Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Are you being nice to me? Come on now,I believe in that wacky gapism.I'm just explaining why I'd reject evolution even if I was an atheist.It has nothing to do with my faith in God although I do believe now the gap theory fits the evidence in the earth better and is a better theory than the ToE.

Not really. But yiu could sure show the rest of us some courtesy by following my suggestion,

Evidence would be nice to counter the excellent points I have made against the ToE. My suggestion for you is learn how to examine evidence and then try to apply it to the ToE,don't just believe their preaching,challenge them and ask for evidence to back up what they are explaining.Go through the evidence they have provided and see if it backs up what they are explaining.

Also realize,this is science we rely on for knowledge in our world and it matters much,much more if they are wrong compared to creationists. It should not matter to scientists what creationists think about their science,instead they should just work on proving themselves right,regardless of critics.Their credibility should matter,but it does'nt and instead of focusing on evidence they got into a theory fight with YEC's,got complacent and forgot what science is supposed to be about. This has caused them to push an evolution myth that they know they can't prove and haven't proven. YEC's messed them up!

You have not explained yet how Pakicetus could evolve into a whale when the evidence behind evolution shows it cannot happen.

Incoherent blather.

Ms. Potts, meet Mr. Kettle.

You know better than that.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Not really. But yiu could sure show the rest of us some courtesy by following my suggestion,

Evidence would be nice to counter the excellent points I have made against the ToE. My suggestion for you is learn how to examine evidence and then try to apply it to the ToE,don't just believe their preaching,challenge them and ask for evidence to back up what they are explaining.Go through the evidence they have provided and see if it backs up what they are explaining.

Also realize,this is science we rely on for knowledge in our world and it matters much,much more if they are wrong compared to creationists. It should not matter to scientists what creationists think about their science,instead they should just work on proving themselves right,regardless of critics.Their credibility should matter,but it does'nt and instead of focusing on evidence they got into a theory fight with YEC's,got complacent and forgot what science is supposed to be about. This has caused them to push an evolution myth that they know they can't prove and haven't proven. YEC's messed them up!

You have not explained yet how Pakicetus could evolve into a whale when the evidence behind evolution shows it cannot happen.

Incoherent blather.

Ms. Potts, meet Mr. Kettle.

You know better than that.

Audie is more cryptic and ambiguous than incoherent I think

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I think evolutionists would regard most life-forms and fossils as transitional. According to evolution modern humans could be a transitional form between earlier hominids and something else, even though we're definitely fully formed (most of us anyway). The idea is that evolution takes a very long time - it's not necessarily something that can be observed within recorded human history, for example. I'm not on either side here - just trying to clarify.

Notbthst those who use this enigmatic "fully formed" thing as some sort ofvsrgument will
take my word or understandvwhatvIbam saying, but..

Of course all organisms are fully formed. Nothing about ToE in the remotest sense suggedts
otherwise.

I've asked for clarification of what people using the argument ard thinking, to no response.
Possibly as they've no idea what they mean.

As forcall being transitional, Ibam curious how you see that.

Id say that our horseshoe crab, scorpions and cockroaches have been around for 400 million
years so and are not showing any inclination to transition to pollywogs of grapefruit trees.

Living species tho are not the same as those of the past. Invisible biochemical changes
evolve. I suppose all living things may be in a state of transit as they make minor adjustments
to conditions. Transitional is not just about changing from a fish to an amphibian,.

Horses give a good example, with an excellently detailed fossil record of a creature that
we find progressively changing in quite dramatic ways over many millions of years.

But it is still basically a horse. But not the little 3 toe horse of days gone by but anyone can look at the foot bones of a modern horse and see the remains-vestigial, yes-of side toes.

Horses may get more horsey, but they arent going to get wings or become csrnivores.

In another sequence we see a lineage of fish leading step by step to amphibians.

Anyway..gotta go, but there's some thoughts.

Thanks - I suppose the objection about transitional forms is that there must have been many generations in between the progressively changing fossils that have been found. One individual could have been born with an advantageous variation in form (variation from the normal for its species) but for the whole population to change would take a long time and many generations, including lots of individuals who happened to be born with a similar advantage (some body part just a bit bigger than average, for example) enabling them to live longer and have more offspring, thereby increasing the prevalence of that advantage in the population until it was universal. So it would take a lot of generations to effect even a small change, but the fossils we have seem to show jumps from one form to the next. As you've said before however, most creatures die without being fossilized and there could be lots of fossils that haven't been found.

After having read through this thread from about 5 pages back or so and how I have explained why evolution is a myth,how have I done? I want to know if you still lean towards evolution or now realize how much of a myth it is.I guess I could drive my point home better if I actually posted links showing how the evidence in evolution science does not back up what they explain and shows that there is only variability amongst the populations and from this everything else about evolution is assumed.

I've still got a few questions for evolutionists to answer and they are how could Pakicetus evolve into a whale based on the evidence in evolution science that shows viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,salamanders remain salamanders,etc with only normal variation? My other question is when it comes to speciation,why is it so important in evolution science whether or not a certian kind of life can breed or not?

Because it makes no difference if it can or cannot breed it is still going to lead to the same kind of life,with only normal variability amongst that population. It could not lead to another kind of life no matter how much variation there can be. Just think of all of the different dog breeds that have been produced,I mean different shapes and sizes and all from wolves but they are all still dogs and always will be and not all dogs can breed.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I haven't wriggled out.

Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

You have not explained why not being able to breed leads you to believe it is important when it comes to life evolving.

Not sure what this means. I understand that you and your ilk disbelieve in 'evolution', but do believe in 'normal variation', however these two terms are defined. I think that the difference is best described as between 'macroevolution' (evolution), and 'microevolution' (normal variation). Is that not correct? And the best definition of 'macroevolution' is the ability to differentiate beyond the level of species. Therefore, a belief that 'normal variation' can include speciation is a concession that 'normal variation' includes 'evolution'. Now if there is something wrong with this, please point it out.

You brought up speciation and it is based on not being able to breed.

More accurately, not being able to interbreed. I hope that's what you meant.

Please explain how in the case of certain cats not being able to cross breed or in some very rare cases it can happen it will eventually lead to a different kind of life than a cat.

This rather depends what you mean by a 'cat'. In the 25 million years since the first species of felid evolved, it has diversified into two completely different subfamilies, a dozen different genera and nearly fifty species. That's macroevolution on a grand scale. However, if we go back a little further, to the first species of feliform about 42 million years ago, we find that that cat has diversified into hyaenas and meercats, as well as the felids, which I guess even you would agree are not "cats" any more.

Because cats will always be cats despite normal variability amongst its population.

Unsupported assertion.

God created and made kinds to produce after their kind and they always will.

Unsupported assertion.

As to your question dinosaurs were created before birds were in the former world,and the birds and whales we have in this world were created or made after their kind when God made this world Genesis 2:2.

Thank you. I'll discard dinosaurs. If birds and whales were created at the same time, then why are fossil birds found from 140 million years ago, but fossil whales only from 50 million years ago?

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I haven't wriggled out.

Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

You have not explained why not being able to breed leads you to believe it is important when it comes to life evolving.

Not sure what this means. I understand that you and your ilk disbelieve in 'evolution', but do believe in 'normal variation', however these two terms are defined. I think that the difference is best described as between 'macroevolution' (evolution), and 'microevolution' (normal variation). Is that not correct? And the best definition of 'macroevolution' is the ability to differentiate beyond the level of species. Therefore, a belief that 'normal variation' can include speciation is a concession that 'normal variation' includes 'evolution'. Now if there is something wrong with this, please point it out.

You brought up speciation and it is based on not being able to breed.

More accurately, not being able to interbreed. I hope that's what you meant.

Please explain how in the case of certain cats not being able to cross breed or in some very rare cases it can happen it will eventually lead to a different kind of life than a cat.

This rather depends what you mean by a 'cat'. In the 25 million years since the first species of felid evolved, it has diversified into two completely different subfamilies, a dozen different genera and nearly fifty species. That's macroevolution on a grand scale. However, if we go back a little further, to the first species of feliform about 42 million years ago, we find that that cat has diversified into hyaenas and meercats, as well as the felids, which I guess even you would agree are not "cats" any more.

Because cats will always be cats despite normal variability amongst its population.

Unsupported assertion.

God created and made kinds to produce after their kind and they always will.

Unsupported assertion.

As to your question dinosaurs were created before birds were in the former world,and the birds and whales we have in this world were created or made after their kind when God made this world Genesis 2:2.

Thank you. I'll discard dinosaurs. If birds and whales were created at the same time, then why are fossil birds found from 140 million years ago, but fossil whales only from 50 million years ago?

Now you are wriggling out.What do you mean when you say you don't know what this means? You brought up speciation and it is based on not being able to breed,Google it. So it is important to evolution when life can no longer breed,this is the difference between micro and macroevolution. But the problem you keep overlooking is that only normal variation amongst populations exists. Now evolutionists have named it micro-evolution. I don't like to call it micro-evolution because it assumes life is evolving just because there is variation amongst populations,when it really is'nt evolving at all,it is really just reproduction.

The problem that evolutionists have is that not breeding only still produces the exact same thing that happens when they can breed and that is normal variation amongst it's population. It cannot lead to one kind of life changing eventually into a different kind of life.Like for instance Pakecetus evolving into a whale,because amongst Pakicetus the same applies to all populations just normal variation amongst it's population that means it could never become a different kind of life and become a whale. And this is just one example,the truth is that variation amongst a population has built in limits to how much variation you can get.

This means how certain cats are considered a different genera than other cats cannot really be true because it is based on the false assumption life evolves,which doesn't happen. Cats are cats and always will be.It really doesn't matter if certain cats are in a different genera,they are still cats.You cannot really claim normal variation produced a cat in a different genera,because it is just normal variation amongst that population and is still a cat.It proves me right and evolution wrong.

You cannot claim it is macroevolution at all and you cannot claim meer cats and hyaenas evolved from cats.

No what you are asserting is an unsupported assertion not backed up by evidence.I am right. All you've got for evidence is variation amongst kinds therefore anytime you assert one kind of life eventually evolved into another kind it is an unsupported assertion. An evolution chart that shows one kindbof life became another kind of life is an unsupported assertion,not backed up by evidence,the only thing the chart can have is variation amongst the populations and that is all.

There were birds in the former world too and they lived in a totally different world with dinosaurs,that world perished completely though and so any life that lived in the former world has nothing to do with the life in this world.

Hugh, I wanna compliment you. You have patience.

neo-x wrote:Hugh, I wanna compliment you. You have patience.

Well,you have a go at it. How can not breeding eventually lead to one kind of life evolving into another kind of life and how is it macro-evolution?

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I haven't wriggled out.

Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

Movin' on in this case means, in this case, off t he squirrel goes thro' the treetops, where no pursuit could ever catch it.

I think you need to stick with it.

Likewise, I still have not gotten any sanity on the subject of the polar ice
surviving a world wide flood.

So far, there have been three different ideas:

First, he said the ice floated, sure; but it stayed intact, merely rotated in the circumpolar current, did not break apart, and as the water receded, it settled back down.

Precisely in place, I ask? That was a bit thick, even for him.

Then it was that the ice is stuck down, didnt float at all.

Possibly the problem of the millions of tons buoyancy and the observed fact that glaciers are not stuck down got half way through to him.

Because now the story is that the top half of the ice floated, leaving the bottom half, ah, stuck down still. THEN the top half, having floated about
for a year, settled back down, in place.

IF there had been a world wide flood, then the polar ice would have floated off, and so would the mountain glaciers. No glacial ice anywhere would be older than the date of the flood.

This is an incredibly simple thing to understand.

But extremely hard, if not impossible for the sealed mind utterly committed to a fantasy story that does not allow for any evidence to affect it.

Stick with the speciation thing! You may get some new facts as amazing as the layer cake polar ice, and the stuck-down glaciers.

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I haven't wriggled out.

Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

Movin' on in this case means, in this case, off t he squirrel goes thro' the treetops, where no pursuit could ever catch it.

I think you need to stick with it.

Likewise, I still have not gotten any sanity on the subject of the polar ice
surviving a world wide flood.

So far, there have been three different ideas:

First, he said the ice floated, sure; but it stayed intact, merely rotated in the circumpolar current, did not break apart, and as the water receded, it settled back down.

Precisely in place, I ask? That was a bit thick, even for him.

Then it was that the ice is stuck down, didnt float at all.

Possibly the problem of the millions of tons buoyancy and the observed fact that glaciers are not stuck down got half way through to him.

Because now the story is that the top half of the ice floated, leaving the bottom half, ah, stuck down still. THEN the top half, having floated about
for a year, settled back down, in place.

IF there had been a world wide flood, then the polar ice would have floated off, and so would the mountain glaciers. No glacial ice anywhere would be older than the date of the flood.

This is an incredibly simple thing to understand.

But extremely hard, if not impossible for the sealed mind utterly committed to a fantasy story that does not allow for any evidence to affect it.

Stick with the speciation thing! You may get some new facts as amazing as the layer cake polar ice, and the stuck-down glaciers.

The BIG difference is I gave evidence that you rejected. You just deny evidence I give while having none for what you believe.That is quite easy to do.I'm not denying evidence that a person presents.

abelcainsbrother wrote:After having read through this thread from about 5 pages back or so and how I have explained why evolution is a myth,how have I done? I want to know if you still lean towards evolution or now realize how much of a myth it is.

Oh, goodness me, abelcainsbrother, what an extraordinary post. What on earth makes you think you have explained that evolution is a myth? Anybody coming to this forum in any kind of uncertainty could only lean further and further towards evolution after reading your comments. I'm not sure whom this inquiry is aimed at - presumably not, me, Audie or neo-x, whom you have already dismissed as incorrigible, but surely even convinced creationists wince at the thought of having you on their side!

I guess I could drive my point home better if I actually posted links showing how the evidence in evolution science does not back up what they explain and shows that there is only variability amongst the populations and from this everything else about evolution is assumed.

Yup. Provided it does actually do that, rather than merely make vague biblical assertions.

I've still got a few questions for evolutionists to answer and they are how could Pakicetus evolve into a whale based on the evidence

You've got plenty of questions, but don't seem to be interested in the answers. Still, hope springing eternal in the human breast, here we go...

1) From a comparison of their DNA, the closest non-marine species related to whales today is the hippopotamus. If the time-clock derived from the known rate of mutations is accurate, these two should have shared a common ancestor about 50 million years ago.
2) From the fossil record, there is no evidence of either hippos or whales 50 million years ago, but there is evidence of para-aquatic mammalian quadrupeds, with some of the characteristics of both hippos and whales. The earliest of these are found in the western Himalayas.
3) From the evidence of plate tectonics, the Indian Plate collided with the Eurasian plate at around this time, gradually squeezing the Tethys Ocean between them. The environmental changes caused by this meant that animals perfectly adapted to earlier environments were no longer so well adapted.
4) From successive fossil evidence, the common ancestor diversified in two main varieties, one more terrestrial, and one more aquatic. The terrestrial one roamed Eurasia, North America and Africa (then all joined together), while the semi-aquatic one become gradually more aquatic, eventually escaping from the Tethys sea westwards.
5) From genetic studies, it can be observed that mutations can suppress, enhance and reposition physiological features.

These observations all support the hypothesis that whales and hippos had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. They do not demonstrate that the hyopothesis is true, and they certainly do not prove it. However we have yet to find any evidence that weakens it, which is encouraging.

science that shows viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,salamanders remain salamanders,etc with only normal variation?

This is untrue.

My other question is when it comes to speciation,why is it so important in evolution science whether or not a certian kind of life can breed or not?

No, this is not another question. It is the same question as you asked in your previous post, to which I have already replied.

Because it makes no difference if it can or cannot breed it is still going to lead to the same kind of life,with only normal variability amongst that population.

That rather depends on what you mean by another "kind of life". I wonder if readers of this forum would care to list some, as the term "kind" always seems a bit vague to me.

It could not lead to another kind of life no matter how much variation there can be.

Unsupported and unjustified assertion.

Just think of all of the different dog breeds that have been produced,I mean different shapes and sizes and all from wolves but they are all still dogs and always will be and not all dogs can breed.

Are hyaenas dogs, or cats, or are they a different "kind" altogether?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:Hugh, I wanna compliment you. You have patience.

Well,you have a go at it. How can not breeding eventually lead to one kind of life evolving into another kind of life.

It is super simple, ab, even you can understand it if you permit yourself to.

But first, kindly tell us what a kind is. What is a "kind"? Explain and give examples.

You know a lot about "kind", in fact, more than any biologist on earth, as you can make this positive statement concerning them.

What is a kind?

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What I've said here doesn't necessarily imply tinkering, which really isn't how I'd describe my view but something Audie actually coined. When fleshed out I wouldn't call it tinkering, even if I just went with her on it and played it out a little.

That said, I'm talking of a set of laws to describe the effects of consciousness upon the physical and vice-versa, a world which otherwise seems mechanical. Many scientists will continue puzzling over QM when within a purely mechanical framework, but if there are another set of laws alongside or weaved with the physical, that is consciousness also part of the order, then observer impacting upon outcomes of physical arrangements (eg double slit) aren't that puzzling like you previously described.

Think of what it also does for the biggest criticism against evolution, which is one of order and arrangement, an apparent telos to living beings and way things are arranged. At the universe level, the anthropic principle is a real term coined, not by Theists, but generally accepted that things seem arranged for us. Then there is the Gaia Hypothesis.

If embedded in the fabric of the world is a self regulating consciousness of sorts, then it seems more possible the physical world will self organise, Nature with a capital 'N' really does select. It's not as far out sounding as one might initially think, it in fact seems to be where science hints us towards. Minimally, it shouldn't and can't be ruled out.

I understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily think that it isn't possible. However, I do think it's unlikely and more so that there is no conscience driving it to be the way it is. We probably call it that because we try to look for patterns. It's a very common trait of all life actually.

Following on what Phil and me talked about, when I read the Bible, the focus is so entirely on humans and humans alone that it boggles me when I look up at the sky and think what going out there and why?

The scriptures remotely don't care or focus on evolution or creationism for that matter. The sole focus remains of what Christ did. And then when I see people dragging that same scripture to justify some new theory etc I kind of cringe.

I kind of understand that it's hard to accept that we may not be special at all the way it has always been taught and preached. However, to me the miracle, if I may call it that, lies with in the random. I mean look around and see there is no life for as far as we can look just outside of our little planet.

I think you hold to the view that God sustains all creation/universe at every given moment. I didn't mean to misrepresent, its just that I probably saw you or a conversation where you may have had used the word tinkering, hence I used it. Apologies.

If the yellow stone caldera blows up or a comet hits us or Andromeda collides with the Milky way, what will happen? Certainly nothing like the scriptures have ever said or probably predict. It's that far apart. And therefore I don't really think we need to drag the creator in almost everything we do. To me it's a note back to our own importance and perhaps that's why we ascribe everything with a goal and purpose.

The only way it makes sense to me, is when things go random, where NS works in a way which is really blind chance. That is the only way the universe makes sense. If not then things are really awkward at least that is what I think.

Isn't it possible that God is actually in control of things and wouldn't allow any of those unfortunate cosmic events? Just because they're theoretically possible doesn't mean they're going to happen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I haven't wriggled out.

Well, I think you did. Your subsequent six comments not only didn't mention my syllogism at all, but merely reiterated your usual collection of unjustified assertions and then wandered off into Pakicetus. That's wrigglin' in my book.

However, moving on:

Movin' on in this case means, in this case, off t he squirrel goes thro' the treetops, where no pursuit could ever catch it.

I think you need to stick with it.

Likewise, I still have not gotten any sanity on the subject of the polar ice
surviving a world wide flood.

So far, there have been three different ideas:

First, he said the ice floated, sure; but it stayed intact, merely rotated in the circumpolar current, did not break apart, and as the water receded, it settled back down.

Precisely in place, I ask? That was a bit thick, even for him.

Then it was that the ice is stuck down, didnt float at all.

Possibly the problem of the millions of tons buoyancy and the observed fact that glaciers are not stuck down got half way through to him.

Because now the story is that the top half of the ice floated, leaving the bottom half, ah, stuck down still. THEN the top half, having floated about
for a year, settled back down, in place.

IF there had been a world wide flood, then the polar ice would have floated off, and so would the mountain glaciers. No glacial ice anywhere would be older than the date of the flood.

This is an incredibly simple thing to understand.

But extremely hard, if not impossible for the sealed mind utterly committed to a fantasy story that does not allow for any evidence to affect it.

Stick with the speciation thing! You may get some new facts as amazing as the layer cake polar ice, and the stuck-down glaciers.

The BIG difference is I gave evidence that you rejected. You just deny evidence I give while having none for what you believe.That is quite easy to do.I'm not denying evidence that a person presents.

You are exactly denying the evidence and the physics too. You've come up with three different excuses so far for not admitting that the ice disproves flood.

The "evidence" that the ice is stuck down is not evidence. it is phony baloney. Glaciers move. They are not stuck down.

And beyond that it is phony, it would not work if it were true. As I explained
and you cannot deny that immense buoyancy working against the weak adhesion of frost on ice.

Your latest is some vague reference to ice at some level being "different".

You have presented zero to support your story about the ice, other than contradictory made up stories about the ice either being stuck down or floating,but settling back just so.

As for the bit about "dust', the temperature at the bottom of a glacier, and this so called "different" ice, there may be some place you got this information.

There are thermal readings from glaciers, every layer of ice is different from every other, and, all contain some dust.


Now, back to your denial of the obvious:

Ice floats,
Polar ice is not stuck down.
In a world wide flood, the ice would float.
When it floated, it would drift about, break up and melt.
The ice is still there.

What is your excuse this time? You had three impossible stories so far, any new ones?

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:After having read through this thread from about 5 pages back or so and how I have explained why evolution is a myth,how have I done? I want to know if you still lean towards evolution or now realize how much of a myth it is.

Oh, goodness me, abelcainsbrother, what an extraordinary post. What on earth makes you think you have explained that evolution is a myth? Anybody coming to this forum in any kind of uncertainty could only lean further and further towards evolution after reading your comments. I'm not sure whom this inquiry is aimed at - presumably not, me, Audie or neo-x, whom you have already dismissed as incorrigible, but surely even convinced creationists wince at the thought of having you on their side!

I guess I could drive my point home better if I actually posted links showing how the evidence in evolution science does not back up what they explain and shows that there is only variability amongst the populations and from this everything else about evolution is assumed.

Yup. Provided it does actually do that, rather than merely make vague biblical assertions.

I've still got a few questions for evolutionists to answer and they are how could Pakicetus evolve into a whale based on the evidence

You've got plenty of questions, but don't seem to be interested in the answers. Still, hope springing eternal in the human breast, here we go...

1) From a comparison of their DNA, the closest non-marine species related to whales today is the hippopotamus. If the time-clock derived from the known rate of mutations is accurate, these two should have shared a common ancestor about 50 million years ago.
2) From the fossil record, there is no evidence of either hippos or whales 50 million years ago, but there is evidence of para-aquatic mammalian quadrupeds, with some of the characteristics of both hippos and whales. The earliest of these are found in the western Himalayas.
3) From the evidence of plate tectonics, the Indian Plate collided with the Eurasian plate at around this time, gradually squeezing the Tethys Ocean between them. The environmental changes caused by this meant that animals perfectly adapted to earlier environments were no longer so well adapted.
4) From successive fossil evidence, the common ancestor diversified in two main varieties, one more terrestrial, and one more aquatic. The terrestrial one roamed Eurasia, North America and Africa (then all joined together), while the semi-aquatic one become gradually more aquatic, eventually escaping from the Tethys sea westwards.
5) From genetic studies, it can be observed that mutations can suppress, enhance and reposition physiological features.

These observations all support the hypothesis that whales and hippos had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. They do not demonstrate that the hyopothesis is true, and they certainly do not prove it. However we have yet to find any evidence that weakens it, which is encouraging.

science that shows viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,salamanders remain salamanders,etc with only normal variation?

This is untrue.

My other question is when it comes to speciation,why is it so important in evolution science whether or not a certian kind of life can breed or not?

No, this is not another question. It is the same question as you asked in your previous post, to which I have already replied.

Because it makes no difference if it can or cannot breed it is still going to lead to the same kind of life,with only normal variability amongst that population.

That rather depends on what you mean by another "kind of life". I wonder if readers of this forum would care to list some, as the term "kind" always seems a bit vague to me.

It could not lead to another kind of life no matter how much variation there can be.

Unsupported and unjustified assertion.

Just think of all of the different dog breeds that have been produced,I mean different shapes and sizes and all from wolves but they are all still dogs and always will be and not all dogs can breed.

Are hyaenas dogs, or cats, or are they a different "kind" altogether?

You're preaching evolution and expect us to just believe you without evidence. It is no different than a preacher preaching about God's word.How about you provide evidence? You have no evidence that one kind of life can evolve into another kind,so no matter how much you preach it,there is no evidence. Prove me wrong about viruses remaining viruses,bacteria remaining bacteria,fruit flies remaining fruit flies,salamanders remaining salamanders because this is what your evidence will show and it is all what you call micro-evolution too. Why can't ya'll provide evidence? Hyaenas are hyaenas,they are neither dog nor cat. You have not answered how speciation matters when it comes to life evolving,you avoid it. You don't know what it means when the bible tells us God created kinds to produce after its kind? Think micro-evolution. It has never been demonstrated that mutations can enhance physical features and it has'nt even been demonstrated that natural selection has any effect on life. Mutations have never been shown to enhance physical features,it seems to have no effect at all,we still only get only kinds producing after their kind.