Question for Evolutionist's

I think it's a valid question.
It's funny that no one has an answer, only insults.
Grow up children of science.
You are lead by blind faith.
Just as much as Christians.

reply to post by spyder550


But they are all still apart of the same KIND. Yes there will be variations within the species, but not ever does a dog become anything other than a mammal of the same type of animal, this is where evolution fails. Because you have no evidence to support that we can turn from a fish, to reptile to mammal etc.

This is one place I would have to agree with you. I've done a fair amount of reading on evolution, and something just doesn't add up completely for me. I won't throw it out, but I'm not convinced. There are too many ooparts that seem to point in a different direction.

It doesn't make me believe in God again, but it does give me reason to contemplate.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by repressed

 

I am asking if you can prove evolution is possible by showing me observable evidence of one Kind of living thing becoming a new genus (a new kind) of living thing. Like say a lizzard becoming a dog.

If you can't provide such evidence then you admit that evolution is purely based upon speculation and faith.

Real Scientific method's require observable, repeatable, or refutable evidence.

So far nobody has provided any. Transitional fossils are purely a speculative theory.

Primarily you don't understand biological classifications. I learned this as a kid of 10 fifty years ago. You may have not had that class. Perhaps a trip to wiki is in order. You will have to do your own searching.

lizards aren't related to dogs.

Actually if you really did understand this stuff your question could get a lot more complex, and thought provoking.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


So let me get this straight, you want to see proof of actual DNA molecules evolving? On their own or artificially?
I'm a little curious about the intentions of your thread though, I read your OP, but I guess my question is... Why are you even asking?

I'm not trolling either. please try to believe I'm being passive about this.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by josh2009s

 

Like i said if this is true:

The change takes place over a long amount of time in slight increments.

Then why do we not see plants with growing legs???

It takes long amount of time right? well the world's been around milions of years according to the evolutionist, so we would atleast see this process taking place over time, yet not one plant has acquired intelligence or limbs.

Why would a plant need intelligence, or limbs? They survive just fine, they don't have massive plant Army's fighting for their "beliefs," and killing one another. Your logic is childish. "Why don't plants grow legs?" Think about it.

Originally posted by MrGrimm
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

So let me get this straight, you want to see proof of actual DNA molecules evolving? On their own or artificially?
I'm a little curious about the intentions of your thread though, I read your OP, but I guess my question is... Why are you even asking?

I'm not trolling either.

please try to believe I'm being passive about this.

He could actually follow bacteria evolving -- that doesn't take a brazillion years, and it is well documented too. Start with drug resistant and work backwards.

The only proof he will believe is something out of the bible anyway.

But I'll throw another, maybe it's not like growing a new leg, but almost.

Some plants have evolved to adapt to different environments. And in mediums with no nutrients, they have evolved into a new thing, carnivorous plants, a new thing that doesnt necessarily need roots anymore.

Instead of feeding from the soil, it feeds from insects. And looking back at its genome, you can trace evolution back and see where it branched.

reply to post by spyder550


Really, but we came from dinosaurs right with the rest of the animals, so where did dogs come from?

Originally posted by GmoS719
I think it's a valid question.
It's funny that no one has an answer, only insults.
Grow up children of science.
You are lead by blind faith.
Just as much as Christians.

i havent heard any reply to my comment?
maybe thats because when the answers are in your face you choose to believe in what makes you happy not whats reality

Couple of more posts and he is at that magic 666 number.

reply to post by Chrysalis


But they are still plants. I'm not denying things can adapt to there environment through generational adaptation, but this is purely micro-evolution. There is really no proof of Macro-evolution where one species becomes another species a new (KIND).

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Chrysalis

 

Not ever do you see a plant growing legs and becoming an animal, so how can evilution be true?

I thought I'd make this nice and bold so people could see how utterly ridiculous and ignorant your "argument" is.

Click here for more information.

double

reply to post by spyder550


I think you will find "creationists" accept the "Micro Evolution" you describe, that part is irrefutable....So they (creationists) cleverly invent/claim a differential between Micro and Macro evolution.


I have seen this argument before and nothing changes, It is their core belief ......The "Book" is right no matter what evidence is put forward to the contrary.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Chrysalis

 

Not ever do you see a plant growing legs and becoming an animal, so how can evilution be true?

I thought I'd make this nice and bold so people could see how utterly ridiculous and ignorant your "argument" is.

Ahhh, the boldness of ignorance.

reply to post by UniverSoul


Stop derailing the thread or ill report your post.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Chrysalis

 

They are still plants. Not ever do you see a plant growing legs and becoming an animal, so how can evilution be true?

That would be changing Kingdoms, not Genera.

Nice try, but your bias is apparent. As, I might postulate, is your lack of research. Beware, there is some pretty heady information contained in this link. If you don't have access, try your own institution's library, or if you are really serious about information you could pay a yearly subscription to your local University Library and have access to many varied sources of peer-reviewed information.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.canterbury.ac.nz... search/results

That is just a very simple search. Try other terms too.

Take, for example Australopithecus-> Homo

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


if you watch this whole video it makes some good points near the end