The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[OmarKhayyam]

"Then we should see whole populations of catdogs."

Not at all. I suspected the distinction was beyond you. But do continue with this line. It will confirm my suspicions.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Question: If bacteria and viruses evolve how come they always remain bacteria and viruses? Is there any evidence that bacteria or viruses have evolved into a different life form other than what they are?

FLASH: This just in. It ToE describes how species evolve. NOT life forms. Species. You DO know what defines a species - right?

 

[freethinker44]

Question: If bacteria and viruses evolve how come they always remain bacteria and viruses? Is there any evidence that bacteria or viruses have evolved into a different life form other than what they are?

Sure is.

Every other lifeform that ever existed.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Based on the information provided by the other poster that's all I can conclude that this point. Your argument would be that since TV dinners weren't invented until the '50's those born before the '50's would somehow not be predisposed to eat them! "

Not at all. The food is much the same, meat and potatoes have been around for some time. Not so nylon. And please do explain were this disposition to eat things not yet invented comes from. I am really anxious to hear this.
Please do expand.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Sure. I have to qualms wqith that. It makes no difference what type of food the bacteria is eating, whether it be nylon or soft shell tacos. Obviously if it is being consumed there was some sort of predisposition to eat it."

Really? Then why don't ALL bacteria eat nylon. Why just this new species that appeared in this one environment? Why don't ALL the bacteria in those ponds and everywhere else eat nylon?

 

[freethinker44]

And this effects me how?

You asked for an example, so I gave one.

By the way, how do we know that the bacteria you mentioned weren't predisposed to eat nylon to begin with and were simply waiting for it's invention?

They would have starved waiting for a food source for one, and what kind of bacteria can see the future and decide they want to wait billions of years for their food source to be invented, that is dumb and a really poor attempt to rationalize something. Seriously. :slap:

 

[freethinker44]

Sure. I have to qualms wqith that. It makes no difference what type of food the bacteria is eating, whether it be nylon or soft shell tacos. Obviously if it is being consumed there was some sort of predisposition to eat it.

No, it does matter what type of food they eat. single celled organisms are not like you or me, they need to produce certain protiens and enzymes to be able to digest different kinds of materials. Which means they need to change their genetic makeup to be able to produce those enzymes. If their particular food source isn't available, they either die out or evolve.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Catdogs? Bacteria waiting thousands or millions of years for nylon to be invented?
It is a wonder that creationist can be so ignorant of something they are so opposed to.
With absolutely no understanding of scientific method or models, they attempt to smugly discredit an accepted Theory that has more evidence than the Theory of Gravity.
And while they feel they have made some type of blow to the ToE, in actuality, they have only shown how little they understand the subject.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Sounds like my favorite book of myths came up with the notion long before science did."

Giving your myth writers the benefit of the doubt and assuming "kinds" refers to species then yes, they got it right. Not a very insightful or profound observation but correct. As far as it goes.

But we since learned that "kinds" - species - evolve. Like produces like for sure. But the "like" being produced changes over time. Just as no child is an exact copy of his parent small changes repeatedly selected for produce changes SO different that a whole new population - species - is produced. But then you already knew all that. Since you have announced you KNOW this cannot be true you are quite familiar with why it can't be true.

Or are you?

Perhaps you could grace us with the benefit of the scientific evidence you have relied on to come to this conclusion.

 

[lunamoth]

You say to-ma-ToE and I say to-ma-tao, let's call the whole thing off!

 

[RND]

"Then we should see whole populations of catdogs."

Not at all. I suspected the distinction was beyond you. But do continue with this line. It will confirm my suspicions.

So in evolution we don't really see any evolution? Curious.

 

[Kerr]

Question: If bacteria and viruses evolve how come they always remain bacteria and viruses? Is there any evidence that bacteria or viruses have evolved into a different life form other than what they are?

Why would they change from being what they are to begin with? And of course they evolve, it is just to ask someone who deals with vaccines. New strains of viruses appear all the time, it is why we, for example, must create a new vaccine for flu every year or why the affect of AIDS medicine starts to decline after a while.

 

[RND]

FLASH: This just in. It ToE describes how species evolve. NOT life forms.

Understood.

Species. You DO know what defines a species - right?

I do indeed. Please forgive the catdog remarks. Poor attempt at humor. More related to the feeble explanation of how a fish could grow legs, learn to walk on water, and become an entirely new species.

Of course, by now it would seem, we should see some species morphing into another form of itself on earth by now. None the less we current;y see no such distinctions in animal life on this planet.

 

[Alceste]

So in evolution we don't really see any evolution? Curious.

No, it's like this: in creationists we don't see any understanding of what evolution is. It's astonishing.

Here, look: very gradual change over a very long period of time.

Were you able to read and understand that phrase? If so, then you SHOULD be able to sum up what the word "evolution" means.
Do you still have any lingering uncertainty about what the word "evolution" means? If not, then you SHOULD be able to understand what the theory of evolution states, provided you are willing to listen while the details are explained to you.

It's not rocket science at all - it's one of the most obvious and well supported facts about the world we live in that you will ever encounter.

 

[RND]

Why would they change from being what they are to begin with?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. You mean bacteria and viruses evolve but never change into anything else? If that's the case how did fish grow legs and walk on land as the evolutionist like to tell us?

And of course they evolve, it is just to ask someone who deals with vaccines. New strains of viruses appear all the time, it is why we, for example, must create a new vaccine for flu every year or why the affect of AIDS medicine starts to decline after a while.

If a 'new strain of viruses' emerge are they not still viruses? So a new strain is really just a different type of virus.

 

[RND]

No, it's like this: in creationists we don't see any understanding of what evolution is. It's astonishing.

Do tell.

Here, look: very gradual change over a very long period of time.

Then we should see evidence of this on earth correct?

Were you able to read and understand that phrase? If so, then you SHOULD be able to sum up what the word "evolution" means.

I have deduced there are no species displaying any sign of evolution presently.

Do you still have any lingering uncertainty about what the word "evolution" means? If not, then you SHOULD be able to understand what the theory of evolution states, provided you are willing to listen while the details are explained to you.

I'm all ears!

It's not rocket science at all - it's one of the most obvious and well supported facts about the world we live in that you will ever encounter.

Frankly, it's shear madness!

 

[Alceste]

Of course, by now it would seem, we should see some species morphing into another form of itself on earth by now. None the less we current;y see no such distinctions in animal life on this planet.

Yes, the rest of us see it all the time. Maybe YOU don't see it, but you're very obviously not paying any attention at all to such things.

Would you like one of us to explain the theory of evolution to you? It's clear you haven't got any idea what you're talking about. It could save you some embarrassment in future conversations if you'd sit back and absorb a little foundational information about the subject.

 

[RND]

Catdogs?

Yeah, you know. Kinda like fish with legs that walked out of the ocean and walked on water.

Bacteria waiting thousands or millions of years for nylon to be invented?

Or bacteria that simply existed and adapted to the free food DuPont manufactured for them.

It is a wonder that creationist can be so ignorant of something they are so opposed to.

No wonder at all. Just looking for honest evidence.

With absolutely no understanding of scientific method or models, they attempt to smugly discredit an accepted Theory that has more evidence than the Theory of Gravity.

Evidence such as?

And while they feel they have made some type of blow to the ToE, in actuality, they have only shown how little they understand the subject.

Yes! Just as impossible as catdogs would be fish with legs fits the same bill.

Have they found the fossilized remains of fish with Nike's on yet!

 

[RND]

Yes, the rest of us see it all the time. Maybe YOU don't see it, but you're very obviously not paying any attention at all to such things.

Name one.

Would you like one of us to explain the theory of evolution to you?

Yes!

It's clear you haven't got any idea what you're talking about. It could save you some embarrassment in future conversations if you'd sit back and absorb a little foundational information about the subject.

I love some evidence quite frankly and a little less smugness and self-righteous pontificating.

 

[Alceste]

Then we should see evidence of this on earth correct?

Yes, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence of this on earth. There is so much evidence I would hardly even know where to begin to start telling you about it all. In fact, there is no life form on earth that is not absolutely bursting with irrefutable empirical evidence of very gradual change over very long periods of time.

I have deduced there are no species displaying any sign of evolution presently.

I have deduced you have no idea what evolution is, or what evidence supports it, or how the evolution of species is studied by scientists.

I'm all ears!

OK. Watch this, then tell me what you think.

YouTube - 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy