Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
604 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 603 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,728 Year: 21,764/19,786 Month: 327/1,834 Week: 327/315 Day: 5/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Methods of Historical Science to demystify the process for the public:
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 16 of 32 (848680)
02-13-2019 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by candle2
02-12-2019 8:05 PM


What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Both historical and observable science support this fact.

Yes, and evolution demands it because that's how it works: daughter species remain within its parents species' clade. We call it Monophyly, though more colloquially, "nested clades" (quoted from that Wikipedia link):

quote:
In cladistics, a monophyletic group, or clade, is a group of organisms that consists of all the descendants of a common ancestor. Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. The arrangement of the members of a monophyletic group is called a monophyly.

So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by candle2, posted 02-12-2019 8:05 PM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 5:47 PM dwise1 has responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 17 of 32 (848686)
02-13-2019 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
02-13-2019 1:08 PM


Kind produce kind is easy to understand. My youngest grandson understands it and he is in kindergarten.

In simple laymen terms, it means that humans produce humans as offsprings. And, that canines produce canine offsprings.

As a creationists this is what I would expect to see. And guess what, it is what I see. It is what we observe.

What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 02-13-2019 1:08 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2019 5:57 PM candle2 has responded
 Message 19 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2019 5:59 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 02-13-2019 7:50 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2019 5:06 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 18 of 32 (848687)
02-13-2019 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by candle2
02-13-2019 5:47 PM


So you’re saying that the “wolf kind” can only give rise to wolves, but never ever German Shepherd-looking dogs. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 5:47 PM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by candle2, posted 04-14-2019 6:40 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7176
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 19 of 32 (848688)
02-13-2019 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by candle2
02-13-2019 5:47 PM


candle2 writes:

What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.

It looks like you and evolutionary biologists are in agreement then. You only hear that kind of crap from creationists. (Though to be really pedantic humans are apes, so that happens routinely.)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 5:47 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 20 of 32 (848690)
02-13-2019 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by candle2
02-13-2019 5:47 PM


What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.

So do I, especially when that person is a creationist, which is usually the only kind of person who would say something so stupid.

You didn't answer my question:

DWise1 writes:

So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.

So then, are you saying that that is your position? Are you confirming that you believe that evolution would require offspring which are of an entirely different clade, such as "bobcats producing pigs"? So far, your attempt at avoiding to give me a straight answer tells me that that is indeed your position.

So my question, which I've had to post a second time above, is why do you believe something so blatantly false? What is the reasoning behind that claim? Yes, I know that that is one of the stock lies that you are taught as a creationist, so you turn your brain off and accept all those lies unquestioningly, meaning that you have no clue what those claims are actually talking about.

That is why you need to answer my question, so you can understand that claim yourself. Starting from how evolution works, explain how your knowledge of evolution would require "bobcats producing pigs." Explain how you got from there to here.

Remember, this is what I asked (emphasis added): "if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why"

Please try to at least try to answer my question this time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 5:47 PM candle2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2019 7:35 PM dwise1 has responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 21 of 32 (848691)
02-13-2019 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Thugpreacha
02-13-2019 1:13 AM


Re: Evidence
The HGP proved conclusively that there was a human population bottleneck. MtDNA and Y chromosomes clearly point to four men and four women around 4500 years ago. This was at the time of the global flood.

It is known that humans are degrading. Each successive generation has over 100 more mutations than the previous one. This is consistent with thousands of years, not millions. I'm not referring to the age of the earth, merely the history of humans.

I have several other points to make concerning your post, but that will have to wait awhile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-13-2019 1:13 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-13-2019 8:31 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2019 12:32 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


(1)
Message 22 of 32 (848696)
02-13-2019 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by candle2
02-13-2019 7:53 PM


Re: Evidence
The HGP proved conclusively that there was a human population bottleneck. MtDNA and Y chromosomes clearly point to four men and four women around 4500 years ago.

You are going to have to do better than this. Show us a reference to scientific papers reporting that anything you said here is true.

It is known that humans are degrading. Each successive generation has over 100 more mutations than the previous one.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Every individual, on average, has 100 new mutations that were not in their parent's genome, so that's millions of new mutations per generation.

Considering that we live longer and healthier than our ancestors, it would seem your claim that the mutations are "degrading" humans is bullshit.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 7:53 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15618
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 23 of 32 (848699)
02-14-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by candle2
02-13-2019 7:53 PM


Re: Evidence
quote:

The HGP proved conclusively that there was a human population bottleneck. MtDNA and Y chromosomes clearly point to four men and four women around 4500 years ago. This was at the time of the global flood.

Whoever told you that was making things up. And they don’t even understand the science they are misrepresenting (the interesting thing is that it implies that Noah’s sons all had different fathers!)

Here is an actual study Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences the full article requires payment however the abstract tells us that European and Asian populations underwent a severe bottleneck 10-60 thousand years ago (a report on the article says that effective population size - which is almost always lower than the real population size was 1200 individuals), while African populations underwent a less severe bottleneck.

Needless to say this does not agree with the Flood story at all.

quote:

It is known that humans are degrading. Each successive generation has over 100 more mutations than the previous one. This is consistent with thousands of years, not millions. I'm not referring to the age of the earth, merely the history of humans.

Mutations keep appearing but selection helps keep them under control. We have conclusive evidence that humans have been around for a long time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 7:53 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 24 of 32 (848770)
02-14-2019 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by candle2
02-13-2019 5:47 PM


microevolution, clades and kinds
Let me pop in here candle2 and say a few words

First off, welcome to the fray

Kind produce kind is easy to understand. My youngest grandson understands it and he is in kindergarten.

In simple laymen terms, it means that humans produce humans as offsprings. And, that canines produce canine offsprings.

As a creationists this is what I would expect to see. And guess what, it is what I see. It is what we observe.

Science is based on what we see, what the evidence is, what it shows, and then develops theory to explain the evidence, then it tests the theory to see if it makes valid predictions -- and that last part is what gives it the strength and authority to rule out false concepts.

Microevolution

When it comes to evolution, there are some basics that are known:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

The processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses. We see it every generation in every species. I'm sure your grandson recognizes that offspring are not clones of the parents but have visible differences. What is not so easy to see for him, but you should recognize it, is that the environment is also changing, and this alters the balance of opportunity and challenges for each species -- "fitness" is a moving target.

If we look at the continued effects of these evolutionary processes over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from any in the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the sub-populations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

Clades

An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants. With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree:

Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.

The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" (as defined by science, not creationists) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

As a creationists this is what I would expect to see. And guess what, it is what I see. It is what we observe.

What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. ....

Nor does the scientific explanation of microevolution (change within species) and macroevolution (accumulated change over many generations, clade formation and extension) suggest that such silly creationist straw-man misrepresentations of evolution would occur.

Kinds

Kind produce kind is easy to understand.

And what we see with scientific observations is that clades produce offspring that are the extensions of the parent clade population. Thus dogs give rise to dogs, with many varieties known and new ones developing. This is the closest fit I have seen to science and the creationist loose definition of "kind" -- The "A" clade could also be called the "A" kind, where all reproduction happens within living breeding populations according to the clade/kind genetics via microevolution.

... so the issue for creationists is not what happens downstream by microevolution ... but what happened in the past.

The problem for creationists is how far upstream (into the past) can you go. Creationism predicts a massive bottleneck of all species at one specific time (the purported flood) AND a common specific time when the whole process began (creation). Evolution predicts no such coordination of species and timing.

The first issue the creationists run into is time and how it is measured. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The scientific evidence rules out a young earth as a valid concept (ie - it is falsified).

The second issue the creationists run into is that there is always another common ancestor deeper in the past joining related clades together into a larger more extensive clade ... until you get back to the first known evidence of life, a simple single cell organism population, rather than lions and tigers and bears. This rules out a common "day of creation" as well as a world wide flood.

The theory of evolution explains this evidence, creationism doesn't.

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by candle2, posted 02-13-2019 5:47 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 25 of 32 (848938)
02-18-2019 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
02-13-2019 7:50 PM


Bumped for candle2 -- Monophyly
To repeat, since you never answered my question (Message 20):

quote:

What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.

So do I, especially when that person is a creationist, which is usually the only kind of person who would say something so stupid.

You didn't answer my question:

DWise1 writes:

So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.

So then, are you saying that that is your position? Are you confirming that you believe that evolution would require offspring which are of an entirely different clade, such as "bobcats producing pigs"? So far, your attempt at avoiding to give me a straight answer tells me that that is indeed your position.

So my question, which I've had to post a second time above, is why do you believe something so blatantly false? What is the reasoning behind that claim? Yes, I know that that is one of the stock lies that you are taught as a creationist, so you turn your brain off and accept all those lies unquestioningly, meaning that you have no clue what those claims are actually talking about.

That is why you need to answer my question, so you can understand that claim yourself. Starting from how evolution works, explain how your knowledge of evolution would require "bobcats producing pigs." Explain how you got from there to here.

Remember, this is what I asked (emphasis added): "if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why"

Please try to at least try to answer my question this time.


It's like when you were always turning in your math homework without showing your work. When you come up with a wrong answer without showing your work, then we cannot find where you went wrong, which will keep us from being able to help you correct your mistake and actually learn something.

Now, if you actually believe your false claim to be true, then explain it to us so that you can support and defend your claim (with the hope of convincing us and others, which is what most creationists are trying to do anyway).

As it stands, your claim qualifies here (I think) as "not even wrong", because it doesn't even have anything to do with evolution, which it claims to disprove. HINT: In order for a claim to serve as evidence against evolution, it must actually have something to do with evolution -- grossly misrepresenting evolution and making utterly false assumptions of how it work means that your claim doesn't have anything to do with evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 02-13-2019 7:50 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2019 12:30 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 26 of 32 (849090)
02-24-2019 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dwise1
02-18-2019 7:35 PM


Re: Bumped Yet Again for candle2 -- Monophyly
To repeat, since you never answered my question (Message 20):
quote:

What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.

So do I, especially when that person is a creationist, which is usually the only kind of person who would say something so stupid.

You didn't answer my question:

DWise1 writes:

So, somehow you seem to think that "kind produce kind" disproves evolution. Could you please explain that position, because it doesn't make any sense. For example, if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why -- a common creationist example I've seen is that evolution would cause us to expect a dog having kittens.

So then, are you saying that that is your position? Are you confirming that you believe that evolution would require offspring which are of an entirely different clade, such as "bobcats producing pigs"? So far, your attempt at avoiding to give me a straight answer tells me that that is indeed your position.

So my question, which I've had to post a second time above, is why do you believe something so blatantly false? What is the reasoning behind that claim? Yes, I know that that is one of the stock lies that you are taught as a creationist, so you turn your brain off and accept all those lies unquestioningly, meaning that you have no clue what those claims are actually talking about.

That is why you need to answer my question, so you can understand that claim yourself. Starting from how evolution works, explain how your knowledge of evolution would require "bobcats producing pigs." Explain how you got from there to here.

Remember, this is what I asked (emphasis added): "if you believe evolution requires one kind producing offspring of a different kind then please state so explicitly and offer examples that you would expect and why"

Please try to at least try to answer my question this time.


It's like when you were always turning in your math homework without showing your work. When you come up with a wrong answer without showing your work, then we cannot find where you went wrong, which will keep us from being able to help you correct your mistake and actually learn something.

Now, if you actually believe your false claim to be true, then explain it to us so that you can support and defend your claim (with the hope of convincing us and others, which is what most creationists are trying to do anyway).

As it stands, your claim qualifies here (I think) as "not even wrong", because it doesn't even have anything to do with evolution, which it claims to disprove. HINT: In order for a claim to serve as evidence against evolution, it must actually have something to do with evolution -- grossly misrepresenting evolution and making utterly false assumptions of how it work means that your claim doesn't have anything to do with evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2019 7:35 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 27 of 32 (850764)
04-14-2019 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coragyps
02-13-2019 5:57 PM


Wrong! Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.

Don't take this personally, because it is not meant that way. But, none of the animals in this group (kind) can produce an offspring of a different kind; only a total idiot would suggest otherwise.

Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.

I u/s that evolutionists claim this process occurs in small incremental steps, but that which is impossible remains impossible, regardless of the amount of time involved.

Evolutionists confuse"variation" within a species as micro evolution (which is a misnomer). Then they make a jump to macro by adding long periods of time.

Observable science clearly proves that kind produce kind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2019 5:57 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2019 7:26 AM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2019 12:17 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 04-14-2019 6:03 PM candle2 has not yet responded
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2019 6:48 PM candle2 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 28 of 32 (850765)
04-14-2019 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by candle2
04-14-2019 6:40 AM


Most of my response to this post can be found in Message 24, where your misconceptions of evolution are discussed in detail, with pictures. Accordingly:

Don't take this personally, because it is not meant that way. But, none of the animals in this group (kind) can produce an offspring of a different kind; only a total idiot would suggest otherwise.

As noted in Message 24, once you understand the evolutionary view, all breeding populations produce offspring that are members of their species, that are members of the clades, and "only a total idiot would suggest otherwise."

Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.

Wrong. You really should learn what actual evolutionary biologists say. Again, I refer you to Message 24.

I u/s that evolutionists claim this process occurs in small incremental steps, but that which is impossible remains impossible, regardless of the amount of time involved.

Curiously, the processes of evolution have all been observed, documented in hundreds of scientific papers in peer reviewed scientific journals, and are considered factual evidence that evolution occurs every day.

Evolutionists confuse"variation" within a species as micro evolution (which is a misnomer). Then they make a jump to macro by adding long periods of time.

Actually, as noted in Message 24, Evolutionists define microevolution as:

quote:
When it comes to evolution, there are some basics that are known:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.


Curiously, it can't be a "misnomer" if they are the people who originally define the term: science defines the terms of the science, and people using the terms in debates should use them properly, according to the science definitions.

Observable science clearly proves that kind produce kind.

Observable science clearly proves that members of a species produce more members of that species, and that they are also members of the parent species clade/s.

Again, as I said in Message 24,

quote:
Kinds

Kind produce kind is easy to understand.

And what we see with scientific observations is that clades produce offspring that are the extensions of the parent clade population. Thus dogs give rise to dogs, with many varieties known and new ones developing. This is the closest fit I have seen to science and the creationist loose definition of "kind" -- The "A" clade could also be called the "A" kind, where all reproduction happens within living breeding populations according to the clade/kind genetics via microevolution.

... so the issue for creationists is not what happens downstream by microevolution ... but what happened in the past.

The problem for creationists is how far upstream (into the past) can you go. Creationism predicts a massive bottleneck of all species at one specific time (the purported flood) AND a common specific time when the whole process began (creation). Evolution predicts no such coordination of species and timing.

The first issue the creationists run into is time and how it is measured. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The scientific evidence rules out a young earth as a valid concept (ie - it is falsified).

The second issue the creationists run into is that there is always another common ancestor deeper in the past joining related clades together into a larger more extensive clade ... until you get back to the first known evidence of life, a simple single cell organism population, rather than lions and tigers and bears. This rules out a common "day of creation" as well as a world wide flood.

The theory of evolution explains this evidence, creationism doesn't.


As I said at the beginning, Message 24 already covered most of my response. Perhaps you should read it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by candle2, posted 04-14-2019 6:40 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


(2)
Message 29 of 32 (850782)
04-14-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by candle2
04-14-2019 6:40 AM


Wrong! Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.

So, you are saying wolves give birth to dingoes and foxes give birth to wolves and dogs give birth to coyotes because they are all the same kind?

Don't take this personally, because it is not meant that way. But, none of the animals in this group (kind) can produce an offspring of a different kind; only a total idiot would suggest otherwise.

Don't take this personally, but only a lying idiot would would claim, right to our faces, that we suggest that.

When someone says "don't take it personally" they mean you should take it personally.

Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.

This is your fantasy. You are making false claims (lies) about evolution and the scientists who study it. You made this up and cannot document any scientist saying it.

I u/s that evolutionists claim this process occurs in small incremental steps, but that which is impossible remains impossible, regardless of the amount of time involved.

Profound.

Evolutionists confuse"variation" within a species as micro evolution (which is a misnomer). Then they make a jump to macro by adding long periods of time.

Evolutionary biologists on the other hand recognize that variation within species are the results of mutations and that there are new mutations in every generation. This leads to the obvious conclusion that each and every generation has a slightly different genetic makeup than the parent generation. This has been documented millions of times.

Observable science clearly proves that kind produce kind.

Science has documented that the genetic makeup of every offspring is slightly different genetically from the parents.

You are a typical ignorant creationist who makes totally false claims about evolution and then makes more false claims that are unsupported by any scientific evidence that you have refuted your strawman.

We have seen hundreds of your kind here over the years and not once has any documented evidence supported your silly arguments.

You should take everything I said here personally.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by candle2, posted 04-14-2019 6:40 AM candle2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 12:56 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33825
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 30 of 32 (850788)
04-14-2019 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tanypteryx
04-14-2019 12:17 PM


I'm sure candle2 can answer you but since I'm on the same topic on the fossil thread I'll add my own thoughts for you to trash as usual based on your indominatlble evo bias.

candle2 writes:

Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.

Haven't been following this so don't know candle's criteria but I've been pursuing the criterion of same body build plus behavioral characteristics to identify a species. So if all these are the same in these respects, which I think is the case, I'd agree they are all of the same Kind. And of course he said "sometimes" they interbreed, meaning as a rule they don't. And I also agree that inability to interbreed can occur within a species and does NOT differentiate between species; i.e. it is NOT "speciation."

The sensible response to this would be to acknowledge that this is a different set of criteria for "species" than the ToE gives, and just leave it at that. You have to twist things too much to insist it doesn't work as criteria.

So, you are saying wolves give birth to dingoes and foxes give birth to wolves and dogs give birth to coyotes because they are all the same kind?

And this is exactly such a case of twisting because of course that is not what he meant and you know it. Just as a tiger and a lion MAY occasionally interbreed so presumably may some of these creatures, and they produce a mixed breed when they do. You just don't want to acknowledge the creationists' rejection of the idea of speciation. That of course makes the supposed "understanding through discussion" described at the top of the board impossible.

Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.

This is your fantasy. You are making false claims (lies) about evolution and the scientists who study it. You made this up and cannot document any scientist saying it.

.

Word games, word games. This is just another way of saying what the ToE DOES teach, why do you have to fight every little difference in definition? After millions of years the ToE DOES predict an entirely different species will emerge from this one species continuing to breed male with female for all those years. Evos obviously don't care about communication, just twisting stuff to claim they are right.

And he's right when he goes on to say the ToE makes this a matter of small incremental steps.

Evolutionary biologists on the other hand recognize that variation within species are the results of mutations and that there are new mutations in every generation.

Evolutionary biologists ASSUME that such variations are the result of mutations. In fact very few mutations are viable at all and couldn't possibly create a viable allele; most of them are neutral, many are deleterious, and I think all the junk DNA is the result of mutations which basically destroy DNA. Normal variations build from built-in alleles, built into the Kind from Creation.

And you should acknowledge THIS as another explanation that works if you weren't so hidebound. Scientists can't be right if they are glued to the wrong theory.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that each and every generation has a slightly different genetic makeup than the parent generation. This has been documented millions of times.

And misunderstood millions of times. You don't need mutations to the bring about these differences from generation to generation. All you need is the normal variations of sexual recombination from reproductive event to reproductive event.

And you might acknowledge THIS too as a reasonable view of it that contradicts yours.

But I know you'd rather talk about creationists as "hundreds of your kind" rather than consider that sometimes we have an intelligent alternative to offer against your ridiculous ToE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2019 12:17 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019