Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 143 (531910)
10-20-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
10-20-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi RAZD,
Sorry about the complications.
RAZD writes:
OR to admit that your definition of macro-evolution is not the way it is used within the field of biology in general, or the the field of evolution in specific.
I well know my definition of macro evolution is not, can not, will never be accepted in the field of evolution. As Meldinoor said no one would believe macro evolution ever occurred.
You have a non life form which produces a life form. That single cell life form produces a man, and every other life form on the earth. All these variations of life forms were created by very small changes over 3.8 billion years.
There is a problem with that as the fossil record has things appearing all of a sudden fully developed.
Your source states:
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.
There is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for macroevolution.
To believe it happened, macroevolution has to be accepted by faith as there is no evidence, only belief.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 7:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 2:31 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2009 10:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 107 of 143 (531913)
10-20-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Blue Jay
10-20-2009 9:47 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
Having recognized this, do you now agree that a lead bar turning into a gold bar is not an appropriate analogy for biological evolution?
It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing. The problem is there is no scientific way to accomplish such a feat. It was tried many times.
Just as there is no way to show macroevolution ever occurred. There is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for macroevolution.
If there is no evidence the only way you can believe it happened is by faith.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 9:47 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-20-2009 3:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 7:30 PM ICANT has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 143 (531916)
10-20-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
10-20-2009 12:03 PM


evidence of small scale macroevolution
If you don't know how something began to exist there is no way you can figure out how it got from there to here.
So you visit a cliff one day. You see a rock on edge of the cliff. The next day you see the same rock at the foot of the cliff.
In order to understand how the rock managed to get down there do I need to understand
1) Rock formation.
2) The origins of gravity.
3) The origins of wind.
Could I not just suppose it fell?
The first thing I would have to have is evidence that the first life form began to exist and was produced by a non life form. Which is a scientific impossibility, which has been verified over the past 150 years.
God created the first life form. It was single celled.
You may believe (have faith) that you know but that is a long way from scientific evidence.
Agreed. Fortunately I believe because of the scientific evidence so we're all good, eh?
If you have scientific, verifiable, reproducable evidence how mankind evolved from a non life form then present it.
How about if instead I produce scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence that mankind descended from primate ancestors? Would that not satisfy you that life has evolved?
Therefore evolution from a non life form to mankind could never happened.
I'm perfectly happy to accept this as a starting point. The next question is: Can life evolve from other life? For instance can humans have evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 12:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 2:52 PM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 109 of 143 (531917)
10-20-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by bluescat48
10-20-2009 11:02 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi cat,
Bluescat48 writes:
This is why the term "kind" is useless in scientific classification.
Well I am not trying to use it as a scientific classification. I am using it as a Biblical classification.
God created all kinds.
Man is the one that messed things up by trying to classify everything according to the process he imagines everything evolved from a non life form.
I went into the ice cream shop and told the man I wanted some ice cream. He asked, "what kind of ice cream do you want". I said ice cream. He said, "look we have created over a hundred kinds of ice cream so what kind of ice cream do you want".
I asked what kind he had. He said, "we have vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, walnut, pecan, butterscotch," he went on to name 108 different kinds of ice cream. I got the walnut kind.
I said that to say this, God created every kind of everything that exists.
If you don't like the way God did it take it up with Him.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 11:02 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 2:08 PM ICANT has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 110 of 143 (531924)
10-20-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
10-20-2009 1:25 PM


Re: Nested clades
Actually it would be better to take it up with the bronze age men who coined the "kinds" like everything else in Genesis. That is where the problem stems. They wrote about what they observed and added what they thought to it.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 2:57 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 111 of 143 (531929)
10-20-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
10-20-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Nested clades
There is a problem with that as the fossil record has things appearing all of a sudden fully developed.
It's when you say stuff like this that shows you have no idea how evolution works, and indicates that what you raila aginst, or deny as being real, is not what we actually think is real. For you to make an informed decision between option A and option B, doesn't it make sense to know what both options are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 12:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 3:15 PM Perdition has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 112 of 143 (531931)
10-20-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Modulous
10-20-2009 1:20 PM


Re: evidence of small scale macroevolution
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Could I not just suppose it fell?
Sure you could since it existed.
Now if you was at that cliff one day and there was no rock on it and there was no rock at the bottom of the cliff, but when you returned the next day there was a 100,000 ton rock at the bottom of the cliff, then what.
First you observe that there is no indention in the ground as the rock is sitting on top of the ground (could not have come from outer space). There is no chuck of the cliff missing (so it did not break off something and land there). There are no tracks where heavy equipment moved the rock into place. It is heavier that flying machines could transport to that location.
What would you need to know to determine how that rock got to the bottom of that cliff?
I think you would have to know how that rock began to exist at the bottom of that cliff.
So you would have to know how rock could form overnight to such a massive size.
Modulous writes:
God created the first life form. It was single celled.
Are you agreeing with Darwin then or just making fun?
Problem is God said He did it a different way.
Modulous writes:
Agreed. Fortunately I believe because of the scientific evidence so we're all good, eh?
I got no problem with you having faith in what you believe. Just don't try to convince me to have faith in your belief that macroevolution ever took place without scientific verifiable reproducible evidence.
Modulous writes:
How about if instead I produce scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence that mankind descended from primate ancestors? Would that not satisfy you that life has evolved?
Are you proposing to start with a modern human and begin to trace through the fossil record mankind back to where the split came according to evolution?
The fossil record is all that will count as every kind of everything was created from the same materials by the same creator, having many things in common. You can not have any breaks in the lineage.
BTW things change on a daily basis some for the better most for the worst.
Modulous writes:
For instance can humans have evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes?
Not if a life form produce the first life on earth. Because that life form said He created mankind by forming him from the dust of the earth and then breathing the breath of life into him.
If a non life form produced the first life form on earth then anything would be possible.
So far science has proved life from non life to be impossible and there is not any evidence that it has ever happened.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 1:20 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 4:09 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 113 of 143 (531933)
10-20-2009 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by bluescat48
10-20-2009 2:08 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi cat,
bluescat48 writes:
They wrote about what they observed and added what they thought to it.
Actually no. One man wrote that God called the different creatures a kind.
You and everyone else have added what they think Moses was saying when he said God called them a kind.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 2:08 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 6:43 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 114 of 143 (531939)
10-20-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Perdition
10-20-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
It's when you say stuff like this that shows you have no idea how evolution works,
Evolution does not work, so what is there to know?
Option A: A life form created life and all kinds which have existed those extinct and those existing on the earth today.
Option B: Life arose from non life and from that life all life evolved into all kinds which have existed those extinct and those existing on the earth today.
Do I have another option?
Well Mod gave me:
Option C: God created a single cell life form and it evolved into all kinds which have existed those extinct and those existing on the earth today.
The problem with option c is that God said He did not do it that way.
So I am back to option A & B.
Maybe you would like to propose:
Option D:?????
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 2:31 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 3:36 PM ICANT has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 115 of 143 (531940)
10-20-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
10-20-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Nested clades
ICANT writes:
It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing. The problem is there is no scientific way to accomplish such a feat. It was tried many times.
Just as there is no way to show macroevolution ever occurred. There is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for macroevolution.
So an equivalent argument would be that God can't exist because I've never seen anyone turn into a pink gerbil when they pray, nor has anyone else ever seen it, and you can't prove that it ever happened.
Seriously, when you say that evolution isn't true because we've never seen anything like a bacterium turning into a horse - which according to you is a legitimate representation of a "kind" turning into a different "kind" - you're making exactly the same argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 3:53 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 116 of 143 (531943)
10-20-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ICANT
10-20-2009 3:15 PM


Re: Nested clades
Evolution does not work, so what is there to know?
But whenever you talk about evolution, what you're talking about is NOT evolution. You've created this definition of evolution in your mind, which you reject, but fail to see that your definition is not the one anyone who believes evolution uses. It's like me saying CHristianity proposes that all snakes can talk to me, therefore I reject all Christianity since it is impossible for snakes to talk. What I'm rejecting is not what others are accepting, so me refusing to consider Christianity on those grounds is wrong, at best, and lying at worst.
Do I have another option
How about evolution?
You haven't given an option of evolution. You've given option A (ICANT's interpretation of creation, which is pretty close to most people's conecption) and option B (ICANTs interpretation of evolution, which is completely different from what most people accept as a definition for evolution, which is my point)
The problem with option c is that God said He did not do it that way.
You have a book, written by men, who claim that God said he didn't do it that way. It is also a book full of allegory, parable, song, and allusion, so it can't be known for sure that the description on the book is supposed to be taken literally.
Maybe you would like to propose:
Option D:?????
Yeah, evolution: Life exists, somehow, whether through natural or supernatural means. It then began, through imperfect replication, to change, and through that change, new life forms have arisen that are distinct from the previous lifeforms. This process is enough to explain all the current and past life, as we know it.
Added By Edit: The problem is, you have no idea what evolution claims, entails, or requires, and yet you've convinced yourself that you do to the point that you can reject it. I'm suggesting, maybe you shouldn't do that until you're understanding of evolution is at least on the right track. There are a lot of epople here who can help you, if only you'll open yourself to knew knowledge instead of shtting out the light and then complaining that it's so dark.
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 3:15 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-20-2009 3:49 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 5:04 PM Perdition has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 117 of 143 (531949)
10-20-2009 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Perdition
10-20-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Nested clades
Thanks, Perdition. My point exactly but far superior in form and content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 3:36 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 118 of 143 (531950)
10-20-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ZenMonkey
10-20-2009 3:16 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Zen,
ZenMonkey writes:
So an equivalent argument would be that God can't exist because I've never seen anyone turn into a pink gerbil when they pray, nor has anyone else ever seen it, and you can't prove that it ever happened.
Well God came to earth in the form of a physical man. Lived on the earth for 33 1/2 years. Caused the blind to see, the lame to walk and the dead to live again. He took 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish and fed about 5k men plus women and children and there was 12 baskets full of fragments. He lay down his life and He took it up again in a body that was seen, felt, and recognized.
So yes man has seen God and rejected Him. You have the same opportunity as well as everybody else in the world today.
ZenMonkey writes:
Seriously, when you say that evolution isn't true because we've never seen anything like a bacterium turning into a horse - which according to you is a legitimate representation of a "kind" turning into a different "kind" - you're making exactly the same argument.
I simply say evolution is not true because macroevolution has never been observed to happen. Neither is there any scientific evidence that it does happen or has ever happened in the past. There is only a belief that it has happened because small changes happen. Therefore macroevolution had to happen. That is not science. That is faith.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ZenMonkey, posted 10-20-2009 3:16 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 119 of 143 (531955)
10-20-2009 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
10-20-2009 2:52 PM


evidence that isn't evidence
Could I not just suppose it fell?
Sure you could since it existed.
Good. So we both agree that you don't need to know an entities origin to be able to describe some part of its existence.
Are you agreeing with Darwin then or just making fun?
I'm tentatively accepting your premise and seeing if your conclusions are valid.
Problem is God said He did it a different way.
No he didn't, he said he did it by creating the first life as a single celled being. Now we have established a theistic origin - how does that impact evolution exactly?
Agreed. Fortunately I believe because of the scientific evidence so we're all good, eh?
I got no problem with you having faith in what you believe. Just don't try to convince me to have faith in your belief that macroevolution ever took place without scientific verifiable reproducible evidence.
I won't. As I said - I believe because of the scientific evidence. If you want to discuss that - you're welcome to join me in a thread that discusses some of that in more detail.
How about if instead I produce scientific, verifiable, reproducible evidence that mankind descended from primate ancestors? Would that not satisfy you that life has evolved?
Are you proposing to start with a modern human and begin to trace through the fossil record mankind back to where the split came according to evolution?
No. I propose to discuss multiple independent lines of evidence that converge towards one particular explanation - common ancestry.
For instance can humans have evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes?
Not if a life form produce the first life on earth.
Why can a life form not produce the first life on earth, having designed it to change?
Because that life form said He created mankind by forming him from the dust of the earth and then breathing the breath of life into him.
It sounds like your argument is not
"If you don't know where life originated you can't say it evolved"
but rather
"Yahweh said they didn't evolve"
If that is your argument then the discussion is over. There's no point talking about it.
It seems to me that you are just saying that if evidence of "cross-kind" evolution was presented it to you that would not be sufficient evidence that life has evolved. That doesn't make any sense to me, could you clarify?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 5:32 PM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 120 of 143 (531960)
10-20-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Perdition
10-20-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
It's like me saying CHristianity proposes that all snakes can talk to me, therefore I reject all Christianity since it is impossible for snakes to talk. What I'm rejecting is not what others are accepting, so me refusing to consider Christianity on those grounds is wrong, at best, and lying at worst.
I don't know what religion you know anything about but Christ followers will not tell you that all snakes can talk or even the one in Genesis can talk.
Anyone who knows the Bible will tell you the Devil decieved Eve speaking to her through the snake.
I take it you never met Ed the talking horse or Francis the talking mule.
Perdition writes:
and option B (ICANTs interpretation of evolution, which is completely different from what most people accept as a definition for evolution, which is my point)
Definition of evolution as I understand it.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation through changes in allele or variation of a gene. These changes are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life forms on earth today as well as those that are extinct.
If you don't like my version I will look up RAZD'S definition.
In Message 114
I presented the option B refered to.
Option B: Life arose from non life and from that life all life evolved into all kinds which have existed those extinct and those existing on the earth today.
So if I leave off Life arose from non life I get the same thing just in simpler words.
Your version Option D:
Perdition writes:
Yeah, evolution: Life exists, somehow, whether through natural or supernatural means. It then began, through imperfect replication, to change, and through that change, new life forms have arisen that are distinct from the previous lifeforms. This process is enough to explain all the current and past life, as we know it.
Do you actually believe there is a possibility that life on earth began to exist because of a supernatural means?
Science proves the non life source both of us presented has so far been proven impossible with loads of money and time spent trying to prove it can.
Perdition writes:
Added By Edit: The problem is, you have no idea what evolution claims,
Knowing what evolution claims and knowing what is necessary for life to form are two different things.
Without life there is nothing to evolve.
RAZD has some great post's on the process of evolution and we don't disagree until we get to macroevolution which there is no scientific evidence of ever happening.
When it comes to macroevolution you have to accept it on faith.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 3:36 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 5:16 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024