Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

It's real simple.

They're a different species of animal.

Just like e. coli can be slightly different from each other.

And elephants ain't turnin into e. coli, and e. coli ain't turnin into elephants.

They were created as separate species 6,000 and some years ago. God made them look somewhat alike just to fool you. Like fossils, expanding universe, radioactive decay dating, etc. It's a test. He made that stuff just to separate true believers, the chosen people, from the wicked and disobedient unbelievers (guess where they'll end up). Being sarcastic but prove me wrong.

E. coli is a modern day single cell organism. The single cell organisms from which we (and our close cousins the elephants) evolved lived billions of years ago.

How about a serious answer to the question.
What do you really believe and why?

What about Giant Pandas and Grizzly Bears? Related?

If not related, does that mean they could only have been related if macro evolution were possible, but it's not, so they're not?

I believe evolution fits right in with biblical prophecies.

Nope.

Billions of years old.

Learned that right here in this thread.

In what way?

They're both in the family Ursidae. It's just that they've been apart too long for hybridization to be possible.

Are you clear on the point that when you accept that species are related, you're saying they had a common ancestor? That means evolution happened, resulting in speciation, whether they can reproduce together any longer or not.

Which two of these three are related in your reckoning: 1) Wolves 2) Foxes 3) Tarantellas?

Soon Fubarski will admit God Created evolution and we can move on....

Come on, now.

They been named by "scientists".

That don't mean they're in a "family", or anything else.

Just a human interpretation of perceived similarities.

But if a scientist were, somehow, able to make it happen with artificial insemination then you'd accept they were related?

What about llamas and camels? In a lab, they can be assisted into hybridization. That makes them related, right? So what does related mean in that context, exactly? They're from two separate continents.

No. You are intentionally misrepresenting my position:



Since you are back to the subject of e.coli, are the other members of the genus Escherichia the results of common descent, or special creation.

Let me refresh your mind with a partial list:

E. albertii
E. fergusonii
E. hermannii
E. marmotae[2]
E. vulneris

E.albertii wasn't identified until 2003.

What do you believe in this respect and why?

We can measure those similarities and difference,through DNA sequencing. This moves the discussion from "perceptions" to measurements.

Hey just because two things is related don't mean they come from a common ancestor! Ohhh wait a minute! It does! Holy mackerel! Wowza!

LOL.

Before he said African and Indian elephants weren't related. In other words, both having been placed by zoologists in the family elephantidae was just a naming trick to fool us into thinking they were related, just because they look sort of alike. Then when I showed him that they actually have been hybridized, he accepted that they were related, but won't describe what exactly related means in that context. As you say, it means they have a common ancestor. In other words, they are two species that were once a single species.

If there is no room for evolution how come we have to "reformulate" flu vaccine every year?

Sorry if this was covered, think I'd need time in the rubber room if I tried to read all of this thread.

But at one time in the past, they weren't different? In other words, they were the same species once, but no longer?

So, still not settled?

I've read through most of this and didn't see anything about plate tectonics.

For those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Good Book, do they believe in plate tectonics? And therefor continental drift? India crashing into Asia? Africa and South America separating? Hot spots in the ridges in the middle of the ocean (Think Hawai'i and Iceland)? All that stuff happened in just a coupla thousand years?

If those folks are non-believers in plate techtonics, how do they explain "The Ring of Fire" in the Pacific? The Rift Valley in Africa? Maybe a good one to explore is Pinnacles National Park. Seems parts of it used to be down near Lancaster CA, 195 miles or so south of where they are located today? Along the San Andreas Fault. Which they have pretty good measurements for the last few years about the rate of movement. Did the pinnacles move nearly 200 miles in just 6000 years or so?

https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/geology.htm



Of course, I suppose the fault could have moved much quicker in the past, and all this means one must believe they can tell that the rocks there came from the same volcanic source as the ones down south in Lancaster (there's the influence of those darn scientists again, playing with rocks and determining their chemical makeup and such) . Maybe the fault slowed down recently to the levels it seems to be moving today? Maybe it went really fast before the "white man" arrived with their measuring instruments? Oh, wait, seems there were some "natives" in the area during the biblical times, they don't seem to have stories of the fault really cookin' along. Maybe they just forgot to pass those stories down, after all they were savages. Or maybe they really weren't here all that time even?

If we can figure out some of this plate tectonics stuff, maybe we can settle this stuff once and for all, you know, age of the Earth and all that. Critters turnin' into other critters too.

Geno