Is there any evidence for evolution?

[JoeP222w]

Can you give an objective definition for "kind of animal"?
The chromosome 2 fusion site is my favorite evidence for the common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees.

A dog is a kind of animal. A cat is a kind of animal. A cow is a kind of animal.

Merriam-Webster:
"a group of people or things that belong together or have some shared quality : a particular type or variety of person or thing"


Darwin had no ability to examine chromosomes in his day. He was making tremendous leaps in logic to claim we share a common ancestry with chimpanzees.

You and I were created in the image of God. Animals are not.

 

[lesliedellow]

A dog is a kind of animal. A cat is a kind of animal. A cow is a kind of animal.

Apes are a kind of animal.

We are a kind of ape.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apes are a kind of animal.

We are a kind of ape.

Only on paper.

 

[AdamSK]

A dog is a kind of animal. A cat is a kind of animal. A cow is a kind of animal.

Are lions and tigers two kinds of animal, or one? How about wolves and dogs? Wolves and foxes? Horses and donkeys? Horses and zebras?

This is why examples are not what were asked for, but rather objective criteria.

Merriam-Webster:
"a group of people or things that belong together or have some shared quality : a particular type or variety of person or thing"

That's not helpful at all, as it provides no basis for answering any of the questions I asked above.

Would the process by which wild cabbage became broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, collards, and kale be an example of one kind of plant becoming a different kind of plant? If not, again, how do I tell whether two creatures are the same kind or not?

 

[JoeP222w]

Apes are a kind of animal.

We are a kind of ape.

Disagree.

Humans are a kind. Humans are not apes. Apes were not created in the image of God. Humans are the only creation that was created in the image of God.

 

[AdamSK]

Interesting article about Justin Martyr.
http://freethoughtnation.com/does-justin-martyr-quote-the-gospels/

D.M. Murdoch is not a respected Biblical scholar or published historian. Actual Biblical scholarship pretty much sees her as an uninformed crank, on the same level as Richard Carrier.

 

[AdamSK]

Humans are a kind. Humans are not apes. Apes were not created in the image of God. Humans are the only creation that was created in the image of God.

Again, we need objective criteria for what is a "kind."

Is "ape" a kind? If so, can you identify some of the features that objectively put chimpanzees and gorillas in the same "kind" but exclude humans?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" is a word in the Bible that baffles the snot out of scientists, and that suits me just fine.

Let'em eat cake for all I care.

 

[lesliedellow]

D.M. Murdoch is not a respected Biblical scholar or published historian. Actual Biblical scholarship pretty much sees her as an uninformed crank, on the same level as Richard Carrier.

Even Carrier tries to distance himself from her.

 

[Goonie]

D.M. Murdoch is not a respected Biblical scholar or published historian. Actual Biblical scholarship pretty much sees her as an uninformed crank, on the same level as Richard Carrier.

Cool, my bad.

 

[AdamSK]

"Kind" is a word in the Bible that baffles the snot out of scientists, and that suits me just fine.

It not so much that it "baffles the snot out of scientists;" more that it shows creationists have no grasp of biology.

Remember, it's creationists who use the term "kind" as the immutable barrier between creatures; changes within a "kind" happen all the time, but creatures can never become a new "kind".

And then if you ask them to define the term, you are inevitably given the examples of cats and dogs and are either told "it's obvious" or "it's all the animals with a common ancestor." Either of which is begging the question, because whatever specific examples there are of transitions will always be met by "those are just the same kind anyway."

It's an empty claim; it doesn't really mean anything. Why that would suit you just fine, if you were honest and cared about the truth, I have no idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's an empty claim; it doesn't really mean anything. Why that would suit you just fine, if you were honest and cared about the truth, I have no idea.

Adam, do you realize that we're referred to as Homo sapiens?

Do you realize that translates to "wise man"?

What did Paul warn us about calling ourselves "wise"?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

How many people have you met that started out as Christians and ended up atheists?

 

[mark kennedy]

That's because you are wearing your religions blinkers and you only see what you want to see, you want to lead the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead you.

No, I accept the inverse logic is intuitively obvious, I have always been open to an alternative conclusion. Darwinians never are and that makes all the difference. My religion actually has very little to do with it and where it does influence my thought is New Testament doctrine not some love of worldly approval.

 

[mark kennedy]

It not so much that it "baffles the snot out of scientists;" more that it shows creationists have no grasp of biology.

Remember, it's creationists who use the term "kind" as the immutable barrier between creatures; changes within a "kind" happen all the time, but creatures can never become a new "kind".

Kind is just another word for common ancestry:

מִין mîyn, meen; from an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, i.e. species:—kind. Compare H4480. Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".​

Used of seed bearing plants, Gen. 1:11, 12; Birds, Gen. 1:21; land dwelling creature, Gen. 1:24; Animals wild and domestic, Gen. 1: 25…etc. H4327
​

Which indicates exactly what Mendelian Genetics has been telling us for over a hundred years and Darwinism has been emphatically and categorically denying. That plants, birds, mammals and reptiles have limits beyond which they cannot evolve. This limit does not extend far beyond the level of genus, thus the word 'genus' is synonymous with origin. There is a reason this is in my signature:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)​

And then if you ask them to define the term, you are inevitably given the examples of cats and dogs and are either told "it's obvious" or "it's all the animals with a common ancestor." Either of which is begging the question, because whatever specific examples there are of transitions will always be met by "those are just the same kind anyway."

Start with larger taxonomic categories and bear in mind, they are highly subjective and pretty complex

Eukaryotic Kingdoms
CHROMISTA (Kelps, diatoms, haptophytes)
FUNGI (Fungi),
METAZOA (Animals) 
PLANTAE (Plants) 
PROTISTA (Protists)

Metazoan Phyla (the animals)

Cnidaria (corals, jellyfish, Hydra)
Conulariida
Ctenophora (comb jellies)

DEUTEROSTOMIA (deuterostomes)
---Echinodermata (starfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, etc.)
---Hemichordata (acorn worms, graptolites)
---Chordata
Cephalochordata (lancelets)
Myxini (hagfish)
Urochordata (tunicates, sea squirts)
VERTEBRATA (Vertebrates)

ECDYSOZOA (molting animals)
---Arthropoda (crabs, spiders, insects, etc.)
Anomalocarida
Cheliceramorpha (chelicerates & kin)
Crustaceamorpha (crustaceans)
Pycnogonida (sea spiders)
Trilobita (trilobites)
Uniramia (insects & kin) ---Cephaloryncha (kinorhynchs & priapulids)
---Nematoda (roundworms)
---Nematomorpha (horsehair worms)
---Onychophora (velvet worms)
---Tardigrada (water bears)

LOPHOTROCHOZOA (worms, molluscs, & lophophorates)
---Annelida (segmented worms)
---Brachiopoda (lamp shells)
---Bryozoa ("moss animals")
---Echiura (spoon worms)
---Entoprocta
---Mollusca (snails, clams, squid, etc.)
---Nemertini (ribbon worms)
---Phoronida (horseshoe worms)
---Pogonophora (bearded tube worms)
---Sipuncula (peanut worms)

Placozoa (the most simple animals known)
Platyhelminthes (flatworms)
Porifera (sponges)
Rotifera (rotifers) & Acanthocephala
Vendian Animals (the First animals)​

Then it’s the vertebrates, mammals and when you get to the genus level you are talking about the level of kind since the words appear to have identical meanings. Unless you would like to define taxonomic categories, which I highly doubt, since evolutionists are not obliged to define anything. They just correct anyone who doesn't agree with then whether they are right, wrong or just of another opinion.

It's an empty claim; it doesn't really mean anything. Why that would suit you just fine, if you were honest and cared about the truth, I have no idea.

Right back at you, I just love how evolutionists, aka Darwinians, like to feign some melodramatic indignation. It usually means they have ran out of substantive things to say and are preforming for others. Since most creationists are too polite to call them on it and evolutionists never contradict other evolutionists they just step up center stage and dramatize for all they are worth.

The problem is the theater is now empty and the performance echoes into an empty array of dusty chairs.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where the KJB differs from the originals, the originals are wrong.

I see that AV is still breaking the Commandments by making a false idol of the KJV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your favorite specific evidence for one kind of animal changing to another kind of animal?

This is a poorly worded question. What is a "kind"? How would you show that two groups of animals belong to different "kinds"? Properly speaking there is no "change of kind" in evolution.

For example you share a common ancestor with other apes (this is not an insult since everyone does). That means by cladistics you are still an ape (as is every other person on the face of the Earth). No "change in kinds". Scientists can trace this lack of "change in kinds" all the way back to the earliest prokaryotes. Since the first prokaryote seems to have been a one time event when a bacteria and an archaea somehow formed a union that I definitely do not understand and I do not know if biologists understand yet.

Sorry to get off the track a little bit, can you define your terminology better?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Disagree.

Humans are a kind. Humans are not apes. Apes were not created in the image of God. Humans are the only creation that was created in the image of God.

Disagree all that you want. You will still be wrong. If you claim that all equines are one "kind" then so are all apes, and includes us.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I accept the inverse logic is intuitively obvious, I have always been open to an alternative conclusion.

The inverse of a nested hierarchy is a non-nested hierarchy. Funny how you refuse to accept that logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see that AV is still breaking the Commandments by making a false idol of the KJV.

Should I "worship" the originals instead?

 

[Loudmouth]

Should I "worship" the originals instead?

Should you worship any idol, be it paper or stone?