proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

I did support it. You just don't like it.

If this is what you consider "supporting" a concept, the I've got some news for you...

And I don't contradict the creationists of today. I happen to agree with them. It's pretty obvious you really don't get what they or I are saying because you just don't want to.

This what you said:

" A kind is something than can breed together and create offspring who can intern breed and create more offspring. That ought to be a start."

Which really reads not that much different than Ernst Mayer's biological species concept:

"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

So congratulations, you've defined species.

The support is all around you in nature.

Bzzzt! Nope.

You don't get to pull the "just look around" you card when you're trying to provide a proper definition for something in biology. You need to provide a rigorous definition and then allow for how said definition would tested.

So far all you've done is provide a definition that seems akin to the way biological species. And yet most creationists accept that speciation occurs in nature (i.e. new species can form). So by definition, new kinds can form as well. If you're going to claim they can't, then you need to provide details as to why they cannot and build that into your definition.

Why not? Cause kinds have always existed unique and separate from each other. They can't interbreed and create offspring. That is in line with all creationists. Show me where it's not.

Bzzzt! Nope.

You don't get to spin this around. You're making a claim, you need to support it. If you're claiming there is an invisible "kind" barrier in nature, you need to describe what that barrier is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think if one is going to debate this stuff, it's important to understand both sides. Which is why I find it surprising that so many creationists appear so unfamiliar with creationism.



Biology is a big, messy, complicated subject. And if you're going to make claims related to biology and in particular suggest things that blatantly contradict what is known, then yes I expect you to be able to support it.

Instead, you're just making a bunch of whiny excuses. Well too bad. If you make a claim, it's your job to support it.

Talk about whiny excuses. It’s complicated, it’s arbitrary, I’ll ignore I can’t provide one common ancestor.....

It has been supported, but you keep ignoring dogs, and every animal on this planet and how variation occurs. Then use that whiny excuse of arbitrary classifications to claim it’s fact that one species becomes another species. Not even seeing your own contradiction. If it is so arbitrary, then it can’t be claimed as fact at all.

 

[pitabread]

Lol! It's funny how you love to ignore what I've said. It's a nice tactic, but doesn't fly.
Claiming a contradiction is just laughable. Stick with that though if you want to. It just doesn't make it true. Please quote one contradiction.

I already pointed it out back in post #4120.

Or do you just not understand where the contradiction lies?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If this is what you consider "supporting" a concept, the I've got some news for you...



This what you said:

" A kind is something than can breed together and create offspring who can intern breed and create more offspring. That ought to be a start."

Which really reads not that much different than Ernst Mayer's biological species concept:

"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

So congratulations, you've defined species.

And then refuse to accept your own definition when Darwin classified finches in the belief they were reproductively isolated. 200 years later we find they have been extensively interbreeding all this time, yet you now refuse to correct his mistake in classifications.

So congratulations, you just showed you could care less about the definition of species.

Bzzzt! Nope.

You don't get to pull the "just look around" you card when you're trying to provide a proper definition for something in biology. You need to provide a rigorous definition and then allow for how said definition would tested.

What rigorous definition of species are we going to use, interbreeding and producing fertile offspring? Well there goes that idea since it has been tested and those finches are doing it right in front of your eyes.

So far all you've done is provide a definition that seems akin to the way biological species. And yet most creationists accept that speciation occurs in nature (i.e. new species can form). So by definition, new kinds can form as well. If you're going to claim they can't, then you need to provide details as to why they cannot and build that into your definition.

No, new variations or sub-kinds can form. We have over 100 breeds of dogs recognized even by evolutionary biologists as the same species. That you can’t be consistent in classifying species shows the problem lies with you, not us.

Speciation does not occurr, until you ignore the definition of species and subspecies.

You don't get to spin this around. You're making a claim, you need to support it. If you're claiming there is an invisible "kind" barrier in nature, you need to describe what that barrier is.

It’s been described, that’s why you can’t produce one single solitary ancestor where these splits are supposed to have happened.

If you are claiming there is not a barrier, then you need to produce evidence of these common ancestors where the split occurred that bypassed this barrier...

My supporting evidence is the fact all kinds end on these missing common ancestors that are one and all missing. And that what you claim went before is it’s own kind, which again end on this missing common ancestor which is used to bridge the gap. I would by it if a few were missing, but a few are not missing, each and every one of them are. Every single one where the claimed split took place is non existent.

Oh, and let’s not forget dogs, which falsify claims of speciation. Or Asians and Africans, or is talking of the human animal versus all other animals racist? Or incorrect classifications?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I already pointed it out back in post #4120.

Or do you just not understand where the contradiction lies?

Yes I understand where it lies.

“That latter claim implicitly implies that you believe that the evidence used to support evolution is inherently valid, even if you think it somehow supports your fantasy conclusion of "common design".”

That’s not what he said at all.

“All the evolutionary so called evidence is nothing more that supposition and assumption. You cannot reproduce it, test it or observe it. It's all nothing more that wild guesswork simply because they believe in evolution from a common ancestor. Therefore everything they find is more evidence despite the fact they can't really observe, test or reproduce it.”

The contradiction lies in your misinterpretation of his words. He said despite the fact you can’t observe it, test it, or reproduce it, they consider everything evidence for evolution, even if he also explicitly told you.

”All the evolutionary so called evidence is nothing more that supposition and assumption.”

You take his words out of context and then claim the contradiction lies with him. When in reality because you took it out of context, the contradiction lies with you. I had no problem understanding that he means you consider everything as evidence, even if it can’t be observed, tested or reproduced. In other words mere supposition and assumption.

It is the fact you assume there is a common ancestor that colors your interpretation of the evidence. That the evidence he accepts points to common design, in no way supports the belief of a common ancestor.

I look at stars forming on filamentary pathways of less mass than theory predicts and not collapsing from a cloud and see falsification of the standard model of Star formation. What do you see? Confirmation of standard Star formation theories?

https://phys.org/news/2009-10-herschel-views-deep-space-pearls-cosmic.html

 

[rjs330]

If this is what you consider "supporting" a concept, the I've got some news for you...



This what you said:

" A kind is something than can breed together and create offspring who can intern breed and create more offspring. That ought to be a start."

Which really reads not that much different than Ernst Mayer's biological species concept:

"species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

So congratulations, you've defined species.



Bzzzt! Nope.

You don't get to pull the "just look around" you card when you're trying to provide a proper definition for something in biology. You need to provide a rigorous definition and then allow for how said definition would tested.

So far all you've done is provide a definition that seems akin to the way biological species. And yet most creationists accept that speciation occurs in nature (i.e. new species can form). So by definition, new kinds can form as well. If you're going to claim they can't, then you need to provide details as to why they cannot and build that into your definition.



Bzzzt! Nope.

You don't get to spin this around. You're making a claim, you need to support it. If you're claiming there is an invisible "kind" barrier in nature, you need to describe what that barrier is.

Let's start with species shall we. A species is defined as you say. That is a kind. A kind is something that reproduces the same kind. Reproduction is the key to kind. If it can't mate and produce offspring that will produce offspring they are not of the same kind. Now if you want to use some more scientific terms kind could also fall under a broader term such as genus or family. Why because we know that creatures can adapt and to their environment.

You can have great variety in kinds. Just like you can have a great variety within species. And you know just as well as I that species has been a very fluid definition itself.

Take a look at this quote from evolution.berkley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist-after all, the idea of a species is something we humans invented for our own convienence!"

The broader picture here is no matter how much or how many times I've asked none of you can produce a common ancestor in any evolutionary split. Where the creature started evolving from a common ancestor.

You have nothing. All you can offer is that all things have a common design. Because that is obvious and can be tested. Evolution from a common ancestor cannot.

 

[Speedwell]

Let's start with species shall we. A species is defined as you say. That is a kind. A kind is something that reproduces the same kind. Reproduction is the key to kind. If it can't mate and produce offspring that will produce offspring they are not of the same kind. Now if you want to use some more scientific terms kind could also fall under a broader term such as genus or family. Why because we know that creatures can adapt and to their environment.

So let's go back to the lizards. Suppose a species of lizard evolved fur, long ears and a fuzzy tail and spent its time hopping around in meadows. How would you classify it? As Squamata or Lagomorph?

 

[Speedwell]

All you can offer is that all things have a common design. Because that is obvious and can be tested. Evolution from a common ancestor cannot.

Wrong. All things have similarities and that can be tested. Whether the similarities evidence design or not is a separate question.

 

[pitabread]

Let's start with species shall we. A species is defined as you say. That is a kind. A kind is something that reproduces the same kind. Reproduction is the key to kind. If it can't mate and produce offspring that will produce offspring they are not of the same kind. Now if you want to use some more scientific terms kind could also fall under a broader term such as genus or family. Why because we know that creatures can adapt and to their environment.

So which is it? It is species, genus or family? These are very different levels of taxanomic classification, so you'll need to be more specific.

On top of that, defining "kinds" based on whether or not they can sexually reproduce doesn't deal with the large part biological life that doesn't reproduce sexually. How does one define "kind" for asexually reproducing organisms?

And you know just as well as I that species has been a very fluid definition itself.

Like I said earlier in this thread, the concept of "species" is an artificial form of classification created by people for ease of categorizing and identifying biological forms. That all it is. Species don't come out of the womb with Panthera tigris corbetti or Canis lupus familiaris stamped on their underbelly.

On top of that species classification is somewhat based around gene flow, which can be complicated since gene flow in the natural biological world is not absolute. As mentioned, you can have a species concept based on sexually reproducing organisms, but then that doesn't help when dealing with asexual organisms. And even within sexually reproducing groups of organisms you can wind up with fuzzy boundaries due to hybridization, ring species, etc.

The broader picture here is no matter how much or how many times I've asked none of you can produce a common ancestor in any evolutionary split. Where the creature started evolving from a common ancestor.

If you're asking for the exact specific organism that was a common ancestor to a branch of life that had evolved over millions of years, you're not going to get it and it's silly to expect otherwise.

By the same token, if I asked you who your specific ancestors were from, oh, a couple thousand years ago would you be able to tell me? Yet I'm sure you would have no trouble accepting that such ancestors were real people that existed at that time.

You have nothing. All you can offer is that all things have a common design. Because that is obvious and can be tested.

And yet every time I ask creationists to produce this mythical "common design" model, all I get is evasion and excuses.

Last time I pushed you on this, this was your response:

"Look I'm not looking to write a doctoral thesis which is seeming what you want me to do. I'm merely pointing out the obvious. If you want more you'll have to look elsewhere. "​

And on top of that, when I provide examples of real-world applied biological evolution and ask for how "common design" would be used in its stead, it's either ignored or I get hand-waving dismissals.

So I don't know who you think you are kidding, but the support from the "common design" crowd has been abysmal here.

 

[rjs330]

I already pointed it out back in post #4120.

Or do you just not understand where the contradiction lies?

If that is your argument for contradiction then I guess we are in the same boat. You contradict as well.

 

[pitabread]

If that is your argument for contradiction then I guess we are in the same boat. You contradict as well.

Examples?

 

[rjs330]

So let's go back to the lizards. Suppose a species of lizard evolved fur, long ears and a fuzzy tail and spent its time hopping around in meadows. How would you classify it? As Squamata or Lagomorph?

How about neither since that hasn't happened and we are in the realm of make believe.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong. All things have similarities and that can be tested. Whether the similarities evidence design or not is a separate question.

I didn't say the similarities can't be tested. Shoot all you have to do is look at monkeys and humans to see similarities. You don't even have to test for that. What you can't test is that all things from a common ancestor. You can't even test that a common ancestor evolved into anything. You can't test what it evolved into. In fact all observation these days shows is that creatures always remain the same type of order as they have always been. Dogs and wolves belong in the same order and all cats belong in the same order. There is no evidence that they ever diverged from that or ever will.

But just because somethings have similarities doesn't mean that all things great and small have a common ancestor and evolved from it.

 

[Speedwell]

How about neither since that hasn't happened and we are in the realm of make believe.

Just trying to find out what you mean by some of your vague terms.

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't say the similarities can't be tested. Shoot all you have to do is look at monkeys and humans to see similarities. You don't even have to test for that. What you can't test is that all things from a common ancestor. You can't even test that a common ancestor evolved into anything. You can't test what it evolved into. In fact all observation these days shows is that creatures always remain the same type of order as they have always been. Dogs and wolves belong in the same order and all cats belong in the same order. There is no evidence that they ever diverged from that or ever will.

But you claimed design could be tested for. How?

But just because somethings have similarities doesn't mean that all things great and small have a common ancestor and evolved from it.[/QUOTE]
Right. So, similarities are consistant with common ancestry. Similarities are also consistant with common design (for purposes of argument, anyway).
So, neither side gains. What's your next move?

 

[pitabread]

What's your next move?

 

[omega2xx]

Would you mind explaining how the megafauna giant sloth of the late cenozoic also outran the high speed theropods of the mesozoic?

@omega2xx See^ im not making this stuff up.

Not only are you making it up, you are making up the explanation. Nothing you have said is evidence for evolution.

 

[rjs330]

But you claimed design could be tested for. How?

But just because somethings have similarities doesn't mean that all things great and small have a common ancestor and evolved from it.

Right. So, similarities are consistant with common ancestry. Similarities are also consistant with common design (for purposes of argument, anyway).
So, neither side gains. What's your next move?[/QUOTE]
Similarities are not consistent with common ancestry. They are consistent with common design. Common ancestry is an assumption. Real observation shows common design. Like I pointed out with the dogs and cats. Common ancestry says we all evolved from the same creature. Yet all observation shows otherwise because we have never seen that happen nor can we test it. How can we test common design? We do it all the time in medical research. Evolution says common ancestry, that all things evolved from the same thing. Yet not all things can breed and all things are not evolving into something else which had yo have happened at some point in the evolutionary process. I have yet to be shown where that occurred. No evolutionists have shown the split. As common design we don't need a split. We accept that God used the same building blocks of life to create all creatures and life on this planet. As I said it fits perfectly with Scripture and is observable today. Whereas a common ancestor evolutionary process is not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why are there no coconut trees in the forests of the Colorado mountains or for that matter the foothills of Missouri? Just looking at todays biology we find that across areas such as the Sierra Nevada of California, or the South Rim of the Grand Canyon down to the Colorado River, there are distinct plant and animal communities in different life or ecology zones that are characteristic of those climates. If there were a flood today that wiped out all life some future skeptic might wonder why no lions were found as high as bears in the strata if they lived at the same time.

The issue is not that fossils are found in different places. The issues is that they are found below each other in rocks that date to different ages.

All ancient dinosaur fossils are found in strata below the K-PG Boundary, a rock layer rich in iridium found around the world. All lions and bears are found above that layer. Now how do you explain that? Saying that lions and bears ran faster than dinos is ridiculous. There are standing trees buried up with the lions and bears. Did the apple trees run faster than dinos?

As for the dunes of sand dunes and volcanic rock flows... did you read the account of the flood in the Bible? It wasn't just some rain and rising water. It said the "fountains" of the deep burst forth as well as the "windows" of heaven. So the Bible explicitly mentions some sort of catastrophic volcanic activity that released soil on a continental scale.

How does that account for sand dunes? We see buried sand dunes that were clearly made by sand blowing in the desert. How can you have deserts and blowing winds under a flood?

And how does that account for lava flows? Volcanoes under water do not make the same lava flows as are found on land. Rather, the lava hits the water and solidifies quickly, forming hard lava pillow rocks. But there is vast amounts of rock down there that look like lava flows on land. How did that happen in a flood?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yet not all things can breed and all things are not evolving into something else which had yo have happened at some point in the evolutionary process. I have yet to be shown where that occurred. No evolutionists have shown the split.

Are you seriously looking for evidence of a split?

If you had, I would think you would have heard of ring species by now.