Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

*Sigh*. So you're going with the lame creationist trope of "show me a lizard giving birth to a fish!" Or at least, a lizard species turning into a fish in, say, 100 years or less.

#1, the examples I gave you were not mere "adaptations". They involved actual physical changes in the members of the species. The changes were relatively small (though I think developing a whole new gut to handle a vegetarian diet isn't exactly "minor", nor is switching from eggs to live birth), but they were very real examples of changing form and function in response to environmental pressures.

#2, lots of small changes add up to big change over time. Simply by demonstrating that animals physically change in response to the environment, we have proven the process by which animals evolve into completely different animals over long time periods.

#3, the fossil record is replete with examples of speciation. We have a very good fossil record, for instance, of an ancient horselike creature evolving into various child species, including the modern horse.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm

So we observe physical changes, some quite eye-popping, in response to environmental pressures; we recognize that such changes can add up over time to speciation; and we can observe this in the fossil record.

You claim to understand science. The above is pretty much the gold standard for proving a long-term process. And there are myriad such examples. Ability to make predictions that turn out to be true? Check. Absence of any real evidence to the contrary? Check.

Scientists have to deal with bacterial evolution every day. Not only because bacteria develop resistance, but because lab-bred strains start to develop lab-friendly characteristics -- like the ability to eat things they've never been able to eat before. And they can track the genetic changes that make it possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

...you're being silly...deliberately

 

Those are generally accepted as examples of Darwinian Evolution. Saying they are not will not change that. Claiming they are something else will not either. Denying they are exactly what you asked for will not change than any more than denying it is raining will keep you dry if you forget your umbrella. The fact is that most scientists who study this field accept these as concrete examples of evolution in action.

Am I getting across to you here?

 

GOOD LUCK!

I have been asking the same question for two days of the same cast of characters with zero cogent answers.

Carry on.

 

Did someone actually mention a vestigial tail in this day and age, in a thread about science? This has to be a joke, right?

If you believe your coccyx bone is vestigial, I will pay to have yours removed, but I will not pay for your Depends.

 

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/The_t...ince_there_are_nine_muscles_that_attach_to_it

 

I could insult you as you have just insulted me. However, if I did so, we wouldn't have any sort intelligent dialogue.

I do understand science. I also understand that if something cannot be observed, it does not follow the scientific method.

#1 - I acknowledge some of those adaptations as being impressive and mysterious. You have obviously done your research. However, this does not prove that Darwinian evolution exists. You said, "they were very real examples of changing form and function in response to environmental pressures." By definition, adaptation is a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment. What you described and the definition of an adaptation are unbelievably similar, don't you think?

#2 - I am aware of and have studied the idea of macroevolution in advanced biology courses. By definition, macroevolution is major evolutionary change of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. Again, however, mere adaptations among individual species don't constitute a "change of kinds," as Darwin concluded from his observations of finches on the Galapágos Islands.

#3 - Sure, the fossil record is great. That doesn't mean evolution is fact. You're basically relying on the biology professors and majors who have "worked with" and "analyzed" this fossil record over time. Since you can't observe it in real-time, there is a sort of faith aspect to believing Darwin's theory of evolution. It's slowly grown into a belief system that eerily resembles a religion of sorts. Just a side-note: I am very impressed with your research. Many of the "evolution-buffs" I have debated do not usually refer to the sites you have provided to me. They usually defer to Lenski's experiments with bacteria (which are horribly flawed and were done irresponsibly, not to mention publishing dishonest results).

"Bacterial evolution" is resistance. That is an adaptation; again, NOT a viable example of Darwinian evolution.

You are the one presenting evolution as fact, not me. The burden of proof is on YOU.

 

I agree, and I'm sure one day we'll have enough evidence to determine whether Darwin's theory of evolution is true or not. I'll I'm saying is to slow down and acknowledge that there are some unanswered questions. It's entirely possible that it will be proven true one day, but I'd just like to see what everyone uses as evidence and WHY you believe it, even though (again) there are some unanswered questions. As you said, even if evolution is proven to be fact, God & evolution go hand-in-hand.

 

How did a tail grow inward and detach existing muscles and reattach to the coccyx? This should be a good tall tale (tail).

 

Yeah, what he said. \/ \/ Sorry!

 

Evolution was proven to be a fact back in 1999.

We mapped the entire Human Genome and also mapped the entire Genomes of thousandsupon thousands of species.

We found the proof upon an Atomic and Molecular level that all living things on earth including Humans all eveolved from an original single celles organism.

There is no longer any doubt.

AboveAlpha

 

I would dispute your last statement but as you said this isn't the thread for that. Maybe some other time.

 

Based on your say so? This simply isn't true. The more genetic scientists study the complexities of DNA and the living cell, the less they consider a random happenstance formed life from minerals.

 

Nope, nor did I say any such thing. Perhaps you'd like to try reading my response again.

 

The fact is their is absolutely no conflict in the reality of evolution and one's belief in a GOD.

If a GOD does exist...Quantum Evolution and then Biological Evolution would have been the mechanisms that developed the Universe, Multiverse and everything within them.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Uhhh...no.

Even every sect of Christian Leadership except Baptists agrees that Evolution is a reality.

No one can deny the Genetic Evidence as it is absolute.

AboveAlpha

 

Not so. Where are you finding this misinformation,? You have yet to cite a single source yet you insist that anyone disagreeing with you do so. Plus you keep asking for proof of evolution but you have yet to provide any evidence to the cotrary.

 

He does not understand that Humans have had the ability to completely map all species Genomes including our own for some time.

There is no longer even a question.

Evolution is a fact.

AboveAlpha

 

Once again another lie. But I suppose if you are not a Christian or Jew, there is no such thing as a lie. So anything goes, huh?

- - - Updated - - -

You ask for proof, but you never provide any. How convenient.

 

OK you have got to be trolling. Nobody could actually be this blind. Everyone in this thread besides you has posted evidence and proof out the waazoo (no idea what that is). You haven't come up with a single source for the outrageous garbage you have been posting, or any evidence of anything other than your own admittely incredible skull density. Let see some facts out of you huh? I say post 'em up or admit you got nuthin. I'll wait 30 minutes. That should be plenty of time for you to find whatever source you been using all afternoon.

 

You have never posted anything but links to opinions and speculation of other people. I wait for you to eventually write a cogent defense of your belief of why evolution is true. Actually, I am tired of waiting for something you are either unwilling or unable to provide.

 

Which proof are yu asking for as I can provide both?

That all Christian Sect Leadership except Baptists agree Evolution is a reality or Genetic Proof on a Molecular/Atomic Level?

AboveAlpha

 

Another attempt at defection. Pretty much what I expected. You've got nothing but blind faith in a 200 year old book written by people who weren't there that has been retranslated dozens of times.

Debate over reason triumphs over superstition yet again.

 

There are still many Bible believing churches in the world. Many churches in the U.S. have corrupted their teachings, but not all. Not all Christian churches are affiliated with mainstream denominations for this exact reason. The leaderships have the doctrine that Man's opinion is greater than God's Word.

 

What does that have to do with which proof I asked you that you would like?

AboveAlpha

 

My bad. I thought you were using the lazy layman definition of adaptation -- i.e., merely modifying one's behavior, vs. modifying one's physical self.

As defined by evolutionary theory, adaptation is one of the main pillars of "Darwinian evolution". So if you acknowledge it exists, you're acknowledging that a large portion of Darwinian theory is correct.

No single adaptation does, true. But a hundred or a thousand different adaptations over time adds up to a different creature entirely.

I sometimes demonstrate this with a simple letter-replacement game:

HEAD
HEAL
TEAL
TELL
TALL
TAIL

Even though each individual change was minor, over time we turned HEAD into TAIL.

This is not theory; this is logic. Make enough small changes, and they add up to big changes.

Nonsense. I only have "faith" to the extent that I have "faith" in any channel of human learning that I myself am not expert in. The fossil evidence in support of evolution is available for inspection, along with the studies based on them. It is subject to critical review. There is no "belief" required. Everything is out in the open -- the evidence, the methodology, the analysis, the conclusions.

No, it's all sorts of things; resistance is just one part of it.

Perhaps we should review what constitutes the Theory of Evolution.

1. Adaptation. You acknowledge this is true.

2. Speciation. This seems to be the part you disagree with.

Speciation is caused by a few main things:

1. Natural selection. This is the bit where traits that confer better reproductive success are conserved and passed on in greater numbers to offspring. Traits that hamper reproductive success are weeded out. I assume you acknowledge this is true.

2. Diversity. There is a range of traits in any given species. Some birds have thicker beaks than others; some lizards have longer tails, or better eyesight, or whatever. I assume you agree with this.

3. Mutation. This is random mutation, which can introduce major genetic changes. Most mutations are bad, but thanks to natural selection the bad ones tend to get weeded out, and the good ones tend to get conserved. I assume you agree this is true.

4. Isolation and genetic drift. This isn't actually a hard-and-fast requirement, but it makes speciation easier to observe. Isolate a population of a species, and over time it will evolve differently than the rest of the species. We saw this in the Italian lizard link I gave you. Eventually the two groups will diverge enough that they no longer interbreed. Voila! New species.

So I'm wondering what part of the above you claim doesn't happen. All the steps have been observed, including divergent groups of the same species.