Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So are you Call. What I say must swoosh right over your head.

I've been in those debates with you. You always like to say you win them all but I haven't seen that.

Ignoring valid rebuttals or pretending not to understand them isn't a win.

I like to acknowledge when something is a matter of opinion instead of pretending it is an indisputable fact, which would be the case for that list of arguments you love.

You can't rebuttal the truth, idav. The arguments I give are impossible to rebuttal. That is a FACT, my friend.

 

[idav]

You can't rebuttal the truth, idav.

Yes you can.

The arguments I give are impossible to rebuttal.

Even if your using sound logic the premises are still debatable.

That is a FACT, my friend.

Glad you think so highly of your opinion.:sarcastic

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here we must make the distinction between "understanding" and "accepting".



I believe the wolf is of the dog "kind". If you look at a wolf and look at a siberian husky, any 3 year old can tell you that they are the same kind of animal. No guru man with a white lab coat needed.

I believe that God created every animal with an original "kind" specimen...a specimen by which all other variations within that specimen were originated from. Maybe the wolf was the original dog "kind", or maybe not...I don't know how many original "kinds" there were...but what I do know is that there is absolutlely no reason for anyone to make any attempts to distinguish a wolf from a dog. As mentioned, a siberian husky and wolf are clearly the same "kind" of animal.

Away with the voodoo science.

Still repeating the same tired old "arguments," I see.


How about moving on past three year olds and taking some interest in what grown-ups who have studied this stuff their entire lives have to say about it?

 

[Riverwolf]

If we are going by consensus, then the theological consensus is that God exists. That idea is more sexy.

Guess what? PARTY TIME! FOR WE'VE FOUND SOMETHING WE CAN AGREE UPON!!!

unk:

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh great, thanks for reminding me that after weeks of dialogue, my questions still haven’t been answered.

If you want answers with 100% assurance, you won't get that from the sciences.

On the subject of what?

Biology.

Caterpillars becoming butterflies is something we can OBSERVE…we can see this…unlike the concept of a dog “kind” originating from a non-dog kind.

Okay, so you do agree that metamorphosis is observable.

Consensus? What scientific data/evidence can be used to support this consensus?

The same thing that we've been saying: dependency.

And here's the thing: take out a car's engine, and it can still run if you put a new one in. Take out a brain, and simply putting a new one in won't bring a body back to life.

Any old wacky theory would be better than the God hypothesis, right?

Pretty much all naturalistic theories that don't involve supernatural agencies are far more plausible.

Right, but I would recognize that if a basketball IS triangular…that wouldn’t be the same as a the same kind of ball as a sphere shape.

No, everybody else still insists that its a sphere. But because you've convinced yourself that no basketball is spherical, you still see it as triangular.

Completely subjective. Astronauts, cosmologists, and even the common man have marveled over the vastness of the universe. There is a lot of explore..God could have created the vastness so that man could marvel at his creation, which is exactly what scientists do. It may be wasted to you, but it isn’t wasted to God.

And since it's subjective, there's nothing objective to stand on that it was designed by an external creator.

Besides, I didn't say I don't marvel over the vastness. I do, probably moreso than you know. I said IF it's designed. If it's not designed, that's when its true glory shines through.

So if a law was passed that it was ok to rape and torture children, and everyone on earth agreed to this…would it still be wrong?

That revulsion that both you and I feel at that idea is a natural part of our instincts as a highly social species, shared by most other apes. It's also been strongly reinforced by our cultural upbringing. Our strong parental instincts are also shared by many non-social animals, like bears. I'm sure you're aware that the most terrifying thing in the forest that you could come across should be a bear cub? That's because mommy's nearby, and if you get in between Mother Bear and Her Child, unless you have a weapon, you're dead.

But lots of animals don't care one bit for children, at least any that are not their own. Among lions, if a pride gets a new male leader, the first thing the new leader does is kill any cubs, so that his own genetic legacy is what survives.

The universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist has a cause, and external cause. God is the only “being” or “thing” that is able to create an entire universe from nothing. All of the attributes that were needed to create the universe (timelessness, immaterial, knowledge, power), God is the only thing in the dictionary that meets these qualifications.

"In the dictionary?" So what about the dictionaries of languages that don't have a word for God? Or other God-concepts that fit that description?

There is historical evidence that the followers of Jesus were claiming that they had seen him post-mortem..and the Resurrection is the best explanation in light of the empty tomb, the origin of the disciples beliefs, and the origin of the belief of skeptics.

The Gospel accounts are not valid evidence, since they're not consistent. That lack of consistency is consistent with cultural mythology, not history.

And even if it were true, that's not proof of anything other than the man had strange powers, which could have easily come from other sources.

First off, science isn’t the only way to knowledge. Logical, mathematical, and historical proofs are also equally valid. Second, there is scientific evidence to support a finite universe, and mathematical proofs to support a fine tuned universe based on cosmological constants and values. Third, there is no samples or measurements that were made to support natural dualism either, and you still believe that.

So you are not consistent even with your own beliefs.

You once again forget that I'm not explaining my own beliefs; I'm explaining the scientific consensus.

You have forgotten that at least three times, now.

My faith is strong enough that I can understand and explain the scientific consensus, and fully admit that it's the most scientifically plausible explanation, without actually believing it. It's not so weak that I have to somehow convince myself that I'm right with no possibility of being wrong. I did that already long ago; I won't do it again.

That scientific evidence that supports a finite universe is the same evidence for the Big Bang, so if you accept it as true, by default you accept that the Big Bang theory is true. (Which does not necessarily discount the idea that an intelligence of some sort started it, but there's no indication of that.)

Oh yeah, you left out the Ontological Argument.

I haven't explored that one.

The arguments that I present haven’t been refuted before.

Have you looked?

 

[Riverwolf]

<LI style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports.

Works for me. No bio-babble needed.

Okay. You also earlier called wolves part of this "dog" kind.

What about coyotes? Foxes? Dingos? Jackals?

Oh, and of what "kind" would you say this animal is?

Oh, and would you say hedgehogs and porcupines are of the same "kind"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here we must make the distinction between "understanding" and "accepting".

Not really. If you reject the concept of biological classification, then you clearly do not understand biology.

I believe the wolf is of the dog "kind". If you look at a wolf and look at a siberian husky, any 3 year old can tell you that they are the same kind of animal. No guru man with a white lab coat needed.

But wolves existed before dogs. Dogs are variations on wolves. So surely that makes dogs part of the "wolf kind", not the other way around.

I believe that God created every animal with an original "kind" specimen...a specimen by which all other variations within that specimen were originated from. Maybe the wolf was the original dog "kind", or maybe not...I don't know how many original "kinds" there were...but what I do know is that there is absolutlely no reason for anyone to make any attempts to distinguish a wolf from a dog. As mentioned, a siberian husky and wolf are clearly the same "kind" of animal.

That's like saying there's no reason to distinguish between sub-species of any kinds of animals. There are distinctions. Go and look at biological classifications. There is just as much reason to differentiate a wolf from a dog as there is to differentiate a chihuahua from a great dane.

Away with the voodoo science.

You're not qualified to tell me what is and isn't voodoo science if you reject something as fundamental as biological classifications.

 

[cottage]

The universe began to exist, cot....and anything that begins to exist has an external cause.

There are two assertions in what you&#8217;ve stated there, and you&#8217;ve run them together as if they are somehow synonymous. They are not. It may indeed be the case that the world began to exist, but it certainly isn&#8217;t a demonstrable truth that anything that begins to exist must have an external cause. In the material world there are no instances of anything beginning to exist, but only changes in form, i.e. ex-materia. So the inference is misleading and unfounded.

The finitude is the meat and potatos of the issue.

Well I think it is less controversial to speak of the world existing indefinitely, which in fact is to make no claim at all, than it is to assert that world will come cease to be at some unknown and unknowable point in time.

Right, and the fact that there ARE natural laws that govern the world...this cries out for an explanation....laws have law givers.

But do natural laws have &#8220;law givers&#8221;? I think you&#8217;ve come to the question by beginning with the answer &#8211; a circular assumption in other words.

I've been consistent too, and I will say again; Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't begin to exist. If the universe began to exist (all space, time, energy, matter [STEM]), then an external cause is absolutely NECESSARY, and this cause could not itself be made up of the same "stuff" that the universe is made up of...it could not be of the same essence.

No! An external cause is not absolutely necessary.

Now, it amazes me that God, at least the Christian God, just HAPPENS to have all of the attributes NEEED to create a physical world...and I think that is more than just a coincidence...but anyway..

If the universe DIDN'T begin to exist, then one will have to explain the traversing of infinity, as that kind of absurdity will result, and the only way to dodge the absurdity is to posit an external and timeless cause, which is right back to the God hypothesis.

So either way, the naturalist is screwed...and the good thing about the argument against infinity is the argument is completely independent of science...so no cosmological model that a brilliant cosmologist comes up with will negate the fact.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me, cot.

Naturalism describes a process and is not an explanation of how the world began. The argument I&#8217;ve given you for a self-existent (i.e. uncaused) world isn&#8217;t dependent upon science or naturalism but shares exactly the same metaphysical significance as the god hypothesis but with the clear advantage of not being constrained by the notion of a self-contradictory personal being, a point I&#8217;ll be expanding on in my reply to your response.

Right!! That is the point, actually, and I am glad that you bring this up. If there was once absolutely NOTHING, then it isn't possible that "something" can originate from this nothingness. So basically, something is eternal...whether the world/God. Something had to always be there. Something had to always be there, and this entity does not owe its existence to anything external to itself.

I made it very clear I&#8217;m not stating absurdly that something can come from nothing or that a thing can create itself. And no, something did not &#8220;always had to be there&#8221;; that is simply an ingrained notion, a belief, not a necessary truth.

So the question is, which is the more plausible explanation...and I think the God hypothesis is in fact the most plausible/reasonable explanation, considering what we know.

Well I don&#8217;t believe it is reasonable because of the contradictions that are implied by such a notion, as I explain down the page.

For the life of me, I just don't understand what you are saying...and I really want too. Please state it in a different way.

What I&#8217;m saying is that causality is a worldly phenomenon that has no logical necessity, and therefore the concept of an uncaused world can never imply a contradiction. And if the world is uncaused and exists now where nothing at all existed previously, not even a vacuum, then no argument from contingency can be made to any necessary cause of the world, for contingency and necessity would have no meaning outside the world. Hence arguments that the world must have an external cause or that something can or cannot come from nothing, or can or cannot be the cause of its own existence, are completely irrelevant since causality exists only within the world, and from which it follows that &#8220;whatever is may not be&#8221; to quote David Hume. This self-evidently makes God, the Necessary Being, an impossible concept.

So you don't have a personal identity? Odd.

Not as an identifiable essential self.

On naturalism, if a person's actions is solely dependent upon brain activity, then there is no free will, so a person that committed murder would not be responsible for the crime if this person was acting according to the formation or circulation of electrons/neutrons in the brain. If every single act that we commit is a result of our brain activity, then it is our brains that causes our body to act, not our "personal" choice.

So at the end of the day, who is in control, us, or our brains?

Undeniably it is bodies and their actions that account for the &#8220;us&#8221;. And if brains are part of the body, which they are, then it is body, the collective noun &#8220;us&#8221;, that is in control.

The two bodies doesn't NECESSARILY have to be physical. And second, if consciousness is contingent, on naturalism...then how would the concept of love and care even originate? I am talking about the mere concept, how do you get the mere concept of love and care from matter? Where would the concept come squirting into existence??

Love is nothing if it has never been, or never can be, demonstrative; for otherwise as mere thought it is a worthless platitude without commitment and the ability to physically offer care or charity. Think of a mother that gives up her life for her child, or the person that crosses continents to be with a lover, or even those that overlook their own needs to provide for the welfare of others. Examples are legion, far more than I have room to mention here and all require the existence of the physical senses. Continued below.

Well based on the argument from consciousness, the mind itself is disembodied. Again, you have to explain the origin of the mind...and using the brain as an answer to this question won't get the job done...if it can, then prove it.

The same thing I told others, I expect a scientific explanation of how the mind could have originated from inanimate matter...so basically what you are saying is...a big bang imploded/exploded (whatever), and gave rise to all of this inanimate matter and energy....and after a long gradual process, this matter and energy CAME TO LIFE, and begin thinking, talking, eating, reproducing, ect.

It just seems as if there is a lot of faith going on here.

Of course I&#8217;m not able to give a blow-by-blow account of the process that began once the world came into existence any more than you can ever explain how an immaterial thing (God) could produce form and matter. But I think &#8220;came to life&#8221; is a rather too simplistic an explanation. A single self-replicating molecule would barely deserve the term &#8220;life&#8221;, but the incredibly long and developing process would follow from that inception after millions of years to see the beginning of life as we might understand it now with creatures that developed reflexes and instincts, acting upon cause and effect, and it is plausible that humans as evolving higher order animals come to acknowledge and reflect on their own existence in the environment they inhabit; and that, I think, is not in any sense an unintelligible thesis.

 

[Parsimony]

About CotW's "inserting the thought of a black cat" scenario, I thought of some way that it might happen (or at the very least, could be tested experimentally).

We may not be able to do this just yet, but it'll probably be possible in the future. Scientists set up an extremely sensitive set of devices around a person's head, detecting the electrical state of the person's brain in the most minute detail. They record the brain state when the person is not thinking of a black cat and store it in a computer. They then ask the person to think of a black cat and record that state as well. The computer detects which exact changes in brain activity occurred once the thought of a black cat entered the subject's mind.

Then, another set of devices is arranged around a second person's head. Instead of sensing brain activity, this array is designed to induce changes in a person's brain state using electric discharges and magnetic fields. The same computer is connected to this array and uses it to change the brain state of the second person to match that of the first person when they were thinking of a black cat. If subject two reports suddenly thinking of a black cat, then the experiment is successful and a thought has been transferred through exclusively material means.

Despite the fact that I think this would work, I'm sure the experiment would have to actually be done in real life for Call to accept it.

 

[idav]

About CotW's "inserting the thought of a black cat" scenario, I thought of some way that it might happen (or at the very least, could be tested experimentally).

We may not be able to do this just yet, but it'll probably be possible in the future. Scientists set up an extremely sensitive set of devices around a person's head, detecting the electrical state of the person's brain in the most minute detail. They record the brain state when the person is not thinking of a black cat and store it in a computer. They then ask the person to think of a black cat and record that state as well. The computer detects which exact changes in brain activity occurred once the thought of a black cat entered the subject's mind.

Then, another set of devices is arranged around a second person's head. Instead of sensing brain activity, this array is designed to induce changes in a person's brain state using electric discharges and magnetic fields. The same computer is connected to this array and uses it to change the brain state of the second person to match that of the first person when they were thinking of a black cat. If subject two reports suddenly thinking of a black cat, then the experiment is successful and a thought has been transferred through exclusively material means.

Despite the fact that I think this would work, I'm sure the experiment would have to actually be done in real life for Call to accept it.

That is sorta like the EPR paradox thought experiment and aspects of it have been confirmed by real experiments. It would work if the mind were some how entangled but interaction is necessary and allows for the "non-local" effect.

However since Einstein's death experiments analogous to that of the EPR paradox were carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre, which appeared to show that the measurement of one does indeed affect the other and that a local realistic view of the world is false.[2]
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/EPR_paradox.html

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Still repeating the same tired old "arguments," I see.

As long as the shoe keeps fitting...

How about moving on past three year olds and taking some interest in what grown-ups who have studied this stuff their entire lives have to say about it?

I am a grown-up, and all I see is dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc.

 

[idav]

I am a grown-up, and all I see is dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc.

You refuse to look at a larger time scale. You a YEC?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you want answers with 100% assurance, you won't get that from the sciences.

Can I at least get 50%?

The same thing that we've been saying: dependency.

And here's the thing: take out a car's engine, and it can still run if you put a new one in. Take out a brain, and simply putting a new one in won't bring a body back to life.

And create a brain from pre-existing tissue, and the brain won't suddenly or gradually become conscious.

Pretty much all naturalistic theories that don't involve supernatural agencies are far more plausible.

There isn't one naturalistic theory that you can appeal to that would rid you of the absurdity of infinite regress. None.

If you think there is..then by all means, enlighten me.

No, everybody else still insists that its a sphere. But because you've convinced yourself that no basketball is spherical, you still see it as triangular.

I am convinced that God exists based on the arguments that I've been presented..which does not at all reflect what you are trying to demonstrate above.

And since it's subjective, there's nothing objective to stand on that it was designed by an external creator.

You won't get the fine tuning that is required for human life from a chaotic and random big bang event. The low entropy had to be an initial condition for life to exist in the first place.

So I believe in an external creator based on inference...I am inferring it based on what I already know. If you have a deck of cards and you throw the entire deck in the air and watch the cards land, you wouldn't expect the cards to land "Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10".

So how can you expect the constants and values which are associated with the cosmos to be so precise, so specied, if everything began from a chaotic and random expansion some 13.7 billion years ago?

That revulsion that both you and I feel at that idea is a natural part of our instincts as a highly social species, shared by most other apes. It's also been strongly reinforced by our cultural upbringing. Our strong parental instincts are also shared by many non-social animals, like bears. I'm sure you're aware that the most terrifying thing in the forest that you could come across should be a bear cub? That's because mommy's nearby, and if you get in between Mother Bear and Her Child, unless you have a weapon, you're dead.

Umm, ok.

But lots of animals don't care one bit for children, at least any that are not their own. Among lions, if a pride gets a new male leader, the first thing the new leader does is kill any cubs, so that his own genetic legacy is what survives.

Point?

"In the dictionary?" So what about the dictionaries of languages that don't have a word for God? Or other God-concepts that fit that description?

I didn't know that a "word for God" was necessary. All that is required is that "God" is in the dictionary and it has a definition.

The Gospel accounts are not valid evidence, since they're not consistent. That lack of consistency is consistent with cultural mythology, not history.

Please explain why they are not consistent biographies of the life, death, Resurrection, and post-mortem appearences of Jesus Christ?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

And even if it were true, that's not proof of anything other than the man had strange powers, which could have easily come from other sources.

What do you mean "even if it were true"...if it WERE true, then Jesus is the Son of the Living God and your entire salvation is based upon him and him alone.

You once again forget that I'm not explaining my own beliefs; I'm explaining the scientific consensus.

And im explaining the religious concensus.

My faith is strong enough that I can understand and explain the scientific consensus, and fully admit that it's the most scientifically plausible explanation, without actually believing it. It's not so weak that I have to somehow convince myself that I'm right with no possibility of being wrong. I did that already long ago; I won't do it again.

I am strong in my faith too...I just think that with the question of ORIGINS, science should keep its mouth shut. I don't believe in natural explanations for the origins of the universe, life, or consciousness. Science needs to realize that there are some things that its methodology won't ever be able to explain...plain and simple.

That scientific evidence that supports a finite universe is the same evidence for the Big Bang, so if you accept it as true, by default you accept that the Big Bang theory is true. (Which does not necessarily discount the idea that an intelligence of some sort started it, but there's no indication of that.)

There is indication of it based on the argument against infinite regression, which the kalam details...therefore, a timeless/necessary cause is essential...and the Christian God matches this criteria.

I haven't explored that one.

Well explore it, Magellan

Have you looked?

Yup...with 20/20 vision.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You refuse to look at a larger time scale. You a YEC?

I am open to both possibilities YEC/OEC

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not really. If you reject the concept of biological classification, then you clearly do not understand biology.

I reject the concept because it is based on the unseen, which is funny, because that is why some unbelievers reject supernaturalism.

But wolves existed before dogs. Dogs are variations on wolves. So surely that makes dogs part of the "wolf kind", not the other way around.

Only if you think that the wolf was never a dog to begin with. Why is a husky a dog, but a wolf not a dog? It is the same kind of freakin animal...they are both different types of dogs. Clearly.

That's like saying there's no reason to distinguish between sub-species of any kinds of animals. There are distinctions. Go and look at biological classifications. There is just as much reason to differentiate a wolf from a dog as there is to differentiate a chihuahua from a great dane.

A chihuahua is a dog, and a great dane is a dog. One is bigger than the other...so what. Shaquille O'neal is wayyy bigger than Verne Troyer (Mini Me). They are both of the human "kind", right?

You're not qualified to tell me what is and isn't voodoo science if you reject something as fundamental as biological classifications.

Cool. Believe what you want.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

About CotW's "inserting the thought of a black cat" scenario, I thought of some way that it might happen (or at the very least, could be tested experimentally).

We may not be able to do this just yet, but it'll probably be possible in the future. Scientists set up an extremely sensitive set of devices around a person's head, detecting the electrical state of the person's brain in the most minute detail. They record the brain state when the person is not thinking of a black cat and store it in a computer. They then ask the person to think of a black cat and record that state as well. The computer detects which exact changes in brain activity occurred once the thought of a black cat entered the subject's mind.

Then, another set of devices is arranged around a second person's head. Instead of sensing brain activity, this array is designed to induce changes in a person's brain state using electric discharges and magnetic fields. The same computer is connected to this array and uses it to change the brain state of the second person to match that of the first person when they were thinking of a black cat. If subject two reports suddenly thinking of a black cat, then the experiment is successful and a thought has been transferred through exclusively material means.

Despite the fact that I think this would work, I'm sure the experiment would have to actually be done in real life for Call to accept it.

Ahhhh I see. I must say, I am impressed. I don't think it would work though...So basically, this device would be able to detect the brain activity as I think about my son too, right...so if that is the case, it should be able to copy that "thought" or "image" or "activity" to another device and be implanted in another persons brain...so the thought of my son should be in another person's brain should this work, right?

So in other words what I am saying is...I'd like to be able to NOT tell anyone what I am thinking, and the device will pick it up...so if I am thinking about my son, I would like for subject 2 to be able to say "I see the image of a child".

That is basically what you are saying, right? Now if that were the case, you would would have gotten very far in all of this..however, there are still problems.

But I like the idea, though.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Okay. You also earlier called wolves part of this "dog" kind.

What about coyotes? Foxes? Dingos? Jackals?

Exactly!!!! All of those animals, they are all part of the "dog" kind. Every single one of them. Different varieties of the same kind, no doubt.

Oh, and of what "kind" would you say this animal is?

Oh, and would you say hedgehogs and porcupines are of the same "kind"?

I dont know what kind of insect that is...and I haven't looked into the hedgehog and porcupine...but at first glance I will have to say no.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I reject the concept because it is based on the unseen, which is funny, because that is why some unbelievers reject supernaturalism.

So, to you, breeding habits, distinguishing traits and genetics are "unseen"?

Only if you think that the wolf was never a dog to begin with. Why is a husky a dog, but a wolf not a dog? It is the same kind of freakin animal...they are both different types of dogs. Clearly.

Or, they are different kinds of wolves. There is nothing "clearly" similar about a chihuahua and a bulldog, and yet they are in the same biological classification. Why? At what point does the difference become so important that we can classify them separately? Why do you have no problem with a bulldog and a chihuahua sharing the same biological classification, but have difficulty accepting the notion that a dog is a sub-species of wolf?

A chihuahua is a dog, and a great dane is a dog. One is bigger than the other...so what. Shaquille O'neal is wayyy bigger than Verne Troyer (Mini Me). They are both of the human "kind", right?

So, you're saying that your biological classifications of "kinds" isn't based entirely on appearances. What is it based on, then? What distinguishes one "kind" from another "kind" if appearance isn't such a huge factor? Is it genetics? Because, if it is, then you have to ignore every piece of evidence in genetics which indicates that all life shares a common ancestor. If you accept that things belong to certain classifications based on similarities in DNA, then you must also admit that most distant (although distinct) similarities in genetics exist between more distant "kinds", and that this indicates common ancestry.

Cool. Believe what you want.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. You are not qualified to tell me what is and is not voodoo science when you have shown a great deal of ignorance with regards to many scientific fields.

 

[idav]

I am open to both possibilities YEC/OEC

Well an old earth has a much bigger picture than what you can see happening in current populations. When I look at the huge time lines of evolution and fossil records we see fish then basic mammals then humans. You have to be a YEC to ignore the fossil record and claim it was planted by satan.

 

[idav]

Only if you think that the wolf was never a dog to begin with. Why is a husky a dog, but a wolf not a dog? It is the same kind of freakin animal...they are both different types of dogs. Clearly.

Humans are some type of freakin animal too. Clearly we are some type of ape.