So I'm not even gonna bother reading the other stuff (@BurnPyro @Geressen), see above as to why. I read the stuff I posted, and realized that I was using the wrong words for various things, and it didn't even make sense to me. Here's what I should have been saying: The Theory of Evolution does not extend to cover the "beginning of life", nor does it extend to cover the generation of new species. It does cover all of the stuff we can test and see happening even today (like dog breeds, a common example). The idea that new species have come out of different species currently doesn't have enough testable and replicate-able evidence to be added to the Theory of Evolution. It's probable that we won't have anything like that until a similar amount of time has passed ("similar" referring to the supposed time that was needed for new species to be generated). That's a lot shorter and less full of nonsense than the other post, isn't it?
It's probably better if we stop having this argument. There's clearly no point in debating this, you don't seem to believe (fully) in Evolution and there seems to be no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
It kind of does. It mentions that He is, always was, and always will be. Which, while it doesn't cover the process, does cover the beginning, sorta.
Correct I disagree. this is true if you want to study a case as it happens but phylogenetic research can accurately show how species are related to eachother.and what they had in common with their common ancestor. most whales have vestigal hind limbs what you are suggesting is that instead of a common ancestor who walked on land and became more and more adapted to the ocean and then generated multiple species to fill different ecological and strategical niches there where hundreds of species of four legged animals that all did the same thing and slowly became the many species of whale we see today. it also does not really explain to me how "sister species" come to be such as the Long finned-, and Short finned Pilot Whale: or the willow and marsh tit; These distinct species vary very little in body shape, colouration, and size while having huge differences in behaviour, strategy and song. do you propose these are all subjects to some form of Müllerian or Batesian mimicry? this is a weird suggestion since none of the species is poisonous so there is no benefit in sharing a look to show you are both poisonous (Müllerian) or for one harmless one to mimic the poisonous of the two (Batesian). none of the species above has been domesticated and artificially selected to look like they do. so what selection has lead to this apparent coevolution of looks between the species? there is no benefit. So we can conclude the benefit to looking alike are nonexistent, but that does not mean there is a detriment! pilot whales live in social family groups that have complex tribal organization and pass on cultural traditions, they are intelligent enough to recognize their own species. likewise the tits use song to atract mates and their respective songs have grown worlds apart ( birds also learn song from their parents and peers). these factors mean there is no selection away from their current form. I therefore propose that the reason these species look so alike is because they have a shared ancestor. and have remained looking alike due to lack of selective pressure to changes away from the "norm". even though both have split off from their common ancestor thousands, if not longer, years ago. Yes, sorry we were harsh on you earlier.
I accidentally made a text wall... I am sorry and will try to go back to speaking in single barely coherent sentences mixed in with some Dutch here and there. Ik begrijp niet wat dit betekent, waarschijnlijk omdat ik niet bekend ben met het gezegde. kan je iets specifieker zijn? Ik geloof dat ik er all mijzelf voor heb ge-excuseerd in de post hierboven waar ik 'Sorry' schreef. also hi, have we met? welcome to off-topic. WHERE EVERYTHING GOES OFF THE RAILS!
Claiming you do not understand does not justify the obvious logical mishaps you are making. No, we've never met because you're too high on the pedestal of "evolutionary enlightenment" to deal with me because I tend to be more grounded.
Ok you a ****, why didn't you say so. Way to claim i'm on a pedestal and then not explain anything yourself when everyone involved in that part of the thread has moved on and talked better in a more civilized manner. also is that how your parents taught you to respond to a person telling you "hi, welcome" ?
Some interesting stuff regarding speciation in action: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...fish-splitting-into-two-species-in-same-lake/ "Three-spine sticklebacks were introduced to Lake Constance in Switzerland around 150 years ago – a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. But since then, the fish have begun splitting into two separate types: one that lives in the main lake (pictured above left, female top, male in breeding colours below), and another that lives in the streams that flow into it (above right). The main lake dwellers are bigger, with longer spines and tougher armour. In theory, these differences could be due to lifestyle rather than evolution – perhaps lake fish survive longer and grow larger." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ "Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day. For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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."
This argument is not accurate. A species is a classification. Classifications are characterized by us. You say, "See, they changed, so let's classify them differently and call them a different species." This is not the argument. Even creationists, what I am, and intelligent designers, something I do not support, know that characteristics drift and new species are created. The argument is that the fish did not become a monkey. Has that been observed?
I have never heard anyone suggest this happens. Why is this a requirement for evolution? This is just a straw man.
Sorry, this is not a strawman. Also, this is one of the backbones to evolution. The first one is small genetic changes over time. This one has been around for centuries. Your example is already known. The second is that these small genetic changes that create one big genetic change that results in an increased fitness and thus a new genus or family. Can you furnish that example?
No, it isn't. The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anywhere that "a fish will randomly become a monkey." You have a grave misunderstanding of what evolution is if you believe that. The Theory of Evolution describes processes that are slow and gradual, and speciation doesn't occur with a bang.
