Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Valiantis]

And you're still not answering my question - how many kinds of birds are there? Spiders? Ants? Are house cats and tigers the same kind? If so, why are house cats and tigers the same kind, but fish and sharks aren't the same kind?

Nor will he because he does not know, 'kinds' are in the Bible but there is no mention as to what a kind is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nor will he because he does not know, 'kinds' are in the Bible but there is no mention as to what a kind is.

And you guys just hate not knowing ... right?

Did Darwin, in his book, The Preservation of Favoured Races, discuss kinds?

 

[Valiantis]

And you guys just hate not knowing ... right?

The proper response when you do not know something is to say 'I do not know', you must not just make something up.

Did Darwin, in his book, The Preservation of Favoured Races, discuss kinds?

I have no idea because I have never read it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The proper response when you do not know something is to say 'I do not know', you must not just make something up.

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

Welcome to CF, by the way (if I didn't welcome you already).

 

[Valiantis]

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

New or old changes nothing.

Welcome to CF, by the way (if I didn't welcome you already).

You did but thank you anyway.

 

[EternalDragon]

We will, of course, ignore that all evidence points to this happening in longer 4,400 years. But barring that, how do we know that's the case? How did we determine that dogs came from wolves? It's not like humans left any records of this change.

Also, why did cats change so much, but dogs didn't? How come tigers became so distinct that they can't even breed with housecats, but dogs didn't develop in such a way?

And you're still not answering my question - how many kinds of birds are there? Spiders? Ants? Are house cats and tigers the same kind? If so, why are house cats and tigers the same kind, but fish and sharks aren't the same kind?

I really think there are more dog kinds than cat kinds. We have poodles, bulldogs, dobermans, and on and on.

Dogs came from wolves is determined by DNA studies of both.

A species like a tiger compared to a house cat becomes distinct and can't mate anymore because they are no longer closely related. But still the same family.

Are you asking me about kinds? I'd have to say there are two kinds of birds. Flightless and able to fly. Both birds though. All birds are birds.

Spiders maybe more than two. It would require a lot of researching and even scientists are not so clear on the family, order, etc. classifications.

 

[lasthero]

I really think there are more dog kinds than cat kinds. We have poodles, bulldogs, dobermans, and on and on.

...wait. Bulldogs and dobermans are all their own distinct kind? I thought they were just in the dog kind? So there are kinds within kinds, now?

Dogs came from wolves is determined by DNA studies of both

And these same DNA studies, these same techniques, tell us that humans descend from apes. So I don't see how you can accept the DNA evidence for dogs descending from wolves but reject the DNA evidence for humans descending from apes.

A species like a tiger compared to a house cat becomes distinct and can't mate anymore because they are no longer closely related. But still the same family.

But are they the same 'kind'? If not, why so?

I'd have to say there are two kinds of birds. Flightless and able to fly.

Really? Really?

Okay, so let me see if I understand you correctly - there are only two bird kinds - flying and non-flying. Are you seriously telling me that ostriches, penguins, roadrunners and such birds came from a single non-flying kind 4,400 years ago? Are you seriously telling me that eagles, hummingbirds, condors, dove and other such birds came from a single flying ancestor 4,400 years ago? Is that the argument you're really going with?

Spiders maybe more than two. It would require a lot of researching

Seeing as there are some 34,000 species of spider, I'd say 'more than two' is a given. By the by, don't you think it's odd that no creationist has ever came up with a comprehensive list of kinds? I mean, sure, Linnean classification isn't 100% perfect, and scientists debate a lot about how certain animals fit into which classification - on a planet with such varied life, that's about to be expected. But, generally, you could make a list of species for cats and dogs and birds, and it would hold up. With 'kinds', it seems more like whatever the person who's using it wants to go with at the particular time.

 

[Skaloop]

I really think there are more dog kinds than cat kinds. We have poodles, bulldogs, dobermans, and on and on.

You were just saying that "dog" and "cat" were each kinds. Now you are saying there are different kinds of kind? Kindception...

Are you asking me about kinds? I'd have to say there are two kinds of birds. Flightless and able to fly. Both birds though. All birds are birds.

If you're saying that those are two distinct kinds of bird, then we have seen one kind change to another, since there are several types of bird that once flew, but after being domesticated are now flightless.

 

[Split Rock]

I really think there are more dog kinds than cat kinds. We have poodles, bulldogs, dobermans, and on and on.

Dogs came from wolves is determined by DNA studies of both.

A species like a tiger compared to a house cat becomes distinct and can't mate anymore because they are no longer closely related. But still the same family.

Are you asking me about kinds? I'd have to say there are two kinds of birds. Flightless and able to fly. Both birds though. All birds are birds.

Spiders maybe more than two. It would require a lot of researching and even scientists are not so clear on the family, order, etc. classifications.

You still haven't answered the question as to how many "kinds" there are or how we differentiate between "kinds." You are just guessing. "Kinds" should be easy to differentiate, because they have no shared ancestry. So what is the problem? I also find it interesting that you claim there are two bird "kinds"... able to fly and flightless. Is there a reason that you believe a flying bird species cannot give rise to a flightless one?

 

[EternalDragon]

...wait. Bulldogs and dobermans are all their own distinct kind? I thought they were just in the dog kind? So there are kinds within kinds, now?

I meant to say variations of dogs within the kind.

And these same DNA studies, these same techniques, tell us that humans descend from apes. So I don't see how you can accept the DNA evidence for dogs descending from wolves but reject the DNA evidence for humans descending from apes.

There is no DNA evidence that says humans descended from apes or any animal.

Okay, so let me see if I understand you correctly - there are only two bird kinds - flying and non-flying. Are you seriously telling me that ostriches, penguins, roadrunners and such birds came from a single non-flying kind 4,400 years ago? Are you seriously telling me that eagles, hummingbirds, condors, dove and other such birds came from a single flying ancestor 4,400 years ago? Is that the argument you're really going with?

I'm not an expert in the field nor can I go back in time and see what was there before. The past is mostly outside the realm of the scientific method.

Seeing as there are some 34,000 species of spider, I'd say 'more than two' is a given. By the by, don't you think it's odd that no creationist has ever came up with a comprehensive list of kinds? I mean, sure, Linnean classification isn't 100% perfect, and scientists debate a lot about how certain animals fit into which classification - on a planet with such varied life, that's about to be expected. But, generally, you could make a list of species for cats and dogs and birds, and it would hold up. With 'kinds', it seems more like whatever the person who's using it wants to go with at the particular time.

That is because it is historical science. It is inductive reasoning. It would be kind of hard to observe, test and repeat what already happened. We'd have to hear it from an eyewitness. Do we have that? Hmmm....Oh, yeah. We do. God.

 

[lasthero]

I meant to say variations of dogs within the kind.

Oh, variations. So are tigers a variation of the cat kind? Are mice a variation of the rat kind, or are rats a variation of the mouse kind?

There is no DNA evidence that says humans descended from apes or any animal.

Yes, there is. Again, we use the same techniques to determine that humans are descended from apes that we used to determine that dogs are descended from cats. It's literally the same process. You can't say you accept the DNA studies that tell us that dogs are descended from wolves, then patently ignore the DNA studies that tell us that humans are descended from apes. It doesn't work that way.

The past is mostly outside the realm of the scientific method.

It really, really, really isn't. If it was, forensic science would be worthless and our justice system would fall apart, for starters.

That is because it is historical science. It is inductive reasoning. It would be kind of hard to observe, test and repeat what already happened. We'd have to hear it from an eyewitness.

You vastly overestimate the value of an eyewitness. An eyewitness can be wrong. An eyewitness can be misunderstood. A person can misunderstand an eyewitness. An eyewitness can lie. And your logic falls apart when it's applied to other sciences.

No one has ever witnessed a plate shift. But we know they cause earthquakes.

No one has ever witnessed an atom splitting. But we understand the effect.

No one has ever been to the center of the Earth. But we can map out its composition.

The idea that we can only 'observe' things we're directly looking at with our own two eyes is idiotic.

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, there is. Again, we use the same techniques to determine that humans are descended from apes that we used to determine that dogs are descended from cats. It's literally the same process. You can't say you accept the DNA studies that tell us that dogs are descended from wolves, then patently ignore the DNA studies that tell us that humans are descended from apes. It doesn't work that way.

And frogs turn into princes.

I can't believe people actually believe that nonsense. Unless you are joking. It has to be a joke, right?

It really, really, really isn't. If it was, forensic science would be worthless and our justice system would fall apart, for starters.

So the justice system can observe the crime?

You vastly overestimate the value of an eyewitness. An eyewitness can be wrong. An eyewitness can be misunderstood. A person can misunderstand an eyewitness. An eyewitness can lie. And your logic falls apart when it's applied to other sciences.

No one has ever witnessed a plate shift. But we know they cause earthquakes.

No one has ever witnessed an atom splitting. But we understand the effect.

No one has ever been to the center of the Earth. But we can map out its composition.

The idea that we can only 'observe' things we're directly looking at with our own two eyes is idiotic.

Those are all testable effects that happen in the present. Or results that can be observed in the present.

 

[Valiantis]

So the justice system can observe the crime?

If we listened to you no murderer would ever be brought to justice, tens of thousands of people would be killed every time it got dark, no one saw them do it so they are not guilty.
That is stupid, you should get out and about more.

 

[lasthero]

And frogs turn into princes.

I can't believe people actually believe that nonsense. Unless you are joking. It has to be a joke, right?

An appeal to ridicule, completely ignoring the point. Of course.

Please explain why you can accept a DNA study that shows dogs are the descendants of wolves, but reject a DNA study that shows humans are the descendants of apes. Why do you find one acceptable, and the other not? Give an actual reason.

So the justice system can observe the crime?

Yes. It's called 'gathering evidence'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science

Again, you work under the weird impression that 'observation' only means directly looking at something. This is wrong.

Those are all testable effects that happen in the present.

So is evolution.

Or results that can be observed in the present.

So is evolution.

And you're ignoring my questions, again, not to mention the questions from others. Are tigers and housecats the same kind? Are mice and rats the same kind? If not, why so?

 

[bhsmte]

And frogs turn into princes.

I can't believe people actually believe that nonsense. Unless you are joking. It has to be a joke, right?



So the justice system can observe the crime?



Those are all testable effects that happen in the present. Or results that can be observed in the present.

Lame, real lame.

 

[Split Rock]

I meant to say variations of dogs within the kind.

You're getting very close to discussing "kinds" within "kinds" now. Hard not to, with the nested hierarchy... isn't it? But according to you, "kinds" were separately created... so there can be no "kinds" within "kinds." That is why you must ignore reality, since reality says there are.

There is no DNA evidence that says humans descended from apes or any animal.

Phylogenetic trees say otherwise. What genetic evidence would you expect?

I'm not an expert in the field nor can I go back in time and see what was there before.

Good to see you admit you don't know what you are posting about.

The past is mostly outside the realm of the scientific method.

No it isn't. You just don't like the fact that scientific investigation of the past does not match up with your religious dogma. Therefore, you assert it "doesn't work."

That is because it is historical science. It is inductive reasoning. It would be kind of hard to observe, test and repeat what already happened. We'd have to hear it from an eyewitness. Do we have that? Hmmm....Oh, yeah. We do. God.

There isn't anything wrong with inductive reasoning, unless, of course, it contradicts your religious dogma. Right? And no, we don't have an "eye witness," since God didn't write anything in the bible (with the possible exception of the commandments). The authors of GEN1-2, for example, didn't witness a thing they wrote of.

And frogs turn into princes.

Strawman.

I can't believe people actually believe that nonsense. Unless you are joking. It has to be a joke, right?

You are the one who seems to be joking. Unfortunately, you aren't joking when you claim to believe in a man made from dirt and a woman from a man's rib.

So the justice system can observe the crime?

No, it can't. That is the entire point! Every logical point is lost on you, isn't it?

Those are all testable effects that happen in the present. Or results that can be observed in the present.

The past leaves its mark or record on the present. Indeed, the present is built from the past. Do you deny this?

 

[Skaloop]

Really? Really?

Okay, so let me see if I understand you correctly - there are only two bird kinds - flying and non-flying. Are you seriously telling me that ostriches, penguins, roadrunners and such birds came from a single non-flying kind 4,400 years ago? Are you seriously telling me that eagles, hummingbirds, condors, dove and other such birds came from a single flying ancestor 4,400 years ago? Is that the argument you're really going with?

On a bit of a side note, since Noah had a dove to release that would mean that the dove is the origin of the bird kind. Sorry, bird-that-can-fly kind. As such, DNA analysis of all the other birds in the bird-that-can-fly kind should lead directly back to the dove.

Also, where do chickens fall regarding the two bird kinds? They can't properly fly like an eagle can, but they can flap about madly and stay aloft for a short distance.

 

[lasthero]

On a bit of a side note, since Noah had a dove to release that would mean that the dove is the origin of the bird kind

But that can't be right, because Noah sent out a raven, too. So, I mean...are ravens and doves separate kinds? Did doves come from ravens while they were on the Ark, or vice versa?

 

[Split Rock]

But that can't be right, because Noah sent out a raven, too. So, I mean...are ravens and doves separate kinds? Did doves come from ravens while they were on the Ark, or vice versa?

I suppose that doves and ravens could have evolved from the first bird "kind" before the Flood. I'm not sure how much time that gives them for this "hyper-evolution." The same creationists who claim there isn't enough time for doves to evolve from microorganisms over billions of years have no problem believing they evolved from a "bird kind" after a thousand years or even a few hundred.

 

[Valiantis]

But that can't be right, because Noah sent out a raven, too. So, I mean...are ravens and doves separate kinds? Did doves come from ravens while they were on the Ark, or vice versa?

You have got it all wrong, it is so simple, all white coloured birds came from the Dove kind and all black coloured birds came from the Raven kind, even the flightless Cormorant of the Galapagos, it all makes perfect sense.