Where Is The Evidence For Evolutionist Assumptions?

[gilbo12345 858]

What's the difference, Isn't "potentially concluding" without evidence the same as assuming?

 

Good point, it just sounds nicer for the uncritical reader.

[gilbo12345 858]

 

I agree with what you are saying when it comes to individual fossils. But, I was referring more to the "big picture" mosaic that the fossil record paints. And what I mean by that is the only very primitive aquatic life (Precambrian) is found in the oldest sediments. As you move into younger sediments, fish appear. And as you continue to move into, yet, younger sediments, life continues to branch outward and upward towards aquatic land dwellers, e.g., amphibians, then reptiles and mammalian reptiles, and eventually birds and mammals. There is a clear progression in the fossil record based on the geology. One hypothesis based on this evidence is that life on earth evolved from very primitive life forms to what we see today .... of course, over a very, very long period of time based on the geologic record.

 

Yet again this is based on the assumption that similarities = ancestry...

 

How do you know that there is a progression from one fossil to another? You cannot know that, (if you have evidence for it please give it here since that is what I am asking for), therefore you are making assumptions... Simply looking at how some fossils are similar in some ways doesn't lead to them being related or ancestors or anything...

 

Please try and see this, its the crux of this thread.

[Paul79 23]

 

I agree with what you are saying when it comes to individual fossils. But, I was referring more to the "big picture" mosaic that the fossil record paints. And what I mean by that is the only very primitive aquatic life (Precambrian) is found in the oldest sediments. As you move into younger sediments, fish appear. And as you continue to move into, yet, younger sediments, life continues to branch outward and upward towards aquatic land dwellers, e.g., amphibians, then reptiles and mammalian reptiles, and eventually birds and mammals. There is a clear progression in the fossil record based on the geology. One hypothesis based on this evidence is that life on earth evolved from very primitive life forms to what we see today .... of course, over a very, very long period of time based on the geologic record.

Thanks for the response SN.

 

What about animals that are not in the right layer? The following section from a Apologetics Press article regarding the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate responds well to your comments. How do you explain these observations since they don't follow your "primitive life forms to what we see today" comments? What about polystrate fossils?

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4819&topic=303

 

 

No Higher and Lower Animals Mixing in the Geologic Column?

At one point in the debate, Nye showed various pictures of fossils and the fossil record, including a trilobite picture towards the bottom of the geologic column. He claimed, “You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one.” “When there was a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did. Not a single one. If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world.” This, he argued, was proof in favor of evolution and against the Creation/Flood model, implying that if Creation is true, there should be evidence of “higher” and “lower” creatures (e.g., the trilobite) together in the fossil record, while if evolution is true, they should be separate.

Ironically, in 1968, William Meister discovered a human footprint with fossilized trilobites in the print (Lammerts, 1976, pp. 186-187). Of course evolutionists would not wish to concede that the print was from a human, but it is hard to brush aside the sandal stitching that is visible in the print. That alone is enough evidence to refute Nye’s claim. But what about the story Nature published in 2005 that upset standard evolutionary suppositions about the history of evolution? A small dinosaur was discovered fossilized in the stomach of a mammal too big to have yet evolved, according to the evolutionary model (Hu, et al., 2005). Did that pivotal discovery make an impact? What about the discovery of “human-like” footprints in coal veins that were supposed to have been laid down during the Carboniferous period of evolutionary geology, 248 million years before humans were supposed to be on the scene (Ingalls, 1940; Wilder-Smith, 1970)? What about the existence of “living fossils,” like the coelacanth—creatures found today that, according to the evolutionary interpretation of the geologic column, were supposed to be long extinct? Though they were nowhere to be seen in the column over the last 70 million years (according to the evolutionary timescale), evolutionists were wrong to assume that that meant they were not alive through the millennia (“Coelacanth,” 2014; “Diver Finds…,” 2014). This, of course, illustrates that just because a creature, including a human, did not leave a fossil in a particular geologic layer or layers (even those representing an alleged 70 million years of evolutionary time), it does not mean it did not then exist. Clearly, using Nye’s terminology, the coelacanth must have “swam up” the geologic column, surviving until the present day. And what about the recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissue—proving that dinosaurs could not have gone extinct 65 million years ago as evolutionists argue, but instead lived contemporaneously with the rest of us (Boyle, 2007; Perkins, 2005; Schweitzer, et al., 2005; Schweitzer, et al., 2007)? “You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one,” Mr. Nye? I think not. Will the truth “change the world,” do you suppose? Sadly, probably not.

Nye claims that if the Flood is true, there should be a mixing of “lower” fossils (i.e., simpler creatures) and “higher” fossils in the geologic column, because the “lower” creatures would have been trying to “swim” upward in the Flood. We are amazed that Nye would even make such a statement, as it seems to betray the fact that he does not understand the fossilization process. Only those creatures caught by, for example, mud slides in the Flood would have been fossilized. Those creatures that could “swim up” would not even have been fossilized at all, as they would have died on the surface of the waters and decayed without fossilization, as do most aquatic creatures when they die. The real question, then, becomes which creatures could get to higher ground (not higher water) easier, thus avoiding mud slides? Clearly, smaller creatures with less maneuverability (i.e., not necessarily less complexity) would be covered in the earliest mud slides, not able to move quickly enough, and therefore, be found lower in the ground. Larger, faster, and more intelligent species would tend to be able to avoid fossilization-causing phenomena longer and get to higher ground. There would tend to be, however, exceptions in the Flood model, as some creatures would run into “dead ends” and be caught in mudslides in their flight, which explains the many anomalies and mass fossil grave yards that evolutionists seem to brush under the carpet without much comment. [NOTE: It is also true that creationists do not argue that all fossils were formed in the Flood. Some may, in fact, have been formed during other localized catastrophes, although it is likely that most were formed during the Flood.] While the evolutionary scenario has no room for such exceptions, they are predicted in the Creation/Flood model.

Nye also argued: “There’s not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another.” While Nye carefully qualified his assertion by focusing solely on the Grand Canyon (which may or may not have such fossils), when the discussion is opened up to allow us to consider other places where “fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another,” the Creation model is quickly vindicated, and the evolutionary model is found to be inadequate. We have documented several cases of polystrate fossils (i.e., fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock layers) elsewhere, including trees, Calamites, and catfish (e.g., Thompson, 2002, pp. 224-230). Perhaps the most famous of such examples would be the discovery of an 80 foot long, baleen whale “standing on end” in a diatomaceous Earth quarry in California (Reese, 1976, 54[4]:40; Snelling, 1995). Only one such example is needed to refute the entire evolutionary uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and vindicate the creationists’ catastrophism approach to interpreting the column. Polystrate fossils prove that the geologic layers were laid down rapidly, not gradually over eons of time.

[StormanNorman 102]

Thanks for the response SN.

 

What about animals that are not in the right layer? The following section from a Apologetics Press article regarding the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate responds well to your comments. How do you explain these observations since they don't follow your "primitive life forms to what we see today" comments? What about polystrate fossils?

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4819&topic=303

 

Hi Paul,

 

No problem. Well, to me, it depends on how much mixing. If it's just isolated events, e.g., outliers, then the preponderance of evidence would still point to a clear pattern in the fossil record (and I would presume that those isolated events have other explanations). However, if the mixing is significant, then that would indeed be a problem for evolution.

 

Now, as far as your examples go (contained in the link above), do you have scientific / first-hand sources for those? I'll look around when I have time (not until later this week or this weekend).

[Paul79 23]

 

Hi Paul,

 

No problem. Well, to me, it depends on how much mixing. If it's just isolated events, e.g., outliers, then the preponderance of evidence would still point to a clear pattern in the fossil record (and I would presume that those isolated events have other explanations). However, if the mixing is significant, then that would indeed be a problem for evolution.

 

Now, as far as your examples go (contained in the link above), do you have scientific / first-hand sources for those? I'll look around when I have time (not until later this week or this weekend).

 

The dinosaur inside the mammal evidence is found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7022/full/nature03102.html

 

The human footprint inside the coal vein is found here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-carboniferous-mystery/ (a subscription is needed it looks like)

 

The other two in the article I could only find on creation websites and not from a scientific article at first check.

 

Sorry guys for going a little off topic.

[StormanNorman 102]

 

 

The dinosaur inside the mammal evidence is found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7022/full/nature03102.html

 

 

Hi Paul,

 

Yeah, I found this guy here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repenomamus

 

The Wiki article says it lived about 125 million years ago. To be honest, I'm not sure what the contradiction is here. Based on the fossil record, mammals date back to at least 167 million years ago depending on the definition of mammal. And, dinosaurs date back to around 230 million years and lasted to about 65 million years ago. Of course, dinosaurs came in all shapes and sizes including some that were the size of your hand. I don't find it hard to believe that a mammal ate a much smaller dinosaur; I would think the catching would be the hard part assuming it was not already dead or not yet hatched.

 

 

The human footprint inside the coal vein is found here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-carboniferous-mystery/ (a subscription is needed it looks like)

 

 

I've heard about this before. I've also heard some claim that they have found bells and other human artifacts deep inside coal veins. I'm not sure what to make of it. I guess my one question why is it typically coal that these are found in. At least to me, it seems like if humans and dinosaurs did live together, then we would find at least some human bones/fossils in the same sediments that we usually find dinosaur fossils in. And, I've never heard that being the case.

 

 

The other two in the article I could only find on creation websites and not from a scientific article at first check.

 

Sorry guys for going a little off topic.

 

 

I don't think you are off topic. I brought up the distinctive pattern in the fossil record as a reason for hypothesizing evolution .... and you questioned that distinctive pattern.

 

And, just to be clear, Paul, I'm not claiming that the patterns and available evidence all point to and perfectly align with the Theory of Evolution. There are certainly gaps, questions, unknowns, and potentially contradictions. However, I do feel that the preponderance of the forensic evidence including the fossil record makes evolution certainly a viable hypothesis.

[Dig4gold 100]

Post #38

hewy: This is one of the biggest misconceptions of evolution. I think you have a really dramatic kind of "black or white" model of evolution when all evolution actually is is things living, reproducing and dying.. It is the history of what has happened to life. The fact that evolution occurs is just a consequence of living things having genomes which change. Its not about things trying to become better adapted, species become adapted to their environment as a side-effect of reproducing (that is, the traits which further reproductive fitness, for whatever reason, are obviously those best suited to the present environment). There are no "levels" of evolution.

 

 

 

Are there limits to this change? Does it go beyond adaptive changes?

 

If you answer yes then I would agree there are no levels of evolution. It sounds like you are the one that is suggesting different levels of evolution.

 

I don't have a problem with a mammal changing the color of its fur but changing into a fish is a level I'm not willing to go.

 

 

 

 

Seemed like this fell between the cracks. Just wanted an answer.

[hewy 7]

Post #38

hewy: This is one of the biggest misconceptions of evolution. I think you have a really dramatic kind of "black or white" model of evolution when all evolution actually is is things living, reproducing and dying.. It is the history of what has happened to life. The fact that evolution occurs is just a consequence of living things having genomes which change. Its not about things trying to become better adapted, species become adapted to their environment as a side-effect of reproducing (that is, the traits which further reproductive fitness, for whatever reason, are obviously those best suited to the present environment). There are no "levels" of evolution.

 

 

 

Are there limits to this change? Does it go beyond adaptive changes?

 

If you answer yes then I would agree there are no levels of evolution. It sounds like you are the one that is suggesting different levels of evolution.

 

I don't have a problem with a mammal changing the color of its fur but changing into a fish is a level I'm not willing to go.

 

 

 

 

Seemed like this fell between the cracks. Just wanted an answer.

 

Dig4Gold, again you dont seem to be reading what was said. Yes there are limits to evolution. Very obvious ones. This isnt how evolution works mate. Something that is evolutionary stable doesn't evolve into something else, especially something from a completely different group of organisms. If something is evolving, its evolving forwards in time, bringing its evolutionary past with it. Mammals that have gone back to a marine existence are the cetaceans or whales, they are not fish however and neither are they evolving back to being fish. They have evolved as aquatic mammals and are mammals, and their descendants will also be mammals.

[gilbo12345 858]

I don't think you are off topic. I brought up the distinctive pattern in the fossil record as a reason for hypothesizing evolution .... and you questioned that distinctive pattern.

 

However, I do feel that the preponderance of the forensic evidence including the fossil record makes evolution certainly a viable hypothesis.

 

Yay

 

Evolution IS a hypothesis, thanks for admitting to this. This is a fundamental point underlying this entire thread, since if there are no evidence to support evolutionist assumptions, then it is simply a hypothesis.

 

Why then would Darwin claim his ideas were a theory? Was he using the generalized use of the word (which essentially means hypothesis), or was he attempting to claim scientific theory, which so many evolutionists now try and assert?

[Teejay 109]

 

Dig4Gold, again you dont seem to be reading what was said. Yes there are limits to evolution. Very obvious ones. This isnt how evolution works mate. Something that is evolutionary stable doesn't evolve into something else, especially something from a completely different group of organisms. If something is evolving, its evolving forwards in time, bringing its evolutionary past with it. Mammals that have gone back to a marine existence are the cetaceans or whales, they are not fish however and neither are they evolving back to being fish. They have evolved as aquatic mammals and are mammals, and their descendants will also be mammals.

Hewy,

 

Can you present any intermediate fossils to substantiate what you assert here?

 

TeeJay

[Dig4gold 100]

hewy: Yes there are limits to evolution. Very obvious ones. This isnt how evolution works mate. Something that is evolutionary stable doesn't evolve into something else, especially something from a completely different group of organisms. If something is evolving, its evolving forwards in time, bringing its evolutionary past with it.

 

 

Which is it, it evolves or it doesn't? You can't have it both ways.

 

You keep dancing around this but by your own theory the very first organism (however that came about - it wasn't evolution!) has evolved into a human and every other organism we observe today. You seem to want to make a distinction that some of the "branches" didn't make it all the way to human or fish or whatever but the point is that the trail must lead all the way to the top.

 

Do you see the point? The first simple organism found its way to the top. It is truly "from goo to you by way of the zoo"! You can't get around that point by saying that not all of them did.

 

 

A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

[Sapiens 0]

Here is one of the clearest examples, complete with the journal reference (Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.):

 

Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

 

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

 

WH × WH - 75%

P1 × P1 - 95%

P2 × P2 - 80%

P1 × P2 - 77%

WH × P1 - 0%

WH × P2 - 0%

 

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

[Sapiens 0]

Want a few more observed instances of speciation? Here you go, all reported in peer reviewed, and most cases highly rated, journals:

 

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

 

Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

 

Tragopogon

 

Raphanobrassica

 

Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

 

Madia citrigracilis

 

Brassica

 

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

 

Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

 

Stephanomeira malheurensis

 

Maize (Zea mays)

 

Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

 

Drosophila sp. (many examples)

 

Houseflies (multiple examples)

 

Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

 

Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

 

Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

 

Culex pipiens

 

Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti.

 

Chlorella vulgaris

 

there are more ...

[Calypsis4 639]

Want a few more observed instances of speciation? Here you go, all reported in peer reviewed, and most cases highly rated, journals:

 

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

 

Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

 

Tragopogon

 

Raphanobrassica

 

Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

 

Madia citrigracilis

 

Brassica

 

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

 

Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

 

Stephanomeira malheurensis

 

Maize (Zea mays)

 

Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

 

Drosophila sp. (many examples)

 

Houseflies (multiple examples)

 

Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

 

Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

 

Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

 

Culex pipiens

 

Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti.

 

Chlorella vulgaris

 

there are more ...

 

No, not speciation! We want evidence that any organism has become a completely different organism by family or order.

 

Show us bacteria that has transformed into non-bacteria: a. b. c. d. e. f. --- let's see it in the fossil record or by empirical experiments that bacteria changed from bacteria to aphids(?) or maggots (?) or lice(?) or whatever you can come up with.

 

If you can't do that then all we have to go by is the OBSERVATION that species only reveal variation within the kind/type/class.

 

Understand that the word 'speciation' comes from the word 'species' as in KINGDOM, PHYLUM, CLASS, ORDER, FAMILY, GENUS, SPECIES. So you have to do much better than to show us that flies can change into a variation of....flies.

 

So go for it.

[bov930527 25]

Want a few more observed instances of speciation? Here you go, all reported in peer reviewed, and most cases highly rated, journals:

 

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

 

Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

 

Tragopogon

 

Raphanobrassica

 

Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

 

Madia citrigracilis

 

Brassica

 

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

 

Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

 

Stephanomeira malheurensis

 

Maize (Zea mays)

 

Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

 

Drosophila sp. (many examples)

 

Houseflies (multiple examples)

 

Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

 

Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

 

Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

 

Culex pipiens

 

Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti.

 

Chlorella vulgaris

 

there are more ...

 

I would like to ask a question I bet you probably haven't been asked before. If we can observe speciation over a course of just a couple of generation, then doesn't it pretty much destroy the entire "millions of years" propaganda? I mean, we can go back to Noahs ark and the amount of species fit on the ark and then compare to the amount of species present in the world today. Oftentimes I hear "well, then there would have to be dozens of new species formed everys ingle day". Doesn't this research "kinda" proves that? If we are to assume how small chances are of speciation in those creatures that are observed, what about combined chances in all creatures, (millions of species that have potential to speciate in other words) that aren't observed? This could imply that, given such a high chance for speciation, and including diverse catastrophic events (*khm* the flood *khm*) serving as catalyst for such changes in gene pool, could it not then be possible for the diversity of life to have evolved out of a rather small number of species over a period of, say, shorter than 10 000 years? Assuming that every species has the potential to become two in just a couple of generations, you are dealing with the power of two, which, admittedly, can grow big quite fast.

 

Regards

[Sapiens 0]

 

No, not speciation! We want evidence that any organism has become a completely different organism by family or order.

 

Show us bacteria that has transformed into non-bacteria: a. b. c. d. e. f. --- let's see it in the fossil record or by empirical experiments that bacteria changed from bacteria to aphids(?) or maggots (?) or lice(?) or whatever you can come up with.

 

If you can't do that then all we have to go by is the OBSERVATION that species only reveal variation within the kind/type/class.

 

Understand that the word 'speciation' comes from the word 'species' as in KINGDOM, PHYLUM, CLASS, ORDER, FAMILY, GENUS, SPECIES. So you have to do much better than to show us that flies can change into a variation of....flies.

 

So go for it.

SPECIATION refers to SPECIES, not to Genus, Family, Order, or any other taxon ... that's why the work is SPECIATION and not Genusiation, Familiation or Ordination. You asked a question that I answered in a striaghtforward fashion and now you want to play God of Gaps with me. It doesn't matter what I tell you, you will establish a strawman that is outside of it. It is an inherently dishonest approach to inquiry, but typical of the creationists. Just like micro vs. macro evolution. There's not difference, just the degree of selective pressure and the time frame.

 

 

I would like to ask a question I bet you probably haven't been asked before. If we can observe speciation over a course of just a couple of generation, then doesn't it pretty much destroy the entire "millions of years" propaganda? I mean, we can go back to Noahs ark and the amount of species fit on the ark and then compare to the amount of species present in the world today. Oftentimes I hear "well, then there would have to be dozens of new species formed everys ingle day". Doesn't this research "kinda" proves that? If we are to assume how small chances are of speciation in those creatures that are observed, what about combined chances in all creatures, (millions of species that have potential to speciate in other words) that aren't observed? This could imply that, given such a high chance for speciation, and including diverse catastrophic events (*khm* the flood *khm*) serving as catalyst for such changes in gene pool, could it not then be possible for the diversity of life to have evolved out of a rather small number of species over a period of, say, shorter than 10 000 years? Assuming that every species has the potential to become two in just a couple of generations, you are dealing with the power of two, which, admittedly, can grow big quite fast.

 

Regards

No, not at all. There are discussions concerning the speed(s) of evolution and the modalities. There are cases, albeit rare, where new species form quickly due to sudden isolation and other factors that might include founder effect, high selective pressure or mutation rate that result in sudden shifts in gene frequencies and content (e.g., if at age 10 every child with blue eyes were sterilized, there would be no blue eyed children until there was a new occurrence of the OCA2 gene). There are multiple paths of evidence that confirm both rare rapid creation of species as well as rare long term stable species that change little over long stretches (e.g., coelacanths) most species go along, little changed, except when reproductively isolated from con-specifics and also exposed to differing selective pressures.

 

You need to examine the conclusion you are jumping to from your initial assumption, that "every species has the potential to become two in just a couple of generations." Sure it's possible, and it's been observed in a single generation (Digby, in1912, crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew, in 1929, note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions in 1905, 1923 and 1926.) The potential is there, but to assume that it occurred, because the potential exist, requires a great deal of wishful thinking.

 

The shortest number of generations that I can find in the literature for producing a new species is 15 generations, and that was under intense selection and complete isolation and only resulted in what I'd call "incipient" speciation (Halliburton and Gall in 1981 established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each s@x. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.) In nature such intense selection of mating choice is unlikely and other selective factors would be likely to favor a single weight and size and thus prevent this sort of speciation.

 

In short I'd say that: no, it is not possible for the diversity of life to have evolved out of a rather small number of species over a period of, say, shorter than 10 000 years. It's taken 10,000 years just to spread the blue eyed gene in humans are far as it has (University of Copenhagen. (2008, January 31). Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 1, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm).

[Bonedigger 42]

SPECIATION refers to SPECIES, not to Genus, Family, Order, or any other taxon ... that's why the work is SPECIATION and not Genusiation, Familiation or Ordination. You asked a question that I answered in a striaghtforward fashion and now you want to play God of Gaps with me. It doesn't matter what I tell you, you will establish a strawman that is outside of it. It is an inherently dishonest approach to inquiry, but typical of the creationists. Just like micro vs. macro evolution. There's not difference, just the degree of selective pressure and the time frame.

Bold emphasis added.

 

Sapiens, who asked for speciation, and what does it have to do with Gilbo's OP? Did you even read the OP? Or did you just see this as an opportunity to play the evolution definition shell game? In virtually the same breath you accuse creationists of dishonesty for not swallowing your attempt to pass off speciation as an answer, and then thumb your nose at the very rule that was set up to disallow that kind of dishonest shell game. Before you pursue this any further, I suggest you reread forum rule #6 (below) and this thread.

 

The following are disallowed:

...

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

[Sapiens 0]

Bold emphasis added.

 

Sapiens, who asked for speciation, and what does it have to do with Gilbo's OP? Did you even read the OP? Or did you just see this as an opportunity to play the evolution definition shell game? In virtually the same breath you accuse creationists of dishonesty for not swallowing your attempt to pass off speciation as an answer, and then thumb your nose at the very rule that was set up to disallow that kind of dishonest shell game. Before you pursue this any further, I suggest you reread forum rule #6 (below) and this thread.

 

I was responding to: "I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions."

 

I think I answered those questions completely and thoroughly.

 

As to equivocation: You are the one equivocating.

 

Evolution is evolution, large or small, micro or macro, evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time. I leave it to you to equivocate as to what the amount of change required is, where between micro and macro the differences between the ill-defined "kind" you are so taken with lies. I have presented examples that conform to the usual lay definition of species that demonstrate the development of new species. Was that not what was asked for?

[Calypsis4 639]

Sapiens:

 

SPECIATION refers to SPECIES, not to Genus, Family, Order, or any other taxon ... that's why the work is SPECIATION and not Genusiation, Familiation or Ordination. You asked a question that I answered in a striaghtforward fashion and now you want to play God of Gaps with me. It doesn't matter what I tell you, you will establish a strawman that is outside of it. It is an inherently dishonest approach to inquiry, but typical of the creationists. Just like micro vs. macro evolution. There's not difference, just the degree of selective pressure and the time frame.

 

Excuse me, but....huh?

 

How did you miss my statement: "Understand that the word 'speciation' comes from the word 'species'? I never said it referred to 'genus'...but genus is next in line.

 

The point here being that: flies that change but remain flies....or dogs that change and yet remain cannidae...or bacteria that change and yet remain bacteria is NOT even close to demonstrating that the various families of living organisms evolved into totally different organisms over time.

 

Forget the 'God of the gaps' stuff, fella. If you think Darwinian evolution has actually occurred in our world then you MUST demonstrate that such changes have actually happened in (1) the fossil record and/or (2) laboratory experiments. But demonstrating that species reveal various changes within the species does nothing but show us variation within the kind.

[Calypsis4 639]

 

 

Sapien: As to equivocation: You are the one equivocating.

 

Uh, oh. I don't know if you noticed it, sapien, but Bonedigger is a moderator.

 

Evolution is evolution, large or small, micro or macro, evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time. I leave it to you to equivocate as to what the amount of change required is, where between micro and macro the differences between the ill-defined "kind" you are so taken with lies. I have presented examples that conform to the usual lay definition of species that demonstrate the development of new species. Was that not what was asked for?

 

"Lies"? Not a good way to start off here, friend.

 

And which definition of 'species' are you referring to? At last count there have been about nine of them since Darwins time.

[Sapiens 0]

I must admit you confuse me. At what level must I demonstrate evolution. We seem to be in agreement that one species can evolve into two different species, do we agree that these two species can diverge further given time and isolation into two genera (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different genera?). Do we agree that these two genera can diverge further given time into two families (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different family?). Do we agree that these two families can diverge further given time and into two orders (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different order?). Do we agree that these two orders can diverge further given time into two classes (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different class?). Etc. You see, it is basically the God of the Gaps horse pucky you are distributing.

[Sapiens 0]

So, he's a mod ... big deal. He is still equivicating. Someone needs to point out the naked emperor.

 

That's "lies" as in "lies on the ground," not "lies" as tells intentional untruths.

[Calypsis4 639]

I must admit you confuse me. At what level must I demonstrate evolution. We seem to be in agreement that one species can evolve into two different species, do we agree that these two species can diverge further given time and isolation into two genera (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different genera?). Do we agree that these two genera can diverge further given time into two families (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different family?). Do we agree that these two families can diverge further given time and into two orders (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different order?). Do we agree that these two orders can diverge further given time into two classes (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different class?). Etc. You see, it is basically the God of the Gaps horse pucky you are distributing.

 

Where it counts: visible, observable evidence that any organism ever transformed into a clearly different classification on at least the family level.

 

Sort of like this:

 

So we find bats in the fossil record. We also find rodents in the fossil record. But NO bat/rats. The tips of the branches on the evolutionary tree are there for all to see...now where are all the countless millions of fossils that fill those gaps in between. Darwin saw the problem in his day but said he felt those gaps would be filled in the years to come; but they were not.

 

There are of course, those who say the bat did not evolve from rodents. O.K.....whatever....show us the 'whatever' animal that bats did 'evolve' from. Name it and show us those fossils in an a. b. c. d. e. f. g. development.

 

" it is basically the God of the Gaps horse pucky you are distributing."

 

You're making me wonder how long you are going to last here.

[Calypsis4 639]

So, he's a mod ... big deal. He is still equivicating. Someone needs to point out the naked emperor.

 

That's "lies" as in "lies on the ground," not "lies" as tells intentional untruths.

 

You are the naked emperor.

[Bonedigger 42]

I was responding to: "I will ask in advance that the evidence given will not be based on assuming similarities = ancestry... This is the thing you are being asked to support so to use something that is based on this assumption is committing the begging the question fallacy. In previous versions of this thread evolutionists (for some reason) feel that this is a logical answer... Sorry logical fallacies are not logical

 

Bonus points to evolutionists who can post evidence from a peer-reviewed article. Since apparently the evolutionists provide support for these assumptions despite I not seeing any hint of such, since most evolutionists do not realise they are making these assumptions."

 

I think I answered those questions completely and thoroughly.

In other words, you didn't actually read the entire OP, but rather cherry-picked a section of it that you thought would justify presenting speciation as "proof" of evolution. If you read above the section you quoted, you'll notice he said:

Considering the incoming of a few new people I figured I would rehash a favourite argument of mine which demonstrates the belief of evolution to be inherently unscientific.

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus (on) fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

Bold emphasis added.

 

Notice how the evidence he is asking for is fossil evidence that is not just dependent on the a priori assumption of similarity=common ancestry? So, how does that translate into your presentation of speciation as an "answer" to the OP? Speciation is, in fact, something YEC's advocate extensively as a post-Flood mechanism for the current diversity.

 

I must admit you confuse me. At what level must I demonstrate evolution. We seem to be in agreement that one species can evolve into two different species, do we agree that these two species can diverge further given time and isolation into two genera (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different genera?). Do we agree that these two genera can diverge further given time into two families (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different family?). Do we agree that these two families can diverge further given time and into two orders (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different order?). Do we agree that these two orders can diverge further given time into two classes (BTW, could you define, exactly, that it takes to be a different class?). Etc. You see, it is basically the God of the Gaps horse pucky you are distributing.

The only horse pucky being distributed here is in this post in the form of a fallacious argument of the beard, also called the fallacy of line-drawing.

 

As to equivocation: You are the one equivocating.

 

Evolution is evolution, large or small, micro or macro, evolution, by definition, is just the change in allele frequency over time. I leave it to you to equivocate as to what the amount of change required is, where between micro and macro the differences between the ill-defined "kind" you are so taken with lies. I have presented examples that conform to the usual lay definition of species that demonstrate the development of new species. Was that not what was asked for?

 

So, he's a mod ... big deal. He is still equivicating. Someone needs to point out the naked emperor.

I'm game. You obviously didn't read the last paragraph of Fred's evolution definition shell game page where he spells out:

 

Molecules-to-man evolution is the type of evolution that my web site seeks to portray as a "fairy tale for grownups". It is unobservable, untestable, and has little, if any, evidence to support it. At best it should be labeled a low-grade hypothesis. Unfortunately, evolutionists continue to invoke microevolution and speciation as "evidence" that large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is an invalid extrapolation, and is very misleading to the public. It is apparent that due to the lack of any real, tangible evidence for large-scale evolution, evolutionists have sought to create the illusion that evolution is true by reshaping and blurring the meaning of the word evolution.

So, I'll feed you some rope and put to you a simple, direct question:

 

Are you claiming that a "change in allele frequency over time" is proof of molecules-to-man evolution?

 

If not, then why did you post speciation in response to a call for evidence of evolution from fossils that does not just depend on assuming similarities=common ancestry?

 

If so...then, you will be moving on and not wasting our time anymore with spurious equivocation games about how molecules-to-man evolution is just "speciation over time".