Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Valjean]

Since there are limits on how much they can mutate, how often mutations can occur or how many at one time can occur doesn't make a difference in terms of making macroevolution mutations possible.

Again, what are these limits, how do they work? What evidence do you have for these limits?

HIV is not positive, so it supports that mutations have limits and don't cause macroevolution. The lab studies of plant macroevolution only demonstrated changes within kinds, not changes of kinds.

HIV?????
Again, how do changes know to stop at the edge of speciation?

If macrevolution is not true, that leaves us with microevolution, which cannot explain where all life evolved from.

Evolution never claimed to explain the origin of life, just the changes within it.
You're showing your ignorance of the subject -- again.

 

[Valjean]

I have considered your responses and rejected them as false.

Argument from personal incredulity?

I'm sure you will inform me of how evolution isn't "totally" random.

Whaaaa?!

.
No wonder you're skeptical -- you don't understand evolution.
Why do you think they call natural selection "selection?" -- cause it's not random!

Google "Natural selection."

Reasonable alternatives: electric universe, resonance, harmony

Evidence?

 

[Valjean]

Geologic conditions and planetary chemistry don't make a change of kinds possible. Even evolutionists on this thread have admitted that changes of kinds don't happen in evolution.

The "evolutionists" don't even understand what you mean by 'kind'

Plants that alter the mind were not a part of God's original question.

The details of how a wedding happens varies from culture to culture, but the basic idea of a union is the same. White wedding dresses are more common in Christian cultures, and in China women wear red at weddings. But the idea of fidelity is a part of marriage in all cultures.

Even cultures that don't have marriage, in the western sense?
...And ideas of fidelity vary.

Law of cause and effect? You made it up, or some theist apologist did.

What about evolution I do't understand, from my opinions about irreducible complexity?

Well, for one thing, the fact that Irreducible complexity is bunk. The argument was debunked decades ago. Please find a better argument

Something can have features of both from being a hybrid or a subspecies, and not be an intermediate being.

Both what?, and what's an "intermediate being?"

There are very few transitional species apart from possible exceptions like the tiktaalik. There are even doubts about Titaalik because some people believe that it was a regular fish. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

There are THOUSANDS of transitional species. Every fossil of an extinct species is a transitional species. You are a transitional species.
What's this obsession with Tiktaalik? There's a clear succession of transitional species for all current species:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Horse - Evolution of the horse
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

How could evolution be true if natural selection suppresses their proliferation?

I don't understand. Birds born with stunted wings or arctic foxes born with short fur don't survive to reproduce and spread these traits. But natural selection also selects for useful traits.
Again, your questions indicate you're unfamiliar with the subject.

That's not fossil record evidence.

Gradual things have gray areas and intermediates.

??????????????
Of course they do. There is a temporal succession of intermediates. It demonstrates evolution, does it not.





.

 

[Skywalker]

Again, what are these limits, how do they work? What evidence do you have for these limits?
HIV?????
Again, how do changes know to stop at the edge of speciation?
Evolution never claimed to explain the origin of life, just the changes within it.
You're showing your ignorance of the subject -- again.

The limits are mutations do not lead to a different change of kinds. They work in the same way that everything has limits. There are so many languages that exist and songs that could be written. How many spoken languages are there around the world? - Quora

Mathematically how many songs can be created? - Quora

Changes stop at speciation because God created everything after its own kind.

Changes do exist on the micro, not macro level. There are millions of different animal and plant subspecies.

 

[Skywalker]

The "evolutionists" don't even understand what you mean by 'kind'
Even cultures that don't have marriage, in the western sense?
...And ideas of fidelity vary.

Law of cause and effect? You made it up, or some theist apologist did.
Well, for one thing, the fact that Irreducible complexity is bunk. The argument was debunked decades ago. Please find a better argument
Both what?, and what's an "intermediate being?"
There are THOUSANDS of transitional species. Every fossil of an extinct species is a transitional species. You are a transitional species.
What's this obsession with Tiktaalik? There's a clear succession of transitional species for all current species:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Horse - Evolution of the horse
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
I don't understand. Birds born with stunted wings or arctic foxes born with short fur don't survive to reproduce and spread these traits. But natural selection also selects for useful traits.
Again, your questions indicate you're unfamiliar with the subject.
??????????????
Of course they do. There is a temporal succession of intermediates. It demonstrates evolution, does it not.





.

They admitted that changes of kinds are impossible.

Fidelity is a moral absolute even though some people suppress it.

The law of cause and effect supports God being the first cause. Is God the first cause? | GotQuestions.org

Flagellum support irreducible complexity.

If a caspian tiger and siberian tiger were bred before they became extinct, they would be subspecies hybrids, but they wouldn't be intermediates of tigers and the original DNA that evolutionists believe developed in nature, which would be an intermediate being.

What are the estimates for the number of thousands? Not all extinct species are transitional species. Caspian tigers are extinct but they are no transitional species.

How could their useful traits be spread down on a population level but not on an individual level first?

 

[Skywalker]

You say you're familiar with the ToE, but questions like this, previous statements and assertions, and misuse of technical terms leads me to believe you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand the theory you're so opinionated about, and explanations seem to go in one ear and out the other.
Nor do you seem to understand the scientific method or how to evaluate evidence.
What's meant by intermediate is perfectly clear. What you mean by "mixed," and how it relates to the process of evolution -- not so clear.
Feline cladogram:

Each intersection a transitional order, family or species.

You can google cladograms of horses, whales, elephants, humans, reptiles -- anything. There are thousands of distinct, transitional species known.
There are THOUSANDS of 'tiktaaliks', of every species. You're clearly completely ignorant of the mountains of evidence, fossil, genetic, morphologic, and historical that's been accumulated.

Tiktaalik shows no signs of being an intermediate fossil. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

Are the Pectoral Fins of Tiktaalik Really Legs?
Before we get into Tiktaalik’s “legs,” it might be instructive to consider an old trick question. If we call our arms “legs,” then how many legs would we have? The answer, of course, is two legs—just because we call our arms “legs” doesn’t make them legs. The same might be said of the bony fins of Crossopterygian fish—we may call them “legs” but that doesn’t necessarily make them legs.

Shubin et al. make much of the claim that Tiktaalik’s bony fins show a reduction in dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone.7 This is important to them because the limb bones of tetrapods are entirely endochondral. They further claim that the cleithrum (a dermal bone to which the pectoral fin is attached in fish) is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the scapula (shoulder blade) of a tetrapod. They also claim that the endochondral bones of the fin are more similar to those of a tetrapod in terms of structure and range of motion. However, none of this, if true, proves that Tiktaalik’s fins supported its weight out of water, or that it was capable of a true walking motion. (It certainly doesn’t prove that these fish evolved into tetrapods.)

The Limbs of Tetrapods
The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. These unique features meet the special demands of walking on land. In the case of the forelimbs there is one bone nearest the body (proximal) called the humerus that articulates (flexibly joins) with two bones, the radius and ulna, farther away from the body (distal). These in turn articulate with multiple wrist bones, which finally articulate with typically five digits. The hind limbs similarly consist of one proximal bone, the femur, which articulates with two distal bones, the tibia and fibula, which in turn articulate with ankle bones; and finally with typically five digits. In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle, which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.

The femur of the hind limb articulates with the pelvic girdle, which consists of fused bones collectively called the pelvis (hip bone). It is this hind limb—with its robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column—that differs radically from that of any fish. (The tetrapod arrangement is important for bearing the weight of the animal on land.)

All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

The Fins of Fish (including Tiktaalik)
Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the forelimbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the forelimbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function, or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”8

So Is Tiktaalik a Missing Link?
Finally, what about the popular claim that Tiktaalik is the “missing link” between fish and tetrapods?

In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”

Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools. Even more sadly, these unfounded notions have been used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sure you will inform me of how evolution isn't "totally" random.

Natural selection is not random. It's selective. If you had any understanding of evolution this would be obvious.
Google it.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-spoken-languages-are-there-around-the-world

 

[Valjean]

The limits are mutations do not lead to a different change of kinds.

You're just restating your assertion. Again, what stops mutation at the species boundary? How do genes know when to stop mutating?

Changes stop at speciation because God created everything after its own kind.

What's that mean? Why? You're just preaching again.
Answer the question.

Changes do exist on the micro, not macro level. There are millions of different animal and plant subspecies.

Again, an unsupported claim. What's the difference between these levels?
Millions of species? Of course -- and we've never seen even one pop into existence. Where are they all coming from?

 

[Valjean]

Tiktaalik shows no signs of being an intermediate fossil. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

Again. Define "intermediate fossil."

 

[Skywalker]

Again. Define "intermediate fossil."

An intermediate fossil would be a fossil that looks in between an extinct and an extant animal. Ligers and tigons are intermediates of lions and tigers.

 

[Skywalker]

You're just restating your assertion. Again, what stops mutation at the species boundary. How do genes know when to stop mutating?
What's that mean? Why? You're just preaching again.
Answer the question.
Again, an unsupported claim. What's the difference between these levels?
Millions of species? Of course -- and we've never seen even one pop into existence. Where are they all coming from?

Mutations that lead to macroevolution cannot occur because changes of kinds are impossible. I believe that God creating everything within its own kind makes changes of kinds impossible. There are changes within kinds, which is microevolution. Changes of kinds would be macroevolution, which is impossible. Intermediates are an example of microevolution. Species and Speciation

Intergradation - Wikipedia

Changes cannot happen on the macro level because plants have never been observed evolving into animals. The existence of different breeds of dogs is microevolution. That's an example of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

There is no example of any one of the millions of species that exist changing into another species. Where does macroevolution come from if species evolving never happens? We never see new species because macroevolution has never happened.

 

[Valjean]

An intermediate fossil would be a fossil that looks in between an extinct and an extant animal. Ligers and tigons are intermediates of lions and tigers.

No! They're not. They're hybrids, not intermediates.
Weird -- you can define it, yet you don't understand your own definition.

 

[Valjean]

Mutations that lead to macroevolution cannot occur because changes of kinds are impossible. I believe that God creating everything within its own kind makes changes of kinds impossible. There are changes within kinds, which is microevolution. Changes of kinds would be macroevolution, which is impossible. Intermediates are an example of microevolution. Species and Speciation

Intergradation - Wikipedia

Changes cannot happen on the macro level because plants have never been observed evolving into animals. The existence of different breeds of dogs is microevolution. That's an example of the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

There is no example of any one of the millions of species that exist changing into another species. Where does macroevolution come from if species evolving never happens? We never see new species because macroevolution has never happened.

Your still doing it -- merely restating your assertions.
We all understand your beliefs, we just don't understand why. You've yet to offer any evidence for this, or any explanation of how it happens

 

[Valjean]

Tiktaalik shows no signs of being an intermediate fossil. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

You're the one who keeps bring up tiktaalik. There are thousands of other examples.

And Answers in Genesis? Seriously?

 

[Skywalker]

No! They're not. They're hybrids, not intermediates.
Weird -- you can define it, yet you don't understand your own definition.

Hybrids look intermediate of the two animals they descend from. There is an overlap of hybrids and intermediates. Hybrids look both intermediate and mixed.

 

[Valjean]

They admitted that changes of kinds are impossible.

Who did?

Fidelity is a moral absolute even though some people suppress it.

OK -- now support this assertion.

The law of cause and effect supports God being the first cause. Is God the first cause? | GotQuestions.org

Law of cause and effect? Creationist propaganda.

Flagellum support irreducible complexity.

ROFL!
Really? That was debunked decades ago, along with the eye. Google -- and get with the program.

If a caspian tiger and siberian tiger were bred before they became extinct, they would be subspecies hybrids, but they wouldn't be intermediates of tigers and the original DNA that evolutionists believe developed in nature, which would be an intermediate being.

Huh? What do hybrids have to do with intermediate species?

What are the estimates for the number of thousands? Not all extinct species are transitional species. Caspian tigers are extinct but they are no transitional species.[/quote/ Caspian tigers have no ancestors?!
See my previous feline cladogram link. Lots of transitional ancestors.

How could their useful traits be spread down on a population level but not on an individual level first?

It does start with an individual. One individual is born with it. His children inherit it, and their children.
It a trait is useful it's possessors are more fit, more successful, and leave more progeny. The trait increases as a percentage of the population, and may eventually become the norm.
Why is this hard to comprehend?

 

[Skywalker]

You're the one who keeps bring up tiktaalik. There are thousands of other examples.

And Answers in Genesis? Seriously?

Scientists did a study where one type of plant changed to another, but it was still a plant. It never became a eukaryote. It was also done in a lab. Experimental macroevolution

 

[Valjean]

Hybrids look intermediate of the two animals they descend from. There is an overlap of hybrids and intermediates. Hybrids look both intermediate and mixed.

They may look intermediate, but they're not part of the bloodline; not a link in the genetic sequence. In fact, most are sterile.
You're still not grasping the concept of an intermediate form/species/fossil.

 

[Valjean]

Scientists did a study where one type of plant changed to another, but it was still a plant. It never became a eukaryote. It was also done in a lab. Experimental macroevolution

How are you defining macroevolution, then? I assumed it was speciation, but now you seem to have loosened up and are citing Kingdom and Domain levels.
So which is it, no transition between species, families, orders, classes, phyla?

....and don't even think of bringing up "kinds."

Q: did you read my link to observed speciation in post 1187?

 

[Skywalker]

How are you defining macroevolution, then? I assumed it was speciation, but now you seem to have loosened up and are citing Kingdom and Domain levels.
So which is it, no transition between species, families, orders, classes, phyla?

....and don't even think of bringing up "kinds."

I believe that nothing can evolve into a different family, order, class, phyla, and probably species. Macroevolution is kingdom and domain level, not just speciation. There is some ambiguity as to what defines species, as wolves and coyotes can reproduce with each other. The same with wolves and dogs and wolves and dingoes and dogs and dingoes.