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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Kinds means at kingdom and domain levels.

So "animal" is a kind then?

Cool.

So all members of the kingdom of animalia evolving from a common ancestor, means no change in kind.

So humans, chimps, dogs, dolphins, fish, crockodiles, whales, dino's, birds,.... all evolved from a common ancestor and at no point a change in kind occurred.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The flagellum would have to exist in all of its parts to function.

This has been thoroughly debunked a thousand times over.
You should read up.

There's even plenty of videos on youtube about it.
For example:

You might, once again, want to inform yourself.

An intermediate is what existed between the first dna that developed, and humans.

No. This has been explained to you multiple times over in this thread alone. How come you still haven't corrected your mistakes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some fish have limbs. Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia

Those aren't limbs.

Also, ironically, form the very article you linked:

The group Tetrapoda, a superclass including amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs and therefore birds), and mammals, evolved from certain sarcopterygians; under a cladistic view, tetrapods are themselves considered a group within Sarcopterygii.


And:

Tetrapodomorpha, tetrapods and their extinct relatives, are a clade of vertebrates consisting of tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates) and their closest sarcopterygian relatives that are more closely related to living tetrapods than to living lungfish (Amemiya et al. 2013). Advanced forms transitional between fish and the early labyrinthodonts, like Tiktaalik, have been referred to as "fishapods" by their discoverers, being half-fish, half-tetrapods, in appearance and limb morphology.




The article you cite in a vain attempt to "support" your creationist ideas, is actually saying what I am saying..........................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An intermediate is anything that looks in between two different animals,

Not just "looks" and not just between any two animals.
Rather that which exhibits morphological "progression" from ancestral species to offspring species.
Both anatomically as well as genetically (although genetics can be hard to check when it concerns old fossils as DNA tends to not being preserved that long).

one that exists now, and their extinct ancestor,

No.

or even what animal or kingdom existed in between the original DNA and that extinct ancestor.

That doesn't even make any sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wouldn't that prove evolution,

No, it would disprove it. How many times must it be repeated?
Dogs will not be producing cats. They'll only produce more dogs and subspecies of dog.

because evolution means that our ancestors were a different kingdom than us?

That's not even close to being correct.
It's in fact as wrong as it gets.

We keep telling you that you are WRONG about what evolution says.
We keep informing you that you are arguing STRAWMEN.

Why do you persist in being so wrong?

I can only repeat myself: the law of monophy, a law of evolution, states that species shall not outgrow their ancestry.

Humans evolved from earlier primates. Humans remain primates.
Primates evolved from earlier mammals. Primates (and humans) remain mammals.
Mammals evolved from earlier tetrapods. Mammals (and primates and humans) remain tetrapods.
Tetrapods evolved from earlier vertebrates. Tetrapods (and mammals and primates and humans) remain vertebrates.

Etc etc etc etc.

For a species to jump out of its clade, that would be the equivalent of you and your non-family member wife giving birth to your cousin or uncle instead of your son or daughter. That just does not happen in the evolutionary model.

If a dogs would evolve into cats, it would mean that the species left the group of canines to jump over to the group of felines. It would disprove evolution.

Get it into that thick religious head of yours.
It's becoming ridiculous. You have been informed on this on many many many occasions in this thread alone. Are you really this dense that you aren't willing to correct your mistakes?

What do you hope to accomplish by arguing against such a blatant and exposed misrepresentation of a scientific theory?

If evolution is so wrong as you believe, why then can you only attack a strawman version of it?
Your strawman is so blatant that that which you would accept as evidence FOR the model, would in reality be evidence AGAINST it. This is how wrong you are. It's just bizar. I can't for the life of me comprehend why you insist on doubling down on this falsehood, even after so many of us have brought it to your attention.

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.

It by definition does not mean that at all. As has been explained to you multiple times over.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that the law of monopoly disproves evolution.

It's "monophy", not "monopoly".

And your beliefs are irrelevant to the facts. Your beliefs are based on falsehoods and strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We do have mountains of evidence for evolution and creationists cannot seem to find any that runs contrary to the science.

They can actually... off course, they must first misrepresent the science to do so.

Off course, if you insist that evolution means that populations of family X would produce populations of family Y, instead of subspecies of X, then off course you can say that there is no evidence that this ever occurred.

Unfortunately for them, that is like arguing that gravity isn't real because hammers float in the international space station.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Please provide a working definition of "kind" in such a way that we can take your definition and use it to determine if two random organisms are the same "kind" or not.

If you can't provide such a definition, then please drop the creationist jargon and stick to biological jargon.
Because once again: the term "kind" is utterly meaningless in biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bacteria becoming archae and Eukarya is a change of kinds.

Actually, those share ancestors, they didn't evolve from one another.

But again, this is meaningless unless you define the word "kind" in such a way that it can be used to determine if two random organisms are the same "kind".

Is a labrador and a st bernard the same "kind"?
How about a wolf and a chiuwawa?
How about a chimp and a gorilla?
A chicken and a turkey?
A T-rex and a bird?
A salmon and a trout?
A crab and a lobster?
A pear tree and an apple tree?
Or a pinetree and an apple tree?
A frog and a crockodile?

Please explain your method as to how you objectively determine which one of these are the "same kind" if any.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Kingdoms have an absolute definition. Humans and plants are different kingdoms of life.

How about humans and rabbits?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Humans ARE animals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There can't be a tree of life without a change of kinds. If we evolved from bacteria and DNA, I would have to have non human ancestors somewhere in my ancestry.

The ancestors of humans weren't human, obviously.
They were primates. Humans are still primates. And off spring of humans (and subspecies thereof), will remain primates.
The ancestors of primates weren't primates. They were mammals. Primates are still mammals.
The ancestors of mammals weren't mammals. They were tetrapods. Mammals are still tetrapods.


Learn the science you are so hellbend to argue against, before attempting to argue against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Depends what you mean by "kind". You still haven't defined that term properly.

If there were no humans in the past, there were other kingdom or domain of beings that existed in our ancestors.

"homo sapiens" is not a kingdom, nore is it a domain. So this statement makes zero sense.

The same is true for trees and animals.

Humans ARE animals. Humans belong to the kingdom of animalia.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Humans ARE animals.
"kind" is meaningless. Try and define it properly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tetrapods and primates and plants are different kinds.

Primates ARE tetrapods.
"kind" is meaningless. Try and define it properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's "monophy", not "monopoly".

And your beliefs are irrelevant to the facts. Your beliefs are based on falsehoods and strawmen.

Monophyly:

Monophyly - Wikipedia

 

[thomas t]

I'm always happy to chat with people who claim to have evidence of a god. Unfortunately you don't happen to have any.

However this would be two assumptions now: the chemical accounts for a) perception of beauty and b) the perception of a good smell.

And you have now ALSO made two assumptions about your proposed loving god. a) perception of beauty b) perception of good smell.

The ONLY way you can conclude that it works for your god but not the for the chemical is if you decided before hand that god was the answer you wanted to get.

no, I made one assumption.
1) a higher force that is somehow loving exists.
Loving in a sense of the actual love that someone can actually perceive.
as opposed to the theoretical love in a sense of the feeling that you have but nobody knows of.

Evidence a) the beauty on earth... even if the terrain is not productive.
Evidence b) the good scent in nature after the rain... even if the terrain is not productive. (It has to be the kind of nature that has vegetation, otherwise I think you don't smell anything, but I could be wrong here and rocks smell, too, after the rain).

However, since you hypothize 2 chemicals, you need an assumption for each, as I see it.
Chemical a exists.
Chemical b exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no, I made one assumption.
1) a higher force that is somehow loving exists.
Loving in a sense of the actual love that someone can actually perceive.
as opposed to the theoretical love in a sense of the feeling that you have but nobody knows of.

Evidence a) the beauty on earth... even if the terrain is not productive.
Evidence b) the good scent in nature after the rain... even if the terrain is not productive. (It has to be the kind of nature that has vegetation, otherwise I think you don't smell anything, but I could be wrong here and rocks smell, too, after the rain).

However, since you hypothize 2 chemicals, you need an assumption for each, as I see it.
Chemical a exists.
Chemical b exists.

Your test is not valid. Once again to be of any use there must be a clear way that your test could refute your idea if wrong. All you have is an ad hoc and explanation.

 

[Cooky]

Guys....? Come on... Snap out of it....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

no, I made one assumption.
1) a higher force that is somehow loving exists.

That's quite the assumption.
How would you justify such assumption?

Evidence a) the beauty on earth... even if the terrain is not productive.

So, is the ugliness of earth then evidence against it?

Evidence b) the good scent in nature after the rain... even if the terrain is not productive

How about the stench then of a rotting cadaver or the toxic fumes from a volcano? Or the stench of algae?
Evidence against it?