If Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, I figured you knew what a family tree is. My bad. I once talked to a guy here, who claimed to be a chemistry teacher, but I had to explain to him why potassium nitrate doesn't really cause impotence.

So I assumed too much, again.

A family tree, or pedigree chart, is a chart representing family relationships in a conventional tree structure. The more detailed family trees used in medicine and social work are known as genograms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree

Family trees show a nested hierarchy that is found only in cases of common descent. (that was what bothered Linnaeus so much; he couldn't figure out why living things showed this pattern, but other natural things like minerals, do not.

As you know, Darwin explained why it happens.

You might want to go here for a bit and see if it helps you:
http://www.onezoom.org/life/@cellular_organisms=93302#x641,y1056,w0.7681

It's interactive, so it could give you an idea of what a family tree looks like.

 

[ok doser]

A family tree, or pedigree chart, is a chart representing family relationships in a conventional tree structure. The more detailed family trees used in medicine and social work are known as genograms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree

wait a tic - dint you just get done telling JR:

Using non-scientific sources to redefine scientific terms is what's dishonest.

so merriam-webster and oxford are "non-scientific sources", but wiki isn't? :freak:

Family trees show a nested hierarchy that is found only in cases of common descent.

ok, when I make a personal family tree, there's:

me at the top
my parents underneath that
my grandparents under that
my great grandparents under that

etc.

now, I accept that as my personal family tree because I have evidence that I descended from my parents, evidence that they descended from my grandparents, etc

and I spose I could accept that that represents a form of "nested hierarchy"


now bring in the "all living things on earth" part

be clear and concise

try to use your own words and avoid referring to Darwin or Linnaeus or Mendel

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian explains what a family tree is)

wait a tic - dint you just get done telling JR:

(Barbarian shows that scientific terms should be defined as scientists use them)

so merriam-webster and oxford are "non-scientific sources", but wiki isn't? :freak:

Oh, "family tree" isn't a scientific term. I thought you knew. The scientific term is "phylogeny." I was trying to simplify it as you asked. Sometimes, there's a limit to how simple one can make things.

now, I accept that as my personal family tree because I have evidence that I descended from my parents, evidence that they descended from my grandparents, etc

And if we could get DNA from all of those, the results would form a nice nested hierarchy of descent. And we could see the divergence of descendants over time.

now bring in the "all living things on earth" part

As you learned, the characteristics of living things sort out nicely into the same kind of nested hierarchy, which as you see, only occurs in cases of common descent. Even more convincing, genetic analysis of different taxa give us the same sort of family tree we could do for your family.

And the large number of transitional fossils linking major groups (but never where they aren't predicted to be) is, as your fellow YE creationist admits is "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Of course, he has an advantage; he has a degree in science,and is familiar with the evidence.

 

[ok doser]

"family tree" isn't a scientific term. The scientific term is "phylogeny."

you dint use "phylogeny" in your response to Stripe, you used "family tree"

I was trying to simplify it as you asked.

:freak: how did you manage to get "simplify it" out of "can you explain it more fully, clearly and concisely"?

"more fully" is the exact opposite of "simplify it" :doh:

....the characteristics of living things sort out nicely into the same kind of nested hierarchy...

which "characteristics"?


and in what way do they "sort out nicely"?




for example, some of my personal characteristics are characteristics that I share with my parents - all three of us have two legs, two arms, similar numbers of teeth, bones, organ systems...

many of our characteristics are different - weight, height, shoe size, etc


the former "sort out nicely", I spose, along with my sisters and my next door neighbors and just about everybody I've ever met

the latter? not so much

 

[The Barbarian]

you dint use "phylogeny" in your response to Stripe, you used "family tree"

Yeah. You're a genius, compared to Stipe. But you had trouble with the concept, too.

For example, if cats and canids and ursids and pinnipeds had a common ancestor, we'd expect to see data confirming that.

So we'd expect to see genetic data showing them to be more closely related to each other than to other mammals.

Phylogenetic relationships within mammalian order Carnivora indicated by sequences of two nuclear DNA genes.
Li Yu, Qingwei Li, Oliver A Ryder, Ya-Ping Zhang
Published 2004 in Molecular phylogenetics and evolution

We'd expect to see things like dental formulae being more similar within the group than with other mammals.

The ancestral feature, which indicates that all these mammals evolved from a common lineage, that expanded 50 million years ago (mya), are their highly modified fourth upper premolar and first lower molar teeth which are adapted to shear flesh. These four teeth, called carnassial teeth, have knife-like edges so that the teeth slice past one another and act like scissors when the jaw is closing. The restricted vertical movement of the jaw, another feature common to all carnivorans, helps the carnassial teeth to function.
http://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=493.166.172

We'd expect to see transitionals between groups in this order:

New carnivoraforms from the early Eocene of Europe and their bearing on the evolution of the Carnivoraformes
Abstract

Two new mammalian carnivoraform species, Uintacyon hookeri sp. nov. and Quercygale smithi sp. nov., are described from the early Eocene of Europe. U. hookeri sp. nov. is recorded in Mutigny (MP8 + 9, PE IV), Avenay (MP8 + 9, PE V), Brasles, Condé‐en‐Brie (MP8 + 9) and Cuis (MP 10), while Q. smithi sp. nov. comes from Mutigny and Mancy (MP10). Because the two species are not recorded in earliest Eocene localities such as Dormaal and Le Quesnoy (MP7, PE I), it is proposed that they dispersed after the main phase of the Mammal Dispersal Event. U. hookeri sp. nov. supports the existence of terrestrial connections with North America, while Q. smithi sp. nov. implies possible faunal exchange with Asia. This evidence for the evolution of the Carnivoraformes supports: (1) a rapid decrease in their diversity after the Mammal Dispersal Event; and (2) the existence of a mammal turnover event in Europe during the early Eocene. The discovery of a new species of Quercygale, which is generally considered as the closest carnivoraform to the crown‐group Carnivora, shows that the genus had already lost the M3 by the early Eocene and supports an important, but very poorly known, radiation of the carnivoraforms at least during the earliest early Eocene.

The "common design" argument falls apart because analogous features (such as the "carnassials" of some marsupials, which have a different dental formula) always fail to have genetic similarity, showing that they aren't closely related.

which "characteristics"?

Apomorphic characters of two separate groups. Hence, a vertebrate with internal gills, lateral line system, and finned tail, but with legs having the same bones as those of tetrapods, would be an example. Not surprisigly, the remaining members of that order are more closely related genetically to land animals than they are to other fish.

and in what way do they "sort out nicely"?

"Nice" in the proper sense. "Precisely." The fit the same phylogenies obtained by other data, such as genetic or anatomical information.

for example, some of my personal characteristics are characteristics that I share with my parents - all three of us have two legs, two arms, similar numbers of teeth, bones, organ systems...

You mentioned characteristics that are apomorphic for various levels of taxa. Mostly vertebrates.

comparing height and weight not so much.

 

[ok doser]

..you had trouble with the concept...

on the contrary, I have no trouble with the concept, as it is commonly used

where the trouble arose was in trying to get you to explain what you meant

 

[The Barbarian]

on the contrary, I have no trouble with the concept, as it is commonly used

Maybe so. You seem to be making a good faith effort to understand.

where the trouble arose was in trying to get you to explain what you meant

Hopefully, this helped. Did you go to the site I linked? Play with the interactives a little.

 

[Stripe]

The scientific definition.

Nope.

Science is falsifiable. Evolution — as you want it — is not.

You might like it, or you might not, but them's the facts. :idunno:

Darwin had no idea about genes or mutations.

Who?

The major creationist organizations admit that random mutation and natural selection are observable facts.

Go argue with them.

If you want to defend your religion, you are required to defend it against what we say. Neither random mutations, nor natural selection can do anything to change one kind into another.

We know why you'd rather argue about who said what.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Which is why scientists now accept the fact of evolution.

Everybody accepts that things change. Only evolutionists believe change can 'kiss' a frog transforming it into a handsome prince.

...the evolution of new species

See the thread... Rapid Adaptation. The Biblical model is intelligently designed creatures allowing them to rapidly adapt to changing environments. 'Speciation' / variation always is a resultof pre-existing genetic information and mechanisms. And... this variation almost always is 'downhill'... the opposite direction of change that evolutionists salivate for.

...Of course that puts humans and apes in the same "kind."

God's Word tell us humans were created in God's image, distinct from all other animals.

Linnaeus noticed that living things formed a family tree, just like any other sort of common descent.

Linnaeus formed a classification system. He believed the evidence supported the Bible.... 'God created diverse forms in the beginning.'

Then Darwin explained why that family tree existed.

Science has proved Darwin was wrong on almost every topic. He was wrong about God, geology and his silly tree was toppled by science long ago.

Then Mendel showed how it happened, and his findings predicted a way to test the idea.

Too bad Darwin didn't know just a little bit what Mendel knew. Darwin then might have realized how wrong he was. Mendels work and modern genetics help confirm the Genesis creation account.

Much later, as YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, one transitional after another was found

You have a short memory. You were embarassed just a few months back when you misrepresented K.Wise on horse transitionals. You are back on that horse again?

 

[Stripe]

Blablaman lives his life from one embarrassment to the next.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Everybody accepts that things change. Only evolutionists believe change can 'kiss' a frog transforming it into a handsome prince.

This is why you have the reputation you do here. Lying about the issue won't help you at all. It merely convinces people that you have no interest in honest discourse.

God's Word tell us humans were created in God's image,

As Christians know, God is a spirit. As Jesus says, a spirit has no body. The "image" is in our spirits and minds, not in our bodies.

Linnaeus formed a classification system. He believed the evidence supported the Bible.... 'God created diverse forms in the beginning.'

Yes. He was puzzled why only living things showed a family tree, when other things like minerals did not. Later, Darwin, Mendel, and others showed why that is.

Science has proved Darwin was wrong on almost every topic.

You know better than that. So do most of the rest of us here. Why bother even saying it. Among Darwin's predictions that were verified:

1. The Earth is much older than a few million years old.
2. Humans would be found to have originated in Africa
3. Species will necessarily have many vague and uncertain cases.
4. All living things on Earth have a common ancestor
5. There would be many transitionals between major groups of living things.

There are a lot more. If you doubt any of these, we can show you again.

He was wrong about God,

He said God created the first living things. He's right; you're wrong.

geology

His position in geology is assured by his discovery of the way Pacific atolls form. You're just making things up as you go along, aren't you?

and his silly tree was toppled by science long ago.

It was Linnaeus' tree, and as you know, genetics and transitional forms have confirmed the tree.

Too bad Darwin didn't know just a little bit what Mendel knew.

Quite true. Mendel's discovery of genes cleared up a major problem for his theory, that being how a new trait could spread in a population without being swamped by existing traits. Would you like to learn why?

Darwin then might have realized how wrong he was. Mendels work and modern genetics help confirm the Genesis creation account.

Nope. In fact, geneticists overwhelmingly recognize the fact of evolution. You were lied to about that.

You have a short memory. You were embarassed just a few months back when you misrepresented K.Wise on horse transitionals.

Let's see who has the short memory...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

...The horse series is often given as an excellent example of evolution evidenced in the fossil record. In general, the mammal stratomorphic intermediate species series of the Cenozoic (for example, camels, elephants, pigs . . .) — of which the horse series is an example — are together quite impressive.

Characteristically, within the groups there is high correspondence between phylogenetic and stratigraphic order, and between the groups there are similar morphological changes (for example, increased body size and increased hypsodonty). Given that all the fossils are found in the
Cenozoic System, it is likely that whatever is happening here is post-Flood.
Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You are back on that horse again?

And once again, you've embarrassed yourself. Did you think I wouldn't show you this, again?

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope.

Science is falsifiable. Evolution — as you want it — is not.

It's easily falsified. All you have to do is show that the allele frequencies of living populations don't change over time.

Even the consequences of evolution can be tested and falsified. For example, Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Much later, numerous transitionals were found.

Even common descent could be falsified. Haldane mentioned a rabbit fossil indisturbed Cambrian deposits. If closely related taxa did not show genetic relatedness, that would falsify the greatest consequence of evolutionary theory.

A transitional form between birds and mammals would do that. And no, a platypus has no avian characteristics. It has reptilian characteristics.

A transitional between insects and vertebrates would do it. But there are none. There are transitionals only where evolutionary theory predicts them to be.

Once again, you've been blindsided by the facts. If you want to defend your new religion of YE creationism, you are required to defend it against the facts.

Neither random mutations, nor natural selection can do anything to change one kind into another.

Given your reputation here, you're going to need more than your word on it. As you learned, there are no barriers to new taxa evolving. Most creationist organizations now admit the evolution of new species and higher taxa.

Would you like to learn why they do that?

 

[Right Divider]

It's easily falsified. All you have to do is show that the allele frequencies of living populations don't change over time.

:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

It's easily falsified. All you have to do is show that the allele frequencies of living populations don't change over time.

See?

What you say makes no sense. Nobody is going to argue that things don't change. Nobody is going to attempt to falsify it. What you've sold out to is not a scientific theory. It's an edifice designed to protect your precious religion from scrutiny.

There are no barriers to new taxa evolving.

Of course there are. However, since you define evolution as "change," there is no scientific way to analyze your assertion.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

God's Word tell us humans were created in God's image

...The "image" is in our spirits and minds, not in our bodies.

Yes...humans were created in God's image. Gen. 1

Linnaeus was puzzled why only living things showed a family tree...

Linnaeus was not puzzled diversity of life claiming God created diverse forms in the beginning.

Science has proved Darwin was wrong on almost every topic. He was wrong about God, geology and his silly tree was toppled by science long ago.

You know better than that....

1.

1.Darwin was wrong about God

Darwin turned his back on God, rejecting Him (a few months into the voyage of the Beatle) and blaming God for evil.

Darwin said "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God...it revolts the understanding to suppose that his benevelonce is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" . (Autobiography of Charles Darwin 'Religious Belief')

Darwin was influenced by evolutionary teaching of his grandfather, church and school to accept that there was death, pain, suffering and evil before the fall. Or, rather it is a rejection of the Bibles account of the fall.
2. Darwin was wrong about Science
Darwin was mostly a philosopher, not a scientist. Darwin was not an experimental scientist. (some experiments with worms and ants because he wanted to explain human behavior through naturalism). Darwins only degree was in theology and he was committed to philosophical naturalism...not the scientific method. He started with a pre-determined position. Darwins conclusions were usually based on extrapolations of huge amounts of time.
3. Darwin was wrong aboutGeology
Darwin wrote that the Santa Cruz river valley was formed by small amounts of water over vast amounts of time. He used this valley to support his belief in deep deep time. (He sort of took that belief and said humans evolved one mutation at a time, over almost endless time). But the Santa Cruz river valley leads down from the Andes Mountains, glaciers and glacial lakes and the valley was almost certainly a result of catastrophic flooding of a galacial lake at the end of the ice age.
4. Darwin was wrong about the fossils
Actually.... Darwin was at least partially correct about the fossil record because he said it essentially falsified the ToE

Darwin said...
Re Cambrian explosion "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrtian system I can give no satisfactory answer..." Darwin understood the sudden emergence of diversity of life did not fit his model.

Re Stasis, Darwin said that the most eminent paleontologists and geologists (Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande Lyell, Sedgewick and more) argue for the immutability of species.
That is not to say that animals don't change...but they remain the same kind. (See Marks thread on this in religion channel) Darwin admitted animals remain same kind by saying "Why then is not every geological stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Darwin was wrong when he suggested that more time and more fossils would support his theory. Billions of fossils have now been collected to give us a fairly accurate picture. The transitionals Darwin hoped for are missing.

Stephen Jay Gould says "The extreme raity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret pf paleontology...."

Or from a couple other famous evolutionts...
Eldredge and Tattersall "...120 years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions..."
5. Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.

One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.
6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin thought life was simple..(.it 'ain't'. A single cell can be compared to a huge city with manufacturing plants, busy highways, side streets., workers etc. Its information system is like the internet. single cell has an energy system like a citys energy grid. And... This 'city' has a design that allows rapid duplication. ).... Darwin said "But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts (These are all over the world) light, heat, electricity ETC...that a protein (Ha, Darwin had no idea how complex a protein is) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"

Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"

Darwin was wrong because he didn't know anything about genetics or modern biology. (No one did 150+ year ago)
7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection

Darwin made the mistake of unbounded extrapolation. He said "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I see no limit to the amount of change...by natures power of selection". (Breeders understand there are limits to selection) Funny and sad, but Darwin believed given enough time nature could change a bear into a whale.

Lynn Margulis, evolutionary biologist and one time wife of Carl Sagan explained that natural selection can elimininate...it can not creat.

Anyways... Darwin was wrong about what selection can do. It helps to preserve life forms but can't create.

Does it matter that Darwin, one of the most famous people in history was wrong?

Well...It mattered to Darwin. He seems to have literally sold his soul to obtain fame, and went to a Christless eternity.

It mattered to Darwins family (sons) who also rejected Christ and ended up leading a eugenics movement.

It matters that Darwin was wrong to the hundreds of millions of souls who rejected the gospel over a false belief system.

Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ. Encourage your family and those you know to move away from the darkness that results from Darwinism, and accept the true light of the world.... Jesus.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian predicts Stipe will again attempt to tell other people what they think)

See?

Everyone sees, Stipe. It's why you have the reputation you do here.

What you say makes no sense. Nobody is going to argue that things don't change.

That's what "evolution" means, Stipe. It means "change." Biological evolution means "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Nobody is going to attempt to falsify it.

Of course not. So you built a straw man and whack away at that. Everyone sees that.

What you've sold out to is not a scientific theory.

No one's buying that story, either. A scientific theory is an idea or group of ideas, supported by evidence. There are even YE creationists who admit that there is strong evidence supporting the theory.

It's just a fact that it happens. That it offends your new religion doesn't matter.

Of course there are. However, since you define evolution as "change,"

Perhaps English isn't your first language:

Evolution:

Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.
Oxford Dictionary

Biological evolution means "change in allele frequency in a population over time." You failed here, because you tried equivocation as a tactic.

there is no scientific way to analyze your assertion.

You think so, partially because you have difficulty distinguishing between the phenomenon of evolution, which can be directly observed, and the theory of evolution, which explains it.

Very easy to demonstrate evolution. Pick a population and see if the allele frequency changes over time. So the phenomenon of evolution is easy to show. Now, evolutionary theory explains this by natural selection working on random mutations.

This is also testable. The evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria was observed to have happened over a period of months by documented random mutations and naturals selection.

So that's been directly observed to happen.

Then there's common descent of all living things on Earth. And that too is testable. Some predictions of that include the assertion that genetic relatedness will follow the family tree of living things first observed before evolution was discovered. And that prediction has been verified.

In the 1800s, no transitional fossils had been found, but Darwin predicted that such transitions must have existed. He could only say that the fossil record seemed to be very spotty at best.

Later on, a huge number of predicted transitionals have been found. Even more convincing, there are no transitionals were the theory says that they shouldn't be.

Darwin predicted that a useful trait, appearing in one organism, could spread through an entire population as time went on. His critics asked how such a trait could survive,if inheritance was in mixing blood. It would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

Later, when genes were discovered, and inheritance turned out to be more like sorting beads than like mixing paint, Darwin's prediction was confirmed.

So you see, even common descent can be tested and verified (and has been verified) in various ways.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...
1.Darwin was wrong about God

Darwin turned his back on God, rejecting Him (a few months into the voyage of the Beatle) and blaming God for evil.

Darwin said "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God...it revolts the understanding to suppose that his benevelonce is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" . (Autobiography of Charles Darwin 'Religious Belief')

Darwin was influenced by evolutionary teaching of his grandfather, church and school to accept that there was death, pain, suffering and evil before the fall. Or, rather it is a rejection of the Bibles account of the fall.
...

[h=1]Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)[/h] ⁷ I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

King James Version (KJV)

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that we are like the image of God in our minds and spirits)

Yes.

Linnaeus was not puzzled

No, that's wrong. When he discovered the family tree of living things, he assumed God created things in a preferred order. So he was very puzzled why things like minerals wouldn't fit into a family tree. Today, of course, we know why.


1.Darwin was wrong about God

Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. Guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

Darwin turned his back on God, rejecting Him (a few months into the voyage of the Beatle)

Beagle. Beatles came along later. Guess how I know you never read The Voyage of the Beagle. And you're wrong again. From The Origin of Species, 1872 edition, long after Darwin sailed on the Beagle:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Final sentence of the book, attributing life to God.

Darwin said "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God...it revolts the understanding to suppose that his benevelonce is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" . (Autobiography of Charles Darwin 'Religious Belief')

Darwin became an agnostic long after he wrote The Origin of Species after the death of a beloved daughter. But it had no bearing at all on this theory of evolution, since that happened long after he formulated the theory.

2. Darwin was wrong about Science
Darwin was mostly a philosopher, not a scientist.

Darwin, using data collected in the field, solved the problem of Pacific atolls. Using data collected on his voyage, he was able to correctly classify barnacles as arthropods. Even if he hadn't discovered natural selection, his reputation as a fine scientist would be established by those two great discoveries.

Ignorance is doing you no good at all.

Darwin was not an experimental scientist.

Again, being completely unfamiliar with Darwin's work has damaged your case. In his book, Darwin cited dozens of experiments he had done with living things, and cites the findings of many other biologists. Would you like me to show you?

Darwins only degree was in theology

He was, while still a young man, elected to the highest scientific societies in England because of his outstanding work in science. At that time, most of the great biologists had theology degrees. Again, what you don't know, has hurt you.

He started with a pre-determined position.

He did. He originally thought species were immutable. Only after long experimentation and study did he conclude that new species evolve from old.

Darwins conclusions were usually based on extrapolations of huge amounts of time.

Wrong there, too. Few of his experiments required long periods of time.

3. Darwin was wrong aboutGeology

That's really wrong:
The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Being the first part of the geology of the voyage of the Beagle, under the command of Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. during the years 1832 to 1836, was published in 1842 as Charles Darwin's first monograph, and set out his theory of the formation of coral reefs and atolls. He conceived of the idea during the voyage of the Beagle while still in South America, before he had seen a coral island, and wrote it out as HMS Beagle crossed the Pacific Ocean, completing his draft by November 1835. At the time there was great scientific interest in the way that coral reefs formed, and Captain Robert FitzRoy's orders from the Admiralty included the investigation of an atoll as an important scientific aim of the voyage. FitzRoy chose to survey the Keeling Islands in the Indian Ocean. The results supported Darwin's theory that the various types of coral reefs and atolls could be explained by uplift and subsidence of vast areas of the Earth's crust under the oceans.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Chancellor_CoralReefs.html

4. Darwin was wrong about the fossils

He acknowledge that the scarcity of fossils was a problem for his theory. As you know, even honest creationists now admit that the huge number of transitional fossils found since that time, are strong evidence for evolution.

Actually.... Darwin was at least partially correct about the fossil record because he said it essentially falsified the ToE

That's not an honest representation of what he wrote:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin said...
Re Cambrian explosion "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrtian system I can give no satisfactory answer..." Darwin understood the sudden emergence of diversity of life did not fit his model.

Today, we have a large and varied precambrian fossil record, of which Darwin was unaware. And it completely destroys the "sudden appearance" story peddled by some creationists. Would you like to learn about it?

Re Stasis, Darwin said that the most eminent paleontologists and geologists (Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande Lyell, Sedgewick and more) argue for the immutability of species.

Even Darwin thought so at first, until the evidence was too great for him to deny. Today even the ICR admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families. If they retreat just a little farther,we won't have anything to contend over.

That is not to say that animals don't change...but they remain the same kind.

As you know, genetic data shows that all living thing on Earth are the same kind.

Darwin admitted animals remain same kind by saying "Why then is not every geological stratum full of such intermediate links?

That's a dishonest misrepresentation. Darwin was aware that common descent is a fact. He was discussing why so little evidence of it had been found up to that time. As you know, honest creationists admit that there are abundant transitional fossils which are strong evidence for evolution.

Darwin was wrong when he suggested that more time and more fossils would support his theory. Billions of fossils have now been collected to give us a fairly accurate picture. The transitionals Darwin hoped for are missing.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise disagrees. He cites a large number of transitional series, each with several to dozens of transitionals, and says they are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." But he is, as you know, honest.

Stephen Jay Gould says "The extreme raity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret pf paleontology...."

Let's see what he actually said...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"

Yep. Today, creationists are still looking. Show us what you have.

The claim that natural selection can't produce anything new, fell apart when Barry Hall directly observed a new enzyme system evolve in a culture of bacteria by ransom mutation and natural selection. Reality beats anyone's rationalizations.

Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Odd then that so many prominent biologists who accepted evolution, have been Christians. It seems your worship of creationism has become more important to you than your faith in God.

 

[Stripe]

(Barbarian predicts Stipe will again attempt to tell other people what they think)Everyone sees, Stipe. It's why you have the reputation you do here.That's what "evolution" means, Stipe. It means "change." Biological evolution means "change in allele frequency in a population over time."Of course not. So you built a straw man and whack away at that. Everyone sees that.No one's buying that story, either. A scientific theory is an idea or group of ideas, supported by evidence. There are even YE creationists who admit that there is strong evidence supporting the theory.It's just a fact that it happens. That it offends your new religion doesn't matter. Perhaps English isn't your first language:Evolution:Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.Oxford DictionaryBiological evolution means "change in allele frequency in a population over time." You failed here, because you tried equivocation as a tactic.You think so, partially because you have difficulty distinguishing between the phenomenon of evolution, which can be directly observed, and the theory of evolution, which explains it.Very easy to demonstrate evolution. Pick a population and see if the allele frequency changes over time. So the phenomenon of evolution is easy to show. Now, evolutionary theory explains this by natural selection working on random mutations.This is also testable. The evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria was observed to have happened over a period of months by documented random mutations and naturals selection.So that's been directly observed to happen.Then there's common descent of all living things on Earth. And that too is testable. Some predictions of that include the assertion that genetic relatedness will follow the family tree of living things first observed before evolution was discovered. And that prediction has been verified.In the 1800s, no transitional fossils had been found, but Darwin predicted that such transitions must have existed. He could only say that the fossil record seemed to be very spotty at best.Later on, a huge number of predicted transitionals have been found. Even more convincing, there are no transitionals were the theory says that they shouldn't be.Darwin predicted that a useful trait, appearing in one organism, could spread through an entire population as time went on. His critics asked how such a trait could survive,if inheritance was in mixing blood. It would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.Later, when genes were discovered, and inheritance turned out to be more like sorting beads than like mixing paint, Darwin's prediction was confirmed.So you see, even common descent can be tested and verified (and has been verified) in various ways.

:blabla:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe responds:

Well, he didn't last long his time, did he?