proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

Did you ever get one for species?

Repeatedly posted. The problem for you seems to be is that there really isn't a definite qualitative distinction between species, no hard line separating them.

 

[HitchSlap]

that evolutionists incorrectly divide the Kind into other species instead of subspecies is the main reason why you are so confused as to what a species is.....

That untrained people such as yourself would pontificate on what natural scientists are doing incorrectly, is laughable.

Please, carry on. The lulz are strong.

 

[tas8831]

Mammal is the class, btw.......

And a class is made up of orders, and orders are made up of families, and families are made up of...?

You really should not ever try to correct a non-creationist on here, sonny. Each time I've seen you try, you end up making a fool of yourself and not being able to understand why.

I'm trying to help you out.

that evolutionists incorrectly divide the Kind into other species instead of subspecies is the main reason why you are so confused as to what a species is.....

1. DEFINE kind.
2. What are the criteria for classifying subkinds?

 

[tas8831]

Repeatedly posted. The problem for you seems to be is that there really isn't a definite qualitative distinction between species, no hard line separating them.

Which should not be the case if all taxa are merely within-Kind subspecies.

If creation were true, taxonomy/systematics should be a slam-dunk so easy a middle schooler could do it, with very clear, distinct, and obvious demarcations between groups.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Which should not be the case if all taxa are merely within-Kind subspecies.

If creation were true, taxonomy/systematics should be a slam-dunk so easy a middle schooler could do it, with very clear, distinct, and obvious demarcations between groups.

Every middle schooler could do it if you didnt confuse them with stupidity..

You certainly dont have any problem understanding all dogs are of one species, regardless that they might be made up of different subspecies. My bad, breeds, they couldnt even get themselves to get that right.

You dont have any problem understanding that all humans are the same species, even if made up of different subspecies. My bad, races, they couldnt even get themselves to get that right.

Just as all bears are one species, just different subspecies within the species.

As are all Felines one species, just different subspecies within that species.

That you call Lions and Tigers for example separate species because you once believed they couldnt produce fertile offspring, is simply a mistake, proven by the fact they have produced fertile offspring.

The same with Grizzlies and Polar Bears. They have produced fertile offspring as well, showing your mistake in classification.

Just as those finches are producing fertile offspring.

Not that evolutionists will ever admit their classifications are in error.

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

Even knowing the truth, you will obfuscate about why you neednt accept the truth.....

 

[gaara4158]

Lets use that. We have seen Asian mate with Asian and produce only Asian. African mate with African and produce only African. And when Asian mates with African we get the Afro-Asian.

Where do you think Asians came from? Did God create someone in Asia looking "Asian" or did people migrate to Asia from somewhere else? I'm utterly bewildered as to where you're going with this as someone arguing against common descent. Even as a creationist you have to agree that Asians, Europeans, Africans, Latinos, Indians, and every other variety of human you can imagine originated with some common ancestor. A population of Africans eventually became a population of Asians by moving to Asia. Somewhere between the first generation and now, the population resembled something you'd identify as "Afro-Asian." Again, even creationists have to accept this.

We have seen Husky mate with Husky and produce only Husky. Mastiff mate with Mastiff and produce only mastiff. And yet when the Husky mates with the Mastiff we see the new form of the Chinook. So why would you propose something never observed to explain the variation when the variation is explained by what we have observed?????

Variations from one generation to the next will almost always be minimal, that's true. But over time, small variations build into large ones. Let's take the dog for example, since you mentioned different breeds. It's accepted by creationists and scientists alike that nearly if not all dog breeds today evolved from ancient wolves. No wolf ever gave birth to a chihuahua, but over hundreds of years of selective breeding, chihuahuas have in fact emerged. Selective breeding works precisely because like begets like, with only slight variation or mutation. Natural selection is exactly the same mechanism, only the selector is environmental pressures like climate, predators, and food availability rather than people purposely causing only certain individuals from each generation to reproduce.

We have directly observed that kind of change over time. This can be considered "proof of concept" for evolution. Yes, there are limits to how much change we can directly observe simply because it takes more than a human lifetime for those changes to occur. Even so, because the concept of evolution is proven and the concept of a life-designer is not, universal common descent - even at face value as a hypothesis - is a better explanation than "common design."

Your task here is to provide an example of a life-designer you can demonstrate exists.

 

[gaara4158]

but both are humans. so it's not changes of kinds. can you show that fish and human shared a common descent? you cant do that and it's just a belief rather then science.

It's becoming tedious to explain this to each of you, but I'm not here to prove evolution to you right now. I'm here to demonstrate that common descent - as a hypothesis at face value - is a better explanation than intelligent design because common descent is observed in nature and intelligent design is not. Intelligent design is only observed in inanimate objects, and we identify it as such because we know the processes by which the objects and materials are designed and constructed.

we can know that something is designed even without watcing the designer. a watch is a good example.

No, we actually cannot. You think you can determine whether something is designed or not intuitively, but that's not the case. It's actually quite rare that you encounter something completely novel and have to determine whether it's designed or natural. We recognize design through recognition of the object itself and the materials it's made of. I know a watch is designed because I know it's a watch, and I know watches are designed. I know watches are designed because I can point to an example of an actual watchmaker. Even if I can't identify the particular maker for a particular watch, I know it has a maker because watchmakers exist. You cannot do the same for biodiversity. You cannot point to a life-designer. You have nothing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's a conversation you'll have to have with your fellow Christians, since clearly they don't all share your opinion.

Regardless, the fact that Christians can hold their beliefs and accept the Theory of Evolution as valid science shows that the theory of Evolution is clearly not about denial of God or faith.

I have all kinds of answers for that but the site does not allow them.

These type threads tend to come with very vindictive people...Christian and non Christian alike, that would very much like to see their adversary go away.....so we mind our P's and Q's and live to make someone mad another day.

 

[Speedwell]

I have all kinds of answers for that but the site does not allow them.

These type threads tend to come with very vindictive people...Christian and non Christian alike, that would very much like to see their adversary go away.....so we mind our P's and Q's and live to make someone mad another day.

So why, then, do you want to be our adversary?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So why, then, do you want to be our adversary?

I don't, where do you get that oddball question from?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't, where do you get that oddball question from?

You referred to yourself as our adversary. I just wondered why you see yourself in that light.

 

[tas8831]

Where do you think Asians came from? Did God create someone in Asia looking "Asian" or did people migrate to Asia from somewhere else? I'm utterly bewildered as to where you're going with this as someone arguing against common descent.

Perplexing, isn't it?

I'm still waiting for him to explain what alleles are, how they arise, how many an organism can have, etc.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You referred to yourself as our adversary. I just wondered why you see yourself in that light.

I did not do that, that's just what you chose to get out of the comment, but either way, please, there are plenty of important things here to argue...and this is not one of them.

 

[tas8831]

Every middle schooler could do it if you didnt confuse them with stupidity..

I think evangelical churches and Fox News provides the confusion factors.

You certainly dont have any problem understanding all dogs are of one species, regardless that they might be made up of different subspecies. My bad, breeds, they couldnt even get themselves to get that right.

Yes, all domesticated dogs are of one species.
What about foxes?
Jackals?
Are they their own Kind?

If so, why?

What was the plan to have so many so very similar 'kinds'?

You dont have any problem understanding that all humans are the same species, even if made up of different subspecies. My bad, races, they couldnt even get themselves to get that right.

Who is 'they'?

Just as all bears are one species, just different subspecies within the species.

As are all Felines one species, just different subspecies within that species.

Can cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?

Just as those finches are producing fertile offspring.

Yup. But they are descended from a single species. Sorry - Finch Kind.

Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?

Can parrots breed with emus?

If not, why not?

Not that evolutionists will ever admit their classifications are in error.

Your bible classifies bats as birds. Can creationists admit that even THAT is in error?

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

Even knowing the truth, you will obfuscate about why you neednt accept the truth.....

What 'truth' are you referring to?


It is so cute, in an 'aw, look at that little feller' sort of way, that you seem to think that because subspecies exist that evolution is false and the creation tales of Hebrew tribesmen are therefore correct.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of even Darwin's 'primitive' version of the ToE was that he proposed a mechanism for change. Genetics provided the raw material (the discovery of the hereditary material, mutations, etc.) for selection to work on.

All you are offering is an assertion in which you co-opt evidence of variation and declare, in effect, 'Kinds gave off sub-kinds'.

How?

Where did the variation come from if they were 'created' AS a 'kind'?

WHAT IS A KIND???

Are there any living examples of created Kinds, and how can you tell?

Anything other than very, very misplaced and unwarranted declarations of victory?

And why, if genetic analysis should come to an arbitrary HALT when going from one Kind to another, does this not actually happen?

Many years ago, a creationist declared that if I could show a 'smooth gradation of genetic identity between 2 species' that she would be forced to reconsider her rejection of evolution. I did just that. Did she re-think her position? of course not - she made excuses.

Will you make excuses, too? Or will you provide evidence FOR your claims (as opposed to declarations of victory based on rejecting evidence for evolution)?

Oh - and BTW -

Copy-pasting your own previous posts that do not actually support your position is a rather sad way to engage in grown-up discussion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your bible classifies bats as birds. Can creationists admit that even THAT is in error?

You really are clutching at straws there, and these desperate, not well thought out comments, always make me wonder why you all need to do such things if you truly have a real defense.

Anyway, I've little doubt all flying creatures were called birds at a time when we had not gotten to creating all the classifications we have today. So, no, no error at all, they were birds at the time...makes perfectly logical sense to me anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

I did not do that, that's just what you chose to get out of the comment, but either way, please, there are plenty of important things here to argue...and this is not one of them.

It's the reason any of us are here at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

Anyway, I've little doubt all flying creatures were called birds at a time when we had not gotten to creating all the classifications we have today. So, no, no error at all, they were birds at the time...makes perfectly logical sense to me anyway.

So, is a bat a bird, or a mammal?

 

[The Times]

I liked the story, I don't believe it's real.

The Book of Enoch greatly expands on a seemingly brief comments in Genesis about Enoch, Sons of God and the Nephilim.

Shemjaza (even more so then most stories of rebel angels of Christian and Jewish tradition) is remarkably foolhardy and incompetent about defying his creator.

What specifically did you like about it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So, is a bat a bird, or a mammal?

Must be a slow day for some here.

 

[Aman777]

Sorry, but those sons of God were not humans.
Why do you think God's people were sent to wipe out all the giants up until the last ones from Gad?

False Scripturally since Angels are not made of flesh as the sons of God (prehistoric people) WERE. Gen 6:3 Jesus tells us that Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30 Also, the Angels who left their first estate (heaven) are held in chains under darkness until the Judgment. Jde 1:6

Chapter and verse on the giants from Gad? Amen?