So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[USincognito]

I already demonstrated said limit. I repeat it again for example:

A fish can never evolve into a frog
A bird can never evolve into a horse.
An ape can never evolve into a man.

In fact neither kind can never evolve into another kind of animal or man.

1. Making a claim and repeating it is not the same as demonstrating any explanatory power for a term or value as part of scientific discussion.
2. Creationists who refer to extant taxa "evolving into" other extant taxa are usually ignorant of what evolution actually says happens or how phylogenetic relationships are established and serve as evidence for common ancestry.

In defining kind, some refer to the study of Baraminology.

One of the baraminologists who has produced any work worthy of consideration is Todd Wood and his results have been controversial even amongst Creationists. In his study of horses he basically concluded every horse - from hyracotherium to equus - were all the same "kind" and evolved from some primordial pair. Of course his work didn't take into consideration that horses should then be compared with their fellow perissodactyls or fellow mammals, etc.

Let me give you some examples of kinds from a biblical point of view:

man, birds, fish, horses, lions, giraffes, elephants, lizards, whales, dolphins, cats, dogs, flies, bees, ants, germs, trees.

Awesome. We've got a person with a barnyard/petting zoo knowledge of biology trying to lecture others. Wow, just wow. Seriously, "germs"?

Humans - species, what makes them not primates, not mammals, not vertebrates, etc.?
Birds - Linnaean class, what makes them not theropods, not amniotes, not vertebrates, etc.?
Fish - Linnaean class, what makes them not gnathostomes, not craniates, not vertebrates, etc.?
Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Man's 150 plus research neither produced any evidence showing a common ancestors of these examples nor any crossovers of the same. They in fact require you to accept their theories on faith.

Your fantasies are as amusing as they are unfactual. If there was no evidence for common ancestry, how was this website able to demonstrate common ancestry for all the "kinds" you listed above and provide hundreds of citations of scientific literature?
Animals
This is the page for animals. If you are willing - and I doubt that you are - you can navigate around or plug in any of the beings you listed above and find how they are related to all the other beings you listed via common ancestry.

And repetition of unproving so-called evidence doesn't cut it either.

Here's $10. Go buy yourself a sense of irony. Continually claiming that "X doesn't evolve into Y" when that's not what evolutionary theory says or what the evidence demonstrates and them posting this gem takes quite a bit of chutzpah.

 

[Guy1]

I already demonstrated said limit. I repeat it again for example:

Wonderful.

A fish can never evolve into a frog

Nobody says this.

A bird can never evolve into a horse.

Nobody says this.

An ape can never evolve into a man.

All humans are apes.

In fact neither kind can never evolve into another kind of animal or man.

Science says otherwise.

In defining kind, some refer to the study of Baraminology.

You mean that useless, worthless excuse for a classification system that creationists use in order to lump all the animals in a way that fits their arguments?

COMMENT: Regardless of the standard, my point is that no matter how long the length of time you choose, one kind will never evolve into another kind;

"Kind" is yet to be objectively defined.

that is, a fish into a frog,

Nobody says this.

a lizard into an alligator,

Alligators ARE lizards

or an ape into a man

Humans ARE apes.

There is no scientifc evidence that the horseshoe crab evolved into anything millions of years ago.

It's well suited to it's environment. Why would it evolve?

Excellent example. Give a better one, if you're able. The point is, not all life evolved from one species.

There is no need for an example. And your was a bad one by the way.

Oh, you will not be contradicting me, but God.

Wonderful. I get to slap deities with reality now.

None of the 150 years of research in which you purport shows any breaking limits to evolve from one kind to another.

Because you have no idea what it proposes. Without a crude understanding of it you'll be waiting for evidence it logically negates.

Man's 150 plus research neither produced any evidence showing a common ancestors of these examples

No evidence that you like. Let's make that clear.

nor any crossovers of the same.

Nobody says they cross over.

They in fact require you to accept their theories on faith.

No.

The fact is, evolutionist have yet to prove any evidence that all biological life has a common ancestor

Scientists have done so. You either just don't like or don't know of the evidence.

Their only evidence is faith in billions of years of chance. And repetition of unproving so-called evidence doesn't cut it either.

Chance mutations and non-random selection of traits.

You're not going to get a better example of kind other than the one that I have just described.

I disagree. SkyWriting gave me a much more objective definition.

The burden of proof is upon the evolutionists to scientifically prove that all biological life had a common ancestor or are related to each other biologically.

Science has given us good reason to believe so. You just don't like that so you reject it.

And I seriously doubt that there are millions of researchers here on earth.

You think science is done by a handful of guys in an expensive backyard lab?

Furthermore, their 150 years of research has yet to prove any scientific connection other than beautiful charts and faith in billions of years of unprovable chance.

You have no idea what they theory says, you won't be convinced even if you were strapped down and had all the evidence etched into your brain, and most disgracefully of all, you won't even listen to what people like me have to say. Why should I or anyone with two functioning brain cells take you seriously?

 

[SkyWriting]

au contraire, God has shown mankind the limits of his creation in Genesis, chapter 1. He created fishes separately from the birds on the fifth day. And he created the land life and mankind separately on the sixth day in full adult form. And because we believe and trust in God's words, we know that mankind will never be able to undo the boundaries that God has set on the different kinds of animals. The last attempt of cross-breeding were done by Sons of God which resulted in corruption and destruction of most species around the world (Genesis, chapter 5). Therefore, we can make such claim that a pig, a wolf, and a bear neither had a common ancestor nor can be successfully cross-bred to produce a new kind of animal. Mankind's technology has limits that will not cross such boundaries at the sub-DNA level. To do so, would successfully prove God a liar.

No. To do so would not prove God a liar. They may have been created separately, just as written, and they might not cross breed as we have experienced. But God did not create the process of artificial insemination so couples could have children even if they are not both capable, and though such children are born each day, it does not prove God a liar. Your facts may be correct, but your conclusion is unsound. There is nothing man can do that could prove God a liar. So don't worry about such things.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Well they did have a common ancestor but inability to cross-breed is neither here nor there in regard to that.

There is no scientific evidence supporting a common ancestor. So far, scientist have PowerPoint charts and wild imaginations coupled with faith in millions of years of chance. And that is with any of the other animals on earth.

 

[Jazer]

Shabbath Shalume:



au contraire, God has shown mankind the limits of his creation in Genesis, chapter 1. He created fishes separately from the birds on the fifth day. And he created the land life and mankind separately on the sixth day in full adult form. And because we believe and trust in God's words, we know that mankind will never be able to undo the boundaries that God has set on the different kinds of animals. The last attempt of cross-breeding were done by Sons of God which resulted in corruption and destruction of most species around the world (Genesis, chapter 5). Therefore, we can make such claim that a pig, a wolf, and a bear neither had a common ancestor nor can be successfully cross-bred to produce a new kind of animal. Mankind's technology has limits that will not cross such boundaries at the sub-DNA level. To do so, would successfully prove God a liar.

Shabbath Shalume.

I agree with what your saying, but "To do so" would only prove that we were wrong, not that God is a liar. Not that it matters because evos are so very far off from figuring out what is going on, that their theory is little more then a soup of the day or a flavor of the week. The only thing that seems to be evolving is their theory itself.

 

[Jazer]

There is no scientific evidence supporting a common ancestor.

Adam and Eve are common ancestors. Remember micro and macro.

 

[NailsII]

A fish can never evolve into a frog
A bird can never evolve into a horse.
An ape can never evolve into a man.

In fact neither kind can never evolve into another kind of animal or man.

What qualities would a transitional form need to have to convince you that it was evidence for evolution?

 

[USincognito]

There is no scientific evidence supporting a common ancestor.

Well, apart from all the evidence you've been provided so far but chosen to ignore. There's literally mountains of it if you'd like more to ignore.

So far, scientist have PowerPoint charts and wild imaginations coupled with faith in millions of years of chance. And that is with any of the other animals on earth.

What is it like to live life without a sense of irony? In this thread all you have done is make glib and factually incorrect assertions never once trying to provide anything that might resemble evidence. In return, you have had things explained to you and been provided resources in the hopes that you'll correct the misconceptions you have about evolution and the massive amount of evidence that supports it.

What you do with that information is up to you, but please, stop pretending that no one has provided it to you.

 

[someguy14]

So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

Says a perishing world.

God is The Creator of all.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Adam and Eve are common ancestors. Remember micro and macro.

Yes, but Adam and Eve produces mankind and not any other animal. They are all of the same kind. However, Adam and Eve are NOT the common ancestors of fish, birds, or animals. Nice try, though.

 

[TerraIncognita]

Yes, but Adam and Eve produces mankind and not any other animal. They are all of the same kind. However, Adam and Eve are NOT the common ancestors of fish, birds, or animals. Nice try, though.

They're also not made of the dust of the earth either.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

What qualities would a transitional form need to have to convince you that it was evidence for evolution?

According to evolution all biological life forms on earth had a common ancestor. I would like scientific proof that any of these biological life forms making a transition from any of major "kinds" such as (but not limited to):

Any aquatic life form with scales and fins transitioning into any flying creature possessing feathers (e.g. birds); or vice versa.

Show me any scientific evidence of any transitions tying all of these biological life forms together. I could give many examples, but I think one should suffice for now.

Or better, yet: What do evolutionists have to SHOW scientifically that can be proven scientifically regarding how all of these life forms are connected. And that is why I am (like millions of others) are looking for the MISSING LINK.

 

[TerraIncognita]

According to evolution all biological life forms on earth had a common ancestor. I would like scientific proof that any of these biological life forms making a transition from any of major "kinds" such as (but not limited to):

Any aquatic life form with scales and fins transitioning into any flying creature possessing feathers (e.g. birds); or vice versa.

Show me any scientific evidence of any transitions tying all of these biological life forms together. I could give many examples, but I think one should suffice for now.

Or better, yet: What do evolutionists have to SHOW scientifically that can be proven scientifically regarding how all of these life forms are connected. And that is why I am (like millions of others) are looking for the MISSING LINK.

Have you ever wondered why this is not a problem for the millions of scientists and academics who work in biological sciences?

Have you ever wondered why every bit of knowledge we have ever come to know was from the scientific method, and no other process?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Well, apart from all the evidence you've been provided so far but chosen to ignore. There's literally mountains of it if you'd like more to ignore.

COMMENT: So far all of the evidence is a deafening repetition to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE BELIEVE EVOLUTIONISTS WORDS; that is not science. And there is not mountains of evidence; there is not even ONE supporting a evolution connection of all life forms. Face it, there is nothing to ignore, because there is REALLY nothing evolutionists have to show as scientific proof.

What is it like to live life without a sense of irony? In this thread all you have done is make glib and factually incorrect assertions never once trying to provide anything that might resemble evidence. In return, you have had things explained to you and been provided resources in the hopes that you'll correct the misconceptions you have about evolution and the massive amount of evidence that supports it.

Ditto for evolutionists; lots of talk but no scientific proof. I simply say this: Show me the MISSING LINK connecting these biological life forms together. And you honestly cannot produce even ONE.

What you do with that information is up to you, but please, stop pretending that no one has provided it to you.

And I say the same to you: PLEASE stop pretending that you provided a MISSING LINK connecting these biological life forms; when you know that you have not provided any. The information I have is from God. How does God fit into evolution when He told us otherwise in Genesis chapter 1? Please! Believe God's Words.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

They're also not made of the dust of the earth either.

"And YAHWEH Almighty God formed Adam [of] the DUST of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And God did this creation miracle in less than 24 literal hours, on the sixth day.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Have you ever wondered why this is not a problem for the millions of scientists and academics who work in biological sciences?

Have you ever wondered why every bit of knowledge we have ever come to know was from the scientific method, and no other process?

On the contrary, it is a major problem for all the scientists on earth to provide missing link connecting all biological life forms on earth.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Have you ever wondered why every bit of knowledge we have ever come to know was from the scientific method, and no other process?

Ever wondered that most of the knowledge man possess for the first 4,000 years came from the very mouth of YAHWEH, God Almighty?

To this very day, King Solomon was the wisest man on earth, thanks to God's providing him with wisdom and knowledge.

 

[Guy1]

[Abridged version] Evos have no proof.

Did you look for any? Did you go to any source that isn't specifically out to sell you creationism and look for the evidence?

I simply say this: Show me the MISSING LINK connecting these biological life forms together.

A problem and a question. You realize missing links are missing BY DEFINITION, right? Second, transitional fossils that you like?

And you honestly cannot produce even ONE.

That you like.

And I say the same to you: PLEASE stop pretending that you provided a MISSING LINK connecting these biological life forms; when you know that you have not provided any.

That you like.

The information I have is from God. How does God fit into evolution when He told us otherwise in Genesis chapter 1? Please! Believe God's Words.

I'll believe your god's words when you accept lastwednesdayism.

 

[TerraIncognita]

Ever wondered that most of the knowledge man possess for the first 4,000 years came from the very mouth of YAHWEH, God Almighty?

To this very day, King Solomon was the wisest man on earth, thanks to God's providing him with wisdom and knowledge.

There is no evidence Solomon ever existed.

 

[USincognito]

According to evolution all biological life forms on earth had a common ancestor. I would like scientific proof that any of these biological life forms making a transition from any of major "kinds" such as (but not limited to):

Any aquatic life form with scales and fins transitioning into any flying creature possessing feathers (e.g. birds); or vice versa.

Show me any scientific evidence of any transitions tying all of these biological life forms together. I could give many examples, but I think one should suffice for now.

Or better, yet: What do evolutionists have to SHOW scientifically that can be proven scientifically regarding how all of these life forms are connected. And that is why I am (like millions of others) are looking for the MISSING LINK.

The fact that you keep using the phrase "missing link" tells us all we need to know about your familiarity with the science behind evolution. The phrase is an anachronistic 19th Century reference to a single species connecting humans with our fellow apes. It's outdated and while perfectly good for selling pop science, should be avoided when one is trying to have a science based discussion.

Now, as far as your lack of aweness regarding common ancestry goes, I'd suggest that you're in for a lot of reading - even if we provide you with Reader's Digest sources. I'd also say I hope you understand that the evidence for common ancestry extends beyond fossils into DNA and molecular evidences.

As far as your first request, you appear to be asking for a tuna laying a clutch of seagulls. That's not how evolution works. It's a very complicated process that occured over many hundreds of millions of years.

A good starting point for how all vertebrates, including humans share common ancestry with fish is Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish.
Amazon.com: Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (9780375424472): Neil Shubin: Books
Your Inner Fish: Teaching Tools

But since you were asking for fish to birds, here's some resources.
Living fish and birds share a UrVertebrate common ancestor
Vertebrata
Living fish and birds share a common ancestor with a jaw
Gnathostomata
Living lobe fined fish and birds share a lobe finned ancestor
Sarcopterygii
(see also the "tools" link above)
At this point, the ancestors of birds move onto the land
Terrestrial Vertebrates
Some of those ancestors develop an amniotic egg
Amniota
Those that lead to birds follow a two arch skull morphology.
Diapsida
The Archosaur line of Diapsids leads to crocs, dinos and birds.
Archosauromorpha
Dinos and birds split from crocs to form their own clade
Dinosauria
Some dinosaurs adopt a bipedal stance
Theropoda
And it is the Coelurosaurs that give rise to birds
Coelurosauria
Aves

There are references on every single one of those links, so don't even bother trying to hand wave them away. You need to familiarize yourself with the research and then address it.

As far as your question of universal common ancestry, it is addressed via the study of phylogenetics.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics
and since Creationists tend to love statistics, the author includes a number of referred papers showing how analyses of relationships simply could not have resulted in the phylogenetic relationships they did unless the evidence existed and supported them.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics

Happy Reading!