River Jordan
Active Member
- Jan 30, 2014
- 1,856
- 50
- 48
Fred,
It's how you end up with....
Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had evolved from any other species. His contention that the only practical solution was, first, to classify plants and animals; second, point to similarities between them, and, then, declare that, therefore, one must have evolved from the other, or from a common ancestor.
...which honestly is one of the astoundingly ignorant things I've read in a long time.
Your copied article also stated that "kind" = "species" (except when it doesn't). Does that mean you believe Noah took two of every species aboard the ark? And if I provide an example of the evolution of new species, would that mean evolution can produce new "kinds"?
If you truly want to have a discussion, you need to actually respond to what people say to you, as in answer the questions they ask you, engage in follow-up discussion, etc. Just posting lengthy copied stuff from websites and ignoring all responses isn't a conversation. It's the equivalent of standing on a street corner and yelling through a bullhorn.
If that's not what you're doing, then you can start with....
Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?
Is it only "evolution" if the changes cross a specific taxonomic line? If so, what is that line?
What's the difference between a population evolving and one adapting?
What makes you more qualified than S.J. Gould in the field of paleontology? He says transitional fossils are "abundant", you claim they don't exist. Why should we believe you over a Harvard paleontologist?
There's your problem. You're getting your information about evolutionary biology from some creationist website, rather than....you know, actual scientists. That's like relying on an atheist website for all your information about the Bible and Christianity.This is from the "Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2"
It's how you end up with....
Darwin recognized that there was no evidence that any species had evolved from any other species. His contention that the only practical solution was, first, to classify plants and animals; second, point to similarities between them, and, then, declare that, therefore, one must have evolved from the other, or from a common ancestor.
...which honestly is one of the astoundingly ignorant things I've read in a long time.
Your copied article also stated that "kind" = "species" (except when it doesn't). Does that mean you believe Noah took two of every species aboard the ark? And if I provide an example of the evolution of new species, would that mean evolution can produce new "kinds"?
If you truly want to have a discussion, you need to actually respond to what people say to you, as in answer the questions they ask you, engage in follow-up discussion, etc. Just posting lengthy copied stuff from websites and ignoring all responses isn't a conversation. It's the equivalent of standing on a street corner and yelling through a bullhorn.
If that's not what you're doing, then you can start with....
Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?
Is it only "evolution" if the changes cross a specific taxonomic line? If so, what is that line?
What's the difference between a population evolving and one adapting?
What makes you more qualified than S.J. Gould in the field of paleontology? He says transitional fossils are "abundant", you claim they don't exist. Why should we believe you over a Harvard paleontologist?