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?

[brunumb]

No matter how much time is given for even the smallest change to occur, there is no way that coordinated changes occur, no positive change in any organ would ever result.

Could you please elaborate on your qualifications for making such a definitive statement and supply some supporting evidence for the claim. If it is just your opinion, not to worry in that case.

[brunumb]

For example, a creature with a forelimb in the process of developing into a wing would eventually not be able to walk on all four limbs, as the feet would have become deformed and possibly the half developed wing with feathers would only hinder the creature from being able to function properly to survive.

Do you have the specific established sequence for the conversion you are speaking about, or is it just your imagined view of how a quadruped would have become a winged biped? Without any specifics or details, it is impossible to definitively conclude that it would be impossible.

[The Barbarian]

Nothing prevents mutations from happening, but natural selection prevents most mutations with phenotypic effect from sticking around in the population, since they are usually deleterious.

Actually, most mutations don't do much of anything. You have dozens that were not in either parent.

There is no reason in principle why organisms should be viable beyond a certain mutational distance from existing species.

There's nothing in principle why they shouldn't be. What "certain distance" are you talking about? Give us some numbers and the evidence for your belief.

Whether too many mutations to a genome leads to a dead organism or to a new species is an empirical question(*),

Would be, if you gave us a number for "too many."

[We_Are_VENOM]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears, etc.

If there are any exceptions to any of that, I haven't seen it yet.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #276]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears, etc.

If there are any exceptions to any of that, I haven't seen it yet.

Your time frame is way too short. Fish produced fish until it was beneficial for continued existence for some small subset of them to transition to life outside of the water. This required the evolution of lungs, and the evolution of fins into legs, over very long periods of time (eg. way longer than the roughly 6000 year biblical age of "creation"). Amphibians appeared, and eventually reptiles, mammals, etc. This is an example of how the process of lung development may have taken place:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5138057/

Look at evolution of life over much longer time periods than just mammals (ie. dogs, cats and bears), starting with fish and their evolution to amphibians and reptiles. It will be a lot clearer how the concept of biblical "kinds" just doesn't jive with modern evolutionary biology and the evidence supporting it.

[benchwarmer]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears, etc.

If there are any exceptions to any of that, I haven't seen it yet.

Yes, when taxonomists decide to classify a group of life forms with a new name because they are significantly different than their ancestors many generations before them.

Eventually (after thousands/millions of generations) dogs of the future may have accumulated enough mutations that they differ from present day dogs. Technically they will continue to be dogs, but will also carry a new sub classification. Maybe they will get called florbs. A florb is a dog is a wolf, etc.

Do you honestly think evolutionary biologists expect a dog to birth a chicken or something?

This only shows a lack of understanding of the science and taxonomy, it's not a rebuttal of evolution.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Your time frame is way too short.

"Given enough time, anything can happen". You, my friend, are relying on a lot of faith.

Your time frame is way too short.

Fish produced fish until it was beneficial for continued existence for some small subset of them to transition to life outside of the water. [/quote]

Just hold it right there!! Stop. Freeze!! Do you see what just happened? It happened so fast, you didn't even see it.

Do you see the above quote and what happened? No? Well, let me explain to you what just happened; what happened is, you've just left science and found yourself in the "faith" dimension.

Science doesn't tell you that fish "transitioned to life outside of water". Science didn't tell you that, your religion (evolution) told you that...and you are trying to harmonize your religion (evolution) with science (testable, observable data)...and it aint happening.

And besides that, it is beneficial for rabbits and their continued existence to evolve wings to fly away from predators. Have you seen any feathered rabbits yet? No. But hey, who knows what will happen in a hundred million years.

This required the evolution of lungs, and the evolution of fins into legs, over very long periods of time (eg. way longer than the roughly 6000 year biblical age of "creation"). Amphibians appeared, and eventually reptiles, mammals, etc. This is an example of how the process of lung development may have taken place:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5138057/

Look at evolution of life over much longer time periods than just mammals (ie. dogs, cats and bears), starting with fish and their evolution to amphibians and reptiles. It will be a lot clearer how the concept of biblical "kinds" just doesn't jive with modern evolutionary biology and the evidence supporting it.

That is more of a problem for you than for me. As you said, those animal prototypes suddenly "appeared" (according to the Cambrian explosion), so it wasn't this long, drawn out, hundred million year process that your favorite theory is counts on. This is also why we have no complete set of transitional fossils.

The prototypes suddenly "appeared", not gradually..which actually fits the Genesis account which states that the animals suddenly "appeared" under the direction/command of God.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, when taxonomists decide to classify a group of life forms with a new name because they are significantly different than their ancestors many generations before them.

Sure..

Eventually (after thousands/millions of generations) dogs of the future may have accumulated enough mutations that they differ from present day dogs.

Wow, and I thought us religious folks were the ones with faith-based beliefs. But we don't have anything on evolutionists.

Technically they will continue to be dogs, but will also carry a new sub classification. Maybe they will get called florbs. A florb is a dog is a wolf, etc.

Faith.

Do you honestly think evolutionary biologists expect a dog to birth a chicken or something?

Sure, because given a couple hundred million years, anything can happen...right?

This only shows a lack of understanding of the science and taxonomy, it's not a rebuttal of evolution.

Here is what I understand; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

Now, when you observe an exception to these FACTS in nature, then let me know. Until then, just admit your belief is faith-based, and then we can be friends.

[brunumb]

This only shows a lack of understanding of the science and taxonomy, it's not a rebuttal of evolution.

Here is what I understand; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

And that clearly demonstrates nothing about the actual evolutionary process. Have you even tried to learn what it is all about? I very much doubt it, because if you had you would not be making all the patently incorrect statements that are contained in your posts.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And that clearly demonstrates nothing about the actual evolutionary process. Have you even tried to learn what it is all about?

Yeah, this is what this is all about; it is about the necessity of unbelievers to explain the origins of species without invoking God...because if you negate God's existence, evolution is the only game in town...so what you have is evolutionists defending their religion (evolution) just as vigorously as believers defend their religious faiths.

That is what it is all about.

I very much doubt it, because if you had you would not be making all the patently incorrect statements that are contained in your posts.

All I said was "dogs produce dogs". Please enlighten me on what is "patently incorrect" about me saying "dogs produce dogs"...as if we don't have thousands of years of actual observational, experimental, and predictable evidence (you know, actual science) of this being the case.