I'm pleasantly surprised to see you in this forum.
Irrelevant. I have never seen Chicago; does that make me correct if I clam that Chicago does not exist.
Evolution can occur within a species as well as evolving new species. Evolution can result in a new species, or it can result in minor changes within the same species, such as eye colour or Covid resistance.
They are. Crossbreeds are only 50% fertile, so interbreeding is impaired between lions and tigers. Evolution is a gradual process, so separation between species happens gradually. Horse and donkey crossbreeds (mules/hinnies) are 100% infertile but the two species can still produce live offspring. Further genetic separation will prevent any live offspring being produced.
Yes, mules are not a species because they cannot breed with other mules.
The evidence shows that lions and tigers are the most closely related, in the same family as you say. Similarly for horses, donkeys and zebras (see zebroid). Kangaroos and elephants have a much larger degree of separation and so cannot produce live crossbreeds. This is to be expected from evolution. The further apart species are on the evolutionary tree the smaller the chance of viable crossbreeds.
We do not have the same sources. You rely on Genesis as a source; science does not. Furthermore, you think that your particular interpretation of Genesis (one interpretation among many) is superior to science. That is an error. You are relying on one set of human theologians, the YEC theologians, to be correct as opposed to the Theistic Evolution theologians or the OEC theologians. Those theological arguments are not part of science.
Rocks have been on earth since the beginning, and the evidence in those rocks tells us the age of the planet. Light has been in the universe since the beginning, and the evidence in that light tells us the age of the universe.
At the risk of teaching you to suck eggs, could I also suggest Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective by Dr. Wiens.
Right, a duck is a duck but according to evolution eventually it could eventually be a rabbit or something else.
But evolution cannot actually be scientifically proven as no one has actually observed one species evolve into a different one.
Because those changes do not add the type of information that’s needed. Many animals like crocodiles have remained just about the same for the last supposed 200 million years so where are the animals in the 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 point of their evolution. It’s not just intermediary fossils that are missing but all the living animals at the different stages of evolution.
They are relatives because their ancestors have a common designer. He created all living organisms from the materials he used to create the universe. There was one special creature made in his likeness that’s also quite good a designing intelligently.
If evolution were true then at anytime there should be all types of animals in different stages, where are they?
Show me a living half deer, half octopus with the fossil records showing the small incremental changes.
I don’t see how that’s a problem. Logically, an intelligent designer can create two things that are both similar and completely different. We see it with humans everyday.
Incorrect. According to evolution birds and mammals are too far separated for one to evolve into the other. If you wish to criticise evolution then you should learn more about it, so your criticism is relevant.
Science does not do proof, that is for mathematics. Science does evidence. You can see the evidence in papers like Lyko (2017) and Tauber & Tauber (1977). Again, you need to learn more about how science works if you want to make relevant criticisms.
What type of information? How do we measure that type of information? Can you supply some references to ID research papers with experimental results confirming what you are saying here? This is science, so you need to supply enough relevant scientific evidence to support your claims.
Thank you, Reverend. Theology is two doors down, on the right.
Again, you need to learn more about the subject before posting. In this case you should read up on Punctuated Equilibrium.
That is something you should be looking for. If such an animal, or a fossil, were found, then it would go a long way towards falsifying evolution.
It is a problem if ID wants to be considered as science. In effect you are saying that since your designer can design anything at all, then there is no possible biological, fossil or biochemical evidence that would falsify ID. In effect, because ID can explain absolutely anything it is scientifically useless.
Thank you, I'll check it out.
So you have no actual argument or rejoinder to my point. Then my point stands until you do.
Why can't they?
It's already been explained to you that some animals in stable environments may not change much at all. Also, we went through the point that you don't need some arbitrary number of intermediates, and you already agreed that you don't need every step. Why, then, are you still insisting on some arbitrary number of intermediates?
But it's already been explained why the designer hypothesis, being unfalsifiable, is a meaningless claim. You have to be able to say that some organism or pattern of ancestry would be impossible for the designer to do; otherwise, there's no way to say it's false - whether it is or not - based on any evidence.
No it doesn't. It just doesn't. Please at least understand what you don't agree with.
Evolution doesn't predict a half deer or half octopus. I don't even know what such organisms could be, or look like.
You have to be able to say that some organism or pattern of ancestry would be impossible for the designer to do; otherwise, there's no way to say it's false - whether it is or not - based on any evidence.
Homicide detectives don’t always get it right even with forensics and still there are many cold cases and wrongfully imprisoned people. Plus, you’re the one who said you would need to interrogate God himself as proof.
Because homicide deceives do sometimes get it right means that one don't necessarily have to have direct observation of a phenomenon to draw a conclusion about it. Cold cases are merely the detective being properly judicious and not jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence, nothing wrong about that.
I always to my memory, have another test for what I would accept as - not proof - sufficient evidence to believe in a god, and it's not interrogation.
Genesis and science is my source.
Again, people disagreeing with other isn’t a valid argument.
No, your interpretation of said evidence is what gives you a false age.
Right, the Grand Canyon along with all the fossils in North America is proof of the flood.
I want to see it also. @JNelson
If you want your science to be stuck in the late Bronze Age, then that is your choice. However, you should not expect the modern science community to follow you back to the past.
Monophysites and dyophysites have been disagreeing since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. That shows that theologians do not have a working process to resolve disagreements. Scientists also have disagreements, however science has a working process to resolve such disagreements: make predictions and do the indicated experiments. No scientific dispute has lasted as long as some theological disputes.
Not my interpretation, and the evidence comes from many independent sources: cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology and others. Multiple independent sources are more reliable than a single, disputed, interpretation of an old book.
And your evidence that all this happened within a single year is? There were floods in New Orleans in 2005. There were floods in Kentucky this year. Those floods are, obviously, not evidence for the Genesis flood. You need to show evidence of the dates for those fossils and for the Grand Canyon that you are claiming as evidence, and all those dates need to be within a single year.
So what can a mammal evolve to?
With science we can observe and test thus it can prove many things like the biological parents of a child.
If a land animal is evolving into a sea animal it would need to add information to breathe and swim under water.
And your fairytale room is three doors down.
The fossil record doesn’t support the evolutionary claim and thus the idea of punctuated equilibrium came along but there isn’t any actual evidence for it.
So finding an animal that is in the middle of evolving into another animal would falsify evolution?
Humans create and design things that are similar and completely different all the time so we have scientific evidence that an intelligent designer can do both.
Science is necessary to learn how things work and why they work that way. Countless things intelligent humans create are based on designs found in the world around us. Your fairytale origin story isn’t necessary for actual science.
When they do get it right is because there’s enough evidence. You can’t compare homicide to the origin of the earth because unlike the origin of the earth humans, sadly, commit and witness homicides every day so detectives have great knowledge of how to interpret the evidence. No human witnessed the origin of the earth or anything else in the universe.
I didn’t say interrogation was they only proof you’d accept but you did say it would be enough.
Exactly! That means that direct observation of things that aren't the phenomenon in question - phenomenon like evolution, the big band, a murder that wasn't witnessed, etc. - can still demonstrate that those phenomenon happened. So your previous requirement that we have to observe evolution happening is nonsensical.
There is a thing called the science of geology in which people have great knowledge about what the evidence means.
I didn't say God, I said the designer (which are distinct concepts: every designer need not be a god). However, I mis-interpreted your comment as what I thought would be sufficient for belief in a god, not in a designer. Given all that, I stand by my comment in post #458.
A mammal can evolve to a different mammal. That might be a small change, or over time a larger change. The original population of deuterostomes have evolved over time into many different forms of deuterostome, including humans. We are deuterostomes.
Science does evidence. If there is a 98.7% DNA match then that is called "proof", but that is actually a way of saying "overwhelming evidence", and shorter to say as well. What a court will accept is different from what science will accept. Scientific measurements come with a level of uncertainty, hence they are evidence, not proof. For example, the value of the fine structure constant is 0.0072973525693(11). That (11) at the end is a measure of the error in the value, in this case between ...5704 and ...5682
No. It would just need to evolve to hold its breath for longer, as whales and dolphins have done. Evolution can follow many paths, not all of them obvious. As to information, evolution can easily add information with insertion mutations and duplication mutations. These mutations have been observed to happen repeatedly.
Your sources are lying to you again. The fossil record supports punctuated equilibrium.
An animal in the process of evolving obviously does not falsify evolution, it supports evolution. A chimera, composed of parts from two or more different species, such as a mermaid or a pegasus, would falsify evolution.
I did not ask for similarity or difference. I asked for something that your proposed designer could not design. Absent such a description, then ID is lacking a falsification criterion, and becomes irrelevant as science.
Fairytale? My origin story does not have a talking serpent and two magic trees. I know which one looks more like a fairytale. Do you?
www.unilad.com
Nested hierarchy is an assumption but it isn’t not proven based on the evidence we have. God created animals and plants according to their kind so it makes sense that there are hierarchies within those kinds (creation orchard) which is exactly what we can observe in fossils and living animals today.
It’s your assumption which is impossible to confirm or deny since no one has or can live long enough to observe those changes.
It’s not arbitrary. If you say that those changes took place little by little during millions of years then there should be hundreds of thousands of intermediaries. Supposedly a hoofed animal evoled into a whale in 8-16 million years so there should be thousands and thousands of intermediary fossils not the dozen or less that’s normally shown which is really just different animals with similarities just as exists today.
And it’s already been explained that no matter what new evidence is found, evolutionists just adjusts their theory to fit it in making it unfalsifiable.
You just don’t seem to understand the logical conclusion of your own beliefs. You say animals evolve over time, from one type to another, yet you can’t go to any point in history to find the middle point between a land animal and a sea animal nor do you have a record of those transitional fossils.
Doesn’t matter what evolution predicts because no one can live long enough to prove it which makes it unfalsifiable
Post #458