Originally posted by longkenThere's a myriad of evidence to suggest that there was speciation. For example, recently there were some news that we have some gene sequences that are Neanderthal in origin. Do you dispute that?
do to the proof everywhere for adaptation, yes. adaptation hasnt changed any species to another or so i have seen.
Originally posted by Palynkai would search it up. but i can not dispute something that i have not looked into or it would be folly.
There's a myriad of evidence to suggest that there was speciation. For example, recently there were some news that we have some gene sequences that are Neanderthal in origin. Do you dispute that?
You could buy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311949521&sr=8-1
Darwin amasses considerable evidence for evolution in it. And then you'll have the primary source, instead of what you might take evolution to be from people's interpretation of his work.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAlthough we've never actually seen macro evolution take place as a result of micro evolution.
"Macro" evolution is what you get after a prolonged period of "micro" evolution.
The question for this discussion is what is proof? Is it that we can make predictions about what we find in the fossil record? Is it that we can reproduce what actually happened?
If we are talking about making prediction based on certain assumptions and those prediction work, then you are simply making a basis for belief on the certain assumptions.
Of course this does not negate creation. I believe that the Roman Catholic church teaches that God created the universe through evolution.
To tell you the truth, I think that macro evolution as a result of natural micro evolutions is simply a religious belief rooted in those who ascribe to the religion that says we must reject God as an explanation. If we must exclude God, then God is automatically rejected and the only reason why we reject God is because we believe it is what we must believe. Why must we believe that, it is because we must. It is a circle based on itself which is nothing more than a religious belief.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarHave you seen stars forming? Planets? The Big Bang happening?
Although we've never actually seen macro evolution take place as a result of micro evolution.
I'm even wondering whether you understand what prolonged period means. You accept micro-evolution, why do you assume there is a barrier that would prevent Australopithecus to evolve into the first Homo species?
Originally posted by longkenI prefer to call it evolution with a small 'e' and then what you presumably call evolution or macro evolution, I call 'the Theory of Evolution'. Which covers everything from specification, the survival of the fittest to common descent.
isnt that micro evolution? or in other words adaptation?
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't think I've picked a side at all. I just said that the belief in what you can't see is by definition a religion. I also said that if you can't repeat the experiment then the belief in it is a form of religion.
Have you seen stars forming? Planets? The Big Bang happening?
I'm even wondering whether you understand what prolonged period means. You accept micro-evolution, why do you assume there is a barrier that would prevent Australopithecus to evolve into the first Homo species?
By the way, as I said earlier, there are those who believe in both evolution and a Creator. The fact that a Creator must be excluded is based on an assumption that can't be proven, therefore falls under the category of religion.
Originally posted by longkenWell presumably you haven't looked.
adaptation hasnt changed any species to another or so i have seen.
Can you define a species? How would one know that a species has changed into another?
Do you accept that dogs are probably descended from wolves? Do you know that they are different species under current classification systems?
Originally posted by EladarEvolution, or any aspect of empirical science for that matter, does not assume there is no "creator". It's not a necessary assumption for the validity of the theory.
I don't think I've picked a side at all. I just said that the belief in what you can't see is by definition a religion. I also said that if you can't repeat the experiment then the belief in it is a form of religion.
By the way, as I said earlier, there are those who believe in both evolution and a Creator. The fact that a Creator must be excluded is based on an assumption that can't be proven, therefore falls under the category of religion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere you have it, under classification.
Well presumably you haven't looked.
Can you define a species? How would one know that a species has changed into another?
Do you accept that dogs are probably descended from wolves? Do you know that they are different species under current classification systems?
I can accept probablies, but I can also accept perhaps not. The Theory of Evolution that we are expected to accept as fact is based on a natural explanation of how things came about without God's hand. To take things this far is a religion.
That's all I'm saying. I'm just calling a spade a spade.
Originally posted by EladarYou're stuck in a verificationist view of science. Yet science is about falsifiability, not verificationism.
I don't think I've picked a side at all. I just said that the belief in what you can't see is by definition a religion. I also said that if you can't repeat the experiment then the belief in it is a form of religion.
By the way, as I said earlier, there are those who believe in both evolution and a Creator. The fact that a Creator must be excluded is based on an assumption that can't be proven, therefore falls under the category of religion.
As for the necessary exclusion of a creator, that's a strawman of your own making that I have zero interest in discussing. The question here concerns whether speciation occurs or not.
