ericmurphy's bunnies

[McBell]

Now knock off this stupidity about definitions, and answer the question: do you believe there has been an observable change in the types of organisms over time, or not?

I should say the same to you.
In fact I will: knock off this stupidity about definitions and pick one already.

I cannot and will not answer the question until I know which definition of 'evolution' you are going to stick with.

i would have thought that the last two times I said it would have made it obvious, but I guess not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(He still doesn't get it. Goodnight all ...)

 

[ericmurphy]

Changes in living organisms from the Permian to the Cenozoic. Changes in living organisms from the Hadean to the Triassic. Changes in living organisms from the Proterozoic to the Mesozoic.

Did such changes happen, or did they not?

 

[ericmurphy]

I should say the same to you.
In fact I will: knock off this stupidity about definitions and pick one already.

I cannot and will not answer the question until I know which definition of 'evolution' you are going to stick with.

i would have thought that the last two times I said it would have made it obvious, but I guess not.

Observed changes in the types of organisms in existence over time.

Are there any? Or are there not any? Pick any one.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't know what other term to use. Organisms have changed over time. What other term would you use to describe that change?

God creating all life at once from nothing is not evolution. Nothing changes after the initial point of creation. Regardless of whether you believe life arose through entirely natural and unguided processes, or god has created it at intervals over time, life has changed. It's inarguable that it has changed. Now: what term should be used for that process of change? Regardless of what the process consists of?

How does the position you claim as quoted in the OP allow you to infer that there is any change after the initial point of creation?

 

[yossarian22]

I don't know what other term to use. Organisms have changed over time. What other term would you use to describe that change?

I don't know... perhaps the word change?
That works well. Organisms change over time. Simple really, That is what you have shown. Unfortunately, this is a far cry from evolution

 

[ericmurphy]

How does the position you claim as quoted in the OP allow you to infer that there is any change after the initial point of creation?

Not all organisms have existed since the beginning of life on this planet. If organisms appear in the fossil record subsequent to the earliest life forms, isn't it a logically inescapable conclusion that there must have been changes in the kinds of living organisms since the origin of life (whatever that origin was)?

 

[ericmurphy]

I don't know... perhaps the word change?
That works well. Organisms change over time. Simple really, That is what you have shown. Unfortunately, this is a far cry from evolution

That is all I have ever claimed to have shown. You're clearly having a problem with my use of the term "evolution" to mean anything other than "evolutionary change caused by the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution." That's okay; I can live with that, although I strenuously disagree with it.

But I never said I was trying to demonstrate (yet) that any particular explanation for that change is accurate. Did I somehow not manage to make that clear?

I would like think I've demonstrated that there is some change that needs explanation. Evolutionary theory has such an explanation. Special creation purports to have a different explanation. The next task is to see which one is a better explanation.

Is it time to do that yet? Or do I still need to show that there has been an observable change in the types of organisms in existence over time?

 

[Mister Emu]

Is it time to do that yet?

The next step from showing change, is showing what type of change has occured... evolution is a type of change...

 

[yossarian22]

That is all I have ever claimed to have shown.

You state evolution quite explicitly

You're clearly having a problem with my use of the term "evolution" to mean anything other than "evolutionary change caused by the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution."

No, I have a problem with your faulty broken definition. No definition of evolution is just change. It is gradual, progressive change. If you define evolution as change, then evolution becomes a meaningless word. Trying to prove something meaningless is well, meaningless. And an extraordinary waste of time, space, and energy.

 

[Fluffy]

Not all organisms have existed since the beginning of life on this planet. If organisms appear in the fossil record subsequent to the earliest life forms, isn't it a logically inescapable conclusion that there must have been changes in the kinds of living organisms since the origin of life (whatever that origin was)?

Ah I see. So what you actually meant was

"There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Those two observations and an extensive knowledge of the fossil record are more than sufficient to establish the factual nature of evolution"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If organisms appear in the fossil record subsequent to the earliest life forms, isn't it a logically inescapable conclusion that there must have been changes in the kinds of living organisms since the origin of life (whatever that origin was)?

"... that origin"? Singular? Who made up that rule? No, it is, not a "logically inescapable conclusion" but, rather, a sloppy inference from unstated assumptions - a hallmark of ericmurphy's bunnies.

 

[Willamena]

Not all organisms have existed since the beginning of life on this planet. If organisms appear in the fossil record subsequent to the earliest life forms, isn't it a logically inescapable conclusion that there must have been changes in the kinds of living organisms since the origin of life (whatever that origin was)?

Taking the assumption that evolution happened, as you do in all your arguments, then no... it's not logical to say that "since evolution happened it logically follows that evolution happened." I may as easily say, "since there is God, then God exists." Do you believe me?

 

[rojse]

Very well ...<B>

Given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Therefore:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

</B>Proceed ...

I believe that Genesis states that God created all of the creatures in one day. If we are to believe that, then trilobites and rabbits should have coexisted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe that Genesis states that God created all of the creatures in one day. If we are to believe that, then trilobites and rabbits should have coexisted.

Your beliefs about Genesis might improve were you to actually (a) read the text, and (b) think about what you've read.

 

[BUDDY]

Very well ...<B>

Given:

• There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today.
• There are rabbits today, but there were no rabbits 300 million years ago.

Therefore:

• Evolution is a fact.

​

</B>Proceed ...

I'm no expert, but from what I have learned, this particular example would not be enough to stand as an example of evolution or of evolutionary theory. Neither of these partucular items points to a change in the evolution of a species. Neither of these examples does anything to support any theory at all because there is no other evidence to support why or why not they did or did not exist. Again, I am no expert and my simple observation may get blasted by the more learned posters, but I felt like adding my two sense.

 

[rojse]

Your beliefs about Genesis might improve were you to actually (a) read the text, and (b) think about what you've read.

Actually, I have read and thought about Genesis. It states that he created the creatures in one day. Even if we wanted to go into the "one day" = "many, many years" scenario, this does not explain how his trilobyte creations died out before he made the rabbits.

 

[BUDDY]

Since when does no rabbit fossils found now = no rabbit types species existed? I am a little lost on that point.

 

[rojse]

Since when does no rabbit fossils found now = no rabbit types species existed? I am a little lost on that point.

Can you find the post number that stated that? I'll see if I can figure that one out for you.

 

[BUDDY]

Can you find the post number that stated that? I'll see if I can figure that one out for you.

Post number one states that pretty clearly.