Canadian YEC Robert will be familiar to many from various evolution/anti-evolution blogs. He showed up in my ‘macro/microevolution’ thread, and I am creating this as a thread for Robert to air his views and for those who choose to engage with him to do so. I am moving certain posts here from macro/micro, as they are off-topic for that thread.
102 thoughts on “Robert Byers’s views on evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Allan miller.
Yes reasoning is used in science and everything.
However science is about a higher standard of investigation.
Mere lines of reasoning is not evidence for the conclusion.
One needs actual experiments/evidence to be able to say a scientific theory is here.
i don’t see evolution as a scientific theory as it never invokes BIOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence but instead evidence from elsewhere or mere lines of reasoning.
micro observations proves macro results is not scientific proof.
It ain’t . Why do evolutionists think it is?
The differences in people suggests its not from population changes but from instant morphing changes as the changes were needed or the body thought so.
Yes the people are the clue.
No it was not from people keeling over until the right answer was made.
It was from innate triggers after thresholds were passed i think.
Allan Miller
I brought up about innatte triggers.
you make a point about the geology being only evidence for gross forms.
AMEN.
These fossils do only show a moment in time for the fossilized critter.
any extrapolation from this creature to another in another strata etc of geology is just a line of reasoning and is NOT showing evidence for the process or that it actually happened!
Yet evolutionism is founded on jUST this principal.
Fossils are not scientific biological evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis.
They are just data points .
The claimed associations are unrelated to biological observation or investigation.
If the geology is wrong then the biology is.
If this is so then its not a biological study after all.
Robert,
I’m afraid you are simply wrong. Multiple lines of evidence point to the reality of biological evolution, both as process in populations, and as historical fact in operation whenever replicating populations are in business. You even call upon this process, when it suits you.
The patterns revealed in stratigraphy reveal that something has been going on in a ‘jerky-gradual’ manner, with the forms on the ground bearing extensive relatedness to those beneath their feet as compared to fossils found in other parts of the world, and gradual convergence in deeper strata. They certainly do not reveal a one-day creation event of each form.
But there is also the mathematical behaviour of populations, the morphological and molecular congruence …
Your immunity to ‘lines of reasoning’ is obvious, and in view of that I’m not sure why you feel the need to attempt to reason. You believe in a 6-day creation and a 6,000 year old earth, that’s fine. The data are severely at odds with that view, but nothing I can say will disabuse you of it, nor would I particularly want to. What people believe is entirely up to them. But the mindset that discards, distorts or cherry-picks facts about the world is not one I will ever understand.
You say multiple lines of evidence point to evolution.
I say biological scientific evidence is not there!
Then you invoke fossils which is not biological evidence of descent or process but only evidence of creatures caught in a moment of time.
The connections evolutionists make, I say , are not from biological scientific study.
rather they lines of reasoning and/or meshing things together on a hunch about connections based on presumptions of geology.
I am not cherry picking or failing in my analysis.
You make my case.
You don’t segregate biological scientific evidence , for a biological theory, from non biological lines of evidence.
Where am i wrong in my analysis here?
Can anyone show me why evolution can claim biological scientific evidence and justify it being called a biological theory??
What are the top three best evidences for evolution of life from biological scientific evidence??
YEC and ID would be defeated if this was done.
All other sciences prove their case as a theory of this or that.
ALL of biology is consistent with, and supports, evolution.
None of it supports YEC or ID, both of which are intellectually bankrupt attempts to support religion
So genetic sharing across species is not evidence to you? All vertebrates having five fingers and toes is not evidence to you? Nested hierarchies are not evidence to you? Makes me wonder what you think the word “evidence” actually means, Robert.
So you’re saying that fossils of plants and animals are not actually evidence of those plants and animals? That fossils are just rocks? Glad you aren’t running any science departments.
The fact is Robert – all fossils of organisms are biological evidence. You may not like it or agree with it, but that’s tough. And studying the relationships between fossil groups and fossil placement in time is valid biological scientific analysis. So when all scientists agree after hundreds of years of study that, yes, all fossils fall into a striated arrangement across specific Earth ages, that is actual biological evidence for the relationship of those groups of organisms to each other. You can deny this all you wish, but it makes no sense to do so.
Aux contraire. You are definitely failing in your analysis.
I don’t even know what you are referring to here.
I just did above. What exactly do you think the word “biology” means? It’s the study of life and living organisms Robert. That includes studies of things that lived in the past. It’s not that hard to understand Robert.
LMGTFY: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+for+common+descent
And here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns
DNA sequencing
Endogenous retroviruses
I guess YEC and ID are defeated then.
Robert,
I did not ‘invoke’ fossils – I pointed to the patterns of their location and form as indicative that some process has produced these rocks with apparently biological forms in patterns that are consistent with biological descent.
In fact, biological descent is the only known process that can produce the observed pattern as a result of the process – as opposed to, say, a whimsical deity or deceitful demon which could presumably arrange them any way it wished, but chose to do so in a pattern consistent with descent – failing to fool the faithful, of course.
Non-fossilised biology conforms entirely to a pattern of descent also. Evolution does not rest on geology – pulverise all fossils and it would remain intact, due to morphological and molecular hierarchy – again, only descent would produce those patterns inevitably, as opposed to contingent upon a whim.
In your worldview there is one basic ‘fact’ – the world was made in 6 days 6000 years ago, with diploid biology squeezed through a bottleneck on a boat. That is non-negotiable, and so everything else is twisted and contorted to fit that story, with any number of made-up ‘theories’ about tree rings, ice cores, radioactive decay, innate triggers, ‘kinds’ and the speed of light. So I simply don’t believe that YEC, in the mind of a committed YEC-er, could be defeated by anything. Therefore, what is there to discuss? Your mind is set, and so you would simply be wasting even more of my time.
The short answer is no. No one can convince you of anything you don’t wish to believe.
damitall2
then prove it.
I ask you for your best piece of biological scientific evidence for evolutionary biology conclusions.
Shouldn’t be hard!
Robin
Genetic connections between different creatures must be from genetic scientific evidence.
Not just presuming!
5 toes/fingers is not evidence of descent or process but only evidence of what it is. Its just presumption that you are saying is evidence.
A guess. Even if true still a guess.
Fossils are ONLY biological evidence of what the fossil shows.
The connections of claimed descent and process are not fossilized.
Why do you think fossils are biological scientific evidence for descent and process??
This is why evolutionists don’t see the light!
its a misunderstanding of what is scientific investigation on a subject of biology!
WOW! Your saying the fossil record proves evolution because it doesn’t prove anything else.
This is NOT evidence for evolution.
Its just a line of reasoning.
This thread started because it was argueed that micro evolution proves macro evolution could and did happen.
I said this is just a line of reasoning, even if true, and demonstrates how evolutionary biology never has used scientific biological evidence for its conclusions and claim to be a theory of biology.
Case in point our discussion.
Fossils are just snapshots of critters in place and time.
Descent claims and process are not fossilized but only a deduction or line of reason from pre existing presumptions. Including geology to start.
I am willing to be corrected but i think I make a great creationist criticism here that would be persuasive to a majority of thinking people.
Biology really can’t be done on rocks!
Evolution has cleaved to fossils for a great deal.
Marine mammal evolution claims alone do this like crazy!
Whats the top four!
I don’t have to prove anything. My case rests on the vast and ever- growing body of consilient evidence in favour of evolution; and the fact that YEC and ID have zero evidence in their favour.
The fact that you personally don’t believe that the fossil record is no evidence, that you haven’t a blessed clue what molecular phylogeny even is, that you know nothing of paleontology, biology, molecular biology or AFAICS of science in general makes you a poor advocate of whatever your POV is.
There’s a whole internet full of evidence for evolution, as well as huge physical libraries. YEC has nothing, zilch, zero, nada. Even if you wanted to, you could not point at a single piece of evidence in favour of a young earth, let alone of a massive act of creation.
If you want to see evidence in favour of evolution, go read for a couple of years.
“First understand, then criticise”
Robert Byers: “Its just a line of reasoning.”
kairosfocus’s “inference to best explanation” is a “line of reasoning”.
Are you saying his argument is not valid for the ID side?
No, Robert. I am not saying the fossil record ‘proves’ anything. It is simply consistent with descent. Given that the fossils could potentially appear in any order whatsoever, the fact that the order they do appear in supports descent is a remarkable one, if descent is not in fact the explanation.
And as I said, you can eliminate fossils from the argument altogether, because there remains the morphological and molecular evidence. You seem to repeatedly miss me saying this. Should I emphasise? EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON FOSSILS. Is that clearer?
No single piece or set of evidence ‘proves’ evolution. But there are literal mountains of the stuff, all fully corroborating the patterns to be expected from descent with modification and relatedness, appearing again in morphology and molecular phylogeny. Against this you set a work of popular fiction. You’re having a laugh.
Allan Miller
Okay I understood fossils for you is not the big thing. many say this too me when I press about its value as biological scientific evidence.
They do punch this a lot however.
You put it a peculiar way.
You say the hypothesis of evolution is demonstrated by the descent of creatures as found in the fossil record.
It corroborates you say.
I say it doesn’t do this.
Instead you connect fossils and see a pattern that only exists after the presumption of descent and time is accepted.
Yet without these there is just creatures frozen in a moment.
Your descent and time presumptions are not from biological scientific evidence.
If they are what is it?
All there is IS biological data points called fossils.
The connections are not fossilized but are the thing asserted by you as evidence for evolution.
Just a line of reasoning.
Another line would nullify your line. Notwithstanding its all not conclusions from scientific biological evidence.
It is a error of analysis.
I think I’m right.
damitall2
You didn’t give your favourite!!
All you need is one to prove me wrong!
Remember i’m not disputing the evidence but only the methodology behind its claim to being biological evidence.
I don’t think there is any as there couldn’t be for a false idea.
Inference is inference.
Its not scientific biological evidence.
Science is a real standard and structure of measuring evidence before the evidence can claim the prestige of being science.
Evolutionary biology , as i see it, has no claim to being a scientific theory.
just a open hypothesis or popular hunch.
Perhaps more like a religion.
What a wonderfully circular thought.
Robert,
If a “line of reasoning” is not valid for the evo side, why would it be valid for ID?
kairosfocus is using a “line of reasoning” for ID.
Why is it valid when he does it?
I think Granville Sewell said something similar at UD.
Of course. Nothing is fossilised but the organism itself, or maybe a track, at a moment in time. Likewise, a photograph captures only that moment in time. We could not say how the person depicted came to exist, or to be there then. If we have a series of photographs capturing an infant, then a toddler, then a child, then a teenager, then an adult, then an old man, we do not know that there was any intervening process. But it would be ludicrously perverse to insist that there was not a sequence of intervening events, including gradual change between pictures. Of course, we know that people change. But we also know how organisms are formed, and we know that they too change, minutely, each generation.
In history the events, whatever they were, left fossils in strata forming a succession many miles thick. Older strata contain more ‘primitive’ forms than younger, and recent strata at a particular locality tend to contain forms most like those currently living there. They can be arranged in series by age, and there is a clear progression, and a hierarchy. If the ‘usual’ process of forming organisms, by being born to parents and becoming parents in turn, did not occur, someone sure wants us to think it did.
It seems to be the central dogma of ID crestionism. The Morton’s daemon.
I totally agree. That’s why I brought it up. Genetic connections between different creatures has been tested, so why are you disputing it as evidence? Here:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/165/m165p225.pdf
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v93/n6/full/6800589a.html
http://www.ajtmh.org/content/69/5/484.full
http://tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/geneticconnections.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171481/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00606-007-0587-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317197/
…and so on…and so forth…
That’s silly Robert. That’s like saying that just because celestial bodies all seem to similarities between their orbits, there’s no reason to think there’s any underlying similarity in the mechanics of orbits and that each orbit is only evidence of that planet’s (or moon’s or other satellite’s) orbital mechanics.
Similarities between and across natural phenomenon IS evidence of some kind of relationship Robert, unless there’s some underlying reason to note that certain structures could never come out any other way. But we know that is not true for the numbers of fingers and toes. There’s no reason for horses to have vestigial toes when they operate just fine on one. So explain why they have the other four Robert? It makes no sense unless you accept that they must be related to other 5-toed organisms. I can’t believe you truly deny this.
Fossils are evidence of non-current organisms. They are evidence that life existed at some point that was different from the life we are currently surrounded by. Oddly, many of those organisms have anatomical features that are similar to our current organisms. Still more odd is the fact that fossils closer to the current time have more similar features to modern creatures than fossils further away in time. This is evidence of descent. It s not proof, but it is evidence. You seem to think that the latter word is synonymous with the first word. They are not the same. Evidence merely means something that provides an indication of a cause. So yes, fossils provide an indication of descent.
No, this is why creationists are still stuck in the dark ages. They demand of science unreasonable standards because they are ignorant of basic terminology and concepts.
Robert,
When was the last time new knowledge was obtained under your methodology?
I.E. what was the last thing learnt that was not known by anyone previously and when was that?
What I’m asking is “what use is your model”?
It gets him attention on the internet, which he’s been trolling for the last decade or so without having shown any evidence of absorbing any actual knowledge. That’s all the use he apparently needs from it.
I’m frankly a bit surprised that this site has stooped to giving him an audience.
Toronto( i think your name)
If this is being claimed as biological evidence for iD then it would not be.
It’s fine for inference to be included in investigation but science demands a high standard before a theory is pronounced.
Inference in biology must only be a small thing. Biology is very nuts and bolts and mere speculation is not good enough in figuring out stuff.
Allan miller
We are agreeing a little.
Yes only the organism is fossilized.
Yes the series of photos of a person would be ‘perverse” not to be seen in sequence and easily count on a process.
Yet this analogy is not what is going on here.
The fossils in sequence are of adults living separate lives.
It is not already known they are related to those above/below them in the strata.
There is no biological evidence they are related and so process can be suggested. (also which is not shown but only presumed)
The photos of the person are known to show stages of a single being.,
The fossils here however show different species and their being evolved from each other is not shown by biological evidence.
Its presumed from a separate study of geological deposition.
However true or persuasive to you its still not biology.
In fact the geology is suspect to creationists but no matter.
This is a good case in point for the public of how evolutionists do fail to understand biological scientific evidence for desect and process is not shown by surmising connections.
I’m not be insulting or nick-picking but am sure I make a good point.
Be convinced of sequence but don’t convince yourself its based on biological investigation.
There’s only biological investigation in observation of the fossils.
None in the connections . Just lines of reasoning.
Its not about investigation or making hypothesis.
ITs about what a scientific theory is made of.
I’m only taking on about the methodology behind the claims that evolution is a scientific biological investigation and so a theory.
Its not about the evidence but the method.
In short its about the claims of the famous Dover trial that investigation must be proven to be scientific.
They said ID wasn’t and i say evolution isn’t.
I don’t see why I’m wrong!
Robert Byers,
I understand that YEC’s believe that Noah only needed to have saved unique “kinds” of animals. Afterwards, evolution (via “Darwinianism”) created the diversity of species we observe today. For example, a couple of basal canids begat dozens upon dozens of wolf, fox, coyote, jackal, and wild dog species in the span of four and a half thousand years or so. What scientific evidence supports this YEC assertion?
The links I provided above demonstrate why you are wrong Robert. The approaches to genetic analysis and fossil relationships are scientific as demonstrated. If you disagree, point to the part of their approach you think deviates from the scientific method.
Biblical boundaries are set by a witness. tHe bible says so. A witness,
Dispute the witness but until disproven it is a witness.
then by studying nature we can connect creatures into their kinds.
\not easy but do able.
i say there was a kind and from it came wolves, bears, and probably seals and so on. i allow large differences to exist but still within KIND.
Other creationists wouldn’t be so liberal.
Morphology should be the guide.
In forums I don’t like following links.
I would rather the conversation be by each others examples.
Just pick your best example for how biological scientific investigation has been the origin for some conclusion in evolutionary biology and we got a date.!
I note that Mr Byers consistently refuses to cite any evidence at all for a young earth. In view of the libraries-full of science supporting evolution – libraries which he has not, as far as can be seen, bothered to review at all – I think it rude of him to be demanding evidence of evolution when he has none for an alternative.
It is never illuminating to argue with an ignorant person.
We are not tralking about evidence for creationism.
it started with the idea about micro evolution being evidence for macro evolution results.
i said it was just a line of reasoning and expanded on this theme about whether evolutionary biology has ANY biological scientific evidence backing up its great or near claims.
Its simple.
I think i have prevailed in showing macro evolution must be demonstrated by evidence about itself. Not using micro evolution evidence, if thats even very real, as the proof macro could or did happen.
YEC always win this point.
What can your side say?
what can you say thats illuminating.!?
When you can observe a process in detail, and when you can extrapolate the long term effects of the observed process, and when patterns in nature are consistent withe the extrapolated effects, you have a well supported theory.
Mr. Byers,
I’ve seen your postings here and at The Panda’s Thumb. I have a question that is quite sincere, although I suspect it will sound snarky. Please take it in the vein it is asked.
Based on your comments here and at the Thumb, I gather that you are a young Earth creationist who believes in the literal truth of Genesis, including the ideas that Adam and Eve are historical figures and a global flood occurred sometime in the past few thousand years. It also appears that you consider the Christian bible to be infallible. Is my understanding correct?
If so, my question is: Why do you participate in these discussions? You are not going to change your mind about the infallibility of the bible. You are not going to accept any evidence that contradicts the bible. In short, you are engaging in proselytizing, not discussion based in reason.
If I have mischaracterized your views in any way, I apologize in advance and request that you clarify them. If, on the other hand, I have summarized your positions accurately, I am very interested in your response to my question.
Fair enough. I can understand, but you should not be very surprised then when we note you are disregarding basic facts, definitions, and solid analysis.
Sorry Robert, but I’m not interested in your “best guesses” or opinions. Either you can tackle actual scientific investigations and point out where you find a problem or you can’t (or won’t). Your opinions on what constitutes science are not relevant to me.
Petrushka
The process is not being witnessed.
Anyways to extrapolate from a minor process affecting minor details and say its the EVIDENCE that macro processes did and can happen is just lines of reasoning and is not investigation based on scientific principals.
Science is a real standard of investigation and not extrapolation.
Micro is nor proof of macro. The micro itself is very micro and not proof of changes.
Patterns in nature are not explained by extrapolation concepts. one could just use another extraolation!
No way around it.
biological theories must be justified by biological scientific evidence.
Not mere lines of reasoning even if true and reasonable.
Evolutionism has failed to show its a scientific theory and this can be shown to audiences.
Yes your right about my conviction the bibkle is completly true.
Therefore I simply take on the errors presented to the nations that say its not true.
The wrong guy is the one who should be bowing before the evidence.
if the evidence was there to make me change my beliefs then i would.
Creationists can be persuaded because all reasonable men can be persuaded.
There’s no other resistance save intelligent investigation.
Evolutionism just doesn’t make a good case as far as I see it.
prove me wrong!
Show me one biological scientific piece of evidence for evolution!!!
ONE!!
Just bring your favorite facts about why you are convinced evolution is true!
Biological scientific fact/facts!
Its not about peculiar opinions of mine.
I have common opinions of millions of North Americans and conclusions of tens of millions.
Its not me but about raw evidence and standards of evidence gathering.
I think evolutionary biology time has worn out.,
Error has lost ots place due to presenting itself too confidently to public opion.
It would be better if it had stayed in obscure circles in academia.
Its too late now.
I think 15 years will bring evolution out of any credibility to being a theory but only a hypothesis if that.
Byers, you have been known to claim that a non-marsupial can become a marsupial version of itself within its own lifetime.
Presumably by operating its “innate triggers”.
If this is the standard by which you develop your thoughts on subjects biological, you are welcome to believe in them just as hard as you can.
In fact, I would encourage you to disseminate your somewhat original ideas on biology as far and wide as you can – although I think that even your fellow creationists would give them a wide berth. But you stick to your guns, my lad. A coruscating (it means “sparkling” or some such concept, but you could look it up) intellect like yours cannot be repressed for ever!
From my point of view, though, he sillier you make creationism and anti-science look, the better the world will be
Okay, let’s take it one step at a time. Before we even discuss the evidence for evolution, we need to agree on the time available for it to take place. You self-identify as a young Earth creationist. I have a few questions about that position:
How old do you believe the Earth is?
Do you have any evidence other than your interpretation of Christian scripture for that age?
Have you read any scientific explanations for how the age of the Earth is calculated?
Would any objective, empirical evidence convince you that your young Earth belief is incorrect?
Show me one biological scientific piece of evidence for evolution!!! ONE!!
By which you mean something that has been observed by a human being, as Ken Ham argues here: Doesn’t Science Disprove the Bible. Of course Ham & AiG are proponents of evolution within “kinds,” even though this has never been observed (eg. a pair of animals giving birth to wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, wild dogs, etc.), so by their own definition of “observational science” they have no scientific evidence for their claims. And instead of fleshing out their “theories”, they refer their readers to the Baraminology Study Group since been renamed as the Creation Biology Society. And here is where things take an ironic twist . . .
CBS President Todd Wood explains the reason for this:
So the evidence I can offer you in favor of evolution can be found here: http://www.creationbiology.org/
Here you go Robert:
Evolutionary theory predicts that divergent natural selection will often have a key role in speciation. Working with sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Jeffrey McKinnon at the University of Wisconsin in Whitewater and his colleagues reported in 2004 that reproductive isolation can evolve as a by-product of selection on body size. This work provides a link between the build-up of reproductive isolation and the divergence of an ecologically important trait. The study was done on an extraordinary geographical scale, involving mating trials between fish taken in
Alaska, British Columbia, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Norway and Japan. It was underpinned by molecular genetic analyses that provided firm evidence that fish that have adapted to living in streams had evolved repeatedly from marine ancestors, or from fish that live in the ocean but return to fresh water to spawn. Such migratory populations in the study had larger bodies on average than did those living in streams. Individuals tended to mate with fish of a similar size, which accounts well for the reproductive isolation between different stream ecotypes and their close, seafaring neighbours.
Taking into account the evolutionary relationships, a comparison of the various types of stickleback, whether stream or marine, strongly supports the view that adaptation to different environments brings about reproductive isolation. The researchers’ experiments also confirmed the connection between size divergence
and the build-up of reproductive isolation — although traits other than size also contribute to reproductive isolation to some extent.
Reference
McKinnon, J. S. et al. Nature 429, 294–298 (2004).
Additional resources
Gillespie, R. G. & Emerson, B. C. Nature 446, 386–387 (2007).
Kocher, T. D. Nature 435, 29–30 (2005).
Emerson, B. C. & Kolm, N. Nature 434, 1015–1017 (2005).
Author websites
Jeffrey McKinnon: http://facstaff.uww.edu/mckinnoj/mckinnon.html
David Kingsley: http://kingsley.stanford.edu
Dolph Schluter: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~schluter
Patrick
I ask for scientific biological evidence and BANG you bring up the issue of time and geology.
Evolutionary biology is a biological theory.
It must be evidenced by biological research.
No geology can interfere. Its inadmissible evidence.
you could use it if it was about mere evidence claims for evolution but not biological scientific evidence.
We are talking science here. Science on biological information.
I can’t deny you have enough time but you can’t include it as part of the biological evidence.
I am YEC and so earth is just 6000 years old to me however this is truly unrelated to what you are saying about evolution being based on biological evidence.
This is my whole angle here.
damitall 2
Yes I’m sure same shaped creatures are the same .
Marsupials are just placentals with pouches.
Yes innate triggers are the origins for these things long ago.
I wrote an essay called “POst flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by Robert Byers. Just google.
Many orders of creatures of which marsupials are just a example.
Yes mechanism is to be figured out but evolution claims to have figured it out.
I’m asking evolutionists for biological scientific evidence using their favourite point.
links, links, links.
Creationists aren’t right about everything.
Yes all men cone from Adam/eve and look different and so are evidence for biological change.
Yet evolutionary biology is about descent of unlike beings and how change came.
Do you have ANY evidence from biological scientific research that demonstrates the legitimacy of evolution in its claims to be a scientific theory??
Even with people and wolves/dogs its not shown how change happened.
Just that it did!
I don’t think there is any BIOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence but other evidences as people weigh things.
However science is science and has rules.
Robin
Thanks for the attempt.
I know about this case and its very welcome to a creationist.
Its fast and unrelated to mutations.
This is what is called micro evolution and not macro evolution.
Its just like with human beings coming from Adam and Eve.
Thats even greater differences.
The genetic thing is just speculation however.
All that happens here is minor changes in the same breeding creature.
They presume its big ones mating with big ones and so reproductive choice/isolation is the origin of type or species here.
Did they see this happen? or presume it? How was it not perhaps innate triggers?
I’m not saying its innate but only emphasizing accuracy in investigation!
If the theory of evolution was not true and had no biological scientific evidence for it this STILL could be true.
Its just very micro changes!
Its not crossing boundaries of types with the need for mutations and selection on them and time.
Its not evidence for the claims of the theory of evolution.
Its only, if it is, evidence for variation within a simple single type of creature.
It could be evolution by natural selection!
Yet its not evidence for the theory of evolution that explains biological origins.
your saying here the cause of the thread.
Micro evolution is evidence for Macro evolution.
I said its only a line of reasoning.
You showed me the micro but not the macro.
You missed!
This is not the great theory of evolution that we all contend on!
You are the first i’ve seen in a long time to try and please do give your favorite piece of evidence.
However micro changes is trivial and not relevant to YEC creationism or the theory of evolution.
Its presumed to be a option for truth by everyone already.
Its just a example of micro variation at best.
This was just normal breeding actions.
You didn’t show BIOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence for justifying Evolutionary biology as a theory and not just a hypothesis.
If you think your example did then its just a line of reasoning and not evidence as needed.
Robin its just micro adaptations within a type of fish. Its not evolution.
Thanks for answering me however. no one can do better then what you did.
Consilience is the point.
Robert, I have no idea what you are referring to as the case I presented did not demonstrate anything fast and I have no idea what you mean by the mutations were unrelated. As you say, “nice try”. You might want to actually read the study.
It’s clear Robert that you have no clue what actual biological evidence is and as such your comments will remain void of validity and credibility. I’ll stick with actual science.