Quote
Let's put it this way, Bex . . . Your idea of evolution seems to be that it says organisms must change drastically. It appears to rule out the possibility that some organisms may undergo little change ("stay at home") while others undergo profound change ("travel around the world").


My idea of evolution is that it never occured at all. Why quibble over a fantasy and "how" this fantasy supposedly took place? This is an example of the way evolution indoctrinates and I've said this before. They have you believing it happened, but quibble about the process of it (which doesn't allow for challenging evolution itself). This is the way they work . Someone gave this example of it "How long have you been beating your wife" (it doesn't ask "IF" the beating happened in the first place). Evolution works by that principle. It does not allow the students to question it happened in the first place and what you're seeing on this forum is the results of total indoctrination. They cannot think outside the box. They have an agenda that forces them to ignore anything that contradicts their theory and play word games as a way of escaping that.

Does your theory not teach that simplicity became complexity over millions/billions of years? And if so, in order for single celled organisms to become what we observe today, profound changes would need to have taken place. Even if they occured slowly over that time. If you are admitting to the possibility of little to no change in life...this then indicates order/formation from the start. If this is not so, then what else is there for you? The fossils certainly do not support any idea of simple becoming complex and have remained much the same....so why do you assume it still happened, inside or outside of them? How can you the imply that organisms do not have to change drastically...in light of what your belief in our origins are? How can you get from one thing (single celled organisms) to the ordered and complexity in life we observe today and say "it didn't have to change drastically"? That makes no sense Linda.

If we are to believe your theory from the beginning (our origins) it absolutely requires drastic change in order to support it and in millions of years, we should have seen some indication of that and we do not. Otherwise you're left with the idea that all or "some" creatures were always much the same...which is almost an unconscious admission. What does your theory stand upon?

You are expecting us to believe that the universe and life itself could actually arise and organise itself in such a way as to produce and support itself and all life that arose upon it. In all it's order. Which is really asking people to have great faith isn't it? Faith in fantasy. On one hand we're told it all came from single celled organisms, yet on the next hand, when no sign of simplicity in life becoming complexity occurs (neither now or in the fossils) we're told that they do not need to change drastically for evolution to have occured. In fact, I think Linda wants us to believe that the fossils caught on camera were the ones that stayed at home, and the ones not caught are the ones who must have wondered around the world. I think this is a good example of the evolutionist worming his/her way out of every conceivable situation.

Quote
If you are unable to show that evolution has to occur at the same rapid rate for all species, then you need to concede that it can occur at different rates dependent on different variables, one notable one being change (or lack thereof) of environment.
You have been unable to show that evolution has occured at all.


You are unable to prove it happened at all <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Whether rapid or not. So beyond that, you don't have a lot leftover.

Quote
let's look at the coelacanth -- which, as you have seen, has indeed undergone evolutionary change. It has, however, changed little in comparison with the majority of other organisms. Look at its environment. Deep sea. It's pretty well sheltered from drastic climatic changes in the world up above, meteor strikes, volcanoes changing the atmospheric conditions, etc. Keeping this in mind, it would be surprising if the coelacanth had evolved rapidly -- there are no conditions pushing it to do so.


Yes let's do look at the Coelacanth!
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lehhkwqaws.jpg">
Ancient Coelacanth above, modern day Coelacanth below. Just remember folks, though it looks the same, or much the same. It still evolved ok? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Your imagined ideas of evolution are yours to keep, please don't imagine we're fooled along with you. I have not seen any signs of evolution if this is your idea of an example of it, then evolution is desperate! You would need to show it evolved in the first place, let alone evolved a little, which you have failed to do. There are many varieties of fish and varieties within fish as well. So you still haven't proven a thing other than trying to sell evolution to others in defiance of little to no change. If even the environment hasnt' stirred it into evolving, what makes you think it did at all? and if it did change, but didn't require drastic changes.... what did it arise from? :-)

Your proposal here to teach me evolution falls flat again Linda. Whether co-existing, or not, you have no evidence any of them are products of evolution in the first place or any of them evolved from the other. You ask me to falsify it? Can anybody really falsify someone's fantasy? I can come up with any story I want and defy you to prove it didn't happen.

Quote
The ToE is a well-tested theory for the evidence we see in the fossil record, in geology, in genetics. If someone offers a competing idea, why should they not be compelled to offer some proof for it, and show why it fits the facts better than the existing theory? This is the scientific method. Scientists don't accept new theories because they sound good, and they don't reject existing theories because they just don't like them. The evidence is always what needs to be weighed


If it was a well-tested and proven theory, they would not need to continue to rely on assumptions and tell us it happened in the failure of any substantial evidence. They've had millions of years to come up with something from the fossils, yet instead they quibble over something like a fish showing little to no change, or jump on a piece of fossil limb and start making an entire story around that as well. It's pitiful!

The competing idea, which you are well aware of, is intelligent design (intentional design, without the requirement for evolution). The belief that none of these creatures (us included) has undergone any such proposed evolution beginning from single celled organisms. All things have shown to be fully formed, then and now (as far as one can observe, which is part of science). They all reproduce after their own kind and as far as we can record and observe, they always have. You need to prove that it's been a different senario and until you can do that, your theory is fantasy and nothing more. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If all things show completeness and order, then it's highly likely they always have. It is YOUR theory that proposes a different senario, yet fails to give any proof to support it. Why do I need to prove what nature is and has already proven Linda? The bible has already stated what we observe around us and as far as we've been able to tell, always has. All things were created to reproduce after their own kind. They were created and designed just as they were.

Fact of the matter is, what faith you decide to take onboard is what it comes down to. Because without scientific proof for your theory, which you do not have Linda, all you have is assumptions. Even evolutionists argue. How can you prove what took place in the beginning if you were not there to see what happened? The bible explains it, the first two human beings were testaments to it, it was passed down... but as time wore on, people deviated from their origins and truth. There is no way for me to prove the beginnings outside of that because I was not one of those witnesses! Neither were you. We have their word, but we have the choice to disregard that and evolution can be the alternative if someone wants to find some other way to try and explain how all things ultimately arose..... If not evolution, one may have to consider the idea that all this may have arose out of purpose! That for many people is unthinkable, because it indicates an ultimate intelligence beyond all of this, which points to a God. Either this all came from chance happenings, or it came from purpose. Take your pick. What else is there Linda?