You are both wrong, but Alderic is a bit closer.
Leauki. this is great! I posted exactly word for word what Alderic posted because I copied and pasted it without any comment from me, but some how I am more wrong than Alderic is. This is the bias I mean to point out.
What happens in fact is that the fish always remains a fish, but what a "fish" is changes over many many generations. There is NEVER a point when the "fish" becomes "something else".
Again I like the original author never discussed how the process works yet you seem to know what was meant by me and by the author and by Alderic and then you further assume who is right or wrong as you explain the process. I think you have argued the religion to a point that no matter what is written you will disagree with it and point to creationism as the fault for not understanding the science. Just like the global warming idiots ignore the facts and scream big oil told you lies, as the reason for disagreeing with global warming.
Everything I wrote about Darwinism was based on scientific journals, I don’t even know any creationist or ID web sites, yet you tell me I don’t understand the science. May I submit to you that it is you that do not understand the science?
Look at it with a clear mind. I have read your writings and respect most of them so I know you can do it if you try. Millions if not hundreds of thousands of generations for most species is within the span of humans being the dominant species. Man as done selective breeding and cross breeding of animals to create new species or at least animals that are total dissimilar to the original breeding pair that they have branched out on their own. This is how we got hybrid plants and animals we use today. Yet outside of the lab (controlled environment) we don’t see these changes happening and they should be if Mr. Darwin was even close to being correct.
Once you understand that simple principle, Darwin's theory might still not make sense; but at least you will know what it is and why any "arguments" against it based on the idea that "species borders" cannot be crossed are nonsense.
Once again you throw into the discussion things that were not raised. I never mentioned that it can’t happen I am saying that based on the science that is accepted today it has not happened, and the timelines are so tight it makes it hard if not impossible to have happened. Say for the sake of argument that an asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago. It wiped out most of the land animals on the planet, and made the planet unlivable for a million years or so. Then we had an ice age that lasted two million years that covered the planets land surface to a depth of two miles. Then the thawing process began that lasted 20 million years. Then we had a series of little ice ages every 20 to 30 thousand years but each one is shorter lived than the previous one until all the ice had melted off the majority of the land surface. The last ice age ended about 15 thousand years ago. Man and all the plants suddenly sprang up but few if any resemble the plant life that was around 65 million years ago. When did this transformation take place? If it the planet was the same as before only a little colder then the same plants would begin to flourish but we don’t see them. No plant life on the surface means that all herbivores would die of starvation, the carnivores would soon follow. Two million years is a long time to go without a meal. During the last big ice age even the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere came to earth as snow that means the Earths surface temperature was below 400 degrees. All molecular motion stops at that point and all animal life ends. Plant seeds would survive but nothing else. In the oceans the megaladon (big great white shark) would be unaffected because the covering of ice on the ocean would insulate the ocean creatures. Most sea creatures would be unaffected including sea plant life. Okay almost totally unaffected the tropical fish would die off because of the cold unless they happen to be near an underwater volcano. So there is a closed system where the environment would remain static for 2 million years. I can see the theory of evolution happening there but on land it is extremely difficult for this to have occurred. Any animal that could survive -400 degrees would die of heat stroke as soon as the planet warmed up. Oh, almost forgot no air to breath during that time. It was all frozen to the ground until the thaw began. All land animals would have to have evolved in the last 15 to 20 thousand years. Not enough time for evolution to have occurred without our noticing at least one species in flux.
Next is the atmosphere, we went from a nitrogen sulfur atmosphere to a nitrogen carbon atmosphere to a nitrogen oxygen atmosphere. The animals that lived in each time period would have to make quick changes as the atmosphere changed. Animals that live today would not survive 80 million years ago because carbon dioxide would be the second most dominant gas in the atmosphere next to nitrogen. Plants were the dominant species at the time. They transformed the atmosphere from carbon rich to oxygen rich because they breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen, too many plants and not enough carbon they start to die off and get smaller. While that is happening the land animals would also have to change or evolve. 80 maybe as much as 100 million years ago we had and oxygen rich atmosphere. Then the ice ages started 40 million years later. All evolution stops because there is no food, water, or air to breathe. The thaw happens what is there to start with? Ocean animals? All evolution begins at the point of the thaw. We are back to 15 to 20 thousand years ago.
You see, these are the little things that get in the way of evolution, evolution depends on the world being static, unchanged much or drastically to give the animals time to evolve. Ice ages happen quickly, the last mini ice age started in less than a year it started in the 1500’s and did not end until the 1800’s and it was not until the year 2000 did we get to an average temperature that was the same as the year 1000 and we are staring to cool off again.
You see if you take all science and disciplines you get a bigger picture than if you just study one discipline.
Repeat after me: There is no species border. There is no species border. There is no species border.
Once you understand that simple principle, Darwin's theory might still not make sense; but at least you will know what it is and why any "arguments" against it based on the idea that "species borders" cannot be crossed are nonsense.
Repeat after me. paladin never mentioned a species border. paladin never mentioned a species border. Until you mentioned it paladin did not know there was a species border. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with things I never said.
It's easy for me to understand because I have a thing for languages and languages evolve in the same way. No language ever turned into another language, yet English and German are two distinct languages descended from a common ancestor.
Wow, really, so when I speak to Germans, Koreans, Japanese, French, and Spanish citizens every day at work I will keep that in mind. Does that mean that Tagalog and Visayan my wife’s native tongues which is based on Negreto, English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese might have some similarities? I’m just asking. And this helps you understand evolution? I never made the connection.
