[El Cid]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
Oh wow... You really can't piece this together, can you?

There isn't a point where a different specie of animal is just birthed into existence. Centuries of gradual genetic variations within a species can cause two animals who have common ancestors to no longer be able to procreate. One group of animals may be less genetically similar then the next group, which is even less similar than the third group, explaining your species A B C point.

Defining 'species' is ambiguous because natural selection has no need for categorizing things so neatly. It just is.

Specie means: Money in the form of coins rather than notes.

Don't feel bad. I made this mistake myself on Talk origins decades ago. Someone was nice enough to correct me too.

You wrote: "Centuries of gradual genetic variations within a species can cause two animals who have common ancestors to no longer be able to procreate."

This happens to be true. All dogs descend from the wolf. Over thousands of years, we get German Shepherds, Great Danes, Dalmatians, bull dogs, Chihuahuas, etc.

All these dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other male-female and have offspring, but I would think Great Danes and Chihuahuas would have a very difficult go at it.

More to your point, there is no scientific evidence what-so-ever that any species evolved distant offspring that clearly has a different Bauplan (e.g. body plan - In German i.e. blueprint).

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by El Cid)
More to your point, there is no scientific evidence what-so-ever that any species evolved distant offspring that clearly has a different Bauplan (e.g. body plan - In German i.e. blueprint).

Didn't know that about the word. Learn something everyday I guess.

Have you heard of Zeno's Paradox? That an arrow can never reach it's target, since it must first reach halfway to it's target first, before that halfway between those two places, ad infinitum? Yet it's obvious that an arrow can in fact reach it's target. That's what anti- evolutionists do essentially. Every time more evidence is compounded for the theory, it leaves the disbeliever to claim "well where's the transitional fossils for THOSE two??"

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by El Cid)

Very good 'Hype en Ecosse', what you wrote is correct and what I wrote is incorrect. I enjoy being caught in an error. It shows me that someone was on the ball. I appreciate that. The offspring of the Panthera are sterile, thus the four Panthera are classified as different species.

My sincere thanks to you for pointing this out.

+1 for admitting to a mistake. Rarely happens in this sub-forum.

<3

[El Cid]

(Original post by WhatsHisFace)
Didn't know that about the word. Learn something everyday I guess.

Have you heard of Zeno's Paradox? That an arrow can never reach it's target, since it must first reach halfway to it's target first, before that halfway between those two places, ad infinitum? Yet it's obvious that an arrow can in fact reach it's target. That's what anti- evolutionists do essentially. Every time more evidence is compounded for the theory, it leaves the disbeliever to claim "well where's the transitional fossils for THOSE two??"

That arrow will hit whatever it does hit while Zeno is going on and on how Achilles will win the race, the arrow will win the race assuming that the arrow will go the distance. Otherwise, the only way Achilles can beat the arrow is if the arrow hits him, and, may I add, the wound is not fatal.

BTW, Zeno's claim is mathematical, an abstract concept, where infinities exist between every number. Zeno erred in applying these mathematical infinities to the Real concrete world we live in, wherein there are no infinities. Even Time must be finite since it depends on physical movement (e.g. caesium-133 atoms), Thus time is based on a concrete measurement, it is not an abstract concept.

BTW, I am assuming that universe is indeed real.

There are no infinities in the REAL world, except in topology wherein 'infinity' is defined as the ability to measure, or travel, another 'x' distance in a given direction, such as going around a globe (e.g. Earth), or a tire tube, or another 'x' passing of time.

[WhatsHisFace]

The analogy was more important than the specifics.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by El Cid)
Specie means: Money in the form of coins rather than notes.

Don't feel bad. I made this mistake myself on Talk origins decades ago. Someone was nice enough to correct me too.

You wrote: "Centuries of gradual genetic variations within a species can cause two animals who have common ancestors to no longer be able to procreate."

This happens to be true. All dogs descend from the wolf. Over thousands of years, we get German Shepherds, Great Danes, Dalmatians, bull dogs, Chihuahuas, etc.

All these dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other male-female and have offspring, but I would think Great Danes and Chihuahuas would have a very difficult go at it.

More to your point, there is no scientific evidence what-so-ever that any species evolved distant offspring that clearly has a different Bauplan (e.g. body plan - In German i.e. blueprint).

Hence calling them breeds of the same species.

[nimrodstower]

I am not too sure if this is real or not, is the aim to brush evolutionary theory under the carpet? Evolution is fact, it may fly in the face of religion, but it does not dispute God(s). I think the problem lies with the apologists, trying to defend the indefensible. The clue here is truth, truth in determination of progressive scientific knowledge, against truth of closed minded religious doctrine. Go, educate yourselves.

[10_Rufus]

(Original post by El Cid)
That arrow will hit whatever it does hit while Zeno is going on and on how Achilles will win the race, the arrow will win the race assuming that the arrow will go the distance. Otherwise, the only way Achilles can beat the arrow is if the arrow hits him, and, may I add, the wound is not fatal.

BTW, Zeno's claim is mathematical, an abstract concept, where infinities exist between every number. Zeno erred in applying these mathematical infinities to the Real concrete world we live in, wherein there are no infinities. Even Time must be finite since it depends on physical movement (e.g. caesium-133 atoms), Thus time is based on a concrete measurement, it is not an abstract concept.

BTW, I am assuming that universe is indeed real.

There are no infinities in the REAL world, except in topology wherein 'infinity' is defined as the ability to measure, or travel, another 'x' distance in a given direction, such as going around a globe (e.g. Earth), or a tire tube, or another 'x' passing of time.

The reason Zeno's paradox is not in fact a paradox is because if the arrow is moving at a specific speed or at an acceleration (which it will be unless this is not real life). Then as the distance measured that it crosses drops, so does the time it takes to cross it. SO in the limit (and it is a limit), the velocity of the arrow never changes and the distance is crossed as it would be IRL and the arrow reaches it's target.

tldr: as the arrow crosses an infinitesimal distance, the time taken is also infintesimal, the velocity is constant, achilles will win, and the arrow hits, no physical laws are broken.

It is actually incorrect to say the real world contains no infinities, as all of space is in fact a Complete ordered field, truthfully research is going on into whether it is or not, I'm not sure how it is going though.

[Saalisa4]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Do you have overwhelming evidence for a different explanation? Because we have overwhelming evidence for evolution. Bring it.

Yes, my explanation is that of the Quran. And I believe in it wholehearted simply because it comes from the most reliable source, God. Because who can describe the origin of life better than the one who created it. Have a read for yourself and see if you don't find answers. If you are not convinced it is from God there is PLENTY of evidence I can show you

[Saalisa4]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Yes. How dare those scientists and anthropologists know stuff.

Funny. But what I mean is that we should understand our limits.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Saalisa4)
Yes, my explanation is that of the Quran. And I believe in it wholehearted simply because it comes from the most reliable source, God. Because who can describe the origin of life better than the one who created it. Have a read for yourself and see if you don't find answers. If you are not convinced it is from God there is PLENTY of evidence I can show you

I am not convinced, how about your evidence?

[Gofre]

(Original post by Saalisa4)
Yes, my explanation is that of the Quran. And I believe in it wholehearted simply because it comes from the most reliable source, God. Because who can describe the origin of life better than the one who created it. Have a read for yourself and see if you don't find answers. If you are not convinced it is from God there is PLENTY of evidence I can show you

What stance do you believe the Quran takes on evolution?

[Okashira]

Is there a universal endogenous retrovirus that all life currently share? For instance, do we share an ERV with insects, or do we share one with birds? I've looked around the net, and so far the most common answer I keep getting is that we share ERVs with chimps.

[G8D]

http://imgur.com/a/OYne6

[Okashira]

(Original post by G8D)
http://imgur.com/a/OYne6

If you were responding to my question, I've made it a habit not to click blank links.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Okashira)
If you were responding to my question, I've made it a habit not to click blank links.

he's not - it's a collection of pictures from the creationism museum in Kentucky. Really quite funny to see what some people believe.

[Saalisa4]

(Original post by Gofre)
What stance do you believe the Quran takes on evolution?

From my limited knowledge, I know that Allah says many things in the Quran which provide support for the theory of evolution.

For example: "Say: (Yes, you will be resurrected even if) you are stones or iron. Or a created matter, which is greater (or stronger than iron) in your minds." [Isra' 50-51]

--Biological anthropologists with assistance from archaeological anthropologists have reconstructed human prehistory through classifying discovered human fossils by time using accurate dating methods, like potassium-argon and radio-carbon methods. They have agreed on a general sequence of evolutionary changes of the human body.

What's relevant in this verse is the fact that humans can become fossils in rocks. Some bodies can be fossilized in clay layers which are rich in iron, thus becoming iron fossils.

Humans never knew that they can be fossilized in rocks before the 19th century. However, this information was revealed in the Holy Qur'an 1429 years ago, as evidence that its author is the Creator of life, the All Knowledgeable, who knows all things, including fossilization.

Verse 17.51 indicates that humans may contemplate the introduction of new changes on themselves, which may make them even stronger than iron. This could be a reference to ideas about future biological engineering. The verse is saying to the nonbelievers that the Creator, praise to Him, will still resurrect them for reckoning in the Day of Judgment even if they change themselves into something stronger than iron. --

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by G8D)
http://imgur.com/a/OYne6

Eve looks like a babe.

[jones107]

can anyone tell me exactly where the problem is between religion and evolution,
there is room for both if you consider it, well, as far as i know,
seein as "GOD" made all, surely he COULD have done so through the means of evolution?
i cant say i have read much on the subject and want a bit of clarification

[G8D]

(Original post by jones107)
can anyone tell me exactly where the problem is between religion and evolution,
there is room for both if you consider it, well, as far as i know,
seein as "GOD" made all, surely he COULD have done so through the means of evolution?
i cant say i have read much on the subject and want a bit of clarification

There may not seem to be a problem with your interpretation of religion. But the problem is with others' interpretations.
Some flatout deny that it's possible, some try to fit it in with the young earth, some completely skew it and refuse to call it 'evolution' seeing that as a victory. ETC.