Observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of a change of kind?

Is evolution a belief/faith?

Please give ONE observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of a change of kind?

Evolution can be split into Micro and Macro. Micro is where a creature can adapt to it's environment, this is based upon some facts. Macro however is where a creature can morph into another creature, it was originally based upon a hoax.

So what is observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of a change of kind?

This means one species changing into another species...

If there's none then isn't this just another faith?

Update 2:

The video was just selected to show the definition of Darwinian evolution of a change of kind, as requested. Still no one has answered my simple question, please just give ONE observable evidence! Rewrite it out here, if linking to it. I've attempted to read through all that you've linked and still have no answer from it, it's just wishey washing around the question... Please, directly answer it, I only want one example, thank you!

Update 3:

Throughout most of the 20th century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution, which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970's, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years. It is essentially the 19th century Darwinian idea that species evolve slowly at a more or less steady rate. A natural consequence of this sort of macroevolution would be the slow progressive change of one species into the next in a line. This macroevolution is what I want proof of!

Update 4:

Is evolution a belief/faith? "No, it is an absolutely proven theory".... Error, error logic failure, system critical! Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, therefore not 100% fact but full of assumptions. It requires FAITH to follow what someone else told you, else it wouldn't be a theory now would it!

32 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    6 years ago
    Best Answer

    Ask an animal breeder. ANY animal breeder.

    • 5 years agoReport

      He asked for one example of observable evidence. I'm open to the possibility of macro evolution, but this is a serious question for which there are no answers. If the scientific method requires observation, then macro evolution is not scientific. If not scientific, it is based on faith.

  • 3 years ago

    Darwinian Evolution Definition

  • 5 years ago

    So basically the video is right that there is no observable evidence of change in kinds. So at best, accepting evolution takes belief just like accepting creationism.

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    Well, dormaalocyon is believed to be a common link of all predators, including cats and dogs. If that's not "changey" enough for you, there's always the synapsids to look at (mammal-like reptiles, but that term is long out of use due to innaccurcies). Perhaps you'd like a fish-to-amphibian kind? Titaalik is considered quite intermediate. And then there's always the famous archaeopterix (probably misspelled), along with microraptor and others which I won't even try to spell :). You will have to tell me what "kind" means, whether it be family, genus, phylum, species, or the like.

    Source(s): Books, internet searches (valid science websites)
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 years ago

    I believe the reason for this question, and others is to demonstrate that we conveniently choose to label things "scientific" and "non-scientific" without engaging in our own research, and place blind faith in experts. The problem is the experts themselves are doing that very same thing, and you have to dig deep to uncover why the initial theories were put forward.

    Realistically, it is impossible to study all sciences, or any area of knowledge, and we are very much forced to accept expert knowledge. On the plus side, this is one of the reasons for progress of human society. Individuals do what they are best at (using their specialized skill set), and exchange services, leading to better services for everyone.

    What this question demonstrates is perhaps that there is limited knowledge to conclude that one "kind" has evolved into another. However even if it is disproved (or proved) it does not prove (or disprove) the religious propositions on the origins.

    If I get sick, I go to a doctor and get medicine, and if it makes me well, good, otherwise I try something else. I don't go to the doctor and demand observable proof that viruses mutate. It's largely a matter of convenience and practicality to choose what you want to believe.

    • A theory is a supposition which is then studied through repeatable observation and demonstration. Once proven it is typically still referred to as a theory otherwise it's being renamed for no reason. Peer review is others of a similar skill set corroborating your findings and original supposition.

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

    And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

    • 6 years agoReport

      On the other side of the fence, prominent atheists have tried to claim Darwin for their own, too. When a prominent German materialist visited Darwin in England, he tried to get Darwin to confess that he was a fellow atheist. Darwin refused his request (though he did admit to being an agnostic)[2

  • 6 years ago

    Archaeopteryx. A transitional species between dinosaurs and modern birds. You can observe this beautiful fossil specimen at the following link:

    http://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.htm...

    Additionally: Look up LUNGFISH. These creatures have both lungs AND gills (some species anyway).

    I hope this will help you remove your head from the sand :)

    • Edward3 years agoReport

      Lungfish still exist, they did not adapt. You can buy lungfish at your petshop. There are several species who pretty much stayed the same over millions of years, like the cockroach. So evolutions only works for some species, but didn t change kinds, just their beaks like those Darwinian finches?

  • 4 years ago

    For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awcTb

    First you've got to define what a "kind" is. It's not any widely-recognized taxonomical definition, and in my experience, changes constantly so that creationists can keep claiming "oh, but THAT'S not a change of 'kind'." That sort of dishonesty is known as "moving the goalposts". So - define "kind". Clearly.

  • Paul
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    There is no evidence for a "change of kind" -- because "kind" is not a valid classification of anything.

    It's a made-up nothing that evolution deniers use precisely because it *doesn't* have a valid definition.

    There is a massive amount of evidence for speciation, organisms evolving into new species. Directly observed cases, cases based on long-term observations and tests by multiple generations of observers, genetic evidence, and fossil evidence. Literally hundreds of *millions* of pieces of evidence. To deny any of that exists is dishonest and delusional.

    "Evolution can be spilt into Micro and Macro."

    No, it can't. That's yet *another* dishonest made-up definition from dishonest creationists. There is only evolution by natural selection. Small changes ("micro") accumulating over long periods of time result in large changes ("macro"). They're the same thing.

    Accepting "micro" but denying "macro" evolution is like admitting that a human being can take a single step, but can't walk down the street to the store. It's patently ridiculous, and completely dishonest.

    Evolution is an observed fact. I'm sorry that contradicts your cherished myths, but deal with it.

    • Rich S5 years agoReport

      Marcos, It actually means that all the DNA was designed by one intelligent designer......God!

  • 5 years ago

    Really groovemeister? When did any animal breeder breed two animals of like kind together and come up with a new kind of animal? Your answers falls on it's face. No animal breeder has EVER done that.

    • Bryce B4 years agoReport

      Kind is not a valid classification of anything! Kind can be anything (family, genus, phylum, species, etc.), so if you are actually trying to debunk this, be more specific of the word kind .

  • 6 years ago

    Is evolution a belief/faith?

    - No, it is an absolutely proven theory.

    Please give ONE observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of a change of kind?

    - Try using an intelligent word. "Kind" is something fundies use that is different for everyone who uses it. If you used the scientifically defined word "species" which is what species begin and adapt and evolve from and to, then it would be very easy to point you to many animals that have changed species and down the road, thousands of years, they are a different "kind" but to answer your questioon with such absurd use of words is meaningless.

    Evolution can be split into Micro and Macro.

    - ONLY for fundies. There was ONLY evolution until fundies saw evolution happen before their eyes so they made the split of macro/micro. It does not exist in the scientific community - there is ONLY evolution.

    So what is observable evidence for Darwinian evolution of a change of kind?

    This means one species changing into another species...

    - WOW, you actually used an intelligent word. HUNDREDS of "species" have turned into other "species" look up ring species as a beginning. There are dozens of other examples.

    The video was just selected to show the definition of Darwinian evolution of a change of kind, as requested.

    - You think Ray Comforts monumentally stupid efforts amount to ANYTHING? How monumentally absurd of you. How about if YOU interview real scientists rather than idiot comfort quote mining ONLY to prove his point.

    Still no one has answered my simple question, please just give ONE observable evidence!

    - Look up ring species. Larus gulls, Greenish Warbler, Song Sparrow, Ensatina, Euphorbia tithymaloides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

    Youtube thumbnail

    , these are a few for you to begin.

    I only want one example, thank you!

    - there you have.

    • Colin4 years agoReport

      You got three down votes for this perfect answer. People don't like being proved wrong.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.