Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223296 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119419 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
I didn't shout, I just used capitals because you apparently are not able to read properly when using underscore.
Caps is shouting in computer speak.
Also the historic evidence makes mishmash of your bronze age mythology stories.
No, I don't take evidence form mythology books.
What historic evidence? You have not produced any. You mean the Bible which is compiled writings from the ancients? That is a prime example of confirmation bias which rejects evidence which does not fit their assumptions. It is the same reason the moderns rejected historical Jesus and David. Both are established from history and both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam. So 500 years ago, two thousand years ago and three thousand + years ago you have multiple sourced recorded history validating Noah and Adam. From the time of David.is about 2500 years ago. 1 Chr. 1. Nothing which refutes.
Like most you are no doubt biblically illiterate. Two things the Bible was right on and the moderns were wrong on. Jesus and David as historical. Both come from the Bible.
I only accept scientific evidence.
You mean you only accept evidence which validates your assumptions.
Are you implying then that a worldwide flood would not leave any geological traces then?
If it did we would not hear it from folks like you. So you trash all existing written evidence for evidence which only a handful sill understand. Why believe them when they were wrong on David and Jesus?
Hence, I need geological evidence INDEED.
And if you are not able to deliver it, there WAS NO WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Just as simple.
Otherwise, it is just a myth from the many myths written in the bronze age by the many bronze age people. We have a bunch of books of these: Gilgamesh Epic, Upanishads, Rig Vedas, Greek Mythology etc.
Yeah you have multiple accounts and you dismiss it all as myth.
Many of them even older than the bible.
All filled to the brim with "stories" and "accounts" of "ancients" who experienced all kinds of "events which predated their writings".
You are not relying on evidence but on revelation.
Hence the question again: WHERE is you EVIDENCE?
I gave you the evidence from history. You rejected because of metaphysical prejudice and confirmation bias. You are up against two heavy hitters. Jesus and Moses. Josephus and Philo. All these are wrong and you are right?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/sci...

Got to go to Creation Scientists because all others ignore or explain away evidence which does not fit their assumptions. Soft tissue in 65 million year dino bones.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119420 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Agree. An interpretation is a conclusion.
Yet you called interpretation evidence in a previous post.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119421 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
yes hybrids. two species interacting producing a hybrid (like the donkey and horse= the mule) is not considered seeing a species change into a new species.
That is NOT true.

See http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/10/... .

Where I quote: "But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species". Goatsbeard is the common name for Tragopogon.

Here are others factual observations of speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... . Next, there are observed instances of ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... .

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119422 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Agree. An interpretation is a conclusion.
<quoted text> An interpretation is not evidence. Either is an assumption without evidence. Where is your evidence the biblical account was copied? Moses had sources. Educated in Egypt and spent time with Biblical God. Either or both could be a source.<quoted text> And if they did you would argue collusion. Evidence can be rejected for any reason. Variations are rejected because they do not jibe in every detail. If the accounts are all the same then there is collusion. Its like finding two fingerprints at a crime scene and rejecting them both because they are not the same. Even if they are not the same, it is still evidence two different people were there at one time or another. In investigation evidence is not thrown out if one is seeking the truth.
Where is your evidence that Moses wrote any of that part of the Bible? The evidence of pre-existing stories can be found in Sumerian text discovered in a dig in 1870. The Gilgamesh story recovered therein is pretty much Noah's story with different characters and some artistic license.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That is a theory in search of a fact.
No that is a fact. It is well known that cultures exchanged goods, services, ideas and stories.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Creationist have answers. All you have to do is search their sites.
I have looked at some of the creationist sites and you all do have answers. Unfortunately, they aren't very accurate, useful or supported by any facts other than misinterpretation of facts.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That sentence does not make sense so i think you mean the moderns assume the ancients could not tell fact from fiction. I give the ancients, including the kings of Europe, the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand assume they are all wrong. Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
You are right. I reread my sentence and I left out some words. Speaking of not making sense, I don't what you are referring to with David Kingdom and King Arthur. Further you have wrong interpreted me and are misrepresenting me. I don't assume they are wrong, I base the knowledge that they possessed on the facts. Overall they had less knowledge at the time, but weren't stupid. Creationists usually rely on claims of stupidity when they say that the writers of the Bible couldn't know certain facts. Sorry to break it to you, but you guys are the arrogant ones.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Right and you know better with your metaphysical prejudices. Nothing supernatural at all places at all times. Do you believe in abiogenesis? Everything is here by accident or for no reason? Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life? Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
I know facts. Those that I don't like, I must still accept even if it means changing my position on something. Creationists apparently don't have the courage or will to do that.

Abiogenesis is an hypothesis and the science is still in its infancy. More evidence and testing may change that, but it doesn't eliminate God from the picture any more than evolution does. Those claims are just the fears of a childish group of people still stuck in the past.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
So you are either too lazy, too stupid or you don't know where you found it and who wrote it. You come on a science forum, you need to supply some bibliographic data for the quotes you make. It is your responsibility, but as usual, responsibility is just a talking point with your group and not a reality.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119423 Aug 3, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> What historic evidence? You have not produced any. You mean the Bible which is compiled writings from the ancients? That is a prime example of confirmation bias which rejects evidence which does not fit their assumptions. It is the same reason the moderns rejected historical Jesus and David. Both are established from history and both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam. So 500 years ago, two thousand years ago and three thousand + years ago you have multiple sourced recorded history validating Noah and Adam. From the time of David.is about 2500 years ago. 1 Chr. 1. Nothing which refutes.
What historical evidence? You didn't produce any EITHER.
Yes both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. Hence we have a perfect example of circular reasoning:
1) "Jesus exists"
2) "Why"?
3) "Because it is in the bible"
4) "and why is the bible true"
5) "because it is the word of Jesus god"
6) "and why is it the word of Jesus god"
7) "because the bible says so"

I am not of this terrible fallacies.
Hence, you have no evidence. I just don't buy evidence that is based on circular evidence - a very healthy attitude so to say.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most you are no doubt biblically illiterate. Two things the Bible was right on and the moderns were wrong on. Jesus and David as historical. Both come from the Bible.
The most atheist ARE NOT biblical illiterate. Most of them are Christian raised or just read it by themselves. That includes me. YOU are the illiterate here, not having read ANY book on science, biology or cosmology. You are mentally still living in the bronze age. WELCOME to the 21st century.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you only accept evidence which validates your assumptions.
No I only accept evidence that is based on observations, either by controlled field observations or by experiments. If they contradict my assumptions, OFF go my assumptions.

YOU are the one here who only accepts evidence which validates your own assumptions. When that evidence does not fit your bronze age mythology book, OFF it goes. WHATEVER it takes. Observations? F*ck you observations. OFF they go.

HENCE I shall have to insist in asking you for evidence.
And scientific evidence it will be.
If a worldwide flood would have happened 4,500 years ago, there should be geological traces of it ALL OVER THE PLACE and EVERYWHERE to be found on earth. And if you are not able to present me this evidence OFF goes YOUR assumptions.

WHERE is your geological evidence for a worldwide flood?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If it did we would not hear it from folks like you. So you trash all existing written evidence for evidence which only a handful sill understand. Why believe them when they were wrong on David and Jesus?
HOW DARE you to trash all those holy books worshipped by the other 5.7 billion people not believing in Jesus but their own gods? You will go to HELL!
See? You are an atheist yourself because you disbelieve all other ~4,900 gods mankind came up with. The only difference with me is that I just disbelieve ONE more.
lightbeamrider wrote:
I gave you the evidence from history. You rejected because of metaphysical prejudice and confirmation bias. You are up against two heavy hitters. Jesus and Moses. Josephus and Philo. All these are wrong and you are right?
I gave you the evidence from history: how biblical accounts were copied from earlier Mesopotamian sources. You rejected because of metaphysical prejudice and confirmation bias. Did Jesus, Moses, Josephus or Philo mention something about the the historical influence of Gilgamesh on the bible then?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119424 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is NOT true.
See http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/10/... .
Where I quote: "But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species". Goatsbeard is the common name for Tragopogon.
Here are others factual observations of speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... . Next, there are observed instances of ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm... .
Ah but claiming all plant hybrids are sterile is not quite telling the truth. hybrids can also be not sterile. so then we are back to square one. it is not a species changing into a new species.

we do not know if all hybrids are sterile. to name a few sterile ones we know of for example liger, tigon, mule are. plant hybrids which are the result of sexual reproduction between plants from two different taxa or species. not all plant hybrids are sterile, but many are. sterility in plant hybrids is most often the result of polyploidy, which occurs because of abnormal cell division and results in more than two sets of chromosomes in the cells of the hybrid offspring. hybrids commonly form in nature between closely related species, but humans also produce sterile hybrid plants intentionally for commercial purposes.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5619428_plant-hybri...

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#119425 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
What historical evidence? You didn't produce any EITHER.
Yes both have genealogies which go back through Noah to Adam ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. Hence we have a perfect example of circular reasoning:
1) "Jesus exists"
2) "Why"?
3) "Because it is in the bible"
4) "and why is the bible true"
5) "because it is the word of Jesus god"
6) "and why is it the word of Jesus god"
7) "because the bible says so"
I am not of this terrible fallacies.
Hence, you have no evidence. I just don't buy evidence that is based on circular evidence - a very healthy attitude so to say.
Are you a Jesus myther? That damaged? Well I will leave it at that.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119426 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
finding a new species, as your post on the legless lizard, or reclassifying a species to a new one as the dolphin is not a species changing to be another species. we have been studying animals pretty well for 200-300 hundred years and have not seen one species change to become a new species.
they find many new species daily. in 2006 they averaged 50 new species per day. 16,969 species were discovered in 2006 according to a report compiled by Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Plant Names Index, and Thompson Scientific.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0527-species.ht...
either evolution is on a speed track or they have always been here but just not know of at the time.
" the dolphin is not a species changing to be another species"

That's exactly what it was doofus.
What did you expect, a crockoduck?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#119427 Aug 3, 2014
Creationists are baffled by science. They have the information available to understand it, but are either unskilled at reviewing and understanding it objectively or willfully misrepresent it. Overall, I think it is a mix of both. In writing this post, I realize there just isn't room to do justice to even a tiny portion of one of these subjects, so my examples are by no means complete, thoroughly described or completely inclusive.

After being on this forum for three years, my conclusion of fundie/creationist understanding of evolution is:
1. Evolution must result in greater complexity.
Generally, evolution has resulted in increasingly more complex organisms, but it is not mandated by the theory and reality of evolution. Evolution can lead to organisms with less complexity than their ancestors such as parasitic species or troglobytic species as examples.
2. Speciation means that one day a cow became a goat or a duck became a crocodile. In other words that one species leads to a new species and the new species completely replaces the old species and this is spontaneous for no particular reason.
None of this is true and partly it may be an artifact resulting from the described lineages of organisms that have been worked out, such as that of the horse. This lineage is displayed from the earliest known ancestors through the evolution to modern horses as shown in the fossil record. I can see where this could be confused into the view that it appears creationists have in part.
Species form when there is a barrier to reproduction. The existing species need not be displaced. Speciation can occur due to the formation of natural barriers that disconnect populations and eliminate gene flow and the exposure to different selection pressures. Speciation is an ongoing process in living organisms. It never stops as long as their are living populations of things and mechanisms to isolate them. Hybridization, mutations, gene duplication all the way to duplication of an entire genome, drift are mechanisms of speciation.
I would also comment that the depiction of lineages is speciation, but it isn't an ancestor birthing the next species and disappearing then the next and so on. There may be numerous species that arise along the way on only one at a time depending on the duration and conditions.
3. Because no one was their to see it, means it didn't happen.
The same could be said of any ancient belief and science does have the molecular, genetic, paleontological, geological, and other physical evidence to support its views that religion does not have.
4. We have never seen speciation.
We have speciation in Drosophila. We have evidence of recent speciation leading to 500 species of modern cichlid fish from a small founder population of one or a few cichlid species. Speciation of fireweed through ploidy. The goatsbeard example of hybrization that resulted in reproductive isolation of the new species. Speciation by hybridization has been observed in phasmids (walking stick insects). Speciation has also been noted in vertebrates including a naked mole rat.
5. We accept microevolution, but not macroevolution.
For one there is no way for them to deny microevolution, but apparently they feel this is enough wiggle room to avoid the logical conclusion of microevolution and time. The fossil record and geology provide the frontline evidence that supports macroevolution. They have been separately used to date the geological column and the stratification of the fossil layers can be followed backward to show decreasing complexity and change and followed forward to show increasing complexity, change and increasing abundance. Biogeography is another source of evidence that is explained by evolution and in turn casts support for macroevolution. Genetics and molecular biology bolster the finds of geology and paleontology and add volumes more data of their own. ERV's, molecular clocks, genomics, all support macroevolution.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119428 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
" the dolphin is not a species changing to be another species"
That's exactly what it was doofus.
What did you expect, a crockoduck?
read your own link:

Noteworthy naturalists such as Richard Owen (who coined the word "Dinosaur"), Georges Cuvier, and Richard Lydekker have added to the literature on humpback dolphins over the centuries. In recent years, scientists have disagreed with one another about the number of species, with some considering all humpback dolphins the same species and others postulating as many as nine different ones.

Aside from slight differences in overall length, number of teeth and vertebrae, and geographic distribution, the Australian humpback dolphin differs in appearance from the other three humpback species. Its dorsal fin is lower and more wide-based than the dorsal fins of Sousa teuszii and S. plumbea, and its coloration is dark gray, as opposed to the distinctly white (often with a pink tinge) coloration of its closest humpback neighbor, Sousa chinensis. The Australian humpback dolphin also possesses a distinctive dark dorsal "cape."

as they have stated throughout your link when it comes to the humpback dolphins there are many disagreements on how many species there are, they finally agreed to call this one a different species. it has been there but never was classified as its own species. you get it yet.

if you still don't get it then look at all the differences overall length, number of teeth and vertebrae, dorsal fin is lower and more wide-based, its coloration is dark gray, as opposed to the distinctly white and it also possesses a distinctive dark dorsal "cape.

do you think all those changes came about in the last 200-300 years? is that like a evolution fast track? lol
like I said they have always been there but as the link says they are a taxonomically confused group of marine mammals and about the number of species, with some considering all humpback dolphins the same species and others postulating as many as nine different ones. they all finally agreed to call this a different species. it was not a species turning into a new species. end of story.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119429 Aug 3, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Creationists are baffled by science. They have the information available to understand it, but are either unskilled at reviewing and understanding it objectively or willfully misrepresent it. Overall, I think it is a mix of both. In writing this post, I realize there just isn't room to do justice to even a tiny portion of one of these subjects, so my examples are by no means complete, thoroughly described or completely inclusive.
After being on this forum for three years, my conclusion of fundie/creationist understanding of evolution is:
erased down for space.

1) it is not as much complexity as it for better survival
2) pretty much has happened that way in the evolution of hominids.
3) i have never seen any claim that
4) hybrids are only a new species being they came from two different but closely related species. it is not a species changing from one species to another. not all hybrids are sterile.
5) change. it happens all the time

lets add in
6) to claim we have seen speciation in nature is absurd. if it takes many many thousands of years as the theory of evolution claims then there is technically no way to see it happen in live species in nature in your fish or anything else. unless you have an evolution fast track hid somewhere.
7) just because a species can now be studies more thoroughly and we can now detect more differences than we were able to detect before is not a species changing to another species. it is that they all already existed but had not yet been separated out clearly yet and they had too many different species named under one species, so now they are starting to separate them out more clearly.by their differences as in the case of the australian humpback dolphin.
8) new species are found daily, many thousands yearly. they do not poof into existence and are not a species changing to a different species. they just have never been found before, or never been classified by there differences before, or as already stated was classified with another species until now that we can examine them better and see and find more of their differences that we now claim them to be a new species.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119430 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>

do you think all those changes came about in the last 200-300 years? is that like a evolution fast track? lol
like I said they have always been there but as the link says they are a taxonomically confused group of marine mammals and about the number of species, with some considering all humpback dolphins the same species and others postulating as many as nine different ones. they all finally agreed to call this a different species. it was not a species turning into a new species. end of story.
It is a different genus , a step away. You are the one not getting it.
Here are the different genus.

Genus Delphinus
Long-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus capensis
Short-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus delphis
Genus Tursiops
Common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus
Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops aduncus
Burrunan dolphin, Tursiops australis, a newly discovered species from the sea around Melbourne in September 2011.[14]
Genus Lissodelphis
Northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis
Southern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis peronii
Genus Sotalia
Tucuxi, Sotalia fluviatilis
Costero, Sotalia guianensis
Genus Sousa
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis
Chinese white dolphin (the Chinese variant), Sousa chinensis chinensis
Atlantic humpback dolphin, Sousa teuszii
Genus Stenella
Atlantic spotted dolphin, Stenella frontalis
Clymene dolphin, Stenella clymene
Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata
Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris
Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba
Genus Steno
Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis
Genus Cephalorhynchus
Chilean dolphin, Cephalorhynchus eutropia
Commerson's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus commersonii
Heaviside's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus heavisidii
Hector's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori
Genus Grampus
Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus
Genus Lagenodelphis
Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei
Genus Lagenorhynchus
Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus
Dusky dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obscurus
Hourglass dolphin, Lagenorhynchus cruciger
Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
Peale's dolphin, Lagenorhynchus australis
White-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Genus Orcaella
Australian snubfin dolphin, Orcaella heinsohni
Irrawaddy dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris
Genus Peponocephala
Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra
Genus Orcinus
Killer whale (Orca), Orcinus orca
Genus Feresa
Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata
Genus Pseudorca
False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens
Genus Globicephala
Long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala melas
Short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus
Genus †Australodelphis
†Australodelphis mirus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin

What did you expect? A crocaduck?
wondering

Morris, OK

#119431 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a different genus , a step away. You are the one not getting it.
Here are the different genus.
Genus Delphinus
Long-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus capensis
Short-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus delphis
Genus Tursiops
Common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus
Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops aduncus
Burrunan dolphin, Tursiops australis, a newly discovered species from the sea around Melbourne in September 2011.[14]
Genus Lissodelphis
Northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis
Southern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis peronii
Genus Sotalia
Tucuxi, Sotalia fluviatilis
Costero, Sotalia guianensis
Genus Sousa
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis
Chinese white dolphin (the Chinese variant), Sousa chinensis chinensis
Atlantic humpback dolphin, Sousa teuszii
Genus Stenella
Atlantic spotted dolphin, Stenella frontalis
Clymene dolphin, Stenella clymene
Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata
Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris
Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba
Genus Steno
Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis
Genus Cephalorhynchus
Chilean dolphin, Cephalorhynchus eutropia
Commerson's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus commersonii
Heaviside's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus heavisidii
Hector's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori
Genus Grampus
Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus
Genus Lagenodelphis
Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei
Genus Lagenorhynchus
Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus
Dusky dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obscurus
Hourglass dolphin, Lagenorhynchus cruciger
Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
Peale's dolphin, Lagenorhynchus australis
White-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Genus Orcaella
Australian snubfin dolphin, Orcaella heinsohni
Irrawaddy dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris
Genus Peponocephala
Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra
Genus Orcinus
Killer whale (Orca), Orcinus orca
Genus Feresa
Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata
Genus Pseudorca
False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens
Genus Globicephala
Long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala melas
Short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus
Genus †Australodelphis
†Australodelphis mirus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin
What did you expect? A crocaduck?
i ask again---do you think all those changes came about in the last 200-300 years? is that like a evolution fast track? lol
so they finally have been able with modern technology to better observe and find their differences. so they re-classified them. they have always been there. what about that do you not get?

new species are found daily, many thousands yearly. they do not poof into existence and are not a species changing to a different species. they just have never been found before, or never have been classified by there differences before, or as already stated was classified with another species until now that we can examine them better and see and find more of their differences so we now are starting to re-classify them.

to claim we have seen speciation in nature is absurd. it takes many many tens if not hundred thousands of years as the theory of evolution claims so there is technically no way to see it happen in live species in nature in your fish or anything else. unless you have an evolution fast track hid somewhere.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119432 Aug 3, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a different genus , a step away. You are the one not getting it.
Here are the different genus.
Genus Delphinus
Long-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus capensis
Short-beaked common dolphin, Delphinus delphis
Genus Tursiops
Common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus
Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops aduncus
Burrunan dolphin, Tursiops australis, a newly discovered species from the sea around Melbourne in September 2011.[14]
Genus Lissodelphis
Northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis
Southern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis peronii
Genus Sotalia
Tucuxi, Sotalia fluviatilis
Costero, Sotalia guianensis
Genus Sousa
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis
Chinese white dolphin (the Chinese variant), Sousa chinensis chinensis
Atlantic humpback dolphin, Sousa teuszii
Genus Stenella
Atlantic spotted dolphin, Stenella frontalis
Clymene dolphin, Stenella clymene
Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata
Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris
Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba
Genus Steno
Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis
Genus Cephalorhynchus
Chilean dolphin, Cephalorhynchus eutropia
Commerson's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus commersonii
Heaviside's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus heavisidii
Hector's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori
Genus Grampus
Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus
Genus Lagenodelphis
Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei
Genus Lagenorhynchus
Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus
Dusky dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obscurus
Hourglass dolphin, Lagenorhynchus cruciger
Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
Peale's dolphin, Lagenorhynchus australis
White-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Genus Orcaella
Australian snubfin dolphin, Orcaella heinsohni
Irrawaddy dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris
Genus Peponocephala
Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra
Genus Orcinus
Killer whale (Orca), Orcinus orca
Genus Feresa
Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata
Genus Pseudorca
False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens
Genus Globicephala
Long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala melas
Short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus
Genus †Australodelphis
†Australodelphis mirus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin
What did you expect? A crocaduck?
you choose..the australian humpback dolphin was;
1) either always there and they were classified wrong to begin with
or
2) all this evolved in just a mere tiny short 200-300 years.---differences in overall length, number of teeth and vertebrae, dorsal fin is lower and more wide-based, its coloration is dark gray, as opposed to the distinctly white and it also possesses a distinctive dark dorsal "cape.,<<<< <<<which would go against the theory of evolution if it all evolved in that short of a time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119433 Aug 3, 2014
wondering, you seem to have a rather pedestrian definition of observing. We can observe events without personally seeing them. If you take your sort of observation to an extreme then we have never seen a distant galaxy since to the naked eye they are simply points of light at best.

Now a biologist may be able to name a specific case of speciation that has been observed by man. My question is why do you having an eyewitness is so important? In courts of law eyewitness testimony is the least valuable of testimonies. Attorneys know that eyewitness accounts have all sorts of faults. DNA evidence, fossil evidence, all sorts of evidence top eyewitness evidence.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#119434 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i ask again---do you think all those changes came about in the last 200-300 years? is that like a evolution fast track? lol
so they finally have been able with modern technology to better observe and find their differences. so they re-classified them. they have always been there. what about that do you not get?
new species are found daily, many thousands yearly. they do not poof into existence and are not a species changing to a different species. they just have never been found before, or never have been classified by there differences before, or as already stated was classified with another species until now that we can examine them better and see and find more of their differences so we now are starting to re-classify them.
to claim we have seen speciation in nature is absurd. it takes many many tens if not hundred thousands of years as the theory of evolution claims so there is technically no way to see it happen in live species in nature in your fish or anything else. unless you have an evolution fast track hid somewhere.
I didn't claim it happened instantly doofus, I only claimed it happened.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119435 Aug 3, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Uniformitarianism is not a controversial assumption when compared to magic.
Jargon

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119436 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, let's compare them:
For the creation we do not have any evidence, not of the creating agent (god), neither of the creation itself, its mechanisms, the course of the processes involved, at least a denotation of it. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Nichts.
For big bang we have pretty much evidence and all the predictions on its evidence (what and how do we expect to find) are fulfilled until now. Its mechanisms are pretty well known and comply (mathematically) with the framework of physics elsewhere, for which we certainly have much evidence.
Which one would you choose?
The same applies to abiogenesis.
Still in its infancy, the first serious experiments in that field date back to 1953.
But if you had taken the effort to read into the research already done in those 60 years, i think you were baffled.
But you didn't, which takes me to the next point: how on earth are you assessing these things, WITHOUT even being familiar with even the most basics of it? Explain how you manage that.
Of course you are entitled to believe what you want.
But you are not entitled to tattle about things you have no basic knowledge or understanding of.
But what butter me most here is the CONSEQUENCES of people tattling about things they have not a single knowledge and understanding of.
Let's quote astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson on this:
“I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”.
Your response to Dude is typical for creationists:
- full of errors
- assessing the position of your opponent out of sheer ignorance - having not the slightest understanding or knowledge of the things you are assessing
- trying to drag science epistemologically into the realm of religion.
Science and religion are epistemologically NOT on par.
Religion is based on revelation and belief, science on evidence and reason.
Epistemologically science is INCOMPARABLY SUPERIOR to religion.
Science accomplishes in any random few decades more than your whole religion in its 4,100 years history.
If you don't believe that, look back in history or just around in the world of today when religion prevails in society and dominates. For instance the Islamic nations. Or Europe in the Middle Ages.
Please also have a look at what deGrasse Tyson has to say about THAT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =J_9MUzB8wjEXX.
Looking , looking , nope no evidence.

So you believe that the universe created itself and all life? yes or no

Since: Mar 14

Lawnton, Australia

#119437 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i have said what i think it is. you and your butt buddy said i was wrong. so correct me, that is the challenge. put up or shut up. you got nothing jerk jack wagon
. Are we at odds with 6000 years and the age of the Trilobites? The infinite is still there, the age of this forum is dubious. Consciousness was and is a given. Stu

Since: Mar 14

Lawnton, Australia

#119438 Aug 3, 2014
The infinite creates itself from mOment to. Moment. It is a cascade constantly in balance, the almost dancing with the rest. And there is us, one thin reed. And a word having written moves on. Stu

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
**4 Syllable Word A-Z** (Jul '12) 48 min Brandiiiiiiii 1,030
News Man Charged With Getting Small Dog Drunk (Mar '12) 48 min coco 48
"3 Syllable" Word s - A-Z" 53 min Brandiiiiiiii 105
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 56 min Brandiiiiiiii 2,955
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr grace f a l l e n 227,098
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 1 hr -Papa-Smurf- 27,162
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr andet1987 34,661
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Crystal Clear 0722 34,399
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 2 hr Pardon Pard 9,764
More from around the web