Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I reject the idea that the throw of a die results in a chance (random) outcome. If every variable can be satisfied, then the result of every throw is predictable. All you need to do is calculate, the initial velocity, rotation, die shape, die mass, surface drag of both die, and the surface on which it impacts, e.t.c. If all the variables are known then the outcome is entirely predictable.

Yep.

This goes for the lottery as well.
The laws of physics are, after all, deterministic.

This means that if all paramaters are identical, yes, the result will be the same.
However, we're talking so vastly many parameters, that it is completely absurd to assume that in all the thousands of ERV insertions in humans and other primates, all these parameters were the same.

Even under controller conditions in the lab, science hasn't been succesfull in finding patterns in ERV insertions. Situations don't get more identical then under controlled conditions in a lab.

To suggest that somehow in the lab, situations were identical not just once, but thousands of times, is beyond ridiculous.

As with every other mystical, random event, the outcomes can be calculated, when all causes are identified. Surely you don't think for one moment that physics cannot calculate the outcome of a die throw?

It can in theory. In practice, it is another matter. You don't have any control over circumstantial parameters. The parameters themselves are also dependend upon other parameters, which in turn are also dependend upon other parameters and so on and so on.

There comes a point where it's safe to say that outcomes are determined by so much circumstantial data, that it becomes unpredictable. And it's perfectly ok to call that "random".

A pattern that is not identified does not mean that a pattern does not exist. Just because you do not comprehend any pattern in the data, this logically never implies a random event.

But, again, it is beyond absurd to assume that in all the thousands of instances of ERV insertions in humans and chimps, all those parameters were identical.

Beyond absurd.

Except the common ancestor is always missing.

Because he's dead.
That doesn't mean that we can't conclude that it existed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is all about pattern recognition,

Here's a nice pattern identified by science in living things: nested hierarchies.

randomness is the enemy of science

No, it's not.

Fossil evidence is rare, very difficult to paint the canvas with so little paint.

DNA provides enough paint for the canvas.
Fossils merely fit the painting.
Finding a fossil that does NOT fit the painting, is something that simply doesn't happen.

Horseshoe crabs remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
We would expect tremendous genetic drift over hundreds of millions of years.

Not necessarily. If a local optimum is reached, things will remain pretty much the same until environmental parameters change, breaking the local optimum.

One of the problems with fossil evidence, is that fossil evidence occurs under
conditions that are favorable for fossil formation. Insignificant snapshots in select
environments, in very specific time frames.

They are not insignificant, as is explained in the post you are replying to.
Every fossil ever found is consistent with the model of evolution. That's quite significant.

Lots of missing evidence in the fossil record, lots of sudden appearances of
species without any observable ancestry.

Since fossilization is rare, as you acknowledge, it isn't surprising at all to see "sudden appearances" in the fossil record.

What would be surprising, is to find a fossil that doesn't fit the model. But that just doesn't happen.

Correct, though you may find other vertebrates that are related to vertebrates
on other continents.

Yep. And those date to a time where there were (at least) landbridges between those continents. Exactly as we would expect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Random genetic mutations do not lead anywhere except to sterility and death.

Except when it doesn't.

Here are a couple of example results of mutations in the present day:
- entirely novel metabolism pathways, giving the organism more food sources (for example, nylonese)
- immunity to anti-biotics
- immunity to pesticides
- unique gene sequences in tibetans preventing altitude sickness
- immunity to HIV
- ...

But only one example is enough to refute your ignorant statement, off course.

1. The same thing that keeps your computer from sentience. You must program
anything and everything that a computer does. Anything outside programming
gives unpredictable responses, up to the BSOD.

Computers aren't organic biological organisms that reproduce with variation in competition of limited resources. So why would they behave as such?

2. Ever hear of an egg tooth? Necessary to break out of a healthy shell.

This is an argument against evolution, how exactly?

3. Necessary for reproduction. DNA only demonstrates similarity, not necessarily
kindred.

DNA demonstrates nested hierarchies (as in a family tree), not mere similarities.

4. degeneration. We used to be larger and grow older.

The opposite is actually true.
Not that it matters. Evolution is not a ladder towards "bigger, stronger, smarter".

5. A kind is more like species. Most bears come from one kind. Equines are a kind.
Mammals and vertebrates contain many kinds.

Your second sentence contradicts the first sentence.

 

[loveofourlord]

That's another silly thing---evolution takes place in population, not individuals. Well, heck---what does a population consist of but individuals? How can it take place in a population without it taking place in an individual???

Simple, yes species Y hanging into species X starts with one individual or a population that has a trait that is beneficial, but it's like our ape ancestor with chimpanzee turns into a human, it's over time a group of the ancestor 's look more human over many generations, your not going to see it on the species or even short term, you will see it over long periods of time. The gene for bigger brain size being changed started with one individual , but it's only on the population level when it becomes dominate does the species start to change.

 

[loveofourlord]

A lot of the same species can't interbreed--mostly due to size! (as in Great Dane View attachment 182961Chihuahua) but a tiger and a lion can and do---View attachment 182958liger is the biggest cat--View attachment 182959View attachment 182960View attachment 182963

such utter nonsense, a house cat and a lion can't interbreed even if they use invitrol and such, same with cheetahs that can't interbreed with any other cat, this whole idea of kind is such utter nonsense, it's such a made up term that is often used to create super evolution that goes beyond anything even scientists think.

 

[mmksparbud]

such utter nonsense, a house cat and a lion can't interbreed even if they use invitrol and such, same with cheetahs that can't interbreed with any other cat, this whole idea of kind is such utter nonsense, it's such a made up term that is often used to create super evolution that goes beyond anything even scientists think.

Who said a cat and a lion can interbreed? That's ridiculous---I did say they are all felines--all cats. And lions and tigers have. Donkeys and zebras--they're equines.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who said a cat and a lion can interbreed? That's ridiculous---I did say they are all felines--all cats. And lions and tigers have. Donkeys and zebras--they're equines.

And humans and chimps are primates.

 

[AV1611VET]

And humans and chimps are primates.

Should we act like primates?

 

[rjs330]

God said to his creation be fruitful and multiply. A kind is a creature who can breed and multiply.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God said to his creation be fruitful and multiply. A kind is a creature who can breed and multiply.

All felines can breed. Are they a kind?
All mammals can breed. Are they a kind?
All Eukaryotas can breed. Are they a kind?

What you are putting forth is just meaningless.

 

[rjs330]

All felines can breed. Are they a kind?
All mammals can breed. Are they a kind?
All Eukaryotas can breed. Are they a kind?

What you are putting forth is just meaningless.

I meant breed and create offspring to perpetuate its kind. For example a cat can't breed and create offspring with a tiger but it can with other cars. A chimpanzee can't create offspring with a human. Dogs can breed with other dogs but not with cats etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I meant breed and create offspring to perpetuate its kind. For example a cat can't breed and create offspring with a tiger but it can with other cars. A chimpanzee can't create offspring with a human. Dogs can breed with other dogs but not with cats etc.

And yet all of those creatures are still mammals and are still Eukaryotes.
I can accept the definition you've proved, but only if you're saying in the context of what the writers of the Bible knew. But God's creation shows that it's not that neat.

 

[rjs330]

And yet all of those creatures are still mammals and are still Eukaryotes.
I can accept the definition you've proved, but only if you're saying in the context of what the writers of the Bible knew. But God's creation shows that it's not that neat.

It's fairly obvious that kind doesn't reference every single specific creature. I think that would have taken a couple of volumes to do. But the bible does address the definition in The words of God to be fruitful and multiply specifically after he created the kind. The kind would need to breed and multiply it's kind. God didn't care about man made scientific terminology. What he wanted was for his creation of kinds To multiply. We can categorize and label To our hearts content. But if the creature cannot breed and create offspring to keep the line going it's not a kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's fairly obvious that kind doesn't reference every single specific creature. I think that would have taken a couple of volumes to do. But the bible does address the definition in The words of God to be fruitful and multiply specifically after he created the kind. The kind would need to breed and multiply it's kind. God didn't care about man made scientific terminology. What he wanted was for his creation of kinds To multiply. We can categorize and label To our hearts content. But if the creature cannot breed and create offspring to keep the line going it's not a kind.

As an aside, I just realised that I should have put 'provided' not 'proved', because that sentence makes no sense. But that's beside the point.
But I have a question for you: if a kind (Animal A) adapts to a change in environment, this example being rising water level, and thus the animals that are subsequently born (Animal B) have physically changed to go from land dwelling animals to water dwelling animals, is Animal B still the same kind as Animal A?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's fairly obvious that kind doesn't reference every single specific creature. I think that would have taken a couple of volumes to do. But the bible does address the definition in The words of God to be fruitful and multiply specifically after he created the kind. The kind would need to breed and multiply it's kind. God didn't care about man made scientific terminology. What he wanted was for his creation of kinds To multiply. We can categorize and label To our hearts content. But if the creature cannot breed and create offspring to keep the line going it's not a kind.

Indeed.

Here is the Biblical definition of "kind":

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

[Astrophile]

What have we seen in creation from the beginning of our
written history? Things break down, run down, devolve
unless there is intelligent action applied. Nothing goes
uphill without being forced.

Is there intelligent action in a tree growing from a seed?

 

[pat34lee]

And this shows that you know absolutely nothing about science.
Do you know UV is? It's a form of radiation, which the Earth and everything on it get's hit with every single day.

Why is it some of you can't make a simple post without adding insults?

 

[pat34lee]

29+ evidences of macroevolution.

Been there, seen them. All they prove is degeneration
of DNA and adaptation within a kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why is it some of you can't make a simple post without adding insults?

Yeah, to be honest, I couldn't write that in a way that wouldn't have come across as insulting in one way or another. But since you come here and claim that all of the world's scientists know nothing because of your own interpretation of a religious book which contains no scientific information and you think that you know better than all of them... *shrug*

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Been there, seen them. All they prove is degeneration
of DNA and adaptation within a kind.

And yet you have never once supported your claim that DNA is degenerating and you have also never once given an actual scientific example of what a 'kind' is.