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

[Subduction Zone]

Not in the modern sense of engineered gene manipulation, used to create golden rice, for example.
In nature plants change through the same, natural, automatic mechanisms any other organism does.

A farmer may hijack the mechanism of natural selection by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits, artificially selecting the same way nature does naturally, but this isn't what's usually understood as "genetic engineering."

That doesn't mean macroevolution necessarily exists.

But it was still in a controlled environment.

There is no example in nature of plants changing into non plants or becoming a different kingdom or domain of plants.

A farmer selectively breeding plants is not evidence of macroevolution, because its not natural and it's not what would evolve in nature.

Sorry, like it or not macroevolution has and can be directly observed in nature.

And why would you use such a poor example as "plants turning into nonplants" That has never happened in evolution, nor can it happen. Change of kind is a creationist strawman. You are still an ape. Your ancestors never stopped being apes. Though there changes over time as they evolved allows you to call them "human" eventually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What kindgoms, domains, phyla, are changing in nature or have we seen make degrees of change in nature? Degrees of change means I understand that people believe evolution takes billions of years.

Try again in English please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For single-celled life to become human beings, there was a change of kinds of some sorts.

If there were no humans in the past, there were other kingdom or domain of beings that existed in our ancestors. The same is true for trees and animals.

Just drop the worthless "change of kinds" phrase. You cannot define it properly so it is of no use. It does not help you.

 

[Valjean]

Wouldn't that prove evolution, because evolution means that our ancestors were a different kingdom than us? According to evolution people descend from DNA that developed on its own in nature. Macroevolution by definition means family X over time evolved into family Y, that exists today.

You don't understand what a kingdom is. All plants are in one kingdom. All animals are in another kingdom. Most taxonomists classify all living things into only five or six kingdoms. What are the 6 kindgdoms?

I believe that the law of monopoly disproves evolution.

How???????
Monophyly - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

God is not a liar. I believe there was the great flood as the Bible tells, because world is full of evidence for that.

1. Modern continents, the result of the great flood.
2. Oil and gas fields, the result of vast amount of drowned organic material.
3. Orogenic mountains, the result of collapsed continent and flooding water.
4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, result of flood.
5. Great glaciers, result of flood and its cooling effect.

All of these 'evidences' are laughable. They've all been thoroughly debunked.
Stop looking for scientific information in Answers in Genesis and read some actual geology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How???????
Monophyly - Wikipedia

Spoilsport

Whenever he talked about the "Law of Monopoly" I felt like asking about Park Place.

 

[Valjean]

Changes of kinds would need to happen for development of new traits to become different types of organisms. Kinds are different species, kingdoms, domains. How did tetrapods develop into mammals? Even if they didn't, primordial soup would have taken different paths to become tetrapods and mammals. How is that possible? Development of new traits would have to, in one way or another, lead to changes of kinds.

Kinds are any type of difference that is so different that anyone would say its a different type of being.

You keep changing your definition of "kind." I'm getting dizzy.

How the tetrapod design would evolve into amphibians, reptiles or mammals is perfectly obvious.
Primordial soup? This just refers to an environment, in which life formed, it doesn't take paths or evolve.

Skywalker, how many times must we point out that you really, really, really have no understanding of the science and mechanisms you're arguing against. You're throwing around terms you don't seem to understand, misrepresenting concepts, adducing nonsense "theories" and principles.

Please do some reading on the basics of biology, taxonomy or the ToE.
And stop indiscriminately using "kind."
Here is a simple system you can use. It's outdated, but we'll at least know what taxonomic level you're talking about: Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia

 

[Skywalker]

Try again in English please.

We have not seen change of kingdoms, or micro degrees of changes in kingdoms, in nature. It takes billions of years if it's true, but we would at least see signs of it if it was real.

 

[Skywalker]

Just drop the worthless "change of kinds" phrase. You cannot define it properly so it is of no use. It does not help you.

Changes within kingdoms, species, phyla, so distinct that the organisms look noticeably different.

 

[Audie]

You don't understand what a kingdom is. All plants are in one kingdom. All animals are in another kingdom. Most taxonomists classify all living things into only five or six kingdoms. What are the 6 kindgdoms?
How???????
Monophyly - Wikipedia

Law of MONOPOLY.

 

[Audie]

Changes within kingdoms, species, phyla, so distinct that the organisms look noticeably different.

You need to learn some biology.
Seriously.

 

[Skywalker]

That doesn't mean macroevolution necessarily exists.

But it was still in a controlled environment.

There is no example in nature of plants changing into non plants or becoming a different kingdom or domain of plants.

A farmer selectively breeding plants is not evidence of macroevolution, because its not natural and it's not what would evolve in nature.

Sorry, like it or not macroevolution has and can be directly observed in nature.

And why would you use such a poor example as "plants turning into nonplants" That has never happened in evolution, nor can it happen. Change of kind is a creationist strawman. You are still an ape. Your ancestors never stopped being apes. Though there changes over time as they evolved allows you to call them "human" eventually.[/QUOTE]

What's an example?

Primordial soup evolving into apes would be a change of kinds, though. The original DNA was not an ape, so DNA becoming apes and humans is a change of kinds.

 

[Skywalker]

You don't understand what a kingdom is. All plants are in one kingdom. All animals are in another kingdom. Most taxonomists classify all living things into only five or six kingdoms. What are the 6 kindgdoms?
How???????
Monophyly - Wikipedia

Plants and animals are in different domains. The law of monopoly puts limitations because clades cannot change. There are no changes of kinds.

 

[Audie]

God is not a liar. I believe there was the great flood as the Bible tells, because world is full of evidence for that.

1. Modern continents, the result of the great flood.
2. Oil and gas fields, the result of vast amount of drowned organic material.
3. Orogenic mountains, the result of collapsed continent and flooding water.
4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, result of flood.
5. Great glaciers, result of flood and its cooling effect.

That is about the silliest thing I ever read.

 

[Skywalker]

All of these 'evidences' are laughable. They've all been thoroughly debunked.
Stop looking for scientific information in Answers in Genesis and read some actual geology.

Whether the story of Noah is literal or is an allegory meant to teach us a lesson, the effect is the same, and the overall message of the Bible of making God a part of your life and seeking Him and striving is still there.

 

[Skywalker]

Spoilsport

Whenever he talked about the "Law of Monopoly" I felt like asking about Park Place.

The Law of Monopoly is similar to you saying that there are no changes of kinds. If there are no changes of kinds, apes could not evolve from primordial DNA.

 

[Skywalker]

You keep changing your definition of "kind." I'm getting dizzy.
How the tetrapod design would evolve into amphibians, reptiles or mammals is perfectly obvious.
Primordial soup? This just refers to an environment, in which life formed, it doesn't take paths or evolve.
Skywalker, how many times must we point out that you really, really, really have no understanding of the science and mechanisms you're arguing against. You're throwing around terms you don't seem to understand, misrepresenting concepts, adducing nonsense "theories" and principles.

Please do some reading on the basics of biology, taxonomy or the ToE.
And stop indiscriminately using "kind."
Here is a simple system you can use. It's outdated, but we'll at least know what taxonomic level you're talking about: Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia

Tetrapods didn't just evolve out of nothing according to the theory of evolution. They came from primordial soup DNA.

Kinds are types of beings so distinct people would never describe them as the same being. Plants, animals, and people are all different kinds.

 

[Skywalker]

You need to learn some biology.
Seriously.

Tetrapods and primates and plants are different kinds.

 

[Audie]

Tetrapods and primates and plants are different kinds.

Good example of why I'd suggest you study.

Primates are tetrapods.
Salamanders lizards and puppy dogs, too.
Also snakes and twenty birds.

You really should study a bit.

 

[Valjean]

So bacteria, archae and Eukarya all came from different branches of primordial soup?

Primordial soup didn't have branches, it's just a cute term for a primordial environment. Darwin called it a "warm little pond." It's just a proposed place. It doesn't do anything.

I don't think the lines between humans and plants were blurred in the past. They was always a clear distinction.

There's a clear distinction today, else we wouldn't use different words.
Who ever said there was any blurring in the past? Animals are animals, plants are plants, and never the twain shall meet.

Trees having many gray areas and intermediates, but there is still a clear distinction between a tree and any other plant, and even if i give the benefit of the doubt to the other view on that, a tree, or a human and an animal. I can't imagine a time period where the line between humans and animals, plants and animals, and bacteria and animals or plants, was not well-defined and distinctly defined.

Argument from personal incredulity?

Fully formed plants didn't change into fully formed animals. There was/is no blurring, no grey areas, no intermediates. They branched off in two different directions from a common ancestor. Meet the ancestors of all plants and animals

Everything that looks distinct today originally branched from a common ancestor that rarely bore any resemblance to either distinct form. Biology doesn't say that different species transmogrify into one another.