ICR admits the evolution of new species, genera and families:
Earlier studies have shown that the total number of animals in question are less than the millions the detractors envision.
Noah was told to take two of each "kind" of animal on board, probably represented by today's "families" or "genera" rather than species. For instance, the dog "kind" includes many speciesâ€â€wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, etc. Furthermore, most animal types are small, only a few dozen are large, making the average size something on the order of a cat. (John Woodmorappe's excellent book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, looks into this issue in depth.) The great majority of today's animals live in the sea and did not need to be on board.
http://www.icr.org/article/2465/
So where's this part:
The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families.
I put it in red for you.
All the author is talking about above, is built in variability in the genes of dogs and cats. Domesticated dogs were bred from wild dogs, as is the case with cats.
As the ICR points out the "built-in variation" allowed new species, genera, and families to evolve. They don't like to use the word, but that's what it is.
Again, your full of bologna.
Temper, temper. You should thank me. You learned something new about your religion. Creationism is a lot different than Christianity.
Barbarian on the accusation that evolution is a "baseless theory" because it does not say how life began:
In the sense that chemistry is a "baseless theory", because it assumes atoms exist, without making any statements about how they came to exist. And yet both chemistry and evolutionary theory give us successful and useful predictions for understanding the universe
(sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)
No assuming when it comes to atoms...their observable.
But chemistry makes no claims about how atoms origionated. Nice try, but you need to be a little slicker than that, if you want to switch arguments.
But to substantiate evolution, you have to demonstrate, at the molecular level, how we got from here to here:
Nope. Evolution only assumes living things exist, and describes how they change. Again, you aren't quite slick enough to pull off that kind of trick.
Barbarian observes:
So does evolution. We can, for example, make predictions about the fitness of new genetic strains, based on evolutionary theory. More often than not, agronomists are successful in this application. Antibiotic protocols are designed according to evolutionary theory, as are applications of pesticides in combination with other control methods. Evolutionary theory has made numerous successful predictions as to intermediates which were later found in the fossil record.
Even undergraduates regularly do experiments that confirm evolutionary theory.
This is genetics not evolution.
Nope. Someone's taken advantage of you trust in them. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
And the fossil record is very, very much against evolution.
They had some fun with you on that one, too. The fossil record has repeatedly confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about some of them?
Barbarian on evolution
How populations change over time.
[Wow!! What a lofty goal... [/quote]
Yep. One of the major problems of biology. Solved.
Sounds like marketing to me...not science.
Now, that's funny.
Let's take a look... evolutionary theory predicted that there must have been at one time, whales with functional legs. We have since found many fossils of such whales. And from time to time, vestigial hind legs are still found on whales.
Evolutionary theory predicts that birds and dinosaurs are very closely related. Recently a bit of hemoglobin from a T-rex bone was found to be immunologically most like that of birds.
Evolutionary theory predicted that careless use of antibiotics would lead to bacterial resistance. And that is also verified. Researchers now develope antibiotic protocols to slow the development of such resistance, and one is now using evolutionary theory to predict what forms future resistance might take.
Even engineering has been affected. Engineers are now using simulations that mimic natural selection to find solutions to problems that are too difficult to design. Turns out that evolution is a much more efficient process than design.
(links on request)
