Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Kylie]

Evolution has not been seen once to occur by scientific investigation of the fossil record. Not once have we unearthed fossils that show clear sequences of the detailed morphological changes of one macro-assemblage creature changing into another macro-assemblage creature.

The fossil record shows exactly the sort of progression and development of features that we would expect to see from evolution.

Evolution has also been observed in real life, in real time.

Evolution has left behind a ton of evidence in the genes of biological organisms.

Evolution has lots of evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

The fossil record shows exactly the sort of progression and development of features that we would expect to see from evolution.

Evolution has also been observed in real life, in real time.

Evolution has left behind a ton of evidence in the genes of biological organisms.

Evolution has lots of evidence.

No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.

It doesn't help when the term 'kind' is a scientifically useless term.

 

[inquiring mind]

It doesn't help when the term 'kind' is a scientifically useless term.

I thought we had established this many times... kind=genus; I even went so far as referring to an article that pointed out that early-on bible interpreters sometimes referred to species as kinds (of course that was before the definition of species was usurped); and ‘like kinds’ breed (but sometimes don’t at God’s discretion), but ‘different kinds’ never do. This stops evolutionists cold and that’s why they’re always trying to twist and turn or change definitions, and meanings (like they're attempting to do with ring species now, although by its current definition has hamstrung itself).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought we had established this many times... kind=genus; I even went so far as referring to an article that pointed out that early-on bible interpreters sometimes referred to species as kinds (of course that was before the definition of species was usurped); and ‘like kinds’ breed (but sometimes don’t at God’s discretion), but ‘different kinds’ never do. This stops evolutionists cold and that’s why they’re always trying to twist and turn or change definitions, and meanings (like they're attempting to do with ring species now, although by its current definition has hamstrung itself).

But that claim of kind = genus doesn't work since a housecat is a completely different animal to a panther which is a completely different animal to a tiger.
Kind is a scientifically meaningless term used by non-scientists to try and obscure their own lack of knowledge.

 

[inquiring mind]

But that claim of kind = genus doesn't work since a housecat is a completely different animal to a panther which is a completely different animal to a tiger.
Kind is a scientifically meaningless term used by non-scientists to try and obscure their own lack of knowledge.

Obscure or use common sense? Haven't we repeatedly used the term variations of kind as well?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Obscure or use common sense? Haven't we repeatedly used the term variations of kind as well?

'Common sense' doesn't work in science, and have you EVER seen the word 'kind' used in any actual non-Creationist piece of scientific literature?
I'll save you the answer: NO. Kind is not a scientific word, so it's useless to try and use it in a discussion about an element of science.

 

[inquiring mind]

'Common sense' doesn't work in science, and have you EVER seen the word 'kind' used in any actual non-Creationist piece of scientific literature?

Of course not, and you won't.

I'll save you the answer: NO. Kind is not a scientific word, so it's useless to try and use it in a discussion about an element of science.

And so it has been designed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought we had established this many times... kind=genus;

It is academia's job today to supplant Bible terms with their own terms.

Expecting an educatee today to use "kind" insted of "genus" is like asking him to use "child" instead of "fetus."

 

[AV1611VET]

But that claim of kind = genus doesn't work since a housecat is a completely different animal to a panther which is a completely different animal to a tiger.

And how does that keep that claim from working?

Housecat is Felis, panther is Panthera, and tiger is also Panthera.

What's the problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind is not a scientific word,

Pshuh ... that's an understatement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try and repeat that back in clear English, if you please.

Will Jacobean English do?

 

[inquiring mind]

I've got AV on ignore

Sure you do.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure you do.

I do. It's just that for some reason, this website gives up the option to look at ignored content and, like an idiot, I click that button.
I don't want that option!

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm quite comfortable with amphibians being ancestors to amphibians.... canines to canines...... felines to felines...... finches to finches...... apes to apes...... and humans to humans......

It didn't have lungs any more than todays amphibians have fully functional lungs as you want to imply...... It had air sacs.....

Although we could debate that too, since you just got bones.......

Oh wait, Coelecanth has those too..... And after being told for 50 years how it was transitory, well, that didn't pan out too well in the end.... and neither will this incorrect belief of Tiktaalik....

One, it's not really like a modern amphibian, it has way more fish traits. And air sacs for breathing and or swimming are well known in fish.

But my point is that your ideas about biology aside from varying from the false to imaginary are grotesquely inconsistent. The other apes and humans have way more in common structurally and genetically then all the other groups you listed.

(And you seem to have confused yourself about what a transitional form is... it isn't necessarily a direct ancestor, merely an example of the combination of two separate groups.)

 

[AV1611VET]

(And you seem to have confused yourself about what a transitional form is... it isn't necessarily a direct ancestor, merely an example of the combination of two separate groups.)

Only on paper.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It doesn't help when the term 'kind' is a scientifically useless term.

So the misinformed keep intoning....

species - Dictionary Definition

“In Middle English, species meant "a classification in logic," borrowed from the Latin word meaning "kind or appearance," from the root of specere, "to see."”

Some are simply not even aware of where their own words come from.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

'Common sense' doesn't work in science, and have you EVER seen the word 'kind' used in any actual non-Creationist piece of scientific literature?
I'll save you the answer: NO. Kind is not a scientific word, so it's useless to try and use it in a discussion about an element of science.

Hence your problem. You all have abandoned “common sense”......

Glad to know you recognize your theory lacks any at all.....

Definition of COMMON SENSE

“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

We already understood the theory had no sound or prudent judgement based on the facts. It’s nice to see evolutionists recognize this as well.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hence your problem. You all have abandoned “common sense”......

Glad to know you recognize your theory lacks any at all.....

Definition of COMMON SENSE

“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

We already understood the theory had no sound or prudent judgement based on the facts. It’s nice to see evolutionists recognize this as well.

And yet my common sense and the common sense of virtually all biological scientists is that evolution is a fact.
Huh. Imagine that. Using the phrase 'common sense' to justify your own lack of knowledge about evolution doesn't work simply because simply saying "It's common sense!" Does. Not. Mean. Squat.

 

[Heissonear]

No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.

A very good example in use of our eyes are the many appearances to tribes, groups, and ethnic people we see today. A spectrum of nose, eyes, cheeks, frames, skin character and color, hair character, etc.

With many physiological differences. A world of people from Jamaica, Fiji, Australia, India, Thailand, Japan, Mongolia, Sweden, Spain, Mexico, Native Alaskans, Native NA Indians, ..........

God is wonderous in how variations can exist.