Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Although it is risky to attempt to classify creatures based on so little information as is supplied by no more than two photos, I think even a layman would be able to tell that the two creatures depicted were not the same species, without asking.
A straight answer, but not one that you will like. Speciation takes place gradually over many generations, as one sub-population of the species is exposed to different environmental selection criteria. For a long time the two groups may remain very similar and remain partially interfertile as well. The boundary between related species is a fuzzy one, which is why species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial. There is no hard line at which we can say, "Aha, a new species has now been formed." So no one individual in the transition series represents "the" transitional form.OK, if I understand you correctly, when I ask if someone can provide evidence of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind", they know very well what I am adking so are just using, "what is your defintion of kind" as a deflection. Therefore, from what you have given, from now on I will ask, can you provide an unaltered image of one species evolving into a different species and that should get a straight answer, correct?
If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?
Then they should be a little more detailed in their explanation.
That's because, back then, it was called "adaption."You see, a few decades ago you wouldn't even get Creationists to accept "micro-evolution", let alone "Macroevolution".
OK, thanks, therefore, it seems to me that asking that would result in most everything being of the same "kind". Is that not very convenient for those who promote evolution as there is no need to explain how any one entity evolved into a totally different entity because they are all the same?
"Chordata is a familiar phylum that includes organisms like mammals, fish, birds,reptiles, and amphibians (all vertebrates); sea squirts (tunicates); and lancelets (cephalochordates). All chordates have a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, and pharyngeal slits at some point in their development.Jan 20, 2016"
What about using "Species" or "Genus", when would they be used and can you provide an example?
With the chicken and horse example, would it be appropriate to ask if they were of the same "species"?
Kind = genus.Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind".
Kind = genus.
Now they can.
A straight answer, but not one that you will like. Speciation takes place gradually over many generations, as one sub-population of the species is exposed to different environmental selection criteria. For a long time the two groups may remain very similar and remain partially interfertile as well. The boundary between related species is a fuzzy one, which is why species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial. There is no hard line at which we can say, "Aha, a new species has now been formed." So no one individual in the transition series represents "the" transitional form.
Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind".
Kind = genus.
Why? They already have one.Now go convince your fellow creationists, since they often have other ideas...
That's because, back then, it was called "adaption."
Speciation has been observed in real time. It happens.Got it, no such thing exists, it is all speculation, thanks. Bottom line, adaptation, which most everyone agrees with but no evolving from one species to a different species, I can agree with that. That is where billllions of years come into play, no way to logically test the "theories".
Why? They already have one.
You guys don't; and you're getting left behind.
None are "totally different" as they all have characteristics in common.
That sounds convincing, but actually it isn't.Speciation has been observed in real time. It happens.
Hard to say. I'm not sure what you mean by "adaptation" and how you distinguish it from "evolution."OK, so if a chicken has anything in common with a horse then it should be classified as being the same, not different. I think I understand now. Then do we even need evolution, even need to discuss it since everything is basically the same so would adaptation not do a better job of explaining life?
Why? They already have one.
You guys don't; and you're getting left behind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?