Evolution.. why is it that people who dont accept evolution admit that things change, but then..?

Question

claim that change halts in its progress before ever something can diverge considerably enough to become a new species? I have read on here countless staements to that effect that these people accept that life adapts and changes but then stops and stays the same. It makes no sense.. name one thing, inanimate or animate that does not change continuously throughout its existence?? Planets, stars, rocks, trees, animals, everything changes and continues to change until it diverges so much from its original state that it can only be considered new and different. What proof have you that change halts in its progress at a certain point? You say well a wolf will never give birth to a new species, of course not... change is never instantaneous.. it is always stately in its progression, but it is unswerving in its forward momentum.. nothing goes backwards, or stops things always move forward.. you have only to look around at everything in the known universe to see that..

take for example the domestic dog, which is descended from ancestral wolves, it has already diverged so much as to be a subspecies of wolf. Now what evidence or indication is there that these changes will not continue until the dog is no longer recognizable as a wolf? Where is the proof that all the changes that have occured in wolves to create dogs, will suddnely halt and not continue on as it already has for thousands of years? Show me an example of how change stops happening, prove that the dog after changing so much from wolves already is suddenly going to halt in its progress....

Thanks it seems I might need that martini.. Earl D especially didnt listen to a word I said, people that say the things he does are the reason I asked this question he still didnt answer it or debate it reasonably...

gre9467.. your ignorance astounds me, dogs are a subspecies of wolf, wolves came first. Humans domesticated wolves, and through artificial selection created the subspecies we know as Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog. The differences between dogs and wolves are many and so are the similarities, genetically dogs and wolves differ by 0,02%mtDNA, but in terms of behaviour, development, sexual reproduction, maturity the differences are even more staggering. Dogs evolved from wolves under the pressure of mankind, wolves came first we didnt just take dogs out of the wild... there were no dogs before our interference. Even wild dogs like the Dingo are previously domesticated dogs that have gone feral. They didnt exist before human selective breeding upon wolves, created the changes in them that led to the present day animal. Dogs are wolves, but they are a subspecies of wolf based on the differences.. once they were as their wild cousins until we changed them, they are still changing.

Answer 1

Kelly, it really baffles me that you can pose such an intelligently worded question, in plain english, and people still can't grasp what the heck it is you're saying!

you really have to wonder about the IQ of these people. even if they don't "believe" in evolution (LOL) you would think they would have enough brain cells to at least comprehend what you're trying to convey.

i feel your pain Kelly.

it's funniest when they say that micro evolution happens, but not macro, when macro is only the compounded effects of micro!

oh goodness, can i offer you a stiff martini to help get you through this one?

EDIT: ok, i'm mixing that martini for you as we speak - errr umm - i mean as i type! (talk about multi tasking!)

the ignorance astounds me!

Answer 2

I think this article is a wonderful example of the disingenuousness typical of the fraudulent movement known as creationism. While it begins in a reasonable tone, by its midsection it makes (or perhaps tries to slip in) a major logical gaffe. This gaffe is consistent throughout the movement, so much so that it's safe to say these people are either liars or cretins. Here's the issue: by explaining how important observation is in the study of science, the author appears to claim that there are degrees to which we can be sure of something, and direct observation is the gold standard example of this. Evolution fails his test because, he claims, it has not been observed, merely intuited. This is of course not true - just measure allele frequency and you've observed it - but that is beside the point. The author then makes a casual claim that, rather than this very suspect indirect evidence, the bible provides a better, more plausible, and rigorous explanation. And he leaves it at that! Unless he's able to provide some kind of forensic document demonstrating the lineage of the bible, can sort out for us which events are genuine, which are metaphorical, which are apocryphal, and so on, then by his own argument the bible fails the same specious test he devised in order to marginalize evolution. He can't have it both ways. Either his argument is valid and the bible is therefore a weak document and nothing upon which to base scientific theory, or he's hoping (based on experience?) That the article's intended audience is a group of such lazy thinkers that they would fall for such a cynical ploy. This is creationism in a nutshell: a bunch of marginal minds with the hubris to believe that they are smarter than the faithful they are trying to keep in the dark: The blind watchmaker leading the blind.

Answer 3

Because natrual selection & mutations are observable facts, but they DON'T at all prove Evolution. Even Ph.D. Evolutionists know this. Why it continues to be in text books I don't know. Ever notice that right before learning about Evolution in Biology they teach you that about 500 years ago it was proven that life doesn't spontaneously generate (e.g. maggots & flies aren't created spontaneously on rotting meat). You want ironic, that's ironic.

Contrary to the propaganda you've been taught in Biology class concerning this subject, natural selection DOES NOT equal Evolution. The Speculation of Evolution would require the GAIN of information (a mechanism that has never been observed, so cannot be reproduced or repeated--i.e. it's not scientific). Natural selection is a mechanism that requires the net LOSS of information. Natural selection is science. Evolution is NOT science.

A dog is still a dog no matter how many rounds of artificial or natural selection it goes through. It cannot reproduce with a monkey to make a new species for example. But it can reproduce with other dogs--hence poo-poms, labradoodles, etc.

Check out this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp
(Specifically the "Dogs breeding dogs?" & "Darwin's Finches:...")

Answer 4

"Evolution.. why is it that people who dont accept evolution admit that things change, but then... claim that change halts in its progress before ever something can diverge considerably enough to become a new species?"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but creationists have long abandoned the necessity for the fixity of species

"What proof have you that change halts in its progress at a certain point?"
Shifting the burden of proof, are you? While there is a lot of examples of genes can lose, reshuffle, or duplicate information, it has yet to be shown that they can generate information, especially the vast amounts of information required to make the leap from whatever the first alleged cell was to man.

"it is always stately in its progression..., nothing goes backwards"
Are you kidding? There are vast amounts of information lost all the time. Or have you not heard of the beetles that lost their wings? These are not proof of evolution, but devolution.

Answer 5

A dog is a member of the canine family just as a wolf is. The dog never changed from a wolf to a dog. it was always a dog. Man just domesticated dogs and if he was take a wolf pup and bring it up in the presence and interaction with humans, that wolf too would be domesticated. Just because something adapts doesn't mean it changes physically which is what eveolution claims. You adapt to your surroundings just like anything else would. For instance, take language. You could be from the deep south and talk country....move to NY and after a few years your speech would change to sound like a new yorker. Doesn't mean you've changed in the physical. If man came from a monkey...why ARE MONKEYS STILL HERE? Wouldn't they all turn to men. Show me a species that is evolving now. Bears are still having bears...lions still having lions...even scientist say the crocodiles and alligators have been around since prehistoric times and they haven't changed. So you tell me where is the constant progession. Man has gotten smarter with the times, yet we are'nt changing in our physical appearance. If we came from monkeys or tadpoles, why aren't we still evolving into some other creature? Adapting to an environment or increasing in intelligence doesn't give credence to evolution. Everything I see is still producing after it's own kind. Even sharks, which scientist say is one of the most prehistoric creatures known on record not to be extinct, are still having baby sharks. No change there. Apple trees make apples, humans make humans and dogs birth other dogs. You may evolve in knowledge, spirituality, or as a person. But man will never evolve into something else physically...at least not without the help of plastic surgery.

Answer 6

There is a complete misunderstanding among many people about what 'evolution' means. As long as people believe that evolution says that cats are going to be giving birth to dogs, or that monkeys should be giving birth to humans, they're just not going to be able to understand it.

Great post, by the way.

Answer 7

I agree, Kelly. They must not have even bothered to read your whole post.

I like to use the analogy that "micro-evolution" is a step on the staircase of "macro-evolution."

It's sad that our education system has degenerated to the point where a very simple concept is so hard for so many to grasp.

Answer 8

I think most people just can't conceive of the fact that the earth has been around for BILLIONS of years. That's a long time - plenty of time for minute changes to add up to a new species.

Most people also do not have an adequate education in evolution to make intelligent comments about it.

Answer 9

I've never met anyone who understood evolution who disagreed with it....


Edit: A reflection: How is that a problem? The theory of gravity doesn't address reproduction...so?

Edit redux: Two species are different if they can't breed together and produce fertile offspring. This is the scientific definition of a species. We can (and have) taken a species, divided it in half and given time and selection, come up with two species that could breed within their species, but not with each other. This is proven fact. If you don't know what a species is, don't argue about what evolution doesn't do.

Teritary and final edit: Donald, I work in cancer research. It is our relatedness with other species that is saving lives. Without it, there would be no research.

BTW: SEE.

Answer 10

Evolution is a theory that man has designed to try and say there is no God. If man in his mind can convince himself there is no God, then he will not be held accountable to him. Evolution is as logical as saying you take apart a watch, every peace, put it in a bag and shake it for a million years and after that you will have a watch.
God has placed something in us that give man a desire to seek and make peace with a higher being. Ever since the beginning of man, no matter what they believe they have always thought there to be a higher being. If your honest you know this to be true.
God sent his son (Lord Jesus Christ) to be a mediator between God and man. He (Jesus) came to take our place and suffer that we might be made right with God. God gives each of us the ability to make our own decisions. He will not force you to believe on him, but if you don't he will hold you accountable for what you have done with his son.