“Common sense” question for an evolutionist

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed! Animals change for a variety of reasons, environmentally and otherwise. What you describe is observed and known, and undeniable. But what you, and evolution, implies - - that this change naturally continues to the point that entirely different animals are produced - - is not being observed; this idea has never occurred and never will.

While adaptation is natural in any type of animal, there’s a limit to that change... only the same type of animal is produced.

Where do those that support evolution claim that "totally different animals are produced"? The change is slow and gradual. You are still using the creationist strawman of "change of kind".

 

[Crossboard]

"Change of kind" is, as you pointed out, a creationist strawman. By any reasonable definition of "kind" evolution is a change within kinds. Men still are apes, and they still are mammals, and they still are vertebrates etc. .... No change of kind needed.

The long and short

I fail to understand why you ask questions that an easy google and click can give you the answer for. In this case: From water to land or The Evolution of Lungs or Evolution of tetrapods - Wikipedia or most any of the 3,140,000 other hits. It's not like there's a paucity of information out there. But ... it is downright impolite and ignorant to not try and do for yourself before you importune others with what are junior high school level questions (unless you are, indeed, a junior high student).

In all kindness, it’s a real turn-off to read comments whic

Where do those that support evolution claim that "totally different animals are produced"? The change is slow and gradual. You are still using the creationist strawman of "change of kind".

To state that it was “slow and gradual” is to acknowledge we were not there to observe it, and this what evolutionary thought finds convenient. It comes down to a trust that it occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The long and short


In all kindness, it’s a real turn-off to read comments whic


To state that it was “slow and gradual” is to acknowledge we were not there to observe it, and this what evolutionary thought finds convenient. It comes down to a trust that it occurred.

We can still observe the evidence of those changes. The evidence supports the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation. There are many things that can be observed indirectly through the evidence of those events. By your standards most murder cases could not be prosecuted since actual eyewitnesses are not available.

 

[Crossboard]

We can still observe the evidence of those changes. The evidence supports the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation. There are many things that can be observed indirectly through the evidence of those events. By your standards most murder cases could not be prosecuted since actual eyewitnesses are not available.

Sorry SubZone, my different replies to various posters got crossed up. My partial note about it “being a drag” was an in-progress comment to another poster who thought it important to speculate about who is a seventh grader.

Yes, we hold opposing ideas about this subject, and I enjoy stating my own perspective; but when folks take it so personally that juvenile waste like that leaks out... yep, it becomes a drag..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry SubZone, my different replies to various posters got crossed up. My partial note about it “being a drag” was an in-progress comment to another poster who thought it important to speculate about who is a seventh grader.

Yes, we hold opposing ideas about this subject, and I enjoy stating my own perspective; but when folks take it so personally that juvenile waste like that leaks out... yep, it becomes a drag..

You should be able to understand the errors that you have made. You do realize that past events can leave evidence of those events, don't you?

 

[Crossboard]

You should be able to understand the errors that you have made. You do realize that past events can leave evidence of those events, don't you?

My contention is that I have not made an error. Those errors which you are expecting me to acknowledge are only the tenets of the evolutionary idea itself.

I hold the view that the vast sampling of plant and animal life did not derive from one common speck of life (or ultimately from non-life), but rather that these distinguishable examples were created with their own specialized mechanisms intact; while change is possible and undeniable, there’s a limit to that change, meaning that what you choose to call complete and total “evolution” is actually only “change” with limits.

To answer your question.. Yes, absolutely, I do believe that past events can leave evidence. Some is undeniable and much of it must rightfully be deemed as less than concrete. But unfortunately, world views can take ambiguous evidence and promote it as undeniable.

True, you may ask me to consider such-an-such bit of evidence which, to the convinced evolutionist, is undeniable. However I still find it healthy to weigh it in the balance with evidence which casts doubt on the idea of evolution.

As much as you would just prefer me to Google “evolution” for all the details and just accept it without question, the truth is there still remain 2 fundamental opposing views. While the bulk of our culture sides with it, the tenets of evolution are still very much open for questioning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My contention is that I have not made an error. Those errors which you are expecting me to acknowledge are only the tenets of the evolutionary idea itself.

At best this is only because of your ignorance. What are these supposed errors in the theory of evolution? Strangely no scientist seems to have been able to find them. Of course I may be the ignorant one here, but I strongly doubt it.

I hold the view that the vast sampling of plant and animal life did not derive from one common speck of life (or ultimately from non-life), but rather that these distinguishable examples were created with their own specialized mechanisms intact; while change is possible and undeniable, there’s a limit to that change, meaning that what you choose to call complete and total “evolution” is actually only “change” with limits.

You do realize that you are in effect calling God a liar by doing so, don't you? Or is here merely incompetent?

To answer your question.. Yes, absolutely, I do believe that past events can leave evidence. Some is undeniable and much of it must rightfully be deemed as less than concrete. But unfortunately, world views can take ambiguous evidence and promote it as undeniable.

Actually if you understood the concept of evidence fully you would see that to date the scientific evidence supports only the theory of evolution. The concept is easy to understand. We could take a side trip and discus the concept.

True, you may ask me to consider such-an-such bit of evidence which, to the convinced evolutionist, is undeniable. However I still find it healthy to weigh it in the balance with evidence which casts doubt on the idea of evolution.

Is there any? I don't know of any.

As much as you would just prefer me to Google “evolution” for all the details and just accept it without question, the truth is there still remain 2 fundamental opposing views. While the bulk of our culture sides with it, the tenets of evolution are still very much open for questioning.

Opposing views are not supported by science. Or rational thought. Why believe them?

 

[Crossboard]

You do realize that you are in effect calling God a liar by doing so, don't you? Or is here merely incompetent?

I often notice that evolutionists seem awfully eager to inject the subject of God into the chat. In my last post, the only hint of that subject was in my one use of the word “created.” Is this the reason you brought up the mention of God?

No, I did not realize that in my comment I in effect called God a liar. And I have to say that I do not have a clue what you were trying to convey. If you’d want to elaborate, please do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I often notice that evolutionists seem awfully eager to inject the subject of God into the chat. In my last post, the only hint of that subject was in my one use of the word “created.” Is this the reason you brought up the mention of God?

No, I did not realize that in my comment I in effect called God a liar. And I have to say that I do not have a clue what you were trying to convey. If you’d want to elaborate, please do.

That is because the only explanation that creationists have is "God done did it".

And the reason that to deny evolution is to call God a liar is because the evidence is so extremely clear for evolution that God would have had to have planted false evidence if one believes the myths of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At any rate would you care to discuss the concept of evidence? Scientific evidence is very easy to understand as a concept. It is easy to understand. Scientific evidence is usually evidence of an empirical nature that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. In the world of the sciences one of the first things that is done for a new idea is to make it into the form of a scientific hypothesis, a testable, refutable concept. Creation "scientists" appear to be afraid to put their money where their mouth is. I do not know of any well formed testable concepts that creationists have made for their claims. That is why I state quite confidently that there is no evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Audie]

Where do those that support evolution claim that "totally different animals are produced"? The change is slow and gradual. You are still using the creationist strawman of "change of kind".

The point here, which you are totally missing, concedrns
"totally different",not the relative rapidity of change.

The idea that lungs are a "totally different" structure from anything fish have, likewise with limbs, so that
a lizard, say, is "totally different" from a trout, or a dinosaur, for that matter, totally different from a bird.

They are not. Everything in the body of a crocodile, say, corresponds tp
homologous structures in a person. All vertebrates show far moresimilariaties
in their body plan that differences.

Theme and variation, yes. Totally new? Not at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I hold the view that the vast sampling of plant and animal life did not derive from one common speck of life (or ultimately from non-life), but rather that these distinguishable examples were created with their own specialized mechanisms intact; while change is possible and undeniable, there’s a limit to that change, meaning that what you choose to call complete and total “evolution” is actually only “change” with limits.

So where exactly is this limit and what causes it, in your opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point here, which you are totally missing, concedrns
"totally different",not the relative rapidity of change.

The idea that lungs are a "totally different" structure from anything fish have, likewise with limbs, so that
a lizard, say, is "totally different" from a trout, or a dinosaur, for that matter, totally different from a bird.

They are not. Everything in the body of a crocodile, say, corresponds tp
homologous structures in a person. All vertebrates show far moresimilariaties
in their body plan that differences.

Theme and variation, yes. Totally new? Not at all.

I agree. That is sort of the point that I was trying to get across. It is creationists that claim "totally different" when they simply are not.

 

[sayak83]

My contention is that I have not made an error. Those errors which you are expecting me to acknowledge are only the tenets of the evolutionary idea itself.

I hold the view that the vast sampling of plant and animal life did not derive from one common speck of life (or ultimately from non-life), but rather that these distinguishable examples were created with their own specialized mechanisms intact; while change is possible and undeniable, there’s a limit to that change, meaning that what you choose to call complete and total “evolution” is actually only “change” with limits.

To answer your question.. Yes, absolutely, I do believe that past events can leave evidence. Some is undeniable and much of it must rightfully be deemed as less than concrete. But unfortunately, world views can take ambiguous evidence and promote it as undeniable.

True, you may ask me to consider such-an-such bit of evidence which, to the convinced evolutionist, is undeniable. However I still find it healthy to weigh it in the balance with evidence which casts doubt on the idea of evolution.

As much as you would just prefer me to Google “evolution” for all the details and just accept it without question, the truth is there still remain 2 fundamental opposing views. While the bulk of our culture sides with it, the tenets of evolution are still very much open for questioning.

Once again, I would encourage you to discuss a case study with us, like dinosaur to bird or ancient apes to modern humans. It's kind of pointless to discuss these subjects in vague generalities.

 

[Milton Platt]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

I think capability is the wrong word.
It would require a massive restructuring of the skeletal system PLUS the change to hollow bones like birds have to reduce weight. But if you are talking about millions of years of environmental pressures that make transition necessary to survive, then probably either that would occur, or extinction would occur through failure to adapt.
What is the purpose of this thought experiment?

 

[Audie]

I think capability is the wrong word.
It would require a massive restructuring of the skeletal system PLUS the change to hollow bones like birds have to reduce weight. But if you are talking about millions of years of environmental pressures that make transition necessary to survive, then probably either that would occur, or extinction would occur through failure to adapt.
What is the purpose of this thought experiment?

It seems to me more like a rabbit hole than a thought.
Just sayin'.