Why Evolution is True

[biggles53]

Yes there are. Plenty. You just have a wonky conception of what is acceptable. A kind was the first created creature. Don't blame us if science is unable to determine stuff.

So, to use the example from earlier, are sparrows and emus the same 'kind'...?

 

[dad]

So, to use the example from earlier, are sparrows and emus the same 'kind'...?

Apparently your question suggests science doesn't know even that! Biggles biggles biggles.

If you have some evidence to say they are sparrows, feel free to show us.

Looking at emu behavior, I hadn't noticed sparrows doing this...you?


" If a female tried to woo a male that already had a partner, the incumbent female will try and repel the competitor by walking towards her challenger and staring in a stern way. If the male showed interest in the second female by erecting his feathers and swaying from side to side, the incumbent female will attack the challenger, usually resulting in a backdown by the new female.[46] Some female-female competitions can last up to five hours, especially when the target male is single and neither female has the advantage of incumbency. In these cases, the animals typically intensify their mating calls and displays, which increase in extravagance. This is often accompanied by chasing and kicking by the competing females.[46]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu#Taxonomy_and_systematics

 

[dad]

Kind = Genus ... but by God's standards, not mans'.

What genus would you classify the angels?

True, there are classes for angels too. Fallen ones, big ones, strong ones, Seraphim's, Cherubs, archangels...etc.

 

[biggles53]

Apparently your question suggests science doesn't know even that! Biggles biggles biggles.

If you have some evidence to say they are sparrows, feel free to show us.

Looking at emu behavior, I hadn't noticed sparrows doing this...you?


" If a female tried to woo a male that already had a partner, the incumbent female will try and repel the competitor by walking towards her challenger and staring in a stern way. If the male showed interest in the second female by erecting his feathers and swaying from side to side, the incumbent female will attack the challenger, usually resulting in a backdown by the new female.[46] Some female-female competitions can last up to five hours, especially when the target male is single and neither female has the advantage of incumbency. In these cases, the animals typically intensify their mating calls and displays, which increase in extravagance. This is often accompanied by chasing and kicking by the competing females.[46]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu#Taxonomy_and_systematics

Please answer the question.....are sparrows and emus of the same 'kind' ...?

 

[dad]

Please answer the question.....are sparrows and emus of the same 'kind' ...?

I would like to go out on a limb and say no, as seems obvious, but I will await any evidence you have rather than put down the gavel. I suspect not though.

 

[biggles53]

I would like to go out on a limb and say no, as seems obvious, but I will await any evidence you have rather than put down the gavel. I suspect not though.

Great.....so, are sparrows and eagles of the same 'kind' please....?

 

[dad]

Great.....so, are sparrows and eagles of the same 'kind' please....?

No. Both are mentioned in the bible so they would not be the same apparently.

 

[biggles53]

No. Both are mentioned in the bible so they would not be the same apparently.

Ok great.....so, given that you have often said that living things "vary within their own kind", can you please give an example of another bird which would have adapted from the 'sparrow kind'...?

 

[dad]

Ok great.....so, given that you have often said that living things "vary within their own kind", can you please give an example of another bird which would have adapted from the 'sparrow kind'...?

It may be easier to give something that didn't. I know that is hard to grasp for someone that thinks that the worm a sparrow eats is where mankind came from!!!!!!!!!

 

[biggles53]

It may be easier to give something that didn't. I know that is hard to grasp for someone that thinks that the worm a sparrow eats is where mankind came from!!!!!!!!!

No....you are the one who has often stated that living things "vary within their kind". You say that a sparrow is a 'kind', apparently because it is mentioned in the Bible.

Fine...can you now tell me of another living thing that has been produced by sparrows "varying within their kind"...?

Just one example will do....shouldn't be difficult...?

 

[dad]

No....you are the one who has often stated that living things "vary within their kind". You say that a sparrow is a 'kind', apparently because it is mentioned in the Bible.

Right. So there are many species of tiger. Yet I doubt there was more than on tiger kind on the ark. Since we don't know for sure, I guess we could be open to looking at the possibility tigers may have evolved from lions!? But unless there was evidence I would stick with the one pair of tigers on the ark.

Fine...can you now tell me of another living thing that has been produced by sparrows "varying within their kind"...?

Maybe some of these!


ALL Sparrow Species Together Photo Gallery by R. Schnase at pbase.com
Ho hum.

 

[AV1611VET]

True, there are classes for angels too. Fallen ones, big ones, strong ones, Seraphim's, Cherubs, archangels...etc.

Yup.

Chained, unchained ...

 

[CabVet]

Yup.

Chained, unchained ...

Yes, and nobody ever saw one.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, and nobody ever saw one.

Sure they have.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Kind = Genus ... but by God's standards, not mans'.

What genus would you classify the angels?

Not a very clear definition. Genus is a scientific classification developed by scientists and is not subject to modification by individuals such as you with a theological objection. So if you assert there is a divine genus that should supersede the scientific genus, you are therefore guilty of not being precise, because you have no way of telling us what it is, nor can you tell any scientist how to check it out.

I warned you that when your are obscure it would be pointed out to you, and the prophecy is being fulfilled sooner than I anticipated.

 

[stevevw]

You can find scientists who disagree with any theory you wish to mention, even those theories that you would consider strongly accepted. Scientists love being contrarians. Simply finding a scientist who disagrees with a theory isn't enough.

You need to show why the vast, vast majority of scientists are wrong. You need to do so by defining your terms, presenting evidence, and demonstrating how your interpretations are testable and falsifiable. In other words, you need to do the science.

Well thats going to be a bit hard for the average bloke in the street. But I can research and look up scientists who show that some of the accepted beliefs are wrong or at least in question. One of those is with how many scientists have come out in recent times and questions darwins tree of life. I could site several prominent science sites that have shown this.
http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/28/new-scientist-says-darwin-was/
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1683/819.full

The problem is for some of the evidence is that its nots so black and white. Like I mentioned with the interpretation of bones and fossils you will have x amount of scientists saying that they believe that it fits in with their view and then have some others that question that and bring up valid points. Even if the majority say it is supportive of a transition because there are some that bring up other possibilities it places doubt over the evidence and at least puts it on some shaky ground to be used as strong evidence.

Why can't a fossil be a transitional and also be a variation of human or ape?

Because a variation can be within the same species and not a new species. Evolution needs a progressive transition of a creature into another species. So those variations should gradually show changes that turn it into a new shape or type of creature. But this is where it gets hard to tell and where I believe that scientists can misinterpret transitions. Because like you are indicating there can be a stage where you just can tell whether its a variation of the same creature or a transition. Such as with a dog there are many shapes but they are still dogs. Or like I said with bats there are many bats that are classed as different species but they are all still bats with bat shapes. They havnt turned into owls or lizards.

You need to define what features a transitional fossil should have. Otherwise, you are just throwing words out there.

Like I said thats where its hard. But I would have thought if a creature is transforming from one to another completely different shape that there would be some stages in between. Like a Dino to bird. Would you have a stage where the wings are stumps and useless before it got to the point of functional wings. Or do the wings pop out in one generation completely working.

H. erectus was not H. sapiens. That is the massively overwhelming conclusion of scientists. The skulls you are mentioning were lumped as a single species, H. erectus. None of them were lumped into anatomically modern humans.

There is still a fair amount of conjecture about what is classed as homo erectus, Neanderthal and homo sapiens. Some say that they are all the same species or at least early homo sapiens fall into the same species as homo erectus and Neanderthals. But as you see from the skulls found at Georgia and my example with dogs you can have a lot of size and shape between the same species. So without any solid evidence such as DNA then its up to interpretation and this is to sketchy.

Even with the DNA evidence it has been showing that there are some similarities that make some of the separate species that scientists had categorized put into the same species. Then we get some connections between totally different shaped creatures who were thought to not be on the same evolutionary line linked together through the DNA. There is also some evidence that the so called different species cross bred and may have produced another so called species that has been labeled a transition. But the main point is that because of all this conjecture its harder to definitely say what the transition for ape to man is or whether they are just apes and humans. There could be one group that is just humans and has a great amount of variation in size and shape and then another group who are apes with great size and variation.

We just dont know definitely because we are looking back like a detective in a cold case and trying to piece things together. But what this also does is put a question mark on some if not many of the so called transitions that are needed to show a gradual transformation of ape to man. We had a number of species that scientists were saying were showing the stages of ape man transforming into a human. Then with the new discoveries they have lost a bunch of species and stages in the line that was showing this progression because they are now lumped as being in the same species with variation. So what happens now to all the gaps that are left with these species taken out. So to say that the evidence is so strong that you can call it fact is to me a little premature.
Homo erectus - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
https://theconversation.com/of-heads-and-headlines-can-a-skull-doom-14-human-species-19227
New fossil suggest ancient human ancestors the same species: Homo erectus | Genetic Literacy Project
New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans - Scientific American

The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance, at gross and detailed levels of anatomy. Sometimes this approach....can be deceptive, partly because similarity does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar…, BONES OF CONTENTION, 1987, p. 123

That picture is Lucy, the famous Australopithecine fossil that scientists consider to be transitional.

There are other scientists who dont consider Australopithecine as ape to human but just ape. It is grossly like an ape and the evidence for it walking is highly contentious.
The Fall of <i>Australopithecus sediba</i>: Controversy and the Quest for Glory Cloud Claims of Human Ancestry - Evolution News & Views

Then give us a definition of transitional that does not use conjecture.

Well when you consider that for every single species that is claimed to ever walk the earth there would be millions. So would it stand to reason that there would be billions of transitionals for each and every one. If mutations are primarily non advantageous and only 1 in 10,000 are beneficial then would there be billions of failed transitions. If a reptile found that wings were advantageous through natural selection they would only find that through a process of trial and error. There is no real intelligence behind evolution and its a blind and random. Though the ultimate aim of natural selection is adaptation to the environment for survival there is still a lot of mutations that will fail and be of no use.

So wouldn't there be many generations of failed changes that were not taken on if it is random and chance. For a reptile to get a wing it may have gone through 10s of thousands of other failed mutation that maybe produces stub toes or hair in places on its body or a change in its skin or a change in its metabolism that all were not advantageous. These all would have nothing to do with wings because it didn't know it needed wing or that wings would have been advantageous in the first place. So any mutation could have occurred in a pot luck process. Then eventually after many non beneficial changes it eventually found that having wings was beneficial for survival such as avoiding predators. So wouldn't there be billions of fossils of failed mutated creatures we would find that are the results of getting the ones we ended up with. Even just for wings we would have to have many stages of wing development to finally get a good set of wings that were beneficial. Would the stages that we non beneficial be rejected anyway as not being advantageous. (Forgive me if I sound a bit simplistic as I dont know much about genetics so this is just my understanding).

If you take the Pakicetus as a transition for early whale which lived on the land. To get from that to a whale would have taken many thousands of attempts. It just didn't find the right things it needed in one generation. There would have been many generations of failed changes that just didn't work because its all based on random chance. Even just with the size factor to go from a small dog like creature to a whale which is near 100 feet and around 170 tonnes would need 100s of stages in transitions. The next generation cannot jump to big in size because the mother would not be able to have the baby. So it would take tiny changes in sizes and that would take hundreds of generations which would leave hundreds of fossils of different sizes to get to the whale. But all we have is patchy stages with fairly big jumps. There is not much evidence for all the other things that need to change like breathing, shape, different tail movement which requires a rotation of the hips and pelvis, hip and pelvis which to me in the process would leave a creature struggling to move as it was gradually changing, sonar and hearing, seeing under water ect. Thats not taking into consideration that some of the features of Pakicetus are also unrelated to whales. They say it adapted to water because it had to eat fish. Yet its teeth were strong for ripping flesh. They say it learnt to be in the water a lot yet its legs were built for fast running across land.

So as you will see there is still a lot of contradictory evidence for transitions and I dont think there is any real qualifications that can determine what a transition is clearly because much of it is up to visual interpretation.The only real way that a line of transition could be shown perhaps is through genetics. But you also have to remember that variation is also shown through genetics so you have to have a clear understanding of what a species is. Especially if you go back in time where its harder to establish because you can always have the DNA and we dont know whether animals cross bred more often to produce new kinds of animals or other forms of HGT were at play.

Digging up a creature that happens to have a few similarities to another and then making a whole line of out this is not a solid foundation as you also have to consider the differences and that there is no other real evidence like genetics to make sure it is a fact. Especially now that genetics is showing that the lines and trees that were made in the past are coming under question. Some creatures are being taken out of those lines because they are related to another totally unrelated line of creature and some creatures are being linked together that show no resemblance yet are closer through genetics than the animals that scientists use to say belonged together. Its still early days so we will have to wait and see. But I dont think you can say that the theory has a strong case to say its fact.

 

[stevevw]

Semantics at there best. If you want something to fit, just redefine it.

It's like when we define nothing as something. These debates are the epitome of ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

Not trying to get under your skin. Personally, I could care less if we evolved or were somehow spontaneously created. It's a pointless debate.

Redefining words kind of irks me though.

Love it, nothing is something and nothing isn't nothing anymore. Something pretty mysterious had to start the universe because something came from nothing which is something.

 

[biggles53]

Right. So there are many species of tiger. Yet I doubt there was more than on tiger kind on the ark. Since we don't know for sure, I guess we could be open to looking at the possibility tigers may have evolved from lions!? But unless there was evidence I would stick with the one pair of tigers on the ark.
Maybe some of these!


ALL Sparrow Species Together Photo Gallery by R. Schnase at pbase.com
Ho hum.

Excellent...! So, is it your position that a 'bird kind' is limited to those mentioned in the Bible....like sparrows...?

If that's so, can you please explain which 'kind' the emu belongs to...? Because I don't see it mentioned in the Bible anywhere...?

While you're at it, could you also explain what 'kind' the cockatoo comes from...?

Oh, and what 'kind' does the pelican comes from...?

And the toucan.........I'm really interested in the toucan please...?

 

[stevevw]

Please give me one example of 'nothing'? even the nothing between planets has something in it.

I dont know what nothing really is. All I know is when Dawkins and Krause are trying to explain it they sound ridiculous. Even Krause said nothing really isn't nothing and it has something in it. They are trying to redefine nothing so that it can explain how something really came from nothing.

If the nothing between planets has something in it then it really isn't nothing. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds. We could go round and round in circles if you want but to me nothing means nothing, absolutely nothing at all. Because if you say that there is something that something is all around us and is a part of our existence. Its what gives matter substance. It has activity like the higgs field which is something.

 

[biggles53]

I dont know what nothing really is. All I know is when Dawkins and Krause are trying to explain it they sound ridiculous. Even Krause said nothing really isn't nothing and it has something in it. They are trying to redefine nothing so that it can explain how something really came from nothing.

If the nothing between planets has something in it then it really isn't nothing. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds. We could go round and round in circles if you want but to me nothing means nothing, absolutely nothing at all. Because if you say that there is something that something is all around us and is a part of our existence. Its what gives matter substance. It has activity like the higgs field which is something.

We used to think that travel to the moon was a fantasy...

Funny the things that happen when you free your mind from dogma...