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?

[no evidence no belief]

.

Ants are land animals. Humans are land animals.

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

NO THEY CANNOT! THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING! (actually it's not. I am enjoying how you are completely destroying your credibility. Please keep it up)

No existing species can evolve into another existing or extinct species.

Existing species can only evolve into NEW species.

Please, please, please, please, please try to to understand.

[no evidence no belief]

.

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.

Abiogenesis is as different from evolution as buying groceries is different from baking a cake.

Yes, there is an element of chance involved in abiogenesis. So?

[no evidence no belief]

.

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.

Since you say "Yes, indeed, given enough time and the right ecological pressures, theoretically anything could evolve into anything." Then it is settled, a fox can evolve into a whale.

Danmark misspoke. Anything CANNOT evolve into anything. Anything can evolve into SOMETHING NEW.

No species can evolve into another species that already exists or once existed. That is statistically impossible. It's about as unlikely as all the atoms in the air you're breathing right now to randomly rush into a corner of your room leaving you suffocating in a vacuum.

If you wanted to be really anal about it, you could say it's "possible" for it to happen, but the likelihood of it would be 0.00000000000000(there isn't enough ink in the world to write down the number of zeros)0000000000001%. You could have a trillion trillion trillion trillion universes go from big bang to big crunch back to back and it wouldn't happen once. That's how likely it would be.

[no evidence no belief]

.

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?

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.

I love the fact that the one time you accidentally misspoke (a species cannot evolve into another existing or extinct species ), you had a qualifier specifying you were not sure because this isn't your area of expertise.

Olavisjo has a LOT to learn from this example. He has a lot to learn, period. But he has a lot to learn from this example specifically.

Those of us who live in fact-based reality make a distinction between things we know on the basis of strong evidentiary basis, intimate knowledge, etc, and things we are only somewhat confident about.

To the contrary, to people who live in faith-based reality, facts don't matter. All it takes to believe that something is true, is that you read somewhere that it's true. "The earth is a globe? Ok, it's written somewhere, so it must be true". "There was a zombie invasion in 30AD Jerusalem? Ok, it's written somewhere, so it must be true".

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Post3125--Anything can evolve into SOMETHING NEW
.

You fall into a pit every time you leave the house or in this case every time you open your mouth. I do not hold this against you in any way because it happens to me for the same reasons I think it happens to you ie sincerity to the point in hand without the capability to 'bring it home' You describe the logic of an acute intelligence on this thread as being a logical car crash. Personally, I would be reluctant to pursue that analogy. There is not a religious person who would disagree with you in the statement of the obvious above. Simply put , I am not the person I was yesterday.

Within the scientific logic that is being explored here you are stating that nothing can evolve into something old despite allowing for chance. Where did I drop the ball into absurdity here.

A frog is sitting on a lily pond leaf.
The earth is hit by a catastrophic meteorite. Only a few cells of the frog survive.
They evolve to become a creature identical to what we have now, ie something old

Chance is the equivalent of magic fairy dust.
The maths involved in space are angels wings
People follow religions because they might well be true
People on this thread are just trying to make that point
Now they have thrown macroevolution at you to keep you going.

Do you want to quantify the influence of chance in the cosmos because I do not
You are a don Quixote here without a windmill and I know how it feels. I still enjoy your posts. Here is another example of one of your charges that missed its target to the point of humour.

To the contrary, to people who live in faith-based reality, facts don't matter. All it takes to believe that something is true, is that you read somewhere that it's true. "The earth is a globe? Ok, it's written somewhere, so it must be true". "There was a zombie invasion in 30AD Jerusalem? Ok, it's written somewhere, so it must be true".

People follow religions because the belief, within the context of their lives , might well be true. They then proceed to investigate with reference to themselves. I did this with my life and I placed scientific speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the outer universe in the bin as being irrelevant and damaging. Stop trying to claim the high moral or logical ground here because there is none.

[Joab]

re no evidence no belief Post3125--Anything can evolve into SOMETHING NEW
.

You fall into a pit every time you leave the house or in this case every time you open your mouth. I do not hold this against you in any way because it happens to me for the same reasons I think it happens to you ie sincerity to the point in hand without the capability to 'bring it home' You describe the logic of an acute intelligence on this thread as being a logical car crash. Personally, I would be reluctant to pursue that analogy. There is not a religious person who would disagree with you in the statement of the obvious above. Simply put , I am not the person I was yesterday.

Within the scientific logic that is being explored here you are stating that nothing can evolve into something old despite allowing for chance. Where did I drop the ball into absurdity here.

A frog is sitting on a lily pond leaf.
The earth is hit by a catastrophic meteorite. Only a few cells of the frog survive.
They evolve to become a creature identical to what we have now, ie something old

Chance is the equivalent of magic fairy dust.
The maths involved in space are angels wings
People follow religions because they might well be true
People on this thread are just trying to make that point
Now they have thrown macroevolution at you to keep you going.

Do you want to quantify the influence of chance in the cosmos because I do not
You are a don Quixote here without a windmill and I know how it feels. I still enjoy your posts. Here is another example of one of your charges that missed its target to the point of humour.

To the contrary, to people who live in faith-based reality, facts don't matter. All it takes to believe that something is true, is that you read somewhere that it's true. "The earth is a globe? Ok, it's written somewhere, so it must be true". "There was a zombie invasion in 30AD Jerusalem? Ok, it's written somewhere, so it must be true".

People follow religions because the belief, within the context of their lives , might well be true. They then proceed to investigate with reference to themselves. I did this with my life and I placed scientific speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the outer universe in the bin as being irrelevant and damaging. Stop trying to claim the high moral or logical ground here because there is none.

So you found evidence of zombies? WOW? Does a shotgun blast to the head really kill the undead?

No wait! Were the ones you found undead or were they dead?

[olavisjo]

.

Danmark misspoke. Anything CANNOT evolve into anything. Anything can evolve into SOMETHING NEW.

No species can evolve into another species that already exists or once existed. That is statistically impossible.

So, it is not impossible after all, it is only statistically impossible. Give Danmark some credit.

We could breed a skulk of foxes. Then sequence their DNA and breed only the ones that most closely resembles the DNA of a modern whale. If we do this long enough, would we not end up evolving a modern whale?

[otseng]

You're an idiot. I mean, literally, you're about as dumb as it gets.

I'll take the warning just to be able to say this.

Moderator Warning


Warning given.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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.

Abiogenesis is as different from evolution as buying groceries is different from baking a cake.

Where did I say they are the same?

Yes, there is an element of chance involved in abiogenesis. So?

If it is only an element of chance, then what other elements are there?

[no evidence no belief]

.

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.

Abiogenesis is as different from evolution as buying groceries is different from baking a cake.

Where did I say they are the same?

Yes, there is an element of chance involved in abiogenesis. So?

If it is only an element of chance, then what other elements are there?

The presence of necessary chemical components and necessary environmental conditions.

Kinda how winning the lottery has an element of chance but also requires that you buy a lottery ticket.