Deniars of Evolution:

[Man of Faith]

Is it not whatever someone wants it to be. It's pretty specific. Not any nonsense can just be taught. If it's whatever they want it to be, then science would be embracing Creationism.

Dogs didn't come from non-dogs, yet all mammel share the same ancestory? Call me confused please. :faint:

 

[Man of Faith]

No, the tree of life is drawn largely from genetic evidence - it is hard science.

If that was the case then it wouldnt be replaced with the web of life which it is now. It isn't hard science it is philosophy, which is why it is being left behind by more "hard science".

 

[Bunyip]

Dogs didn't come from non-dogs, yet all mammel share the same ancestory? Call me confused please. :faint:

Dogs did evolve from earlier mammals - what is confusing you?

The point is that the transition was gradual - at no point does one individual need to give birth to offspring of a different species.

 

[Man of Faith]

No dog ever gave birth to a non-dog. No non-dog ever gave birth to a dog.

Because evolution does not happen to individuals, it happens to species. Each generation being just a tiny bit different to the last - so at no point does one critter need to give birth to a critter of a different species.

Nobody said that a dog gave birth to a non-dog, matter of fact creationists say that can't happen. However the tree of life shows dogs coming from non-dogs.

 

[Man of Faith]

Dogs did evolve from earlier mammals - what is confusing you?

The point is that the transition was gradual - at no point does one individual need to give birth to offspring of a different species.

What is confusing to me is how people can say dogs didn't come from non-dogs when the tree of life clearly shows it.

 

[Bunyip]

If that was the case then it wouldnt be replaced with the web of life which it is now. It isn't hard science it is philosophy, which is why it is being left behind by more "hard science".

The web of life and the tree of life are just names buddy - it is really called phylogenetics and it changes because we learn new things. It is not philosphy, it is evidential.

The main reason it has changed is because we can use genetics to examine the relationships betwen organisms more closely.

You seem to think that science changing is a negative - it is called 'learning' and is what science is for.

 

[Bunyip]

What is confusing to me is how people can say dogs didn't come from non-dogs when the tree of life clearly shows it.

You have just misread fhat's all.

 

[Man of Faith]

The web of life and the tree of life are just names buddy - it is really called phylogenetics and it changes because we learn new things. It is not philosphy, it is evidential.

The main reason it has changed is because we can use genetics to examine the relationships betwen organisms more closely.

You seem to think that science changing is a negative - it is called 'learning' and is what science is for.

The web of life and the tree of life are different in more than name only, in supposedly how organisms evolved. I suppose the hard science supports both. What we have is the supposed mechanism of evolution being used to support whatever model of the times there is. Now the tree of life is wrong and misleading, yet philosophy props up the naturalism claim so we move onto the next imaginative and speculative model.

 

[Man of Faith]

You have just misread fhat's all.

Yea that's it, it's all the craetionists fault for misunderstanding and being ignorant and stupid.

 

[Bunyip]

Yea that's it, it's all the craetionists fault for misunderstanding and being ignorant and stupid.

No, ignorance and stupidity would be excusable, the people who drive creationism -Comfort, Ham, Hovind etc are con artists.

I understand that they have conned a great many people of faith, and do not blame their victims. But no, it is not possible to understand the basic science and at the same time say that evolution is not a fact.

 

[idav]

Nobody said that a dog gave birth to a non-dog, matter of fact creationists say that can't happen. However the tree of life shows dogs coming from non-dogs.

Evolution of a different species doesn't happen through one birth. Thats where the silliness comes in.

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution of a different species doesn't happen through one birth. Thats where the silliness comes in.

Again, nobody is saying that or has ever said that from what I have seen. When I say a dog came from a non-dog that doesn't specify the time frame. It had to have happened in the evolution tree model.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, ignorance and stupidity would be excusable, the people who drive creationism -Comfort, Ham, Hovind etc are con artists.

I understand that they have conned a great many people of faith, and do not blame their victims. But no, it is not possible to understand the basic science and at the same time say that evolution is not a fact.

You don't believe that they really believe what they are saying? I certainly do, sure they make money, but who doesn't need money or want money to live on. Richard Dawkins makes money off of books and speaking, does that mean he doesn't believe what he is saying?

 

[Windwalker]

However the tree of life shows dogs coming from non-dogs.

You do realize that your body came from stardust? In fact everything on this planet and the planet itself came from exploded stars. Stop and think about this for a minute. Even if you read Genesis chapter one as a book of natural history (which no early Christian ever did), you have God making your body from the dust of the earth. You "evolved" as it were, were created, from the material of the ground. So, tell me, Man of Faith, isn't your model saying humans come from dirt? So why is 'dogs coming from non-dogs', such a big leap for you? This is an irrational contradiction on your part. You should be perfectly comfortable with this progression.

 

[Parsimony]

I'm guessing that the "web of life" model you refer to is simply the "tree of life" model plus an accounting for horizontal gene transfer?

 

[outhouse]

, it's all the craetionists fault for misunderstanding and being ignorant and stupid.

What a wonderful example.

But yes, it seems true.

 

[averageJOE]

Yea that's it, it's all the craetionists fault for misunderstanding and being ignorant and stupid.

This is the most honest thing you've ever said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, nobody is saying that or has ever said that from what I have seen. When I say a dog came from a non-dog that doesn't specify the time frame. It had to have happened in the evolution tree model.

True. A wolf produced a dog, because a dog is a kind of wolf. The wolf wasn't producing something "other" than what it was, it was producing something that was a variation on what it was - that variation giving rise to the sub-species of wolf known as "dogs". The fact that the ancestors of dogs were not dogs but were wolves is irrelevant when you realize that all dogs are a kind of wolf.

 

[Riverwolf]

The tree of life model shows dogs coming from non-dogs.

No it doesn't.

This is what I have a problem with, evolution being whatever anyone wants it to be in order to win an argument.

It isn't. It's a well-understood process with well-understood rules. The common ancestor to dogs and chickens was neither bird nor mammalian, which I can say right now without having to look it up, since dogs are mammals and chickens are, well, the closest living relative to T-rex(no, really). Mammals and dinosaurs diverged from reptiles about the same time.

What is confusing to me is how people can say dogs didn't come from non-dogs when the tree of life clearly shows it.

Where is the line between dog and non-dog to you?

After all, wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Are wolves dogs, or non-dogs?

Again, nobody is saying that or has ever said that from what I have seen. When I say a dog came from a non-dog that doesn't specify the time frame. It had to have happened in the evolution tree model.

No, it doesn't have to have happened.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If that was the case then it wouldnt be replaced with the web of life which it is now. It isn't hard science it is philosophy, which is why it is being left behind by more "hard science".

It gravitated from the "tree of life" to the "web of life" because of new evidence.

Revising what we believe to be true when what we believe to be true fails to conform with what we observe is part of the scientific method.

Einstein revised Newton's Gravity. That didn't make gravity go away.