whereru, Good effort to try and explain your point of view,manny should take an example of what grown ups post like :)
"In the context of the above analogy, the question is: can the observation of the trees provide evidence that it is one tree that is growing and developing rather than a number of created trees? Yes, there are artificial constraints in the analogy placed by limited observations, but this reflects the limitations of the long time for evolution to change species.
Back to the question posed:
Can you provide Observable evidence of Darwinian evolution of something changing it's kind?
So the answer to the question is "no", but with a caveat. The caveat is that "no" simply implies that it is not possible to observe changes that take a very long time actually occurring because changes take too long. The "no" doesn't imply that there is no evidence for evolution.
I don't think that the question makes any more sense than the one in the tree analogy, namely: can the observation of the trees provide evidence that it is one tree that is growing and developing rather than a number of created trees because one cannot see the trees actually growing?
a "no" would not imply that there is no evidence for evolution - it would mean we could not observe species changes (other than bacteria and related life) taking place in a human lifespan.
The question therefor just can't lead to sensible debate because it makes this incorrect assumption about the theory of evolution as if it were undeniable fact. The question of the tree in the analogy also makes no sense because the tree grows too slowly to see it grow."
Nice mate,and i sincerely understand what you are trying to convey to us,good effort to convey your point of view
Let me say this in reply
Firstly,im not sure its worth my while,but i will try,reason being,you have admitted you only brush over my posts,so imo you aernt that serious about what we are saying or conveying,i have read each one of your posts and watched all your utubes etc,i know by your answers and questions to me,you havent afforded me the same
For the one millionth time,we,agree with you on the micro evolution of the tree,we reach a common ground there! :)
We see the minute changes,unobservable from day to day,because they are minute
Where i find fault with your analogy,is this-
The tree when you come back to look at it,is still a tree,even though it has grown etc,it changed from a juvenile tree to a more advanced tree
Charles darwin,went to the Golapogas islands,and observed,genetic changes,within a species of finches,longer beaks,shorter beaks,different variations of colour,mutational changes
Within a species (i can agree with all of this to this point,its observable ,provable, scientific.
The finches were finches at the start of his observations,and at the finish of his observations,they were still finches
Where science dissapears and "blind faith" is introduced into the sinerio
Is then, his theory assumes,like others do on this thread
1 Is if you give enough time,then the mutational changes etc will then EVENTUALLY, give you a change of species
A different type of species ,than what a finch is,of course given enough TIME, generations etc(time and blind faith here are interchangable words)
This can not be proved,there is no evidence for this in any species in the history of planet earth
Because if there was, there would never be the debate about if we find the missing link(a species in transition between one species,to another,there can be no question,macro evolution(blind faith)is scientific fact
There should be conclusive transition evidence in the fossil record,skeletons etc
Because this has been happening constantly over millions of years
2 The excuses talked about by the supporters of evolution are not valid,because you are saying you need time to prove your theory
Is not several millions years not long enough to have conclusive evidence to support your faith in evolution??
WITH CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE?you all keep parroting,given enough time its observable,well how much time do you want?
If what Darwin was saying was true,there would and could be no question of argument, debate,because like manny1970 keeps imagining in his childish antics,it would be game over,and his kindergarten bully boy tactics would not even be needed,but he hasnt had long enough to evolve that far yet
The tree in your sinerio whereru,was still a tree at every point of your argument,if your point were true,you would clearly be able to demonstrate,where that tree,ever so incremently,changed form,to something different from a tree, from the millions of years of data,because that is how old evolution says the earth is
Then you would be able to say,look at this tiny tree,which micro evolution brought it to maturity,then, see here from the fossil record,over generations,macro evolution took over and we demonstrate here how it changed into something completely different, here at the end of my demonstrable evidence, because it happened over such a long period of millions of years,its observable everywhere and demonstrable
Fortunately because this has happened so often over such a long period of millions of years,i can present to you transitional examples that numerous, the theory is not theory at all,its demonstrable conclusive proof
"This coupled with a not particularly clear phrasing of the question is a well known technique used by people wanting to score points rather than engender de abate. This may not apply to the questioner - only he/she will be able to tell us the real intent of the question.
