Aineo wrote:r: I'm not sure why I would do that since it happened in the past. Why would mammals evolve again?
a: Why wouldn’t they? If evolution is one animal gaining new abilities and evolving into a higher, better, or more efficient animal why would evolution ever cease if all animals evolved and are still evolving from one family, genus or species to another.
If there is no environmental stress on a population of organisms, there is no reason to select for a given modification. This is a fallacy common to many YECs. They think that evolution occures continuously and major steps would be observable in human terms. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says organisms MUST evolve. I am disappointed that you need to have this explained to you.
r: Except that this is what the evidence tells us. If you have a better explanation for the fossil record, please let us know.
a: The answer is God created all genara and/or families that later specified into specific species.
Well, I have to say that doesn't give us much detail to work with. Why does the record show that different taxa came into existence at very different times in the history of the earth? Why do we see a progression of fossil lifeforms through time? Where are the Cambrian trout? Why are there nested hierarchies? What does this model predict?
r: Fine, then you explain it. Why the progression of fossils through time? And, of course it only shows fully developed organisms, just as evolution explains predicts. Partial organs would actually be more of a prediction of ID.
a: Since organs are soft anatomy not usually found in fossils your statement is not exactly true.
Actually, my statement is quite true. According to ID, there should be some models that show partial bone structures. And how do you explain transitional fossils? Why would a designer go through so many of them?
a: Darwin expected that later fossil discoveries would eliminate all doubt his theory was true.
Well, then, it sounds like you assume that the history of paleontological discovery is over. How do you know that Darwin was wrong? And what if he was? Don't you think that our understanding of evolution has advanced in the last hundred years?
a: In reality fossils have not verified his theory. Scientists have “interpreted” fossils to verify his theory.
First of all, if you want to debate Darwin's understanding of evolution, you are about a hundred years late. How about taking on the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution? At any rate, an interesting assertion. Especially for someone who cannot tell us why there is fossil progression through geological time.
r: Hey, I'm only using your definition. It is believed by virtually all scientists who study biology, etc. that evolution is 'true or real.'
r: Well, by your own definition, it is. Please see above. It is a theory, but it is also a scientific fact. I do not see what is mutually exclusive about these terms.
a: Okay, we'll change the definition if you want.
I told you aready that I won't. My reasoning was simply to let you know that this is exactly what you are doing.
r: To me, however, it is still a scientific fact. Besides, believing something is true that later turns out to not be so has not exactly stopped scientific progress in the past. Most people used to believe that the earth was young! That's the great thing about science. It finds its mistakes and corrects them. YEC is not capable of this.
a: You need to go back and reread your own post. Your contention was the definition I posted showed that I should believe that since scientists believe evolution is a scientific fact that I should also.
If I said that, I was in error. The point is that evolution should be
taught as a scientific fact.
a: I pointed out by using your own words that people who believe myths believe facts by your use of the definition I posted. And BTW, not all biologists accepted Darwin's theory as fact.
At first, yes. However, nowadays, the number of biologists who do not accept the basic premise of the ToE, is vanishingly small.
a: Facts can be verified and Darwinian evolution can only be surmised, inferred, or assumed by what scientists want to believe and that runner does not make evolution a fact.
Actuall, it is a scientific fact because scientists accept it as a fact on a daily, routine basis and it has not failed yet. Your assertions to the contrary will not change that.
r: Some, yes. Other are simply what they appear to be. However, the point is that you cannot support your statements regarding cdk.
a:I can't but Setterfield et. al. can.
Well, he hasn't done very well so far. Can you give us some peer reviewed literature that supports either Setterfield or the idea that cDK actually happens?