• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Very Simple Question For Creationists

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
All of your examples are changes within a species

No, your mere say-so does not overturn the conclusions in those papers. Or is that how you think science works?

and we can see it within our lifetimes.

Exactly. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Even most creationist organizations realize that.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thanks for being honest.
Thanks for being nice! I was bracing for something much different.
thankyou.gif
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, your mere say-so does not overturn the conclusions in those papers. Or is that how you think science works?



Exactly. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Even most creationist organizations realize that.
New "species" look like their predecessors, but for (usually) outward difference patterns.
That is not what we are talking about. Why are you behaving as though it is what we are talking about?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
New "species" look like their predecessors, but for (usually) outward difference patterns.

Well yeah, that's how it works.

That is not what we are talking about. Why are you behaving as though it is what we are talking about?

I guess my mistake was in assuming you folks were operating from reality, rather than some imaginary world where evolution is like "a dog giving birth to a cat".
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well yeah, that's how it works.



I guess my mistake was in assuming you folks were operating from reality, rather than some imaginary world where evolution is like "a dog giving birth to a cat".
No, but how about a dog giving birth to something that is not a dog?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I understand that, but there had to be a beginning of a population, or according to you, was there no beginning?

You're changing subjects. If you understand that populations evolve rather than individuals, then you should also appreciate how new species "look like their predecessors" when a new species evolves.

As far as the very first population, keep in mind that the evidence is pretty clear that the first organisms were asexual self-replicators, so there was no need for a mate or anything like that.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're changing subjects. If you understand that populations evolve rather than individuals, then you should also appreciate how new species "look like their predecessors" when a new species evolves.

As far as the very first population, keep in mind that the evidence is pretty clear that the first organisms were asexual self-replicators, so there was no need for a mate or anything like that.
Uh-huh
122fs329172.gif
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
No, your mere say-so does not overturn the conclusions in those papers. Or is that how you think science works?



Exactly. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Even most creationist organizations realize that.

You're arguing by deferring to authority and not explaining how what the authority is saying is valid. You also didn't answer my question in regards to the length of time required. Macroevolution takes millions or billions of years, and it isn't observable. You admit your examples are observable, so they're examples of microevolution and natural selection or changes within species not a new species. Just because you say something is fact doesn't make it so, or else we can all use it. Not just one side to back their argument.

I don't think you understand how science works based on your insulting question.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Evolution of different animal type to another animal type has not been observed

We breed a dog to a more specific dog... but thats not the same
A fish might become a blind cave fish but that's subtraction not addition. Loss of function won't propel evolution forward rather wind it down
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You're arguing by deferring to authority and not explaining how what the authority is saying is valid.

Well in an internet forum, how else would anyone establish that the evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented? It's not like I can take you out into the field or into a lab and have you see it yourself.

If you have specific comments on any of those papers that would cast doubt on their conclusions, then say so. But right now all you're doing is baseless hand-waving.

You also didn't answer my question in regards to the length of time required. Macroevolution takes millions or billions of years, and it isn't observable.

That's completely incorrect, as I've shown.

You admit your examples are observable, so they're examples of microevolution and natural selection or changes within species not a new species.

Well now that's a nice circular framework you've set up for yourself. You assume up front that macroevolution takes millions of years, and from that assumption you declare that any examples counter to that can't be true, because your assumption (macroevolution takes millions of years) is true.

So let me ask you....do you think the scientists who authored those papers are lying?

Just because you say something is fact doesn't make it so, or else we can all use it.

I agree, and that's why I did more than just say so. I cited multiple papers that all independently document the observed evolution of new species, across many different taxa. And if you read the papers, you'll notice the authors don't rely on mere say-so either. They describe their observations, analyses, results, and conclusions in great detail.

I don't think you understand how science works based on your insulting question.

Given the above, that's quite amusing to see you say.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So from the point of creation forward macroevolution is not possible?
Creation and creationism are not the same thing. Creation is merely the action or process of bringing something into existence, and evolutionists certainly believe that life was created. Creationism, says that god created individual species as is, and contends that marcoevolution does not happen. And it's in this sense that creationism and macroevolution are mutually exclusive.


.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
Well in an internet forum, how else would anyone establish that the evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented? It's not like I can take you out into the field or into a lab and have you see it yourself.

If you have specific comments on any of those papers that would cast doubt on their conclusions, then say so. But right now all you're doing is baseless hand-waving.



That's completely incorrect, as I've shown.



Well now that's a nice circular framework you've set up for yourself. You assume up front that macroevolution takes millions of years, and from that assumption you declare that any examples counter to that can't be true, because your assumption (macroevolution takes millions of years) is true.

So let me ask you....do you think the scientists who authored those papers are lying?



I agree, and that's why I did more than just say so. I cited multiple papers that all independently document the observed evolution of new species, across many different taxa. And if you read the papers, you'll notice the authors don't rely on mere say-so either. They describe their observations, analyses, results, and conclusions in great detail.



Given the above, that's quite amusing to see you say.

You're quite amusing ha ha. It takes 3.8 billion years.

Mutation + Gene Flow + Genetic Drift + Natural Selection + 3.8 billions years = macroevolution

What is macroevolution?
 
Top