Checkmate, Creationists

[Subduction Zone]

So, in other words, this "common mammalian ancestor" is just a dot, and you expect us to play connect-the-dots?

I'll pass.

Then your complaints about something that you do not understand are unwarranted.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is actual reality.

No.

This is some 50 dots within a period of 90,000,000 years, with lines drawn between them.

That's like a poster having only 50 posts, and everyone being expected to assume he's been posting every day for 90 million years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then your complaints about something that you do not understand are unwarranted.

Oh ... so I do understand it?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh ... so I do understand it?

Is that what you're saying?

No, sadly you won't let yourself understand.

 

[ViaCrucis]

you expect us to play connect-the-dots?

Don't worry, I don't expect much.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, there was no "change of kind" in going from sea to land. Since creationists can't define kind I have hijacked the word.

Then you agree that when it went from sea to land it remained the same species and simply should be listed as a different breed of the same Kind as we do today and not as a separate species as you do in the past only??

So you agree your classification system is in error from the very start?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Domestic cats are a subspecies, not a "kind" and they are part of Feliformia which is part of Carnivora. This is actual reality.

I see lots of pretty lines connecting dots of one species to another without any evidence they are actually connected. Except belief and imagination. So were the ones when they were Feliformia not species? So they should then just be merely different breeds of those same species should they not, not listed as separate species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So we will ignore how we understand reproduction works as we observe it and pretend it happened differently in the past?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you agree that when it went from sea to land it remained the same species and simply should be listed as a different breed of the same Kind as we do today and not as a separate species as you do in the past only??

So you agree your classification system is in error from the very start?

I did not say that or imply that. Many different species can be of the same "kind". You cannot define kind. I can. Species and kind are not synonymous. Watch and learn, even Kent Hovind would agree that all mammals are the same kind by a test of his:

 

[USincognito]

I see lots of pretty lines connecting dots of one species to another without any evidence they are actually connected. Except belief and imagination.

Your ignorance of the evidence is your problem. It is, however, one that could be solved quite easily with a simple Google scholar search.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=feliformia&btnG=&as_sdt=1,14&as_sdtp=

So were the ones when they were Feliformia not species?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll try and interpret it. There was a basal Feliform from that existed as a species long ago, and of extant cats, the most basal is the African palm civet. The most basal true cat from the fossil record is Proailurus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proailurus

So they should then just be merely different breeds of those same species should they not, not listed as separate species?

I'm sorry but this sentence makes no sense. Could you clarify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Thanks, but I've known what a species is for a long time.

So we will ignore how we understand reproduction works as we observe it and pretend it happened differently in the past?

Again I have no idea what you're talking about. How does building phylogenetic relationships "ignore how we understand reproduction works (sic)"? Is this some allusion to your "kinds after kinds" nonsense?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did not say that or imply that.

You said exactly that. "No, there was no "change of kind" in going from sea to land." Species are capable of producing fertile offspring. The offspring are always of the same species. Therefore if there was no change in Kind - they are still of the same species as they were before.

Many different species can be of the same "kind".

No they can't, because the first creature of that Kind is a species - everything after that by your own classification system is merely infraspecific taxa. So now you want to ignore your own 26 definitions of species?

You cannot define kind. I can. Species and kind are not synonymous. Watch and learn, even Kent Hovind would agree that all mammals are the same kind by a test of his:

This would be true if you used species properly. But since you have Lions and Tigers listed as separate species, you violate your own theory and your own claims. Despite the fact they are capable of producing fertile offspring.

You can only define it by violating it's meaning. Animals reproduce after their Kind - not become other Kinds.

Once a species is named - anything by definition afterwards is merely a subspecies, breed, formae, variety or subvariety - not a new species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

What you list as a species today can never become another species - just infraspecific taxa. What you list as a species in the past would make everything that came after infraspecific taxa. Once the species is designated - those locally adapted traits make it a subspecies of the original species. You are incapable of ever designating a new species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your ignorance of the evidence is your problem. It is, however, one that could be solved quite easily with a simple Google scholar search.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=feliformia&btnG=&as_sdt=1,14&as_sdtp=

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll try and interpret it. There was a basal Feliform from that existed as a species long ago, and of extant cats, the most basal is the African palm civet. The most basal true cat from the fossil record is Proailurus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proailurus

You know exactly what I am asking. So everything after the Proailurus is merely infraspecific taxa, not a species unto itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

I'm sorry but this sentence makes no sense. Could you clarify?

See above. So you are claiming that the offspring of two parents was no longer capable of interbreeding with the parent? or the 5th cousin removed? Does that make it a different species - or since you know what species it cam from merely infraspecific taxa due to specifically local adapted traits due to isolation?

Thanks, but I've known what a species is for a long time.

I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement, being you insist infraspecific taxa can become a separate species.

Again I have no idea what you're talking about. How does building phylogenetic relationships "ignore how we understand reproduction works (sic)"? Is this some allusion to your "kinds after kinds" nonsense?

Show me anything that has ever produced another species through reproduction???? not your dreams - but in this genetics you claim backs up your assertion?

Show me in biology where any plant or animal has become a separate species from reproductive experiments? You will be only able to show me that species become infraspecific taxa, in each and every case - yet insist we believe in opposition to the evidence. As a matter of fact I am positive you do not even know what a species is.

 

[Willtor]

...

I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement, being you insist infraspecific taxa can become a separate species.

...

Why not? There are populations at different stages of divergence, now.

 

[TheBear]

Man claims that his pet cat gave birth to a chihuahua

Actually, that would falsify evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You messed up using the quote function and this is rather difficult to respond to because of that.

<me>I did not say that or imply that.
<you>
You said exactly that. "No, there was no "change of kind" in going from sea to land." Species are capable of producing fertile offspring. The offspring are always of the same species. Therefore if there was no change in Kind - they are still of the same species as they were before.

Now you are making the mistake of trying to use "kind" as "species" and you are also trying to bend and twist the meaning of "species". Species is a man made term that was invented before evolution came along, as a result it will naturally be imperfect. Speciation is the process where some of the offspring of a common ancestor can no longer breed with other descendants of the same common ancestor. You did not watch the video, even Kent Hovind agrees that this happens. If you don't watch or understand the videos provided it is not wise to make a comment that shows you ignored the material given to you.

I am not going to deal with the rest of your post, I will just point out that you are trying to use only one version of "species" and then apply it to all versions. Your use of species will always be wrong because you will not own up to the limitation of the word due to evolution, even though that sort of evolution is directly observable today. Speciation is an observed event. That is why most creationists have moved the goalposts from that. My definition of "kind" can be seen in the video. And since you like Wiki here is there definition of a word that is synonymous to kind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

 

[Papias]

Many different species can be of the same "kind". You cannot define kind. I can. Species and kind are not synonymous. Watch and learn, even Kent Hovind would agree that all mammals are the same kind by a test of his:

Right. If the weasle term "kind" means anything, it simply means "life on earth". All life on earth is the same "kind". That's the AGCT kind.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, we insist it is Kind after Kind. It is evolutionists that say a fish can become a rodent which can become a man. I think you are a tad confused over the two theories.

This is a creationists view, what matches reality.

I don't really get how creationists think that this "kind after kind" thing is a problem for evolution...

I mean, ignoring the fact that "kind" is never clearly defined - it doesn't actually matter.

However it is defined, it seems to me that evolution is exactly "kind after kind".
In evolution, every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.

Mammals produce mammals.
Canines produce canines.
Primates produce primates.
Tetrapods produce tetrapods.
Eukaryotes produce eukaryotes.

Please explain exactly how evolution apparantly doesn't "fit" the idea of kind after kind.

Just a heads up: it seems to me that such an explanation can only be sensible if you actually clearly define what a "kind" is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No.

This is some 50 dots within a period of 90,000,000 years, with lines drawn between them.

If you are simply going to ignore how the graph comes about (= through the mapping of genomes, among other independent lines of evidence), then obviously you aren't going to be able to understand what it means and implies.

By extension, your objections are meaningless.

That's like a poster having only 50 posts, and everyone being expected to assume he's been posting every day for 90 million years.

No, it's not. I don't even get how you think that this is analogous. It seems as random as it is meaningless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I see lots of pretty lines connecting dots of one species to another without any evidence they are actually connected.

Ignoring the data on which the graph is based, won't make the data (or the graph) go away.

This graph shows the high level nested hierarchies found in the DNA (among other things).

Except belief and imagination.

There's no "beliefs" or "imagination" involved in counting DNA sequences and mapping out the pattern it results in.

So we will ignore how we understand reproduction works as we observe it and pretend it happened differently in the past?

Says the person who denies that inheritable reproduction results in nested hierarchies.... :-/

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, it's not. I don't even get how you think that this is analogous. It seems as random as it is meaningless.

It's fairly well established that AV is not great with analogies. I think too much hardcore literalism may have damaged the way his mind works in this regard.

 

[SteveB28]

If you are simply going to ignore how the graph comes about (= through the mapping of genomes, among other independent lines of evidence), then obviously you aren't going to be able to understand what it means and implies.

By extension, your objections are meaningless.



No, it's not. I don't even get how you think that this is analogous. It seems as random as it is meaningless.

You have to bear in mind, this is the person who charges that knowledge "can take a hike". Meaning would not be prominent on his list of priorities.