Evolutionists believe in things they can not see

''Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature.

According to the fundamentalist evolutionist Jerry Coyne:''

<cough>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1308772/Evolution-action-Scientists-discover-lizards-verge-leap-egg-laying-live-births.html

A variety of Australian skink - like snake but with four tiny legs - is slowly starting abandon egg laying and beginning to give birth to live offspring like a mammal does.

<cough>

And not to mention the fruit fly's you completely ignored.

Berny
This was killed off ages ago.

hummmmmmmmm.....

so world renown evolutionists like Jerry Coyne have admitted evolution is not observable.

Yet beorn (an atheist troll who has no qualification in science) claims it is.

Who to believe?

Doesn't matter how qualified he is if he is wrong. Fruit flies have speciated.

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas. The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).

^ they are still flies.

An example of macroevolution would be one animal form evolving into another i.e ape-like creature into man.

Never been observed though, so its not science.

^ they are still flies.

An example of macroevolution would be one animal form evolving into another i.e ape-like creature into man.

Never been observed though, so its not science.

Holy shit, they're still flies! Yeah, no shit. They're not going to give birth to squirrels. But the fact is, if they couldn't mate, they were different species. Now, if you're going to bring up kinds, you have to define it and tell us what about a "kind" has the magical barrier that keeps animals from changing to much.

Also, we're still primates. The kind argument can go on and on. An outside observer could argue that since apes and us are still the same "kind", primates, then macroevolution has not occurred.

The title of the thread is correct.

After all, all Evolutionists believe in the wind yet they can't see it.
All evolutionists believe in heat yet they can't see it.
All evolutionists believe in gravity yet they can't see it.

I believe in human decency, yet I seldom see it. And from the logic of Creationists, that means we all believe it.

^ they are still flies.

An example of macroevolution would be one animal form evolving into another i.e ape-like creature into man.

Never been observed though, so its not science.

No, apes gave birth to another species of ape which we call homo sapiens.

Fly 'x' species gave birth to 'fly y' species.

Descendants always carry the heritage of their ancestors.

You anti-evolutionists, should start defining what YOU understand by "animal", "kind", and "species". You use it like synonyms and they are not.

Cass, monkeys and men are still apes.

It's the other way around. Apes and men are still monkeys.

It's the other way around. Apes and men are still monkeys.

Monkeys and men are still primates.

Primates and men are still vertebrates.

Primates and men are still vertebrates.

Vertebrates and men are still animals.

Animals and men are still organisms.

Are birds still dinosaurs?

Berny
Waiting for Ichi

I have never seen matthiashues, therefore it would be religious to believe he exists.

Assuming that pictures and films can be faked, which they totally can, I have never seen a viper. It would therefore be entirely faith-based to believe my kindergarten education which teaches me that there is one and exactly one species of viper my country. I have, however, seen the non-venomous snakes that live here. Brb, stomping on snakes.

Are birds still dinosaurs?

Berny
Waiting for Ichi

yep:  http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

^ they are still flies.

An example of macroevolution would be one animal form evolving into another i.e ape-like creature into man.

Never been observed though, so its not science.

How about the observation that we are still apes right now!  "OMG Macroevolution didnt happen because they are still apes!"

I have never seen Poland. it is a completely faith-based assumption on my part that Poland exists.
Edit: my post number is the true number of the beast. Well, isn't that appropriate?

hummmmmmmmm.....

so world renown evolutionists like Jerry Coyne have admitted evolution is not observable.

Yet beorn (an atheist troll who has no qualification in science) claims it is.

Who to believe?

you seen my cv?

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another.

False. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures (even though we will not be around to see it happen).

Uh huh. It is true that some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. In fact, species don't exist objectively; we just need a convenient way of classifying populations with similar enough traits that we go ahead and say they're in the same species.

But a species isn't immutable or any nonsense like that. There is no "essence" of a dog, for example. There is only a distribution of traits, for which there is a statistical average, but this average shifts over the generations. Going back far enough, domestic dogs didn't exist, only rough, vicious wolves, yet the calmer behaved wolves were selectively bred until gentler dogs formed over a few hundred years. But there was no reasonable day in history when you could say that the wolves totally stopped being wolves and became dogs instead. Instead, the traits shifted gradually from wolf-ish to dog-ish, showing that the essence of what it means to be a dog is merely an average of contemporary dogkind, and not some objective barrier. In order for a species to be immutable, there would HAVE to be certain parts of its DNA that could not mutate. Well, which parts can't mutate???

Traits engulfed in populations shift all the time in response to environmental factors, and this occurs over generations. Mutations can add genetic material to the gene pool. Migration can add material to the gene pool. Genetic drift and fixation can take away material. And natural selection is the ultimate driving force that motivates changes in allele frequencies.

So basically evolutionists believe in things they can not see directly and things that they NEVER will see?

Whether or not you were around to see something happen is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it can be known with great confidence. If you actually agreed with your statement, then you must ALSO agree that all murderers who committed their acts in private must be let free. For all the DNA and fingerprint evidence in the world means nothing to you if you weren't there to see it happen. Well, evolutionary history relies heavily on detective work, much of which is done at the DNA level. Both are rather reliable.