To Christians, what's a kind?

[AV1611VET]

Nope, they're your problem not mind, since they don't exist in reality.

De Nile is a river in Egypt

 

[Mr Strawberry]

De Nile is a river in Egypt

Perhaps you notice how the denial is so often the preface to the justification. ― Christopher Hitchens

 

[blademan9999]

Time.

So do you admit that "macroevolution" is possible with a long enough period of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

So do you admit that "macroevolution" is possible with a long enough period of time.

No ... I don't believe God would let that happen -- on principle.

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

If He doesn't want animals gendering with diverse kinds, I don't think He would allow one species to eventually produce another species that cannot gender with the genus of its ancestor.

The offspring would therefore be sterile.

To answer your question another way -- given enough time, a genus that is producing species after species would work for awhile; then something would "go wrong" that would terminate the speciation within that line.

It would hit a boundary that it could not pass.

 

[CabVet]

No ... I don't believe God would let that happen -- on principle.

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

If He doesn't want animals gendering with diverse kinds, I don't think He would allow one species to eventually produce another species that cannot gender with the genus of its ancestor.

The offspring would therefore be sterile.

To answer your question another way -- given enough time, a genus that is producing species after species would work for awhile; then something would "go wrong" that would terminate the speciation within that line.

It would hit a boundary that it could not pass.

Pro tip: species don't produce other species or a "different genus", that is a caricature of evolution made by creationists. The whole thing is a continuum, there is no boundary. I thought that after such a long time here you would have learned that already.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pro tip: species don't produce other species or a "different genus", that is a caricature of evolution made by creationists.

Then how did cyanobacteria eventually lead to Homo sapiens?

 

[CabVet]

Then how did cyanobacteria eventually lead to Homo sapiens?

The same way that you can walk from NY to Argentina. One step at a time.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same way that you can walk from NY to Argentina. One step at a time.

Except at one point, he had to leave Argentina -- and that's my point: he can't.

If you lived on earth back on Day Six, and was told to document every genus in existence at the time, then that's what you've got today (minus a few).

 

[Naraoia]

If you lived on earth back on Day Six, and was told to document every genus in existence at the time, then that's what you've got today (minus a few).

Ironically, if "day six" is 6000 years ago, I actually agree

 

[CabVet]

Except at one point, he had to leave Argentina -- and that's my point: he can't.

If you haven't noticed, countries are not surrounded by fences.

If you lived on earth back on Day Six, and was told to document every genus in existence at the time, then that's what you've got today (minus a few).

"Genus" is an arbitrary category that will be "crossed" with time. Remember, Linnean classification is not even 300 years old. A new genus (and by that I mean something very different) appearing in that short of a time frame would actually be evidence against evolution.

 

[CabVet]

Ironically, if "day six" is 6000 years ago, I actually agree

Exactly, AV still thinks that "macroevolution" is a cat giving birth to a dog.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you haven't noticed, countries are not surrounded by fences.

It's all on paper, isn't it?

"Genus" is an arbitrary category that will be "crossed" with time. Remember, Linnean classification is not even 300 years old. A new genus (and by that I mean something very different) appearing in that short of a time frame would actually be evidence against evolution.

Genera are not connected by DNA.

(I don't know how many times I can repeat myself with different words.)

Cyanobacteria had to have left a DNA trail all the way to man -- and it didn't happen.

Daisy-chaining bacteria to man is a joke done only on paper.

 

[CabVet]

It's all on paper, isn't it?

Genera are not connected by DNA.

(I don't know how many times I can repeat myself with different words.)

WHAT? Of course they are!

Cyanobacteria had to have left a DNA trail all the way to man -- and it didn't happen.

Daisy-chaining bacteria to man is a joke done only on paper.

On paper? Really? That is why you should stick to the Bible and leave science alone. My avatar is the DNA trail you say doesn't exist, connecting all groups of organisms on earth. Here is a larger version:

And a close-up:

But it is funny how you mention things only on paper. I won't go as far to say it is a joke, but the Bible is actually only on paper.

 

[Naraoia]

It's all on paper, isn't it?

Genera are not connected by DNA.

Then why do we share about 2/3 of the gene families we have with creatures all the way out to sea anemones? (Source)

Cyanobacteria had to have left a DNA trail all the way to man -- and it didn't happen.

What would one of these DNA trails look like in your opinion?

(Also, stop using cyanobacteria as an example - no one thinks humans evolved from them. Try not to Arab phone other people's views, OK? )

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why do we share about 2/3 of the gene families we have with creatures all the way out to sea anemones?

It's called ontological reductionism: the idea that reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of substances.

RGB colors are like that: three colors ... 256 shades (or whatever).

What would one of these DNA trails look like in your opinion?

Beats me -- they're a figment of someone's imagination.

A coyote leaves a DNA trail down to the dingo, then the trail ends.

(Also, stop using cyanobacteria as an example - no one thinks humans evolved from them. Try not to Arab phone other people's views, OK? )

You lost me on this one.

Isn't the first living thing on this planet supposed to have been cyanobacteria?

Didn't cyanobacteria eventually become fish, then amphibians, then land animals?

Something like that.

In any even, I can't remember what I said 30 posts ago that started this inquisition; I probably said Jesus walked on water or something (or maybe I said there were four quarters in a dollar) ... I can't remember ... but it's starting to get tiresome.

 

[CabVet]

A coyote leaves a DNA trail down to the dingo, then the trail ends.

It does not end. I gave you a clear example in my post above (which you did not address). Here is another:

 

[CabVet]

Isn't the first living thing on this planet supposed to have been cyanobacteria?

Didn't cyanobacteria eventually become fish, then amphibians, then land animals?

Something like that.

Cyanobacteria were not the first, other bacteria were the first. We share a common ancestor with cyanobacteria, but we did not "come from them". When you say that we evolved from cyanobacteria you are making the same mistake as when you say that we evolved from chimps.

In any even, I can't remember what I said 30 posts ago that started this inquisition; I probably said Jesus walked on water or something (or maybe I said there were four quarters in a dollar) ... I can't remember ... but it's starting to get tiresome.

Persecution complex again? So soon?

 

[Naraoia]

It's called ontological reductionism: the idea that reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of substances.

However, the range of possible genes is astronomical. Mind-bogglingly enormous. It's hard to predict what proportion of possible gene sequences would have a given function, but we already know from real, existing examples that totally different sequences can serve the same function.

Beats me -- they're a figment of someone's imagination.

So, wait. You are adamant that these "DNA trails" don't exist without having the faintest idea of what you mean by DNA trails.

It's like me taking some random piece of theological jargon I know I don't understand and trying to use it in an argument. Why would you even want to do that?

You lost me on this one.

Isn't the first living thing on this planet supposed to have been cyanobacteria?

Didn't cyanobacteria eventually become fish, then amphibians, then land animals?

Something like that.

Lecture alert

• Some of the oldest things that may be fossils (stromatolite-like structures, plus possible fossil cells IIRC) have indeed been attributed to cyanobacteria.
  
  That doesn't mean they were the first living things - only that they were the first things to leave recognisable fossils. Their tendency to build large, durable structures like the aforementioned stromatolites means they are more likely to leave a fossil record than many other single-celled beasties.

• Humans are eukaryotes (i.e. have cells with a nucleus), and there's a massive question mark around the origin of eukaryotes. I think the most popular opinion is that we are closer to these guys than to any kind of bacterium; we certainly share more of the core machinery involved in packaging, replicating and repairing the genome.
  
  There may have been a lot of gene swapping, perhaps even the fusion of totally different organisms, involved in eukaryote origins, but I've never heard it theorised that cyanobacteria in particular had anything to do with it. (Cyanobacteria definitely do come in later, with the origin of plants and other photosynthetic eukaryotes, though. Modified bacteria also sit in your cells providing you with energy, but they are quite far from cyanobacteria.)

So the daisy chain would go more like - early living things -- single-celled eukaryotes -- animals -- vertebrates ("fish") -- tetrapods ("amphibians") -- land vertebrates -- mammals -- and so on.

(I skipped quite a few named groups, because I don't think you give a rat's posterior about the intricacies of taxonomy )

In any even, I can't remember what I said 30 posts ago that started this inquisition; I probably said Jesus walked on water or something (or maybe I said there were four quarters in a dollar) ... I can't remember ... but it's starting to get tiresome.

I can't remember either, but I've been having fun

 

[Loudmouth]

A coyote leaves a DNA trail down to the dingo, then the trail ends.

How do you figure? Care to cite a genetic study showing this?

How do you follow a genetic trail, and how do you determine where it ends?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can I ask a question without getting snide remarks? I would prefer to keep things civil.

What good is the stick between your legs until it and the entire reproductive system in both male and female is entirely formed and functional? Harmful and useless mutations are bred out of a species, and those that remain are almost always fatal. but the fossil record shows clams, and mollusks, then fully formed reptiles. But it had to have taken millions of years for reproductive organs to form, fish don't mate, (only mammals, whales, dolphins, etc) and reptiles. So until the sex organs were fully formed in both sexes at the same exact time, they were completely useless, an unnecessary expenditure of energy going against survival. Since reptiles still lay hard shelled eggs not like the soft shelled eggs of fish which allow the sperm to pass through, it cannot be claimed it arose to aid in the reproductive process, apparently they have never changed, but how did they reproduce before the sex organs became fully functional? The same with humans, having a child lessens survival chances as a pregnant woman can not flee a predator, thereby the mother AND young would be in danger. While egg clutches may get destroyed, the male and female live to reproduce again by fleeing the nest if unable to defend it. And if one or both dies, the chances some eggs may hatch anyways and survive is only lessened, not stopped.

Simple organism reproduce by division, supposedly the same as they did billions of years ago. Why are they not still evolving into reptiles, and reptiles into birds? As a matter of fact, why are they not evolving into anything from anything? The only appearance change besides color we have ever observed is when man tinkers with the genes, yet they still remain the same species. I say there is more evidence against evolution than for it. I will gladly agree that adaptation occurs, but there is no evidence for one species changing into another. The differences of form may have led some to come to that wrong conclusion, but as we see with any animal that has its genes maniplulated to make different forms, they are always still the same kind as originally. That we can do it shows form change can occur naturally, but not species change. A pug dog does not resemble a wolf at all, yet biologists believe they came from the same class. So that one might believe by appearances alone that an animal evolved into something that does not even look alike is understandable, but misguided. We just don't know half as much as we like to think we do. Was it not Stephen Hawking that said we were close to a theory of everything? That's quite pompous if you ask me, as if no major discoveries in science are yet to be made that they have all already been made and now we just need to refine theories. I'd say exactly what that is, but don't want to use bad language.