"An apple does not evolve into an orange."
If you trace all trees back you find they have a "Common origin". Oranges and apples are alot alike when you trace them back far enough, and I'm sure that, just like with a family tree, you could find connecting ancestors. Like I said, I didn't say that proved anything. If it proved anything, it wouldn't be called a theory.
"There's an infinte number of reasons for anything. If we had a search function, I'd link you everything Geggy's ever said here. "
www.google.com search site specifically. I don't know if that wins me any points in this argument.
"Examples, good and bad, of two different things."
The reason I posted the other one is because it's, "Obvious" like I had mentioned when I was talking. Something anybody can see for themselves with recent photographs and everything. Unlike a picture of a half human half chimp. Obviously it was for correlation purposes.
I realize it doesn't "Prove" anything because if it did it wouldn't be a theory anymore. However, it does represent it, and even within the short extremity of "Within a species" shows that it is possible for life to change. Coupled with the idea of common origin it's pretty simple for a person to understand it. I'm pretty sure I just described the basics of evolution. Imagine that my paragraph would expound on both concepts of it, common origin and evolution within a species!
"The fact that things today can grow and change into other things doesn't necessarily mean that the same thing happened millions of years ago to bring us to where we are today"
Why do you always pick on comments that I already said weren't necessarily apt, but are obviously still a part of it. Obviously if there is evolution within one category than the evolution within the lesser category would be a necessary part of it, more than likely leading up to evolution outside of the first category. That's the entire idea of categories(like genus, family and species), to show how they are connected.
That's why some of the pursual of proving evolution has been to find lots of fossils and connect them species to species to try and show how they changed from one to another. Again, hence why evolution within a species is important. All of my argument ties into together it's like a mystical thing of repetitiveness so keep this in mind throughout.
"I do not believe that the natural process of evolution within a species is in any way proof of any kind that evolution has ever resulted in one species of animal evolving into another sort of animal. "
"the main reason I hate this debate is that evolutionists generally refuse to admit that this is a debate of opinions and ultimately one of sociology rather than science."
No, but it is an example of the functioning, and considering no person has ever sat around thinking evolution was about turning from a fish into mammal but rather a SLOW change from one thing to another it's obviously the process by which one species can turn into another sort of animal.
"I'm not trying to refute anything here. If you start picking on me, I will almost surely simply quote that which I just said."
None of what you have been responding to so far was even directed at you. You just think it's directed at you because you're paranoid and insecure, or something, I can't imagine why you'd think it's directed at you when there's a quote right above it directed at someone else.
"Why would we be able to? That doesn't make any sense."
"That's you completely missing the point. "
More like me arguing the fact that we don't have a crystal ball to look into the past and tell exactly what happened, that we actually have to investigate and make discoveries and pursue the idea and uncover more fossils and more evidence and keep trudging forward insert some more progressive words because the simple fact is we aren't omniscient and we don't know everything and the recorded history of the world only goes back so many years and like I said we don't have a crystal ball so all we can do is assume based on events that have transpired within our history to look back at the future and build a logical model.
This is the foundation of alot of science. Going off of what we KNOW to find what we DON'T KNOW. Right now evolution is a theory, thus we DONT KNOW alot about it but we are struggling TO KNOW based on w hat we KNOW. The reason this is important is because that is how most science works and if you're in a science class room learning about science it's nice to have some nice modern examples especially when it's an idea that's still a theory still in pusuit so you can be exposed to it at an early age maybe contribute to it I don't know but mostly as an example as something modern because it's a science classroom and that's what you do in classrooms and expose people to knowledge especially crucial elements like current scientific theories and rules and stuff that's around about science.
Notice I didn't use much punction there because I really didn't want to explain it.
Also notice I used the example of a science class room which seems horribly evident and quite relevant to the thread and also that my original post was how evolution is a good example of scientific mothod and all that shit I'm sure you can find some correlation.
"Neither is that which hopes to prove that just because some things are similar that all things are the same."
lol what the hell are you even talking about. Similar, same? I was explaining the concept of science and the scientific method and the simple fact that we can't prove it. Jesus we talk about proof so much I get confused.
There is no proof in this, that's where this argument comes from. He thinks the schools teach that it's the ab solute truth in defiance of god and common sense but really it's just an idea being added on like scientists and philosopher often do over the course of history up until present and ONWARD INTO THE FUTURE
"Explain to me exactly why koalas suddenly appeared while giant predator dinosaurs had managed to die out?"
It wasn't sudden. This is the problem with you creationists, you think the universe has only been around for six thousand years, even when you are trying to assimilate ideas outside of your perception. The entire point of evolution is that it took a long fucking time to make koalas.
"How about we chase down the specific reasons nature simply had to have koalas because pottos and sloths were no longer satisfying it's needs"
Now we're talking about nature having wants and needs? Sorry, I guess gods penis just couldn't fulfill her. lol but seriously scroll down a bit
"how the survival of the fittest explains the continued existence of so many more sub-species of life than ever when each sub-species evolved from the most dominant versions of themselves. "
Dominant? Survival of the fittest? You only think carnivores are capable of surviving? Plant eatters dominate plants, and plants grow and survive alot better than most carnivores. Obviously you don't consider ecology when you think about "Survival of the fittest". Your perception makes me laugh ;(
From what I heard about dinosaurs they suffered from alot of problems including having cold blood, they probably didn't have much of an immune system or very developed bodies at all... Just because you can kill things easily doesn't mean you're the best evolutionarily.
There's millions of variables there, and I don't know why you expect there to be just one variable. It's ridiculous, the entire idea is that there's tons of variables. That's what evolution does, creates variables. Creating variables out of variables to be a good variable capable of withstanding bad variables;bad variables relative to your variables which may be good variables to another variable but hopefully something you have as a good variable is really bad to them and that variable is currently a very strong variable so hopefully your variable will variate more but who knows if their variables will change and variate even more in response to bad variables or maybe they'll migrate where variables are more favorable and their variables are superior or maybe their variable will just die suddenly.
Dinosaurs died because they have cold blood and can't survive cold temperatures also it's been speculated that their bodies, while quite large, were incapable of moving at highspeeds thus small quick moving and more mobile creatures could easily avoid them. But who really knows, like I said, it's speculation. Which is alot of what science is about. You guys can speculate the opposite, which is fine, but if it's not scientifically valid speculations than you can't really expect them to teach it in a classroom. I don't mind them listing your objections, and I'm pretty sure they list the inconsistancies, which I mentioned within my education that they did.
However most of your argument is ridiculous and would only be made by someone who has never been exposed to scientific principles.
lol by the way here's a whacky idea why don't all churches preach/teach evolution I mean just to offer an alternative theory.