Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

Gen 1:27 says that he created males and females at the same time, but then Gen 2:18-22 says that he created females way after the fact, by taking a rib from Adam.

Your explanation is not satisfactory to me.

On a side note, I would like to draw your attention to this creationist website - it is a list of arguments that creationists feel that creationists should not use. It is a good page for creationists.

Zip

ok. how about the story was that he created male and female, and that chapter two explained it in detail. its kinda like the news paper. the title says, "7 people died in a bus accident" but then you start reading the story, and it tells you what the people are were doing. but the title said that they died. and thats they story. but down in the summary, its saying that they are alive... (?)

you are obviously one of the scoffers that exist in these last days. II peter 3:3
and you are willingly ignorant.

but thats fine. dont post on my thread anymore. becasue you obviously are jnot going to give up your dumb belief that we came from a rock. and yes that is how the evolution theory goes, yes we came from soup, but what came before that, was it rained on the ROCKS for millions of years. so yes the gene pool of a rock is not that great. and yes you do believe we came froam a rock 3.4 billion years ago.

the whole evolution theory is a lie. there is no truth to support it. if you honestly think that you found some proof, real proof for evolution. email it to me at [email protected]

there is nothing that supports the evolution theory, its all a fantasy based on imagination.

Grand canyon could not have formed by the colorado river... if you wanna know why ill explain.

you cant get polystrata fossils unless there was a great flood....

and you cannot now get everything in the universe spinning in many different directions with a big bang.

im sorry your theory is not part of science, it is a religion.
mine is too, but dont take my tax dollars to cut down a tree and put that in a science text book.

Originally posted by expert999
ok. how about the story was that he created male and female, and that chapter two explained it in detail. its kinda like the news paper. the title says, "7 people died in a bus accident" but then you start reading the story, and it tells you what the people are were doing. but the title said that they died. and thats they story. but down in the summary, its saying that they are alive... (?)

Combined with the fact that beasts were created in a different order and that Gen 2 implies that man and woman were created on different days, and the story doesn't add up. Read this for a history of the two stories.

Originally posted by expert999
you are obviously one of the scoffers that exist in these last days. II peter 3:3

How flattering, to be a character in a story.

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

I think that the question "where is the promise of [the messiah's] coming" is legitimate in every way. In this manner, I am not against the Bible - the Bible is against me.

Originally posted by expert999
and you are willingly ignorant.

I think that my character attests to the contrary.

Originally posted by expert999
but thats fine. dont post on my thread anymore. becasue you obviously are jnot going to give up your dumb belief that we came from a rock. and yes that is how the evolution theory goes, yes we came from soup, but what came before that, was it rained on the ROCKS for millions of years. so yes the gene pool of a rock is not that great. and yes you do believe we came froam a rock 3.4 billion years ago.

Who would you have post in your thread? Conformists? People who strictly agree with you?

Originally posted by expert999
there is nothing that supports the evolution theory, its all a fantasy based on imagination.

Many people disagree with your scholarly conclusion.

Originally posted by expert999
Grand canyon could not have formed by the colorado river... if you wanna know why ill explain.

you cant get polystrata fossils unless there was a great flood....

There are more than a dozen reasons why a flood could not have caused the Grand Canyon to form, but let me ask you this - why aren't there Grand Canyons all over the place if the Grand Canyon was caused by a worldwide flood?

Originally posted by expert999
and you cannot now get everything in the universe spinning in many different directions with a big bang.

...And just why the hell not? Tell me why not, please. Here's a short answer to this argument. There's a longer answer too, but here's the short one:

If the big bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.

Zip

Originally posted by expert999
here is one link to show carbon dating does not work...
members.cox.net...

another
www.contenderministries.org...

another
www.worldbydesign.org...
and here is another giving many examples of carbon dating not working.
www.ankerberg.com...

oh and by the way, your geologic collumn was thought up way before radiometric dating was even thought of. and none of them work. its all based on assumptions.

Most things are done under constant laboratory conditions. There is bound to be inaccuracies concerning the vast amount of variables. That doesn't render the method useless.

but thats fine. dont post on my thread anymore. becasue you obviously are jnot going to give up your dumb belief that we came from a rock. and yes that is how the evolution theory goes, yes we came from soup, but what came before that, was it rained on the ROCKS for millions of years. so yes the gene pool of a rock is not that great. and yes you do believe we came froam a rock 3.4 billion years ago.

the whole evolution theory is a lie. there is no truth to support it. if you honestly think that you found some proof, real proof for evolution. email it to me at [email protected]

there is nothing that supports the evolution theory, its all a fantasy based on imagination.

Grand canyon could not have formed by the colorado river... if you wanna know why ill explain.

you cant get polystrata fossils unless there was a great flood....

and you cannot now get everything in the universe spinning in many different directions with a big bang.

im sorry your theory is not part of science, it is a religion.
mine is too, but dont take my tax dollars to cut down a tree and put that in a science text book.

We came from a rock... There is no gene pool for a rock. A rock is inanimate.

And no. Evolution does not state that. From Wikipedia; "Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next." No where does it state how life first came into existence.

In your original post, only two examples actually have anything to do with evolution. That's macro and micro. You even admitted micro evolution has been scientifically proven in your first post. What's left is macro, otherwise known as speciation.

An example is Darwin's finches. Each finch's beak has changed to better suit the food they eat on the islands of the Galapagos. The changes are more distinct, to even name them as different species.

Much the same with canines. Look at the tree with the species. Wolves and coyotes are both species in the genus Canis, yet are quite different. Even subspecies such as the Australian dingo and domestic dogs are a subspecies of the wolf, even though they're quite different. The dingo, (before settlers introduced domestic dogs) was the only canine on Australia, yet it still is part of the genus Canis. Now that's an example of speciation.

[edit on 3/7/05 by Xar Ke Zeth]

[edit on 3/7/05 by Xar Ke Zeth]

In your original post, only two examples actually have anything to do with evolution. That's macro and micro. You even admitted micro evolution has been scientifically proven in your first post. What's left is macro, otherwise known as speciation.

ok macro evolution is the change from one KIND of animal to another KIND. like from a cat to a dog or like a dog to a horse.

The bible is very clear on what the def. for a KIND is. it is those that can bring forth. I dont know if you have read this in my posts. but ill define kind for you.

A horse and a zebra are two different species but are the same kind. how you tell, is by the fact that they can bring forth and produce offspring.

you cannot take a horse and a cow and get offspring, they are not they same KIND.

Darwin stated on page 170 that all organisms are related. (well thats not word for word, but thats basicall what he said)

I am not related to a plant. birds are not related to bananas.
any 5 year old kid can figure out that there is a difference between animals and plants.

your example of the canines doesnt prove evolution at all either. I dont know what you mean by speciation. but if you mean micro evolution then yes it happens. I object to that term because it is not a part of the other five terms that I mentioned earlier. it is proven and it is scientific. it happened. no question. but are these changes or variations limited? yes they are. until observed and proven otherwise it does not happen and you cant go around telling people that it did happen if you have no record of it.
you cant prove the big bang. you cannot prove that the earth was a hot molten mass, www.halos.com proves that wrong. you cant prove that bacteria was the beginning of all life. and you cannot prove that life started from non-living material. they even tried that in the lab. it didnt work. and the virus that was made by that one scientists, was inserted into a dead cell. that does not prove anything. he had to help it into a cell. because without a cell. a virus does not last that long. and thats what viruses do anyway. they take over cells. dead or alive. so he didnt prove anything.

the finches that darwin observed was just a variaty, the beak shapes were already in the gene code and the diet that the different birds had was most likely a cause by the beak they had, I mean if they cant crack open a nut they arent going to try to eat a nut. they will try to eat something else.

I mean if an white person cant figure out how to open a coconut and moves on to something else, but the african americam person can figure it out, what does that prove? does that prove that the white people are a different species from black people because they cant open a coconut. I mean they both have different features about themselves. and ones diet is different from the other.

that does not prove anything. just like the finches doesnt prove anything. certain finches cannot eat certain things because either one, their beak is not strong enough which means they cant break certain things open. or two, there beak shape disables them from eating certain things. their diet is probably based on their beak shape. and all of the beak shapes are in the gene code in each variety of finch.
no evolution occured in this example. all you have is a variety in finch. and plus, you still have a bird.

and the dogs. you still have a dog. and you can still breed them and get baby dogs. it shows that they are they same KIND of animal.

and the finches are the same KIND of bird. you can take two of the different species and breed them and you will still get a bird.

Originally posted by expert999

In your original post, only two examples actually have anything to do with evolution. That's macro and micro. You even admitted micro evolution has been scientifically proven in your first post. What's left is macro, otherwise known as speciation.

ok macro evolution is the change from one KIND of animal to another KIND. like from a cat to a dog or like a dog to a horse.

The bible is very clear on what the def. for a KIND is. it is those that can bring forth. I dont know if you have read this in my posts. but ill define kind for you.

A horse and a zebra are two different species but are the same kind. how you tell, is by the fact that they can bring forth and produce offspring.

you cannot take a horse and a cow and get offspring, they are not they same KIND.

Darwin stated on page 170 that all organisms are related. (well thats not word for word, but thats basicall what he said)

I am not related to a plant. birds are not related to bananas.
any 5 year old kid can figure out that there is a difference between animals and plants.

your example of the canines doesnt prove evolution at all either. I dont know what you mean by speciation. but if you mean micro evolution then yes it happens. I object to that term because it is not a part of the other five terms that I mentioned earlier. it is proven and it is scientific. it happened. no question. but are these changes or variations limited? yes they are. until observed and proven otherwise it does not happen and you cant go around telling people that it did happen if you have no record of it.

and the dogs. you still have a dog. and you can still breed them and get baby dogs. it shows that they are they same KIND of animal.

and the finches are the same KIND of bird. you can take two of the different species and breed them and you will still get a bird.

No. Macro evolution is what I have stated. Many micro evolutionary steps accumulating over time, eventually forming a new species. That is what macro evolution basically is. Speciation. I suggest you look it up in Wikipedia.

I don't know where you got the idea that one animal can simply change it's genus to another. Please tell me where you got that information, because I haven't seen it anywhere.

Edit: Cropped out portions of the quote not addressed.

[edit on 4/7/05 by Xar Ke Zeth]

No. Macro evolution is what I have stated. Many micro evolutionary steps accumulating over time, eventually forming a new species

no sir that is micro evolution. there are different species that can still produce offspring. thats because they are the same KIND. even the bible says that this happens.

Macro evolution is changing from one kind to another. if you think that macro evolution can happen, (changing from one KIND to another KIND)
you can believe that all you want. because thats not my problem you belive that a monkey can evolve into a human somehow. or a cat can turn into a dog over time.

and I never said that I certain animal can change its genus to that of a different animal. all I said is that there are are existing genes that sometimes to not appear in the characteristics of the organism.
what you call it when they appear in the same kind of animal but in a different species, I dont know what you call it. but its called micro evolution.

if you get a variety of dogs, thats proof of micro evolution. its just a variety.
macro evolution would be somehow changing from the variety of dogs and somehow getting something else like a pony. or a hog...

fact: micro evolution does happen.
fact: macro evolution has never been witnessed. there is no proof. no evidence whatsoever.

and how do you know that darwin is right? he thinks that animals and plants are related. (well he thought, he isnt alive anymore)

like I said before, there is no proof for evolution. the only evolution that there is proof for is micro evolution. all of the other ones are purely religious.

Originally posted by expert999

No. Macro evolution is what I have stated. Many micro evolutionary steps accumulating over time, eventually forming a new species

no sir that is micro evolution. there are different species that can still produce offspring. thats because they are the same KIND. even the bible says that this happens.

Macro evolution is changing from one kind to another. if you think that macro evolution can happen, (changing from one KIND to another KIND)
you can believe that all you want. because thats not my problem you belive that a monkey can evolve into a human somehow. or a cat can turn into a dog over time.

and I never said that I certain animal can change its genus to that of a different animal. all I said is that there are are existing genes that sometimes to not appear in the characteristics of the organism.
what you call it when they appear in the same kind of animal but in a different species, I dont know what you call it. but its called micro evolution.

if you get a variety of dogs, thats proof of micro evolution. its just a variety.
macro evolution would be somehow changing from the variety of dogs and somehow getting something else like a pony. or a hog...
(Cropped portions of the quote)

No, but you implied it. A cat of the Feline genus cannot simply evolve into a dog of the Canine genus. Macro evolution (though it does not have a universal definition) is generally referred to as an accumulation of micro evolutionary steps, eventually forming a new species. Not a new genus.

That would require a gain or loss of chromosomes. That's why it's called Speciation, and not Genusiation.

And please state where you got the information that Charles Darwin thought plants and animals are related.

[edit on 4/7/05 by Xar Ke Zeth]

on page 170 of his book. darwin thought that everything is related.

and marco evolution would have to be a gain in genetic information. in order to evolve into something else. in order to turn from a cat to a dog. there has to to be a gain in genetic information.

vestigial body parts is the opposite of evolution as well. evolution is a gain in genetic information.

you can cross breed cats until the cows come home, but you will never get a dog, or something other than a cat.

you may get different species. but you will never get a different KIND of animal.

Originally posted by expert999
on page 170 of his book. darwin thought that everything is related.

and marco evolution would have to be a gain in genetic information. in order to evolve into something else. in order to turn from a cat to a dog. there has to to be a gain in genetic information.

vestigial body parts is the opposite of evolution as well. evolution is a gain in genetic information.

you can cross breed cats until the cows come home, but you will never get a dog, or something other than a cat.

you may get different species. but you will never get a different KIND of animal.

That is correct. You can't breed two things of the same genus, and eventually get a new genus. However, you can get a new species over time and if the conditions are right, whatever they may be. Hence - speciation.

Originally posted by expert999
on page 170 of his book. darwin thought that everything is related.

Yep. To allieviate some of your semantic problems, it can also be argued that you are very closely related to a puddle of swamp water.

Originally posted by expert999
and marco evolution would have to be a gain in genetic information. in order to evolve into something else. in order to turn from a cat to a dog. there has to to be a gain in genetic information.

Why, do dogs have more chromosomes than cats? *Quick google check* cats have 38 pairs of chromosomes and dogs have 39 pairs. Of course, this is almost meaningless, but I would like to point out that you keep saying that for speciation to occur, an "increase in genetic information" needs to take place. This is false. By the way, what is your definition of "genetic information?"

Originally posted by expert999
vestigial body parts is the opposite of evolution as well. evolution is a gain in genetic information.

Again - to say this is to misunderstand evolution. If a species with a tail is naturally selected through time to be at a genetic disadvantage because they have a tail, the tail should, in time, be lost.

Originally posted by expert999
you can cross breed cats until the cows come home, but you will never get a dog, or something other than a cat.

you may get different species. but you will never get a different KIND of animal.

Your outdated Biblical definition of a "kind" of animal is not rolling sevens anymore. What happens when a horse is crossed with a mule or a hinny? When two mules are crossed?

Zip

[edit on 7/4/2005 by Zipdot]

hey Xar Ke Zeth

but even if you get a different species by way of hidden genes in that gene pool, you will still get the same KIND of animal. and yeah it can be a different species. but its still the same KIND of animal. and it can still produce offspring with a different species within the same kind.

and no ZIP... the term KIND is not wrong. you ask any scientist who knows his stuff and even he will tell you that you can crossbreed all you want. you will still get the same time.

Dr Barney Maddox, proved macro evolution to be wrong. he said that the differences between teh chimp and the human is 1.6%, but if you look at it more closely, thats a difference of millions of nucleotides, but a change of three is fatal.

hm... it cannot happen

Originally posted by expert999
hey Xar Ke Zeth

but even if you get a different species by way of hidden genes in that gene pool, you will still get the same KIND of animal. and yeah it can be a different species. but its still the same KIND of animal. and it can still produce offspring with a different species within the same kind.

hm... it cannot happen

Exactly. That's what macro-evolution is loosely defined as - the steps leading up to the result of Speciation. It's defined as that in my Wikipedia link on Speciation.

And chimpanzees and humans are of a different genus. That's maybe why there's the slight difference.

Originally posted by expert999
and yeah it can be a different species. but its still the same KIND of animal.

Okay, c'mon now, that doesn't even make sense.


The reason that your "kind" seems so impossible to change into another "kind" is that you are thinking about the modern version of said "kind"s.

When Darwin talked about a common ancestor he was talking about ancient ancestors. He wasn't saying that humans came from modern apes, but that all things share a common ancestor even if that was long ago.

and darwin in his own book questioned his own theories. I dont know what exact page number its on , but if you want, I will find it for you. it doesnt matter what darwin things. the only degree he ever got was a theology degree. that does not make him a scientist.

so you along with darwin believe that all organisms are related, on page 170 in his book he states that all things are related.

the only thing that has been proven so far is micro evolution. by breeding dogs, you can get big dogs little dogs, in other words, different species of dogs. but you will never get a non-dog.

macro evolution is a fantasy based on imagination.

I just realized something that you are trying to get me to believe, you want me to believe that my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpa was a bacteria? or something other than a human?

thats a bunch of bull and nothing scientific can prove that it ever happened.

No, we can't prove that. Yet, anyway. Scientific theories of how life started are few, and most lack hard evidence.

The emergence of different species, that is speciation. Macro evolution is simple a culmination of micro evolutionary steps resulting in speciation.

Micro evolution is simply small changes in a few generations. Although a lot of it, over a long period of time, mainly resulting in a new species of a certain genus, is macro evolution.


I have to give you credit, all this research made me remember things I've forgotten.

Micro evolution is simply small changes in a few generations. Although a lot of it, over a long period of time, mainly resulting in a new species of a certain genus, is macro evolution.

Sir, speciation over many generations creating a new genus would be macro evolution, but it has never been observed. Micro evolution has been observed and tested and demonstrated, which is why is it scientific.

Micro Evolution is a variation within the KIND....
Im not trying to put you down when I explain this. but I am getting the feeling that you dont know what the difference is between Micro and Macro.

first let me define a KIND.

two of the same KIND can bring forth and produce offspring.
example: a horse and a zebra, both are the same KIND of animal, but are not the same species. they are different species, but you can crossbreed horses with anything else that it can breed with, but you will always get the same KIND of animal. and its going to look like a horse. you will never get a cow or a bull from crossbreeding horses and zebras and whatever else can be interfertile...

micro evoution does not cause macro evolution.

Originally posted by expert999

Micro evolution is simply small changes in a few generations. Although a lot of it, over a long period of time, mainly resulting in a new species of a certain genus, is macro evolution.

Sir, speciation over many generations creating a new genus would be macro evolution, but it has never been observed. Micro evolution has been observed and tested and demonstrated, which is why is it scientific.

Micro Evolution is a variation within the KIND....
Im not trying to put you down when I explain this. but I am getting the feeling that you dont know what the difference is between Micro and Macro.

first let me define a KIND.

two of the same KIND can bring forth and produce offspring.
example: a horse and a zebra, both are the same KIND of animal, but are not the same species. they are different species, but you can crossbreed horses with anything else that it can breed with, but you will always get the same KIND of animal. and its going to look like a horse. you will never get a cow or a bull from crossbreeding horses and zebras and whatever else can be interfertile...

micro evoution does not cause macro evolution.

Oh, I get what it means. Kind = Genus. The zebra and horse are both members of the Equidae genus.

This is a quote from Wikipedia:

"Microevolution and macroevolution

Microevolution is a term used to refer to small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution.

Large-scale changes over longer periods of time are referred to as Macroevolution. This term refers to changes that result in substantially different organisms and is usually taken to refer to events that result in speciation, the evolution of a new species. An absolute distinction between macroevolution and microevolution isn't normally drawn by biologists for a number of reasons, including the fact that there is no universal definition of what constitutes a 'macroevolutionary' change."


Macro evolution are series of micro evolutions leading up to a new species, not new species leading up to a new genus. If that were true, I would have to agree. But macro evolution is simply the micro evolutionary steps leading up to a new species.

Wikipedia: Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.

Many small changes from micro evolution adding up over time can cause large scale changes.

Here's links for both Microevolution and Macroevolution.

With macro evolution, speciation does not have to be extreme.

Just look at the Canis genus - The wolf, Canis Lupus, and Coyote, Canis Latrans. Both are different species, but are of the same genus. They're not that particulary different superficially.

Even the genus Vulpes is classified as part of the Canidae family, with wolves and coyotes.


Let me just go through a thought process. Take a family of Canidae... it includes foxes and wolves, which are the genuses Vulpes and Canis. My understanding, if my Wikipedia sources are to be trusted, is that macro evolution is the culmination of micro evolutionary steps, leading up to creating a new species over time.

You saying "dogs into horses" or something though got me thinking.

Although that will never be correct, because they're two different families... But above from genus, is family. If you're talking about the creation of a new genus, it may not be so far fetched. Hell, Canis and Vulpes belong to the same family.

You may be right in saying that macro evolution could form a new genus. But you say there isn't evidence of it? Vulpes and Canis are two different genuses and they've evolved differently, but are still in the same family.

There you go. If the creation of a new genus was not possible, there wouldn't be various genuses in various families. But there is - So it must have happened along the line!

Wow, I thought about something deeply for once.

Argh - When I said Equidae genus, I meant family. Then again my argument can be saved, depending on what you mean by "kind", whether it be family or genus. Both are from the Equidae family, but they're also both of the genus Equue.

My mind's just trying to convey my findings into words. I've never been that well in communicating my mind.