Kinds are not related

I thought you said it was impossible to know waht are different "kinds" and what are the same "kinds"? Then why are you so sure this is the case? What if all animals are of the same "kind"? But you don't know ow the whole is divided. No, you can say I am a member of the same species, however. Our genes are also very close/similar to chimps. Is that because on a family level, we are cousins?

---

I hunt for the truth

Well, with your grammatical fuckfest you call a post, I had a hard time swallowing any of the drivel you typed. It makes it hard to take someone serious when they use words like "cleverer" So, you make a totally random, factless HYPOTHESIS, and the burden of proof is on US to disprove it? Science doesn't work that way pal.The remainder of your nonsense is nothing more than you stating what you guess about the world around you, having no scientific knowledge of any sort, making totally random assumptions, then telling us to prove you wrong. I am a devout Pastafarian, prove MY god, the FSM, doesn't exist. Can't do it? Well then, I guess you are wrong and I am right. Because as we all know, it was the FSM who created some mountains and midgets first.

You have to have pondered it at least once. i want to hear how many TOTAL animals were aboard the Ark. Then, explain how they were cared for.Then, how the food was stored.Then, how the dung was dealt with.Once you have crapatulated (my word) about that, explain how one man, using NO modern technology more than maybe a pulley type system, built the largest wooden ship ever conceived. How much help did he have? The answers are staring you in the face.Edited by hooah212002, : comma's not properly placed, or a lack thereofEdited by hooah212002, : fixed last sentence

Let's say, for example, you invent something. You use absolutely no inspiration from anything else, thus making it completely and utterly original.Do you make something that "just works"?Think about the human head, for example. Doesnt it seem a wee bit too big for our neck? How many other animals have a problem with things such as whiplash? IMO, humans have one of the worst physical "designs" of all of the animal kingdom.Blindspot? poor peripheral vision? Back problems? Allergies?

You must still be communicating things badly. It still sounds like you are proposing that the populations change over time due to some kind of mechanism so that you get varieties of 'sorts'. If a group of animals changing over time isn't evolution...erm...then what is it? We can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that every organism so far tested is related to each other. I am perfectly happy to spend a thread going through through that. How that happens is not too relevant in this thread at this juncture, but we do know that mutations and natural selection occur because we've watched it - so it is likely they are involved.But you are still avoiding the problems with your model by trying to distract me with your criticisms of the scientific one. Your model is exactly the same but as you go back in time you at some point say 'stop' and you don't explain any further. So even if we were really charitable as I was in my last post...your model is exactly the same as the scientifically accepted one except it explains less and raises the question 'why did you stop?' I agree - drawing imaginary trees or other imaginary entities, or even imagining a pleasant story to explain life's diversity is very far from proof. If you want to discuss the non-imaginary method of drawing cladograms and so on you are welcome to take this to another thread. Nevertheless - the point I made in the last post remains: You also have cladograms (you admit as much in the quote above)- they are just disjointed. Creationists make the 'kind' thing into a distraction - they say certain things about what can and cannot happen between kinds but don't specify what kinds exactly are.I do discern between a dog and a bird. If you think evolutionary science doesn't you've grotesquely misunderstood something.A bird belongs to the living kind, the animal kind, the backboned kind, and the bird kind.A dog belongs to the living kind, the animal kind, the backboned kind, the mammal kind and the dog kind.so of course they can be separated. Exactly. Are you suggesting the Israelites had a superior methodology than modern science? It seems to me they drew a lineage, somewhat basic, and then lots of people have since assumed it was true. Why do you not think that is silly?Of course, evolutionary biology has picked criteria for drawing out lineages and have confirmed their accuracy using independent sources of evidence. Converging lines of independent evidence confirming that the trees are accurate - the probability of that happening by chance can be calculated (and it is ludicrously small) so either the evidence was deliberately made to look that way or evolution is on to something. No, I'm asking you a question. Why are you assuming the worst of me? Then you are either proposing the old 'front loading' theory or you are proposing that Noah took all 10,000 of the presently living species (as well as all the ones that have since died out) onto the ark in groups of six? I'm willing to bet 'front loading'. Was that so difficult? Why did you have to get so shirty about it? It is a common enough creationist idea and you could have just said it, right?I don't see why you want to deny mutations completely, seems to go against the observed evidence. We have seen that mutations occur with every new offspring, and that these mutations can have either zero, a small, or a large morphological effect. It is inevitable that some or even many of the 'sorts' out there have undergone some kind of mutation event since the ark - and there is empirical evidence that would strongly suggest this. It seems a bit premature, even if you don't require mutations in general, to deny that they could have had some impact. Why would I say this? I don't think speciation has stopped. I mean it stops when a lineage goes extinct, but that's about it. So as I said - evolution explains everything your model does and then some more. I'm not sure why we'd prefer your model with its arbitrary historical cutoff points, its pointless denial of observed phenomena and the lack of supplied evidence for the proposal that all genetic variety is already present not to mention the evidence that exists against this proposal.If you can show some way for blind independent researchers to develop the same cladograms in your model (for example lumping all frogs together and excluding newts) that would be a start. But as you admit in the OP - this cannot be done.If you supply evidence that all the genetic variety necessary to create the entire biodiversity of tens of thousands of sorts of birds was present in six ancestor species without needing mutation events, that might be something.Indeed - if you can supply any confirming evidence at all that might be nice. Otherwise your model is the same as what you are criticising evolution for - nothing more than imagination. Someone trying to figure out a model that is consistent with what they see - but that isn't specific enough to be tested.And I see no reason to be impressed by that method when I have multiple converging lines of independent evidence all pointing to one conclusion: all life is related.To show the arbitrariness: Why can I not counter with 'a single-celled organism at the beginning of the world had all the genetic variety necessary to create the biodiversity of the present earth' or maybe I could argue that there was 1 couple of ancestral animals, 1 couple of ancestral plants, 1 ancestral bacterium, 1 ancestral fungus and these contained all the genetic variety necessary etc etc.That is: can you justify the approximate area where you are making your starting point in any rigorous fashion? As your OP seems to indicate, you can't. So your model is just one of thousands of similar models - all imaginable and none evidenced. Why should we think yours is superior? We haven't even got to completely different concepts such as Lamarck's theory or Darwin's original theory, suitably modified to make it unfalsifiable and unevidencible or some random other theory yet dreamed up. Here is the kind of thing you are competing against - that is a thread which lays out in relatively simple terms, why I am confident that the evolutionary model is the right way forward. Until creationists can construct something of that ilk, I'm unlikely to be swayed. I felt it at least fair to give you a heads up on the daunting task you face in trying to make your model convincing to me.

So Noah quit loading the ark because he was out of sorts?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So, perhaps, seven "created kinds?" Look at your book, in Deuteronomy chapter 14: How many "kinds" are specifically named there, and how many more implied? And that's only "unclean" kinds, Mike.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Yeah and a bat is a a kind of a bird.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It is according to the bible. See Lev 11:-13-19 and Deut 14:11-18{ABE} Which you already know, because you were responding to Coragyps, silly me.Edited by Huntard, : Added ABE bit

---

I hunt for the truth

Modulous, your knowledge isn't enough. You have said things in this post which prove you have not understood what I mean. I feel at this stage, you are not thinking enough, as I have given a fair amount of clear information.You state that the evolutionary model is ok aswell pertaining to cladistics. The difference logically is that in my cladogram I would not assign a genetic relatedness, AND I do not "suppose" transitional species that do not exist.That's a vast difference logically, and yes, even if you can't see it. Because logically there is a difference between starting to make a cake with all of the ingredients, and just starting with one ingredient, and throwing the rest in. Logically, if I start with 100% information, and re-combine that information, I can end up with many, many different cakes - especially if I remove information.As for mutations, there is no mutation that has produced any "new" kind of design that wasn't already there. If there is, as you state, please show this new limb, or gut, or whatever. Yet you can't. All you can do is say that a speciation provides something new, even though the facts show that you come up with something unique, not new. You misunderstand, but I am not reiterating in the understanding that people's perceptions of what I am saying are false, therefore, why entertain them? You have to do some thinking about what I have said. It's the same with Genesis. "Explains" being the operative word. And it remains a "claim", of a theory I am not logically bound to.Your problem is that evolution is hypothetics that assume a great deal, rather than proving a great deal. Logically, to prove mutations and natural selection are responsible, you have to provide an example in the present, of a mutation which produces, in part or in full, a new design in nature.That, however disagreeable to you, is a very, very, very small request made by logic itself.You know that logic permitt science. It does not permitt that elaborate impressive theories rule it out through popular consensus. The seven species is an example. Even with seven species, the diversity you would get is vast, with natural selection. Ironically, that is not a creationist claim, infact it is an evolutionary fact.You are not seemingly able to comprehend how combinations of information can change, especially if you remove information. It does take some thought but any example of natural selection begins with information.This is why a frog will "become" a frog, because you have the genetics for a frog, already. Therefore why do I need mutations for variation of bird, for example.You might say; "this doesn't explain much" -- my answer is that I cannot change history in order to satisfy a certain way of thinking you possess.To get a variety of frog, I firstly need frogs with all of the information to get that variety.If I have a bowl of different coloured balls, then to make a row of blue balls, I need there to be blue balls. If there are no blue balls I need a mutation. But the point is that at the Ark, our "original point of time" so to speak, you would have all of those colours. It would be ludicrous to assume that God did not know how to make the correct dimensions for the Ark if we have already assumed he is God, agree?So if I want hundreds of birds, small differences in species would be explainable easily, and parsimoniously. Big changes would mean a different lineage from a different sort, or kind.But as I have said, variation is proven, I only need mutations to get something "new", but I have the information apriori.As for your example of assuming diversity from one common ancestor, without mutations, logically it does not work, because you start out with zero designs.That is the difference.As for trying to persuade you of something, this topic was at best a speculation. I cannot change you intellectually, where attitude is the problem.Bye for now. I tried a calmer post.

double postEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Even if a bat is a kind of bird, which I doubt it says, because usually the bible doesn't mean what an atheist states it means.Nevertheless I never stated that the bible was a biology book. According to my speculation, it would not even matter, it is related in that it can fly. That would be all.This wouldn't produce any magical transitional fossils to appear, unfortunately for you.

RIDDLEIf I take a bowl of different fruit, do I need anything more to get more fruit?

We don't need "magical transitional fossils"....we already have real ones.You are the one who needs the magic bit to try and prove anything.

Oddly enough, Atheists usually know the bible better than people like yourself. Why? because we actually STUDY. Not just read and believe one particular bible, but rather, compare ALL accounts of ALL the copies available to us.We also read comprehensively. Study the words and seek the truth.