the taxonomical groupings of species (to some degree) and genus (to a much greater degree) aren't clearly defined either because its very difficult to quantify morphology.
Kind would be the taxonomic grouping including all offspring that come from one of the original animal parent ancestors.
Then the video maker at 2:10 assumes linear speciation when its exponential in nature.
Then he defines "kind" when originally the word was Hebrew
@salmagnum god said also what breathes air through nostrils. So Noah had beluga, sperm, humpback and killer whales aboard. And all the birds hanging around. Wooo! Um, a freezer for polar bears. Incubator for kymoto dragons and such. All the disease. Wooo! just think how many rats, mice, cockroaches and rabbits would've multiplied. I won't even mention dinosaurs. Human inbreeding. Ok, sounds good. Makes sense.
0:54 Whenever I hear this, I present the following analogy:
Imagine that a young child were to ask what a car was. His parent shows the child a Prius, Chevrolet, and Model T, and says they are each cars. The child concludes that cars are things with wheels that move. The child then sees a train, bus, and plane, and calls them each "car". Because examples were given instead of an exhaustive definition, the child reached erroneous conclusions about what a car is. We need exhaustive definition.
Creationists read the bible selectively "kind" (miyn) is used elsewhere in the pentateuch to mean very similar animals. Leviticus 11:22, Deuteronomy 14:15 are two examples. If you do a Google search for "creationists kinds noahs ark and genesis 1:25" you will find an article I wrote about this. For the kind theory to hold water they need to prove it means a "root" species and that there is a brake on the evolutionary process. They have done neither.
1:48 Source pleease! Lol, do you know the dimensions of the ark?
It has been calculated the number of land animals were about 35,000. The space needed would be about 146 railroad cars. The number of insects, 1,700,000 would fill 21 box cars, giving a total of 167. (Sea animals were not included.) The ark was large enough to contain over 522 railroad cars, which left plenty of room for a year's supply of food and facilities for Noah's family. Thanks so much (As Kent Hovind would say :)
@salmagnum Actually the dimension you're looking for is 450 feet long and 75 feet wide (converted from cubits) The proportion of that and the weight of 70,000 (2 of each) land animals would stuff the ship and make the ship sink. (excluding the hilarious idea of boxes of insects being distributed. Or that there are deadly creatures on board). Even with 35,000 'kinds' you'd be assuming that the existing variety of species in the millions come from some type of miraculous super-evolution -___-'
2) Number of animals does NOT correspond to SIZES of them. Also you forget air-based animals, plants, and bacteria.
3) A good portion of the sea-life would have DIED from the heavy rain water. Also there would be entire desert and arctic lifesystems that Noah wouldn't have been able to get to and you must include those.
3) Most animals would require food, which would consist of OTHER ANIMALS.
And that's just summarizing the errors you put into ONE 500-character post. Either you are a troll or an idiot; I pray to Ra all-mighty that it's the former.
@salmagnum It really is sad what religion has done to you. Do you think it is really possible for a whole new population of species to be made just from the ancestors of one mating pair? Do you know anything about inbreeding? Of course you don't. You think the whole human lineage can be traced back to Adam and Eve. Use some common sense. A healthy population of a species can not be created by one mating pair.
Hahahahahaha.... I never get tired of the entertainment value you clueless fucking idiots can spew. the sheer mental incapacitation you must house in that twisted mind. true delusional mental defect.
But keep it up, its helping your "kind" die out with every post....and its funny as fuck.
Actually, it's a biped, which describes its method of movement, not its morphology.
"Tetropod" literally means "four legs", but is meant to refer to any VERTIBRATE DESCENDANTS of vertibrate creatures with four legs. It's a cladistic division, not a description.
Kind: A group of organisms in which the organisms either have the capacity to interbreed in the present and/or used to interbreed in the past. This requires the assumption that all organisms cannot be traced to a single common ancestor.
Kinds are whatever animals are familiar to the audience hearing the story.
Obviously, bronze age folk could not imagine penguins, so Noah had no penguins aboard the Ark, only the familiar cows, chickens, pigs, etc. of their own experience. For them, the Ark had room to spare.
Modern folk have millions of species to put on the Ark ... and that's a big problem.
The entire scientific definition of evolution holds absolutely no factual evidence when the "theory of evolution" is put to actual test. The only argument I will say is very basic and holds absolute truth scientifically. In one step of evolution it is stated "nothing living can form or reproduce from anything that is not living" so how the hell did all of us really get here? Look it up, challenge it, I don't care what you do, the fact remains that no evolutionists argument holds any weight.
"How the hell did all of us really get here?" Is a question the theory of evolution does not seek to answer. Evolution only accounts for the diversity of life we see before us. It describes how life adapts to its environment via genetic changes of populations and generations.
If you would like to study more on the scientific theories of how life arose from inanimate matter, search for the term Abiogenesis. It is a separate field of science.
@jlay2112 When you confuse the origins of life with the explanation for the diversity of life, you make your concerns not worthy of debate but to entertain you, no one knows exactly how life formed. We know how it could but not how because we don't know if it could have multiple ways of forming. You say evolution has no factual evidence. I don't know genetic similarities and patterns, fossil record, predictive power, and practical applications. Some things creationism doesn't have or explain
@HybridD91 That's not a problem for you, that we have no idea where life itself came from outside of the concept of an infinite, all-powerful God who transcends time, space and matter (as clearly found in Scripture)?
From Dictionary(dot)com
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
–noun Biology .
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
@jlay2112 That is just a stupid comment. There is tons of evidence to the contrary. Theologians have zip, nada zilch evidence for the magic man did it approach...
@stevehayes13 Creationists are not interested in a scientific discussion? So I suppose that's why they are the ones who initiate the debates. Atheists are not interested in the truth. That is why they refuse to debate creationists.
So here I am - a creationist interested in a scientific discussion. Challenge me. Bet you can't without bringing up religion. Atheists can never stick to science because they always lose so they have to switch to theology.
@stevehayes13 Post my scientific evidence in support of creation? There's far too much to put in this small space. That's like me saying give me all your evidence for evolution, then we'll talk. I have plenty of great books on the subject you could read. How about we start by you asking me a question? One thing I can say is that I believe that anyone's beliefs (theistic, atheistic or otherwise) should be firmly founded on evidence - not on blind faith.
@bestvalue I think you are going to have some conflicts here in a discussion because you are using words dramatically different than how they are defined in science. Belief's are not founded on evidence (which is defined as essentially observation). Evidence would be how a hypothesis, which is a belief statement, can graduate into a law or theory (depending on complexity). But anyway, how can you have evidence (natural observation) for theism (supernatural)?
@bestvalue The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is in the public domain. The peer reviewed literature consists of hundreds of thousands of papers. However, there is not one peer reviewed paper in support of creationism.
@bestvalue cite 1 peer reviewed scientific document which originates from a scientific journal of any biological discipline that supports Magical creation over biological evolution to account for the diversity of life.
@AcanLord LOL I wouldn't trust any peer reviewed journal that would publish a paper supporting "magical creation." There are many that support microevolution though - none that support macroevolution which is what you are trying to prove.
@bestvalue Contemporary science dosent distinguish any difference between micro and macro evolution. those are not terms used in any biological discipline and their is no operational difference between them. they are used by laymen and anti science advocates usualy, Evolution has already been successfully confirmed. nobody is trying to prove any of this anymore, its already been done. However, we do keep discovering more and more occurances of it.
@AcanLord "those are not terms used in any biological discipline"
Ha, ha. Where did you learn that? I suppose you were told by your professor (as one atheist told me) that those terms were made up by creationists (until I proved him wrong).
They discover more occurrences of microevolution, then extrapolate them to say macroevolution is proven. Until you begin to learn and accept the differences, you will always be misled into thinking evolution is a fact.
@bestvalue Again.. no difference between them. If you think they are different, then what makes them different? aside from simply occuring over a longer peroid that is.... you have nothing. all you are doing is arguing with semantics now.
@AcanLord "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
- Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, November 21, 1980, p. 883
@bestvalue lol. sad. like all creaotards, all you can do is attempt to quote mine and essientaly say, " see see! this person said this!" and avoid answering questions. THEIR IS NO DIFFERENCE. BOTH of them are merely change in allele Frequency through variation and natural selection of polymorphisms against the enviroment. Its exactly the same process in every Conceivable way. their is nothing setting them apart.
@AcanLord Ha, ha! I wrote my comment before I even read yours. I'm either a mind reader or a freakin' genius (and I think we all know I'm not a mind reader. Just ask my wife. LOL)
@bestvalue -- I'm either a mind reader or a freakin' genius (and I think we all know I'm not a mind reader. Just ask my wife. LOL) -- maybe your just a run of the mill antiscience advocate.
@AcanLord Why would you think I am "anti-science" just because I don't agree with you? In fact, I am using science to prove you wrong. Theists invented science. Again another unfounded claim. You guys should really listen to what people actually say instead of inventing your own ideas about what they think. A scientific theory must be able to withstand scrutiny. Just because I am thinking critically instead of accepting evolution blindly does not mean I am anti-science.
You said --- A scientific theory must be able to withstand scrutiny. Just because I am thinking critically instead of accepting evolution blindly does not mean I am anti-science. --- The Theory of evolution has already passed peer review. It has already been confirmed and is no longer in question. Only one reason remains to ever fight against it. Its called religion.
You are a Anti science advocate because you are
attacking evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs.
@AcanLord As a matter of fact, evolution does NOT conflict with my beliefs. I reject it on the basis of the scientific evidence (or lack thereof). You accept it because as an atheist, you have no other choice. It is the only naturalistic theory on the table. I, as a theist, am free to accept or reject it based on the evidence. You are the biased one. Many theists and even Christians accept evolution.
@bestvalue So far, you have not demonstrated any operation difference between micro and macro evolution. all you have done is attempt to parrot what others have said.
@AcanLord Bare assertions and ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I provided evidence. Where's yours?
If I quote from the literature that explains why they are not the same are you going to accuse me of quote mining again? What would you have me do . . . make shit up like you do?
@bestvalue -- If I quote from the literature that explains why they are not the same are you going to accuse me of quote mining again? - You havent done that. you have STILL to explain the differences.
bestvalue 16 seconds ago --- Nope. but i suggest you familarize yourself with evolution before attempting to talk about it. Because this macro/ micro thing is merely a semantics game. its solely a matter of time involved with nothing else making them different. you have not shown any other differences.
@AcanLord "Because this macro/ micro thing is merely a semantics game."
I have no doubt that that is what they teach you. They are wrong and I have just proven it. Take those quotes to them and ask them to explain it to you.
@bestvalue The quotes you have given do no such thing. none of them demonstrate a difference between micro and macro evolution. they are STILL both just change in allele over successive generations.
Weather the number of generations is 60, 600 or 6000. it dosent matter. their still isent a difference. the only reason the term is EVER used is outside research itself when talking about time scale, and that can change completely depending on the time scales involved.
@bestvalue When do you think something becomes Macro evolution and stops being micro evolution for example? It dosent, because they are the same. If we are talking about a 100 generation peroid in population genetics, you can easily say 20 generations is a micro evoulationary phase and that 80 is macro... But what if we are only dealing with 20? then the 20 generations is the macro evolutionary system and anything considerably smaller such as 5 could be considered micro.
@AcanLord "When do you think something becomes Macro evolution and stops being micro evolution"
When there is an addition of NEW information resulting in NEW body parts. WE see fish lose eyes they already had and beetles lose wings they already had. No examples of organisms GAINING anything wings or eyes or anything new. And I don't just mean new FUNCTIONS. Those are perfectly acceptable adaptations under microevolution. An organism always reverts to it's original type after a few generations.
@bestvalue You said: --- When there is an addition of NEW information resulting in NEW body parts. --- This is almost copied Verbatim from creationist sources. This is not what consitutes macro evolution. -- An organism always reverts to it's original type after a few generations.
bestvalue 8 hours ago -- Demonstrably false..... this is outright incorrect. -- No examples of organisms GAINING anything wings or eyes or anything new.-- Except in hox gene dupilcation. cont-
If you're referring to antennapedia in fruit flies where a leg forms in place of the antennas, that's not new information. The fruit fly already has information for making legs. It just made one in the wrong place. Don't you see that if that's the best you've got as evidence for evolution, then you've got nothing? I can't believe they teach this crap and you swallow it.
@bestvalue -- If you're referring to antennapedia in fruit flies where a leg forms in place of the antennas, that's not new information. -- i am not. when i am citing hox gene duplication i am refering to Increase in segmentation and or limb count. Instances of this can be observed in echinoderms and Arthropods. It has also been seen in some chordates. As a matter of fact, it is the accepted explination for the origin of segmentation itself.
you said: -- Don't you see that if that's the best you've got as evidence for evolution, then you've got nothing? I can't believe they teach this crap and you swallow it.
bestvalue 13 hours ago --- Dead wrong. New features emerge through a graduated proccess of Hox gene duplication followed directly by natural selection effecting changes to said structure. This produces unique forms based on already existences templates, corresponding directly with mayrs law of monophyly.
@bestvalue Everything you just indicated is completely incorrect. Animals don`t "revert" to anything after any ammount of evolution. This has never been observed. Macro evolution is not directly synonomous with gaining new structures. and infact, gaining new structures has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED. such as the cecal valves of italian wall lizards and Hox gene duplication. The Concept of De-evolution is entirely invalid and infact according to population genetics, its impossible.
@AcanLord "Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions . . . All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type." - Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.
@bestvalue -- In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. -- Accept for when they never do. The only cases where this is every possible is in instances of reticulate evolution.
@AcanLord "Animals don`t "revert" to anything . . . This has never been observed."
From Darwin himself: "The young, as we have just seen, reacquire their longitudinal stripes, and the boars invariably reassume their tusks. They revert also in the general shape of their bodies, and in the length of their legs and muzzles, to the state of the wild animal . . . From these several facts we see that with pigs when feral there is a strong tendency to revert to the wild type . . ."
-- From these several facts we see that with pigs when feral there is a strong tendency to revert to the wild type . . ." -- You are relying on observations made over one hundred years ago. I suggest you attempt to google Dolos Law of Irreversability. De-evolution Violates the laws of population genetics.
@AcanLord Somebody is flagging your comments as spam. I just want you to know that it's not me.
It's funny that you say I'm relying on 100-year-old data. I Googled Dollo's Law and it is an hypothesis from 1890. Wikipedia says there are exceptions so it's not a "law." Take finch beaks. They oscillate back and forth in size depending on droughts.
But the whole devolution thing is really a red herring. Macroevolution is impossible and even if it were, it wouldn't mean God doesn't exist.
@AcanLord What I mean is we really got off topic. Let's say I concede that organisms can't regain something they've lost. For the most part, I agree with that. But a mechanism that causes you to lose things, namely natural selection acting on random mutations, cannot be the process which inevitably creates new structures.
We have zero examples of this mechanism generating complexity or increasing genetic information. We see only stasis or degeneration whether in the lab or the fossil record.
Once again. you are entirely wrong. do you enjoy being wrong? Yes, lost structure cannot be regained. however New structures Absolutely CAN create novel structures and functions. Infact i already listed some for you already. The Cecal valves of italian wall lizards is a reasonably well known one, "but its not the only one" others include the formation of new Pigment proteins within the Anthozoans such as Coralimorphria "which i have directly observed"
@AcanLord No, I do not enjoy being wrong and I work very hard to make sure my beliefs are in accordance with the facts. I will check out the "cecal valves" and the "pigment proteins" you speak of. But I've got to say - they don't sound too promising. Are they your best evidence for macroevolution? Can you explain more about exactly what you observed? If it's anything like bacterial resistance to antibiotics (which also can be observed) that's not evolution.
@AcanLord "Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste."
Notice the operative words - "have never been reported." So maybe the researchers missed them before. Just a theory.
Also notice that every other change they observed was merely microevolution. You would argue that there wasn't enough time. But the whole point of the article was that evolution happens fast.
@bestvalue Once again, i must point out to you that you simply don`t know know what qualifies as macro and evolution and what dosent. If your not a creationist, you really could have fooled me, because your understanding of evolution seems verbatiml what is found on answers in genesis. And again, for the omteenth time. marco / micro evolutionary distinctions simply arent made in all seriousness. the ONLY reason its used to simply illustrate time scale, and for NO OTHER REASON.
@AcanLord Asserting that again and again doesn't change things. I've provided evidence to the contrary, you haven't. Nowadays, they don't distinguish between micro and macro because they are trying to deceive you into thinking they are the same thing.
You say they are used to illustrate time scale. But yet your own cecal valve example showed (you believe) macro can happen in just 36 years. So it's not about the amount of time - its the amount of change. Right? (cont.)
@bestvalue ---- they don't distinguish between micro and macro because they are trying to deceive you into thinking they are the same thing. ---- The Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy Card. i love it.
---------You say they are used to illustrate time scale. But yet your own cecal valve example showed (you believe) macro can happen in just 36 years. So it's not about the amount of time - its the amount of change. Right? ---------- Its still about time. scale. when people say macro evolution all that is being described is Evolution that can be visualy descriptive, this usualy "but not always" means Long time peroids are involved. But like i already said, not always.
@AcanLord Perhaps you are right, I misspoke. There is no conspiracy. They are just as misled and deceived. I'm sure they really believe what their saying. They're just wrong.
-They're just wrong. - Right, The people who put years into study in a biological discipline and have published countless papers on the subject of evolution are wrong, but You have all the answers even though you dident even know what Dolos law of irreversiability, mahrs law of monophyly ,reticulate evolution or what the terms Macro and micro evolution mean in their proper context were before i started talking to you. That must be some book you`ve got there. Are you a hovind?
@AcanLord I mean the PROFESSORS are wrong. They likely haven't published squat about evolution. I proved Dollo's law is not a law but a principle and it has exceptions. But since you like laws, how about the law of biogenesis? And don't tell me it has nothing to do with evolution unless you're prepared to concede that God got it started.
Yes, I am Hovind and I broke out of jail to make your life a living hell. Conspiracy indeed.
@bestvalue You seem confused. many of the professors you are claiming to be wrong, "Are also" the very same scientists who publish papers on these subjects. Infact its part of how some of them manage to become professors in the first place. Biogenesis DOSENT have anything to do with evolution... now it seems your muddling abiogenesis with evolution, like so many of you
fundie types seem to do. As much as you would like it to be, the subject is not Abrahamic mythology.
@AcanLord You may say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but has EVERYTHING to do with the existence of God so, again, unless you're prepared to concede that God got it started, it's part of the issue. The atheist worldview requires abiogenesis for evolution to take place. It is special pleading in your part to attempt to exclude it.
@bestvalue --- It is special pleading in your part to attempt to exclude it. --- Nope, Because bronze age mythology wasent the subject. were not talking about spirits, faries and unquantifiable undetectable magical creatures that arent in the universe. we are talking about science, they arent synonomous terms. Neither is Abiogenesis and evolution. i do wish you fundementalist types would stop confusing the two things. We are discussing evolution, not faries vs abiogenesis
@AcanLord Okay, I'll only say this once more so you can get it. f course i agree that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. But without intelligence, abiogenesis REQUIRED for evolution to begin. If you want to stick to evolution, fine (I'll still win) but if you want to talk atheism, abiogenesis is very much part of the issue. So are you willing to call yourself a theistic evolutionist?
@bestvalue -- So are you willing to call yourself a theistic evolutionist? -- Like i already told you. i don`t take mythology seriously.
--If you want to stick to evolution, fine (I'll still win)--
really? you havent been so far. You`re the guy who aparently is writing a book about how evolution is wrong while at the same time, has virtualy no understanding of the modern synthesis and whos knowledge of the subject extends to things he read on the internet.
@AcanLord It's really difficult to find and respond to your comments when someone keeps flagging them spam. Stop doing that whoever you are. You're not helping.
@AcanLord By the way - rapid evolution like this is part of the creationist model. I have heard evolutionists claim that if they ever witnessed new structures coming about this fast, it would disprove evolution. They mock Christians for their supposed hyperevolutiion since Noah's ark. Yet, they conveniently claim it as evidence even though it doesn't match their predictions. One for my side.
@bestvalue No, not for you side. Hyperevolution IS asinine. since to the acheive modern biodiversity in only a few thousand years would require animals to be born, Grow, have sex, reproduce ergo produce new generations ever single second until now. The leaps nessisary for it to be possible are comical.
It sounds to me like you have never heard of puncheated equalibrium before, since you seem to think sudden changes in mutation rate or selective pressures somehow invalides everything.
@AcanLord "you are not qualfied to write about this subject"
I was "standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton put it. Why not? Just because I don't buy it? Then atheists are not qualified to write about God. Take that Dawkins and Hitchens (sticks out tongue).
@AcanLord "The cecal valve is present in other herbivorous lizards in this family (Lacertidae)."
Okay, you wanna know what I think? I'm gonna tell you anyway. I think certain structures important to the survival of an animal in one environment can be lost if they are no longer useful in a new environment. But a structure may reappear if conditions change and it again becomes important for survival. But your presupposition that this can't happen leads you to call it macroevolution.
@bestvalue --- if conditions change and it again becomes important for survival. But your presupposition that this can't happen leads you to call it macroevolution. --- No sorry. it dosent work like that. if the genetic material which codes for that structure has changed too much it basicly cannot ever return to its former structure on its own. Reticulate evolution is needed for that to occur and reticulate evolution requires a infusion of genetic material from the basal population.
Furthermore, i never mentioned god. this isent about religion, although at some level you probably disagree because you want evolution to be false you can supplant a natural explaination with magical creation ex nihilo.
@AcanLord Actually, I DO NOT want evolution to be false. Why do you keep making that assertion? I am happy to accept evolution if shown the evidence. What I have seen is unpersuasive. I see a lot of big claims in the media (on the front page) that a few months later get proved wrong (on the back page). This leaves the general public with the impression that evolution is a fact. But if you study it carefully without bias, you see the flaws. Eventually, there are too many to ignore.
I agree. the media is wrought with inappropreate sensationalism.
however i think you have allowed that to jade your otherwise non-learn-ed
position. judging by everything you have attempted to tell me so far, you really don`t know much more about evolution then a creationist or the media does. I on the otherhand have directly observed occurances of damn near everything you have asserted is impossible, such as novel functions and systems emerging through natural selection.
@AcanLord "I on the otherhand have directly observed occurances of damn near everything you have asserted is impossible, such as novel functions and systems emerging through natural selection."
Wow! You should win the Nobel prize since one one else has.
@bestvalue --- Wow! You should win the Nobel prize since one one else has. --
Stop living inside your little bubble. Many people have observed phenomina like this before. increase in segmentation HAS been seen in general species. i`m not the only one to observe new pigment formation occuring in anthozoans ether. other forms of new genetic material emerging would be frame shift type mutations such as that observed in the every famous Nylonase.
@bestvalue And yes. Dolos law has been recognized for some time. my point in bringing up your century old data is the fact that newer discoveries into population mechanics "which further validate dolos law" render your best efforts at establishing that de-evolution is somehow possible, meaningless.
\ No its not a red herring. Not at all. it genuinely is impossible for de-evolution to occur. what you think you are talking about is really something else called reticulate evolution, not de-evolution. and since you havent even established correctly what Macro evolution even is, its quite frankly retarded that you even try and assert that it is impossible its quite obvious at this point you havent the slightest idea what it means and why its not really important.
@AcanLord "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided."
@bestvalue Again. simply parroting articles won`t help you or your position. Its still just the same process. and you still havent illustrated any operational difference between them.
@AcanLord ". . . large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. . . . This explosive evolution of phyla [Cambrian explosion] with diverse body plans is certainly not explicable by extrapolation from the processes and rates of evolution observed in modern species. . . ."
- Robert Carroll. 2000 [Jan]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15(1):27f.
@bestvalue and you realize of course that the cambrian explosion dident give rise to even a single vascular plant, arachind, insect or vertibrate? lol. You would do best simply to type normal responses instead of try and use google to protect yourself. None of the people in these articles share your position of magical creation ex nihilo over biological evolution to account for anything.
@AcanLord They're not from Google (although you should try it. You might learn something.) They're from my book on the evidence against evolution in all fine book stores everywhere (and even in some unfine ones).
I very much doubt i could learn anything from you. or at least, nothing i couldent have learned from ray comfort or kent hovind. i`m probably much better off with my univeristy biology class think you very much.
@bestvalue my point is that they don`t share your views. and they too, don`t actualy distinguish any operational differences between macro and micro evolution. maybe you missed that.
@AcanLord Now, go ahead . . . let the accusations of quote mining begin. You guys are soooo predictable. You ask for evidence from scientific journals, then when it is presented you say it's quote mined. When proven otherwise, what will be your next gambit . . . to claim these scientists must be closet creationists I suppose?
@bestvalue -- to claim these scientists must be closet creationists I suppose? -- thats just it. They ARENT creationists. they don`t share your views, and arent actualy trying to support what you are trying to say they are. Terms such as Micro evolution and macro evolution are never mentioned in the classroom and in no actual labs ether. it is simply......evolution.
@bestvalue Scientists generally do not include debate as part of the method for obtaining knowledge, they would instead use similar (loosely) formats of peer review, presentations at conferences, invited talks, etc. . Debates are more for entertainment and to exhibit skill at debating which includes traits like sophism. Though I do believe some speakers avoid debates as they know they will not fare well in them as some of the creationists are very skilled in debating.
we are kind because we inherit this as a gene from our anseters who used to live in groups where being kind helped our suvival, as favours wer returned it groups so each member helps others to survive. the selfish gene
P.S. Why can't people have private discussions or make videos insted of polluting the comment boxes. Yes, I'm talking to you both BestValue and CrazySatinInfidel
Here's my take on this subject. Your definition of species is: "The members of a group of populations that interbreed under natural conditions and are capable of producing fertile offspring."
I say a "kind" is "the members of a group of populations that can interbreed (even under artificial conditions) and are capable of producing offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)." It's simpler than species.
Wolves, foxes & coyotes are the same kind. Horses, donkeys & mules are the same kind.
@bestvalue "Wolves, foxes & coyotes are the same kind"--You mean are in the same family? Yeah, their the same "kind" as a snake and cat are the same "kind", both are eukaryotes(multicellular organism), the same "kind" of organism.
@HybridD91 No, they are the same "biblical" kind because they interbreed and produce offspring. You're equivocating again.
“Domestic dogs will interbreed with wolves and coyotes – and produce fertile offspring. Yet they are classified in three different species ... Maybe if they had it to do over again, [biologists] would just consider them different breeds of the same species.” - Boyce Rensberger, Instant Biology
@bestvalue Interbreeding can lead to infertile offspring and remove the purpse of the Ark.. Female mules can produce offspring, does that mean Biologist should label horses and donkies as the same species?
yes, once you see the complexity of life, you also know nothing exists without reason. pwned kind means one kind of animal, like lizards and likely dinosaurs, and birds, and the most common KIND of mammal, probably the 10 most common . pwned again. but then again, evolution does FAIL to explain why we have 2 kidneys... pwned. Triple kill. i should get drafted to the army.
@hubjubjub Nothing exists without reason? As in a reason for its existence? From what evidence can you infer that? Unpwned. As for your "kinds" of animals, it sounds like the ark was too big, since Noah only needed 10 mammals and 1 reptile/bird, which still have to superevolve into every species alive today within the last 4000 years. Unpwned. Just because a theory doesn't explain everything in its field doesn't invalidate it. Gravity is a good example of this. Unpwned. Stick to civilian life.
@HybridD91 That's just silly. Call them whatever kind you want but they are the same kind because they can interbreed and produce offspring. But all right - I'll play your game. Since wolves came first, I'd say the dog is the wolf kind. Problem solved.
@bestvalue What "kind" of wolf? Kind is to vague. Wolfs and humans are the same "kind", we're both mammals. Species would be the correct term and even two opposite species, or "kinds" according to you, can produce offspring. A tiger and lion are different "kinds".
@HybridD91 As I explained above, a kind is "the members of a group of populations that can interbreed (even under artificial conditions) and are capable of producing offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)."
Wolves and humans cannot interbreed. Thus they are not the same kind. A tiger and a lion are the same kind because they can interbreed and produce offspring.
@HybridD91 Actually the kind definition is more accurate because the evolutionist has to define a species as those "that interbreed under natural conditions." But if they can interbreed in the lab they are the same kind regardless of whether they usually mate in the wild.
@bestvalue Humans and wolves are both eukaryotes, a multicellular organism, therefore they're the same kind. I know they can't interbred but I'm making a point as to why kind is vague. This is my last response trying to explain to you why kind is to vague, I can't make it any more simple than that.
@HybridD91 And this is MY last attempt at explaining why it is NOT vague. You are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when you use the definition of kind to mean "type" or "sort." A biblical kind is one which can interbreed and produce offspring. It is similar to me saying "evolution is only a THEORY." Theory does not mean hunch or conjecture in science just as "kind " does not mean type or sort in the Bible. I can't make it any more simple than that.
@bestvalue "Kind" in the Bible means being able to interbreed and produce offspring? I will play along, ignoring interbreed. Noah shouldn't have needed two(seven in another chapter) lions, instead he could have had a lion and a tiger because they are the same "kind" when using your definition. Your definition of kind fails when it's applied to what you're using to defend it. Did Noah really think Tigers and Lions were the same "kind" or different "kinds"?
@HybridD91 What makes you think Noah had both lions and tigers aboard the ark? Perhaps he only needed 2 of the cat kind. Lions and tigers could have diversified since the flood (which is merely microevolution).
The animals came to Noah. He did not have to round them up so perhaps he didn't notice or care what animals he took on the ark.
Doesn't matter. As I have already stated twice, the biblical definition of a kind is: "the members of a group of populations that can interbreed (even under artificial conditions) and are capable of producing offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)."
@bestvalue You have no proof showing lions and tiger are products of interbreeding, referring to your older comment. Your definition of kind collapses when applied. If kind really means what you said, lions and tigers shouldn't exist. Their offspring isn't fertile. The purpose the Ark was to get animals according to their kind to reproduce, if Noah knew your definition of kind, he would have know that interbreeding can have negative results and wouldn't have taken a lion and a tiger.
@HybridD91 "You have no proof showing lions and tiger are products of interbreeding"
Huh?!!
My point is that I have provided an adequate definition of "kind" and I can categorically state that lions and tigers are the same kind because they can interbreed and produce offspring. The offspring does not need to be fertile and I do not need to claim that they don't naturally interbreed. If they can "bring forth" they are the same kind which should demonstrate to you that they are closely related.
@bestvalue You said Noah shouldn't have need two lions and two tigers, instead, you said it wouldn't matter because they are the same "kind". That's why I said you have no proof showing lions and tigers are products offspring. When talking about the Ark and kinds, fertile offspring is key because that was the purpose of it, to repopulate. If you had one lion and a tiger interbreeding, there would be no offspring to repopulate. That's why I said your definition of kind collapses when applied.
@HybridD91 I now I see what you're getting at. No, Noah may not have had either lions or tigers but a common ancestor to both. They have since speciated and degenerated to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring. Others may have degenerated to the point where they can't even interbreed. But they are still the same kind if they could ORIGINALLY interbreed.
@HybridD91 It's ironic to me how you seem to have a problem with lions and tigers being the same kind (when they can interbreed) but I bet you would argue that lions and brussel sprouts had a common ancestor.
@CrazySatanicInfidel Sure, CSI. And thanks for being respectful. If by creationist you mean I believe God created the universe, then yes. If by creationist you mean what is typically called a young-earth creationist, then I would answer yes with one caveat. I would only be "faithful" to that view as long as I thought the scientific evidence supported it (which I do). But I am open to new evidence that would overturn that view and would happily change (as I did once by examining the evidence).
@bestvalue Okay, cool. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few questions that I'm curious about: 1) What does the young earth hypothesis state? 2) What scientific evidence have you found that supports the young earth hypothesis? 3) If faith is required your beliefs, why is faith the reason that you believe something?
This has been flagged as spam show
the taxonomical groupings of species (to some degree) and genus (to a much greater degree) aren't clearly defined either because its very difficult to quantify morphology.
Kind would be the taxonomic grouping including all offspring that come from one of the original animal parent ancestors.
Then the video maker at 2:10 assumes linear speciation when its exponential in nature.
Then he defines "kind" when originally the word was Hebrew
Nice strawman. Fix your own taxonomy first.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
@ShawnSwander Nice strawman yourself, look at another place then creationist websites for a change.
NathanWubs 3 days ago
THIS IS SO JUVENILE!
Wanda7771 3 weeks ago
IDIOT!
Wanda7771 3 weeks ago
Creationist don't KNOW everything ........ BUT NEITHER DO YOU!!! WISEGUY!!!!!!!
Wanda7771 3 weeks ago
GET THAT STUPID OBAMA SIGN OUTTA MY FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wanda7771 3 weeks ago
@salmagnum god said also what breathes air through nostrils. So Noah had beluga, sperm, humpback and killer whales aboard. And all the birds hanging around. Wooo! Um, a freezer for polar bears. Incubator for kymoto dragons and such. All the disease. Wooo! just think how many rats, mice, cockroaches and rabbits would've multiplied. I won't even mention dinosaurs. Human inbreeding. Ok, sounds good. Makes sense.
paramattic70 1 month ago
0:54 Whenever I hear this, I present the following analogy:
Imagine that a young child were to ask what a car was. His parent shows the child a Prius, Chevrolet, and Model T, and says they are each cars. The child concludes that cars are things with wheels that move. The child then sees a train, bus, and plane, and calls them each "car". Because examples were given instead of an exhaustive definition, the child reached erroneous conclusions about what a car is. We need exhaustive definition.
MethanolCH3OH 6 months ago
Creationists read the bible selectively "kind" (miyn) is used elsewhere in the pentateuch to mean very similar animals. Leviticus 11:22, Deuteronomy 14:15 are two examples. If you do a Google search for "creationists kinds noahs ark and genesis 1:25" you will find an article I wrote about this. For the kind theory to hold water they need to prove it means a "root" species and that there is a brake on the evolutionary process. They have done neither.
hostroute 10 months ago
Evolution owns.
Mesarphelous 11 months ago
talking of 'kinds of animals'
it would be as sensible to define 'kind' by stripeness
so tigers zebra, and skunks are all the same 'kind' by creationist definition
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
@whitesquirrel7 don't forget tiger sharks and zebra fish!
cruciphile 11 months ago
1:48 Source pleease! Lol, do you know the dimensions of the ark?
It has been calculated the number of land animals were about 35,000. The space needed would be about 146 railroad cars. The number of insects, 1,700,000 would fill 21 box cars, giving a total of 167. (Sea animals were not included.) The ark was large enough to contain over 522 railroad cars, which left plenty of room for a year's supply of food and facilities for Noah's family. Thanks so much (As Kent Hovind would say :)
salmagnum 1 year ago
Comment removed
shoulderkolibri 11 months ago
@salmagnum Actually the dimension you're looking for is 450 feet long and 75 feet wide (converted from cubits) The proportion of that and the weight of 70,000 (2 of each) land animals would stuff the ship and make the ship sink. (excluding the hilarious idea of boxes of insects being distributed. Or that there are deadly creatures on board). Even with 35,000 'kinds' you'd be assuming that the existing variety of species in the millions come from some type of miraculous super-evolution -___-'
shoulderkolibri 11 months ago
@salmagnum
1) Source, please.
2) Number of animals does NOT correspond to SIZES of them. Also you forget air-based animals, plants, and bacteria.
3) A good portion of the sea-life would have DIED from the heavy rain water. Also there would be entire desert and arctic lifesystems that Noah wouldn't have been able to get to and you must include those.
3) Most animals would require food, which would consist of OTHER ANIMALS.
4) And we can't forget waste management.
onijester56 10 months ago
(cont)
5) You still don't deal with "Super Evolution".
6) You ignore BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS.
And that's just summarizing the errors you put into ONE 500-character post. Either you are a troll or an idiot; I pray to Ra all-mighty that it's the former.
onijester56 10 months ago
@salmagnum It really is sad what religion has done to you. Do you think it is really possible for a whole new population of species to be made just from the ancestors of one mating pair? Do you know anything about inbreeding? Of course you don't. You think the whole human lineage can be traced back to Adam and Eve. Use some common sense. A healthy population of a species can not be created by one mating pair.
godlynessdog 10 months ago
@godlynessdog Even a pair of radioactive earthworms?
VCat2006 8 months ago
@VCat2006 Not even. :)
godlynessdog 8 months ago
@salmagnum
Hahahahahaha.... I never get tired of the entertainment value you clueless fucking idiots can spew. the sheer mental incapacitation you must house in that twisted mind. true delusional mental defect.
But keep it up, its helping your "kind" die out with every post....and its funny as fuck.
The internet... where religions come to die.
nolobede 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
jlay2112 1 year ago
Comment removed
jlay2112 1 year ago
Those weren't punks. Those are emo kids. They were not allowed on the ark.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
An ostritch isnt a tetrapod! its a bipod!
shriramvenu 1 year ago
@shriramvenu
Actually, it's a biped, which describes its method of movement, not its morphology.
"Tetropod" literally means "four legs", but is meant to refer to any VERTIBRATE DESCENDANTS of vertibrate creatures with four legs. It's a cladistic division, not a description.
That's why snakes are also considered tetrapods.
qabala 1 year ago
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOUR ALL SINNERS
MrRudimentality 1 year ago
@MrRudimentality
thus speaks the voice of intelligent design and reasoned arguement
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
Kind: A group of organisms in which the organisms either have the capacity to interbreed in the present and/or used to interbreed in the past. This requires the assumption that all organisms cannot be traced to a single common ancestor.
pipjmalt 1 year ago
Wow... this does NOT sound like Depeche Mode.
=)
618033988749 1 year ago
Kinds are whatever animals are familiar to the audience hearing the story.
Obviously, bronze age folk could not imagine penguins, so Noah had no penguins aboard the Ark, only the familiar cows, chickens, pigs, etc. of their own experience. For them, the Ark had room to spare.
Modern folk have millions of species to put on the Ark ... and that's a big problem.
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
The entire scientific definition of evolution holds absolutely no factual evidence when the "theory of evolution" is put to actual test. The only argument I will say is very basic and holds absolute truth scientifically. In one step of evolution it is stated "nothing living can form or reproduce from anything that is not living" so how the hell did all of us really get here? Look it up, challenge it, I don't care what you do, the fact remains that no evolutionists argument holds any weight.
jlay2112 1 year ago
@jlay2112
Good day to you,
"How the hell did all of us really get here?" Is a question the theory of evolution does not seek to answer. Evolution only accounts for the diversity of life we see before us. It describes how life adapts to its environment via genetic changes of populations and generations.
If you would like to study more on the scientific theories of how life arose from inanimate matter, search for the term Abiogenesis. It is a separate field of science.
Best regards.
LiveTheWild 1 year ago
@jlay2112 When you confuse the origins of life with the explanation for the diversity of life, you make your concerns not worthy of debate but to entertain you, no one knows exactly how life formed. We know how it could but not how because we don't know if it could have multiple ways of forming. You say evolution has no factual evidence. I don't know genetic similarities and patterns, fossil record, predictive power, and practical applications. Some things creationism doesn't have or explain
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 That's not a problem for you, that we have no idea where life itself came from outside of the concept of an infinite, all-powerful God who transcends time, space and matter (as clearly found in Scripture)?
From Dictionary(dot)com
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-]
–noun Biology .
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Finding Noah's Ark:
Search: Noah's ark discovered (1 of 5)
salmagnum 1 year ago
@jlay2112
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... wow your an idiot... your talking about abiogenesis and using THAT to Disprove Evolution? AAAHAHAHA!!
DavySigfusson 1 year ago
@jlay2112 That is just a stupid comment. There is tons of evidence to the contrary. Theologians have zip, nada zilch evidence for the magic man did it approach...
fmanh 1 year ago
Creationists are not interested in a scientific discussion. They are engaged in a holy war. They wish to destroy science and create a theocracy.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
@stevehayes13 Creationists are not interested in a scientific discussion? So I suppose that's why they are the ones who initiate the debates. Atheists are not interested in the truth. That is why they refuse to debate creationists.
So here I am - a creationist interested in a scientific discussion. Challenge me. Bet you can't without bringing up religion. Atheists can never stick to science because they always lose so they have to switch to theology.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Very well. I suggest you post your scientific evidence in support of creation, let me know when you have and I will respond accordingly.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
@stevehayes13 Post my scientific evidence in support of creation? There's far too much to put in this small space. That's like me saying give me all your evidence for evolution, then we'll talk. I have plenty of great books on the subject you could read. How about we start by you asking me a question? One thing I can say is that I believe that anyone's beliefs (theistic, atheistic or otherwise) should be firmly founded on evidence - not on blind faith.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue I think you are going to have some conflicts here in a discussion because you are using words dramatically different than how they are defined in science. Belief's are not founded on evidence (which is defined as essentially observation). Evidence would be how a hypothesis, which is a belief statement, can graduate into a law or theory (depending on complexity). But anyway, how can you have evidence (natural observation) for theism (supernatural)?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@bestvalue The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is in the public domain. The peer reviewed literature consists of hundreds of thousands of papers. However, there is not one peer reviewed paper in support of creationism.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
@bestvalue cite 1 peer reviewed scientific document which originates from a scientific journal of any biological discipline that supports Magical creation over biological evolution to account for the diversity of life.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord LOL I wouldn't trust any peer reviewed journal that would publish a paper supporting "magical creation." There are many that support microevolution though - none that support macroevolution which is what you are trying to prove.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Contemporary science dosent distinguish any difference between micro and macro evolution. those are not terms used in any biological discipline and their is no operational difference between them. they are used by laymen and anti science advocates usualy, Evolution has already been successfully confirmed. nobody is trying to prove any of this anymore, its already been done. However, we do keep discovering more and more occurances of it.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "those are not terms used in any biological discipline"
Ha, ha. Where did you learn that? I suppose you were told by your professor (as one atheist told me) that those terms were made up by creationists (until I proved him wrong).
They discover more occurrences of microevolution, then extrapolate them to say macroevolution is proven. Until you begin to learn and accept the differences, you will always be misled into thinking evolution is a fact.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Again.. no difference between them. If you think they are different, then what makes them different? aside from simply occuring over a longer peroid that is.... you have nothing. all you are doing is arguing with semantics now.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
- Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, vol. 210, November 21, 1980, p. 883
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue lol. sad. like all creaotards, all you can do is attempt to quote mine and essientaly say, " see see! this person said this!" and avoid answering questions. THEIR IS NO DIFFERENCE. BOTH of them are merely change in allele Frequency through variation and natural selection of polymorphisms against the enviroment. Its exactly the same process in every Conceivable way. their is nothing setting them apart.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Ha, ha! I wrote my comment before I even read yours. I'm either a mind reader or a freakin' genius (and I think we all know I'm not a mind reader. Just ask my wife. LOL)
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue -- I'm either a mind reader or a freakin' genius (and I think we all know I'm not a mind reader. Just ask my wife. LOL) -- maybe your just a run of the mill antiscience advocate.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Why would you think I am "anti-science" just because I don't agree with you? In fact, I am using science to prove you wrong. Theists invented science. Again another unfounded claim. You guys should really listen to what people actually say instead of inventing your own ideas about what they think. A scientific theory must be able to withstand scrutiny. Just because I am thinking critically instead of accepting evolution blindly does not mean I am anti-science.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
You said --- A scientific theory must be able to withstand scrutiny. Just because I am thinking critically instead of accepting evolution blindly does not mean I am anti-science. --- The Theory of evolution has already passed peer review. It has already been confirmed and is no longer in question. Only one reason remains to ever fight against it. Its called religion.
You are a Anti science advocate because you are
attacking evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs.
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord As a matter of fact, evolution does NOT conflict with my beliefs. I reject it on the basis of the scientific evidence (or lack thereof). You accept it because as an atheist, you have no other choice. It is the only naturalistic theory on the table. I, as a theist, am free to accept or reject it based on the evidence. You are the biased one. Many theists and even Christians accept evolution.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue So far, you have not demonstrated any operation difference between micro and macro evolution. all you have done is attempt to parrot what others have said.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Bare assertions and ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I provided evidence. Where's yours?
If I quote from the literature that explains why they are not the same are you going to accuse me of quote mining again? What would you have me do . . . make shit up like you do?
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue -- If I quote from the literature that explains why they are not the same are you going to accuse me of quote mining again? - You havent done that. you have STILL to explain the differences.
AcanLord 1 year ago
-- make shit up like you do?
bestvalue 16 seconds ago --- Nope. but i suggest you familarize yourself with evolution before attempting to talk about it. Because this macro/ micro thing is merely a semantics game. its solely a matter of time involved with nothing else making them different. you have not shown any other differences.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "Because this macro/ micro thing is merely a semantics game."
I have no doubt that that is what they teach you. They are wrong and I have just proven it. Take those quotes to them and ask them to explain it to you.
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue The quotes you have given do no such thing. none of them demonstrate a difference between micro and macro evolution. they are STILL both just change in allele over successive generations.
Weather the number of generations is 60, 600 or 6000. it dosent matter. their still isent a difference. the only reason the term is EVER used is outside research itself when talking about time scale, and that can change completely depending on the time scales involved.
I
AcanLord 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
@bestvalue When do you think something becomes Macro evolution and stops being micro evolution for example? It dosent, because they are the same. If we are talking about a 100 generation peroid in population genetics, you can easily say 20 generations is a micro evoulationary phase and that 80 is macro... But what if we are only dealing with 20? then the 20 generations is the macro evolutionary system and anything considerably smaller such as 5 could be considered micro.
No differences.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "When do you think something becomes Macro evolution and stops being micro evolution"
When there is an addition of NEW information resulting in NEW body parts. WE see fish lose eyes they already had and beetles lose wings they already had. No examples of organisms GAINING anything wings or eyes or anything new. And I don't just mean new FUNCTIONS. Those are perfectly acceptable adaptations under microevolution. An organism always reverts to it's original type after a few generations.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue You said: --- When there is an addition of NEW information resulting in NEW body parts. --- This is almost copied Verbatim from creationist sources. This is not what consitutes macro evolution. -- An organism always reverts to it's original type after a few generations.
bestvalue 8 hours ago -- Demonstrably false..... this is outright incorrect. -- No examples of organisms GAINING anything wings or eyes or anything new.-- Except in hox gene dupilcation. cont-
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "Except in hox gene dupilcation"
If you're referring to antennapedia in fruit flies where a leg forms in place of the antennas, that's not new information. The fruit fly already has information for making legs. It just made one in the wrong place. Don't you see that if that's the best you've got as evidence for evolution, then you've got nothing? I can't believe they teach this crap and you swallow it.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue -- If you're referring to antennapedia in fruit flies where a leg forms in place of the antennas, that's not new information. -- i am not. when i am citing hox gene duplication i am refering to Increase in segmentation and or limb count. Instances of this can be observed in echinoderms and Arthropods. It has also been seen in some chordates. As a matter of fact, it is the accepted explination for the origin of segmentation itself.
AcanLord 1 year ago
you said: -- Don't you see that if that's the best you've got as evidence for evolution, then you've got nothing? I can't believe they teach this crap and you swallow it.
bestvalue 13 hours ago --- Dead wrong. New features emerge through a graduated proccess of Hox gene duplication followed directly by natural selection effecting changes to said structure. This produces unique forms based on already existences templates, corresponding directly with mayrs law of monophyly.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@bestvalue Everything you just indicated is completely incorrect. Animals don`t "revert" to anything after any ammount of evolution. This has never been observed. Macro evolution is not directly synonomous with gaining new structures. and infact, gaining new structures has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED. such as the cecal valves of italian wall lizards and Hox gene duplication. The Concept of De-evolution is entirely invalid and infact according to population genetics, its impossible.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions . . . All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type." - Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue -- In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type. -- Accept for when they never do. The only cases where this is every possible is in instances of reticulate evolution.
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord "Animals don`t "revert" to anything . . . This has never been observed."
From Darwin himself: "The young, as we have just seen, reacquire their longitudinal stripes, and the boars invariably reassume their tusks. They revert also in the general shape of their bodies, and in the length of their legs and muzzles, to the state of the wild animal . . . From these several facts we see that with pigs when feral there is a strong tendency to revert to the wild type . . ."
bestvalue 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
-- From these several facts we see that with pigs when feral there is a strong tendency to revert to the wild type . . ." -- You are relying on observations made over one hundred years ago. I suggest you attempt to google Dolos Law of Irreversability. De-evolution Violates the laws of population genetics.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Somebody is flagging your comments as spam. I just want you to know that it's not me.
It's funny that you say I'm relying on 100-year-old data. I Googled Dollo's Law and it is an hypothesis from 1890. Wikipedia says there are exceptions so it's not a "law." Take finch beaks. They oscillate back and forth in size depending on droughts.
But the whole devolution thing is really a red herring. Macroevolution is impossible and even if it were, it wouldn't mean God doesn't exist.
bestvalue 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord What I mean is we really got off topic. Let's say I concede that organisms can't regain something they've lost. For the most part, I agree with that. But a mechanism that causes you to lose things, namely natural selection acting on random mutations, cannot be the process which inevitably creates new structures.
We have zero examples of this mechanism generating complexity or increasing genetic information. We see only stasis or degeneration whether in the lab or the fossil record.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
Once again. you are entirely wrong. do you enjoy being wrong? Yes, lost structure cannot be regained. however New structures Absolutely CAN create novel structures and functions. Infact i already listed some for you already. The Cecal valves of italian wall lizards is a reasonably well known one, "but its not the only one" others include the formation of new Pigment proteins within the Anthozoans such as Coralimorphria "which i have directly observed"
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord No, I do not enjoy being wrong and I work very hard to make sure my beliefs are in accordance with the facts. I will check out the "cecal valves" and the "pigment proteins" you speak of. But I've got to say - they don't sound too promising. Are they your best evidence for macroevolution? Can you explain more about exactly what you observed? If it's anything like bacterial resistance to antibiotics (which also can be observed) that's not evolution.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@AcanLord "Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste."
Notice the operative words - "have never been reported." So maybe the researchers missed them before. Just a theory.
Also notice that every other change they observed was merely microevolution. You would argue that there wasn't enough time. But the whole point of the article was that evolution happens fast.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Once again, i must point out to you that you simply don`t know know what qualifies as macro and evolution and what dosent. If your not a creationist, you really could have fooled me, because your understanding of evolution seems verbatiml what is found on answers in genesis. And again, for the omteenth time. marco / micro evolutionary distinctions simply arent made in all seriousness. the ONLY reason its used to simply illustrate time scale, and for NO OTHER REASON.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Asserting that again and again doesn't change things. I've provided evidence to the contrary, you haven't. Nowadays, they don't distinguish between micro and macro because they are trying to deceive you into thinking they are the same thing.
You say they are used to illustrate time scale. But yet your own cecal valve example showed (you believe) macro can happen in just 36 years. So it's not about the amount of time - its the amount of change. Right? (cont.)
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue ---- they don't distinguish between micro and macro because they are trying to deceive you into thinking they are the same thing. ---- The Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy Card. i love it.
AcanLord 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
---------You say they are used to illustrate time scale. But yet your own cecal valve example showed (you believe) macro can happen in just 36 years. So it's not about the amount of time - its the amount of change. Right? ---------- Its still about time. scale. when people say macro evolution all that is being described is Evolution that can be visualy descriptive, this usualy "but not always" means Long time peroids are involved. But like i already said, not always.
AcanLord 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue i applaud your use of the Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy card. Congratulations.
You are now awesome You are now of the same excellence as Shockofgod and nephilimfree. "claps vigorously
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Perhaps you are right, I misspoke. There is no conspiracy. They are just as misled and deceived. I'm sure they really believe what their saying. They're just wrong.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
-They're just wrong. - Right, The people who put years into study in a biological discipline and have published countless papers on the subject of evolution are wrong, but You have all the answers even though you dident even know what Dolos law of irreversiability, mahrs law of monophyly ,reticulate evolution or what the terms Macro and micro evolution mean in their proper context were before i started talking to you. That must be some book you`ve got there. Are you a hovind?
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord I mean the PROFESSORS are wrong. They likely haven't published squat about evolution. I proved Dollo's law is not a law but a principle and it has exceptions. But since you like laws, how about the law of biogenesis? And don't tell me it has nothing to do with evolution unless you're prepared to concede that God got it started.
Yes, I am Hovind and I broke out of jail to make your life a living hell. Conspiracy indeed.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue You seem confused. many of the professors you are claiming to be wrong, "Are also" the very same scientists who publish papers on these subjects. Infact its part of how some of them manage to become professors in the first place. Biogenesis DOSENT have anything to do with evolution... now it seems your muddling abiogenesis with evolution, like so many of you
fundie types seem to do. As much as you would like it to be, the subject is not Abrahamic mythology.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord You may say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but has EVERYTHING to do with the existence of God so, again, unless you're prepared to concede that God got it started, it's part of the issue. The atheist worldview requires abiogenesis for evolution to take place. It is special pleading in your part to attempt to exclude it.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue --- It is special pleading in your part to attempt to exclude it. --- Nope, Because bronze age mythology wasent the subject. were not talking about spirits, faries and unquantifiable undetectable magical creatures that arent in the universe. we are talking about science, they arent synonomous terms. Neither is Abiogenesis and evolution. i do wish you fundementalist types would stop confusing the two things. We are discussing evolution, not faries vs abiogenesis
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Okay, I'll only say this once more so you can get it. f course i agree that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. But without intelligence, abiogenesis REQUIRED for evolution to begin. If you want to stick to evolution, fine (I'll still win) but if you want to talk atheism, abiogenesis is very much part of the issue. So are you willing to call yourself a theistic evolutionist?
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue -- So are you willing to call yourself a theistic evolutionist? -- Like i already told you. i don`t take mythology seriously.
--If you want to stick to evolution, fine (I'll still win)--
really? you havent been so far. You`re the guy who aparently is writing a book about how evolution is wrong while at the same time, has virtualy no understanding of the modern synthesis and whos knowledge of the subject extends to things he read on the internet.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord It's really difficult to find and respond to your comments when someone keeps flagging them spam. Stop doing that whoever you are. You're not helping.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@AcanLord By the way - rapid evolution like this is part of the creationist model. I have heard evolutionists claim that if they ever witnessed new structures coming about this fast, it would disprove evolution. They mock Christians for their supposed hyperevolutiion since Noah's ark. Yet, they conveniently claim it as evidence even though it doesn't match their predictions. One for my side.
bestvalue 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue No, not for you side. Hyperevolution IS asinine. since to the acheive modern biodiversity in only a few thousand years would require animals to be born, Grow, have sex, reproduce ergo produce new generations ever single second until now. The leaps nessisary for it to be possible are comical.
It sounds to me like you have never heard of puncheated equalibrium before, since you seem to think sudden changes in mutation rate or selective pressures somehow invalides everything.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Of course I've heard of Punk Eek. It's Chapter 9 in my book.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue you are not qualfied to write about this subject but okay.
AcanLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord "you are not qualfied to write about this subject"
I was "standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton put it. Why not? Just because I don't buy it? Then atheists are not qualified to write about God. Take that Dawkins and Hitchens (sticks out tongue).
bestvalue 1 year ago
@AcanLord "The cecal valve is present in other herbivorous lizards in this family (Lacertidae)."
Okay, you wanna know what I think? I'm gonna tell you anyway. I think certain structures important to the survival of an animal in one environment can be lost if they are no longer useful in a new environment. But a structure may reappear if conditions change and it again becomes important for survival. But your presupposition that this can't happen leads you to call it macroevolution.
bestvalue 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
@bestvalue --- if conditions change and it again becomes important for survival. But your presupposition that this can't happen leads you to call it macroevolution. --- No sorry. it dosent work like that. if the genetic material which codes for that structure has changed too much it basicly cannot ever return to its former structure on its own. Reticulate evolution is needed for that to occur and reticulate evolution requires a infusion of genetic material from the basal population.
AcanLord 1 year ago
Furthermore, i never mentioned god. this isent about religion, although at some level you probably disagree because you want evolution to be false you can supplant a natural explaination with magical creation ex nihilo.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Actually, I DO NOT want evolution to be false. Why do you keep making that assertion? I am happy to accept evolution if shown the evidence. What I have seen is unpersuasive. I see a lot of big claims in the media (on the front page) that a few months later get proved wrong (on the back page). This leaves the general public with the impression that evolution is a fact. But if you study it carefully without bias, you see the flaws. Eventually, there are too many to ignore.
bestvalue 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 1 year ago
I agree. the media is wrought with inappropreate sensationalism.
however i think you have allowed that to jade your otherwise non-learn-ed
position. judging by everything you have attempted to tell me so far, you really don`t know much more about evolution then a creationist or the media does. I on the otherhand have directly observed occurances of damn near everything you have asserted is impossible, such as novel functions and systems emerging through natural selection.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "I on the otherhand have directly observed occurances of damn near everything you have asserted is impossible, such as novel functions and systems emerging through natural selection."
Wow! You should win the Nobel prize since one one else has.
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue --- Wow! You should win the Nobel prize since one one else has. --
Stop living inside your little bubble. Many people have observed phenomina like this before. increase in segmentation HAS been seen in general species. i`m not the only one to observe new pigment formation occuring in anthozoans ether. other forms of new genetic material emerging would be frame shift type mutations such as that observed in the every famous Nylonase.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@bestvalue And yes. Dolos law has been recognized for some time. my point in bringing up your century old data is the fact that newer discoveries into population mechanics "which further validate dolos law" render your best efforts at establishing that de-evolution is somehow possible, meaningless.
AcanLord 1 year ago
\ No its not a red herring. Not at all. it genuinely is impossible for de-evolution to occur. what you think you are talking about is really something else called reticulate evolution, not de-evolution. and since you havent even established correctly what Macro evolution even is, its quite frankly retarded that you even try and assert that it is impossible its quite obvious at this point you havent the slightest idea what it means and why its not really important.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Could you please quote some literature as I have done to support your claims? Don't tell me YOUR opinion or that of your professor.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@AcanLord "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided."
- Sean B. Carroll. 2001 [Feb 8]. Nature 409:669.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Again. simply parroting articles won`t help you or your position. Its still just the same process. and you still havent illustrated any operational difference between them.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord ". . . large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. . . . This explosive evolution of phyla [Cambrian explosion] with diverse body plans is certainly not explicable by extrapolation from the processes and rates of evolution observed in modern species. . . ."
- Robert Carroll. 2000 [Jan]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15(1):27f.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue and you realize of course that the cambrian explosion dident give rise to even a single vascular plant, arachind, insect or vertibrate? lol. You would do best simply to type normal responses instead of try and use google to protect yourself. None of the people in these articles share your position of magical creation ex nihilo over biological evolution to account for anything.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord They're not from Google (although you should try it. You might learn something.) They're from my book on the evidence against evolution in all fine book stores everywhere (and even in some unfine ones).
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue
I very much doubt i could learn anything from you. or at least, nothing i couldent have learned from ray comfort or kent hovind. i`m probably much better off with my univeristy biology class think you very much.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord "None of the people in these articles share your position of magical creation ex nihilo"
Didn't say they did. So your next gambit is shifting the goal posts I see. Thanks for clarifying.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue my point is that they don`t share your views. and they too, don`t actualy distinguish any operational differences between macro and micro evolution. maybe you missed that.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord Now, go ahead . . . let the accusations of quote mining begin. You guys are soooo predictable. You ask for evidence from scientific journals, then when it is presented you say it's quote mined. When proven otherwise, what will be your next gambit . . . to claim these scientists must be closet creationists I suppose?
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue -- to claim these scientists must be closet creationists I suppose? -- thats just it. They ARENT creationists. they don`t share your views, and arent actualy trying to support what you are trying to say they are. Terms such as Micro evolution and macro evolution are never mentioned in the classroom and in no actual labs ether. it is simply......evolution.
AcanLord 1 year ago
@bestvalue Scientists generally do not include debate as part of the method for obtaining knowledge, they would instead use similar (loosely) formats of peer review, presentations at conferences, invited talks, etc. . Debates are more for entertainment and to exhibit skill at debating which includes traits like sophism. Though I do believe some speakers avoid debates as they know they will not fare well in them as some of the creationists are very skilled in debating.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
we are kind because we inherit this as a gene from our anseters who used to live in groups where being kind helped our suvival, as favours wer returned it groups so each member helps others to survive. the selfish gene
TheGYPGYP 1 year ago
P.S. Why can't people have private discussions or make videos insted of polluting the comment boxes. Yes, I'm talking to you both BestValue and CrazySatinInfidel
ailm96094 1 year ago
@ailm96094 Actually that is what we ended up doing. However, perhaps you could have learned something from our wisdom.
bestvalue 1 year ago
Here ya go:
"The members of an ORIGINAL group of populations that interbreed
under natural conditions and are capable of producing fertile offspring."
Kind refers to the original created group. That group then undergoes
speciation.
Just think - common ancestor group. That's pretty much the point of "kind",
except that it is the original created group rather than an intermediary.
I know that if you apply yourself, you can grasp the concept. : )
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I have to ask one question. What about organisms incapable of sexual production. Do they not have a "kind"?
ailm96094 1 year ago
@ailm96094 Sure. Why wouldn't they? Such words are used
to classify living things. If an organism exists, it can be classified.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
Here's my take on this subject. Your definition of species is: "The members of a group of populations that interbreed under natural conditions and are capable of producing fertile offspring."
I say a "kind" is "the members of a group of populations that can interbreed (even under artificial conditions) and are capable of producing offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)." It's simpler than species.
Wolves, foxes & coyotes are the same kind. Horses, donkeys & mules are the same kind.
bestvalue 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "Wolves, foxes & coyotes are the same kind"--You mean are in the same family? Yeah, their the same "kind" as a snake and cat are the same "kind", both are eukaryotes(multicellular organism), the same "kind" of organism.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 No, they are the same "biblical" kind because they interbreed and produce offspring. You're equivocating again.
“Domestic dogs will interbreed with wolves and coyotes – and produce fertile offspring. Yet they are classified in three different species ... Maybe if they had it to do over again, [biologists] would just consider them different breeds of the same species.” - Boyce Rensberger, Instant Biology
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Interbreeding can lead to infertile offspring and remove the purpse of the Ark.. Female mules can produce offspring, does that mean Biologist should label horses and donkies as the same species?
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 "does that mean Biologist should label horses and donkies as the same species?"
No, they should label them as the same kind.
bestvalue 1 year ago
yes, once you see the complexity of life, you also know nothing exists without reason. pwned kind means one kind of animal, like lizards and likely dinosaurs, and birds, and the most common KIND of mammal, probably the 10 most common . pwned again. but then again, evolution does FAIL to explain why we have 2 kidneys... pwned. Triple kill. i should get drafted to the army.
hubjubjub 1 year ago
@hubjubjub Nothing exists without reason? As in a reason for its existence? From what evidence can you infer that? Unpwned. As for your "kinds" of animals, it sounds like the ark was too big, since Noah only needed 10 mammals and 1 reptile/bird, which still have to superevolve into every species alive today within the last 4000 years. Unpwned. Just because a theory doesn't explain everything in its field doesn't invalidate it. Gravity is a good example of this. Unpwned. Stick to civilian life.
DarthVictive 1 year ago
that is brilliant. so well done. thank you.
Nickelpic324 1 year ago
There is only one kind of life on this planet. Earth kind.
It would indeed be extraordinary if another "kind" evolved.
Korkzor 1 year ago
Comment removed
HybridD91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HybridD91 Is a wolf a KIND of dog, is a dog a KIND of wolf, or are they the same KIND? A Creationist may never know.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 That's just silly. Call them whatever kind you want but they are the same kind because they can interbreed and produce offspring. But all right - I'll play your game. Since wolves came first, I'd say the dog is the wolf kind. Problem solved.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue What "kind" of wolf? Kind is to vague. Wolfs and humans are the same "kind", we're both mammals. Species would be the correct term and even two opposite species, or "kinds" according to you, can produce offspring. A tiger and lion are different "kinds".
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 As I explained above, a kind is "the members of a group of populations that can interbreed (even under artificial conditions) and are capable of producing offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)."
Wolves and humans cannot interbreed. Thus they are not the same kind. A tiger and a lion are the same kind because they can interbreed and produce offspring.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@HybridD91 Actually the kind definition is more accurate because the evolutionist has to define a species as those "that interbreed under natural conditions." But if they can interbreed in the lab they are the same kind regardless of whether they usually mate in the wild.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Humans and wolves are both eukaryotes, a multicellular organism, therefore they're the same kind. I know they can't interbred but I'm making a point as to why kind is vague. This is my last response trying to explain to you why kind is to vague, I can't make it any more simple than that.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 And this is MY last attempt at explaining why it is NOT vague. You are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when you use the definition of kind to mean "type" or "sort." A biblical kind is one which can interbreed and produce offspring. It is similar to me saying "evolution is only a THEORY." Theory does not mean hunch or conjecture in science just as "kind " does not mean type or sort in the Bible. I can't make it any more simple than that.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue "Kind" in the Bible means being able to interbreed and produce offspring? I will play along, ignoring interbreed. Noah shouldn't have needed two(seven in another chapter) lions, instead he could have had a lion and a tiger because they are the same "kind" when using your definition. Your definition of kind fails when it's applied to what you're using to defend it. Did Noah really think Tigers and Lions were the same "kind" or different "kinds"?
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 What makes you think Noah had both lions and tigers aboard the ark? Perhaps he only needed 2 of the cat kind. Lions and tigers could have diversified since the flood (which is merely microevolution).
The animals came to Noah. He did not have to round them up so perhaps he didn't notice or care what animals he took on the ark.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Their offsrping isn't fertile.
HybridD91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HybridD91 "Their offsrping isn't fertile."
Doesn't matter. As I have already stated twice, the biblical definition of a kind is: "the members of a group of populations that can interbreed (even under artificial conditions) and are capable of producing offspring (not necessarily fertile offspring)."
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue You have no proof showing lions and tiger are products of interbreeding, referring to your older comment. Your definition of kind collapses when applied. If kind really means what you said, lions and tigers shouldn't exist. Their offspring isn't fertile. The purpose the Ark was to get animals according to their kind to reproduce, if Noah knew your definition of kind, he would have know that interbreeding can have negative results and wouldn't have taken a lion and a tiger.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 "You have no proof showing lions and tiger are products of interbreeding"
Huh?!!
My point is that I have provided an adequate definition of "kind" and I can categorically state that lions and tigers are the same kind because they can interbreed and produce offspring. The offspring does not need to be fertile and I do not need to claim that they don't naturally interbreed. If they can "bring forth" they are the same kind which should demonstrate to you that they are closely related.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue You said Noah shouldn't have need two lions and two tigers, instead, you said it wouldn't matter because they are the same "kind". That's why I said you have no proof showing lions and tigers are products offspring. When talking about the Ark and kinds, fertile offspring is key because that was the purpose of it, to repopulate. If you had one lion and a tiger interbreeding, there would be no offspring to repopulate. That's why I said your definition of kind collapses when applied.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 I now I see what you're getting at. No, Noah may not have had either lions or tigers but a common ancestor to both. They have since speciated and degenerated to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring. Others may have degenerated to the point where they can't even interbreed. But they are still the same kind if they could ORIGINALLY interbreed.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@HybridD91 It's ironic to me how you seem to have a problem with lions and tigers being the same kind (when they can interbreed) but I bet you would argue that lions and brussel sprouts had a common ancestor.
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue To bestvalue, I take it that you are a faithful creationist. Could I respectfully ask why you believe the way you do?
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago
@CrazySatanicInfidel Sure, CSI. And thanks for being respectful. If by creationist you mean I believe God created the universe, then yes. If by creationist you mean what is typically called a young-earth creationist, then I would answer yes with one caveat. I would only be "faithful" to that view as long as I thought the scientific evidence supported it (which I do). But I am open to new evidence that would overturn that view and would happily change (as I did once by examining the evidence).
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue Okay, cool. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few questions that I'm curious about: 1) What does the young earth hypothesis state? 2) What scientific evidence have you found that supports the young earth hypothesis? 3) If faith is required your beliefs, why is faith the reason that you believe something?
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago