Why I am an "Evolutionist"

Nathan P said:
We are not talking about relationships between parents, siblings etc. We are talking about factual evidence that shows where one species actually evolved into the next one. I knew it since there is no direct evidence for the evos claim a substitute type of evidence would be shown.
Click to expand...
DNA evidence is direct evidence. As are fossils. What do you think that direct evidence means?
 
Nathan P said:
We are not talking about relationships between parents, siblings etc. We are talking about factual evidence that shows where one species actually evolved into the next one. I knew it since there is no direct evidence for the evos claim a substitute type of evidence would be shown.
Click to expand...
You lose once because you are shifting the goalposts. You asked me to show that DNA had more information (post #256), which I did.

You lose twice because you apparently cannot see the connection between DNA showing parent/child relationships, and common descent as shown in evolution. Consider that offspring are descended from their parents and common descent. Consider also the two words that I highlighted. Can you see the connection?

You need to learn more about the subject if you want to talk sensibly about it.
 
rossum said:
You lose once because you are shifting the goalposts. You asked me to show that DNA had more information (post #256), which I did.

You lose twice because you apparently cannot see the connection between DNA showing parent/child relationships, and common descent as shown in evolution. Consider that offspring are descended from their parents and common descent. Consider also the two words that I highlighted. Can you see the connection?

You need to learn more about the subject if you want to talk sensibly about it.
Click to expand...
No I asked you to prove where DNA was more accurate than fossils and not for you to only say that DNA shows a relationship between species. And we are talking proof one species evolved from the other and not obvious similarities between parents and children etc.
 
Nathan P said:
Which method is considered the best way to trace animal kinds and human kinds history?
Click to expand...
Both. They are complimentary, reinforcing each other. Though the evidence from each is separately more than enough to show that evolution is true.
 
Temujin said:
Both. They are complimentary, reinforcing each other. Though the evidence from each is separately more than enough to show that evolution is true.
Click to expand...
I bet you can not prove that? And no because DNA only shows how they are related and fossil evidence shows if there were any distinct changes as they evolved.
 
Nathan P said:
I bet you can not prove that? And no because DNA only shows how they are related and fossil evidence shows if there were any distinct changes as they evolved.
Click to expand...
I don't need to prove that. It's accepted knowledge by the entire scientific community and every educated person on the planet. You can try and prove it wrong. You can ignore reality. Noone cares what you think.

Being related and showing changes over time is exactly what evolution is.
 
Temujin said:
I don't need to prove that. It's accepted knowledge by the entire scientific community and every educated person on the planet. You can try and prove it wrong. You can ignore reality. Noone cares what you think.

Being related and showing changes over time is exactly what evolution is.
Click to expand...
The point you are missing is that fossils showing clear change is a more proven way of tracing all the ancestors human and animal alike back.
 
Nathan P said:
The point you are missing is that fossils showing clear change is a more proven way of tracing all the ancestors human and animal alike back.
Click to expand...
Agreed. So why don't you accept them? Or are you claiming that they don't exist? In which case, how are they " more proven"?
 
Temujin said:
Agreed. So why don't you accept them? Or are you claiming that they don't exist? In which case, how are they " more proven"?
Click to expand...
How many times does this have to be said that the fossil record for a fact shows minimal changes to species which says the evidence is saying they reproduced according to their kind? Similarities in fossils does not equate to them having evolved.
 
Nathan P said:
How many times does this have to be said that the fossil record for a fact shows minimal changes to species which says the evidence is saying they reproduced according to their kind? Similarities in fossils does not equate to them having evolved.
Click to expand...
So now you say that the fossil record is not the most reliable proven way of showing evolution. That's ok, since we have genetics, which itself is independently capable of demonstrating evolution. You are saying that finger prints are the only way of proving guilt in a crime. We have DNA, we have eye witness accounts, but because we have no finger prints, we cannot convict?
 
Temujin said:
So now you say that the fossil record is not the most reliable proven way of showing evolution. That's ok, since we have genetics, which itself is independently capable of demonstrating evolution. You are saying that finger prints are the only way of proving guilt in a crime. We have DNA, we have eye witness accounts, but because we have no finger prints, we cannot convict?
Click to expand...
No I said the fossil record that shows actual changes that they were supposedly evolving was the most accurate way to trace animal and humankind's history. All you got with DNA is similarities.
 
Nathan P said:
No I said the fossil record that shows actual changes that they were supposedly evolving was the most accurate way to trace animal and humankind's history. All you got with DNA is similarities.
Click to expand...
And it does. We have fossils AND we have DNA. Both of which clearly demonstrate evolution, independently and in conjunction. What exactly is your problem?
 
Nathan P said:
How many times does this have to be said that the fossil record for a fact shows minimal changes to species which says the evidence is saying they reproduced according to their kind? Similarities in fossils does not equate to them having evolved.
Click to expand...
What constitutes a "kind"? The fossil record shows a sequential presence upon the earth. Does that show a progressive change or indicate a multitude of creation events to replace previous life forms?
 
Tiburon said:
What constitutes a "kind"? The fossil record shows a sequential presence upon the earth. Does that show a progressive change or indicate a multitude of creation events to replace previous life forms?
Click to expand...
You know like dog and cat kind? The fossil record shows kinds have remained the same.
 
Temujin said:
And it does. We have fossils AND we have DNA. Both of which clearly demonstrate evolution, independently and in conjunction. What exactly is your problem?
Click to expand...
I do not have a problem as the fossil record clearly indicates that kinds have remained pretty much the same. As you have been told only actual changes and not similarities can show whether they evolved.
 
Nathan P said:
I do not have a problem as the fossil record clearly indicates that kinds have remained pretty much the same.
Click to expand...
No they have not. There were a lot of earlier kinds present in the fossil record before mammal kind appeared. That was a new kind appearing well after the start of life on earth.

Even within the mammals, whale/dolphin kind appeared long after the start of mammal kind.

Kinds are appearing and disappearing throughout the fossil record. Seen any of pterosaur kind recently?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top