Why Believe Evolution Theories?

[Reneep]

? too much ? "There ARE MANY " ..... so what ? true is true.

Are you saying you can be outside and survive it? Because many will be with you ? Well the problem lies in what we could call the demonic effect, or maybe the Elijah effect.

So folks hope to live through it ? the problem lies in the how the natural events will release poop storms of demons into the atmosphere each time t 1 /3 of humanity dies. The results of those effects to the population will be horrifying. Humanity will be like the pigs after Jesus frees the demoniac . Or after Elijah kills the prophets of Baal and a poop storm of demons try and invade his mind and even Elijah could not cope without the Spirit of the Lord standing Over him to keep the legions of demonic powers from attacking him, and that was only 450 sinners who died that day.
But Yes it seems there will be many outside and many dying there . So everyone who worships at the alter of humanities ignorance, blindness and naked rebellion, to please study Jesus statements to the Leodicean church age. AS HE STATES CLEARLY. HE IS THE WITNESS OF THE CREATION !
HE TELLS THE TRUTH , HE is the witness of Wis Word. He spoke it.
JESUS ISNT COMING BACK TO TAKE SIDES, HE IS COM8NG BACK TO TAKE OVER DONT RISE UP TO FIGHT HIM OR ANYONE. , BUT WITH POOPS STRMS OF DEMONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE THAT WILL BECOME HARDER AND HARDER WITH EACH PASSING MINUTE. PLEASE C9NSIDER WHO YOU REALLY TRUST AND OBEY.

 

[CoreyD]

I'd defer to examples like the one given above that descent with modification simply makes more since than like a punctual creationism (if that's even what anyone would call it).

The example "above" shows the same kind... Elephant, and does not in any way describe the theory of evolution, by common descent.
There are illustrations showing this, for example...

This purports that different kinds of organisms diverged from one common ancestor (not seen in the image, because it's only in the mind).
This is what is believed, and cannot be observed, but researchers think that their interpretations of the data are correct.
What convinces you that their interpretations are correct?

And regarding the concept of dust in the Bible. As scripture notes, all people are made of dust. The description of Adam is typologically a description of all of us. We sin because he first sinned. We are dust as he first was of dust.

All bread is flour.
If you use an ingredient to produce something, that is what it is made up of.
Is that correct?

A rabbit will not produce a cat, because it is not a cat.
What it is, is what it will produce.

The first man is of the dust. He will not produce something which makeup is rock... or flour.

But that's not to say that Adam was created ex nihilo. Because the Bible doesn't speak in ex nihilo terms in the old testament. And that's simply not what Genesis describes. Eve being made out of a rib bone for example. Or talking snakes. These are not concepts of biology. Rather they're concepts of ancient near eastern theology. Talking snakes were how ancient isrealites depicted divine throne guardians. It's not about biology. Nor is the concept of mankind being made of dust.

Not getting into that with you again. We disagree.

You and I are both dust and we also are made of DNA and these things are not mutually exclusive in terms of biological origins and evolution.

Are we made of DNA?
The claim that RNA or DNA evolved and led to living things, is an unverifiable hypothesis, which some scientists argue is not fully supported by evidence.
What is it supported by, would you say?

DNA is a molecule, and we have many molecules in our life system.
Are we made of RNA... which is also a molecule?

Scientists have determined that a typical cell contains approximately 42 million protein molecules, according to recent studies published in 2025.
Why are we not made 42 million molecules, 15/16th of which most don't know by name?

These molecules are part of the life sustaining components put there to carry out the functions required for life.
They all have different function, and without all 42 million, and I am sure that figure is far from accurate... the body would not function as it was designed to, by the creator.
Do you believe this?

Why do you believe in the evolution theory that claims you came from organic soup as a tiny organism, invisible to the naked eye?
Why don't you believe that every living organism was part of special creation, including those that went wrong due to sin and mutations?

 

[CoreyD]

I don't know why you needed to post all that to a fellow Christian. Maybe you didn't realize this is a Christians only sub-forum?

I also don't know why you seem to think recognizing the reality of evolution means no God. Amos says God creates winds and mountains, but that doesn't mean everyone who recognizes the reality of temperature gradients, the Coriolis Effect, plate tectonics, and volcanoes doesn't believe in God or scripture, does it?

I really have to work on my wording.
@1Tonne are you sure it's me, or how people read?

The reason I posted this is, as I said, out of concern.
If I thought you did not identify as Christian, believing in the Bible, and God, why would I post something like that?

@1Tonne I think I need help. I'm losing my mind here.

 

[Job 33:6]

The example "above" shows the same kind... Elephant, and does not in any way describe the theory of evolution, by common descent.
There are illustrations showing this, for example...

This purports that different kinds of organisms diverged from one common ancestor (not seen in the image, because it's only in the mind).
This is what is believed, and cannot be observed, but researchers think that their interpretations of the data are correct.
What convinces you that their interpretations are correct?

The fossil record still indicates a procession of dissent with modification.

I don't see any reason to differentiate between the pakicetus to ambulocetus transition, anymore than something like paleomastodon to species of elephant today.

It's really just imaginary that there's some sort of magical barrier that stops evolution between one genus to another for example.

The onus really falls on you to suggest why evolution mysteriously would stop.

And simply saying, well, a dog looks different than say, a bear, isn't really a valid argument because transitional forms include features of both, hence why there are extinct species. Simply called Bear dogs. Informally.

Incredulity isn't a counter argument.

And to be fair, land animals like pakicetus, share a lot of treats in common with early whales, the conical head and the triangular serrated teeth for example. There's a good reason that they are classified in the same group as cetaceans.

And the fossil succession shows this transition from a land cetacean to an aquatic cetacean. So it is what it is.

 

[1Tonne]

Claudina of the precambrian for example, would is an early annelid bilaterian, transitional precursors to metazoan bilaterians today. They also are of the earliest shelled organisms we know of with evidence of predation, backing the evolutionary arms race explanation for why the ediacaran and Cambrian explosions occurred (along with climate related changes such as the rifting of rodinia and end of snowball earth).

Claudina as an Early Annelid Bilaterian?
You claim that Claudina (likely referring to Cloudina) is an early annelid bilaterian (a segmented worm-like animal with bilateral symmetry) and a precursor to more complex Cambrian animals.

-Cloudina is not an annelid bilaterian; it is classified as a small, tube-dwelling organism from the Ediacaran period.
-It lacks clear evidence of complex body structures like a digestive system, segmentation, or limbs—features seen in Cambrian bilaterians.
-Some researchers suggest Cloudina may be related to early cnidarians (corals and jellyfish) rather than bilaterians.
-If Cloudina was a true precursor to Cambrian bilaterians, we should expect to see intermediate forms between Cloudina and Cambrian phyla, but these are absent.

Cloudina does not demonstrate a clear evolutionary link to Cambrian bilaterians, making it a weak example of a transitional fossil.

Evolutionary Arms Race & Predation Evidence
You argue that predation (seen in Cloudina) led to an "evolutionary arms race," pushing rapid evolution during the Cambrian Explosion.

-While some Cloudina fossils show tiny boreholes (suggested as evidence of predation), this does not explain why so many completely new body plans appeared so suddenly.
-Predation could explain why organisms developed shells or defenses, but it does not create entirely new phyla (e.g., arthropods, mollusks, chordates).
-The major challenge for Darwinian evolution is not just explaining adaptation (defensive shells), but the origin of complex body plans and genetic information. (Irreducible complexity which I will get to in my next post)
-If an arms race drove rapid evolution, we should see a gradual buildup of complexity in the fossil record before the Cambrian. Instead, we see an abrupt appearance.

Predation does not explain how entirely new animal phyla appeared with no clear evolutionary ancestors.

Climate Change (Rodinia Rift & Snowball Earth)
You are arguing that geological events (the breakup of Rodinia and the end of "Snowball Earth") triggered evolution.

-While environmental changes can create new ecological niches, they do not directly explain the appearance of new genetic information or body plans.
-Simply having a good environment does not automatically produce new functional genes, proteins, and organs.
-If climate shifts caused the Cambrian Explosion, why didn’t similar environmental changes in other periods cause equally explosive biological diversification?

Environmental changes might create opportunities for life to expand, but they do not explain the sudden, coordinated emergence of complex animal phyla.

The real issue is not whether evolution occurred at all but whether it can adequately explain the sudden emergence of complex body plans.
The Cambrian Explosion is a challenge for gradual evolution because:

1. New phyla appear suddenly with no clear ancestors in the fossil record.
2. Genetic information required for new body plans must come from somewhere, and random mutation + natural selection has not been shown to create such complexity so quickly.
3. Transitional fossils leading to Cambrian phyla are missing, making the "step-by-step" evolutionary process unclear.

The Cambrian Explosion presents a major challenge for evolutionary theory. While Cloudina and predation do not explain the rapid, coordinated appearance of entirely new animal body plans. The sudden emergence of these complex organisms suggests that standard evolutionary mechanisms (mutation and selection) are insufficient to account for the diversity seen in the Cambrian period.

or example, let's look at elephants of the fossil record

I'd defer to examples like the one given above that descent with modification simply makes more since than like a punctual creationism (if that's even what anyone would call it).

neither do I believe that God created every living species.

I see elephants mating with elephants to make elephants. There was no change from elephant to another animal. We do see changes in the shape, colour and size. But that is simply natural selection and adaptation.

God originally created animals with a rich variety of genetic information, allowing for the diversity of species and breeds we see today. This idea is sometimes called "created kinds" (baraminology) and suggests that God made original "kinds" of animals with the built-in potential to adapt and diversify over time.

You may ask how this would work genetically?
1. Front-Loaded Genetic Diversity
-The first animals (like the original "dog kind" or "cat kind") were created with all the necessary genes for future variations.
-This means they had genes for different colors, sizes, fur lengths, and other traits already inside them.
-Over time, different combinations of these genes were passed down, leading to the many breeds and species we see today.

2. Microevolution, Not Macroevolution
-New Earth Creationists accept microevolution (small changes within a kind) but reject macroevolution (one kind turning into a completely different kind).
-Example: All dogs (wolves, foxes, Great Danes, and Chihuahuas) came from the same created "dog kind," but a dog never became a cat or a horse.

3. Natural Selection & Adaptation
-As animals spread into different environments, certain traits became more common.
-Example: Wolves in colder climates developed thicker fur because those with genes for thick fur survived better and passed on those genes.

4. Selective Breeding Accelerates Change
-Humans have used artificial selection (breeding) to bring out specific traits, like making sheep with more wool or dogs with certain temperaments.
-This process works because the genes were already there—they were just "sorted" into different combinations.

God designed animals with a built-in ability to produce variety within their kind. This explains why we see so many different breeds today, but always within the same basic type of animal. So, this is why we see elephants become elephants in your diagram.

And yes, I'll reiterate relation to YEC views, because the concept of "kinds" doesn't even make sense in an OEC view.

Correct. An OEC struggles with it as they do not believe what the Bible says. They try to explain it away as though it is silly or just poetic.

Genesis 1:11-12 (ESV)
"And God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:21 (ESV)
"So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:24-25 (ESV)
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

The idea of the fossil record or the rock record being a product of a global flood also runs in contradiction with old Earth creationism.

That is because the Bible, God's word, is not your authority. Evolution is.

And if you agree that evolution is true to some extent

Microevolution, Not Macroevolution
-New Earth Creationists accept microevolution (small changes within a kind) but reject macroevolution (one kind turning into a completely different kind).
-Example: All dogs (wolves, foxes, Great Danes, and Chihuahuas) came from the same created "dog kind," but a dog never became a cat or a horse.

It's usually the fundamentalist types who have little to no tolerance for different interpretations, anoint themselves the apostate the police, and go around accusing and condemning everyone who dares disagree with them.

I would not have posted Romans 1:20-24 if you had not asked me, "Where did you get the belief that evolution is a salvation make or break point? I don't remember any scripture saying that. Did you just make it up?"
I was just wanting a friendly conversation, but then you asked me for a verse and so I gave it. If you do not like the answer, then do not ask the question.
But if you are feeling condemned or guilty, then maybe there is a reason. A person does not need to feel guilty if they are innocent.

The example "above" shows the same kind... Elephant, and does not in any way describe the theory of evolution, by common descent.

What you are trying to explain is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution
New Earth Creationists accept microevolution. So small changes within a kind. Elephants becoming elephants that may look slightly different, but they are still an elephant. Like in the diagram shown above by Job. But we reject macroevolution. That is one kind turning into a completely different kind. So, fish turning into cats. LOL. That is Darwinian Evolution. (Sorry, couldn't help but giggle at that)
-Example of microevolution: All dogs (wolves, foxes, Great Danes, and Chihuahuas) came from the same created "dog kind," but a dog never became a cat or a horse.

 

[1Tonne]

I really have to work on my wording.
@1Tonne are you sure it's me, or how people read?

The reason I posted this is, as I said, out of concern.
If I thought you did not identify as Christian, believing in the Bible, and God, why would I post something like that?

@1Tonne I think I need help. I'm losing my mind here.

You are doing fine. Many people profess to be Christians. The issue comes down to whether they believe His word or not and do they choose to honour Him. Evolutionists choose not to believe His word and they do not give God honour where it is due.
So, keep up the good work. Your wording was fine.

The onus really falls on you to suggest why evolution mysteriously would stop.

I believe the onus is on you to prove why evolution mysteriously continued when we do not have the evidence and it goes against God's word.

 

[Job 33:6]

Claudina as an Early Annelid Bilaterian?
You claim that Claudina (likely referring to Cloudina) is an early annelid bilaterian (a segmented worm-like animal with bilateral symmetry) and a precursor to more complex Cambrian animals.

-Cloudina is not an annelid bilaterian; it is classified as a small, tube-dwelling organism from the Ediacaran period.
-It lacks clear evidence of complex body structures like a digestive system, segmentation, or limbs—features seen in Cambrian bilaterians.
-Some researchers suggest Cloudina may be related to early cnidarians (corals and jellyfish) rather than bilaterians.
-If Cloudina was a true precursor to Cambrian bilaterians, we should expect to see intermediate forms between Cloudina and Cambrian phyla, but these are absent.

Cloudina does not demonstrate a clear evolutionary link to Cambrian bilaterians, making it a weak example of a transitional fossil

There are still several phyla today that actually appeared in the Precambrian, not during the Cambrian explosion. So I don't see your response as being particularly meaningful.

Evolutionary Arms Race & Predation Evidence
You argue that predation (seen in Cloudina) led to an "evolutionary arms race," pushing rapid evolution during the Cambrian Explosion.

-While some Cloudina fossils show tiny boreholes (suggested as evidence of predation), this does not explain why so many completely new body plans appeared so suddenly.

As noted above, species evolved hard parts.

The Cambrian explosion spanned something like 40 million years, so I don't know where you get this idea that it was a sudden event.

Climate Change (Rodinia Rift & Snowball Earth)
You are arguing that geological events (the breakup of Rodinia and the end of "Snowball Earth") triggered evolution.

Species are known to fill niches that open up. Not necessarily a trigger but more like a release.

 

[River Jordan]

I really have to work on my wording.
@1Tonne are you sure it's me, or how people read?

The reason I posted this is, as I said, out of concern.
If I thought you did not identify as Christian, believing in the Bible, and God, why would I post something like that?

@1Tonne I think I need help. I'm losing my mind here.

If we both believe in God, believe God created everything, and believe in eternal life through Christ, what are you worried about? That we disagree about how God created things? So what?

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe the onus is on you to prove why evolution mysteriously continued when we do not have the evidence and it goes against God's word.

God's word describes ancient Israelite cosmology, it has nothing to do with biological origins, and I've said this several times and YECs still just don't get it.

 

[Job 33:6]

What you are trying to explain is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution
New Earth Creationists accept microevolution. So small changes within a kind. Elephants becoming elephants that may look slightly different, but they are still an elephant. Like in the diagram shown above by Job. But we reject macroevolution. That is one kind turning into a completely different kind. So, fish turning into cats. LOL. That is Darwinian Evolution. (Sorry, couldn't help but giggle at that)
-Example of microevolution: All dogs (wolves, foxes, Great Danes, and Chihuahuas) came from the same created "dog kind," but a dog never became a cat or a horse.

There is no difference here between microevolution and macro evolution, these are just made up imaginary terms by creationists.

There's no magical barrier between one species to another or even transitions that unfold between to genus via a species to species process.

Just like there isn't really one magical barrier between Red and blue, there are transitionals, orange yellow green. Etc. But there's no firm boundary between any of these.

 

[1Tonne]

For Job 33:6 and also River Jordon who is a biologist and so therefore will be able to answer this question easily.

Irreducible complexity
Biological systems are too complex to have evolved step by step because all their parts must be present and fully functional for the system to work at all.

Example: Blood, Heart, and Blood Vessels
The circulatory system (heart, blood, and blood vessels) is an example of irreducible complexity:

1. The Heart – It pumps blood, but it would be useless without blood to circulate.
2. The Blood – It carries oxygen and nutrients, but it would be useless without a heart to move it.
3. Blood Vessels – They direct blood to tissues, but they would be useless without both the heart and the blood.

All three must have existed at the same time in a fully functioning state, because if even one were missing or incomplete, life could not be sustained. This points to intelligent design rather than gradual evolution.

If we both believe in God, believe God created everything, and believe in eternal life through Christ, what are you worried about? That we disagree about how God created things? So what?

Evolution makes God's word out to be a liar. Death was not around before Adam sinned.

 

[River Jordan]

I would not have posted Romans 1:20-24 if you had not asked me, "Where did you get the belief that evolution is a salvation make or break point? I don't remember any scripture saying that. Did you just make it up?"
I was just wanting a friendly conversation, but then you asked me for a verse and so I gave it. If you do not like the answer, then do not ask the question.

Except those verses said nothing about evolution being a make or break point for salvation.

What you are trying to explain is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution

The difference between the two is the scale of time over which the evolution occurred. But in terms of mechanisms there is no difference between them.

So small changes within a kind. Elephants becoming elephants that may look slightly different, but they are still an elephant.

How did you figure that elephants are a kind?

Like in the diagram shown above by Job. But we reject macroevolution. That is one kind turning into a completely different kind. So, fish turning into cats. LOL. That is Darwinian Evolution. (Sorry, couldn't help but giggle at that)

You're right to giggle. That sort of depiction of evolution is very silly.

Example of microevolution: All dogs (wolves, foxes, Great Danes, and Chihuahuas) came from the same created "dog kind," but a dog never became a cat or a horse.

How did you figure that dogs are a kind?

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is my list of phyla, strictly based off of the fossil record, we see that several were present before the Cambrian explosion. So someone could say, well where did porifera of the Cambrian explosion come from? Well. The answer is they came from pre-cambrian porifera. It's really not that hard to understand.

This idea that all these animals just appeared out of nothing. Instantaneously is completely imaginary. When many of the animals we see today, were in fact around before the Cambridge explosion ever happened.

And then beyond that, this is just based on the fossil record which is continually expanding with Discovery, but if we look at genetics, the same details are affirmed, many of these groups of animals were already there.

 

[River Jordan]

Irreducible complexity
Biological systems are too complex to have evolved step by step because all their parts must be present and fully functional for the system to work at all.

Says who?

Example: Blood, Heart, and Blood Vessels
The circulatory system (heart, blood, and blood vessels) is an example of irreducible complexity:

1. The Heart – It pumps blood, but it would be useless without blood to circulate.
2. The Blood – It carries oxygen and nutrients, but it would be useless without a heart to move it.
3. Blood Vessels – They direct blood to tissues, but they would be useless without both the heart and the blood.

All three must have existed at the same time in a fully functioning state, because if even one were missing or incomplete, life could not be sustained. This points to intelligent design rather than gradual evolution.

Have you studied those subjects, such as the evolution of hearts?

Evolution makes God's word out to be a liar. Death was not around before Adam sinned.

While you're welcome to your own unique interpretation, no one else is obligated to adhere to it.

 

[1Tonne]

There is no difference here between microevolution and macro evolution, these are just made up imaginary terms by creationists.

There's no magical barrier between one species to another or even transitions that unfold between to genus via a species to species process.

Microevolution (small changes within a species) is observable, but macroevolution (one kind of creature turning into another) is assumed (made up because it suits your theory). We see variation within species, like dog breeds or bacteria developing resistance, but we never observe one kind of animal turning into a completely new kind. If there’s no ‘barrier,’ why don’t we see new body plans or new major features evolving today?"

Can you show a clear, step-by-step example of one type of animal evolving into a completely new type with a new body plan—without just assuming it happened?

 

[River Jordan]

Microevolution (small changes within a species) is observable, but macroevolution (one kind of creature turning into another) is assumed (made up because it suits your theory). We see variation within species, like dog breeds or bacteria developing resistance, but we never observe one kind of animal turning into a completely new kind. If there’s no ‘barrier,’ why don’t we see new body plans or new major features evolving today?"

Microevolution is evolution within a species, like microorganisms evolving resistance to antibiotics. Macroevolution is evolution above that, like the evolution of new species.

Both have been directly observed. As Christians we should never deny reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

For Job 33:6 and also River Jordon who is a biologist and so therefore will be able to answer this question easily.

Irreducible complexity
Biological systems are too complex to have evolved step by step because all their parts must be present and fully functional for the system to work at all.

Example: Blood, Heart, and Blood Vessels
The circulatory system (heart, blood, and blood vessels) is an example of irreducible complexity:

1. The Heart – It pumps blood, but it would be useless without blood to circulate.
2. The Blood – It carries oxygen and nutrients, but it would be useless without a heart to move it.
3. Blood Vessels – They direct blood to tissues, but they would be useless without both the heart and the blood.

All three must have existed at the same time in a fully functioning state, because if even one were missing or incomplete, life could not be sustained. This points to intelligent design rather than gradual evolution.

Evolution makes God's word out to be a liar. Death was not around before Adam sinned.

All this is is just completely imaginary.

Are you aware that Michael behe, the person who created this idea of irreducible complexity, he himself acknowledges that people evolved from apes?

A lot of creationists aren't even aware of this. He just refers to it more as a intelligent design descent with modification from primitive apes as opposed to darwinian descent with modification from primitive apes but in principle it's essentially the same.

But then ultimately the whole irreducible complexity argument has always been one from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

It's this idea that I can't imagine how this would happen, therefore it couldn't. Meanwhile, 99% of other biologists have absolutely no problem with the process of evolution.

Personal incredulity is not a valid argument.

 

[Job 33:6]

Microevolution (small changes within a species) is observable, but macroevolution (one kind of creature turning into another) is assumed (made up because it suits your theory). We see variation within species, like dog breeds or bacteria developing resistance, but we never observe one kind of animal turning into a completely new kind. If there’s no ‘barrier,’ why don’t we see new body plans or new major features evolving today?"

Can you show a clear, step-by-step example of one type of animal evolving into a completely new type with a new body plan—without just assuming it happened?

Evolution only occurs species to species, and as you've noted above, it's been observed and that's all there is to it. There is no order to order evolution, that's not what evolution is and I'm sure you've been told this many times.

Evolution can occur in which new orders of animals can come about through species to species evolution, eventually over millions of years. And that's how it is.

And obviously nobody's been alive for millions of years, so of course nobody has sat around and witnessed it

 

[Job 33:6]

That awkward moment when Michael Behe says that he believes we descended from primitive apes. That awkward detail that creationists never want to mention.

Then they want to call the Cambrian explosion instantaneous even though it in fact spanned tens of millions of years.

It's all just the same old weak arguments that criminals like Kent hovind made-up decades ago.

Then they say that all these phyla appeared out of thin air at the cambrian explosion, meanwhile you have at least half a dozen phyla, and many contested, that have been identified in pre Cambrian strata. Porifera, cnidaria, xenaceolomorpha, and annelida, all in the Precambrian, among several contested because fossils of an earlier time could fit into multiple categories. Oops, I guess answers in Genesis forgot to mention that detail.

Meanwhile, when we actually read and study the Bible, we see that it describes ancient Israelite cosmology that has nothing to do with biological origins or any science at all.

The creationist position is just embarrassing.

 

[CoreyD]

If those aren't heritable traits, then no.

Have you ever studied the science of evolutionary biology?

I have not studied at a university, if that is what you are asking.

That's evolution. There is no "large scale evolution" that's a different type of evolution (as in occurring by different mechanisms).

Did I say it's a different evolution?
Did the OP refer to evolution, or the theory of evolution?
Does the theory of evolution seek to explain evolution?

Right, that's universal common ancestry, which is an outcome of evolution.

Well this is what I am asking, so perhaps from here we can actually get back to the OP.
UCA is a hypothesis, so to say it is an "outcome" is to suggest, or rather claim, that UCA is a fact.

Why do you believe this is a fact, when scientists do not agree that UCA is the correct proposal? (References 1 2 3 4 5 )

It looks like you might be confusing the process of evolution with its outcomes, such as UCA.

It looks to me as though you are confusing the theory with the facts.

The debates within the field of evolutionary biology are over specific details about how it occurs (such as the relative importance of different mechanisms), specific taxonomic relationships, and (much more limited) the nature of the first life forms (like whether they were colonies of single-celled organisms that regularly exchanged genetics, or something else).

Yes, I understand that.

It actually is. Part of the theory of evolution is about how evolution happens, such as its mechanisms.

Part of the theory?
I'm dealing with the theory. Not part of it.
Do you only want to deal with part of it?
If so, I wont be with you on that one.

I've heard it said that some people like to deal with parts because the parts they deal with are the parts that no one is contending, and the other parts pose problems.
That's not the case here, is it?

It's a question. If you don't want to answer, just say so.


We have members of this forum who, in this thread, are speaking as authorities in all sorts of scientific fields. Why should anyone go with what anonymous people say in an internet forum over the long-standing conclusions of professional scientists?

I have no idea why you raised that question.
I have seen people refer to professional scientist s, but usually the response is a dismissal of those scientists as of no account - just "by the way troublemakers, or deniers".

So you're not an expert or authority in the science of evolutionary biology. So why should anyone believe you over actual experts?

Believe me about what exactly?
What did I say that is not written in public journals?

Why would you being wrong not be relevant to your attempt to debate the subject?

No. You misunderstood.
Prove me wrong that you made up the reason you jumped to your conclusion.

I have friends who are professional athletes. That doesn't do anything for my athletic ability. If your friends want to join and post here, that'd be great!

That may be your fault, but you can't blame anyone for any lack on your part.
The mind is a powerful "tool".

Yes.


A new population that can't interbreed with its parent species, but can fully breed on its own. If that's not a new species, then what is?

You can ask other scientists this question.
They are the best persons to question since you guys are the ones depending on it, and according to you, "they generally know what they are doing".

Scientists continue to debate the term "new species" due to the complexity and variability in defining what constitutes a species. The debate includes discussions on how to recognize a new species and the criteria used for classification, such as reproductive isolation, genetic differences, and morphological traits.

What Is a Species?

To this day, scientists struggle with that question. A better definition can influence which animals make the endangered list

www.scientificamerican.com

Speciation: The Origin of New Species

The difficult job of defining a species

Though taxonomy is hundreds of years old, scientists are still striving to create a universal and easily understood system

theweek.com

Right, "species" can be difficult at times to identify because populations are constantly evolving. If all species were created by God and never evolved new ones, it'd be super easy to identify them.

Evolved new ones?
Why do you say " evolved new ones" rather than produced new ones?

It looks to me like you either don't understand the question (despite me explaining it to you) or you don't want to answer. So I'll just conclude that you don't know why scientists across the world have agreed on the reality of evolution for so long.

We have free will to do, think, and believe what we want.

Like I said, I don't read the Genesis accounts like they're newspaper stories or scientific abstracts. They clearly have lyrical, poetic, and rhythmic elements, which tells me they're meant to convey deeper truths. I also try and remember that they are first and foremost Jewish documents, written by Jews, for Jews, and therefore must be understood in that context. So understanding how Jews interpret them has also played a role in my interpretation.

Okay, so Genesis to you is not an account relating history as it says repeatedly from Genesis Chapter 2, through to the Christian Greek scriptures, where the apostles as well as Jesus refer to the history, and quote these passages as actual events.

What Paul said in Acts 17 for example, is not to be taken as relating to the people truths, but reading a story book, as we do to our children?

Okay, thanks. for that answer.