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.
Yes there are. Plenty. You just have a wonky conception of what is acceptable. A kind was the first created creature. Don't blame us if science is unable to determine stuff.
Apparently your question suggests science doesn't know even that! Biggles biggles biggles.So, to use the example from earlier, are sparrows and emus the same 'kind'...?
True, there are classes for angels too. Fallen ones, big ones, strong ones, Seraphim's, Cherubs, archangels...etc.Kind = Genus ... but by God's standards, not mans'.
What genus would you classify the angels?
Apparently your question suggests science doesn't know even that! Biggles biggles biggles.
If you have some evidence to say they are sparrows, feel free to show us.
Looking at emu behavior, I hadn't noticed sparrows doing this...you?
" If a female tried to woo a male that already had a partner, the incumbent female will try and repel the competitor by walking towards her challenger and staring in a stern way. If the male showed interest in the second female by erecting his feathers and swaying from side to side, the incumbent female will attack the challenger, usually resulting in a backdown by the new female.[46] Some female-female competitions can last up to five hours, especially when the target male is single and neither female has the advantage of incumbency. In these cases, the animals typically intensify their mating calls and displays, which increase in extravagance. This is often accompanied by chasing and kicking by the competing females.[46]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu#Taxonomy_and_systematics
I would like to go out on a limb and say no, as seems obvious, but I will await any evidence you have rather than put down the gavel. I suspect not though.Please answer the question.....are sparrows and emus of the same 'kind' ...?
I would like to go out on a limb and say no, as seems obvious, but I will await any evidence you have rather than put down the gavel. I suspect not though.
No. Both are mentioned in the bible so they would not be the same apparently.Great.....so, are sparrows and eagles of the same 'kind' please....?
No. Both are mentioned in the bible so they would not be the same apparently.
Ok great.....so, given that you have often said that living things "vary within their own kind", can you please give an example of another bird which would have adapted from the 'sparrow kind'...?
It may be easier to give something that didn't. I know that is hard to grasp for someone that thinks that the worm a sparrow eats is where mankind came from!!!!!!!!!
Right. So there are many species of tiger. Yet I doubt there was more than on tiger kind on the ark. Since we don't know for sure, I guess we could be open to looking at the possibility tigers may have evolved from lions!? But unless there was evidence I would stick with the one pair of tigers on the ark.No....you are the one who has often stated that living things "vary within their kind". You say that a sparrow is a 'kind', apparently because it is mentioned in the Bible.
Maybe some of these!Fine...can you now tell me of another living thing that has been produced by sparrows "varying within their kind"...?
Yup.True, there are classes for angels too. Fallen ones, big ones, strong ones, Seraphim's, Cherubs, archangels...etc.
Kind = Genus ... but by God's standards, not mans'.
What genus would you classify the angels?
You can find scientists who disagree with any theory you wish to mention, even those theories that you would consider strongly accepted. Scientists love being contrarians. Simply finding a scientist who disagrees with a theory isn't enough.
Well thats going to be a bit hard for the average bloke in the street. But I can research and look up scientists who show that some of the accepted beliefs are wrong or at least in question. One of those is with how many scientists have come out in recent times and questions darwins tree of life. I could site several prominent science sites that have shown this.You need to show why the vast, vast majority of scientists are wrong. You need to do so by defining your terms, presenting evidence, and demonstrating how your interpretations are testable and falsifiable. In other words, you need to do the science.
Because a variation can be within the same species and not a new species. Evolution needs a progressive transition of a creature into another species. So those variations should gradually show changes that turn it into a new shape or type of creature. But this is where it gets hard to tell and where I believe that scientists can misinterpret transitions. Because like you are indicating there can be a stage where you just can tell whether its a variation of the same creature or a transition. Such as with a dog there are many shapes but they are still dogs. Or like I said with bats there are many bats that are classed as different species but they are all still bats with bat shapes. They havnt turned into owls or lizards.Why can't a fossil be a transitional and also be a variation of human or ape?
Like I said thats where its hard. But I would have thought if a creature is transforming from one to another completely different shape that there would be some stages in between. Like a Dino to bird. Would you have a stage where the wings are stumps and useless before it got to the point of functional wings. Or do the wings pop out in one generation completely working.You need to define what features a transitional fossil should have. Otherwise, you are just throwing words out there.
There is still a fair amount of conjecture about what is classed as homo erectus, Neanderthal and homo sapiens. Some say that they are all the same species or at least early homo sapiens fall into the same species as homo erectus and Neanderthals. But as you see from the skulls found at Georgia and my example with dogs you can have a lot of size and shape between the same species. So without any solid evidence such as DNA then its up to interpretation and this is to sketchy.H. erectus was not H. sapiens. That is the massively overwhelming conclusion of scientists. The skulls you are mentioning were lumped as a single species, H. erectus. None of them were lumped into anatomically modern humans.
There are other scientists who dont consider Australopithecine as ape to human but just ape. It is grossly like an ape and the evidence for it walking is highly contentious.That picture is Lucy, the famous Australopithecine fossil that scientists consider to be transitional.
Well when you consider that for every single species that is claimed to ever walk the earth there would be millions. So would it stand to reason that there would be billions of transitionals for each and every one. If mutations are primarily non advantageous and only 1 in 10,000 are beneficial then would there be billions of failed transitions. If a reptile found that wings were advantageous through natural selection they would only find that through a process of trial and error. There is no real intelligence behind evolution and its a blind and random. Though the ultimate aim of natural selection is adaptation to the environment for survival there is still a lot of mutations that will fail and be of no use.Then give us a definition of transitional that does not use conjecture.
Semantics at there best. If you want something to fit, just redefine it.
Not trying to get under your skin. Personally, I could care less if we evolved or were somehow spontaneously created. It's a pointless debate.
Love it, nothing is something and nothing isn't nothing anymore. Something pretty mysterious had to start the universe because something came from nothing which is something.Redefining words kind of irks me though.
Right. So there are many species of tiger. Yet I doubt there was more than on tiger kind on the ark. Since we don't know for sure, I guess we could be open to looking at the possibility tigers may have evolved from lions!? But unless there was evidence I would stick with the one pair of tigers on the ark.
Maybe some of these!
ALL Sparrow Species Together Photo Gallery by R. Schnase at pbase.com
Ho hum.
I dont know what nothing really is. All I know is when Dawkins and Krause are trying to explain it they sound ridiculous. Even Krause said nothing really isn't nothing and it has something in it. They are trying to redefine nothing so that it can explain how something really came from nothing.Please give me one example of 'nothing'? even the nothing between planets has something in it.
I dont know what nothing really is. All I know is when Dawkins and Krause are trying to explain it they sound ridiculous. Even Krause said nothing really isn't nothing and it has something in it. They are trying to redefine nothing so that it can explain how something really came from nothing.
If the nothing between planets has something in it then it really isn't nothing. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds. We could go round and round in circles if you want but to me nothing means nothing, absolutely nothing at all. Because if you say that there is something that something is all around us and is a part of our existence. Its what gives matter substance. It has activity like the higgs field which is something.
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?