Evolutionary Perspective

[benalissa284632]

we have fossil record of transitional forms

[reflect7]

A few examples, please. Thanks.

[elvismilk]

They sit on the shelf with the canonical texts that have Jesus speaking Greek. LOL. God left DNA for your benefit and don't forget the dinosaurs. The Ape that no one in the Bible knew about might make one think evolution might have some merit, regardless of transitional forms not abounding in the strata. But not you, you ask us for examples, the nerve coming from the mouth of a guy who believes in the theistic monster of the Bible.

[AbrielMcPierce]

watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

more than a few examples. I know this is over a year old. I just thought you still might want some answers.

[realhomosapiens]

@reflect7

Never mind to ask for transitional fossils, they have none, all they have are hallucinational-fossils

Synonix is a "!transitional" to whales, made your mind up, there is no way to argue with an hallucinative mind like that, or is there?

[cathy356]

No you don't.

[reflect7]

Why do you think I'm against science? Of course I appreciate medicines developed through great biological discoveries from great scientists such as Pasteur. But connecting biological science (current day observation of the cell, genome, etc.) to evolutionary conjecture isn't science. Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory (unseen movement from creature to creature) is merely a philosophical extrapolation of observed creature-bound adaption (given enough time and positive mutations, of course).

[drdirs]

They're not unseen movements though. It's hard (though not impossible) to reproduce in the lab, because parts of evolution are extremely slow processes, so we have to rely on the genetic and fossil evidence to some extent. But that evidence does support evolution, unambiguously, and also what you'd call macroevolution. Unless that evidence was deliberately planted to mislead us, it's overwhelmingly likely that biologists are interpreting it correctly (an ongoing process though, mind you).

[stevendrake01]

Haven't heard? There is no such "fossil" evidence? *slaps forhead* Sheesh!

God Bless

[drdirs]

Evolution is simply the most coherent, and most useful explanation we have for the diversity of life. And biology NEEDS to understand the mechanisms by which creatures change over time, it's not just philosophical musings - the knowledge can be, and has been, applied, leading to other revelations.

You simply can't take evolution out of biology any more than you can take electrons out of chemistry.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Well said, Randall. Guys...whether you like it or not, everyone (scientist or otherwise) must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable presupposed view on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning because an infinite regression is unfortunately not on the table.

[elvismilk]

Yet you use the scientific discovery of DNA, to prove your God exists. Maybe you could hire a proof reader? So creation conjecture can use science, but science can't use science? Given enough time, hello ,don't you claim your God is eternal, so I'd think evolutionists can set up billions of years for evolutionary theory to at least seem plausible.

[drdirs]

Biologists don't distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. It's a concept invented by creationists.

You can reject all of science if you like, but then please don't see a doctor next time you're sick. He'll treat you with methods and drugs derived from a scientific understanding of biology, most of it heavily reliant on evolution being true. By what you're saying you're better off praying, right?

[JonathanMcLatchie]

I think we aught to ditch the term 'evolution' altogether when making reference to variations within created kinds, or 'baramins', as they are often called. Adaptation is a self-evident law of nature. However, it is not an example of evolution, as evolution in the molecules-to-man sense requires an increase in complexity - i.e. new information encoding for new traits. This has never been observed.

[gusb232]

Why does every creationist insist on using the term KIND?

KIND is not a scientifically defined term Species is.

KIND = a moving goal post.

[TavishHill]

reflect7, at teh risk of sounding like an ass, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about with regard to either examples of macro-evolution (examples DO exist contrary to what you claim) as well as your understanding of astronomy and the Big Bang Theory. Your ideas on abiogenesis are quite humorous as well. First off, evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do either the Big Bang or abiogensis. Furthermore, chance plays an incredibly insignificant role in abiogensis.

[reflect7]

The cosmos was designed. Life was designed. Mind was designed.

[TavishHill]

Mr. Niles clearly has very little understanding of evolutionary theroy, the big bang theory, modern cosmology, or theories on abiogensis. In my other comment I called you out on this reflect7. But I meant to call out Mr. Niles.  Thought I should clarify...

[usefulmusic]

What's your alternative explanation?