Exactly what did you observe? BTW, just b/c some of us reject the proposition that amoebas turned into turtles, elephants, dogs and humans over millions of years does NOT mean that we do not support scientific advancement. Sometimes scientists’ views are imbued with political and theological prejudices. “Global warming” “settled science” has become a howler, for example. Rob
What part of “I don’t know what you mean, can you be more specific” don’t you understand? There are entire reference libraries full of books on just one tiny subject. You have GOT to narrow it down, or I have no way of knowing what I’m supposed to be addressing. Try this. Pretend I’m really really stupid and spell it out for me. What do you want?
Transitional forms are EXTREMELY abundant. There is no paucity.Stephen Jay Gould came to realize the near impossiblity of a slow aggregate of billions of mutations, nearly all of them ehancing the chances of species’ survival, so he invented “punctuated equilibrium”, which posits that there are periods of slow, imperceptible evolutionary mutations, (such as exists today), followed by massive bursts of evolution. To me, this idea is nonsense borne of naturalists’ inability to explain the paucity of transitional forms.Rob
No one has an answer to everything. I would bet a million bucks that some anti-Christian is going to come along at some point in your life and ask you a question you can’t answer. Are you going to suddenly conclude that Christianity is false? Of course not. Nor can every person who knows enough about evolution to know its true answer every single question one might ask them. That doesn’t make it any less true.I am a proud believer in ID. Frankly, I think that the percentage of folks who doubt or outright reject evolution is MUCH higher than one third. I find that when I scratch the surface of most people who say they believe in evolution, they quickly realize that they don’t have an answers for questions that I pose to them.Rob
I observed one species of bacteria evolving into another species.Exactly what did you observe? BTW, just b/c some of us reject the proposition that amoebas turned into turtles, elephants, dogs and humans over millions of years does NOT mean that we do not support scientific advancement. Sometimes scientists’ views are imbued with political and theological prejudices. “Global warming” “settled science” has become a howler, for example. Rob
Consult with Richard Dawkins, my friend! That’s exactly what he said has happened, over billions of generations.
RobGood point. I fully support scientific advancement. I’m a big fan of science and read the latest almost daily. But this has just become such a political thing more than anything else. I mean, there seems to be such seriousness about this, it’s almost quasi-religious.Exactly what did you observe? BTW, just b/c some of us reject the proposition that amoebas turned into turtles, elephants, dogs and humans over millions of years does NOT mean that we do not support scientific advancement. Sometimes scientists’ views are imbued with political and theological prejudices. “Global warming” “settled science” has become a howler, for example. Rob
Can you give us an example?
But still bacteria? Correct?
What were his actual exact words? I highly doubt he used the word amoeba, and even if he did, I would call him an idiot. (because he is) Not even according to evolution did amoebas evolve into any of those things. Amoeba and dogs and elephants and man share the same Kingdom on the phylogenic tree - they are all Eucharyotes. In every other classification, they diverge - Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Hence in NO WAY did any of those things come from amoebas, a specific species of their own.
Only in the minds of ID advocates has this stuff become political. The rest of us are just interested in doing science and teaching science to others and are frustrated at all these peoples’ attempts to hinder that desire.
Funny thing about bacteria. They have built-in abilities like horizontal gene transfer, which is the primary reason some survive. Take humans. Douse us with some toxic substance and what? We can’t do horizontal gene transfer. And right, the bacteria remain bacteria.
Well my personal favorite is Tiktaalik. If you’re looking for more, there are some good lists of specific 'chains" here: (and normally I would not recommend wikipedia, but its more for the list than anything else)
Irrelevant. I was waiting for this, though.
Bad science.
So bacteria evolves into bacteria and that proves macro evolution?
By that logic, nothing in science can be believed because there’s always going to be another explanation. We can always conclude that the universe was created 5 minutes ago in exactly the way it is now, with all our memories in our heads already, and no way to prove that that’s not how it happened. Use your common sense, man. This was judicial application of Occam’s Razor - the simplest answer is most often the correct one - which is GOOD science, not bad science. Do YOU have an alternative explanation that is SCIENTIFIC?
I have not forgotten. I still anxiously await your clarification, as until you choose to clarify, I have no way of knowing what you want me to provide.
One species of bacteria becomes an entirely different species of bacteria. Species to species change is the most common ID advocate’s definition of macroevolution, and I do believe, the one suggested here in this thread as well. So now you have two options - accept this as evidence because it meets the criteria for one species becoming another species and thus admit that “macroevolution” happens, or dishonestly move the goal posts (which you seem to be trying to do)
No, bad science would be to say that God did it, without any evidence at all.
Yeah, right. It’s the ID people who forcing an agenda on everyone.
We’re the ones showing caricatures of apes and man in a nice little row in textbooks as if it actually happened and we know for sure that it did. Education on these matters is sorely needed. One time I had an “in-depth” discussion, pro-evolution folks thought Panspermia was a sexual fantasy of mine.