Money. Bored. Evolution.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Evolution isn't a thing, it's a process


[/ QUOTE ]

But why this process? It isn't logically required, it's contingent, so how did it get here, evolve, come into being? If it's always existed, why is it there and not some other process? Or any process?

Just a hint on all this - if God is absolute, eternal Creator who created the laws of nature then the laws of nature don't apply to Him and so He doesn't need a creator Himself since He wasn't created.

Or stated differently, God doesn't need an explanation because He is the explanation for everything else. Difficult to make that case for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with parts and disagree with parts but it's unimportant because I screwed up and hijacked this thread that's about something else so I'll say no more.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure there is no empirical evidence for speciation through natural selection



I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok post it. The fruit fly thing said that after 1/2 flies fed sugar and 1/2 flies fed starch for generations they preferred to mate with their "own" kind, but it didn't say that it was impossible for a sugar to reproduce with a starch, so I don't think that qualifies as speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]
There were many, many experiments cited in the book I was lent more than just one fruit fly thing - it's true that the definitions of speciation were different for many of them and that some were stronger than others. There were also broader discussions of speciation in general.

If you're interested I'll send you the title and author - I found it quite heavy going and didnt have the background knowlegde to fully digest it but it came highly recommended.

[Trier]

The trouble with discussions such as this is having to wade through the often belligerent ignorance of the religious types. As usual this extends to even the most basic terminology.

First of all, the universe did not EVOLVE. The things that exist in the universe DEVELOPED through various physical processes, of which the most important is SYNCRETION. ‘Evolution’ refers always and only to ORGANIC processes, that is to say, processes where matter reaches a level of complexity both in its constitution and behaviour that we ascribe to these types of matter the quality called ‘life’.

The RTs also need to learn the difference between ‘assertion’ and ‘demonstration’. The evidence for evolution is in, it is enormous and it is demonstrated. The vast bulk of that evidence is of two types – palaeontological and biological (since Watson & Crick additional genetic evidence is increasing daily).

The palaeontological evidence is the fossil record, and it is complete. The ‘Tree of Life’ has had the vast bulk of its features described in such detail that when modern palaeontologists discover new species in the fossil record, it is the equivalent of adding leaves to a gigantic tree.

The biological evidence is likewise gigantic, starting from Darwin’s original observations of finches on the South American mainland and on the Galapagos Islands. The Galapagos finches had originated on the mainland, but had evolved in such a different direction that they were no longer able to mate with mainland finches. They had become new species. Biological observations and experiments since then are now up into the millions.

As I say, all this evidence is demonstrated and is available for anyone to inspect and reproduce. Mere assertion that all this evidence is wrong won’t be enough.

If you want the $5K, you will have to refute each and every piece of evidence one by one. I suggest you allow yourself some time.

[yurk]

[ QUOTE ]


The palaeontological evidence is the fossil record, and it is complete. The ‘Tree of Life’ has had the vast bulk of its features described in such detail that when modern palaeontologists discover new species in the fossil record, it is the equivalent of adding leaves to a gigantic tree.






[/ QUOTE ]

What about the Cambrian explosion and it's impact on Darwinian theory in the fossil record?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
it's true that the definitions of speciation were different for many of them and that some were stronger than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it seems to me that if the fruit fly study found that after n generations that group A and group B could no longer interbreed successfully then I think that would be total proof of speciation and really a proof of evolution because it would show two different species coming out of a "mother" species.

I am pretty confident that nothing of the sort has ever been observed but if I am wrong I would really like to see it. If I am wrong I would expect it to be because of the new genetic engineering tech, btw.

[yurk]

Just to be clear with the OP intent. Are we debating all forms of evolution or just macro-evolution, and allowing micro-evolution?

[KUJustin]

Am I still up for this or was I displaced by more interesting candidates?

For the record I'm still broke and a "fundamentalist" Christian.