Date:   1/12/2007 9:50:34 PM ( 17 y ago)
Hits:   2,675
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=809705

2 of 3 (66%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

And we could argue that finding a whale fossil or sea shells in the Rockies is *evidence* of a great flood that covered the Earth, just as stated in the Bible and several other ancient histories/mythologies, but that doesn't make it true.

You're taking "evidence" and seeing how it applies to what you want it to.

You want to prove Evolution? Make a prediction based on Evolution. Then test that prediction and tell me what happened.

So far, you have lots of wishful thinking and hope and "see how it could be"... I don't accept that crap from Christians, I'm not about to accept it from you.

You need to realize and understand that taxonomy began centuries ago. To continue to use outdated taxonomic nonsense as the basis for understanding Evolution is simply stupid. Back then, every variation under the sun was an excuse to declare a new species. And that insanity continues to this day, all because, when we get an example of "speciation", that (using circular logic) "proves" Evolution.

While sexual compatibility can run back to the family level (I don't know of any that run up to orders), we have *no* evidence of one family becoming another. And here's where the evidence for Evolution breaks down, utterly, completely. Where, for example, is the ancestor that the felidae family derived from, which itself is not felidae?

What? We haven't found one? But you still believe it must exist? And, what, that it was some mammal?

(I'm pulling felidae out of my ass. If such a creature exists, please enlighten me. I suppose we could use equidae instead, since horse fossils are all the rage, but you still couldn't show me what Hyracotherium came from that wasn't itself "a horse" to save your life, if we're going to accept that these fossils are in fact the precursors to modern horses.)

I will not -- cannot -- argue "speciation" at the level that you continue to use (microevolution), because that is obvious. The environmental influences upon, and sexual choices made by, members of the species influence the appearance and behavior of the species, and I'll even throw in -- free -- that characteristics which promote survival tend to eliminate the existence of other (related, competing) characteristics over time, precisely to the extent that the characteristics actually enhance survival. No contest here. But it is only because of human declaration that it is so that one "species" becomes another related "species" in the same genus, or possibly the same family.

What you have never once shown, however, is how families develop -- macroevolution. You keep assuming it's possible because of changes from one species to another, but you have never shown it, and there are no examples of it in the fossil record. Proving that we can change a butterfly's wing shape and colors does not create grasshoppers, no matter how many times you try it.

So, do you have any proof of how families "are evolved", or are you just gonna keep harping on points I've already conceded to you?
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=809705