Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Justatruthseeker]

Right back atcha. You claimed that since bacteria can kill humans that it makes bacteria a different kind. What kind of argument is that?

No, I said that because bacteria can live in you or kill you does not make them an evolutionary ancestor. They are separate kinds because every form of life on this planet fits into distinct kinds.

Just as it should be if evolution is true. You don't evolve out of your clade. How many times has this been explained now?

Also, you still haven't explained why feline is a kind but mammal is not. Care to explain?

No kind has ever been observed to evolve into a different kind, regardless of your claims. Only kind changing appearance, yet still the same kind.

Because a mammal is a class of different kinds all grouped together. Such as man, dog, cat, whale. Those that give birth to live offspring, are warm blooded and breath air. This is an evolutionist definition, not mine, but I will accept that. I have yet to see any of those kinds within that class reproduce with the other. kind after kind, always has been, always will be.

The only thing you have ever observed, why do you refuse to accept the scientific facts? Even with direct genetic manipulation you can only get a cat, or a dog, or a mouse, or a rat. Fruit fly, whatever, they have NEVER become anything else. Any theory claiming otherwise has no basis in science in the least, merely a flight of imagination.

The Linnaean groups you are pointing to didn't exist until Linnaeus created them in the 1700's.


Can you point to where Egyptians used the word "Feline" as a group of species and as a created kind?

Who cares what cats might have been called back then, I doubt we called wolves dogs then either. Oh, that's right, we still don't, just call them canines. But then the Egyptians probably didn't call the Dingo a canine either. Nor I doubt did they call the galaxy the milky-way. Can you point to where any cat was called a Feline before about 1675?
Feline | Define Feline at Dictionary.com

It's your word for kind, not mine, but I'll accept that too.

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing else but propagation of kind after kind with appearance changes has ever been observed. Why do you throw away all observed evidence to believe in something never seen once? And you claim I have faith in the unobservable????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So "kind" means nothing, it is just a game to you?

Once more, I gave you a concrete definition of kind.

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own evolutionary definitions, what more can one want? Just don't ask me to believe a feline came from some other kind long ago when no evidence exists for it being so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Once more, I gave you a concrete definition of kind.

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own evolutionary definitions, what more can one want? Just don't ask me to believe a feline came from some other kind long ago when no evidence exists for it being so.

Then here are my definitions of kind:

Eukaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prokaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What more do you want?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just as they should be if evolution is true. Evolution does not produce half formed organisms. It only produces fully formed organisms.

Really? Lol. Then why are evolutionists so intent of forming simple proteins, getting RNA to replicate, trying to build life from molecule up? Isn't that a part of evolution, the start of life? So the first eye formed just popped into being fully functional? I'll buy that, at the same time God created the animal from the dust. Might as well believe that if I got to believe in Fairie Dust. If I got to have a religion, I don't see why I should replace one that agrees with observations for one that doesn't fit anything actually observed.

Evidence please. We disparage religious claims because they have no evidence. Evolution does have evidence. That's the difference.

Kind after kind, have you personally seen anything different?

If so, evidence please.

Changes within kinds is all evolution needs to produce the biodiversity we see today.

Yet changes within kinds is not evolution, merely kind after kind. Canines are still canines, always have been, always will be, whether they look like a wolf, a dingo, or a poodle. But a muroidea will never become a canidae, nor a felidae, nor a human no matter how many billions of years you give it. A feline is a feline as far back as you can trace it, which is with the appearance of man.

Isn't that what you believe in?

No, I belive that kind always remains kind, regardless of what it looks like within that kind. One kind never becomes another kind.

That the Earth is billions of years old I have no doubts. That different dinosaur kinds roamed it I have no doubts. That the Earth became desolate and waste, and darkness covered the surface of the deep, I have no doubts. That man and all the animals with him then came into existence, I have no doubts. Science agrees, why should I doubt?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I said that because bacteria can live in you or kill you does not make them an evolutionary ancestor.

No one is claiming that modern bacteria are our ancestors. You are pushing yet another strawman argument.

[qutoe] They are separate kinds because every form of life on this planet fits into distinct kinds.[/quote]

You haven't shown me two distinct kinds yet. Humans and chimps are not unique because they are both primates. Humans and bears are not unique because they are both mammals. Humans and fish are not unique because they are both vertebrates. Nowhere have you shown separate kinds.

No kind has ever been observed to evolve into a different kind, regardless of your claims.

Evolution doesn't produce new kinds, nor does it need to in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. You keep requiring evolution to do things it doesn't have to do. You are pushing yet another strawman.

Humans and chimps are in the primate kind. Our common ancestor was in the primate kind. We are still primates.

Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal. Both us and bears are still in the mammal kind.

Our common ancestor with fish was a vertebrate. Both of us are still in the vertebrate kind.

Because a mammal is a class of different kinds all grouped together.

No, mammal is a kind. Here is the definition:

Mammal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing you have ever observed, why do you refuse to accept the scientific facts?

Are you ready?

Even with direct genetic manipulation you can only get a cat, or a dog, or a mouse, or a rat. Fruit fly, whatever, they have NEVER become anything else.

Just as it should be if evolution is true. You never evolve out of your clade. You are what your ancestors were plus modifications. Again, evolution doesn't need any species to change kinds.

Who cares what cats might have been called back then,

You do, obviously. You claimed that Egyptians put them in the Feline group when no such group existed back then. That word wasn't even in use.

[qutoe]I doubt we called wolves dogs then either. Oh, that's right, we still don't, just call them canines.[/quote]

Is a chihuahua a wolf? Yes or no?

It's your word for kind, not mine, but I'll accept that too.

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eukaryote, Prokaryote, Archae. See, I can do it too.

Nothing else but propagation of kind after kind with appearance changes has ever been observed.

That's all evolution needs to do in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.

Why do you throw away all observed evidence to believe in something never seen once?

Irony overload.

You are the one ignoring all of the observed evidence supporting evolution in favor of a deity magically poofing species into being which no one has ever observed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then here are my definitions of kind:

Eukaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prokaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What more do you want?

You can start off by breeding a cat with a dog, then we'll talk more about stretching what kinds are, until then all you got is kind after kind, regardless of what you might want to class kinds into.

Even the dictionary does better than that, had you bothered to look it up.

kind - definition of kind by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort:

And before you twisted the meanings with phylum and class, and taximy, and kingdom and species:

2. Archaic a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.

Once again, the only thing you have ever observed in the real world, kind after kind, never kind into a different kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? Lol. Then why are evolutionists so intent of forming simple proteins, getting RNA to replicate, trying to build life from molecule up? Isn't that a part of evolution, the start of life?

No, that is abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life changed once it was here. If a deity created and simple RNA replicator and life evolved into what we see today the theory of evolution would stay exactly the same.

So the first eye formed just popped into being fully functional?

Why would it have to? Even in existing species we can find eyes that are simple photoreceptor spots without lenses or any focusing apparatus.

I'll buy that, at the same time God created the animal from the dust. Might as well believe that if I got to believe in Fairie Dust. If I got to have a religion, I don't see why I should replace one that agrees with observations for one that doesn't fit anything actually observed.

Why do you continue with these lies? Are there only 9 commandments in your Bible? Both mutations and natural selection have been observed in the lab. They aren't fairy dust.

Kind after kind, have you personally seen anything different?

Of course not because that is exactly what you should see if evolution is true.

Yet changes within kinds is not evolution,

Yes it is. Why do you continue with these lies?

Canines are still canines, always have been, always will be, whether they look like a wolf, a dingo, or a poodle.

Wolves will always look like wolves . . . except now they don't. Now they look like poodles, chihuahuas, and pugs.

A feline is a feline as far back as you can trace it, which is with the appearance of man.

A mammal is a mammal, a primate is a primate, a vertebrate is a vertebrate.

No, I belive that kind always remains kind, regardless of what it looks like within that kind. One kind never becomes another kind.

That is exactly as it should be if evolution is true. Here, start at the root of the eukaryote tree and find any species amongst eukaryotes that has stopped being a eukaryote:

Eukaryotes

Science agrees, why should I doubt?

So why do you doubt evolution when all of the science agrees with it?

 

[Loudmouth]

You can start off by breeding a cat with a dog, then we'll talk more about stretching what kinds are, until then all you got is kind after kind, regardless of what you might want to class kinds into.

Dogs and cats are both part of the same kind:

Carnivora

And before you twisted the meanings with phylum and class, and taximy, and kingdom and species:

So only you are allowed to twist these meanings?

Once again, the only thing you have ever observed in the real world, kind after kind, never kind into a different kind.

Just as it should be if evolution is true. Have you found any species in the Eukaryote tree that has stopped being a eukaryote yet?

Eukaryotes

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No one is claiming that modern bacteria are our ancestors. You are pushing yet another strawman argument.

So you say, so you say, yet what pray tell do the facts say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago

Last universal ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria. It would likely not have stood out against a collection of modern generalized small size bacteria.

Since you want to ignore what evolutionists themselves say about it, no point discussing things with you further. You will simply claim whatever you want people to believe at any given moment. There is no theory of evolution, merely misrepresentation of facts, ignoring the same theory, and making up stuff on the fly.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you say, so you say, yet what pray tell do the facts say?

The facts say that we did not evolve from modern bacteria. It is something you are making up, again.

Since you want to ignore what evolutionists themselves say about it,

Show me a single evolutionist who says that we evolved from modern bacteria. Just one. I challenge you.

You will simply claim whatever you want people to believe at any given moment.

Another irony meter explodes.

There is no theory of evolution, merely misrepresentation of facts, ignoring the same theory, and making up stuff on the fly.

No, that is what you do, and have been doing throughout this thread.

 

[EternalDragon]

Irony overload.

You are the one ignoring all of the observed evidence supporting evolution in favor of a deity magically poofing species into being which no one has ever observed.

Actually not "poofing". More like using materials on the earth like clay, amino acids, proteins, etc. to mold a living creature with complex biological machinery that all works together and then bringing it to life.

As any intelligent designer does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually not "poofing". More like using materials on the earth like clay, amino acids, proteins, etc. to mold a living creature with complex biological machinery that all works together and then bringing it to life.

As any intelligent designer does.

You mean unintelligent designer. We have gone over some of the flaws that would not be there if the design was intelligent in origin.

 

[Split Rock]

You can start off by breeding a cat with a dog, then we'll talk more about stretching what kinds are, until then all you got is kind after kind, regardless of what you might want to class kinds into.

.

So, now you are back to a "kind" being a species or closely related species, since those are the only ones that can interbreed. You are very confused. How about you breed a jackal and a poodle and then get back to us about "kinds?"

 

[Split Rock]

Actually not "poofing". More like using materials on the earth like clay, amino acids, proteins, etc. to mold a living creature with complex biological machinery that all works together and then bringing it to life.

As any intelligent designer does.

Show us one that does this. Just one will do.

 

[biggles53]

No, I said that because bacteria can live in you or kill you does not make them an evolutionary ancestor. They are separate kinds because every form of life on this planet fits into distinct kinds.





No kind has ever been observed to evolve into a different kind, regardless of your claims. Only kind changing appearance, yet still the same kind.

Because a mammal is a class of different kinds all grouped together. Such as man, dog, cat, whale. Those that give birth to live offspring, are warm blooded and breath air. This is an evolutionist definition, not mine, but I will accept that. I have yet to see any of those kinds within that class reproduce with the other. kind after kind, always has been, always will be.

The only thing you have ever observed, why do you refuse to accept the scientific facts? Even with direct genetic manipulation you can only get a cat, or a dog, or a mouse, or a rat. Fruit fly, whatever, they have NEVER become anything else. Any theory claiming otherwise has no basis in science in the least, merely a flight of imagination.






Who cares what cats might have been called back then, I doubt we called wolves dogs then either. Oh, that's right, we still don't, just call them canines. But then the Egyptians probably didn't call the Dingo a canine either. Nor I doubt did they call the galaxy the milky-way. Can you point to where any cat was called a Feline before about 1675?
Feline | Define Feline at Dictionary.com

It's your word for kind, not mine, but I'll accept that too.

Felidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing else but propagation of kind after kind with appearance changes has ever been observed. Why do you throw away all observed evidence to believe in something never seen once? And you claim I have faith in the unobservable????

Why are you expecting the process of evolution to produce something that IT HAS NEVER CLAIMED TO DO.....???

In fact, if a bear gave birth to a fish, the entire theory would be falsified in one fell swoop....!!

 

[lasthero]

Actually not "poofing". More like using materials on the earth like clay, amino acids, proteins, etc. to mold a living creature with complex biological machinery that all works together and then bringing it to life.

As any intelligent designer does.

Actually yes, it was 'poofing'. Did you forget all animals he had no problem making out of thin air?

 

[EternalDragon]

Show us one that does this. Just one will do.

Henry Ford?

 

[Herman Hedning]

So, now you are back to a "kind" being a species or closely related species, since those are the only ones that can interbreed. You are very confused. How about you breed a jackal and a poodle and then get back to us about "kinds?"

Exactly. Or, since apparently all fish form a kind, try breeding a herring and a tuna and see how that goes.

 

[rikerjoe]

Henry Ford?

Henry Ford?? What, exactly, did he create?

 

[gluadys]

Henry Ford?? What, exactly, did he create?

The assembly line.