AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[Inferno]

You said reproduction or adaptation is evolution but the problem is that in every example there is no evolving going on.But you say it is,but there is no way to know based on the evidence so you and they must assume it is evolving.I hope this helps .I think this might help you look up the definition for evolution then examine the evidence.

It's been said quite often, but this point needs repeating:
You think that evolution is "one kind becoming a fundamentally different kind", but this is not what evolution is. This is a straw man representation of what evolution is, a lie.

I'll explain it again: Humans are still apes today. We didn't evolve from apes. We ARE apes. We are a subclass of ape.
All apes are still primates today. We didn't evolve from primates. We ARE primates. We are a subclass of primates.
Primates are still mammals today. We didn't evolve from ...

You should get the idea by now.
It is wrong to think that evolution is "changing into something different". If a human were to give birth to a cat, that would NOT BE EVOLUTION. If an animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck were to emerge, that would NOT BE EVOLUTION. These are straw man representations, they are not what scientists talk about.

As always, I'll offer you the still-standing challenge I've been posing to creationists for the last 2-3 years:
Imagine evolution were true. What evidence would you expect to find? Please be specific: "I would expect to find fish with hands" or "I would expect to find fossils with such-and-such shape in this-and-this time".

Typically, three possibilities arise:
1) You ask for something that has already been found and you don't know about it or (never happened) you ask for something that could be found but has yet to be found.
2) You ask for something that could not possibly be found if evolution were true, it would violate one or more laws of evolution.
3) (this always happens) You don't answer the question.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You said reproduction or adaptation is evolution but the problem is that in every example there is no evolving going on.But you say it is,but there is no way to know based on the evidence so you and they must assume it is evolving.I hope this helps .I think this might help you look up the definition for evolution then examine the evidence.

It's been said quite often, but this point needs repeating:
You think that evolution is "one kind becoming a fundamentally different kind", but this is not what evolution is. This is a straw man representation of what evolution is, a lie.

I'll explain it again: Humans are still apes today. We didn't evolve from apes. We ARE apes. We are a subclass of ape.
All apes are still primates today. We didn't evolve from primates. We ARE primates. We are a subclass of primates.
Primates are still mammals today. We didn't evolve from ...

You should get the idea by now.
It is wrong to think that evolution is "changing into something different". If a human were to give birth to a cat, that would NOT BE EVOLUTION. If an animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck were to emerge, that would NOT BE EVOLUTION. These are straw man representations, they are not what scientists talk about.

As always, I'll offer you the still-standing challenge I've been posing to creationists for the last 2-3 years:
Imagine evolution were true. What evidence would you expect to find? Please be specific: "I would expect to find fish with hands" or "I would expect to find fossils with such-and-such shape in this-and-this time".

Typically, three possibilities arise:
1) You ask for something that has already been found and you don't know about it or (never happened) you ask for something that could be found but has yet to be found.
2) You ask for something that could not possibly be found if evolution were true, it would violate one or more laws of evolution.
3) (this always happens) You don't answer the question.

Sorry but I do not believe evolution is any of the things you said I go by the definitions evolutionists go by and the evidence does not back up their own definitions like evolution,natural selection,micro-evolution,macro evolution,etc I go by these definitions when I look at the evidence used as evidence and the evidence does not back it up,unless you assume and I don't assume.

I know you think that I think I think evolution is something it is not,but you're wrong but let me ask you this, if the evidence used as evidence for evolution does not back up their own definitions then how do you accept evolution?You need to answer this question.

I also am not going to fall for your trick you see you are going by a tree based on the belief life evolves claiming humans are apes and yet you don't even have evidence life evolves,so your tree is worthless and is just imagination.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Here are things that do not prove or demonstrate life evolves.
1.The evolution tree.
2.DNA and how all life seems related.
3 Fossils
4.The universe and earth are billions of years old.
5.You preach evolution is true and explain it happens.

 

[ldmitruk]

Here are things that do not prove or demonstrate life evolves.
1.The evolution tree.
2.DNA and how all life seems related.
3 Fossils
4.The universe and earth are billions of years old.
5.You preach evolution is true and explain it happens.

Thank you for clearing this up for me. Based on these 5 points alone I no longer accept any work done by science in the areas of biology, paleontology, geology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy as factual. Your overwhelming argument has shown the Bible to be the only reliable science book. :lol:

Let's face it Abel, your Bible goggles are so thick you wouldn't recognise science and the evidence supporting scientific theories if they smacked you upside your head with a clue x 4.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Here are things that do not prove or demonstrate life evolves.
1.The evolution tree.
2.DNA and how all life seems related.
3 Fossils
4.The universe and earth are billions of years old.
5.You preach evolution is true and explain it happens.

Thank you for clearing this up for me. Based on these 5 points alone I no longer accept any work done by science in the areas of biology, paleontology, geology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy as factual. Your overwhelming argument has shown the Bible to be the only reliable science book. :lol:

Let's face it Abel, your Bible goggles are so thick you wouldn't recognise science and the evidence supporting scientific theories if they smacked you upside your head with a clue x 4.

Even if I accepted evolution I'd be a theistic evolutionist but I see no reason to based on a lack of evidence life evolves.I'm not anti-science at all like you think but I think science has lost its way because of money when it comes to evolution

Besides based on what I believe the same evidence used as evidence for evolution actually proves what I believe is true,the gap theory,the gap theory is the only creation theory that defeats the theory of evolution,none of the other creation theories have even effected evolution.I believe all of the evidence in science has been looked at all wrong because of evolution.I accept the earth is billions of years old too,but not because of evolution.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Here are things that do not prove or demonstrate life evolves.
1.The evolution tree.
2.DNA and how all life seems related.
3 Fossils
4.The universe and earth are billions of years old.
5.You preach evolution is true and explain it happens.

Thank you for clearing this up for me. Based on these 5 points alone I no longer accept any work done by science in the areas of biology, paleontology, geology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy as factual. Your overwhelming argument has shown the Bible to be the only reliable science book. :lol:

Let's face it Abel, your Bible goggles are so thick you wouldn't recognise science and the evidence supporting scientific theories if they smacked you upside your head with a clue x 4.

One more wall.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISLKYUx7xpc

 

[Shanara99]

Even if I accepted evolution I'd be a theistic evolutionist but I see no reason to based on a lack of evidence life evolves.I'm not anti-science at all like you think but I think science has lost its way because of money when it comes to evolution

Besides based on what I believe the same evidence used as evidence for evolution actually proves what I believe is true,the gap theory,the gap theory is the only creation theory that defeats the theory of evolution,none of the other creation theories have even effected evolution.I believe all of the evidence in science has been looked at all wrong because of evolution.I accept the earth is billions of years old too,but not because of evolution.

Hey, abel. Peer reviewed literature that I already linked in this treadclearly indicates, via viric markers, that humans are apes. I could do the same for the entire DNA, since the differences between apes are not that great, and there are even more ways, all of them showing that evolution happened.

But that's not my point here, since everyone else has been telling you that, and showing you the abridged version of the conclisions reached by millions of articles published in over a century, with the last few decades being the most relevant ones.

What I wanted to tell you is that evolutiondoes not necerarily deny a god. Evolution denies creationism, but not religion. And that is because evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life, but about the diversity of life. If you're talking ONLY about evolution, then sure, you can be a theistic evolutionist all you want. Abiogenesis, that is, the theory of how life (bios) came from inorganical chemistry, is a entirely diferent theory: one that is less substantiated than evolution.

There's still some proof that abiogenesis CAN happen, but the ammount of proof is... less solid than evolution.

Evolution doesn't talk about how life appeared. It speaks about how life behaved after it already existed. Nothing in the theory of evolution tells us where that life came from, it doesn't even attempt to explain it. Evolution would still be true IF all life came from an alien seeding a few million procariots on Earth, or if Io the blind created those cells.

We can talk abiogenesis if you like, but the proof for abiogenesis is quite different than the proof for evolution. And quite honestly, you'd need a degree on chemistry to be able to follow scientific literature related to abiogenesis. Common sense fails when applied to the very small or the very big, and abiogenesis falls into this "very small" category.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You said reproduction or adaptation is evolution but the problem is that in every example there is no evolving going on.But you say it is,but there is no way to know based on the evidence so you and they must assume it is evolving.I hope this helps .I think this might help you look up the definition for evolution then examine the evidence.

Is there or is there not inheritable changes that can give the offspring different traits from that of the progenitors?

 

[Visaki]

So ablecainsbrothers tactic is to take everything (included, but not limited to things that are evidence that life evolves) and to claim that it is not evidence that life evolves? :lol:

 

[Inferno]

Sorry but I do not believe evolution is any of the things you said

Then you don't go by the definitions scientists give; you're making up your own fairy-tale definitions. You are denying reality because it suits you.

I go by the definitions evolutionists go by

Really? Then how come every time I show you what evolution is according to the experts, you say "no, this is not evolution"?

For example, this is Dr. Kenneth Miller explaining what evolution is, he does the same thing again on NOVA.

I know you think that I think I think evolution is something it is not,but you're wrong

*cough*bullshit*cough*

if the evidence used as evidence for evolution does not back up their own definitions then how do you accept evolution?You need to answer this question.

No problem. Could you please ask the question in plain English so I can actually understand what you're asking?

I also am not going to fall for your trick you see you are going by a tree based on the belief life evolves claiming humans are apes and yet you don't even have evidence life evolves,so your tree is worthless and is just imagination.

I am not yet presenting evidence for the claim, I am explaining that your view is wrong. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Your claim: Humans evolved from monkeys.
Sciene says: Humans are still monkeys.

Once you accept that this is what scientists say, I can show you the evidence. If you don't accept this, then further discussion is futile.

Here are things that do not prove or demonstrate life evolves.
1.The evolution tree.
2.DNA and how all life seems related.
3 Fossils
4.The universe and earth are billions of years old.
5.You preach evolution is true and explain it happens.

Thanks for not answering a single question. If you don't answer so basic a question, how can I then provide you with the evidence?

Even if I accepted evolution I'd be a theistic evolutionist

And that would be fine, nobody wants you to be an atheist anyway.

I'm not anti-science at all like you think but I think science has lost its way because of money when it comes to evolution

What a fucking farce. How much money goes into promoting evolution? Barely anything. How much money goes into promoting creationism? Millions of dollars for AiG alone, to say nothing of America as a whole or the whole world! Harun Yahya comes to mind who allegedly spent hundreds of millions on the subject.

Why did evolution pick up in the mid 19th century? There certainly wasn't a lot of money in that business, it was done for prestige. The church had (and still has) a huge dump of money, yet even they finally accept it. Don't fool yourself: Nothing you do or say has anything even remotely to do with science. 99% of all biologists agree that evolution has happened and is happening right now.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Even if I accepted evolution I'd be a theistic evolutionist but I see no reason to based on a lack of evidence life evolves.I'm not anti-science at all like you think but I think science has lost its way because of money when it comes to evolution

Besides based on what I believe the same evidence used as evidence for evolution actually proves what I believe is true,the gap theory,the gap theory is the only creation theory that defeats the theory of evolution,none of the other creation theories have even effected evolution.I believe all of the evidence in science has been looked at all wrong because of evolution.I accept the earth is billions of years old too,but not because of evolution.

Hey, abel. Peer reviewed literature that I already linked in this treadclearly indicates, via viric markers, that humans are apes. I could do the same for the entire DNA, since the differences between apes are not that great, and there are even more ways, all of them showing that evolution happened.

But that's not my point here, since everyone else has been telling you that, and showing you the abridged version of the conclisions reached by millions of articles published in over a century, with the last few decades being the most relevant ones.

What I wanted to tell you is that evolutiondoes not necerarily deny a god. Evolution denies creationism, but not religion. And that is because evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life, but about the diversity of life. If you're talking ONLY about evolution, then sure, you can be a theistic evolutionist all you want. Abiogenesis, that is, the theory of how life (bios) came from inorganical chemistry, is a entirely diferent theory: one that is less substantiated than evolution.

There's still some proof that abiogenesis CAN happen, but the ammount of proof is... less solid than evolution.

Evolution doesn't talk about how life appeared. It speaks about how life behaved after it already existed. Nothing in the theory of evolution tells us where that life came from, it doesn't even attempt to explain it. Evolution would still be true IF all life came from an alien seeding a few million procariots on Earth, or if Io the blind created those cells.

We can talk abiogenesis if you like, but the proof for abiogenesis is quite different than the proof for evolution. And quite honestly, you'd need a degree on chemistry to be able to follow scientific literature related to abiogenesis. Common sense fails when applied to the very small or the very big, and abiogenesis falls into this "very small" category.

I know all about all of the peer reviewed articles for evolution and I know that the majority of scientists accept evolution and I appreciate your comment however you are just declaring evolution is true based on DNA and how human DNA is similar to an apes,but this does not prove or demonstrate life evolves,there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves therefore you do not even know if life evolves but you are putting your trust in scientists hands giving them the benefit of the doubt.

My point is that when we look at the peer reviewed articles that are supposed to be evidence life evolves all we see for evidence is either reproduction or adaptation and my point is that this is common knowledge stuff that you don't have to go into a science lab to know reproduction and adaptation is real.For we have dogs as an example that were bread from wolves long before Charles Darwin dreamed up how to make a case for evolution and the evidence shows us life does not evolve,yet this is used as peer reviewed evidence that life evolves.

But we also have examples that life can adapt to survive hostile environments like bacteria that grows and thrives right in radiation in Chernobyl, but as we can see no evolution happens at all,as it remains bacteria and not only that but natural selection-the environmental hazards is nonexistent.

And we see this in every peer reviewed paper telling you it evolved,when it is'nt ,they are tricking you,using reproduction and adaptation that clearly shows life does not evolve but they are saying it is anyway,tricking you.


We are not even talking about abiogenesis just life evolving and it doesn't according to their own evidence.And if they are using this kind of evidence telling us it is evolving when it clearly is not evolving?How can you trust them so much?They are tricking people.

This has got to be shocking to people who have accepted evolution,especially if they are highly educated about it,but they don't want to change their mind because of pride.People don't like to admit they were duped by the system but people like me care about the truth whether you believe in God or not.

Atheists should not want to be played a fool,so it has nothing to do with God because there is theistic evolution too.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Ablecainsbrother wrote:
I also am not going to fall for your trick you see you are going by a tree based on the belief life evolves claiming humans are apes and yet you don't even have evidence life evolves,so your tree is worthless and is just imagination.



I am not yet presenting evidence for the claim, I am explaining that your view is wrong. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Your claim: Humans evolved from monkeys.
Sciene says: Humans are still monkeys.

Once you accept that this is what scientists say, I can show you the evidence. If you don't accept this, then further discussion is futile.

Yes you are.Stop denying it you are claiming humans are still monkeys based on the evolution tree and yet you don't even know if life evolves which means your tree is imagination.

But how can you teach as truth dinosaurs evolved into birds still? You see you are watering down what evolution has always been about and that is life evolving and you are having to back away from saying what evolution has always been about.You are watering down evolution and I know why.

Ablecainsbrother wrote:
I'm not anti-science at all like you think but I think science has lost its way because of money when it comes to evolution


What a fucking farce. How much money goes into promoting evolution? Barely anything. How much money goes into promoting creationism? Millions of dollars for AiG alone, to say nothing of America as a whole or the whole world! Harun Yahya comes to mind who allegedly spent hundreds of millions on the subject.

Why did evolution pick up in the mid 19th century? There certainly wasn't a lot of money in that business, it was done for prestige. The church had (and still has) a huge dump of money, yet even they finally accept it. Don't fool yourself: Nothing you do or say has anything even remotely to do with science. 99% of all biologists agree that evolution has happened and is happening right now.

Both AIG and science are locked into a never-ending battle to prove the other wrong.Also I am not getting my info from AIG because I'm not a young earth creationists I am an old earth gap theory creationist and if true the gap theory proves evolution wrong and this is another way I know life does not evolve besides examining the evidence for evolution.

The reason evolution picked up in the mid19th century is because Charles Darwin hijacked the evidence that was proving the gap theory true and made evolution fit into it and evolution was interesting however after 150 years they still do not know if life evolves,so evolution has had its chance and they have failed,the old earth gap theory is still true despite Charles Darwin and/150 years of evolution.
Charles Darwin had just got out of biblical seminary and that is how he knew about the earth was very old,dinosaurs fossils,etc and he made evolution fit into the evidence,but the jig is up after 150 years and no evidence life evolves.

 

[Mugnuts]

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Let's talk about trilobite's we find in the Cambrian,these are sophisticated creatures with eyes,a digestive system and nervous system fully formed.

So tell me what they evolved from?

 

[Shanara99]

I know all about all of the peer reviewed articles for evolution and I know that the majority of scientists accept evolution and I appreciate your comment however you are just declaring evolution is true based on DNA and how human DNA is similar to an apes,but this does not prove or demonstrate life evolves,there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves therefore you do not even know if life evolves but you are putting your trust in scientists hands giving them the benefit of the doubt.

My point is that when we look at the peer reviewed articles that are supposed to be evidence life evolves all we see for evidence is either reproduction or adaptation and my point is that this is common knowledge stuff that you don't have to go into a science lab to know reproduction and adaptation is real.For we have dogs as an example that were bread from wolves long before Charles Darwin dreamed up how to make a case for evolution and the evidence shows us life does not evolve,yet this is used as peer reviewed evidence that life evolves.

But we also have examples that life can adapt to survive hostile environments like bacteria that grows and thrives right in radiation in Chernobyl, but as we can see no evolution happens at all,as it remains bacteria and not only that but natural selection-the environmental hazards is nonexistent.

And we see this in every peer reviewed paper telling you it evolved,when it is'nt ,they are tricking you,using reproduction and adaptation that clearly shows life does not evolve but they are saying it is anyway,tricking you.


We are not even talking about abiogenesis just life evolving and it doesn't according to their own evidence.And if they are using this kind of evidence telling us it is evolving when it clearly is not evolving?How can you trust them so much?They are tricking people.

This has got to be shocking to people who have accepted evolution,especially if they are highly educated about it,but they don't want to change their mind because of pride.People don't like to admit they were duped by the system but people like me care about the truth whether you believe in God or not.

Atheists should not want to be played a fool,so it has nothing to do with God because there is theistic evolution too.

Good. So you DO admit that there's reproduction with variation, and adaptation. That's a good start. Because I'm going to use a creationist argument to prove evolution from that start.

But first, my fellow debaters with common sense: I know this is not a REAL argument. We've shown them the proof, but they still don't see how changes can accumulate to a point where the species are widely different. We can tell them that horses and donkeys are at that point right now, and every generation they are a little less similar. We can tell them about the mules, beinmg steriles, which proves that horses and donkeys once were the same species, even to their biblical standars. For after all, every kind reproduce with its kind. So horses and donkeys must be the same kind.

But we already find now some horses that cannot reproduce with any donkey. And, even more common, some donkeys that cannot reproduce with any horse, which would mean, by scripture, that they're no longer the same kind... or, to put it scientifically, they're no longer the same species, and are genetically different enough that hybrid descendants are no longer viable.

We can show them proteic chains similar in all but a few aminoacids, and they'll still claim them to be unrelated.

So I'll turn to their language.

Do you know this kids' game where someone whispers a sentence into someone's ear, and that person repeats what he said, and so on? I don't know how it's called in your country, but we call it "telephone".

If you play the game with 5 people, the initial sentence will be quite similar to the final sentence, keeping even the same meaning. And every middle step ALSO has meaning. That would be akin to your adaptation, and reproduction with variation.

Now, play it with 2000 people. Do the experiment, please, do it. I bet you'll get quite a similar result that we got in my school. The message was wildly different. It had nothing in common with the initial message. That'd be your "macroevolution". If you checked that 2000 people chain every 5 people, you'd notice that message 1 and message 5 were still the same, for the most part. Maybe a small change here and there, but pretty much the same message. The same would happen between message 5 and message 10. And between message 100 and message 105.

But I bet message 1 and message 150 would be quite different already.

I do know this is not proof. I'm just toning down scientifical language to the level a 6 years old kid would understand.

Horses and donkey are about 500 messages appart. They still look similar, but there are obvious differences now. Keep going down 500 more messages, and you'll have something very different.


Now, this is a bad example, because horses also kept changing, so, to make the example closer to reality, imagine 2 "telephone" chains going at once, from the same message. Message 500 on chain 1 will be quite different than message 500 from chain 2.

Even more, if you tried the chain twice with the same people, you'd get similar results every time. Specially if you could ensure the same level of background noise, and how tired people are, their level of attention, etc. But what if it was a different set of people, with different noise, and some of them more tired, and some of them less hungry?

Just so a 6 years old kid could imagine it, the message would be DNA. Our brains translating what we heard into what we think we heard would be natural selection killing any offspring unable to live long enough to reproduce. The rest of them factors (people involved, noise level...) would be the rest of factors involved in evolution (genetic drift, geological conditions, ecological variables...)

As I said, this isn't proof. We ALREADY offered you proof. This is an oversimplification, trying to illustrate that the same mechanisms involved in adaptation will result in speciation, if unchecked for a long time, if the living conditions are different enough.

We've observed this in quite some animals. And, after a few hundred generations, they can't interbreed, proving that they are no longer the same kind, since they can't breed with "their kind". If you accept adaptation, you can't but help accepting speciation. Donkeys don't become horses. Horses don't become donkeys. Donkeys and horses don't have the same genetic material. The "missing link" would be a taller donkey/smaller horse, that you'd call either a donkey, or a horse, depending on the day. And of course, they both came from a similar looking animal, that was neither a horse nor a donkey.

And please, don't insult me saying that donkeys and horses are the same pretty much. Any 3 years old kid KNOWS the freaking difference by sight. They're as similar as a horse and a llama.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I know all about all of the peer reviewed articles for evolution ...

But first, my fellow debaters with common sense: I know this is not a REAL argument. We've shown them the proof, but they still don't see how changes can accumulate to a point where the species are widely different. We can tell them that horses and donkeys are at that point right now, and every generation they are a little less similar. We can tell them about the mules, beinmg steriles, which proves that horses and donkeys once were the same species, even to their biblical standars. For after all, every kind reproduce with its kind. So horses and donkeys must be the same kind.

But we already find now some horses that cannot reproduce with any donkey. And, even more common, some donkeys that cannot reproduce with any horse, which would mean, by scripture, that they're no longer the same kind... or, to put it scientifically, they're no longer the same species, and are genetically different enough that hybrid descendants are no longer viable.

Very clever argument. My only problem for it is that you should provide sources for the claims made in the second paragraph.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Let's talk about trilobite's we find in the Cambrian,these are sophisticated creatures with eyes,a digestive system and nervous system fully formed.

So tell me what they evolved from?

What a rather strange argument. You're deliberately choosing something from which there's little (not none, little) evidence due to the difficulty in finding fossils of creatures before they had hard body parts to fossil. However, difficult should not be confused with impossible. A very quick google search found this site: http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm which goes into the plausible.

Regardless, you seem to be suffering from a severe case of fallacy... not knowing everything doesn't mean we don't know anything or can disregard what we do know. If we don't know the exact ancestor to trilobites then who cares? All that means is that we don't know the answer to that question yet and nothing more. We have some pretty solid ideas but not enough data to say with near certainty. That's not a problem at all. No reason to make anything up with origins or any of that.

Of course... trilobites to raise an interesting question to toss back at the creationists... why are there no trilobite fossils beyond the Permian era? The last 250 million odd years of geological strata shows no evidence of trilobites anymore. The obvious answer is that they wen't extinct way back when and the fossil record shows that new forms of life took over in those ecological niches as evolution chugged along.

 

[ldmitruk]

Let's talk about trilobite's we find in the Cambrian,these are sophisticated creatures with eyes,a digestive system and nervous system fully formed.

So tell me what they evolved from?

What a rather strange argument. You're deliberately choosing something from which there's little (not none, little) evidence due to the difficulty in finding fossils of creatures before they had hard body parts to fossil. However, difficult should not be confused with impossible. A very quick google search found this site: http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm which goes into the plausible.

Regardless, you seem to be suffering from a severe case of fallacy... not knowing everything doesn't mean we don't know anything or can disregard what we do know. If we don't know the exact ancestor to trilobites then who cares? All that means is that we don't know the answer to that question yet and nothing more. We have some pretty solid ideas but not enough data to say with near certainty. That's not a problem at all. No reason to make anything up with origins or any of that.

Of course... trilobites to raise an interesting question to toss back at the creationists... why are there no trilobite fossils beyond the Permian era? The last 250 million odd years of geological strata shows no evidence of trilobites anymore. The obvious answer is that they wen't extinct way back when and the fossil record shows that new forms of life took over in those ecological niches as evolution chugged along.

I suspect Abel will put forth his "gap creationism theory" as the answer, a god of the gaps by another name in my books . I read up on this briefly in Wikipedia and the theory proposes two creation events according to Genesis. This got me thinking, given the number of mass extinctions we know about how come there are not more creation events in Genesis? Once again a typical creationist ploy, trying to fit the data to the conclusion.

Your assessment of Abel's fallacy is right on target. I find his arguments just like any other apologists, you can't know everything so therefore you know nothing unless it's revealed to you by a god(s) of your choice, What bothers me the most about that kind of thinking is it really plays down how much we have learned through science and are continuing to find out through science and does a major dis-service to how hard we have worked as a species to get beyond figuring out where our next meal is coming from.

 

[Shanara99]

But first, my fellow debaters with common sense: I know this is not a REAL argument. We've shown them the proof, but they still don't see how changes can accumulate to a point where the species are widely different. We can tell them that horses and donkeys are at that point right now, and every generation they are a little less similar. We can tell them about the mules, beinmg steriles, which proves that horses and donkeys once were the same species, even to their biblical standars. For after all, every kind reproduce with its kind. So horses and donkeys must be the same kind.

But we already find now some horses that cannot reproduce with any donkey. And, even more common, some donkeys that cannot reproduce with any horse, which would mean, by scripture, that they're no longer the same kind... or, to put it scientifically, they're no longer the same species, and are genetically different enough that hybrid descendants are no longer viable.

Very clever argument. My only problem for it is that you should provide sources for the claims made in the second paragraph.

Well... I cannot quote peer review, so I can only offer witness testimony, wich isn't enough proof, because, honestly, the caretaker of those horses didn't have a scientific background at all. This was in the Rancho El Rocio, in Spain, in the stables of Peralta. And it happened from 1993 to 1999. Haven't checked those stables from there... but, as I said, the caretaker has no education at all. And by that I mean he left school when he was 12.


So I cannot say for sure if the donkey in question was just sterile, of those horses werre sterile, or what happened exactly.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well... I cannot quote peer review, so I can only offer witness testimony, wich isn't enough proof, because, honestly, the caretaker of those horses didn't have a scientific background at all. This was in the Rancho El Rocio, in Spain, in the stables of Peralta. And it happened from 1993 to 1999. Haven't checked those stables from there... but, as I said, the caretaker has no education at all. And by that I mean he left school when he was 12.


So I cannot say for sure if the donkey in question was just sterile, of those horses werre sterile, or what happened exactly.

Oh, damn. I was truly hoping for more than that, because if you were able to find evidence of horses and donkeys no longer being able to hybridize, that would be such a huge nail in the coffin for the creationist’s notion of kind. Oh well.