Hay, so I'm not really a religious type dude but I do not believe Evolution was a thing. Simply because there is really just no observable evidence and a few other little things. Anyways I'm good friends with some Atheist that are users on this site and we've had conversations about evolution. ( to my credit, I won the debate) But of course being the friends they are, they said they just did not know something and that's why I won. So they recommended me to this website where apparently people quote on quote are " More intelligently intuitive on this matter" So I'm here now and honestly this is more of ah "I told ya so" kinda thing. I have not agenda to push other then getting bragging rights by winning in this deeebate. Good luck.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Can you give an observable evidence, in regards to Darwinian Evolution, not adaptation, not speciation, but a change of kinds?
@Up Sentry
And there it is! "Can you give an observable evidence, in regards to Darwinian Evolution, not adaptation, not speciation, but a change of KINDS?"
( My emphasis added)
Dude, adaptation and speciation IS Darwinian evolution, and there's heaps of evidence for both- a veritable embarrassment of riches. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but here's the search results on observed speciation events. Lots and lots of scientific papers:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=observed+speciation+events&client=tab...
"Kinds" is a made up term Creationists came up with because no amount of evidence will ever satisfy them. They want crocoducks and catdogs. Reality doesn't suit them.
"Hay, so I'm not really a religious type dude but..." I spell atheist with a capital A and talk about kinds like every Creationist you've ever met.
Whatever, dude.
Sushisnake,
It never fails! When someone opens their mouth to attack Darwinian evolution, whether in a letter to the editor or on forums like this, they manage to prove right away, sometimes with their first breath, that they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject! Hope you had a good laugh.
As I've said before; I've never met a critic of the theory who had even a rudimentary understand of it.
OR a basic understanding of the scientific process and it's methods. Just what do they think has been happening to Darwin's theory over the last 150+ years, maybe they think once something si established in science that's it and no one wants to look at it anymore.
@Sushi
Everything within taxonomy is essentially made up; the field has a long history of trying to figure out what the best approach is, and where to draw the lines. The term Kind in Scripture is no different from our term Family or Order. When somebody says, Different kinds of animals, it shouldn't be too difficult to know what they mean.
The Pepper Moth.
Just enter that name in Wikipedia search, and scroll down to "Origin and evolution".
And your question is dishonest. Darwinian evolution includes adaptation. You can not exclude adaptation from evolution. The requirement for any organism to adapt to change is one major factor that drives evolution.
Next question?
With respect, If someone has a comment relevant to the object then by all means. I will not be here all evening though.
Why are you not asking an evolutionary biologist these questions?
Obviously because he's batshit crazy creationist who equates atheism and evolution as the same thing, and hasn't the wit to realise that creationism would remain an unevidenced superstitious myth, even if evolution were entirely reversed tomorrow. Which is as likely as science finding out the word is flat after all.
Dude, I came where they directed. I'm sure someone here will defend evolution. If not, it's just another win for me.
Dude?
@Up Sentry Re: "Dude, I came where they directed."
For starters, CyberLN is not a dude. Just a little FYI. Secondly, while there are many folks on here who are incredibly knowledgeable about evolution, I'm pretty sure there are many, many science/biology related sites that can give you far more accurate and extensive explanations to any questions you may have regarding evolution. Or, go find a book in a library. Third, you might want to learn to mind your manners a bit more. A simple show of respect can get you much further than a butt-load of arrogance. Plus, you might end up finding out the hard way there are those on here who can chew up guys like you without so much as breaking a sweat. Maybe I am one of them. Let's not find out.
Now, as far as the whole evolution thing goes, it might interest you to know that evolution and atheism do not go hand-in-hand. I would not be the least bit surprised to find out there are many atheists out there who do not believe in evolution. Big whoopie. To put it another way, you might as well go to a Waffle House to ask advice on how to fix your lawnmower. However, if you are here just to pick a fight and blow a bunch of nonsense out of your pie hole, then I hope you brought a good supply of bandages for yourself.
Your definition of a "win" mirrors the position of Charlie Zelenoff.
Up Sentry,
And, we now have a classic example of poor reasoning. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that many people would consider it a waste of time to debate someone who knows nothing about the subject. It's kind of like debating a flat-eather! If not for sport, what then would be the point? In past "debates" I have spent nearly all my time trying to clarify incoherent questions and arguments, in trying to get past an army of straw-men.
Your first question was a disaster that nicely illustrates the above. As sushisnake pointed out, biological evolution is mainly about adaptation and specification. Moreover, "kind" is an ill-defined biblical term--not a scientific term used by biologists. Thus, your first question could hardly be answered as is; it would have to undergo a major rewrite to even make sense.
Any chance you'll go where I direct?
Seriously, I really would like to know why you would ask a science question here? What’s your motive? Are you a biologist?
These are not questions meant to drive you away, they are meant to better understand what you want.
Ight, So to late it out, I have a group of Atheist friends ya. An Atheist( any atheist I've met that is) usually believes in evolution.
Key word "Believe" as in faithful. Faithful to something that doesn't hold up under pressure. I personally only believe in what is basted as a fact that can be proven today as we speak. But my goal (motive) is to in fact prove to,( what my Atheist friends call) " More intelligently intuitive" people that evolution is a myth.
@Up Sentry
No offense, but is English your first language?
@Up Sentry
"But my goal (motive) is to in fact prove to,( what my Atheist friends call) " More intelligently intuitive" people that evolution is a myth."
OK, then the burden of proof falls on you. Prove that evolution is a myth. Go ahead, start offering evidence and proofs.
@Up Sentry
"Basted"? As in "I basted the turkey"?
" More intelligently intuitive" ...um...are you quoting someone here? Or attempting irony?
Up Sentry,
I'm afraid that you are off to a horrible start as indicated by your first question.
I hope you won't be too disappointed if I stick with the opinion of the entire scientific world, over your duplicitous cliched creationist verbiage.
How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way disagree with your religious beliefs? For some reason creationists are reluctant to answer this one.
I just saw the other two comments up there. my bad. Ight
adaptation granted is apart of change of kinds, yes. But if an organism adapts to a new environment or changes form to survive it's still an organism. A common one I hear is the "Darwin's finches" that I guess evolved from one ancestral species, which colonized the Galapagos islands only a few million years ago and now theirs like what 15 different types now? well here's my problem with that.
1: We were not able to observe what happened a million years ago.
2: The finches are still finches. (things might be a wee bit different if they like turned into an Eagle for something.)
"finches are still finches. (things might be a wee bit different if they like turned into an Eagle for something.)"
You don;t know what species means do you?
Evolution is a myth.
1: No one was there to see it happen.
2: There are no bones found that show some animal going though the process of evolution.
3: Ok unless you're a "Beegfoot" believer then there is no missing link? so far
4: There is no observable evidence for a change of kind. So we are pretty much taking someones word or Evolution.
5: Believing in Evolution takes a leap of "FAITH" because if you can't prove different the four things I just listed then well Evolution simply just can't be.
1: That means that in every crime that was committed where no one, or no recording device, was there to see it happen must always end in a not guilty verdict. If no one saw it happen, you can't convict anyone, right?
2: Yes, there actually are.
3: There is not and never has been such a thing as a "missing link". That's another term people have misused for a very long time.
4: Nothing will ever change into another kind because there is no such thing as a kind. What is a "kind"? A species? A genus? A family? An order?..... ?
1. It's still happening it never stops.
2. All bones just like all animals are transitional.
3. The term missing link is a piece of creationist propaganda.
4. All the evidence from multiple scientific fields of science evidences species evolution, even new scientific fields like genetics. The head of the human genome project in the States is a born again christian and he has stated that the evidence from genetics alone proves evolution.
5. No faith is required, just a basic understanding of the scientific process.
You need to visit this site as addresses just about every creationist lie there is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
@Up Sentry,
[1: No one was there to see it happen.]
This is so naive! Has any detective who successfully solved a case ever witnessed the crime actually taking place? Obviously, you don't have to be there if you have sufficient evidence. The evidence for evolution is mountainous!
[2: There are no bones found that show some animal going though the process of evolution.]
Exactly what would such bones look like? Please explain in some detail as your whole argument here is incoherent. (What about the degenerate bones forming the remnants of hind legs in some snakes? Ditto for some whales. Aren't these bones in the process of being eliminated by evolution, thus going through the process of evolution? What about an ancient turtle fossil with an incompletely evolved shell?) You seem to be offering an ignorant opinion here. I doubt very much that you have investigated these matters. At the very least you must clarify your question so that we know what it is that we are supposed to be looking for.
[3: Ok unless you're a "Beegfoot" believer then there is no missing link? so far]
The "missing link" is a creationist red herring! It is a naive oversimplification that has no scientific meaning among biologists.
[4: There is no observable evidence for a change of kind. So we are pretty much taking someones word or Evolution.]
This statement is incoherent ("kind" has no scientific definition and the conclusion would hardly follow in any case).
[5: Believing in Evolution takes a leap of "FAITH" because if you can't prove different the four things I just listed then well Evolution simply just can't be.]
Since your first 4 points are either incoherent or constitute straw-man arguments it follows that point 5 is also garbage.
It's as I feared. We are not even on the same wavelength! Your ignorance of evolution is too great to support a meaningful discussion! We are asked to respond to incoherent questions and meaningless attacks on evolution.
@Up Sentry
Evolution is a myth.
1: No one was there to see it happen.
No. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, not a myth. There is scientific debate about the mechanisms, but not about the reality of evolution itself. As for “no one was there to see it happen”, I gave you a link to the results of the search term “observed speciation events”: what part of “observed” did you miss?
2: There are no bones found that show some animal going though the process of evolution.
Let’s see: we have the fossil record for humans, horses and whales- including the transitional forms. That’s just off the top of my head.
3: Ok unless you're a "Beegfoot" believer then there is no missing link? so far
And now it’s time for spot that fallacy! I’ll go strawman, ad hominem and the Missing Link Fallacy. Three fallacies in...what?...thirteen words?
Dude, I dunno who these Bigfoot believing cryptozoologist wannabees are that you’ve been talking to, but FYI, cryptozoology has nothing to do with the ToE or science- it’s pseudoscience. Wishful thinking, like Conan Doyle’s fairies at the bottom of the Cottingley garden.
And there’s no such thing as a Missing Link. It’s yet another biblical Creationist term and all it reveals is your deep ignorance of the evolutionary sciences. We have a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution- not just thousands of fossils, but DNA.
4: There is no observable evidence for a change of kind. So we are pretty much taking someones word or Evolution.
“ Kind” again. You’ve already been told there is no such thing as “kinds”: it’s a bullshit Creationist term. And please see my answers to 1, 2 and 3.
5: Believing in Evolution takes a leap of "FAITH" because if you can't prove different the four things I just listed then well Evolution simply just can't be.
Wow! For a non-religious dude, you sure impersonate a Creationist beautifully! No dude, believing in evolution takes an understanding and acceptance of the science, that’s all. It apparently requires an open mind, too – one untarnished by faith.
Pages