partial evidence and make declarations without hope of verification?

Apparently, you've never been to a Natural History museum, read a scholarly journal, attended a scientific symposeum or been to a library

Insults will get you no where.

I'm just responding to the bullshit you're trying to pass off as the truth.

Here is a question: WHY would you listen to a bunch of men who do not care about you, who make mistakes, who change what they believe, do not care about you, and removes any hope you may have had OVER a divine all powerful being who was at creation, who knows what took place, does not make mistakes, does not sin, who does care about you and instills hope in you?

What an asinine comment

Yep, you really inspire dialogue.

Do we need to have observed a murder to figure out what happened

bad comparison. you have historical (both ancient and modern) examples to provide information on what to look for which evolution does not have. murder is not subjective like evolution and it doesn't change like the theory does from year to year.

You are so desperate you use anything to keep your faith in evolution alive.

We find a house that has burned to the ground

another terrible example. we know that fire exists, we have seen it, felt it, watched it work and we know that houses exist because we see them built, we live in them work on them etc. BUT for evolution, the evolutionist still hasnot produce the actual process, cannot prove it actually exists let alone responsible for the supposed changes that take place over a supposed millions of years.

no one has ever touched it, felt it, saw it work, but they declare it exists even though what they claim took place left no real evidence and relies upon hearsay, conjecture, assumption, wishful thinking.

If you didn't observe it, how do you know your deity created the Earth and the universe?

First, we do not need evidence, God requires people to take His word BY FAITH.

Second, if you love God then 1 Cor. 13 says if you love someone you believe them. Demanding evidence is not believing them but showing doubt and disbelief. God said He did it then that is enough for me.

Third, we have evidence just in case someone's faith gets weak. We have ancient civilization creation accounts, we have plant, animal, human nurseries aiding reproduction and it is done exactly like God initiated it in the beginning. We have the sun, the moon and the stars right where God said they would be doing the job He gave them to do.

We have all the evidence evolution has NONE.

But they couldn't explain any of it

Were you there so you can prove this true? Oh wait, you weren't, so you don't know that is true. You take a few remains of ancient books and extrapolate their non-discussion of the world around them to all ancient people then interpret those off topic writings to fit what you want them to mean.

Doesn't work that way. Unless you have read every ancient book, talked to every ancient person you can't say that.

What kind of stupid assertion is this? Creation stories exist because people had no idea where people (or any creature) came from. So they invented outlandish stories to explain it

Being abusive doesn't help your cause.

No, if there was no creation then there would be NO creation stories. If evolution were true, we would be hearing evolutionary tales, and bedtime stories.

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that ancient people had no idea how to perform an organ transplant.

You may be wrong. We have archaeological finds that point to precision brain surgery, we have other finds that demonstrate 1st class dentistry, some far better than any modern dentist could do. So I think you are very wrong.

You should read the book "The Greatest Show on Earth". You would be surprised at how much evidence there is for evolution

Dawkins??? You want me to read the biggest blowhard whose bias, unobjectivity, and dishonesty are well known...ha ha ha.

The ancients had no clue what caused volcanoes to erupt, what caused earthquakes, the tides, storms, lightning, etc. They ascribed everything to the actions of various gods.

Bad logic. That is like archaeologists 2,000 years from now declaring that the 20th-21st century did not have or understand nuclear power because they read the writings of Hare Krishna.

I don't need to have been there.

Yes you do. You are the one demanding physical evidence so you need to be there to obtain it and prove your claims.

Oh, yeah! The Zeus1000.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_4.htm

read up on it.

On the other hand, anyone who has access to modern science and runs around proclaiming there is no evidence for evolution...

Hate to break it to you but science is not the authority on origins nor does it have a say in the discussion. Origins is beyond the scope and capibilities of science as it lies in the realm of theology, religion and christianity. Science is an interloper who can't mind its own business and is being used to lead people astray from the truth.

I said the people who wrote the Babble thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Prove it. I have found no such idea in all my studies so pony up the credible evidence to support that bad assertion. You are assuming something and you are very wrong.

[Phil]

Dangerous question to ask but since you did and the OP doesn't speak of finches, I suspect the answer is a functioning brain.

Sorry sparrows, however my statement stands.

So you think.

[DeeTee]

P.S. Insulting a person's Holy book is disrespectful and insulting. If you can't call it the Bible then don't refer to it at all. if you want to be treated with respect treat others and their beliefs with respect.