It more than reflects the certainty of the evidence (nested hierarchies, genetics and paleontology, to name just a few). It has nothing to do with blind belief like yours, not accepting the evidence out of incredulity and insisting on God’s ‘poofing’ morphological and metabolic changes, not that he couldn’t, but that’s not what he did.
No, it’s not. But it is valid to conclude (not assume) that the actual changes seen in living things could be produced by observed processes.
Of course there are impossible tasks.
It’s a reflection of our detailed knowledge of the actual changes observed and the known processes. Rather than repeatedly making the same nearly content-free complaints about evolution, you might try learning about what’s known about specific evolutionary changes.
Evolution is as much about constraint as possibility. That is why there is a nested hierarchy. Biologists do NOT believe that anything can be done given enough time, quite otherwise. The claim is that variation is inexorable and cumulative over time, but variation always happens on existing traits. Evolution is just biology over time.
Two of us just stated right after your OP that there are evolutionary changes that are impossible. Do you think we are insincere or are somehow unaware of our own beliefs?
Not really new. The nested hierarchy, or tree of life, has been part of evolutionary theory forever, and is part of the evidence for descent with variation over arbitrary design. Design is not constrained by descent.
Well it’s a belief based off of thousands and thousands of facts from dozens of scientific fields.
Such as it’s a fact no humans fossils have been found predating the earliest primates. No primates have been found predating the earliest mammals. The first mammals don’t predate the fossils of the earliest tetrapods.
I still think we are talking about your incredulity. There is evidence from which to draw legitimate conclusions, you know, like the antiquity of the earth. You accept that, right? Why isn’t the evidence supporting it ‘ancillary’? Maybe you need to take some classes and see why conclusions are drawn and from what evidence, and learn the reasons assumptions are made for whatever you denigrate and are calling invalid.
What is ‘ancillary evidence’ anyway? (I know what ancillary means. ) Can you give us evidence of what evidence is ‘merely ancillary’? Do you think genetics and paleontology yield only ‘ancillary evidence’, whatever it is?
Then why did you make it? Only because of your incredulity. Others have already answered about impossible tasks. I demand you not answer any more until you have taken the required extent of time to lick your elbow.
It has everything to do with your incredulity, unless it is just your ignorance of the relevant facts and justified conclusions. I can certainly grant that!!
Maybe you need to take some classes and see why conclusions are drawn and from what evidence, and learn the reasons assumptions are made.
OK, I will attempt to be more precise. There are tasks which would be essentially impossible for evolution.
For instance, because of descent from tetrapods, pterosaur forelimbs became wings, mosasaurs limbs became flippers, whale forelimbs became flippers, bat forelimbs became wings, and bird forelimbs became wings, the bones of which can be verified at KFC. Dragons with wings in addition to four limbs are not possible.
‘Unlike your colleagues.’ There you go being silly again. What makes you think I haven’t agreed with them?! Do you know how to click on (or tap for mobile) the number of likes that precede the ‘like’ heart outlines to see who the ‘likers’ are? You will find me in much accord with them (except for where indicating it would exceed my like quota ; - ). Of course there are things impossible for evolution (like forcing you to comprehend!).
Well, let’s ponder that for a moment. Children are ancillary evidence encouraging the notion of hereditary without actually showing it. Did you see how they got there? Was it demonstrated? You have to use your mind to fill in the blanks and connect the dots.
That was facetious and you even lifted it out of context. Good grief. I’m beginning to question your intellectual honesty, let alone your logic. There are so many things you don’t get!
Hopefully some others who hadn’t gotten it yet, by seeing both the science and the theology will begin to get it where you haven’t and start to have an appreciation for wonderful, amazing and beautiful our God really is. That is what it is all about, the first petition in the Lord’s prayer.
“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name1…” Matthew 6:9
1 It shows the heart of the petitioner (even though we all fail), “I want your name to be separated and above the rest, famous and renowned.”
If you have any interest in exotic sports cars, think ‘Lamborghini’, ‘Ferari’, BMW or ‘Porshe’, or if designer clothing labels, think ‘Chanel’, ‘Karan’, ‘Armani’ or ‘Calvin Klein’. The brands want their names hallowed.
That is why noisy evolution deniers (@RichardG & @Buzzard) and noisy YECs (@adamjedgar) dishonor the Lord because their believed ‘truth’ is an analogue of flat earth idolatry, causing unbelievers to scorn and laugh2 when the only legitimate reason for them to scoff is the offense of the cross.
It would be an absolutely impossible task for evolution to evolve a bird from a dog in one generation! Or forty-seven hundred generations.
It might be interesting… but not a good use of time… to imagine and calculate how many billions of years (tens of billions?) and quadrillions of mutations that it could take, because it is theoretically possible, isn’t it? (It’s at least imaginable in this layperson’s mind. ; - )
No it is not. There is no creature possible between the two. And that is what you fail to understand. The reason some transient creatures do not appear is because they cannot exist. In one change yes, but in stages, No. So unless you claim evolution has the [power to instantly change a fish into an amphibian, it cannot be done, not in 7 days, 7 years, 7,000,000 years, or eternity. Because there is no viable halfway stage. It would be all or nothing
And that is why I query the scope of change. How much change can evolution do in one move? Or is it the small steps that have always been the understanding (until now). The small steps that require a viable creature at every change. Not only viable but able to hold against competition and breed. (untill the next change)
Small steps that build. Small steps that not only adapt but change. Small steps that can miraculously alter metabolism, circulation, dietary requirements (and the ability to find and consume them) All these changes that are needed to claim that it was once a
And that is only th simplified version of what evolution claims to achieve. (in small steps?)
Of course that is no longer evolutionary change! Is it?