If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[pitabread]

why not? kind= creatures that can techincally interbreed.

Not according to some creationists.

 

[Phred]

why not? kind= creatures that can techincally interbreed.

Again, "kind" has no meaning scientifically. It has no meaning in any other context either. Nobody can tell me what a "kind" is. Many have tried. They end up arguing with each other.

There is no such thing as a "kind"

 

[Speedwell]

Again, "kind" has no meaning scientifically. It has no meaning in any other context either. Nobody can tell me what a "kind" is. Many have tried. They end up arguing with each other.

There is no such thing as a "kind"

As used in Genesis, it is intended to be a relative term. The phrase "After his kind' expresses the orderliness of creation--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows don't give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. The theory of evolution also reflects this order, by way of affirming that no normal offspring is going to be very different from its parent(s).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

why not? kind= creatures that can techincally interbreed.

So non-breeding animals like jaguars vs lions are not the same kind? What do you do with ring species, where a can breed with b, b can breed with c, c can breed with d, and a cannot breed with d?

What about red ants versus black ants? Are they the same kind or not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, does that make my comment wrong?

Not wrong. I'ld rather say "misleading" and "incomplete", in the context that you said it.

Oh, am I in violation of another one of your silly rules, that I must go by , no matter what clown came up with it, or there is something wrong with my way of thinking?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite it seems.

I used the word "would" there. And the words immediatly preceeding that sentence were "...and none of them (=the mammals) have feather". That would be a violation of....

In other words and to spell it out for yout: If you would find a mammal with feathers, it would break the nested hierarchy. It would be a violation thereof. The fact that the nested hierarchy exists and is never violated in such ways, is evidence for evolution / common ancestry.

Did you understand it now? Or am I still using to many big words?

Oh, and did you know there was a rule science proves nothing.

Did I claim otherwise?

That is part of proving evolution

No. It's supporting it with evidence. Which is not the same thing. If you don't understand how it's not the same thing... just say so.

See, you have to actually prove all the little untruths that make up evolution...we aren't just going to believe such things, you have to be able to show us it's a fact.

ERV's are very factual. How they end up in the DNA of an individual is very factual. How they are then passed on to off spring, is very factual.

All very testable, observable, verifiable.

You people are so good with making up rules, but following old standard rules, like offering proof? Not so much.

Science doesn't deal in proofs when it comes to theories. As people have been trying to explain to you for more then 2 years now.

Will it finally sink in one day?

Why does one equate to the other...not even a sound assumption

Not an assumption. The bones that make up a coccyx are the same bones that make up the base of a tail.

As any comparative anatomy study will tell you.

They/you just choose to see it that way, because it backs the preconceived notions.

The irony is rather sad here.......

The only one here with a priori beliefs to which reality must submit, is you.
YOU are the one who prefers believing a (bronze age) story over the facts of reality. Not me.

More prove and lest talk will get us to our goal.

I just gave you a couple pieces of evidence and as predicted, you handwaved them away while simultanously once again demonstrated your utter ignorance (and dishonesty) on the topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then we did indeed come from monkeys?

As has been explained to you multiple times in this thread alone: no.


Why do you keep repeating the same mistakes after so many people have corrected you already?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Was the Monkey in between the ancestor and us? Ancestor first then monkey, then us?

Monkeys are extant creatures that are alive TODAY.
Our common ancestors with monkeys lived millions of years ago.

Think for 2 seconds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But I descended from my distant cousins...so we did come from monkeys?

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

incorrect. here is what i realy said:

"speciation is just variation of the same family.so its not evolution in terms of new kind of creature."

there is a different between saying that claim x isnt evidence for evolution and saying that if we will find evidence x evolution will be proven.

Your quote is exactly what I said it is.
It seems I'm gonna have to break it down in half an english lesson in readong comprehension....

First part of the statement: speciation is just variation of the same family.

I agree with that part. Speciation is when a certain species over time, gradually changes in one or more sub-species. It's a vertical process.

Then, the second part of the statement: so its not evolution in terms of new kind of creature.

==> This implies that evolution INCLUDES a horizontal speciation mechanism. When a species of one "kind" brings forward a species of a completely different "kind".
Like dogs bringing forward non-dogs (like cats).

Only someone completely oblivious to evolution theory would suggest such a thing.

I'll repeat once more:
If a species would bring forward a species "of a different family" or "of a completely different kind", then evolution theory is disproven, falsified, overturned, debunked.

indeed its right there.

Do you understand the implied error of your statement now?

 

[xianghua]

So non-breeding animals like jaguars vs lions are not the same kind?

its depend. i think that we need to try it by insemination to be sure.

What do you do with ring species, where a can breed with b, b can breed with c, c can breed with d, and a cannot breed with d?

who said that a cant breed with d? it may happen in some rare cases.

What about red ants versus black ants? Are they the same kind or not?

see above.

 

[xianghua]

Then, the second part of the statement: so its not evolution in terms of new kind of creature.

==> This implies that evolution INCLUDES a horizontal speciation mechanism. When a species of one "kind" brings forward a species of a completely different "kind".
Like dogs bringing forward non-dogs (like cats).

no. its just means that its not evolution of a new family. i didnt said that we should expect to find such a case to prove evolution. we may able to prove evolution by other ways. see the difference?

I'll repeat once more:
If a species would bring forward a species "of a different family" or "of a completely different kind", then evolution theory is disproven, falsified, overturned, debunked.

again: can you provide a calculation why it will be impossible to change for instance a dog into a cat in a short geological time?

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. its just means that its not evolution of a new family.

Just so we are clear here...

Please explain exactly what you mean by a "new family".
Give a real world example, perhaps. (and please, no imaginary animal cars)

again: can you provide a calculation why it will be impossible to change for instance a dog into a cat in a short geological time?

This isn't based on calculations.

It is based on how DNA works and its hereditary nature.
Evolution only moves forward. Felines and canines are on DIFFERENT evolutionary paths.
In evolution, paths don't cross. They only split further (=speciation) or they stop (=extinction).

Cats will not produce dogs, just like a breeding couple will not be giving birth to their cousin.
A breeding couple gives birth to sons and daughters. Not to cousins.

 

[Astrophile]

Monkeys are extant creatures that are alive TODAY.
Our common ancestors with monkeys lived millions of years ago.

Think for 2 seconds.

To borrow a thought from G.G. Simpson, if we could actually meet some of the common ancestors that we share with monkeys, what would we call them? Would we call them monkeys, apes, prosimians, or something else?

Of course, I know that we are not descended from any extant species of monkey. However, if I saw this animal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegpyptopithecus - in a zoo I should call it a monkey.

 

[Aman777]

Every person defines "kind" differently.

God defines kinds as temporary or His kinds and eternal kinds created to live forever (Their kinds) in Heaven. The invisible Spirit (Trinity) speaks and Lord God/Jesus does the actual forming or shaping physically what Science refers to as common ancestors. The best example is Adam, made by Lord God on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 and Adam's "creation in God's Image" by God (Trinity) on the present 6th Day/Age. Gen 5:1-2

Kinds is not a classification system. What is important to know is that His kinds and Their kinds can produce children with each other. Gen 6:4 It's the way ALL Humans (descendants of Adam) were produced on our planet. God has now produced some 7 Billion living Humans to populate Heaven in just 11k years since Noah arrived. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

None of the above. Think of monkeys as more like distant cousins.

We inherited the DNA and ERVs of prehistoric people when Noah's grandsons married and had children with them. Gen 6:4 Since Humans (descendants of Adam) were NOT made on our planet of the common ancestor of Apes, the Ark story is the Truth and the false ToE has classified prehistoric people, who descended from the common ancestor of Apes, as Humans. Someone should correct this obvious error.

 

[Aman777]

Thank you for your perfectly laid out example of why your statement is not possible. Now, if you had studied genetics, which you have not, you would understand the difference between dominant and recessive genes. Take eye color for example. There were EIGHT people on the ark. Noah and his wife gave birth to three sons. IF Noah had BROWN eyes his sons would have had brown eyes and then every single person on earth would have had brown eyes because brown eyes are DOMINANT. So obviously they did not have BROWN eyes. Let's say that they had BLUE eyes. It takes BOTH parents to pass on a recessive trait. So either their kids had blue or green eyes but could not have had both. If blue then one of the kid's wives could have had brown eyes and there you go, brown and blue eyed kids. But you can't get green eyes out that. If Noah and his wife had green eyes then you get green eyes and brown... but not blue. So just in eyes you can't get that from the people on the ark. Then you add in the other traits, blonde hair, red hair, brunette hair and so on. Let's continue. Dwarfism. That's a genetic trait that had to be carried by the people on the ark. How about these?

• cystic fibrosis,
• sickle cell anemia,
• Marfan syndrome,
• Huntington's disease, and
• hemochromatosis.

Yeah, the people on the Ark had to have those too. As well as Sickle Cell Anemia. Which one of the passengers on the Ark had that? These people must have been really sick.

It simply is not genetically possible for the entire genetic makeup of the human race to have been carried in just EIGHT people. I'll simplify this even further. It is not possible.

Now you can tell me about how it was a miracle.

The answer is simple and God told us all about it more than 3k years ago. Read Genesis 6:1-4 and you will see that God's kind (sons of God) and Jesus' kind (Humans/Adam) can have children together AND the children INHERIT Adam's superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22 That's God's Truth Scripturally.

 

[Aman777]

Again, "kind" has no meaning scientifically. It has no meaning in any other context either. Nobody can tell me what a "kind" is. Many have tried. They end up arguing with each other.

There is no such thing as a "kind"

Sure there is. You are a Human kind. I know this because only Humans (descendants of Adam) have inherited his superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22 ONLY Humans post because only Humans have the necessary level of intelligence to post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Obvious troll is obvious.

What exactly was trollish about that?

I think I would look into what a troll actually is if I were you. Someone who states an obvious fact does not equate to that.

Oh, but that's right, it disagrees with you and you like those easy ways out, like not having to provide proof. So if simply calling someone a troll works for you, it's certainly what I expect, but it does make me reluctant to read/take your future posts seriously or even waste the time on reading them if that kind of stuff is all were getting now....nothing posts that evade the subject, and pretend top make a point.

Fact is you didn't refute because there was none.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You did? That's highly unusual. Most of us descend from our parents, grandparents and so on. I'm not quite sure how a cousin could be a direct ancestor.

Dictionary
cous·in
ˈkəz(ə)n/
noun
noun: cousin; plural noun: cousins; noun: first cousin; plural noun: first cousins

1. a child of one's uncle or aunt.
   • a person belonging to the same extended family.
   • a thing related or analogous to another.
     "the new motorbikes are not proving as popular as their four-wheeled cousins"
   • a person of a kindred culture, race, or nation.
     "the Russians and their Slavic cousins"
   • historical
     a title formerly used by a sovereign in addressing another sovereign or a noble of their own country.

Pretty broad term, but I already knew that...define it however it helps you feel right.

Hope that helps.

 

[xianghua]

Just so we are clear here...

Please explain exactly what you mean by a "new family".
Give a real world example, perhaps. (and please, no imaginary animal cars)

dogs and cats belong to a different family.

This isn't based on calculations.

It is based on how DNA works and its hereditary nature.
Evolution only moves forward. Felines and canines are on DIFFERENT evolutionary paths.
In evolution, paths don't cross. They only split further (=speciation) or they stop (=extinction).

Cats will not produce dogs, just like a breeding couple will not be giving birth to their cousin.
A breeding couple gives birth to sons and daughters. Not to cousins.

actually if we assume the difference between a cat and a dog is about 10^6 bases, all we need is about 10^6 mutations or about 10^4 generations to change a cat into a dog. so even according to evolution a cat can evolve into a dog basically .