JohnBrowdie, post #4: "he's correct. he's simply pointing out that the fossil record merely proves in-species variation, and that is, by definition, NOT evolution."
Blood of Tyrants post #9: "If evolutionists knew nothing about dogs an were presented with a skeleton of a chihuahua and a Great Dane, they would swear that they were different species."
John Browdie post #10: "Darwin and his finch beaks were examples of in species variation, and not evolution.
In fact, it's ironic that 'The Origin of Species' utterly failed to address the origin of a single species."
bray post 22: "There is no fossil evidence of a transitional species."
buffaloguy post #25: "There are 8 species which have been created in the lab.
His information is out of date."
BigEdLB post #36: "Cool with intelligent design.
But the Earth is 4.5 Billion.
And the universe is 13.7 billion. Physics.
God made the place, but He is like a beautiful Gardner.
Evolution has holes."
lentulusgracchus post #50: "Microfossil records for the Cenozoic show sudden mutations of extant forms into new forms under the influence of..."
bray post #53: "And an egg turns into a chicken.
That is not a transitional species."
tacticalogic post #55: "But no one has ever demonstrated the Earth aging for 4.5 billion years.
You have to see it happen, or it doesn't count." (assumed </sarc>)
Popman post #56: "There are lots of examples of micro evolution, where there a minor changes in a species like the shape of its beak, feather color, average size due to environmental and behavior changes over a relative short time..."
bray post #58: "How many millions of transitional fossils would there have to be from snail to horse and there are none.
I imagine your claim is just as false."
bray post #59: "Adaptations are not changing species. Show us a dog/horse and then we will become believers."
UCANSEE2 post #61: "Most of what is called evolution is merely adaptation. For instance, if you put man into a weightless environment for a long time, the calcium..."
Ghost of Philip Marlowe post #69: "They are not new species created from genetic mutation.
They are the result of cross-breeding."
greysard post #75 quoting: "...scientists have now observed the actual emergence of new species."
RinaseaofDs post #88: "There is a mountain of evidence for adaptation, and literally zero for evolution."
firebrand post #90: "That is because the definition of species precludes such a change."
wbarmy post #94: "SO some scientist somewhere theorized that hypothesis, but there is no evidence that one microfossil is the descendant of another microfossil.
There is absolutely no way to prove that."
tacticalogic post #97: "Dr. Carson's argument is a simple, flat-out rejection of inductive logic.
Inductive logic is a valuable tool for dealing with situations where you do not and cannot have enough information to reach a deductive conclusion."
xzins post #100: "The dumbed down population simply needs to be told that we have remains for everything from Australopithecus to neandertal developing into modern man, and..."
buffaloguy post #123: "I read about the speciation about 10 or 15 years ago and was surprised to learn that new species had been seen to develop in the lab.
It was either six or eight new species."
rfreedom4u post #131:: "Evolution is a theory. Nothing more."
********************************************
By now, everyone here should understand, the debate is really over definitions of various words, words like: evolution, adaption, creation, species & kinds.
But even more basic is the definition of the very words: science, hypothesis, theory, proof & confirmation.
When posters here say, "there is no proof of evolution", that's because evolution is a scientific theory, and theories in science are never "proved", they are confirmed.
Even a "fact" is not "proved", it is observed scientifically.
Science calls a confirmed observation a fact.
Science calls a confirmed hypothesis a theory.
So evolution is a confirmed scientific theory which explains literal mountains of confirmed observations, aka facts.
But let's start here: does science / evolution "disprove" Genesis 1:1 when it says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?
No, science itself neither "disproves", nor asserts, nor argues against, nor theorizes, nor observes the absence of God in Creation or anywhere else.
Science merely ASSUMES by definition of "science", that every scientific explanation must be based on natural causes of natural processes, without referring to any supernatural interventions.
So, when science says "evolution resulted in all the species we see today" does that mean God didn't create them?
No, it just means that evolution is one natural explanation for how God created the heavens, earth & creatures.
The good Dr. Carson & others here say, "there are no transitional fossils", but of course there are -- every fossil, every individual, is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
So people say, "but you're talking about adaption, not evolution."
But those words describe exactly the same thing, with "adaption" usually applied to short term changes and "evolution" to more longer terms.
So, people say, "species don't adapt or evolve into new species" but here we get into definitions of not only "adapt" & "evolve", but also: what is a "new species" versus, "new genus", "new sub-species", "new breed or variety"?
The fact is, if you take two interbreeding populations of the same species and separate them in different environments over very long periods of times, what will happen is that each population will adapt differently until by some scientific definition, they become different breeds of the same species.
Maintain the experiment for longer times, and those different breeds will separate further to become new sub-species.
What's the difference between a breed and sub-species?
It's simply a matter of scientific definition.
I.e., breeds, like human races, readily, enthusiastically interbreed with each other, while different sub-species begin to shy away.
Analysis of breeds and subspecies such as humans and Neanderthals show that all have nearly identical DNA structures, while in different species or genera of the same family, we see significant DNA changes.
So, if we could run this experiment for very long periods of time, depending on the type of species, the DNA changes would become so significant that species would first refuse to interbreed in the wild, and eventually be physically unable to interbreed, even with artificial insemination.
In today's usage, the term "species" of a common genus means they don't normally interbreed in the wild, but can on rare occasion.
The best known example is Polar Bears and Brown Bears which were classified in separate genera until confirmed natural examples of hybrids were found.
Now they are just different species of the same genus.
Horses and donkey's cannot interbreed naturally, and when forced produce infertile offspring, so they are classified in separate genera.
Bottom line: most or all major evolutionary adaptions happen very slowly, over many generations such that different populations become different breeds, then separate sub-species, species & genera, until interbreeding becomes impossible at which point they are classified as different families, orders, classes, phylua, etc.
So, you'd say, "that's just a theory, right, you have no proof, do you?"
Correct, in science terminology, evolution is a confirmed theory, and that's as certain as science can ever get about such things.
It certainly leaves open the likelihood that some time in the future, new observations will falsify old theories, forcing new hypotheses to be proposed and, perhaps, confirmed.
It's how science works.
