No, that's mutation. You have an incomplete fossil record, just because there is "similarities" does not mean evolution has occured.
Evolution is indeed a fact.
You're making my point everso clear. When layman think of evolution they think species change. Fish to man stuff. And that is not fact and you know it, and to assert such, is nothing more than deception. The fossil record is not conclusive. Just because some branches of science WISHES it to be so doesn't mean it is.
When you show me a conclusive species change, ONE KIND to ANOTHER KIND, then you might have a point, until then all your doing is speculating...
I have yet to see any specific argument presented by you or any of your fellow believers that shows how the evidence runs counter to the ToE.
The evidence is you can not show, recreate, or point to a valid species change...It's all conjecture.
There's your argument.
"No, that's mutation. You have an incomplete fossil record, just because there is "similarities" does not mean evolution has occured.
At one time, in the early days of the 20th century, there was some doubt about mutations and their contribution to the fact of evolution. However, after the understanding of genetics, mutations were recognized as a significant factor in the variation part of the Theory of Evolution and are now considered an important mechanism for evolution. In fact mutations, and I include replication errors during meiosis among those mutational events, are very much inseparable from the fact of evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Why you would consider it so is beyond me.
I find it hard to understand why the fossil record has to be complete before scince can consider it valid evidence for evolution. We have many fossils of the correct date and morphology to be considered transitional between a number of species.
For example we have a number of fossils that show a change from a land animal to an aquatic animal. The correlation of these fossils into a sequence between Arteriodactyls and Cetaceans in not simply based on our interpretation of a few features. Fossils are found in strata that include evidence of the type of ecology in which the species lived. The ecology includes the available food, available water, ground cover, temperature and seasonal variance that existed at the time the fossil was originally buried. In the case of the Arteriodactyl to Cetacean sequence the ecology shows a stepwise change from a freshwater to seawater environment; chemical analysis of teeth shows a change from the ability to drink and use freshwater to the ability to drink seawater.
Morphologically, the fossils show a stepwise change in the use of the hind limbs and pelvis. Over the sequence of fossils, the rear limbs become shorter and become disengaged from the pelvis, something that shows an adaptation to spending the majority of time in the water rather than placing weight on the limbs as is necessary out of water. Eventually the limbs totally disappear (although vestigial limbs are found in extant Cetaceans on occasion) and the pelvis becomes just a remnant. Remember, these changes and the changes I mention later all match the measured time sequence.
The lower spine also changes in a stepwise manner over a number of fossils to enable the flexibility necessary to swim using just the tail. The skulls of the fossils show a stepwise movement of the nostrils from the front towards the top of the head.
There are many more little bits of evidence that taken individually do not lead to a conclusion of ancestry, but taken together give many more clues than any murder investigation leading to a conviction does.
The conclusion is that whale precursors at one time lived on land and evolved into organisms that can only survive in the oceans as whales. This is evidence for evolution.
Evolution is indeed a fact.
"You're making my point everso clear. When layman think of evolution they think species change. Fish to man stuff. And that is not fact and you know it, and to assert such, is nothing more than deception. The fossil record is not conclusive. Just because some branches of science WISHES it to be so doesn't mean it is.
The fossil record is indeed incomplete. It is not necessary for it to be complete to make evolution a fact, all that is necessary is that one lineage be shown to be the result of evolution. Just showing one sequence to be evolution proves that evolution is a fact.
Although, as I've shown above, fossil records do show evolution to be a fact, it is not necessary for us to use just fossils to show speciation.
Speciation is defined for these arguments to be a termination of gene flow between two related species. This termination may be due to an inability to produce viable offspring, to a lack of contact between the two groups or it may be that the two species do not interbreed because they do not recognize members of the other group as potential mates.
We observe species such as the Asian Greenish Warbler, that are on their way to speciating. These species are called 'ring species' where two of the subspecies occupy the same habitat and are well within the range to interbreed but do not for one reason or another. Some consider the two subspecies occupying the same area to be separate species, some, because there is still potential gene sharing between them through the other subspecies of the same species, do not. In either case, a simple extinction of one of the intermediate subspecies would terminate the potential gene flow and make the two subspecies true separate species.
We have also observed speciation in the wild and in the lab. Both PatrickHenry's and Ichneumon's home pages contain examples of this.
As far as a cat giving birth to a dog, it will simply not happen; everything in evolution happens at the species level and the changes are too small to be visible and nontrivial until they accumulate over a number of generations.
"When you show me a conclusive species change, ONE KIND to ANOTHER KIND, then you might have a point, until then all your doing is speculating...
The 'kind' division is an artificial creation that does not and cannot provide a limiting mechanism. Without that mechanism there is nothing to stop an evolving species from gradually (small steps in a stepwise manner) sneaking past that 'kind' definition.
I have yet to see any specific argument presented by you or any of your fellow believers that shows how the evidence runs counter to the ToE.
"The evidence is you can not show, recreate, or point to a valid species change...It's all conjecture.
Science can not point to a cat giving birth to a dog because that is a strawman. Science can point to observed speciation. Science can show that accumulated small changes result in larger more visible changes. Science can also show the mechanisms that create these small changes. What hasn't been shown is the creationist 'limit' that prevents these accumulated small changes from resulting in the higher taxonomic classifications.
"There's your argument.
If that is your argument it doesn't hold much water.