(12-17-2015 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

In the animal kingdom? Where else would it happen?

Plant kingdom, I would guess.

Yeah I figured. I'm not sure why it matters. Moving the goal posts, maybe?

(12-17-2015 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  That is the thing, this is not testable. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created one species out of another. And yes, I know it is supposed to happen slowly over time, but that doesn't change the fact that at some point the species changes and thus cannot mate with the previous species.

The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

In the animal kingdom? Where else would it happen?

Plant kingdom, I would guess.

Well, there are 4 or 5 other kingdoms depending on the criteria you're using, but there's no reason to go that far. Any domesticated animal is an animal created by humans, and all of them look drastically different than their wild counterparts. Compare your dog to a wolf, we did that. A milk cow to roman statues of wild aurochs. Or the infamous domesticated banana to the wild banana

(12-17-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 04:38 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The word you're looking for is Speciation. It's an evolutionary process, not the entire theory of evolution.

It's not necessary to recreate it to confirm evolution, but for the record, we have created one species from another.

In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

In the animal kingdom? Where else would it happen?

Plant kingdom, I would guess.

Well, there are 4 or 5 other kingdoms depending on the criteria you're using, but there's no reason to go that far. Any domesticated animal is an animal created by humans, and all of them look drastically different than their wild counterparts. Compare your dog to a wolf, we did that. A milk cow to roman statues of wild aurochs. Or the infamous domesticated banana to the wild banana

While I accept the theory of evolution and the principles behind new species evolving from existing species, you won't get too far with examples of the banana, dogs or domestic livestock. Those are clear cases of man intervening in the natural process and creating new species for measurable benefits to mankind.

One of the easiest to contemplate is the evolution of the whale. The ancestors of the whales were land dwellers. There were a number of transitional forms discovered, and it's objectively a mammal living in the ocean as opposed to a fish.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_03

(12-17-2015 10:01 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Want to try again or something? Bumbling fool.

Ya, I'm a bumbling fool. It's not that you're incapable of having a discussion.

Don't worry about it. It's funny how they are constantly asking you to "prove" evolution, which is a scientific fact at this point. But they literally can give zero proof about any other way man came about except to say "faith." So, just let it go.

After you finish wiping his *** from your mouth, kindly point to any of my post to back up your babbling bs.

(12-17-2015 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 10:01 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Want to try again or something? Bumbling fool.

Ya, I'm a bumbling fool. It's not that you're incapable of having a discussion.

Don't worry about it. It's funny how they are constantly asking you to "prove" evolution, which is a scientific fact at this point. But they literally can give zero proof about any other way man came about except to say "faith." So, just let it go.

After you finish wiping his *** from your mouth, kindly point to any of my post to back up your babbling bs.

What?

(12-17-2015 05:34 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 10:01 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Want to try again or something? Bumbling fool.

Ya, I'm a bumbling fool. It's not that you're incapable of having a discussion.

Don't worry about it. It's funny how they are constantly asking you to "prove" evolution, which is a scientific fact at this point. But they literally can give zero proof about any other way man came about except to say "faith." So, just let it go.

After you finish wiping his *** from your mouth, kindly point to any of my post to back up your babbling bs.

What?

He couldn't think of a better retort.

(12-17-2015 05:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 05:34 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 10:01 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Ya, I'm a bumbling fool. It's not that you're incapable of having a discussion.

Don't worry about it. It's funny how they are constantly asking you to "prove" evolution, which is a scientific fact at this point. But they literally can give zero proof about any other way man came about except to say "faith." So, just let it go.

After you finish wiping his *** from your mouth, kindly point to any of my post to back up your babbling bs.

What?

He couldn't think of a better retort.

Yeah, I assume that must be difficult for him.

It was pretty simply. Point to my posts that you're referring to.

(12-17-2015 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:17 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  In the animal kingdom? If you have a link, that would be a fascinating read. I haven't seen it.

In the animal kingdom? Where else would it happen?

Plant kingdom, I would guess.

Well, there are 4 or 5 other kingdoms depending on the criteria you're using, but there's no reason to go that far. Any domesticated animal is an animal created by humans, and all of them look drastically different than their wild counterparts. Compare your dog to a wolf, we did that. A milk cow to roman statues of wild aurochs. Or the infamous domesticated banana to the wild banana

While I accept the theory of evolution and the principles behind new species evolving from existing species, you won't get too far with examples of the banana, dogs or domestic livestock. Those are clear cases of man intervening in the natural process and creating new species for measurable benefits to mankind.

One of the easiest to contemplate is the evolution of the whale. The ancestors of the whales were land dwellers. There were a number of transitional forms discovered, and it's objectively a mammal living in the ocean as opposed to a fish.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_03

That it's humans putting pressure on animals or plants to evolve into what we desire doesn't somehow mean it's not evolution, and in fact can be one of the most useful examples of how evolution works as it's by far more rapid than other avenues of evolution.

The theory of evolution is racist.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(12-25-2015 01:10 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  In the animal kingdom? Where else would it happen?

Plant kingdom, I would guess.

Well, there are 4 or 5 other kingdoms depending on the criteria you're using, but there's no reason to go that far. Any domesticated animal is an animal created by humans, and all of them look drastically different than their wild counterparts. Compare your dog to a wolf, we did that. A milk cow to roman statues of wild aurochs. Or the infamous domesticated banana to the wild banana

While I accept the theory of evolution and the principles behind new species evolving from existing species, you won't get too far with examples of the banana, dogs or domestic livestock. Those are clear cases of man intervening in the natural process and creating new species for measurable benefits to mankind.

One of the easiest to contemplate is the evolution of the whale. The ancestors of the whales were land dwellers. There were a number of transitional forms discovered, and it's objectively a mammal living in the ocean as opposed to a fish.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_03

That it's humans putting pressure on animals or plants to evolve into what we desire doesn't somehow mean it's not evolution, and in fact can be one of the most useful examples of how evolution works as it's by far more rapid than other avenues of evolution.

They're not examples of natural evolution could be used as clear examples of the process itself. Chances are a French poodle or a German shepherd does not evolve naturally on its own or even if ancestors of these dog breeds were living with man as domesticated animals. Man bred dogs and livestock to have certain traits, and those traits are not what the species need in order to survive in nature. In particular, the pure bred dogs have various genetic deficiencies that would be shaken out of the species if the dogs had to live in the wild.

There are plenty of examples of species in the fossil record that shows unmistakable evidence of evolution without resorting to domesticated animals. I understand where you are coming from, but it's not convincing if you are trying to show someone the evidence of evolution.

I see not contraction in evolutionary theory and belief in a higher power. Of course I totally discount a large part of the Bible... especially the OT...as nothing more than allegorical in nature.

There's five maybe 6 kingdoms btw.

Monera, protist, fungi, plant, and animal. The 6th archaebacteria in some texts.