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.
And yet all those journals agree that cats are cats, and none have ever observed something else evolve into a cat, nor a cat evolve into something else.
And yet all those journals agree that cats are cats, and none have ever observed something else evolve into a cat, nor a cat evolve into something else.
If you have genetic evidence to the contrary that a cat has become something other than a cat? Or was something other than a cat before it evolved into a cat?
No? None at all? Why, I might be tempted to call faith without evidence a religion. A mere belief in the existence of something never observed.
Your argument might be worthwhile if you stopped refusing to accept the definition of kind I have given close to 28 times already.
All felines are one kind, what is your problem with understanding that?
I am not, I am blaming you for your failures of being unable to define what a species is.
Agreed, kind after kind with appearance changes, exactly as we have observed. You have never observed a feline become anything but another feline. You have never observed anything become anything else.
Almost every single mutation is harmful, and the gene itself has safeguards to protect itself from mutations.
Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.
From there, it started going downhill morally.
Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.
From there, it started going downhill morally.
When did it hit rock bottom?From there, [science] started going downhill morally.
Besides, science is amoral.
Yes that's precisely what I mean. Eukaryotes will always be eukaryotes, tetrapods will only give birth to tetrapods, mammals remain mammals, Carnivora remain Carnivora and felidae remain felidae.You mean that populations of kinds diverge into different appearances, yet still remain the same kind.
Great.That cats diverge into a variety of appearences, but are still felines. I agree, kind after kind.
Only ever seen examples, not a single definition.Your argument might be worthwhile if you stopped refusing to accept the definition of kind I have given close to 28 times already.
No problem. So what are echidna an platypus? One kind? Two kinds? More? What objective criteria would you use to work that out?All felines are one kind, what is your problem with understanding that?
Species is the lowest taxonomic rank and consists, in sexually reproducing eukaryotes, of an interbreeding population.I am not, I am blaming you for your failures of being unable to define what a species is.
So?Agreed, kind after kind with appearance changes, exactly as we have observed. You have never observed a feline become anything but another feline. You have never observed anything become anything else.
I'm not arguing with you. You just can't take yes for an answer.That it has shown kind after kind is undisputed, I agree. So why are you arguing against your very own science which has proved beyond doubt that cats never become anything but cats?
Demonstrably untrue. Almost every mutation has no effect. You and I have around 50-150 single base mutations that neither of our parents had. Given the human population there is mutations at every single non-lethal site in the genome which is most of it.Almost every single mutation is harmful, and the gene itself has safeguards to protect itself from mutations.
There are several beneficial mutations recorded in certain human populations.Not my fault you need a proven harmful state to change an animal into another kind because you can't accept the truth.
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said I'm not arguing with that, as you said, only diversity within kinds, within tetrapod kind, within primate kind, within eukaryotes kind, within life kind.The truth that you at no time have ever observed a single creature evolve into something other than what it originally was. Ever!
That's because creatures vary but populations evolve.You have not a single genetic test to show that any creature has ever become another creature.
No argument. I just understand the concept better than you do.It has always been kind after kind, will always be kind after kind.
When did I say otherwise?This is a scientifically proven fact that I accept, why can you not accept what your very own science is telling you? Not someone's interpretation and twisting of the data, but the cold hard facts that every single cat, no matter its appearance, is a cat and has always been a cat.
Mutations just happen science or no, and most are neutral.That every single mutation science has caused in an animal or human has been harmful.
You can't get a population to change with respect to its heritable characteristics without change occurring in the genome.That mutations in nature die, and do not pass their genes on to the next generation. That adaptation of form, not genetic structure is all that you have ever observed.
Tetrapods are tetrapods, eukaryotes are eukaryotes, yeah I get it. Do you?This is how we know we are humans, cats are cats, dogs are dogs, whales are whales, and fish are fish. Just as birds are birds, and apes are apes.
"Kind" which you have yet to define beyond a vague "sort".Kind after kind, always has been, always will be.
When did it hit rock bottom?
Yes that's precisely what I mean. Eukaryotes will always be eukaryotes, tetrapods will only give birth to tetrapods, mammals remain mammals, Carnivora remain Carnivora and felidae remain felidae.
Only ever seen examples, not a single definition.
No problem. So what are echidna an platypus? One kind? Two kinds? More? What objective criteria would you use to work that out?
I'm not arguing with you. You just can't take yes for an answer.
Demonstrably untrue. Almost every mutation has no effect. You and I have around 50-150 single base mutations that neither of our parents had. Given the human population there is mutations at every single non-lethal site in the genome which is most of it.
There are several beneficial mutations recorded in certain human populations.
As I said I'm not arguing with that, as you said, only diversity within kinds, within tetrapod kind, within primate kind, within eukaryotes kind, within life kind.
That's because creatures vary but populations evolve.
No argument. I just understand the concept better than you do.
Mutations just happen science or no, and most are neutral.
You can't get a population to change with respect to its heritable characteristics without change occurring in the genome.
Tetrapods are tetrapods, eukaryotes are eukaryotes, yeah I get it. Do you?
"Kind" which you have yet to define beyond a vague "sort".
In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae
Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.
Define it how you like. Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid. You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.
So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?
Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.
I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.
We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer. Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all. Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?
So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.
I doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.
Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.
Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.
Which you still seem to have trouble with, being that you want to divide different kinds into different species, even when that classification violates your own definition of what a species is.
Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.
And don't forget the rest of that definition of species:
So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?
Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.
Thanks. So tetrapod is a kind which includes cat kind dog kind primate kind etc.Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.
Thanks again. Will do.Define it how you like.
But I'm not sub-dividing. Eukaryote kind includes grasshopper kind, cat kind and dog kind.Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid.
Do they form interbreeding populations or do the populations remain distinct?You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.
Several. 41 sounds about right. In the Feliformia kind there are even more species which include the felidae kind.So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?
Why is that a problem? It's what we'd expect given evolution is true. Bit of a problem for special creation though.Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.
There's plenty of evidence for evolution, look at the 41 cat species for a start, you can't get them without change in the heritable characteristics of populations over generations aka evolution.I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.
Every one of us, fifty to one and fifty point mutations that were not in either our mother or father. Look it up.We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer.
Just point mutations, not other types of mutation, between fifty to one hundred and fifty per live birth.Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all.
You are simply in denial. Given the human population size and the measured mutation rate there is a mutation somewhere in the population at every non-lethal point on the human genome. We're all Muties.Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?
Nope a base pair substitution ie a point mutation.So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.
Happens all the time or you'd be able to take the same flu shot as last year.I doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.
Do you know that the repair enzymes will introduce mutations depending on the damage? A double strand break will be repaired with repeats that weren't there before. That's a mutation.Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.
And humans are still mammals, just diversity within a kind.Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.
Nope, not dividing. You are the one dividing tetrapod kind into cats and dogs and humans.Which you still seem to have trouble with, being that you want to divide different kinds into different species, even when that classification violates your own definition of what a species is.
Well what do you expect with all of the genetic change constantly going on? Rigid kinds???Evolutionists still can't get species right, supposedly the lowest taxonomic scale, it is no wonder they are still confused as to what a kind is.
And don't forget the rest of that definition of species:
So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?
Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.
Define it how you like.
I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.
Strange then that technology continues to snowball, even though we gave up on "well demonstrated" science 100 years ago.... maybe its all based on your prayers... no? Hmmm...They stopped using well demonstrated science 100 years ago. We just got to wait until they start using it again. For those claiming to follow science I notice a tendency to ignore the facts. Have you ever observed a cat evolve into something other than a cat? Yah, me either, but hey, it happened in the past where none can prove it but that's science. Just make sure you don't claim something happened in the past where you can't prove it, it might be called a religion.
Funny how it turns out that Newton was wrong.Hal Lindsey says science reached its pinnacle with Isaac Newton.
From there, it started going downhill morally.
Funny how it turns out that Newton was wrong.
So why isn't mammal a "kind?"Exactly as always observed, kind after kind. We agree, so why do you still have a problem with definng kinds, seems you just did a good job right there.
Define it how you like. Feline is a kind, canine is a kind, grasshoppers are a kind. That you feel the need to subdivide kinds into useless classifications does not mean it is valid. You define the cat kind into several different species. Violating your own given definition, since housecat can breed with Lynx, Lynx with Oscelot, Oscelot with Jaguar, Jaguar with Panther, Panther with Lion, Lion with Tiger. So now, according to you, we have several different species interbreeding, even though you define species as only those that can interbreed.
Which is it.. one cat "kind" or 20?So which is it, is there one cat species or 20?
Your compatriot claimed there were two cat "kinds," why can't you agree? As I said, species are fluid and closely related species share common ancestors. Why is it surprising that under unnatural circumstances, we can get them to interbreed?Each is its own kind, just as ALL felines are of a kind. Common sense for one. Which I suspect evolutionists sorely lack being as species are interbreeding animals, yet cats are classified into different species, even though they are capable of interbreeding. This is why evolutionists have a species problem, because even with a definition you still can't be consistent.
That IS evolution. Sorry, you guys are not going to get anywhere trying to redefine evolution. We won't let you.I agree that there is no evidence of evolution, merely kind changing basic appearance.
This is a blatant falsehood. You yourself have a number of mutations, and you don't have cancer. In fact, recent studies indicate we have on average 60 mutations that distinguish us from our parents.We don't have a single mutation, unless you get cancer. Those genes were in your parents genes, in your grandparents genes, and in their grandparents genes. Some merely remain dormant, others come to the fore. Every single gene you have came from one of your parents's genetic line. There is nothing mutated in any person at all. Which should only show you the diversity within kinds, as unless you are an identicle twin the odds of another looking just like you is slim, even within families. Yet you are still human are you not? Or did you evolve into something else last we talked?
A mutation is a change in the sequence of the genetic material, DNA. Go ahead and redefine that now, too....So you say, so you say. Yet I doubt what you call a mutation is actually a genetic mutation. Merely one gene or several switching on or off.
Another blatant falsehood. E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project SiteI doubt that at all, else you would understand the futility of evolution, that such has never been observed. Not even in a Petri dish with every single evolutionist in the world trying to make it happen.
Yet another falsehood! We have a triple-header, folks! Most mutations are neutral.Sorry, all genetic studies show mutations are overall harmful to the individual. That our very own DNA has control mechanism in place that help correct mutations, that repair the damaged genes if possible.
Your understanding of mutations is flawed. I'll ask you again to explain why a mammal is not a "kind," as mammals only give rise to mammals.Yes, genes are turned off, and genes are turned on in different combinations, genes that already existed within the population to begin with. There is no doubt changes occurr in the genome. Yet when all these changes have occurred, a cat is still a cat, a dog is still a dog, and a human is still a human, and an ape is still an ape. Kind after kind, not new kind from existing kind.
"Kind" shouldn't be vague at all, since your god created each "kind" separately and uniquely. Yet, you cannot define what a "kind" is. Why is that??So we got several ways to classify a species, basically any way I want, by DNA, morphology (looks), or even because they live in the same kind of environment. Well that isn't too broad a deffinition, just allows me to classify anything any way that sounds good at the time. Let's talk about the use of the word vague shall we?
All scientists are wrong.
In fact, I've been told here that some can't wait to have a mainline theory falsified in the name of progress.
Yes, we call correcting mistakes and improving our understanding of reality, progress. You guys call that, "blasphemy," "anti-God," and "the big lie."
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?