Well, evolution simply means "change in allele frequency over time through mutation and natural selection", which is something we have directly observed. What you disagree with is that evolution accounts for the descent of all life from a common ancestor. You've already said yourself that you accept new species and breeds that arise, you just don't believe that this can occur outside of the classification of "kinds".
Perfect. That is why the working definitions of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" works wonders from where im sitting.
But you haven't yet explained how you use your classification and what applies to it. Please answer the question.
NO IT ISN'T.
"Dogs" and "cats" are the names of species. Are you saying that "kind" and "species" mean the same thing? If not, then please define what specifically distinguishes a "kind" from a "species".
My point is, as I said before, whether we use "kind" or "species" interchangeably,the concept will remain the same. No animal will produce a species other than its own kind (of species). Then you will say, "well wait a minute, a dog is a subspecies of the wolf".....and I will say, well, either a wolf is a dog, or it isn't a dog. If the wolf isn't a dog, then that would be an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal. Either they are the same, or different. My personal belief is, we can cut the "subspecies" crap out altogether, and call a wolf what it is, a dog. The definition of a dog in any dictionary fits the wolf perfectly so there is no reason or justification to why they are different in any way other than a different breed of the same kind.
Animals reproduce with variation all the time. What's the problem?
No problems here. I agree that animals reproduce with variation. My only beef is that there is no indication that the variation exceeds the kind. You can call it species if you want. It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact of the matter is, dogs will always produce dogs, cats/cats, etc. No exceptions to the rule.
So are "dogs" and "wolves" different "kinds" or not? I've already said that dogs are a subspecies of wolves.
Once again...from my personal perspective, there is a
DOG KIND..AND THERE IS A CAT KIND...the dog kind will be: the wolf, the coyote, the german shepard, the dingo, the jackal, the fox...the cat kind would be: the lion, the tiger, the leopard, the cheetah, the jaguar, the ocelot, the domestic cat. There is no need to NOT include the wolf in the dog kind unless you have a presupposed religion you are trying to spread. Absolutely none whatsoever.
We've seen lots of speciation occur and lots of subspecies that never previously exist evolve in our lifetimes. Also, your insinuation that it is "convenient" is laughably absurd. Do you honestly believe that the only reason people say "evolution takes a long time to occur" is because we don't then have to demonstrate it? That's insane.
Show me speciation that has occurred with animals. I've looked it up and seen a lot of hog wash. Nothing was clear cut, but a dazzlement of "big words" lol. Show me an example of speciation with ANIMALS. Not plants..but ANIMALS. Show me speciation that we have observed with animals. Please do. As far as the convience is concerned, thats exactly what it is. Millions of years, right? far to convenient.
Another meaningless phrase. My mother and father are something "other than what I am", so precisely how different does something need to be from it's ancestors to qualify as a significant enough change? You have yet to define any parameters whatsoever.
Did your mother and father create a non-human?? If the answer is no, then you obviously still dont get it.
How would it be "right up my alley"? Do you honestly think this is what evolution would predict? Do you not understand what "reproduction with variation" means?
You keep asking questions that I already gave answers to. "Reproduction with variation" means...a kind..lets say..the dog kind (not like we used that one before), there are many different breeds of dog right? There is one kind (dog), with many different breeds within the kind (jackals, dingos, foxes, coyotes, german shepard, labrador, mastiff, and yes, wolves. All of these animals are within the dog "kind". They are all dogs. They are different variations within the dog kind.
You apparently don't know the first thing about the theory of evolution or genetics if you think "we all evolved from a common ancestor" means the same thing as "a dog could give birth to a cat". Nowhere has anyone here, or in any field of evolutionary study, made any such claim.
This is silly. If the originator of the first cat wasn't a cat, thus, the cat coming from a non-cat, how is that any different from a dog giving birth to a cat, or "evolving" to a cat. In both cases, the thing that arose was different than its originator. So what is the difference. If you believe that what I said was absurd, how could you believe in evolution, when the whole theory consist of animals that produce different kinds of animals. Not only that, you think that a cat and dog is a different species, right? So, if a dog was to give birth to a cat, that would be "speciation", right? *shrugs*...your theory, not mines.
Can you demonstrate where that dog came from?
I believe that the first dog came from God, a God that doesn't need the trial and error of a false theory to get the job done. I admit that my belief is in fact A RELIGION, as I believe that it is not possible for ANY life to come from non-living material. So I believe that all living things came from a transcendent supernatural being :yes:
So, to steal your pet store analogy, if you asked for a dog and were brought a wolf, you'd be hunky dory? What about a lion and a tiger?
If I asked for the biggest dog in the pet store, and out comes a wolf, I got what I asked for, the biggest dog in the pet store.
Then you are demonstrably wrong.
Sure I'm not.
I never said it was "cut and dry", I've said that it's at least practical and testable.
It sure isn't.
Archaeoraptor, Archaeopterxy, whales having legs, Haeskels hoax, etc...theory is crawling with elaborate hoaxes.
The scientists, apparently. Because, believe it or not, they know more about it than you.
I didn't know that false presuppositions were considered "knowledge". If that is the case then I guess they do know more than me.
Well, according to you it's about not making conclusions about anything ever unless they happen to appease you.
No because there are some Christians that believe in evolution, but they believe that God was the orchestrator of the process (which I disagree with wholeheartedly, but it still is more plausible to me than evolution without I.D). So it is possible to believe in God and evolution, but for you, evolution is the only game in town. You have to believe it, as there is no way to account for the variations. So far from appeasing myself, I go with logic and reason.
If that's what you honestly believe, I cannot help you. That is obscenely ignorant.
Of course it is. Finding a fossil and only concluding that something has died is completely ignorant. Yup, sure is.
What are you talking about? What hoax?
Archaeopteryx
Are you going to say that every single one of them didn't. Because that's what you're saying.
You dont know which ones did and which ones didn't. So to just choose any random one and conclude that it is the ancestor of another set of bones millions of years later is about as speculative as it gets.
