Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

So far there aren't fossils found that I see that would be so compelling in displaying certain transition between kinds to draw me back to thinking it would only be from evolution by descent.

What features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?

We who don't see atheistic evolution as an explanation don't have to come up with which fossils belong in a sequence, but we can view your arrangement and consider it with critical examination. When kinds of fossils are not so close to show direct descent, there should be some cases of showing all the transition in a smooth sequence, or else if there is no case of it known from fossils the evolution is assumed. Sure, you are free to do that. But requiring it of others?

We are discussing transitional fossils, not direct ancestors.

Also, you have not shown us what fossils would need in order to be in that smooth transition.

You also have not shown that the geologic record is complete enough to preserve these smooth transitions.

The nested hierarchy is from perspective with assumptions.

What assumptions? I don't have to assume that cars have a common ancestor in order to determine if they fall into an objective nested hierarchy? All you are doing is organizing things into groups based on similarities and differences. No assumptions are made.

Why should this coming from design that the Creator would work with be denied?

Why would God need to create life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy?

"[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."--William of Conches

Give us a REASON why God would be forced to create life so that it falls into a nested hierarchy.

I can ask, because I could always see how it worked that way. I saw it if you must use the word as an evolution of design, seeing it is without evolutionary descent needed. It is not work that is too great for the All-powerful one.

Why would God create life so that it looks like it evolved when it isn't necessary to do so?

God could plant fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes. Is that a valid reason to reject forensic evidence?

 

[stevevw]

Are you claiming the pictures you are showing are the same species? They are not. Yes, shrimp of the past look very similar to modern shrimp. So do lobsters and sharks, etc. Yet, strangely enough you won't find anything like them in the Cambrian layers. There is also such a thing as Stabilizing Selection. If a population is under selection to remain the same, there will only be minor phenotypic changes over time.

What do you call a species. They look the same in just about every way. Scientists may call them another species but for evolutionary purposes but they have hardly changed. They find one or two small differences and then call them another species. How do they know. It seems just about everything is called another species even if it looks exactly the same. Thats because if it was just left as the same creature after all that time it would contradict evolution and be more supportive of created design where an animal is made and more or less stays the same. If evolution is the gradual morphing of animals one into another then as Darwin said we would see the blending of animals one to another all across the animals kingdom. But what we see is separated full developed animals each with distinct features.

As well as all the living fossils there are giant rams, clams, sheep, lizards, hippos ect. Just about all of the Australian animals had larger versions of what they are today with kangaroos, koalas, goanna, wombats, platypuses, Echidnas and emus ect. There were also giant sloths, frogs, snails, slugs, mozzies, bees, many of the insects and many of the trees and ferns ect ect. There are many creatures that were just bigger versions of what they are now and primarily stayed the same. So there are an awful lot of animals that didn't evolved much for a very long time.

 

[stevevw]

No, no, you are terribly in error. When you present an argument that relies heavily upon sources of evidence, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that those sources have integrity.

Mr Peczkis (Woodmorappe) has been exposed as being fraudulent and dishonest in his work. To use him as a source seriously weakens your argument. So it does very much "change the point". Until you furnish reliable sources of evidence, the "point" is that your argument is based in fraud and cannot be taken seriously.

You are to be pitied, however. As a clear supporter of the creationist cause, you have a limited choice of sources. And, unfortunately, a goodly portion of them have been shown to be scurrilous charlatans and liars. I sympathise.

Who said I was even a creationists. See this is that extreme view some take by claiming anyone who disagrees is a creationists or deluded. I wasn't even making a case for creation. I was merely showing some of the ways in which evolution can mistake things. It is common knowledge and it has happened on many occasions where some mistake variations of the one species and turn it into a new species. Some are called lumpers where they say that species can have a lot of variation within the one species so are not so quick to turn that into a new species all the time. Some are called splitters and they like to make new species out of the different features a species has. They claim that those differences are enough to say its a new species.

There has always been a lot of debate about it between evolutionists. The words themselves come from evolution. But what has been happening is like with the discoveries of the skulls at Georgia where several skulls were found with great variation between them of the one species. That variation covered some of the features that previous evolutionists had made into a new species from previous discoveries of skulls in Africa and around the world. So they were saying that the features those scientists used to make a new species were actually the normal range of variation within the one species. So they said that some scientists are to quick to make every little new difference a specie has in the fossil records as a new species. Thats all Woodmorappe was saying.

What you are doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I was pointing to what was said not who said it. What was said is verified by many others besides him. Thats what is important. I dont know the bloke and he may be a fraud. But what he says on this occasion is correct. You have to learn to look at the evidence and not the personalities. The same thing can happen in science. Some will take the word as true whatever most scientists say because they are a scientists. Yet studies have shown that nearly 50% of peer review research is suspect and many scientists produce either shoddy work or the wrong data in their research.

 

[stevevw]

No, they don't. No modern human, be they Chinese or Russian, cover the variation seen in H. erectus. None.

No modern human has ever been found 1.5 million year old sediments where H. erectus is found. No hominid fossil found in sediments from 5 million to 1 million years before present are modern humans.

[FONT=&quot]What you have to realize is that 10 going back in time humans may have looked different before all the mixed breeding which spreads features out. If you look at inter mixed races in some countries like Australia for example the Asian or other ethic strong features get blended in and they become a conglomerate of all those races. But back in time the features were not so mixed and stronger. 2) Some of the fossil finds maybe very strong featured humans like the natives are today. If you look at the aborigines, American Indians, Papua New Guineans or most natives they have stronger features that look similar to Neanderthals.

Have you noticed that many of the human fossils are found in caves or in remote areas where the more primitive people may have lived? I would be interested in finding out how many more modern looking fossils are found with digs as well. So the features these fossils have may just be within a natural variation of strong features like we see today from our natives through to modern looking humans that occupy cities.

[/FONT]

Of course we have similarities. We share a common ancestor. That's the whole point.

[FONT=&quot]Well a created creature can have variations as well and that’s the problem. Not every human creature was created a clone. They all have the capacity to have variation within their own genetic gene pool. That has nothing to do with evolution. That is because not every person is made exactly the same that’s all. Some have big noses, some have long faces, some are short and some are tall, some are dark and some are light, some have red hair and some have blond hair. That’s just the normal variation within a species.

[/FONT]

There is evidence for LIMITED cross breeding. How do you think they can determine the amount of cross breeding?

They tell through their DNA. But what they are saying by them possibly cross breeding is that Neanderthals were around the same time as modern humans for example. Other evidence says that erectus, Neanderthals, Homo habilis ect were from the same species. So in other words all this evidence may also be pointing to all those species being the one species. The Genetic evidence shows that each has large chunks of the same DNA and their features all come under variations within one species. Put both those pieces of evidence together and its more than likely all those different species are the one species with a great amount of variation like we see today.



So there’s no cross breeding between species to share genetics. The genetics was the same to begin with but it’s just been separated by the fact that humans spread out throughout the world and therefore the genes became different for each group while still sharing some sections of the same DNA. It’s just that evolutionists see it differently. They say that this is because we all evolved from the same ancestors. But it can also mean we all came from the same created humans. In fact evolution speaks about all humans being traced back to a very small group of humans and even one woman.

What research?

There are various bits of new discoveries that have come out in the last few years especially with the genetic evidnce. The skulls at Geaorgia is one such piece of evidence which is showing that all the species of apes such as homo erectus, Neanderthals, cro magnum man, homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis are the one species. Thats because between all the skulls found together at Dmanisi covered all the different features such as brain size, jaws, teeth and shapes of heads ect for all those species ever found around the world and classed as different species. So what this showed was that the variation within the one species can cover all the features that evolutionists had thought were new and different species.
Study suggests that differences seen between hominid fossils of humans living 1.8 million years ago represent normal variations within one specie.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/09e43c9e-40e4-11e3-ae19-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2un08O23s

Studies regarding human origins and migrations reveal the fact that all people are truly part of the same human family, separated only by time and distance. Genetic studies in particular show that peoples of different "nations" or "races" are fundamentally equal. However, as they are separated by time apart, distance or other geographical barriers, groups of people will naturally develop along different trajectories. Even though humans are basically similar, their individualized geographic realities, along with the law of natural variance, dictates the development of varied languages, cultures, religions, and even values to an extent.
Out of Africa Hypothesis & the Concept of Race

​

So it could be that all the more modern hominids and homo sapiens are just the one species with great variety throughout their history.

Then why can't we find modern humans in 2 million year old sediments?

Its not a case of finding modern humans like we are today. We are like we are today because of our interbreeding which has produced a different blend of humans. There are still some humans which have stronger features like the isolated ones such as natives. But going back in time there would have been more humans with prominent features so that is what we expect to find. But there have been some unusual finds of more modern fossils found in older layers.

When that gap is filled, you will pronounce that there are now two more gaps. We know how this game is played.

The very fact that you say there are gaps is proof of their transitional status. If they weren't transitional, then there wouldn't be gaps on either side of them.

I dont think its a case of gaps. If each animals was a distinct kind and didn't morph into another kind then we would see well defined and separate animals. Evolution uses a couple of features to show the transitions from one animals to another. But we know that a transition is more than a couple of features. A transition will be 1000s of gradual steps. So we should see many examples of small steps from one shape to another showing a gradual transformation. But what we see is mainly well defined animals with a few similar features to each other. There is no where near enough transitional features to show evolution. We should have 1000s of fossils of all the failed attempts of animals with evolution. We should have 1000s more transitionals for every animals in the fossil record than we do fro the complete animals we find.

[quoteHumans and chimps are varieties of apes. We are also separate species.[/quote] Thats what evolution believes. But humans are a separate species with variations and apes are a separate species with variations as well. Just like dogs are a seperate species with variations and cats are are separate species with variations.

We need more than your assertions.

Well the evidence is out there if you look. Its not my assertions. I back what I say with support from scientific sites.

The problem is that you never address the interpretations. You misrepresent the interpretations, and then attack your strawman.

How do you address the interpretations. They are interpretations. Interpretations by their nature are something that is subject to a lot of variables. Three different scientists will see things different and disagree. Its the same for anything. All I know is on many occasions the visual interpretations that were given in the past have been proven wrong on many occasions by either new discoveries and testing with new tech or the genetic evidence.

IOW, you don't use the fossil evidence. Thanks for playing.

Like I said the fossil record can be misinterpreted. Its looking back on old fragmented pieces of bones and trying to piece together what happened. This is subject to personal views and bias. What can be a normal variation in a species can be mistaken for a new species. Its happened many times before so why should we think its not going to happen again and again. On its won its to unreliable.

 

[lasthero]

If each animals was a distinct kind and didn't morph into another kind

What is a 'kind'?

 

[stevevw]

What is a 'kind'?

Oh no not the kind thing again. Does it matter when one type of animals is suppose to morph into another.I dont think evolutionists are clear on species. But lets say a cat is one kind and a dog is another. So maybe the genus level. What does it matter evolution are not consistent with what belongs to each group anyway. If you have 1000 species of bats who all look like bats then they are all bats. The criteria for species may not match the morphology that is used for showing how one different shaped creature morphs into another.

 

[lasthero]

Oh no not the kind thing again.

Why do so many creationists get ticked off when asked to define that word?

Does it matter when one type of animals is suppose to morph into another.

If you're going to use the term, it matters.

dont think evolutionists are clear on species.

Why do creationists like to point at species when asked to define 'kind'? Even if species was as ambigious as you make it out to be, that doesn't make 'kind' any LESS ambigious, now does it?

But lets say a cat is one kind and a dog is another.

Why?I mean WHY, exactly?

So maybe the genus level.

Interesting. How did you determine that?

What does it matter evolution are not consistent with what belongs to each group anyway.

Again, someone else being inconsistent doesn't take away from YOUR inconsistency. It's deflection. It's like a guy who tries to get out of a speeding ticket by pointing to all the other people speeding.

 

[stevevw]

Why do so many creationists get ticked off when asked to define that word?

I dont get ticked off. I just think its all semantics. You know what we mean and we know what you mean. So why not just agree to know what I was talking about. Because evolution isnt really clear on this themselves I dont think we should be getting stuck on certain words and meanings.

If you're going to use the term, it matters.

Not really because like I said evolution isn't clear on what the line is. All I am talking about is how one shape morphs into another. It doesn't matter what its called. Its the shapes that matter.

Why do creationists like to point at species when asked to define 'kind'? Even if species was as ambigious as you make it out to be, that doesn't make 'kind' any LESS ambigious, now does it?

Well I actually said genus. I find species too ambiguous. Even evolutionists cant be sure. Even so when they say as I mentioned before that all the many bats are different species I still see the bat shape. They say species for other reasons besides shape. If two bats drift apart and they cannot mate they are then different species. But they are still bats.They are still bats in their shape for the purpose of talking about the transformation of one shaped creature into another.

Why?I mean WHY, exactly?

For the purpose of one animals morphing into another a cat is one kind/type/species/genus and a dog is another. They present two different shapes. Well they are not completely different in shape but they there are some distinct differences we can see and there are some major changes that need to happen for a cat to turn into a dog.

Interesting. How did you determine that?

I just think that makes things a bit more clearer and distinct. The species level can be hard to determine and like I said before can have 100s if not 1000s of the exact same shaped creatures as species. Whereas the genus level will start to sort that out.

Again, someone else being inconsistent doesn't take away from YOUR inconsistency. It's deflection. It's like a guy who tries to get out of a speeding ticket by pointing to all the other people speeding.

I'm not trying to get out of anything. I am trying to make things clear for the sake of showing how one shape can turn into another. Afterall that is what is at the core of Darwinian evolution. That all creatures basically came from one shape and branched out morphing into every shape we see in the world. So shape shifting is a big part of evolution and showing the stages (transitions) for that are important.

 

[Oafman]

I dont get ticked off. I just think its all semantics. You know what we mean and we know what you mean. So why not just agree to know what I was talking about. Because evolution isnt really clear on this themselves I dont think we should be getting stuck on certain words and meanings.

Steve, it's not semantics, and I promise you, we do not 'know what you mean', which is why we always ask.

You can't hope to have a serious discussion about the millions of different species on Earth, by attempting to categorise them on the basis of "well, you know, these two look kind of similar, from a distance, don't they?"

It's just not good enough. For example, there are 10,000 species of grass, with hugely varied forms and features. But you just want to call them all 'grass' and be done with it.

This is why we always ask you to define 'kinds', because how can we have a discussion about something when we don't know what the terms we'll be using actually mean. It is incumbent upon creationists to define this term.

 

[Loudmouth]

I dont get ticked off. I just think its all semantics.

Then why use the argument if it is just semantics?

You know what we mean and we know what you mean.

We know exactly what you mean. You mean to never define kind so that you can wiggle out of any question or set of evidence. As you say above, it is nothing more than semantics. If you can call two species by the same name, then they are the same kind. Lions and tigers are separate species, but supposedly the same kind because you can call them cats. You pretend as if it stops at the Genus level, but then you proclaim that bacteria are still in the bacteria kind and bacteria make up a Kingdom, for crying out loud.

Because evolution isnt really clear on this themselves I dont think we should be getting stuck on certain words and meanings.

Clear on what?

I think we will all gladly agree that humans arbitrarily decide which species go in which genera. The problem is that you act like these are objective divisions when they are not. If scientists decided to put chimps and humans in the same genus, would you proclaim them to be the same kind?

"Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes."
Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says

Are apes a kind, even though all of the apes belong to different genera?

Well I actually said genus. I find species too ambiguous. Even evolutionists cant be sure.

We can be very sure about gene flow in modern species which is how we define living species in sexual organisms. The genus level and all levels above it are the ones that are ambiguous. They are primarily the product of extinction which causes a gap in morphology between different groups of species.

Even so when they say as I mentioned before that all the many bats are different species I still see the bat shape.

Bats are a taxonomic Order. So much for using genus as you claimed before. When I search for the word "genus" at the link below, I get over 100 hits:

List of bats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are over 1,000 bat species in over 100 genera, and here you are trying to call that a "kind". Also of interest, I can almost guarantee that I can find two bat species that share less DNA than chimps and humans do. In fact, there is more genetic distance between chimps and the other apes than there is between chimps and humans.

For the purpose of one animals morphing into another a cat is one kind/type/species/genus and a dog is another. They present two different shapes.

What is stopping scientists from putting lions in one genus and tigers in another genus? Why pretend that kind is found at the genus level when you have bats as a kind?

I'm not trying to get out of anything. I am trying to make things clear for the sake of showing how one shape can turn into another. Afterall that is what is at the core of Darwinian evolution. That all creatures basically came from one shape and branched out morphing into every shape we see in the world. So shape shifting is a big part of evolution and showing the stages (transitions) for that are important.

You are trying to cloud the issue at every turn. You STILL can't list the features that a hominid transitional should have.

 

[lasthero]

I dont get ticked off. I just think its all semantics. You know what we mean and we know what you mean. So why not just agree to know what I was talking about. Because evolution isnt really clear on this themselves I dont think we should be getting stuck on certain words and meanings.

Yes, we should. How can you have an honest debate when you can't even come up with the definition of the terms that are being used? Since when is clarity a bad thing?

And, like Oafman, pointed out, no - I have no idea what creationists mean by 'kind'. If you ask two different creationists what it means, you'll likely get too different answers, and they'll be incompatible. I've had creationists tell me that all birds consist of two kinds, that all spiders are one kind, that dogs are one kind, that all lizards are one kind, even that all BACTERIA are one kind. There is no consistency whatsoever.

Not really because like I said evolution isn't clear on what the line is. All I am talking about is how one shape morphs into another. It doesn't matter what its called. Its the shapes that matter.

All ants are the same shape, but there are multiple genus of ants over thousands of species. See? Already, your definition of kinds falls apart.

Well I actually said genus. I find species too ambiguous.

Okay. So what's the criteria for genus?

Even evolutionists cant be sure. Even so when they say as I mentioned before that all the many bats are different species I still see the bat shape. They say species for other reasons besides shape. If two bats drift apart and they cannot mate they are then different species. But they are still bats.They are still bats in their shape for the purpose of talking about the transformation of one shaped creature into another.

A sugar glider and a squirrel are the 'same shape', but their DNA is widely different. A hyena is shaped like a dog, but it's DNA is more closely related to cats. Again, your definition falls flat.

I just think that makes things a bit more clearer and distinct.

It doesn't. It really doesn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you have to realize is that 10 going back in time humans may have looked different before all the mixed breeding which spreads features out.

That is exactly what we are saying, that our ancestors looked different in the past. In fact, if you go back to our common ancestor with chimps our ancestor looked very much like a basal ape.

Our ancestors looked different because they were transitioning between us and our common ancestor with other apes.

If you look at inter mixed races in some countries like Australia for example the Asian or other ethic strong features get blended in and they become a conglomerate of all those races. But back in time the features were not so mixed and stronger. 2) Some of the fossil finds maybe very strong featured humans like the natives are today. If you look at the aborigines, American Indians, Papua New Guineans or most natives they have stronger features that look similar to Neanderthals.

None of those would be considered H. erectus.

Well a created creature can have variations as well and that’s the problem.

They just happen to have the variations that we would expect from evolutionary transitions? How convenient.

That's like saying we should ignore forensic evidence because God could plant fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes.

They tell through their DNA. But what they are saying by them possibly cross breeding is that Neanderthals were around the same time as modern humans for example. Other evidence says that erectus, Neanderthals, Homo habilis ect were from the same species.

1. How do they tell which pieces of our genome came from Neanderthals?

2. Sharing a common ancestor with a transitional does not stop it from being transitional. Again, transitional does not necessarily indicate direct ancestry. It indicates the preservation of transitional features that would have been found in the direct ancestral line. The theory of evolution predicts which combination of features we should see. Finding those mixtures of combinations in fossils is what evidences the theory.

The Genetic evidence shows that each has large chunks of the same DNA and their features all come under variations within one species.

No, it doesn't. The only way that you can detect cross breeding is if they are separate species. If they were one species, then it wouldn't be called cross breeding.

So there’s no cross breeding between species to share genetics.

Yes, there is. Neanderthal DNA was different from their contemporaneous anatomically modern human counterparts because they were separate species. Speciation is how you get the differences between the populations to begin with.

There are various bits of new discoveries that have come out in the last few years especially with the genetic evidnce. The skulls at Geaorgia is one such piece of evidence which is showing that all the species of apes such as homo erectus, Neanderthals, cro magnum man, homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis are the one species. Thats because between all the skulls found together at Dmanisi covered all the different features such as brain size, jaws, teeth and shapes of heads ect for all those species ever found around the world and classed as different species. So what this showed was that the variation within the one species can cover all the features that evolutionists had thought were new and different species.
Study suggests that differences seen between hominid fossils of humans living 1.8 million years ago represent normal variations within one specie.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/09e43c9e-40e4-11e3-ae19-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2un08O23s

Studies regarding human origins and migrations reveal the fact that all people are truly part of the same human family, separated only by time and distance. Genetic studies in particular show that peoples of different "nations" or "races" are fundamentally equal. However, as they are separated by time apart, distance or other geographical barriers, groups of people will naturally develop along different trajectories. Even though humans are basically similar, their individualized geographic realities, along with the law of natural variance, dictates the development of varied languages, cultures, religions, and even values to an extent.
Out of Africa Hypothesis & the Concept of Race

​

Its not a case of finding modern humans like we are today. We are like we are today because of our interbreeding which has produced a different blend of humans. There are still some humans which have stronger features like the isolated ones such as natives. But going back in time there would have been more humans with prominent features so that is what we expect to find. But there have been some unusual finds of more modern fossils found in older layers.




I dont think its a case of gaps. If each animals was a distinct kind and didn't morph into another kind then we would see well defined and separate animals. Evolution uses a couple of features to show the transitions from one animals to another. But we know that a transition is more than a couple of features. A transition will be 1000s of gradual steps. So we should see many examples of small steps from one shape to another showing a gradual transformation. But what we see is mainly well defined animals with a few similar features to each other. There is no where near enough transitional features to show evolution. We should have 1000s of fossils of all the failed attempts of animals with evolution. We should have 1000s more transitionals for every animals in the fossil record than we do fro the complete animals we find.

[quoteHumans and chimps are varieties of apes. We are also separate species. Thats what evolution believes. But humans are a separate species with variations and apes are a separate species with variations as well. Just like dogs are a seperate species with variations and cats are are separate species with variations.

Well the evidence is out there if you look. Its not my assertions. I back what I say with support from scientific sites.


How do you address the interpretations. They are interpretations. Interpretations by their nature are something that is subject to a lot of variables. Three different scientists will see things different and disagree. Its the same for anything. All I know is on many occasions the visual interpretations that were given in the past have been proven wrong on many occasions by either new discoveries and testing with new tech or the genetic evidence.

Like I said the fossil record can be misinterpreted. Its looking back on old fragmented pieces of bones and trying to piece together what happened. This is subject to personal views and bias. What can be a normal variation in a species can be mistaken for a new species. Its happened many times before so why should we think its not going to happen again and again. On its won its to unreliable.

All of these are studies you clearly don't understand. You once again try to push the fallacy that three fossils can not be transitional if they belong to the same species. That is nonsense.

 

[Split Rock]

Oh no not the kind thing again. Does it matter when one type of animals is suppose to morph into another.I dont think evolutionists are clear on species. But lets say a cat is one kind and a dog is another. So maybe the genus level. What does it matter evolution are not consistent with what belongs to each group anyway. If you have 1000 species of bats who all look like bats then they are all bats. The criteria for species may not match the morphology that is used for showing how one different shaped creature morphs into another.

So, if we have 12,000 species of mammals who all look like mammals, then they are all the mammal kind?

 

[stevevw]

So, if we have 12,000 species of mammals who all look like mammals, then they are all the mammal kind?

Not really because the example I was using was for the species of bats. So there are 1000 bat species that all look like bats but for the purpose of evolution they are different species even though they look the same. We are talking about the morphing of one shaped animal into another when talking about transitions and whether the features of that animals are signs of those transitions or just natural features they have within the same species. So thats where this ambiguity comes in with species that look the same yet are used to show how evolution works. So are the similar looking creatures with similar features just variations within that shaped animals or is it a sign of evolution and them morphing into a new shaped animals.

I say its hard to tell just like the species level is always up for debate. You may have to go to a higher level of order to get a clearer picture of distinct animals. The question is how far can natural variation within the same animals go and where the line is for what evolution cites as evidence for transitions between two completely different shaped animals. This has been the area that has been disputed even between evolutionists when it comes down to the features of animals and what it represents. Especially when only using observations methods. Here they can cite one or two features to say this is evidence of a transition. But those features may just be the natural variation of that creature that can extend towards similarities of another creature. After all if all creatures are made from the same blue prints then they are going to have some similarities across the board. But evolution will say that is evidence for common decent.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really because the example I was using was for the species of bats. So there are 1000 bat species that all look like bats but for the purpose of evolution they are different species even though they look the same.

Why can't we apply the same thing to mammals, or primates?

We are talking about the morphing of one shaped animal into another when talking about transitions and whether the features of that animals are signs of those transitions or just natural features they have within the same species.

How do you decide when a transition has produced a new species?

So thats where this ambiguity comes in with species that look the same yet are used to show how evolution works. So are the similar looking creatures with similar features just variations within that shaped animals or is it a sign of evolution and them morphing into a new shaped animals.

Variations of modern humans do not overlap the variation seen in H. erectus.

The question is how far can natural variation within the same animals go and where the line is for what evolution cites as evidence for transitions between two completely different shaped animals.

Humans and chimps are not completely different shaped animals. Does that mean they are the same species?

All you seemed to have done is trade one undefined term for another. "Completely different shaped animals" is the new created kind.

 

[stevevw]

Why can't we apply the same thing to mammals, or primates?

You can, but you dont get what I am saying. Evolution say that even though the bats look the same they are still different species. They say that they are different species so that it can help support the view of evolution. The more species they can have the more they can fill the gaps and create intermediates.

But what I am saying is that the bats all look the same. They are still all bats. They may have some varying features such as bigger wings or different shaped wings ect but they are all still bats. They may not all be able to mate successfully as they drift away from each other but they are still all bats.

So you can say the same for primates and other animals. But primates are still primates and humans are still humans and flies are still flies. They may have some different features like flies having extra bristles or legs coming out of their backs but they are still all flies as experiments have shown.

How do you decide when a transition has produced a new species?

Evolutionists say its when the two animals cant mate anymore. But when we are talking about the core of evolution which is animals morphing into other animals of different shape then the ability to not be able to mate anymore isn't necessarily a requirement for that. Thats because it doesn't happen. Animals can change and take on new features but that happens from their existing genetic pool. Beneficial mutations are rare and there is debate about them being the driving force for evolution.

Animals may have much more ability within their existing genomes to make great changes that may even change their shape a fair amount. They may also get new genetic material from HGT and cross breeding. There is evidence for both especially in the past. But as each animals drifts apart they will become isolated and then they are fixed in their makeup. Besides if anything mutations are more deleterious and do harm. So they come at a cost to the animals genome. They would need millions of beneficial mutations to evolve all the different animals we have and have ever walked this planet. For basically a harmful thing to have produces such great complex and varying animals is impossible even if there was unlimited time.

Variations of modern humans do not overlap the variation seen in H. erectus.

There are many similarities. Some of the homo species are said to have even more ability than we have. Neanderthals had bigger brains. They have underestimated the abilities of these humans. But they were just more robust and because they had no accumulated knowledge they lived very basic as they discovered more. They had different features because of the times they lived in. Different lifestyles and less cross breeding. They lived longer and became more robust.

Now humans are more blended and we are seeing this with the types of humans we have today which are mixtures of many races and genes. Back then they had more of their original genes so they had stronger features. There would have been different groups who became isolated and developed their particular features. Those features have gradually been taken out. They are just an more original human that has faded out through time by being mixed into the pot of humans.

Humans and chimps are not completely different shaped animals. Does that mean they are the same species?

Evolution uses similarities between two creatures to show links that they came from each other. But all creatures were made from a similar blueprint. So we would expect some creatures to show greater or lesser features. But the way evolution uses these links doesn't pan out for what evolution predicts. There are many differences and there are links between unrelated creatures. But evolution will cite the few similar ones and ignore the differences. There are many gaps and we dont see a blending of creatures. We see distinct and well defined creatures each with their own design.

All you seemed to have done is trade one undefined term for another. "Completely different shaped animals" is the new created kind.

I have to use that language because it makes it simpler to get the point across. Evolution looks at things a certain way so that it fits in with what the theory is. But when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture you begin to see that it doesn't fit what they say. It can also fit creation. It can also fit a few different models which have been proposed. There isn't enough evidence for evolution.

This is what is being found more and more as we map the genome of animals and find the great complexity. Animals are being separated more by their genetics because they are finding more function that goes with each animal. The observational evidence used in the past is being shown wrong is many cases. Darwin's tree of life is being turned into a hedge or orchard instead. It may not be a single common ancestor but many lines of creatures that branched out to make the animals kingdom. I think I have cited support for this before with you so I will only do this if you insist on me finding them again.

 

[bhsmte]

What happened to the OP?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution say that even though the bats look the same they are still different species.

It says the same of mammals and primates.

They say that they are different species so that it can help support the view of evolution.

Linnaeus said that they were separate species, and he was a creationist who did his work before Darwin was even born. They are different species because they are separate populations with little or not genetic flow between the populations. This is true whether or not evolution is true.

The more species they can have the more they can fill the gaps and create intermediates.

They are intermediate no matter what name you give them. Again, you are focusing on semantics. What we name them has nothing to do with whether they are transitional.

But what I am saying is that the bats all look the same. They are still all bats.

You can say it all you want, it still isn't true. We can find differences between bat species, and we can demonstrate a lack of gene flow between the populations.

We are also saying that all primates, all mammals, and all vertebrates share features.

They may have some varying features such as bigger wings or different shaped wings ect but they are all still bats. They may not all be able to mate successfully as they drift away from each other but they are still all bats.

The same is true of primates, mammals, and vertebrates.

So you can say the same for primates and other animals. But primates are still primates and humans are still humans and flies are still flies. They may have some different features like flies having extra bristles or legs coming out of their backs but they are still all flies as experiments have shown.

If evolution is true, they should still be flies since that is what evolution does.

Evolutionists say its when the two animals cant mate anymore.

That is only true of living populations. You can't do that for individuals that live millions of years apart.

So at what point did an ancient wolf become a collie? That line will necessarily be arbitrary. So too will the line between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Can you pick the microsecond during your lifetime when you went from being shorter to being taller? Can you do the same for every person on the planet? If you can't, does this disprove the idea that you grew over time?

But when we are talking about the core of evolution which is animals morphing into other animals of different shape then the ability to not be able to mate anymore isn't necessarily a requirement for that. Thats because it doesn't happen. Animals can change and take on new features but that happens from their existing genetic pool. Beneficial mutations are rare and there is debate about them being the driving force for evolution.

You need to back up these assertions with evidence.

Animals may have much more ability within their existing genomes to make great changes that may even change their shape a fair amount. They may also get new genetic material from HGT and cross breeding. There is evidence for both especially in the past. But as each animals drifts apart they will become isolated and then they are fixed in their makeup. Besides if anything mutations are more deleterious and do harm. So they come at a cost to the animals genome. They would need millions of beneficial mutations to evolve all the different animals we have and have ever walked this planet. For basically a harmful thing to have produces such great complex and varying animals is impossible even if there was unlimited time.

Again, you need evidence, not just made up assertions.

There are many similarities. Some of the homo species are said to have even more ability than we have. Neanderthals had bigger brains. They have underestimated the abilities of these humans. But they were just more robust and because they had no accumulated knowledge they lived very basic as they discovered more. They had different features because of the times they lived in. Different lifestyles and less cross breeding. They lived longer and became more robust.

Evidence?

Now humans are more blended and we are seeing this with the types of humans we have today which are mixtures of many races and genes. Back then they had more of their original genes so they had stronger features. There would have been different groups who became isolated and developed their particular features. Those features have gradually been taken out. They are just an more original human that has faded out through time by being mixed into the pot of humans.

Evidence?

Evolution uses similarities between two creatures to show links that they came from each other. But all creatures were made from a similar blueprint. So we would expect some creatures to show greater or lesser features. But the way evolution uses these links doesn't pan out for what evolution predicts. There are many differences and there are links between unrelated creatures. But evolution will cite the few similar ones and ignore the differences. There are many gaps and we dont see a blending of creatures. We see distinct and well defined creatures each with their own design.

Then why don't we see any bird to mammal intermediates? Why do we only see the intermediates that evolution predicts that we should see?

I have to use that language because it makes it simpler to get the point across. Evolution looks at things a certain way so that it fits in with what the theory is. But when you take a step back and look at the bigger picture you begin to see that it doesn't fit what they say. It can also fit creation. It can also fit a few different models which have been proposed. There isn't enough evidence for evolution.

Why would creation produce a nested hierarchy?

This is what is being found more and more as we map the genome of animals and find the great complexity. Animals are being separated more by their genetics because they are finding more function that goes with each animal. The observational evidence used in the past is being shown wrong is many cases. Darwin's tree of life is being turned into a hedge or orchard instead. It may not be a single common ancestor but many lines of creatures that branched out to make the animals kingdom. I think I have cited support for this before with you so I will only do this if you insist on me finding them again.

Why do genomes fall into a nested hierarchy?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And, like Oafman, pointed out, no - I have no idea what creationists mean by 'kind'. If you ask two different creationists what it means, you'll likely get too different answers, and they'll be incompatible.

And this differs from your definition of species, exactly how?

Care to explain why Tigers and Lions are different species, when the interbreed and produce fertile offspring?

Of course, back then they believed no fertile offspring could be produced beacuse after years of mating in captivity no fertile offspring had been seen. Now we know better. Oh, but then you might classify them by niche instead, or by looks.

Even if the theory itself requires only one original species, and everything else being merely infra-specific taxa. But then you'd have to junk your entire classification system if you went by what you claim happened.

Kind after Kind, you have never observed anything else. Even after billions of generations and billions of mutations, E coli are still to this day E coli. And after billions more mutations and generations, they will still be E coli.

Your entire classification system is useless, since you do not even follow your own criteria. Every evolutionist will give you a different answer.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The species problem is a mixture of difficult related questions that often come up when biologists define the word "species". Definitions are usually based on how individual organisms reproduce, but biological reality means that a definition that works well for some organisms (e.g., birds) will be useless for others (e.g., bacteria)....

...I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties - Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species p. 48."

So why are you asking from creationist's, the same exact problem evolutionist's have???? Fix your own same problem before you complain about another. Biggest strawman I ever heard, complaining about something evolutionist's argue about amongst themselves to this very day.

 

[FredVB]

So far there aren't fossils found that I see that would be so compelling in displaying certain transition between kinds to draw me back to thinking it would only be from evolution by descent. We who don't see atheistic evolution as an explanation don't have to come up with which fossils belong in a sequence, but we can view your arrangement and consider it with critical examination. When kinds of fossils are not so close to show direct descent, there should be some cases of showing all the transition in a smooth sequence, or else if there is no case of it known from fossils the evolution is assumed. Sure, you are free to do that. But requiring it of others? The nested hierarchy is from perspective with assumptions. Why should this coming from design that the Creator would work with be denied? I can ask, because I could always see how it worked that way. I saw it if you must use the word as an evolution of design, seeing it is without evolutionary descent needed. It is not work that is too great for the All-powerful one.

What features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have? We are discussing transitional fossils, not direct ancestors. Also, you have not shown us what fossils would need in order to be in that smooth transition. I don't have to assume that cars have a common ancestor in order to determine if they fall into an objective nested hierarchy? All you are doing is organizing things into groups based on similarities and differences.

What features... The problem is with any case between kinds where evolution by descent is assumed. Features needed are whatever fits in a smooth sequence depending on the kinds where it is assumed, and a sequence to show it is needed for it to be more than assumed. It does not remove the difficulty with saying there is not descent from a kind shown by any fossil but the fossils there are represent a related kind that would be similar to that from which there is descent. So descent from ancestry is relevant to that evolution, with the sequence needing to be seen, to not just be assumed.

How any of us who are humanity would design things does not tell us everything about how God designs things. We don't even have the capacity to design things as well. But working in the same way among different kinds with some similarities according to groups makes some sense. If you want analogies with creations from humanity, think of writing works of fiction. Can you think of writing a totally new genre that fits with no other genre, and works, that is, people at large would buy it? You may say creation that way is mimicking evolution, but the perspective that has evolution by descent is a theory that came afterward, with using a common design that works well already a good way of creating different kinds. Evolution was a way for some of you to see how you could explain it, but it does not show at all that it was determined to be the only explanation.

About kinds, I can't say they mean genera or families, such categories are not consistently defined and for many groups the category levels change. Tell me this, were Neanderthal people another species from us, or not? With either answer I will find many that disagree with you. But I will say they are human, the same kind with us, whatever category of difference they are given.