Do patterns of phylogenesis show evolution?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Are the patterns seen in molecular phylogenies sufficient to show that biological evolution occurred?

For reference and easier Googling, the science of generating evolutionary trees is known as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics. Using DNA sequence data to generate the trees is molecular phylogeny.

The standard of evidence I'll be discussing is reasonable doubt. Even that's pretty broad, but if your argument hinges on "possible," you should be able to at least quantify that.

I've generated phylogenies using online tools previously and discussed them in this post. I tried to start a tutorial in this thread. If someone wants to discuss how to actually use the tools and data, feel free to ask questions in the tutorial thread and I'll pick it back up.

This debate question is a response to this comment.

[Jose Fly]

We don't, though.

That is what your presupposition tells you, not what the fossil tells you.

Again, you don't know that because you don't know anything about paleontology. You've never studied a fossil, read a paleontology paper or journal, taken a class in paleontology, or anything of the sort.

All you have to go on is what a handful of creationists have told you, but because you don't know the first thing about the science you have no way of telling if their claims are true.

It is only logical that, until you have a viable theory as to how life originated from nonlife, you cannot have life evolving into or from anything.

We covered this, remember? If God created the first life forms on earth, evolution could still occur. Try and remember.

The only evidence we have for those small changes, remains at the micro level.

That is the extent of our observed knowledge.

To assume that there isn't a limit to the changes, is to leave science (observable, testable knowledge) and to arrive on fantasy island...as you are relying on the unseen, the untested, the indemonstrable.

We covered this too, remember? We agreed that you don't need to directly observed an event before you can conclude that it took place. Try and remember!

Are you just going in circles because you've exhausted all of your talking points and have nothing left? It kinda looks that way.

[The Barbarian]

When you see a fossil..

Correct interpretation: Here are the remains of a once living organism.

Fantasyland Interpretation: Here are the remains of a once living organism, and it is the evolutionary predecessor of X living organism.

Interpretation #1 is the only thing you can conclude when you find a fossil.

Interpretation #2 is what you conclude when you have a presupposition, and this presupposition is the guiding force behind how you are going to interpret the observation.

Evidences for Darwins second expectation of stratomorphic intermediate species include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwins third expectation of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic
series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

Dr. Wise does not believe evolution happened. But he is honest enough to admit that there is very good evidence to support evolutionary theory.

[marke]

When you see a fossil..

Correct interpretation: Here are the remains of a once living organism.

Fantasyland Interpretation: Here are the remains of a once living organism, and it is the evolutionary predecessor of X living organism.

Interpretation #1 is the only thing you can conclude when you find a fossil.

Interpretation #2 is what you conclude when you have a presupposition, and this presupposition is the guiding force behind how you are going to interpret the observation.

Evidences for Darwins second expectation of stratomorphic intermediate species include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwins third expectation of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwins fourth expectation of stratomorphic
series has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

Dr. Wise does not believe evolution happened. But he is honest enough to admit that there is very good evidence to support evolutionary theory.

Dr. Wise is fooled into thinking evolutionist assumptions are scientifically valid even though the assumptions are based on biased assessments and interpretations of data.

[Clownboat]

No, you just don't understand Christianity, if that's what you think about Jesus.

Then you obviously don't know my history nor how well I happen to understand Christianity. Patience is a virtue and one that Jesus would approve of.

?

I don't know how this confuses you, but I'll cut out a few words to shorten it up.
"it is still possible that a God created life and evolution is how we got to the life we see both in the fossil record and now on earth."

I find your denial unjustified and await valid reasoning to explain why it is a justifiable belief (if there exists such a reason).

I poured everything I can into these discussions.

What you saw, is what you got.

That's too bad, but at least I'm fully justified in finding your reasoning invalid and don't need to amend my thinking on that front.

We see the changes in the fossil record though.

We don't, though.

That is what your presupposition tells you, not what the fossil tells you.

Here is why your words are false:
We have the gradual evolution of horses from small, multi-toed creatures to large, single-toed animals. We have the transition of whales from land mammals to marine creatures, the development of bird features in dinosaur ancestors like Archaeopteryx and the emergence of complex life forms from simpler organisms.

Heck, you yourself could go to the Grand Canyon and see how life has changed over time through evolution.

I'm not rejecting it because it takes to long, I reject it because I have no reason to conclude that it can ever begin in the first place, on atheism.

If you rejected it, you would have reasoning. Until there is a valid reason, all you are doing is denying.
What's more is you already explained why you need to not know about evolution (to keep your name in a Lamb's Book of Life). Those without such a stumbling block can see the reasons and will notice how the evolution of languages is not that far off from how populations of animals evolve.

Since we know that changes in populations do take place, you must come up with a valid mechanism that stops the changes from happening at some point.

The valid mechanism is abiogenesis, which ensures that it won't happen at all.

What your saying is: We know that changes in populations happen, but they stop at some point because life began on earth.
You belong in 'Holy Huddle'. Saying something that seems so unintelligent does not belong here and ruins chances of quality debate. Perhaps I missed something and you can make your words meaningful?

If you cannot, it is only logical that continued changes will continue to cause the said population to change.

It is only logical that, until you have a viable theory as to how life originated from nonlife, you cannot have life evolving into or from anything.

You have a superpower for being wrong it seems. The viable theory I have offered to you many times now is that your preferred God created life. I shouldn't have to do this to have a discussion about changes in populations with an adult, but I'm willing to try just about anything in order to get you to debate honestly. I'm literally willing to grant you the idea that your God created life in hopes to foster debate. Jesus would be proud of me.

As you have learned, a population in Spain for one animal may become a seemingly different animal in Italy due to different changes in the population taking place in Italy. (Relating back to language in hopes to make it easier to understand).

Um, no one is denying that. That ain't got nothing to do with a reptile evolving into a bird.

Birds are reptiles and the process, changes within populations take place in both how languages change and how populations change. You really need to work on another superpower. Being shown to be wrong so much has to get tiring, no?

The only evidence we have for those small changes, remains at the micro level.

Which is why I requested a mechanism that stops small changes from becoming larger changes. Remember what you offered? You said that because life began, changes in populations must stop at some point. I know, right!

That is the extent of our observed knowledge.

Lies and deception. You will know them by their fruits.
We notice changes, what we don't notice is a mechanism that at some point stops changes within a populations. I do not lie nor deceive.

To assume that there isn't a limit to the changes, is to leave science (observable, testable knowledge) and to arrive on fantasy island...as you are relying on the unseen, the untested, the indemonstrable.

More dishonesty it seems. Please note, I do not assume a limit, which is why I continue to ask you to provide a mechanism that would be such a limit. Remember what you offered. Abiogenesis! I know!

You have forgotten all about what you learned about how languages evolved. Why are you leaving out the small changes within differing populations, something we observe happening currently? This is crucial and will help for it to not sound like magic to you.

As I said in a prior post, your language analogy is one of micro.

This claim was shown to be false. You cannot read Old English, but you can read Modern English. This is English producing English which got us to a macro change where you cannot understand what came prior.

Get me Latin to Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Arabic.

Please demonstrate that Latin evolved into Korean. When you cannot, please realize how dumb your request is.

Let's test to see if your criticism is valid and consistent shall we.
Have you ever witnessed a liquifying dead body reanimate to life, or a God creating life?

Already addressed this.

Readers, this poster denies evolution because they cannot see one animal give birth to a different animal. Something that would prove evolution to be false. This same poster believes in presumably many liquified corpses reanimating to life and walking around without seeing such a thing. I know, right!

Therefore, this posters criticism is invalid and not consistent and it denies what we see in the fossil record.

Invalid and inconsistent reasoning that must be rejected.

Opinions.

Nope. It is plain for all to read. Your reasoning is invalid and it is inconsistent as demonstrated.

What fossil record?

The only one there is.
fossil record, history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock.
https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-record

When you see a fossil..

Correct interpretation: Here are the remains of a once living organism.

Fantasyland Interpretation: Here are the remains of a once living organism, and it is the evolutionary predecessor of X living organism.

Note only this, but we also can make predictions about predecessors and successors that are later shown to be true. Imagine that, something false that can predict.

"Tiktaalik," a transitional fossil between fish and land animals, which was found in the Ellesmere Island region of Canada, precisely where scientists predicted it would be based on its evolutionary timeline and geological conditions; this discovery strongly validated the predictions made by evolutionary theory about where such a fossil should be located.

Welcome to fantasy island. None of that stuff happened.

Denial without any substance. The fossil was predicted, both as far as what we should find and where we should find it. It is fantasy to deny what happened in reality and is therefore invalid reasoning that must be rejected.

Where are the rest of the transitional fossils within that chain?

You didn't even bother to look, did you? The fossil was predicted and found to be what was predicted where it was predicted to be. Your silly game of what came next fails utterly to address this and is nothing but another weak distraction.

Wait a minute...

On one hand, just above, you just asked the question of "What is the mechanism that will allow the changes in populations to stop, over time".

Now, on the other hand, your above quote is insinuating that there in fact a limitation to the changes in populations, as you are light-heartedly mocking the idea of a whale giving birth to a mouse (instant or gradual evolution).

Tsk, tsk.

Thank you for allowing me to correct your complete misunderstanding.
You continue to note that dogs produce dogs. It has been explained to you that this is the case and why and yet here you are, still wondering why a whale can't give birth to a mouse.
Since_1985: Dogs produce dogs.
Clownboat: Correct, dogs produce dogs. If whale gave birth to a mouse, evolution would be shown to be false.
Since_1985: Show me a whale giving birth to a mouse.
Clownboat: You are demonstrating to be beyond help. Only you can correct yourself.

Abiogenesis, and I explained why.

Yes, the theory that no one wants to talk about.

This is why I'm starting to note that your ability to be wrong is your superpower. Form a question about abiogenesis and I'll discuss it with you.

No, I don't think you understand Christianity... otherwise, you'd believe it.

Logical fallacy. Non sequitur, the conclusion reached in this argument does not logically connect to the information given in the initial statement.
I can understand who Santa is and claims made about him, that doesn't mean I would believe in Santa. Again, there is so much wrong in everything you say here. Demonstrably so.

Well, that's how it sounds when you accuse me of not understanding evolution.

Your understanding of evolution continues to be shown to be lacking via what you say. My accusation is not even needed to demonstrate this because you demonstrate it on your own.

I understand evolution just as much as you understand Christianity.

This again is just more demonstrable falsehoods. I have read the Bible from cover to cover and much, much more.

Can you address this, it is very important?:
Since we know that changes in populations do take place, you must come up with a valid mechanism that stops the changes from happening at some point. What would prevent Latin from becoming Spanish and Italian in evolutionary terms?

Already addressed this.

Saying that life began does not address what would stop changes within a population from adding up over time. You don't belong in this forum. It is demonstrably wrong that you addressed this.

Holy Huddle would be a much better place for you to debate. You sully the science forum IMO.

[Clownboat]

Dr. Wise is fooled into thinking evolutionist assumptions are scientifically valid even though the assumptions are based on biased assessments and interpretations of data.

Please show that Dr. Wise is being fooled. If you cannot, do the honorable thing and retract your claim for being slanderous and false.

[marke]

No, you just don't understand Christianity, if that's what you think about Jesus.

Then you obviously don't know my history nor how well I happen to understand Christianity. Patience is a virtue and one that Jesus would approve of.

We have the gradual evolution of horses from small, multi-toed creatures to large, single-toed animals.

The American Museum of Natural History had to scrap its decades old horse evolution display after new evidence was uncovered that exposed the display as a propagator of error.

We have the transition of whales from land mammals to marine creatures, the development of bird features in dinosaur ancestors like Archaeopteryx and the emergence of complex life forms from simpler organisms.

How do you know whales evolved from land animals or land animals evolved from whales, except for questionable evolutionist interpretations of data?

Heck, you yourself could go to the Grand Canyon and see how life has changed over time through evolution.

The Grand Canyon proves there was a massive flood that laid down the sediments that hardened into rock there.

Since we know that changes in populations do take place, you must come up with a valid mechanism that stops the changes from happening at some point.

Since the earliest human civilization known to archaeologists is less than 20,000 years old we must assume evolutionists lack sufficient evidence for assuming humans evolved from animals.

What fossil record?

The only one there is.
fossil record, history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock.
https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-record

If the fossil record must be believed then we must believe fossilized human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock formations prove humans and dinosaurs occupied the same land areas at the same time.

"Tiktaalik," a transitional fossil between fish and land animals, which was found in the Ellesmere Island region of Canada, precisely where scientists predicted it would be based on its evolutionary timeline and geological conditions; this discovery strongly validated the predictions made by evolutionary theory about where such a fossil should be located.

Tiktaalik is a cheap magicians trick. The fact secularists claim its finding was predicted does nothing to offset the fact that millions of other supposed missing link finds have never been uncovered or predicted and that tiktaalik does not prove it is a transition creature that was in the process of evolving from one type of creature into another.

Welcome to fantasy island. None of that stuff happened.

Denial without any substance. The fossil was predicted, both as far as what we should find and where we should find it. It is fantasy to deny what happened in reality and is therefore invalid reasoning that must be rejected.

Where are the rest of the transitional fossils within that chain?

You didn't even bother to look, did you? The fossil was predicted and found to be what was predicted where it was predicted to be. Your silly game of what came next fails utterly to address this and is nothing but another weak distraction.

[Clownboat]

The American Museum of Natural History had to scrap its decades old horse evolution display after new evidence was uncovered that exposed the display as a propagator of error.

Why are you unable to figure out the quote system here? We really shouldn't have to take time out of our day to correct where you lack to try to keep posts clear.

Either way, as you point out, science is self correcting. If a horse evolution display is shown to be incorrect, it will be corrected. Now guess who would find it to be correct? That's right, other scientist doing science. This is working as intended.

Religions are dogmatic, not science. This is a strength of the scientific method.
dog-mat-ic
/dmadik/
adjective
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

How do you know whales evolved from land animals or land animals evolved from whales, except for questionable evolutionist interpretations of data?

Do you put your words in bold because you cannot figure out how to quote?
We know that whales evolved from land animals due to fossils, morphological characteristics, and molecular biology to name a few. How do you know that your god concept created Ambulocetus or Pakicetus?

The Grand Canyon proves there was a massive flood that laid down the sediments that hardened into rock there.

The fact that fossils in the Grand Canyon are not mixed up as they would be if a global flood caused them and the horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon demonstrate that your words are false. Even if you put them in bold, they are still false.

Since we know that changes in populations do take place, you must come up with a valid mechanism that stops the changes from happening at some point.

Since the earliest human civilization known to archaeologists is less than 20,000 years old we must assume evolutionists lack sufficient evidence for assuming humans evolved from animals.

You failed miserably to point to a mechanism that would stop the changes that we know happen within populations from adding up to become bigger changes. Why did you fail so bad at answering this? It is very important and would shed doubt on evolution being a valid explanation, but instead of addressing it, you bring up how humans have been on this earth before your god concept is even claimed to have created them.

If the fossil record must be believed then we must believe fossilized human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock formations prove humans and dinosaurs occupied the same land areas at the same time.

What you allude to was creationist fraud and you do it in bold!

Tiktaalik is a cheap magicians trick.

Your denial in bold is acknowledged. That you call it a magic trick is some great irony when we compare how you think life came about.

The fact 'secularists' claim its finding

You mean scientists, not secularists by the way.

[marke]

The American Museum of Natural History had to scrap its decades old horse evolution display after new evidence was uncovered that exposed the display as a propagator of error.

Clownboat wrote: Why are you unable to figure out the quote system here? We really shouldn't have to take time out of our day to correct where you lack to try to keep posts clear.

Marke:
I am old and not skilled in modern technology.

Clownboat wrote: Either way, as you point out, science is self correcting. If a horse evolution display is shown to be incorrect, it will be corrected. Now guess who would find it to be correct? That's right, other scientist doing science. This is working as intended.

Marke:
Erroneous assumptions are a fact of secular science with a long history of new discoveries refuting old assumptions have proven. Every evolutionist speculation and scientific proposal proffered in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial has long since been refuted.

Clownboat wrote: We have the transition of whales from land mammals to marine creatures, the development of bird features in dinosaur ancestors like Archaeopteryx and the emergence of complex life forms from simpler organisms.

How do you know whales evolved from land animals or land animals evolved from whales, except for questionable evolutionist interpretations of data?

Clownboat wrote: Do you put your words in bold because you cannot figure out how to quote?

Marke: Yes.

Clownboat wrote:
Heck, you yourself could go to the Grand Canyon and see how life has changed over time through evolution.

The Grand Canyon proves there was a massive flood that laid down the sediments that hardened into rock there.

The fact that fossils in the Grand Canyon are not mixed up as they would be if a global flood caused them and the horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon demonstrate that your words are false. Even if you put them in bold, they are still false.

Since we know that changes in populations do take place, you must come up with a valid mechanism that stops the changes from happening at some point.

Since the earliest human civilization known to archaeologists is less than 20,000 years old we must assume evolutionists lack sufficient evidence for assuming humans evolved from animals.

You failed miserably to point to a mechanism that would stop the changes that we know happen within populations from adding up to become bigger changes. Why did you fail so bad at answering this? It is very important and would shed doubt on evolution being a valid explanation, but instead of addressing it, you bring up how humans have been on this earth before your god concept is even claimed to have created them.

If the fossil record must be believed then we must believe fossilized human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock formations prove humans and dinosaurs occupied the same land areas at the same time.

What you allude to was creationist fraud and you do it in bold!

Marke: Tiktaalik is a cheap magicians trick.

Your denial in bold is acknowledged. That you call it a magic trick is some great irony when we compare how you think life came about.

Marke: The fact 'secularists' claim its finding

You mean scientists, not secularists by the way.

[marke]

The American Museum of Natural History had to scrap its decades old horse evolution display after new evidence was uncovered that exposed the display as a propagator of error.

Clownboat wrote: Why are you unable to figure out the quote system here? We really shouldn't have to take time out of our day to correct where you lack to try to keep posts clear.

Marke:
I am old and not skilled in modern technology.

Clownboat wrote: Either way, as you point out, science is self correcting. If a horse evolution display is shown to be incorrect, it will be corrected. Now guess who would find it to be correct? That's right, other scientist doing science. This is working as intended.

Marke:
Erroneous assumptions are a fact of secular science with a long history of new discoveries refuting old assumptions have proven. Every evolutionist speculation and scientific proposal proffered in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial has long since been refuted.

Clownboat wrote: We have the transition of whales from land mammals to marine creatures, the development of bird features in dinosaur ancestors like Archaeopteryx and the emergence of complex life forms from simpler organisms.

How do you know whales evolved from land animals or land animals evolved from whales, except for questionable evolutionist interpretations of data?

Clownboat wrote: Do you put your words in bold because you cannot figure out how to quote?

Marke: Yes.

Clownboat wrote:
Heck, you yourself could go to the Grand Canyon and see how life has changed over time through evolution.

The Grand Canyon proves there was a massive flood that laid down the sediments that hardened into rock there.

Clownboat: The fact that fossils in the Grand Canyon are not mixed up as they would be if a global flood caused them and the horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon demonstrate that your words are false. Even if you put them in bold, they are still false.

Marke:
The Great Unconformity: Searching for the Earths Missing Time at the Grand Canyon
By Conelisa N. Hubilla Updated: Jun 12 2024, 04:59 AM EDT
The Grand Canyon is an important key in understanding the Earth's geologic history, with layers of rocks stacked upon one another as they were laid down millions of years ago. However, there is a gap between rock layers which represent a billion years in some places.
Missing Layers
In 1869, while exploring the Grand Canyon, geologist John Wesley Powell noticed a gap in ages between rock layers. A rock layer, about 520 million years old, was sitting on top of rocks that were 1.4-1.8 billion years old.
It was Clarence Dutton, who gave the discrepancy the name "The Great Unconformity" in his 1882 book "Tertiary History of the Grand Caon District." It is also assumed that the Great Unconformity was so-named because of the large interval of time it represents.
The mystery even grew when other places around the world like North America were found to have missing rock dating from before 550 million years ago. Before that, up to a billion years of rock and history were missing from the Earth.

Quote:
Since we know that changes in populations do take place, you must come up with a valid mechanism that stops the changes from happening at some point.

Marke: Since the earliest human civilization known to archaeologists is less than 20,000 years old we must assume evolutionists lack sufficient evidence for assuming humans evolved from animals.

You failed miserably to point to a mechanism that would stop the changes that we know happen within populations from adding up to become bigger changes. Why did you fail so bad at answering this? It is very important and would shed doubt on evolution being a valid explanation, but instead of addressing it, you bring up how humans have been on this earth before your god concept is even claimed to have created them.

Marke: If the fossil record must be believed then we must believe fossilized human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock formations prove humans and dinosaurs occupied the same land areas at the same time.

Marke: Tiktaalik is a cheap magicians trick.

[SiNcE_1985]

No, you just don't understand Christianity, if that's what you think about Jesus.

Then you obviously don't know my history nor how well I happen to understand Christianity. Patience is a virtue and one that Jesus would approve of.

So, if a rapist patiently waits for his unsuspecting victim to come home from work...I guess that is a virtuous patience that Jesus would approve of, huh?

No.

Your patience dealing with someone who simply won't buy in to your false religions beliefs, is not a patience that Jesus would approve of.

If you think otherwise, then you simply don't understand Christianity.

I don't know how this confuses you, but I'll cut out a few words to shorten it up.
"it is still possible that a God created life and evolution is how we got to the life we see both in the fossil record and now on earth."

I already admitted this possibility, so you are preaching to the choir.

Sure, it is possible, but is it true? Thats the question.

That's too bad, but at least I'm fully justified in finding your reasoning invalid and don't need to amend my thinking on that front.

Aint no thang.

Here is why your words are false:
We have the gradual evolution of horses from small, multi-toed creatures to large, single-toed animals. We have the transition of whales from land mammals to marine creatures, the development of bird features in dinosaur ancestors like Archaeopteryx and the emergence of complex life forms from simpler organisms.

Heck, you yourself could go to the Grand Canyon and see how life has changed over time through evolution.

This is the difference between my intepretation of fossils, and yours.

We are walking together, and I am encouraging you to keep your head up after losing a live, televised debate with me.

And while walking, we stumble across the fossils of Archaeopteryx...

Your interpretation: This appears to be a bird fossil, with teeth. But wait, birds don't have teeth. So surely, this must be the transition link between reptiles, and birds!!!

My interpretation: This appears to be a bird fossil, with teeth. From the looks of things, contrary to the birds of today, the birds of yesterday must have had teeth!!

Same observation, different interpretation.

If you rejected it, you would have reasoning. Until there is a valid reason, all you are doing is denying.
What's more is you already explained why you need to not know about evolution (to keep your name in a Lamb's Book of Life). Those without such a stumbling block can see the reasons and will notice how the evolution of languages is not that far off from how populations of animals evolve.

No, you are being disingenuous.

I said that instead of having my name in something like a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, I'd rather have it in the Lamb's Book of Life.

It had nothing to do about not knowing about evolution.

Lies are usually resorted to, once the truth isn't good enough.

What your saying is: We know that changes in populations happen, but they stop at some point because life began on earth.
You belong in 'Holy Huddle'. Saying something that seems so unintelligent does not belong here and ruins chances of quality debate. Perhaps I missed something and you can make your words meaningful?

Wow, more disingenuousness. You just can't help yourself, can't you?

That's not what I said.

I said that since life can't naturally originate, then it can't naturally evolve.

Plain and simple.

You have a superpower for being wrong it seems. The viable theory I have offered to you many times now is that your preferred God created life. I shouldn't have to do this to have a discussion about changes in populations with an adult, but I'm willing to try just about anything in order to get you to debate honestly. I'm literally willing to grant you the idea that your God created life in hopes to foster debate. Jesus would be proud of me.

My God, specifically? Can't be my God, because it would contradict scripture if was my God.

Birds are reptiles and the process, changes within populations take place in both how languages change and how populations change. You really need to work on another superpower. Being shown to be wrong so much has to get tiring, no?

Hey, if you believe birds are reptiles...obviously, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want.

Which is why I requested a mechanism that stops small changes from becoming larger changes. Remember what you offered? You said that because life began, changes in populations must stop at some point. I know, right!

Right, and as I pointed out before...

"What can stop those small changes from becoming larger changes"

contradicts..

"A mouse evolving into a whale is ridiculous" (insinuation).

Ridiculous? Wait, whats stopping it? The same question you asked me.

Lies and deception. You will know them by their fruits.
We notice changes, what we don't notice is a mechanism that at some point stops changes within a populations. I do not lie nor deceive.

The changes that we notice, doesn't reflect the fantasy changes you believe occurred.

To assume that there isn't a limit to the changes, is to leave science (observable, testable knowledge) and to arrive on fantasy island...as you are relying on the unseen, the untested, the indemonstrable.

More dishonesty it seems. Please note, I do not assume a limit, which is why I continue to ask you to provide a mechanism that would be such a limit. Remember what you offered. Abiogenesis! I know!

Did I say that you assume a limit?

This claim was shown to be false. You cannot read Old English, but you can read Modern English. This is English producing English which got us to a macro change where you cannot understand what came prior.

Please demonstrate that Latin evolved into Korean. When you cannot, please realize how dumb your request is.

Latin producing English (micro) is different than English producing Arabic (macro).

Obviously, the learning of Spanish from an English speaker is more difficult than learning Arabic from an English speaker (macro).

If you don't understand this, then I can't help you.

Readers, this poster denies evolution because they cannot see one animal give birth to a different animal.

I said evolution aint happening, neither suddenly, or gradually.

But, everyone always tends to focus on the "suddenly".

Never the gradually.

Probably because the gradually is the one of the two options that won't allow you guys to use the "that's not what evolution says" line.

And Lord knows how much you want to use that line.

Something that would prove evolution to be false. This same poster believes in presumably many liquified corpses reanimating to life and walking around without seeing such a thing. I know, right!

Yeah, but no one is asking for my "belief" to be taught in public classrooms.

But your belief is, and no one even asked for it.

Therefore, this posters criticism is invalid and not consistent and it denies what we see in the fossil record.

What fossils prove: This animal died.

What fossils dont prove: This animal either changed from, or changed to X organism.

Nope. It is plain for all to read. Your reasoning is invalid and it is inconsistent as demonstrated.

Ok.

The only one there is.
fossil record, history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock.
https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-record

Do those fossils come with obituaries, telling us about the life of the animal, when it died, and what evolved to or from?

Just curious.

Note only this, but we also can make predictions about predecessors and successors that are later shown to be true. Imagine that, something false that can predict.

Sure you can. We can make predictions, too.

Yeah, Christians predict that Jesus will return at the right hour.

Denial without any substance. The fossil was predicted, both as far as what we should find and where we should find it. It is fantasy to deny what happened in reality and is therefore invalid reasoning that must be rejected.

Proof that the "free will" system is in full swing.

You are obviously free to believe whatever you wish.

You didn't even bother to look, did you? The fossil was predicted and found to be what was predicted where it was predicted to be. Your silly game of what came next fails utterly to address this and is nothing but another weak distraction.

Um, no...you are trying to distract me with a link, while I'm asking for the entire chain.

Thank you for allowing me to correct your complete misunderstanding.
You continue to note that dogs produce dogs. It has been explained to you that this is the case and why and yet here you are, still wondering why a whale can't give birth to a mouse.
Since_1985: Dogs produce dogs.
Clownboat: Correct, dogs produce dogs. If whale gave birth to a mouse, evolution would be shown to be false.
Since_1985: Show me a whale giving birth to a mouse.
Clownboat: You are demonstrating to be beyond help. Only you can correct yourself.

What?? If there are no limitations to the changes as you insinuated, then I expect to see anything and everything.

You are the one who made the insinuation. Either retract what you said, or show & tell.

This is why I'm starting to note that your ability to be wrong is your superpower. Form a question about abiogenesis and I'll discuss it with you.

Been there, done that.

Logical fallacy. Non sequitur, the conclusion reached in this argument does not logically connect to the information given in the initial statement.
I can understand who Santa is and claims made about him, that doesn't mean I would believe in Santa. Again, there is so much wrong in everything you say here. Demonstrably so.

Hmm. That was the same point I made about evolution.

Your understanding of evolution continues to be shown to be lacking via what you say. My accusation is not even needed to demonstrate this because you demonstrate it on your own.

Same thing I said when someone said I was making up stuff about evolution.

This again is just more demonstrable falsehoods. I have read the Bible from cover to cover and much, much more.

Just because you read it cover to cover, doesn't mean you understand it cover to cover.

Saying that life began does not address what would stop changes within a population from adding up over time.

That wasnt the full train of thought.

More disingenuous.

You don't belong in this forum. It is demonstrably wrong that you addressed this.

Holy Huddle would be a much better place for you to debate. You sully the science forum IMO.

Evolution does not belong in the science discussion.