Evolution has been observed... right?

[Dan From Smithville]

When that particular environment constantly changes, of course it's random. An animal adapts to work in a certain environment and then environment changes...said animal goes extinct.

Can you explain what a constantly changing environment is? What is the rate of change? How extreme are these changes? Can you provide some examples?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Very dishonest. Claiming two species such as canines and felines came from the same ancestor
is the same thing.

No, it is not. And the fact that you think "two different species can share a common ancestor" is the same as "one species can become anothet species" is absolute proof that you do not undertand even the basics of biology, much less evolutionary theory.

Why contest a theory you know so little about? Would it not be more productive to simply ask us about it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now natural and artificial selection within species is magic?

Relax. You'll be ok. I remember when I had my first beer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Um....we do, it's called "speciation".

That is the process by which species diversify into seperate species, not species "becoming another species" in the same way as a dog becoming a cat. Maybe I was not specific enough.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now natural and artificial selection within species is magic?

Selection is not magic. But your claim of things morphing into other things is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When that particular environment constantly changes, of course it's random. An animal adapts to work in a certain environment and then environment changes...said animal goes extinct.

So, you think all environments are constantly changing, and that when an environment changes the chang will always be so severe that any species that adapted to the way the environment used to be will immediately go extinct?

Is that your position?

 

[Jose Fly]

That is the process by which species diversify into seperate species, not species "becoming another species" in the same way as a dog becoming a cat. Maybe I was not specific enough.

I guess it's just a question of specific wording. One could even get into different modes of speciation (anagenesis vs. parapatric speciation).

His goofy straw man isn't even about species or speciation, since "dog" and "cat" are taxonomic families, not species. It's pretty funny to watch though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess it's just a question of specific wording. One could even get into different modes of speciation (anagenesis vs. parapatric speciation).

His goofy straw man isn't even about species or speciation, since "dog" and "cat" are taxonomic families, not species. It's pretty funny to watch though.

I was wondering about asking them to DEFINE species, but that strategy has a very, very bad track record. 95% of the time, creationists can never actually give a specific definition.

 

[Valjean]

And this also assumes that the interpretation of layers equaling certain times is correct.
If it is incorrect, the whole theory is called into question.

Do you doubt the various dating methods? If so, why?
Do you understand how the dating works?

I do know when animals reproduce they make the same kind of animals. Dogs do not make cats and horses do not make cows. But over millions of years one cell animals made thousands of different kinds of animals?

Yes. Small changes accumulate into big changes.
When people reproduce, their children speak the same language as the parents. Latin speakers don't make French or Spanish speakers.
Yet French and Spanish speakers exist, and they did not in the past. How did that happen?

 

[Valjean]

What does a wild cocker spaniel have to do with it? Did you miss the part where creationists believe that all dogs came from one pair of canines?

Are you really this obtuse, or are you just feigning it? It was a simple analogy.

But that doesn't equal all life on Earth coming from a single celled organism. Or apes morphing into humans.

The ToE explains it. How would you explain it?

 

[Jose Fly]

I was wondering about asking them to DEFINE species, but that strategy has a very, very bad track record. 95% of the time, creationists can never actually give a specific definition.

True, and even more broadly, creationists rarely answer questions at all. The majority of these "debates" consist of little more than chasing creationists around trying to get them to answer basic questions, like "what do you mean", "what's your point", "do you have a citation", etc.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, you think all environments are constantly changing, and that when an environment changes the chang will always be so severe that any species that adapted to the way the environment used to be will immediately go extinct?

Is that your position?

No...I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue against. I just explained basic events that have happened.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True, and even more broadly, creationists rarely answer questions at all. The majority of these "debates" consist of little more than chasing creationists around trying to get them to answer basic questions, like "what do you mean", "what's your point", "do you have a citation", etc.

And constantly getting nothing in return for those questions.

Sure, there are responses, but not answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No...I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue against. I just explained basic events that have happened.

You explain nothing. You say something that either doesn't make sense and/or you cannot back up.

Change in the environment selects for organisms that can live in that changed environment. But you don't really understand what environment means do you.

 

[Valjean]

When that particular environment constantly changes, of course it's random. An animal adapts to work in a certain environment and then environment changes...said animal goes extinct.

No, a species doesn't go extinct every time the environment it fits changes.

That's the whole point of sexual reproduction. Mixing two genomes gives you variety in your offspring. A litter of puppies aren't all the same. The environment selects the variations that are most "fit" -- that are most reproductively successful, and increase the incidence of the selected fitness trait in the population.
When the environment changes, so do the fitness traits it selects.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I guess it's just a question of specific wording. One could even get into different modes of speciation (anagenesis vs. parapatric speciation).

His goofy straw man isn't even about species or speciation, since "dog" and "cat" are taxonomic families, not species. It's pretty funny to watch though.

If a species that once existed, split into two genus' then one species became another one.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, a species doesn't go extinct every time the environment it fits changes.

I never said it did. Sigh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a species that once existed, split into two genus' then one species became another one.

Good grief!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Selection is not magic. But your claim of things morphing into other things is.

Then macro evolution cannot work. Because selection only goes so far. If one species of humanoid doesn't morph into another, where did the other come from?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a species that once existed, split into two genus' then one species became another one.

The plural of genus is genera.

I shouldn't even have to be pointing out a detail like that in these discussions, but this is the second time in a little over a week that I have had to do it. It illustrates the difference in knowledge between the haves and the haven't got a clue.