How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Thanks for that great insite.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I should be the one thanking you for the free entertainment.

You are welcome.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

1. Humans are apes
2. Baboons are monkeys.
3. Humans = the members of the genus Homo, or to be more specific the species Homo sapiens
dogs = the members of the genus Canis
cats = the members of the genus Felis
rats = the members of the genus Rattus
birds = the members of the class Aves
Fish = a paraphyletic collection of taxa, generally any non-tetrapod chordate. Phylum Chordata.
Monkeys = the members of the Parvorder Platyrrhini and the Family Cercopithecidae.
Baboon = the members of the genus Papio
Apes = the members of the superfamily Hominoidea
horses = the members of the genus Equs
cows = the members of the genus Bos
hogs = the members of the genus Sus
snakes = the members of the suborder SerpentesSo you're saying that the definition of "kind" applies to at least 6 (and the fish "kind" really messes things up) different levels of the current biological classification system. Do you see how useless your definition of "kind" is?Edited by DrJones*, : expanded it a bitEdited by DrJones*, : No reason given.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I don't disagree with it, I just thing it is utterly irrelevant to evolution/creation. Showing that there are definitions for the word 'kind' doesn't show there is a clear common definition for 'kind' in the context it is used by creationists. If you aren't interested in discussing things from a scientific point of view then you seem to have pretty quickly solved the 'Is it science?' element of this topic, whatever you are talking about isn't science.TTFN,WK

And as we established, nobody believes in the theory of evolution. What I said was different. I said "So, basically you agree with me that you accept the ToE" You are employing selection, recombination, possibly mutation, to cause allele shifts in the population which leads to change.So you are using mechanisms contained within (or rather described by) the ToE to engage in some population change (evolution). This confirms that you actually accept the ToE. Unless you have some other explanation that does not appeal to the ToE? No - that is a fact. We need a theory to explain that fact. How do you explain these changes?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC - always glad to see a new 'face' around here! I honestly don't understand the question. The Special Creation Theory should be scientific if it is going to be taught in a science class room. It isn't scientific because its mechanisms are untestable. Hopefully that satisfies your curiousity

Scientists call it Moertherium, an archaic pachyderm. It's in the family tree of today's elephants, though not thought to be a direct ancestor. The closest living relatives of the family are manatees, dugongs, and hyraxes.But that's only what all the godless evolutionists tell us. What we still don't know is how our top creationist minds classify this creature.Is it a 'kind' of elephant? If so, did Noah take these on the ark? Or does the vast difference in appearance between this animal and modern pachyderms represent a distinction in 'kind'? Is calling this (clearly non-elephantine!) animal a pachyderm just another ridiculous consequence of buying into all that macroevolutionist nonsense?Should we classify Moertherium as something else? 'Piggy,' perhaps?____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing evolution of the text.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

That isn't too surprising, seeing that wild hogs are just feral domestic pigs of Old World stock. They've been winnowed through a bit by having to fend for themselves, but they are so successful at that around here that they're a major nuisance.

or this one: perhaps a long nosed hog?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think it's a kind of duck!

c'mon, vash, tell me what you think.

...

c'mon, you two.Time to deal with the implications of your position.

Best way to shut me up is to reply, you two.