If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Critical_Thinker]

Critical:

It would be very helpful if you would master the quote function. Would you like a lesson?

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Yes, it would be helpful if you explained how this works. All I do is click on "quote."

You yourself said that Lamarkism is not correct. Dr. Grasse advocated Lamarkism. Therefore, you yourself agree that Dr. Grasse was incorrect. Since we agree on this point, there is no need to argue it.

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Yes, we both agree that the view Lamarck advocated, that: "As an organism develops, it acquires many individual characters, due to its particular history of accidents, diseases, and muscular exercises.� (Evolution. Mark Ridley. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993 p.8), was false, as August Weismann proved back in the late 1880s.

“Lamarck suggested that a species could be transformed if these individually acquired modifications were inherited by the individual's offspring, and further modifications were added through time." (Evolution. Mark Ridley. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993 p.8). I was not aware that Lamarck believed that changes in an organism could only go so far.

Where we disagree is with Grasse's views is the claim that if an organism acquires an excessive amount of mutations, possibly over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, that eventually any additional changes would be detrimental. Grasse is not the only person who advocates this position.

Some believe that there are limits to the effectiveness of mutations. “Each time a mutation tampers with the cell’s machinery, it narrows the range of conditions under which the organism can function. This makes it harder and harder for the organism to adapt to it environment. This effect increases over time, eventually forcing the organism into a macroevolutionary dead end.� (Dan I. Anderson and Diarmaid Hughes, “Muller’s ratched decreases fitness of a DNA-based microbe,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93 (January 23, 1996): 906-907. In: Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. 2007. Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. p. 109)

There are still other researchers who believe that a noticeable change “requires a great many coordinated changes to transform one system into another without losing function in the ‘in-between’ steps. The more the individual parts of a system depend on each other, the harder it is to change any one part without destroying the function of the organism as a whole. Since hox genes affect so many genes and systems, it seems unlikely that they could be mutated without damaging the way some of the genes are switched ‘on’ or ‘off.’ (Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. 2007. Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. p. 109)
---

Finally, I do not understand what you are asking for. I suspect that like most people who do not accept ToE, you do not understand it. ToE predicts that we will never see new "life forms" as you describe them, arising from an existing population. ToE asserts that "saltation," (which is what you seem to be asking for) does not occur. Therefore, it has not been observed; it does not happen. If it did, ToE would be incorrect. Do you understand why, or do I need to explain it?

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Hi Autodidact. I would appreciate any explanations you could provide that would help clarify your position. I would also appreciate it if you could provide some sources that I may read. Thanks.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

Before you can have a theory, you must provide evidence for the foundation on which the theory rests. Abiogenesis is just a red herring. Where did macroevolution get the very first cell to work with?

[Autodidact]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

Before you can have a theory, you must provide evidence for the foundation on which the theory rests. Abiogenesis is just a red herring. Where did macroevolution get the very first cell to work with?

You are mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation on which ToE rests. In fact, abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE. It's not a complicated concept, so you should be able to grasp it. We know the answer to how species diversified; it's ToE. We don't yet know the answer to how the first one came into existence. Get it?

So let's accept your explanation for abiogenesis, whatever it may be, and move on to the subject at hand, ToE.

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

[Autodidact]

Critical:

It would be very helpful if you would master the quote function. Would you like a lesson?

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Yes, it would be helpful if you explained how this works. All I do is click on "quote."

You yourself said that Lamarkism is not correct. Dr. Grasse advocated Lamarkism. Therefore, you yourself agree that Dr. Grasse was incorrect. Since we agree on this point, there is no need to argue it.

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Yes, we both agree that the view Lamarck advocated, that: "As an organism develops, it acquires many individual characters, due to its particular history of accidents, diseases, and muscular exercises.� (Evolution. Mark Ridley. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993 p.8), was false, as August Weismann proved back in the late 1880s.

“Lamarck suggested that a species could be transformed if these individually acquired modifications were inherited by the individual's offspring, and further modifications were added through time." (Evolution. Mark Ridley. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1993 p.8). I was not aware that Lamarck believed that changes in an organism could only go so far.

Where we disagree is with Grasse's views is the claim that if an organism acquires an excessive amount of mutations, possibly over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, that eventually any additional changes would be detrimental. Grasse is not the only person who advocates this position.

Some believe that there are limits to the effectiveness of mutations. “Each time a mutation tampers with the cell’s machinery, it narrows the range of conditions under which the organism can function. This makes it harder and harder for the organism to adapt to it environment. This effect increases over time, eventually forcing the organism into a macroevolutionary dead end.� (Dan I. Anderson and Diarmaid Hughes, “Muller’s ratched decreases fitness of a DNA-based microbe,� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93 (January 23, 1996): 906-907. In: Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. 2007. Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. p. 109)

There are still other researchers who believe that a noticeable change “requires a great many coordinated changes to transform one system into another without losing function in the ‘in-between’ steps. The more the individual parts of a system depend on each other, the harder it is to change any one part without destroying the function of the organism as a whole. Since hox genes affect so many genes and systems, it seems unlikely that they could be mutated without damaging the way some of the genes are switched ‘on’ or ‘off.’ (Explore Evolution – The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. 2007. Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. p. 109)
---

Finally, I do not understand what you are asking for. I suspect that like most people who do not accept ToE, you do not understand it. ToE predicts that we will never see new "life forms" as you describe them, arising from an existing population. ToE asserts that "saltation," (which is what you seem to be asking for) does not occur. Therefore, it has not been observed; it does not happen. If it did, ToE would be incorrect. Do you understand why, or do I need to explain it?

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:
Hi Autodidact. I would appreciate any explanations you could provide that would help clarify your position. I would also appreciate it if you could provide some sources that I may read. Thanks.

I don't understand what you're asking for. My "position" is that science works, and the mainstream, consensus, foundational theory of modern Biology is correct. Sources include any introductory Biology textbook or course. Good sites to learn about it include http://evolution.berkeley.edu/, http://explore-evolution.unl.edu/, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/, http://www.talkorigins.org/. Within Biology, there is no controversy about this "position," because it is the position of modern Biology itself.

If you like, I can explain ToE to you, as well as the evidence that caused modern Biology to accept it and, in time, be based on it.

[nygreenguy]

v----------------------- 12/31/2011 post by Critical_Thinker ------------------------v
Hi nygreenguy,

You provided some good information. Thanks. The “Feather Evolution� YouTube video ( that you suggested mentions that the older theory (that as reptile scales grew longer and longer the scales eventually evolved into feathers) has been replaced with a new theory that feathers did not develop from scales but rather from the skin of reptiles. Thank you for clarifying that you do not believe that feathers evolved from scales. We both agree that most likely bird feathers did not develop from reptile scales.

The youTube “Feather Evolution� video mentions that since fossil discoveries in China with loose downy-like feathers, it has been hypothesized how tubes could have grown out of the skin of dinosaurs, and as it grew longer and longer, it began developing hollow tubes, then barbules, which developed into barbs, then eventually developing into full feathers.

This is very interesting as a possible explanation how the bird feather could have been developed. The video discussed which genes in chickens are utilized for bird-like feathers with barbs and barbules to develop, but it was not discussed how feathers with barbs and barbules could have actually evolved from loose downy-like feathers. I still have not read or heard a convincing hypothesis that describes how bird feathers with barbs and barbules could have developed.

Could a gene (or genes) have been mutated or possibly turned on or off for bird-like feathers with barbs and barbules to have developed from loose downy-like feathers?

The youTube “Feather Evolution� video mentioned that reptiles may have developed muscles and the ability to fly by grabbing prey by raising it up to their mouths and then eating the prey (“pull and grab�), thus, causing their muscles to strengthen, which eventually enabled these reptiles to fly. Wouldn’t this be considered Lamarckianism, that is, by the use of parts of the body that would or could lead to an improvement that is passed onto its offspring? We both agree that the use and disuse of parts does not lead to a change in an offspring. It is doubtful that the “pull and grab� movements of some dinosaurs could have prepared future creatures to develop the ability to fly, as pulling and grabbing is not exactly the same as flying.

The dinosaur fossil descriptions in the “The Origin and Early Evolution of Feathers: Insights From Recent Paleontological and Neontological Data� (http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwz ... 347399.pdf) report you suggested was very informative. The discussion on page 314 indicates that the Psittacocaursus specimen “has both scaly and thick filamentous integumentary structure.� It was also mentioned that Psittacocaursus specimen “probably [had] tubular monofilamentous integumentary appendages along the tail...� A “filamentous integumentary structure� most likely refers to: a very slender thread or fiber that is a natural outer covering of the body.
Regarding Sinosauropteryx (one of the oldest known feathered dinosaurs), the report stated: “Although filamentous feathers Sinosauropteryx are likely to be branched structures, with relatively short quills and long, filamentous barbs, it is difficult to isolate a single feather to confirm the branching structure… It is questionable that the somewhat scalloped distribution pattern of filaments along the tail is resulted in by a frill nature of these dark impressions, but it is interesting that such a pattern appears in several specimens.�

The description may be referring to fibrous material that is in the process of developing into feathers, but they do not appear to be very definitive or conclusive. If they later prove to be accurate, it will be very interesting. Unfortunately, fossils do not provide as much information as one would prefer. I do not like to form opinions and conclusions based on incomplete evidence.

I believe that it may be possible that some creatures had scale bodies or just skin bodies, that some may have had hairy bodies or downy-feathered bodies, while other creatures may have had actual feathers and that one did not evolve from the other.

Was the filamentous feathers, long, thin feathers, early feathers, or long hairs?

How could these filamentous fibers gradually have developed into feathers with barbs and barbules? It is difficult to determine exactly what the covering was by merely examining a fossil.

“The Origin and Early Evolution of Feathers…� mentions on page 323 that it is not known for sure whether follicles or barb-ridges appeared first or whether they appeared at the same time, which is vital in understanding the origin of birds. If this is uncertain, then I suppose that no conclusive explanation of how the feather developed can be made.

Do you know of any specimen that has a partly formed feather that would demonstrate conclusively how feathers with barbs and barbules could have evolved from these filamentous structures?

Do you know if dinosaurs with the downy-like feathers previously had scales that were eventually lost in subsequent generations or do you know if these dinosaurs might have just had plain skin before developing the loose downy-like feathers?
What could have caused barbules to develop in such a way so that they eventually became interconnected, with barbules within barbs?

How could these barbs and barbules have become interconnected like Venetian blinds, as precisely needed for flight?

Although not mentioned in any of the literature you suggested, wind could not have been the cause of how barbs and barbules could have developed, otherwise I believe this would be another example of Lamarckianism, where a change that occurs in a creature by the effects of movement could be passed on to its offspring. Could the cause have been mutations or perhaps genes that were either turned on or off?

The paper you just mentioned does go into the genetics of this and contains many references. While I generally have no problem providing sources, I do have a problem with ding research FOR people (unless I am getting paid). The paper you cited either addresses these questions directly, or has some good refrences.

For example:

In the molecular level, much advances have been made on the understanding of feather morphogenesis (Chuong et al., 2003; Widelitz et al., 2003; Sawyer et al., 2005). A number of genes are involved in developing epithelial appendages (Chuong et al., 2003)

there are 3 separate papers here addressing what you are asking about.

I read elsewhere that even though fossils do not normally preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a Sinosauropteryx fossil has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had a lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile, a reptile —not a bird. Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver; as seen in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). (Ham, K. General Editor. 2006. The New Answers Book. Inc., Green Forest (AR): Master Books. pp. 300-303) I know that some believe that crocodiles are the closest living reptiles to birds, however, if crocodiles have different lungs than birds, it is doubtful how birds could have evolved from reptiles. Would you comment on this?

Ken Ham is a known liar. AIG is filled with "researchers" with no credibility. This is why I keep telling you to stick to the PRIMARY literature. The finding of a "lung" is not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx_prima
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _lungs.php

I found some interesting information regarding fossils and feathers, however, I am not sure of its validity:
“The fossilized structures referred to as dinosaur feathers were shown by Theagarten (Solly) Lingham-Soliar, a paleontologist from Durban-Westville University in South Africa to be nothing more than decayed connective tissue. Professor Lingham-Soliar performed an experiment by burying a dolphin in river mud, semi-permeable to air for a year. The reason a dolphin was selected was that its flesh is easy to analyze. At the end of this period, the professor examined the dolphin's bunches of collagen—which constitutes connective tissue in the bodies of most living things— under a microscope. According to him, the decayed collagen in the dolphin's body bore "a striking resemblance to feathers."1 The German magazine Naturwissenschaften commented that: "The findings throw serious doubt on the virtually complete reliance on visual image by supporters of the feathered dinosaur thesis and emphasize the need for more rigorous methods of identification using modern feathers as a frame of reference."2 With this finding, it emerged that even a dolphin could leave behind traces of apparent feathers. This once again showed that there are no grounds for regarding extinct dinosaurs with "feathers" as proto-birds. 1. Stephen Strauss, "Buried dolphin corpse serves science," 11 November 2003;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... TPScience/
2. Ibid.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science ... rds_07.php

Would you care to comment on this?

Once again, stick with the primary literature. Harun Yahya is not a scientist and another person known for flat out lying.
This site talks about this a bit and has legitimate references.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Downy_Dinos

Archaeopteryx existed 150 mya, whereas Sinosauropteryx existed 124 mya. If this is true, then Archaeopteryx could not have evolved from Sinosauropteryx, as some sources suggest. Protarchaeoptery and caudipteryx both existed 124.6 mya, Velociraptor existed 75-71 mya, and Rahonaus existed 70 mya.

Sinornithosaurus millenii, another dinosaur, thought to have been related to Archaeopteryx, dates from about 124 to 125 million years ago (mya), but due to its more recent date, obviously could not have been the dinosaur from which Archaeopteryx evolved from.

These fossils appear in various bird evolution charts as having some type of relationship to Archaeopteryx, however, they all appear too late in the fossil record to be ancestors to Archaeopteryx (150 mya) or modern birds.

Epidexipteryx hui (154 mya) does not have the wing feathers that would indicate that it had feathers that were precursors to Archaeopteryx bird-like feathers.

Microraptor (120 mya) is thought by some to have lost their hind-wings that allowed them to revert to walking and perching, as their ancestors walked. If this is true, then Microraptor would have been a fast runner, which may have helped it to glide. Microraptor, however, could not have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx as some sources suggest because Archaeopteryx existed 150 mya, whereas Microraptor existed only 120 mya.

Anchiornis huxleyi (160 – 155 mya) has long hind-legs that would have caused it to be a good runner, however, it has feathers on its feet and toes that would have gotten in the way, not allowing it to run and glide. Possibly Anchiornis climbed up trees or rocks and then jumped off in order to glide. Having four wings would have been an advantage for gliding but not for powered, flapping flight. Its symmetric, rounded small feathers most likely would not be very effective for gliding. Since there are existing birds, such as the crested helmet pigeon (cock bird), that have wings (feathers) on their feet, perhaps Anchiornis may be related to these types of pigeons.

Even if Anchiornis were a good runner and glider, it would still not have been close to becoming a flyer. For a reptile to obtain the ability to fly would require overcoming a few obstacles, even if a creature had the ability to glide. Gliding involves holding wings steady to cause resistance to downwards movement through the air whereas true flying involves continual flapping of the wings. Gliding involves using wings as a moving parachute by directing air downwards and forcing the bird upwards by reaction. Flying requires flapping wings to mainly direct air backwards to force the bird forward by reaction, so the airflow over the airfoil-shaped wings generates lift. Another trait that needs to development is the musculature and skeletal frame, also required for powered flight. In addition to having the ability to flap wings in a certain way for flight, flapping flight requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight.

Anchiornis, being a reptile, most likely did not have a breathing system necessary for flight as birds have (lungs are not usually preserved in fossils). A highly movable hind-limb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the lungs. With these issues in mind, it is doubtful whether Anchiornis could have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx or a modern bird.
Main source: http://creation.com/anchiornis-huxleyi- ... hered-dino

Once again, you are using really terrible biased, unacademic, deceptive sources which are known for lying.

Im not even REALLY sure what you are arguing here. Are you suggesting there are no intermediates between archaeopteryx and true dinosaurs? have you read the info on wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

A journal I read that was listed from your Google search “bird wing evolution� was “An Early Cretaceous bird from Spain and its implications for the evolution of avian flight� discussed the Eoalulavis hoyasi fossil from Spain. This document mentions that Eoalulavis hoyasi existed 115 million year ago and provides evidence for the oldest known alula (bastard wings). It is too recent to have evolved into Archaeopteryx.

“The alula… acts as a slot on the medial leading edge of the wing, serves to delay stall and to allow the wing to continue to generate lift even at very high angles of attack. The alula lifts automatically when pressure above the wings drops, and in most birds is used in very slow flight, take off and landing.�

“The feathers on the Eoalulavis hoyasi wing contain a small bunch of feathers attached to the "finger". When the bird wishes to slow down or descend to earth, it decreases the angle of the wing to the horizon. This allows air to flow over the wing's top surface and to stop without falling.�

This indicates that 120 million years ago there were birds that were very similar to modern birds.

What do you suppose could have caused alula to appear on the ends of the wings of Eoalulavis hoyasi and modern birds? I do not believe alula appear on the wings of Archaeopteryx.

It actually appeared almost 131 million years ago in Protopteryx . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopteryx_fengningensis

What caused it? Evolution. It is just a modification of the hand. Did you read the FULL paper? It talked about archaeopteryx in there.

One of the journals listed from your Google search “bird wing evolution,�
“Developmental Basis of Limb Evolution,� (page 842) stated: “The most bird-like dinosaurs post date Archaeopteryx by tens of millions of years. Dinosaur ‘protofeathers’ are unconvincing while much [of] the most convincing fossil feathers are found in a lizard-like thecodont [“socket-toothed� reptile that possibility pre-dated dinosaurs], Longisquama [an extinct lizard-like reptile known only from one poorly preserved and incomplete fossil] and these predate Archaeopteryx, thus raising the possibility of thecodont ancestry.�

Do you see this comment as being a change in the usual theory of how bird feathers and birds evolved or is it simply suggesting an alternate beginning point?

I dont see what the issue is.

So far, my only discussion was now modern bird feathers could have evolved. I would also like to mention that the bone structure of a reptile’s forelimb also needed to change to a bird-like wing structure as well for a reptile to be able to fly. Even though the same number of digits (5) may appear in to reptiles and bird wings, they do not have the same structure or shape. As far as I know, no fossil evidence has been discovered that indicates how wing bones developed from reptile forelimbs to bird wings.

The source you just cited talks about this.

I realize that evolution works by very small, seemingly insignificant changes, however, I would expect that at least some creatures in the process of evolving would have been found. I do not believe in Punctutated Equilibrium.

Well, believe it or not, it happens.

Of all the reptile fossils recently unearthed in China, all the creatures appear to be perfectly formed. Even Archaeopteryx appears to be a perfectly formed creature. No fossils have yet been unearthed (as far as I know) that illustrates how Archaeopteryx developed from a true reptile without wings or how Archaeopteryx become more and more bird-like (loosing its teeth, claws, tailbone, and other reptilian traits).

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered ... lution.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 100950.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_fligh ... ird_flight



Ill get to the giraffe stuff later!

[Zetesis Apistia]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

Before you can have a theory, you must provide evidence for the foundation on which the theory rests. Abiogenesis is just a red herring. Where did macroevolution get the very first cell to work with?

You are mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation on which ToE rests. In fact, abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE. It's not a complicated concept, so you should be able to grasp it. We know the answer to how species diversified; it's ToE. We don't yet know the answer to how the first one came into existence. Get it?

So let's accept your explanation for abiogenesis, whatever it may be, and move on to the subject at hand, ToE.

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

[Goat]

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.[/quote]

Um.. it has been confirm in the lab. There are a number of experiments that can be done, and have been done in the lab that are repeatable that shows it happens.

It also has been observed to have happened (as in new species , i.e. macro evolution).. in the wild.

[Autodidact]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

Before you can have a theory, you must provide evidence for the foundation on which the theory rests. Abiogenesis is just a red herring. Where did macroevolution get the very first cell to work with?

You are mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation on which ToE rests. In fact, abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE. It's not a complicated concept, so you should be able to grasp it. We know the answer to how species diversified; it's ToE. We don't yet know the answer to how the first one came into existence. Get it?

So let's accept your explanation for abiogenesis, whatever it may be, and move on to the subject at hand, ToE.

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

I'm sure you would like to believe that confidence in science is the same as religious faith, but in fact it is the opposite. My confidence is based in evidence, not retained without or even despite the evidence.

Are you asserting that the evidence does not support ToE, but science has accepted it anyway? I suppose you know all about what that evidence is, then, and can explain why it's insufficient, and all the Biologists are too stupid to see it?

[Zetesis Apistia]

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

Um.. it has been confirm in the lab. There are a number of experiments that can be done, and have been done in the lab that are repeatable that shows it happens.

It also has been observed to have happened (as in new species , i.e. macro evolution).. in the wild.

I was talking about abiogenesis not ToE

[Zetesis Apistia]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

Before you can have a theory, you must provide evidence for the foundation on which the theory rests. Abiogenesis is just a red herring. Where did macroevolution get the very first cell to work with?

You are mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation on which ToE rests. In fact, abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE. It's not a complicated concept, so you should be able to grasp it. We know the answer to how species diversified; it's ToE. We don't yet know the answer to how the first one came into existence. Get it?

So let's accept your explanation for abiogenesis, whatever it may be, and move on to the subject at hand, ToE.

btw, some day in the future, scientists will have solved abiogenesis as well, and we will no longer have to deal with this red herring when discussing ToE.

I see you're a person of faith just like me Auto. How is it that you demand evidence for God before you will believe, but you are quite willing to believe in a theory that science has yet to confirm in the lab.

I'm sure you would like to believe that confidence in science is the same as religious faith, but in fact it is the opposite. My confidence is based in evidence, not retained without or even despite the evidence.

Are you asserting that the evidence does not support ToE, but science has accepted it anyway? I suppose you know all about what that evidence is, then, and can explain why it's insufficient, and all the Biologists are too stupid to see it?

You seem to think that creation scientists are just shooting in the dark. They are no different than evolution scientists. They look at facts and they interpret them. They just interpret them differently than you do.