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

[Skywalker]

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.

The fact that ligers and tigons are sterile shows that its questionable even if species can evolve into other species. The fossil details of tiktaliik showed that it didn't really look intermediate.

Do you think there isn't a lot of overlap with intermediate and mixed?

 

[Valjean]

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.

And you still haven't explained what stops the process at the transition level. You just keep reciting the same catechism.

 

[Valjean]

The fact that ligers and tigons are sterile shows that its questionable even if species can evolve into other species. The fossil details of tiktaliik showed that it didn't really look intermediate.

Do you think there isn't a lot of overlap with intermediate and mixed?

No. Hybrids are rare outliers. They're not part of the chain.

 

[Skywalker]

And you still haven't explained what stops the process at the transition level. You just keep reciting the same catechism.

As shown with hybrids being sterile, genetic change has limits that even the creation of what is like a new species is sterile and doesn't create a generation of a new type of animal.

 

[Skywalker]

No. Hybrids are rare outliers. They're not part of the chain.

Hybrids, apart from the sterility aspect, are like a different species.

 

[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."

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

Hybrid speciation - Wikipedia

Hybrid speciation is a form of speciation where hybridization between two different species leads to a new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. Previously, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents was thought to be particularly difficult to achieve, and thus hybrid species were thought to be extremely rare. With DNA analysis becoming more accessible in the 1990s, hybrid speciation has been shown to be a fairly common phenomenon, particularly in plants.[1][2] In botanical nomenclature, a hybrid species is also called a nothospecies.[3] Hybrid species are by their nature polyphyletic.[4]

Hybrid speciation doesn't involve changes of kingdom, domain, families, orders, classes, and phyla.

 

[ajay0]

Voltaire stated, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."

Human beings tend to make a mess of every progressive institution they create due to their innate selfishness and greed which they had not taken the spiritual effort to eradicate. I felt that a just God is necessary to ensure justice is imparted to the poor, underprivileged, helpless who are vulnerable to exploitation. Including the elderly, widows and orphans.

This also includes birds and animals who are killed against their will to satisfy human hunger and even greed. Hopefully God will bring accountability in their cases as well.

I was embedded in atheism/agnosticism with such thoughts till I came about the Prajapita Brahmakumaris and came to see that God Himself has arrived as Guru now for humanity.This brought a lot of peace and contentment to me, as I understood that God is watching the back of every sentient being who are technically His children with deep love and affection.

I understood also from the Brahmakumaris that God looks like a incorporeal point of light, as mentioned or referenced in all diverse scriptures of the world too...

 

[Valjean]

As shown with hybrids being sterile, genetic change has limits that even the creation of what is like a new species is sterile and doesn't create a generation of a new type of animal.

You're comparing apples and air conditioners. Hybrids are almost never part of any evolutionary line. They're not the usual drivers of evolution. They're not responsible for all the transitional fossils paleontologists dig up.

Hybrids, apart from the sterility aspect, are like a different species.

They're flukes; outliers. Their form is due to reproductive variation between two different species or subspecies, not the normal, conspecific variation that drives major evolutionary lines.

Hybrid speciation - WikipediaHybrid speciation doesn't involve changes of kingdom, domain, families, orders, classes, and phyla.

Any speciation in a sustained line will change over time. As long as there's genetic mutation, reproductive variation and environmental change, organisms will adapt.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then they are not building themselves, are they?

They certainly aren't build by a sentient agent.
They instead spontaneously form / self-assemble in rather deterministic ways through the interaction of matter with the various forces of nature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I'm not.

Well, you are aware of it now.

GPS has an internal atomic clock. This clock needs to be calibrated to run at a different rate of clocks on earth, to account for the relativistic effects.

If you don't do this (and thus ignore relativity as if it's wrong), then gps does not work.
If you do do this (and thus assume relativity is real), then gps does work.

So there you go. I guess you learned something today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

That's not an answer to the question. I asked what you think. Do you think evolution is totally random?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that ligers and tigons are sterile shows that its questionable even if species can evolve into other species. The fossil details of tiktaliik showed that it didn't really look intermediate.

Do you think there isn't a lot of overlap with intermediate and mixed?

What? No. Quite the opposite. They are evidence that evolution occurs. In fact they are proof of macroevolution.

Do you know why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even evolutionists on this thread have admitted that changes of kinds don't happen in evolution.

...if by "kind" you mean "clade".

Remember how I explained to you that "kind" is a meaningless term in biology and taxonomy?
And also how I told you that if you don't mean "clade" by that word, that you're going to have to define what you DO mean by the word?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

IC is pseudo scientific nonsense of which the only purpose is religious creationist propaganda.
In context of biology, it's been thoroughly debunked (almost immediately after the cdesign proponentsists published it in their own propaganda channels)

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

Still stubbornly refusing to correct your false views on what an "intermediate" is in context of actual evolutionary biology ha?

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?

yeah, a "fish" with limbs and a neck.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tiktaliik was a fish. It wasn't a gray area or an intermediate. All gradual things have gray areas and intermediates. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

Fish don't have limbs and a neck.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's an animal with anatomical feature of both it's fish ancestors as well as its tetrapod progeny.
It has all the signs of an intermediate.

What evolutionary biologists mean by "intermediate" anyway - which doesn't seem to be the same thing that you insist it to mean. Just another strawman on your part. What's one more, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An intermediate fossil would be a fossil that looks in between an extinct and an extant animal.

False.

Both on the account of "it looks like" as well on the account of "extinct and extant".

Instead, it's about traits of ancestors and progeny. Neither of which must be extinct or extant.

But hey, strawman away, strawmanner.
It's obvious that it's the only way you can actually argue against modern biology - by misrepresenting it and then attack that misrepresentation.


As I told you before, even if you win that "argument", all you would have accomplished is refuting a misrepresentation of biology. Actually biology would remain unchallenged.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that nothing can evolve into a different family, order, class, phyla, and probably species

Law of monophy: species shall not outgrow their ancestry.

So indeed, members of family X, will not be producing off-spring belonging to family Y. If that were to occur, evolution would be disproven.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hybrid speciation doesn't involve changes of kingdom, domain, families, orders, classes, and phyla.

Nothing involves a change in those things in evolution.

Law of monophy: species shall not outgrow their ancestry.

If members of family X produce off-spring belonging to family Y, evolution would be disproven.


Get it into that stubborn religious head of yours.

 

[thomas t]

4) Another possibility that neither of us has thought of yet.

+

First off, you are assuming that there are only two possible explanations for why humans see beauty in nature. However we’ve already established that neither one of us know EVERYTHING, so it’s quite possible that there’s an explanation that neither one of us has thought of.

this argument can be turned against any claim.
Gravitation?
But there may be a possibilty neither of us has thought of yet, too.
It's a question of evidence, I think.
So, I stay with my opinion: the God proposition is the best explanation for the perceived beauty, no logical flaws in there, I think.