"Evilution"

[POI]

From post 172 (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7#p1151917):

we should be skeptical about school textbooks on biology as relates to evolution, as my pal Kent Hovind has spent a lifetime exposing the lies and the frauds

It's clear here the claim is that biology textbooks outright present lies and/or fraud, as it relates to the topic of evolution.

Even if this were true, evolution being false does absolutely nothing to post up claims from Christianity. Christianity still rises and falls upon its own merits. But since the claim has been placed forward, let's vet these claim(s) out.

For debate: Please present one lie, or one piece of fraud, in which Kent Hovind has demonstrated about biology textbooks? More, if you can. And then please tell us why proving evolutionary biology wrong helps Christianity?

[SiNcE_1985]

I sure do, if I have legitimate reasons to conclude that it is WRONG.

Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... c%20theory.

See, this is exactly why I don't like sharing links.

Because after you shared that^...all have to do is share this..

"Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism."

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/reso ... evolution/

You have your sources, and I have mines.

Let's pretend for a moment that the fact of evolution (that populations change) gets disproven. Let's pretend that we found a rabbit in the Cambrian layer for example (yup, that is how easily the theory describing the fact could be proven false, yet still hasn't happened).

So with us pretending, what mechanism do you put forth that would best describe all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record?

I don't believe in a "fossil record" in the same sense as you.

But even for arguments sake, the mechanism that I put forth is; intelligent design.

[TRANSPONDER]

I sure do, if I have legitimate reasons to conclude that it is WRONG.

Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... c%20theory.

See, this is exactly why I don't like sharing links.

Because after you shared that^...all have to do is share this..

"Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism."

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/reso ... evolution/

You have your sources, and I have mines.

Let's pretend for a moment that the fact of evolution (that populations change) gets disproven. Let's pretend that we found a rabbit in the Cambrian layer for example (yup, that is how easily the theory describing the fact could be proven false, yet still hasn't happened).

So with us pretending, what mechanism do you put forth that would best describe all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record?

I don't believe in a "fossil record" in the same sense as you.

But even for arguments sake, the mechanism that I put forth is; intelligent design.

Never mind links, the evidence is supporting evolution. The Creationists case relies on denying the evidence.

The case for Creation, is principally ID, but that fails. it went to a court of law and was shown to be not science. The ID creationists didn't even turn up, but left Behe hung out to dry, made to look a fool when he had to admit that if Creationism was to be taught as an alternative science, so should astrology. It destroyed his reputation as a scientists as surely as it destroyed ID as valid science.

cue 'It was fixed trial'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Essentially yes, 2 options - goddunnit or Nature. You do not win by suggesting in brackets that it is option 2 that is wrong.

I sure do, if I have legitimate reasons to conclude that it is WRONG.

Your 'kinds produce kinds' is a basic anti - evolutionist fail. It is Not evolution theory. Just one fail Hovind also does.

Um, if you are advocating unscientific claims such as reptiles evolved into birds...that is not, in our (myself and Hovind's) opinion, not an example of 'kinds produce kinds'.

Therefore, we must keep reminding you guys of this point.

Creationism actually accepts evolution - within 'kinds'. They merely insist that change is limited before the critter is so changed it needs a new species name. That is Evolution, not the dogs from cats nonsense.

Well yeah, because we are sticking to what we can OBSERVE.

We observe small, micro changes within the kinds. We do not observe large scale macro changes, from kind to kind.

The problem with creationists is they don't understand the subject they are trying to debate and don't want to.

Of course, here comes the "you just don't understand evolution" stuff.

Never fails.

As if evolutionists are so smart, and we are so dumb.

Here is what we understand, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

This is something we observe with no exceptions to the rule.

And it is something a 5 year old can understand.

Your idea that God has to be disproved to make abiogenesis/atheism valid is wrong. Agnosticism (remember that?) is the actual answer to an unknown How, until one theory or the other is proven.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

You just admitted that there are only two options.

If God is disproven, then naturalism (and everything that comes with it) must be true, by necessity.

And vice versa.

The evidence is that however life started it evolved and wasn't made into all the 'kinds' we have today.

Question; if abiogenesis is false, how can evolution (without God) be true.

Please answer.

If you like, that negates option 1 which even Christian evolutionists then get around with 'God used evolution', so even your two options get thrown out if they go wrong.

If God used evolution, that would still make atheism an invalid position, wouldn't it?

But you are right that If you could make a case for goddunnit that would get you to theism, but it wouldn't say which one.

Because the argument against evolution is not an argument for Christian theism...but theism, nevertheless (Intelligent Design).

That is why atheism is cool with Deism and even irreligious theism and the Real argument is about the gospels. It always was.

Um, deism is still a form of theism.

So, I don't see how two competing views can be cool with one another.

If they are untrue, Christianity crumbles, like all the other religious that Christians reject without consideration.

?

And I'll leave alone the good old "?" of incomprehension when asked an awkward one. One I know the answer to anyway. Theist and religious apologetics doesn't care whether their arguments are valid or even honest as even lies are perfectly justified if they prop up the Faith, which is really what Religious apologetics are all about, which is why your arguments above are inverted logic and thus illogical.

?

p.s again I don't know whether you are deliberately winding up an atheist for Jesus, but I have never heard of a law of excluded middle, but I have heard of a fallacy of the excluded middle.

I stand corrected there.

Which you actually do here.
1 God did it
2 some other god did it
3 something else intelligent did it

3 peas of the same pod.

4 no god (and thus Nature) did it.

That's 2 excluded middles which makes your example fallacious. I Unless 1. includes all other intelligent creators. Then we are ok.

If you combine those 3 into 1, which makes logical sense because all 3 boils down to GOD DID IT.

Now, you are right back to square one...

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it.

No more options.

But creationists don't understand evolution. You don't, with cats from dogs. That is not the theory.

Your nonsense of 'reptiles evolved into birds is not a scientific term is actually wrong. The argument that a branch of dinosaurs (that they were reptiles is outmoded; they were warm - blooded) evolved into birds was mooted ever since archaeopteryx was discovered (denounced by Creationists as a fake), since then so many fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found, that dinosaur to bird evolution has been validated. R Even creationists have had to change their f denial from 'Archaeopteryx was a lizard, not a bird' to Archaeopteryx was a bird, not a lizard'.

Bird evolution is as near slam dunk as whale evolution, and Creationists now don't talk about it and their apologists don't understand it.

Same old denial of the fossil evidence. We really can't 'observe' changes in 'micro -evolution' but it is accepted by creationists and by you. I recall you denied that evolution happened; now you admit it does, but only within 'kinds'. But like the pepper moth showing adaptation (an experiment that you mist represented, following Hovind as I recall) w you apparently now accept. But the fossil evidence is as much 'observation' as sticking evolved moths to a tree to show how they adapted.

The answer on Abiogenesis is this; and I already gave it. Even if a god began life, evolution still happened going by 'observed' evidence. This means that the Bible (Genesis) is wrong and even if it was a god, it doesn't say which one.

Of course theistic evolution is an option, but that was never really the argument for Christianity, because other gods can be claimed to be the Creator. That's why you #' options' failed because you did not say 'either an intelligent creator or nature', which would be ok, but 'either nature or God', which is fallacy of excluded middle (other gods; other intelligent creators) and it shows Bible based bias and flaws in Creationist apologists in constructing argument.

I'll have to hammer at this as you keep on with the f same fallacy. Yes it is possible to claim a god behind it. But, aside that there is no good evidence for this, which means it is a failed theory (Believers always think it is the default claim that atheists need to disprove) it is theism, sure, but it is not Christianity or the god of the Bible. It can be any creator god, known or unknowe wn.

This is why evolution, never mind Genesis, was never really the argument (though for sure both sides get fixated on it) was never the argument, but the reliability of the NT, the gospels and the resurrection of Jesus.

If that fails, Christianity fails even if Evolution -theory were to be disproved.

[Clownboat]

See, this is exactly why I don't like sharing links.

Because after you shared that^...all have to do is share this..

"Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism."

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/reso ... evolution/

You have your sources, and I have mines.

Your source is biased and cannot be trusted. That is the difference.

The proof is from the site itself (to just point out a couple):
- The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1–2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus, all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.

Therefore, you did nothing to refute that fact that populations change. This is evolution and is factual. There is the Theory of Evolution that describes this fact and that theory is falsifiable. So far, it has not been proven false and is accepted as the currently best explanation for the fact of evolution (the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations).

Evolution (that population change) is in fact a fact. It can actually be falsified, but not from biased Christian websites. Your website is just as invalid as any website proclaiming that all things in the Qu'ran are true and you know it, but sill offered it.
The scientific method got us to the moon, religions fly us into buildings.

Let's pretend for a moment that the fact of evolution (that populations change) gets disproven. Let's pretend that we found a rabbit in the Cambrian layer for example (yup, that is how easily the theory describing the fact could be proven false, yet still hasn't happened).

So with us pretending, what mechanism do you put forth that would best describe all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record?

I don't believe in a "fossil record" in the same sense as you.

You make no sense (not believing in a fossil record) and what I believe the fossil record to be is irrelevant and does not prohibit you from answering the question that was asked of you.

But even for arguments sake, the mechanism that I put forth is; intelligent design.

Question asker: How did we get the over 380,000 species of beetle that we currently have on this planet?
Non answer giver: Intelligent design.
Question asker: I have learned nothing.

Intelligent design does not answer the question as to what mechanism explains the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. Your 'answer' is not an answer as it only brings about more unknowable questions. On top of that, it's just a religiously motivated assertion.

You have failed to point to a better mechanism that explains all the life we see now and from the past.
Remember, I care not and will lose no sleep if evolution (the theory) is proven to be false, but you provide zero reason to even begin to question it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Never mind links, the evidence is supporting evolution. The Creationists case relies on denying the evidence.

The case for Creation, is principally ID, but that fails. it went to a court of law and was shown to be not science. The ID creationists didn't even turn up, but left Behe hung out to dry, made to look a fool when he had to admit that if Creationism was to be taught as an alternative science, so should astrology. It destroyed his reputation as a scientists as surely as it destroyed ID as valid science.

cue 'It was fixed trial'.

Well, from what I can tell, most scientists are naturalists...and the prevailing view in science is that evolution is true.

And the average judge(s) in the court of laws aren't scientists, so they are just gonna go with the prevailing view on the subject and judge according to the prevailing view among the so-called "experts".

This isn't something you should want to hang your hat on.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your source is biased and cannot be trusted. That is the difference.

I can say the same thing about your sources.

Like I said, you have your sources, and I have mines.

The proof is from the site itself (to just point out a couple):
- The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1–2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus, all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.

Um, no.

A person's religious faith has nothing to do with their rejection of this idea that long ago, when no one was around to witness it, animals were able to do things that the animals of today have yet been observed to do (reptile-to-bird).

Therefore, you did nothing to refute that fact that populations change. This is evolution and is factual. There is the Theory of Evolution that describes this fact and that theory is falsifiable. So far, it has not been proven false and is accepted as the currently best explanation for the fact of evolution (the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations).

You are just professing your faith at this point.

Bottom line; we (those that don't believe) do not see any convincing evidence that evolution is true.

Evolution (that population change) is in fact a fact.

Um, no one is denying this...the contention lies on the extent of these population changes that you speak of.

We only see micro-changes....which is why those of us who don't believe aren't denying microevolution, because we can see it...we can test it...we can predict it.

1. Observe
2. Test
3. Predict

You know, actual science^.

We aren't denying science.

We are denying the..

1. Unobserved
2. Untestable
3. Unpredictable

The idea that a reptile evolved into a bird is unobserved, untestable, and unpredictable.

So, it isn't even science.

It can actually be falsified, but not from biased Christian websites. Your website is just as invalid as any website proclaiming that all things in the Qu'ran are true and you know it, but sill offered it.

Um, no.

Because again, not all Christians (or theists) reject evolution..and the fact that I am a Christian has nothing to do with me being unable to observe macro-level (reptile-to-bird) changes in living organisms.

This is also why your fallacious (genetic fallacy) reasoning fails.

Christian websites (or even Christian scientists) are allowed to report the facts how they see it.

And we simply ain't buying the theory.

The scientific method got us to the moon, religions fly us into buildings.

And God's power got us the moon.

You make no sense (not believing in a fossil record) and what I believe the fossil record to be is irrelevant and does not prohibit you from answering the question that was asked of you.

First off, it makes sense to me.

Second, your question was answered, as you clearly responded to my answer of "Intelligent Design" as the mechanism.

That is my answer to the question that was asked of me.

Question asker: How did we get the over 380,000 species of beetle that we currently have on this planet?
Non answer giver: Intelligent design.
Question asker: I have learned nothing.

I can play this game, too.

Question asker: How did we get the over 380,000 species of beetle that we currently have on this planet?
Non answer giver: From a single-celled organism.
Question asker: I have learned nothing.

Intelligent design does not answer the question as to what mechanism explains the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record.

This is the cart before the horse.

The question you should be asking is; what mechanism explains the natural origins of life from inanimate material?

And even before that, what mechanism explains the origins of the universe from nothing?

The story starts from the beginning, not the middle.

Your 'answer' is not an answer as it only brings about more unknowable questions.

Questions that aren't any more unknowable than..

1. How/why did life originate from nonliving material?
2. How/why did the universe begin to exist, from nothing?

On top of that, it's just a religiously motivated assertion.

Because science is limited and lacks the explanatory power to produce the effect, then I am motivated to look elsewhere.

You have failed to point to a better mechanism that explains all the life we see now and from the past.

God did it <----better.

Remember, I care not and will lose no sleep if evolution (the theory) is proven to be false, but you provide zero reason to even begin to question it.

And I will not lose sleep if it is proven to be true...because it is still necessary for God to be a the helms.

[SiNcE_1985]

But creationists don't understand evolution.

Jonathan Wells is a creationists, and a biologist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_ ... _advocate)

He understands evolution.

So much so, that he aint buying it.

You don't, with cats from dogs. That is not the theory.

Again, a reptile evolving to a bird (or any similar changes of the like) are not examples of dogs/dogs and cats/cats

I am only providing a compare/contrast from what we can observe in nature, and what we can't.

Your nonsense of 'reptiles evolved into birds is not a scientific term is actually wrong. The argument that a branch of dinosaurs (that they were reptiles is outmoded; they were warm - blooded) evolved into birds was mooted ever since archaeopteryx was discovered (denounced by Creationists as a fake), since then so many fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found, that dinosaur to bird evolution has been validated. R Even creationists have had to change their f denial from 'Archaeopteryx was a lizard, not a bird' to Archaeopteryx was a bird, not a lizard'.

First off, let me make this easy for both of us...without falling down this rabbit-hole.

It is simple; you cannot have the origins of life, nor the evolution of life, without a Divine Creator.

That said, even if evolution is true, it is only true based on the Divine power and will of a Creator.

If you cannot explain the origins of sentient life on this planet, via mindless and blind processes, then you won't even get to the POINT of life evolving; because you cant even get to the point of life originating in the first place.

So abiogenesis is a false, invalid position.

Now, the only game left in town is Intelligent Design, and did the intelligent designer use evolution as a means of creating life and the diversity of life in nature.

I say no. Others may say yes.

But either way, as long as there is an intelligent designer who orchestrated the affairs, then I am fine with it.

But there is no blind/mindless process creating order and structure (Behe's specified complexity)....as that would go completely against entropy and would violate everything we know about the universe in our personal lives, but on a cosmic scale as well.

No, I aint buying it.

Bird evolution is as near slam dunk as whale evolution, and Creationists now don't talk about it and their apologists don't understand it.

Whale evolution is just as bad.

Same old denial of the fossil evidence. We really can't 'observe' changes in 'micro -evolution' but it is accepted by creationists and by you.

So ask yourself, why would we accept micro evolution and not macro? What do you think the answer is?

I recall you denied that evolution happened; now you admit it does, but only within 'kinds'.

Um, that has been my position from jump street.

But like the pepper moth showing adaptation (an experiment that you mist represented, following Hovind as I recall) w you apparently now accept. But the fossil evidence is as much 'observation' as sticking evolved moths to a tree to show how they adapted.

Adaptation has nothing to do with macroevolution.

A polar bear adapted to its environment by being able to live in cold climates.

It isn't becoming any less of a bear, though.

The answer on Abiogenesis is this; and I already gave it. Even if a god began life, evolution still happened going by 'observed' evidence. This means that the Bible (Genesis) is wrong and even if it was a god, it doesn't say which one.

1. I do not see any evidence of macroevolution in Genesis.

2. I do not see any evidence of macroevolution in nature.

So, macroevolution simply fails on both accounts.

Of course theistic evolution is an option, but that was never really the argument for Christianity, because other gods can be claimed to be the Creator. That's why you #' options' failed because you did not say 'either an intelligent creator or nature', which would be ok, but 'either nature or God', which is fallacy of excluded middle (other gods; other intelligent creators) and it shows Bible based bias and flaws in Creationist apologists in constructing argument. I'll have to hammer at this as you keep on with the f same fallacy. Yes it is possible to claim a god behind it. But, aside that there is no good evidence for this, which means it is a failed theory (Believers always think it is the default claim that atheists need to disprove) it is theism, sure, but it is not Christianity or the god of the Bible. It can be any creator god, known or unknowe wn.

First off, I never said the Christian God is the Creator here, not in this argument.

My point is simple; an intelligent designer is necessary for the origins of life and its diversity.

I don't care if the intelligent designer is Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Osirus, or Baal.

My argument against evolution only makes a case for an intelligent designer, whomever it may be.

This is why evolution, never mind Genesis, was never really the argument (though for sure both sides get fixated on it) was never the argument, but the reliability of the NT, the gospels and the resurrection of Jesus.

If that fails, Christianity fails even if Evolution -theory were to be disproved.

[TRANSPONDER]

Never mind links, the evidence is supporting evolution. The Creationists case relies on denying the evidence.

The case for Creation, is principally ID, but that fails. it went to a court of law and was shown to be not science. The ID creationists didn't even turn up, but left Behe hung out to dry, made to look a fool when he had to admit that if Creationism was to be taught as an alternative science, so should astrology. It destroyed his reputation as a scientists as surely as it destroyed ID as valid science.

cue 'It was fixed trial'.

Well, from what I can tell, most scientists are naturalists...and the prevailing view in science is that evolution is true.

And the average judge(s) in the court of laws aren't scientists, so they are just gonna go with the prevailing view on the subject and judge according to the prevailing view among the so-called "experts".

This isn't something you should want to hang your hat on.

Of course, Judges aren't experts in anything but law. That is why you have expert testimony. It was science for evolution vs science for creationism, and the creation scientists left Behe to defend himself and his case fell apart. The judge ruled on the cases presented. He himself doesn't have to be an expert on the subject.

You can find creationists who are scientists., some are biologists. You know that scientific theories are debated. This is the idea behind 'teach the controversy'. But it has been shown legally that creationism is religion, not science. And those biologists who argue creationism are teaching an incorre3ct theory.

Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said that Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism.[7][9] Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.[Wiki]

If you wanted to make his case here we could look ay t it, but you don't get to appeal to a tiny minority of Creationist biologists as though it proved some point.

I know what you are doing with dogs from cats. But this is the problem with what religious apologists call 'imperfect human perception'. Sure, it looks like one kind cannot change to another, just as the earth looks flat with a blue dome over it· But science shows that is not the case.

Adaptation has everything to do with speciation or 'macro -evolution' as you call it.

Creationism accepts evolutionary changes within kinds, but for no good reason rejects that these changes can become so significant that a new species name has to be given. The evidence is compelling that this happened. The mechanism for it is accepted even by creationists. The observation that we don't see it happen in our lifetimes or even ten lifetimes just shows the process is slow.

Let me make this simple for you. We can have an origin of life without a divine creator, but even if we had to assume a creator of Life, evolution through species adaptation is still how we got our [present kinds, not all in one go like Genesis.

That you accpet that a postulated creator isn't shown to be the god of the Bible just shows that it may be a case for irreligious theism or Deism (and they are in the same camp as atheism) but it doesn't help Christianity.

Chum, if you rejected abiogenesis but accepts evoluition theory with a god behind it Christianity would lose. And IC was just what lost in science and in the law case. Behe's theory that an organism becomes unviable if a feature changes was shown wrong. The feature can continue to work evn when adapting to perform a different purpose. IC fails. It is nothing to do with entropy and the state of the Cosmos. Your mentors do not even seem to understand the argument, or you would not be saying that adaptation is nothing to do with "Macro evolution" (speciation) and the mechanism is not dogs from cats. This is why i say Creationists apologists do not understand the subject.

I may say that one genuine biologist who is a creationbist published proper science papers, but talked nonsense when he talked Creatiopnism. same with a geologist who used geological data when writing geology papers but young Earth incorrect data (on geological dates) when talking creationism.
I forget the names but I'll try to check.

There was also a geneticist (nobel prise winner, I recall) who argued theism. But with the idiot argument 'Have you looked everyt where in the universe?'

This is the problem, not that the majority of scientists and even more scientists in biology reject Creationism but the ones that do talk Creationism talk nonscientific nonsense when they do.

I wasn't able to find the name but the Pharyngial nerve in Giraffes was proposed by a real biologist as impossible to have evolved. This was debunked and is not w being lied about by Creationists (the number of vertebrae, the fossli evidence for giraffe evolution).

Do you actually know what the evidence for whale evolution is that you dismiss so easily?

So ok you always accepted the evolutionary process 'within kinds'. So in prib ncliple, there is no reason why the evolutionary change should not continue until the critter changes so much that you have to give it a new species name.

Sure i get that there is a rush to get one's name plonked on a bettle with three more spots than another bit it's still a betle. I get how it looks. This is why the fossil evidence for how adaptation over millions of years really changed a species so much it looked and acted differently. And whale evolution is for me the slam dunk.

I have done it with our pal 1213 and can do it again. You may deny it. That doesn't matter; it is about the case, not about the individual denialist.

So you do not see it 'before yore werry eyes' (and you dismiss the kind of forensic evidence that decides murder cases) and you rely on Genesis (which says there was day and night before the sun was made). There's the problem with creation and creationists scientists. The science is pushed aside even if they understand it.

And Ok. It appear to be agreed that the whole creationist case is irrelevant to the religion -debate. Though you apparently insist it is Genesis that is true, and not some other creation myth.

So the Evilooshun - discussion is academic, just as i said. It doesn't really matter. Except to Genesis -literalists of maybe irreligious theists.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #8

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Where do fish live?

In water?

I do not see any evidence of macroevolution in nature.

Now you have.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Same with the seal, and penguin (1) which are clearly transitional forms, and we may even see the process in birds that have learned (adapted) to flying underwater.

It would be nice if these adaptation happened even in a few hundred years, but even millions might not be enough as plesiosaurs (the dinosaur equivalent of the seal) found no reason to macro -evolve anymore than sharks, as they were well adapted. Evolution happens when needed, not as a continuous process.

So we cannot do more than show it happens 'within kinds' and have to rely on the fossil evidence to show it can go 'macro' over millions of years. Horse evolution took hundreds of thousands, but Creationists still say this is 'horse - kind' even if Eohippus looked like a puppy.

So Tiktaalik is the prehistoric form as the lungfish and mudskipper are the more recent transitional form. But Creationists will simply say "That is their 'kind'". They were made that way, to suit their mode of life as God intended. We saw this with our pal who tried to argue that whale flippers had arm bones because that was best suited to that mode of life. There is of course no evidence that this is the case and is merely making up an excuse. And I was able to point out that sharks do fine with cartilage for fins and so the evidence is against an arrangement looking like it used to be a leg being 'better'.

So I still reckon the cetan sequence is the slam dunk and cannot be explained other than as solid evidence of 'macro -evolution' (speciation) and they can only ignore or deny it.

It is the evolutionary Gocha. I do so declare it.

(1) and much thanks to our pal 1213, I looked up Penguin evolution from an Australasian bird like a heron. Thus defusing any attempt to say that it was evidently made that way and did not evolve.