Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

.

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

A chemical reaction looks like this 2H₂ + O₂ -> 2H₂O

This, on the other hand, is not a chemical reaction...

[youtube][/youtube]

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

That is exactly what they need to do, you need to shake the wooden blocks so that they spell 'reproduce'. And all you have to rely on is chance.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

It is the only example, and it is a failed example. It does not support abiogenesis, in fact it is evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. If it were possible we would expect to have seen it by now.

Yes. And man will never fly.

[Star]

.

1, 3, 5, and 6 are incorrect. Your score is only 33.33%, an F.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding evolution.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding of formal logic.

Thank you for your opinion. Would it be too much to ask for you to share some of your reasoning for such a low grade?

You may start with the first premise. What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

We already explained the fox vs. whale problem in sufficient detail.

Like I said, one must possess a basic understanding of evolution for this to make sense. We tried helping you, to no avail. Also, to realize how this logic is flawed, one must know basic formal logic. This is also something we've tried helping you with.

A fox can't do everything "land animals" can do just because it's a "land animal". Ants are land animals. Humans are land animals.

A fox is better described as a land mammal, of the order Carnivora, family Canidae (like dogs). Whales are of the order Cetacea. Their evolutionary paths have long since split and will never be the same again. If convergent evolution did produce similar features in descendants in the distant future, they'd still be classified differently.

I'm willing to try explaining this further, so long as you don't be silly and fire back strawmen and childish jokes.

[Joab]

.

I think the point you are missing is that the logic you employed in your original statement that went something like:
A pig is a mammal.
Man is a mammal.
Therefore man is a pig.

Is simply bad logic. It was your logic that was attacked, not the possibility.

Yes, indeed, given enough time and the right ecological pressures, theoretically anything could evolve into anything*, but it is extremely unlikely that some absurd scenario you suggest would happen the way you suggest.

_________________
*I don't pretend that my limited understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular assures me there are not some technical issues which might cause issues.
NENB's example of the Gazelle puts it well. So well that you and most creationists have given up the fight against evolution, conceding what you call 'microevolution' to be a fact. For reasons I can only guess, you have drawn an arbitrary iron curtain against 'macroevolution.' It's simply a matter of scale and time.

Then it is settled, a fox can evolve into a whale.

Yep it's just been discovered in the sahara sea, the fluffy tale whale.

[olavisjo]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

That is exactly what they need to do, you need to shake the wooden blocks so that they spell 'reproduce'. And all you have to rely on is chance.

Yes. And man will never fly.

Then abiogenesis is blind chance.

[olavisjo]

.

Ants are land animals. Humans are land animals.

Both ants and humans can evolve into whales as well. It is called macroevolution.

[FarWanderer]

.

What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

We object to your fundamentally flawed understanding of it.

Can a land animal evolve into a totally different land animal?
Can a reptile evolve into a mammal?
Can a reptile evolve into a bird?
Can a reptile evolve into a sea creature such as a whale?
If the answer to all those is yes, then what is it that prevents a fox from evolving into a whale? What exactly is the limit of macroevolution?
For you and Star, you find the fox evolving into a whale is beyond macroevolution, but Peter thinks it is not, however Peter puts the limit at the fox evolving into the mammal that evolved into a whale.

So what is the rule, what is the line that even macroevolution can't cross?

The "line" is that it's absurd to think a modern fox would evolve into something so genetically specific as a modern whale. To suggest it "can", while not technically false, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that only a person who can only think of life in terms of "kinds" would ever have. No person who really understands evolution would talk about it in such a way.

Speciation is completely open-ended. It's not arbitrarily limited to the "kinds" we know. In fact, given the virtually infinite range of speciation possibilities, we would expect (with about as much confidence as we have that the sun will come up tomorrow morning) that any macroevolutionary changes that a fox might undergo would produce a new sort of animal, not an already existing one. It would be a "miracle" if a modern fox evolved into something as specific as a modern whale. Such an event would probably rewrite the Theory of Evolution.

Thus the idea of a fox evolving into a whale is absurd. However, given enough time, the idea of a fox evolving into some sort of enormous sea mammal (different from a whale) is, while quite speculatory, not absurd at all.

If that's what you are getting at, fine. But don't go talking about foxes becoming whales; it's a misrepresentation.

[Danmark]

.

Ants are land animals. Humans are land animals.

Both ants and humans can evolve into whales as well. It is called macroevolution.

Taking absurd examples for your argument makes your argument absurd.
Your arguments have now broken down into 3 types:

Proffering logical fallacies.
"Prove it."
And misstating biological science with straw man arguments.

Since evolution and religion are not incompatible and since evolution is overwhelmingly endorsed by the scientific community, I suggest those who don't like it for whatever reason, have the burden to disprove it. Both the courts and the scientific community accept evolution as a fact as well as a theory.

In addition to the opinion of scientists, the evidence makes sense from a common sense level. simply looking at the bone structure of the flippers of cetaceans shows an obvious similarity between those structures and the human hand and arm, for example.

When the technicalities of science, and common sense arguments and evidence that even a grade school child can understand coincide, there is only one reason to reject such obvious truths:

An irrational, faith based opposition that does not come from logic, reason, or fact; but rather from a blind adherence to religion. Not just religion, but frequently from a misguided understanding of that religion. There is nothing in Christianity that requires one to not believe in science in general, or evolution in particular.

At any rate, given the overwhelming acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in the scientific community, the burden of disproof clearly lies with the know nothing party of magical thinking.

[olavisjo]

.

If that's what you are getting at, fine. But don't go talking about foxes becoming whales; it's a misrepresentation.

I never said they have, I never said they will, I only said it is possible.

[dianaiad]

Then it is settled, a fox can evolve into a whale.

Then abiogenesis is blind chance.

Moderator Comment

One line responses, especially when they are not responsive, violate forum rules. Please expand and explain your thoughts.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[FarWanderer]

.

If that's what you are getting at, fine. But don't go talking about foxes becoming whales; it's a misrepresentation.

I never said they have, I never said they will, I only said it is possible.

The same kind of "possible" as monkeys writing Shakespere on accident. A completely absurd kind of "possible" that carries no weight as a representation of evolution in practice.

Backtrack into technicalities all you want, what you said was still a misrepresentation.