I have a passable background in the sciences including chemistry, biology, geology and read the referenced article with interest. Personally I believe the argument is oversimplified by both the creationists and the evolutionists. What is missing is the understanding of the impact of catastrophic environmental change that fast forwards genetic mutations and changes. Just because evolutionists don’t deal well with massive changes that can and do occur means their ideas should be discarded. Similarly the idea of changes and occurrences that may appear to be creation based needs to be left in the equation until or if disproven. When I took my beginning physical geology class in the early 60’s our text had a map of the match between Africa and South America the idea was dismissed as a coincidence by the text and professor….complete with laughter by both the professor, myself and other students. But at that very moment seafloor drilling was providing the basis for plate tectonics and moving continents. Sometimes science and understanding take a Great Leap Forward!!
Where the fuck did you read that? That is not what evolution theory says. Mammals from reptiles, that's a good one. Yeah, we still lay those eggs... Try birds evolving from certain reptiles/dinosaurs, I would believe that. Blanket statements like the one you quoted are not part of evolutionary theory. Yeah I'm descended directly from a noble family of T-rexes... You can say we have common ancestors with many life forms on earth. But evolution is far more complex than one large group evolving into new forms. Like saying we evolved from monkeys is incorrect. Common ancestors is correct. Humans have not stopped evolving (well some have stopped). Our use of new tools is changing our physical bodies as well as altering us mentally and socially very, very quickly in evolutionary terms. If you understand and can envision evolution occuring during millions of years you realize the number of changes in the genetic code of life is impossible to quantify only to observe.
The author of the excerpt cited in the original post clearly has, at best, a six-year-old's grasp of science. I just don't have the time or energy these days to even try to constructively engage with Flat-Earthers. It never ceases to amaze me that in a time when so much of the collective knowledge and wisdom of humankind is available virtually instantaneously at our fingertips, so many people consciously choose to be stupid.
It is always interesting to question science, and that is how we come to a better understanding of nature. This particular article "Debunking Evolution evidence that macro-evolution is impossible" questions the theory of evolution, basically saying since we have never seen a dog breeder end up with a cat...evolution is not true. The misunderstanding arises in part because the author seems to think Canis lupus familiaris (dog) and Felis catus (cat) can suddenly (on a human time scale) change into each other, otherwise evolution is false. This neglects the fact that dogs and cats were in fact one species, Dormaalocyon latouri, that diverged into cats and dogs; and other carnivores millions of years ago. Also just because an unnamed species of bacteria has not been observed to change into something other than a bacterium, evolution must be wrong. Same with fruit flies, they always remain fruit flies. But fruit flies, like all species, are generally defined by their ability to interbreed. If they can't interbreed, they are a separate species, even though they may still look like fruit flies. There are many species, or different creatures, of fruit flies and they have been shown to evolve over time. Just becasue they don't immediately, in human time scales, evolve into frogs does not negate the theory of evolution. So the misunderstanding seems to come from an inability to recognize "kinds" or species. Evolution deniers like to use the term "kind' to define what constitutes a different creature.
Indeed it is. But is it true? It rehashes the line promoted by "scientific creationists" and ID adherents (aka, mostly Christian fundamentalists) for decades. Evolution, so far, has support from an overwhelming majority of scientists (about 98% of those belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science}. For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate see also Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/400/707/2414073/. They do so because the theory is supported by considerable evidence from a number of different fields of science. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/; https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/s21/kahn-evidence-of-evolution.pdf. So tell us, what is New Geology? Is it a peer reviewed publication? If so, who are the peers? I tried to look up this info myself, but was unsuccessful. I couldn't even make out the name of the author of the article, since two names are listed at the end--not as co-authors, but separately, no affiliations). Inclusion of cartoons would certainly be unusual in an academic journal. Like all science, the theory of evolution is tentative. In cosmology, we went from continuous creation to Big Bang in the sixties. Darwin's theory, while impressive, is one pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil away from the scrap heap. So far, no rabbits! As a non-scientist, I tend to suspend judgment or go by expert consensus. So far, I'm betting on Darwin. BTW, I'm also a Christian, who believes that evolution, both biological and cultural, is central to God's plan. Whatever the problems with Darwin, they pale in comparison with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.
Many years ago my son had a bunch of school work, and I had to help him to get it all finished. If I recall correctly, we were going to summer in Europe and for some reason we were going to leave early meaning that he would miss several weeks of school at the end of that school year. (Or maybe that was the year we stayed with a remote tribe in the Amazon, and he lost his virginity but got all the young girls in the tribe pregnant... .......I'm joking, he never got so lucky! LMAO! No we were going to summer in Europe.) We worked it out with the school that he can get all his assignments in early and do his testing and so forth. The main thing I helped him with was a biology project. He was supposed to go through the different branches and classifications of life, first with the plant world, and then the animal world, starting with the lowest life form and working his way up, recording how each step represented an evolutionary change from the step below it. It literally blew my mind at how everything was so organized, one branch of the tree of life representing an evolutionary step up from the one below it. Even sex itself, began in its most rudimentary form in the animal kingdom and continued to change as we moved up the branches. I had no idea that there was such a strong rational structure to the tree of life that you see in nature books and so forth. I tried to impress upon my son how amazing this was, but I do not know if his younger mind caught the implications I did. It also impressed upon me how all life on earth is interconnected even back to the plant kingdom. And how changes at each stage carried through to the development of life. Different branches may have taken some evolutionary changes and discarded others for another branch to pick up, for example, fish developed fins which eventually evolved into legs and feet, but snakes for example did not need feet, and were more agile without them. When the project was done, I wondered how anyone could even start to logically question evolution. The whole structure of the plant and animal kingdom depended on it.
For evidence specifically pertinent to Macro-evolution--the change of one species into another--see: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/macroevolution/ https://quizlet.com/study-guides/th...evidence-feb95194-4085-4224-b2f8-7870dd0d6b76 Macroevolution – Introductory Biology: Evolutionary and Ecological Perspectives Macroevolution - Wikipedia https://examplesweb.net/macroevolut...ics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-macroevolution General statistical model shows that macroevolutionary patterns and processes are consistent with Darwinian gradualism | Nature Communications
