Yeah I've heard that before. Even fundamentalists should have a problem with that logic

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Yeah I've heard that before. Even fundamentalists should have a problem with that logic

I know thats what I'd do if I was god...

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit what about an ass? Its a mix between 2 species. Or a liger? Cross breeding species occurs even more with plants and in some cases speciation will with the new cross breed (i think this only works with plants) Albeit certain combinations may lead to fertile offspring mostly your left with infertile ones. So this is a bit of a divergence but evolution is a long period of time and just because it doesnt look like a dog doesnt mean its not a dog. Its the genetics that are the main factor and even though we do use selective breeding the genetics do stay the same. So the offspring would be viable if you mated two extremely different looking dogs due to their genotypic similarities. The argument of dogs is just an example to show that visually organisms can change and it doesnt take a very long time with manual selection. Now the genetic aspect is something that takes time as you are relying on generations and generations of mutations and segregation of sub populations from the original population. So we would definatley need an organism with a short generation time such as the fruit fly to observe speciation on the genetic level. This has been shown.

The liger is still a cat, and the donkey (which isn't a cross-breed by the way), is still a horse. Fruit flies are still flies, an the plants are still plants.

quote:

we didnt evolve from cocroatches since they are protostomes. (IE their mout developes before their anus.. where our anus developes first) [quote]Our last common ancestor would have to be something like a Chaetognatha [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Chaetoblack.png[IMG]

We'r related to roaches? That's crazy. No wonder the likes of Hitler could see others on the same level as rats. Evolution allows people the excuse to naturally select their fellow man.

quote:

You'r implying physiological similarities equate to a relationship between two completely different animals. I'v demonstrated that completely wrong. So we know that the cells in a whale femur that end up developing into a whale femur are the same cells that develope to form our femurs. So we say that we both have a common ancestor which would have probably looked something like this: [IMG]http://darwiniana.org/EomaiaRecon.jpg[IMG]

Racoon looking things become whales? That's crazy. I guess polar bears should soon start looking like whales too.

quote:

im not rejecting anything. im just asking you to bring some sort of evidence to the table as i am doing.

What specific evidence do you need?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The liger is still a cat, and the donkey (which isn't a cross-breed by the way), is still a horse. Fruit flies are still flies, an the plants are still plants.

sure a cat is a suborder (Feliformia). not all animals from that order are interbreedable. you cannot breed a domestic cat with a lion for instance.. it wont work. So the cat is just a cat argument doesnt really fly. cladistics, remember, is simply our best organization and groupings of organisms based on genetic or phenotypic (visual) features. So we have 2 genetically and phenotypically different species capable of interbreeding and producing offpsring. Keep in mind these animals both come from the same genus and are classified as such so must be fairly closely related, but for semantics sake we have them under different species (although the visual differences are quite striking). Believe it or not donkeys are more distantly related to the common horse though.. so its more of a true cross breed when you mix a donkey with a horse (you produce an mule Not an ass sorry). A male horse and a female donkey you produce a hinny. A mule has a higher probability for fertility but usually the males are infertile.

So again i appologize as instead of ass i meant mule

quote:

We'r related to roaches? That's crazy. No wonder the likes of Hitler could see others on the same level as rats. Evolution allows people the excuse to naturally select their fellow man.

not really there is no direct lineage between us and roaches as i mentioned before. We would be considered very distant cousins with our common great 1.25x10^7 generations ago uncle or aunt being that bilatera creature, chaetognatha (given that the average life expectancy was 40 years per generation, a generously short estimate considering most bilatera have a very short life span.)

Well unfortunatley we do not abide by natures law, and this is my own diversion now. Since we manipulate the environment as much as we can to suite us instead of letting the environment shape ourselves, natural selection doesnt really work for us in the same sense as it does for animals. We are not segregated based on our physicality, stature ability to see hear or camoflauge but instead we all have our own benefits and individuality that play a role in teh society we live in. Social welfare helps those with disabilities to assimilate into our social structure and those who lack in certain skills but make up with alternative skills to do so as well. This is an anthropological debate which im not well versed in so ill leave it at that.

quote:

Racoon looking things become whales? That's crazy. I guess polar bears should soon start looking like whales too.

polar bears are closely related to dogs and bears so i would assume that the evolutionary strategy would lead decendents of the bear, if they indeed regress to the water, towards more seal like structure with a retainment of their hind limbs as fins.

quote:

What specific evidence do you need?

something conclusive maybe? peer reviewed research. The problem with intelligent design is that they are searching for any plausibility to introduce miracles and god as the proclamation for the origin of stagnant species. This leaves the idea unopen to interpretation as faith cannot be challenged as it is not empirical.

The worst part about this is that it leaves science itself at a standstill with regards to this subject. With the disappearance of evolution from science we cannot further pursue how genetics manipulates organs and cell structures (with inferences to other organisms), pursue the causes of cancer and other hereditary diseases. Why pursue more when we have an unchallengeable answer (the supernatural cannot be contested since it is not testable).

this is essential goal of intelligent design, to close the book on disecting organism progression on the micro and macro level (as they are both synonymous.)

Last edited by Nrg2Nfinit on Sep-07-2009 at 14:22

Here is an intresting documentary exposing intelligent design simply as creationism and faulty science. Basically they are finding anyway to hault the teachings of evolution and instead show that a creator is essential for all organisms to have been created and organisms cannot progress by showing that certain molecular structures are unable to have evolved due to their complexity. The defense is intruiging.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...729062613200911



Here is also a visually entertaining series which follows the progression of organisms from 500 million years ago to present time. Its mostly done in cgi, but you get to see an intresting interpretation of the animals and how they would have acted at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...B0CDB449&page=1