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.
You base this conclusion on what? What we know is that there were some kind of kinds in which the kind came after, how do you then conclude that it is impossible for created kinds not sharing common ancestry?
And they are . . . ?
I mean this in the kindest way possible, but you are wrong. It's ok. You will notice that they are lumping eukaryotes and prokaryotes into the same basket. Just because there is HGT between bacteria does not negate the netsted hierarchies produced in metazoans that lack HGT.
How is it a straw man?
How is it impossible for dry to be wet? Because if it is wet, then it isn't dry. Do you understand this or not?
If two species share a common ancestor then they can not be separately created kinds. Separately created means not sharing a common ancestor, BY DEFINITION.
In my experience, yes. There are some very interesting characters in science, and I have met a few that are driven more by ego than data.
All are scientists. You are claiming that scientists who go against the consensus are outcasts and never listened to when history shows that you are completely wrong. The scientists who are not listened to are the scientists who are wrong.
What are these alternatives, and why do YOU think they are good alternatives?
You didn't read what I said. I am not talking about history. I am talking about today.
I was just using him as an example.
Don't yell!
What is the definition of separately created kinds?
Loudmouth there is no way to list angles, however, if we use Feduccia; he believes (wrong or right doesn't matter) has a different angle than other scientists.
Thank you for being kind.How do you know that they lack HGT? The way I understand it is that there is no certain way to detect that.
It is not an accurate depiction of the Biblical kinds.
No, I'm claiming that his claim as such is not falsifiable.
Scientists have already looked at that angle, and found that the evidence does not support it.
But even more so, Feduccia was claiming that birds evolved from reptillian ancestors. It wasn't an angle other than evolution. It was evolution. The only question is was which branch birds evolved from, and the evidence showed that Feduccia's hypothesis was wrong.
If there were it would be immediately detectable when you start to compare genomes. The closest thing that can be found to HGT is insertions of exogenous retroviruses that produce the same genes in different species.
Why not? If I asked why there was a fish with lungs and gills would that be an inaccurate depection of the Biblical kinds? What about an animal with fur that lays eggs? How do you determine which are inaccurate and which are accurate? Where do trilobites fit into the Biblical kinds?
Then don't make me repeat it.
The one I already gave:
"Separately created means not sharing a common ancestor. . ."
Do I need to repeat it again?
Sorry, but I am not going to ignore the last 200 years of history to focus on one day.
Then why don't you show me someone who has a good alternative theory other than evolution that explains biodiversity, and why you think it is a good scientific alternative.
That is not a definition.
That is a set in stone straw man.
Yes, it is. Separately created species means that they were created separately from other species which necessarily means that they don't share a common ancestor. That is what those words mean.
So you are fine with a single universal common ancestor for all life, a universal common ancestor that all life evolved from?
Could you be more specific?
Support what exactly?
I didn't say it wasn't anything other than evolution. Do you always have such tunnel vision?
You just seem to expect that I am arguing against evolution every time I post.
How do they know he is wrong?
What did they base their conclusions on?
How are they detected, because I thought that was the whole problem. Epigenesis works in the genome and so does HGT through recombination and such.
I don't know and either do you.
Your comment? Who said anything about another theory other than evolution? I sure didn't.
Where did species come about? Species is not a Biblical word.
I don't know and either do you.
Could you at least try to lift a finger and illuminate this discussion? At least try?
Helium is not a biblical word. Pharynx is not a biblical word. What does this have to do with anything?Why did you pick species?
I have evidence demonstrating that all life shares a common ancestor.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Evidence supporting something is not evidence of that something according to your worldview.
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?