Does the Theory of Evolution Win Hands Down?

[Tinky]

Tinky,

 

Yes, all of that is a directly observed fact.  I've posted the information

 

 

Like Shiloh said, that is not macro-evolution (an entirely new species).

 

Look up the experiments with fruit flies and radiation for a real eye-opener. Even with mutations (all of which were harmful) no new genetic information was added to DNA. With those experiments, it's always a loss of information that is observed.

[JDavis]

 

As long as "kind" has no useful meaning, it is by definition a meaningless term and all arguments and claims that rely on it will be equally meaningless.

 

I never said kind didn't have useful meaning, just that I am not an expert on what that meaning is.  even with the Biological classification taxanomy there is not 100 agreement on what belongs in what.  So, this is just a smokescreen for you.

 

 

That all life shares a common ancestry is a conclusion reached by multiple lines of evidence.  The most obvious is the fossil record, where for ~2 billion years there was nothing on earth except single-celled organisms, then as we move forward in time the life forms become increasingly like what we see around us today

 

But the fossil record does not show this slow progression from the single celled organism to the more complex life forms, so the fossil record does not help your case.  Second, this is circular reasoning.   A is true because of B and B is true because of A. 

 

now if you would, take your examples of "evolution" and explain how those sorts of changes could cause the same organism to eventually become both a oak tree and a human being?

[JDavis]

 

None of that is macro-evolution.  

 

Only if you redefine macroevolution to suit your own agenda.

 

 

just as evolutionist have redefined species to fit their agenda

[JDavis]

 

Like Shiloh said, that is not macro-evolution (an entirely new species).

 

Look up the experiments with fruit flies and radiation for a real eye-opener. Even with mutations (all of which were harmful) no new genetic information was added to DNA. With those experiments, it's always a loss of information that is observed.

 

 

Wow, you read all those papers really fast.  So can you explain for me, complete with actual quotes from the papers, how they aren't examples of speciation?

 

'Cause here's the dilemma....on one hand we have the papers, written and reviewed by multiple professional scientists, describing the evolution of new species.  OTOH we have an anonymous person on an internet forum asserting "No they're not" with nothing else.  You see the problem?

 

 

They are examples of speciation, but the term species has become so narrow over time that no longer does speciation lead to evolution on a macro scale.  Explain to use how the changes in the cicadas would lead them to becoming something other than just another cicada.   Lead us through the changes that would lead these cicadas to becoming a moth or a bumble bee.

[MarkNigro]

JD,

If kind doesn't have a definition, then there isn't much to talk about.

As far as the rest, I only have two questions. Exactly what agenda do you think scientists have? And are you asking me to explain these things to you because you are truly interested in learning, or is it because you're hoping to stump me?

As to many scientists who believe in evolution they do not have a secret agenda. They are just being used as pawns by Satan.

[JDavis]

JD,

If kind doesn't have a definition, then there isn't much to talk about.

As far as the rest, I only have two questions. Exactly what agenda do you think scientists have? And are you asking me to explain these things to you because you are truly interested in learning, or is it because you're hoping to stump me?

 

I gave you definition, it is a mix of what you call "class" and "order".

 

It would depend on the scientist, everyone has an agenda  Those that have tied their horses to evolution have the agenda to further the theory. 

 

and lastly, more of the former than the latter.  I like to hear what people have to say and how they think. 

 

as for the agenda...here is one man's take on it...

 

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin

[Guest]

.... Exactly what agenda do you think scientists have?

 

It's Magic And Power And Pain And Death

 

 

Without

 

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, Luke 4:18

 

God's Grace 

 

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:27

[JDavis]

 

I gave you definition, it is a mix of what you call "class" and "order".

 

I hope you don't mind my intercession here, but that cannot be a complete definition of kind. For example humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are all part of the "family" classification which is lower than class or order. So sometimes, with humans as the prime example, a kind can be as narrow as a single species. Yet you often hear the phrase ' bacteria is still a bacteria' and bacteria is not a single species, it isn't even an order or class, it is an entire "domain" which is higher than the "kingdom" classification. Just for comparison all animals, plants, and fungi are in the same domain Eukaryota. 

 

So depending on context, the way kind is actually used by creationists varies immensely from species to kingdom and beyond. I personally am not overly concerned about defining kind as a single taxonomic group like order or class; in reality those classifications are more for scientific organizational purposes than anything else. However if "kind" is to have any scientific power it needs a more precise working definition. 

 

 

They are part of a "family" based on man's science.  I do not think that God would put them in the same family. 

 

And I am sure there is a more precise working definition, I am just not sure what it is and I do not want to speak when I am not sure.  I will see if I can find a better definition.

[JDavis]

This is from Dennis Wagner  Executive Director of the Access Research Network

 

Is the creationist opposed to macroevolution then? Well according to the definition of macroevolution, sometimes yes, sometimes no. If by macroevolution it is meant descent with modification of the coyote, wolf, dingo, pampa fox, asiatic jackal, and domestic dog from the originally created Canid kind, then the answer is no, the creationist is not opposed to macroevolution. If, however, the definition of macroevolution means the descent with modification of the bird kind from the reptilian kind, then the answer is yes, the creationist is opposed to macroevolution.

[thomas t]

Could we use just one definition of macroevolution?

 

I'd like to suggest the one given in the German wikipedia-article about macroevolution. It defines macroevolution as evolution above the level of species and at the level of higher taxa.

 

Higher taxa are:

 

Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, Kingdom, Domain, Life.

 

 

Thomas