Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Breathe]

So basically you are saying we all share a common ancestor, meaning that every animal (human included) that is alive today gets its origins from something different than what they are....thus, in order for animals to arrive at their present state, they had to come from animals that were different from what they are. You don't see the religion in that? The faith it takes? If that isn't voodoo science, I don't know what is.

You're making the mistaken view of them coming from something different; while it is true this happens when you take a million or so years out of the equation, they happen slowly: the animal which becomes 'something else' changes so slowly that the animal isn't very different from its great-grandparents.

Traits are passed on genetically. You inherit characteristics from your ancestors; we all know that, right?

And sometimes these characteristics can mutate, such as a kid not getting his dad's baldness. It's not a massive change, right?

And if you go to live in a warm nation and you're fair-skinned, your skin will tan. After a few hundred years, your great-great-great grandchildren would be born tanned. Easy enough, right?

Now, if we get a giraffe with a shorter neck, it can't eat as much food as the one with the longer neck. So this one is disadvantageous. This one is losing in competition for food from other giraffes with longer necks. This giraffe may die out because it can starve to death, yes?

What if this short-necked giraffe finds another way to find food? For example, it starts eating from small shrubs because of its short neck. It doesn't need to have a long neck to keep eating the low-lying shrubs, does it? It won't need a long neck to feast on shrubs, so it won't be picked by females because of its neck. The mutation for longer necks isn't necessary; this gene will eventually die out in the short-necked giraffes; it's unnecessary, possibly even a hindrance.

Because of its shorter neck, it can't see predators as well, so it has to be faster at running. The slower ones die out because they're eaten. Nothing difficult here, right? Maybe it perks its ears up when feeding to listen out for predators.

Eventually, his great-great-great-descendants will be better runners, probably with more muscular legs more suitable for running, because they're the strongest. At the same time, its ears may permanently be perked up to listen, or possibly even able to move direction to listen to sounds behind them.


Now, imagine two crocodiles. One is white, one is green. The green one is harder to spot in the water due to his dark colouring. The white one is easier to spot. He finds less food, so he dies out, or at least is less successful in numbers than the green croc.

Nothing crazy here, right?

I know, it takes so long that it didn't happen.

Tiny, almost insignificant mutations plus extremely long periods of time. Evolution isn't a religion, it's an inevitability. I know it's complex, though, so it can be difficult to accept, when there's a "simpler" explanation -- but that "simpler" explanation doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence and odds.

We have a few biologists here; I really do suggest you speak to them in more detail. I'm just a layman in terms of evolution, I haven't studied it in any depth. They could explain it much better than I could, and probably clear up any misconceptions you may have (and fix any mistakes I may have made), so I really would suggest it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're right. The mitochondrial DNA and the fossil record are evidence of that.

You haven’t ruled out Intelligent Design and once again this phantom fossil record isn’t evidence of anything besides something has died.

You are free to believe that it isn't science, but it is.

Science is based on observation too, and no one has ever observed evolution on the scale that it has claimed to occurred.

No, the difference is one takes a longer period of time than the other. We have observed speciation.

You don’t know how long it takes. You don’t have an example of it ever occurring so how on earth would you know how long it will take? This is clearly religion at its best.

But they are VARIATIONS within that "kind". So, please tell me, exactly where you predict this variation to end?

It will never go beyond its kind. You can mix breeds of dogs all you like but you will always produce a dog. You will never get to the point where the dog becomes a non-dog.

Since you have not yet defined "kind" adequately, this claim cannot be validated.

Dog kind..cat kind…fish kind…bear kind..snake kind…horse kind…etc

I've already said that I accept that. How does that demerit common descent?

Huh?

It's constantly being worked on, but the most practical definition is a population separated by inability to produce fertile offspring.

Well, get back to me when it is all figured out.

No one ever saw Pluto make a full rotation of the sun, but we know how long it takes and what kind of orbit it has - because we have the evidence and the testable predictions to demonstrate it.

We have testable predictions that, when given enough time, there will be many different varieties within the kind. What we don’t have are predictions leading towards a species of animal producing a DIFFERENT KIND of animal. Second, in reference to Pluto, we may have EVIDENCE when it will make a full rotation of the sun. If something is going a certain speed and it is traveling a certain distance, all you have to do is divide the speed by the distance. This is completely different from evolution. We have no reason whatsoever for believing that animals were producing different kind of animals. None. The line of reasoning is basically “Just because we observe it on a small scale, given enough time, it will happen on a large scale.” This isn’t science, this is purely faith based just like any other religion I know of.

For the same reason that if you were blonde and gave birth to a brunette child we wouldn't call you brunette.

But I would still be human, right?

Considering you've never given me an answer to what, exactly, defines "kind", this is a hilariously ironic thing to say.

Dog kind, cat kind, fish kind, etc.

It's pretty self-explanatory. All life shares ancestry with the same population of living organisms billions of years ago.

Once again, you’ve just left science and walked right in to the “religion” brick wall. You’ve told me your religious theory. Now I will tell you mind. All humans are made in the image of the living God and we share a common ancestor with the first humans, Adam and Eve.

If you cannot understand how fossils tell us more than that, you are not remotely educated enough to be talking about any kind of science. That's like saying "this bloody knife doesn't mean anything other than this knife is bloody". That's willful ignorance and you know it.

First off, it isn’t about just what we see, it is the interpretation of what we see. You are telling me that a fossil in the ground can be used as evidence that something of today “evolved” from something of the past. I am looking at the same fossil and concluding that this was a living organism than has died off…became extinct. There is no evidence whatsoever for yours interpretation but there is evidence for my interpretation. We’ve observed animals that have became extinct, we haven’t observed your interpretation of macroevolution.

Because it's not like living things reproduce, is it? No, we should just assume that everything that ever lived failed to produce offspring.

Why should we assume that “everything” produced different kind of offspring? Besides a false presupposition, what is the basis for believing it?

So, when and where has this common designer been observed? What proof do you have? Have you ever observed any living thing being "designed" rather than "reproduced". ? Essentially you're saying "living things were designed" despite the fact that every single instance of a living thing ever observed in all of human history has been the result of another living thing, and not once have we ever seen a living thing magically appear from nowhere. Your own logic refutes your own claim.

Nice try. First of all, I am willing to admit that my belief is RELIGION that is accepted by faith (not to say there isn’t evidence for it, but for sake of argument). Second, I am not the one passing my belief off as an absolute fact, unlike you, when it is clearly not a fact. Third, you said “every single instance of a living thing ever observed in all human history has been the result of another living thing”……well, duh….this is only after life began. But the ORIGIN of human/animal life could not have been human, and if you take God out of the equation you are left with life coming from non-life. So while it may be all we have observed, the conclusion on your view is that life came from non-life. So I don’t see how your above quote helps your position at all.

No. AND EVOLUTION DOESN'T CLAIM THAT WE SHOULD. What we DO see is cats PRODUCING VARIATIONS OF CATS, and that's exactly what we expect to find according to evolution theory.

Yet the origin of the “cat kind” wasn’t a cat lol. See the religious leap??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're making the mistaken view of them coming from something different; while it is true this happens when you take a million or so years out of the equation, they happen slowly: the animal which becomes 'something else' changes so slowly that the animal isn't very different from its great-grandparents.

If you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog….the first cat came from a non-cat etc, then that is your religious faith, because it sure isn’t science.

Traits are passed on genetically. You inherit characteristics from your ancestors; we all know that, right?

No arguments here. That isn’t evolution though.

And sometimes these characteristics can mutate, such as a kid not getting his dad's baldness. It's not a massive change, right?

Small scale stuff.

And if you go to live in a warm nation and you're fair-skinned, your skin will tan. After a few hundred years, your great-great-great grandchildren would be born tanned. Easy enough, right?

But your great-great-great grandchildren will always be human? This minor change is not the case of a human slowly developing in to a man-tiger or something. There are LIMITS to the change.

Now, if we get a giraffe with a shorter neck, it can't eat as much food as the one with the longer neck. So this one is disadvantageous. This one is losing in competition for food from other giraffes with longer necks. This giraffe may die out because it can starve to death, yes?

Small scale stuff.

What if this short-necked giraffe finds another way to find food? For example, it starts eating from small shrubs because of its short neck. It doesn't need to have a long neck to keep eating the low-lying shrubs, does it? It won't need a long neck to feast on shrubs, so it won't be picked by females because of its neck. The mutation for longer necks isn't necessary; this gene will eventually die out in the short-necked giraffes; it's unnecessary, possibly even a hindrance.

It will still be a giraffe, Odion.

 

[Breathe]

If you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog….the first cat came from a non-cat etc, then that is your religious faith, because it sure isn’t science.

You're thinking of it happening immediately, like one day, a non-dog gives birth to a dog. It doesn't work like that.

Small scale stuff.

Give it time.

But your great-great-great grandchildren will always be human? This minor change is not the case of a human slowly developing in to a man-tiger or something.

No, because that isn't evolution.

There are LIMITS to the change.

According to whom?

It will still be a giraffe, Odion.

Eventually it would be different from a giraffe. Give it time.

 

[sonofdad]

If you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog….the first cat came from a non-cat etc, then that is your religious faith, because it sure isn’t science.

Let me try an analogy here.

Imagine you take the first book of The Lord of the Rings.
Now for some reason you decide to make a handwritten copy of it.
The copy will be basically the same book, but there would be different wording here and there, very minor differences. It won't be an exact copy.
Now take the copy and make a handwritten copy of that, again, the second copy is slightly different from the first copy, and ever so slightly more different from the original. But it's still the same story.

Now repeat this process a 100 times. Now the last copy is somewhat different from the original, the story telling might be a little different here and there, maybe some parts are missing, maybe you've added some small parts, maybe you mix up the characters a bit, the essential story is still pretty much the same, but it's told a little bit differently here and there.

Now take the last copy and repeat the process a million times. Would it still be The Lord of the Rings?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You haven’t ruled out Intelligent Design and once again this phantom fossil record isn’t evidence of anything besides something has died.

You don't have to "rule out" something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and the fossil record shows clearly that life evolved over time from primitive forms to complex, modern forms.

Science is based on observation too, and no one has ever observed evolution on the scale that it has claimed to occurred.

You don't understand what "observation" means in science. Science is based on observation of PHENOMENA, then INVESTIGATING that phenomena in order to find an EXPLANATION for it. That is what observation means in science - it does not mean "we have to directly observe something before we can assert it". If that were the case, science simply wouldn't exist. We don't have to have been around for 200 years to know that Pluto orbits the sun every 200 years based on the collected data we have about the speed and circumference of Pluto's orbit. Evolution is the same. When we predict that all life forms evolved from simpler life forms, then we dig into the earth and find thousands of fossils, and sure enough these fossils show a clear progression over time from simple to complex as we go higher in the geological strata, to the extent where we can even make accurate predictions about when are where we should be able to find certain fossils of a particular transitional form, that is evidence that the prediction was correct.

You don’t know how long it takes. You don’t have an example of it ever occurring so how on earth would you know how long it will take? This is clearly religion at its best.

We know exactly how mutations accumulate - we see mutations every day every single time any living thing reproduces. We know that mutations only result in very minor changes each generation, and we also know that various forms of life reproduce faster than others. We know it took at least 3.5 billion years for humans to evolve. Your entire argument is based on pure and simple ignorance.

It will never go beyond its kind. You can mix breeds of dogs all you like but you will always produce a dog. You will never get to the point where the dog becomes a non-dog.

For the last time:

Evolution says the exact same thing.

Nothing has to produce "outside of its kind". It only has to produce a variation of what it is. Every living thing that exists on this planet currently is the result of reproduction, and every single living thing on the planet is a slight variation on the thing that produced it. This process, given time, results in speciation and accounts for the complexity of life as we see it today.

If you do not understand this very basic fact yet, I give up.

Dog kind..cat kind…fish kind…bear kind..snake kind…horse kind…etc

Drummer kind, cheesemaker kind, chair kind, elevator kind, carbonated kind...

Huh?

It's a simple question. How does "everything reproduces its own kind" invalidate common descent?

Well, get back to me when it is all figured out.

At least I gave you a practical definition. You're incapable of giving any definition whatsoever for you terms.

We have testable predictions that, when given enough time, there will be many different varieties within the kind. What we don’t have are predictions leading towards a species of animal producing a DIFFERENT KIND of animal.

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS WILL HAPPEN.

Second, in reference to Pluto, we may have EVIDENCE when it will make a full rotation of the sun. If something is going a certain speed and it is traveling a certain distance, all you have to do is divide the speed by the distance. This is completely different from evolution. We have no reason whatsoever for believing that animals were producing different kind of animals. None. The line of reasoning is basically “Just because we observe it on a small scale, given enough time, it will happen on a large scale.” This isn’t science, this is purely faith based just like any other religion I know of.

Considering you know next to nothing about evolution or the facts and evidence supporting it, I'll take all of that with a grain of salt.

But I would still be human, right?

Yes. A variation on a human. Just like a human is variation on hominids, and hominids were a variation on early mammals, and early mammals are a variation on early tatrapods, and so on. Nothing ever had to produce "something other than what it was" in order for evolution to occur, it just had to produce "what it was - BUT WITH VARIATION".

Once again, you’ve just left science and walked right in to the “religion” brick wall. You’ve told me your religious theory. Now I will tell you mind. All humans are made in the image of the living God and we share a common ancestor with the first humans, Adam and Eve.

That's very interesting. Tell me when your theory has scientific credibility and we'll talk about it.

First off, it isn’t about just what we see, it is the interpretation of what we see. You are telling me that a fossil in the ground can be used as evidence that something of today “evolved” from something of the past.

Because that's clearly obvious to anyone not desperate to stick their head in the sand and ignore reality.

I am looking at the same fossil and concluding that this was a living organism than has died off…became extinct.

And your evidence for this conclusion is...?

There is no evidence whatsoever for yours interpretation but there is evidence for my interpretation. We’ve observed animals that have became extinct, we haven’t observed your interpretation of macroevolution.

You have absolutely no clue how science works. I really can't explain it to you better than I already have, and if you still insist on this utterly ludicrous "fossils don't mean anything" attitude, then you're already too far gone to possibly reason with. You have no idea what evolution states, what "kind" means, or how science is done. You are just a Christian who has your feelings hurt when reality doesn't conform to your chosen myths.

You're done.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You don't have to "rule out" something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and the fossil record shows clearly that life evolved over time from primitive forms to complex, modern forms.

No it doesn’t. That is your interpretation. This is kind of like 500,000 years from now, some aliens invade earth and kill all mankind. They examine everything about planet earth and eventually start digging in the dirt. They find a couple of “midget” bones and compare them to normal sized adult bones…..and they conclude that midgets eventually started off as a small stature and evolved over thousands of years in to normal sized adults. I mean, cmon.

You don't understand what "observation" means in science. Science is based on observation of PHENOMENA, then INVESTIGATING that phenomena in order to find an EXPLANATION for it.

Ok, so based on your “definition” of observation in science, what part of it does it play in the evolution theory? NOTHING. We observe every “kind” of animal producing other animals within their own kind. That is ALL WE OBSERVE. Now yes; there may be different varieties of animals within the kind…big dogs…small dogs…etc….but they are still the same kind of animal…they are not cats, they are not snakes, they are not fish…they are DOGS. We’ve never observed an animal producing DIFFERENT kind of animals. That has nothing to do with science.

That is what observation means in science - it does not mean "we have to directly observe something before we can assert it".

But the assertion has to be based on evidence. You can assert anything you want, but what reasons do you have for believing your assertion is correct? When I look at a pride of lions, there is absolutely no reason for me to think that no matter how long I observe these lions, that these lions will ever produce something other than a LION. Why would they? Why would it be any different in a million years?

If that were the case, science simply wouldn't exist. We don't have to have been around for 200 years to know that Pluto orbits the sun every 200 years based on the collected data we have about the speed and circumference of Pluto's orbit. Evolution is the same.

Actually, it isn’t the same. Mathematical truths are objective. Evolution is not.

When we predict that all life forms evolved from simpler life forms, then we dig into the earth and find thousands of fossils, and sure enough these fossils show a clear progression over time from simple to complex as we go higher in the geological strata, to the extent where we can even make accurate predictions about when are where we should be able to find certain fossils of a particular transitional form, that is evidence that the prediction was correct.

So show me this “clear progression” regarding humans. Show me when we first started developing brains, eyes, noses, arms, legs, bones, veins, teeth, hair…show me these fossils. Show me where we were living without brains, yet reproducing. Living without blood, yet functioning. Living without a digestive system, yet eating. Show me the fossils.

We know exactly how mutations accumulate - we see mutations every day every single time any living thing reproduces. We know that mutations only result in very minor changes each generation, and we also know that various forms of life reproduce faster than others. We know it took at least 3.5 billion years for humans to evolve. Your entire argument is based on pure and simple ignorance.

We don’t “know” anything. You “presuppose” everything. We “see mutations every day”, yet dogs are still producing dogs, cats are still producing cats, etc. Your argument is based on false interpretations and presuppositions…my argument is based on there being lack of evidence from the opposing side.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nothing has to produce "outside of its kind". It only has to produce a variation of what it is.

This is contrary to us “all sharing a common ancestor”, now isn’t it? If you believe that all dogs came from a non-dog, how is that a variation of what it is when its originator WAS NOT A DOG? That is more than a variation,that is a different kind altogether.

Every living thing that exists on this planet currently is the result of reproduction, and every single living thing on the planet is a slight variation on the thing that produced it. This process, given time, results in speciation and accounts for the complexity of life as we see it today.

It may be a slight variation but it is still within the same kind.

If you do not understand this very basic fact yet, I give up.

I understand it, I just disagree with it.

It's a simple question. How does "everything reproduces its own kind" invalidate common descent?

Because it is self contradictory. A lion and a whale are obviously different kinds of animal, and when they reproduce with their own kind, the result will be a product of their own kind. There is no way that these two different kind of animals share a common ancestor with ANYTHING besides their own kind.

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS WILL HAPPEN.

Yet you believe that the dog came from a non-dog. Clearly contradictory.

Considering you know next to nothing about evolution or the facts and evidence supporting it, I'll take all of that with a grain of salt.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears.

Yes. A variation on a human. Just like a human is variation on hominids, and hominids were a variation on early mammals, and early mammals are a variation on early tatrapods, and so on. Nothing ever had to produce "something other than what it was" in order for evolution to occur, it just had to produce "what it was - BUT WITH VARIATION".

So basically, what you are saying is every animal on earth is the same kind of animal, just with variation??? This evolution theory is getting more dumb by the second.

And your evidence for this conclusion is...?

Um, the “kind” of animal isn’t around any longer.

You have absolutely no clue how science works. I really can't explain it to you better than I already have, and if you still insist on this utterly ludicrous "fossils don't mean anything" attitude, then you're already too far gone to possibly reason with. You have no idea what evolution states, what "kind" means, or how science is done. You are just a Christian who has your feelings hurt when reality doesn't conform to your chosen myths.

Fossils mean that a once living thing has died. It takes extra mental effort to jump to the conclusion that this fossil is the evolutionary ancestor of an animal that is alive today.

You're done.

Yeah, stick a fork in me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're thinking of it happening immediately, like one day, a non-dog gives birth to a dog. It doesn't work like that.

And as far as I can tell, it doesn’t work your way either. You are saying that long ago when no one was around to observe it, it happened. Then you go on to say that no one that is alive today will ever see it occur either. This is almost like a con-artist tactic. “No one has ever saw it, nor will anyone EVER see it, but it happened.” What kind of con-artist scheme is this?

Give it time.

That’s right, give it time. If all the people in the world just disappeared off the face of the earth, the next dogs that mate will start producing different kind of animals. Then if all the people on the earth popped back in to existence, the very same dogs that produced different kind of animals while the people were gone will go right back to producing dogs lol. This is peek-a-boo science.

No, because that isn't evolution.

I don’t see how. What is the difference between that and the dogs of today coming from a non-dog of the past?

According to whom?

According to observation.

Eventually it would be different from a giraffe. Give it time.

Why expect a different result is my question, Odion?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Let me try an analogy here.

Imagine you take the first book of The Lord of the Rings.
Now for some reason you decide to make a handwritten copy of it.
The copy will be basically the same book, but there would be different wording here and there, very minor differences. It won't be an exact copy.
Now take the copy and make a handwritten copy of that, again, the second copy is slightly different from the first copy, and ever so slightly more different from the original. But it's still the same story.

Now repeat this process a 100 times. Now the last copy is somewhat different from the original, the story telling might be a little different here and there, maybe some parts are missing, maybe you've added some small parts, maybe you mix up the characters a bit, the essential story is still pretty much the same, but it's told a little bit differently here and there.

Now take the last copy and repeat the process a million times. Would it still be The Lord of the Rings?

You can only make so many changes before it can still be considered the same book.

 

[sonofdad]

You can only make so many changes before it can still be considered the same book.

As soon as you make one modification, it's not the same book. But even if you make lots of tiny changes here and there, it could still be considered the same story.
Then if you keep making small changes, eventually it will turn into a completely different story, but there is no single point where you can draw the line and say "this is where it turned into a different story", the transformation is so gradual. Does that make sense?

 

[Breathe]

You are saying that long ago when no one was around to observe it, it happened.

Again, it doesn't happen like that. One day a wolf doesn't give birth to a non-wolf, or a hippo, or a duck, or anything like that.

Then you go on to say that no one that is alive today will ever see it occur either.

Because evolution takes a long, long time.

This is almost like a con-artist tactic. “No one has ever saw it, nor will anyone EVER see it, but it happened.” What kind of con-artist scheme is this?

But we do have overwhelming evidence to support it, so it's not like a con-artist scheme at all.


I've yet to see any evidence for ID, however. And I'm a theist.

That’s right, give it time. If all the people in the world just disappeared off the face of the earth, the next dogs that mate will start producing different kind of animals. Then if all the people on the earth popped back in to existence, the very same dogs that produced different kind of animals while the people were gone will go right back to producing dogs lol.

It appears you still don't understand the amount of time involved.
Animals will evolve with or without us. As will we.
But it'll take a long time. We won't really notice it as it happens.

I don’t see how. What is the difference between that and the dogs of today coming from a non-dog of the past?

Because what you're claiming isn't evolution. If something like that happened, it would make us have to question our understanding of evolution. It wouldn't support it, because this isn't how it works.

Evolution does not think or claim that a man-tiger 'or something' will appear. Evolution states we adapt.

According to observation.

Whose observation?
What change is limited?

Why expect a different result is my question, Odion?

Animals adapt.
With each adaptation, animals change.
Or they die.
They change slowly. Not suddenly.
So slowly you won't notice it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Again, it doesn't happen like that. One day a wolf doesn't give birth to a non-wolf, or a hippo, or a duck, or anything like that.

Wait a minute, someone one here told me that the wolf (non-dog) gave birth to a dog.

Because evolution takes a long, long time.

According to the theory, but not according to the evidence.

But we do have overwhelming evidence to support it, so it's not like a con-artist scheme at all.

Overwhelming evidence supporting microevolution.

I've yet to see any evidence for ID, however. And I'm a theist.

There is an argument, called the “Argument from Design”, check it out.

It appears you still don't understand the amount of time involved.
Animals will evolve with or without us. As will we.
But it'll take a long time. We won't really notice it as it happens.

A con.

Because what you're claiming isn't evolution. If something like that happened, it would make us have to question our understanding of evolution. It wouldn't support it, because this isn't how it works.

Actually, that is how it works, it just doesn’t happen in a short time span, according to you.

Evolution does not think or claim that a man-tiger 'or something' will appear. Evolution states we adapt.

Well, suppose man “adapts” to look like a tiger. Based on your logic that can happen if the circumstances permit it.

Whose observation?

Anyone’s observation. No one has ever seen it. Not one.

What change is limited?

Slight variations within the kind.

Animals adapt.
With each adaptation, animals change.
Or they die.
They change slowly. Not suddenly.
So slowly you won't notice it.

Hold your breath and don’t breath again until you notice a change.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In my way of thinking this analogy is impossible (not because it is too sci fi or whatever). I saw your similar analogy to the dog. If you woke up in your dogs body you wouldn't think as a human any more. You would act like a dog having dog intuitions and doggy memories.

But if my body/brain remained in the bed, how are you to differentiate between my body that is still lying in the bed and my mind that is in the dog? Second, if I am “like a dog, having dog intuitions and doggy memories”, then I am not the dog either. My thoughts, memories, intuitions, hopes, dreams, inspirations, likes, dislikes, etc…..all of these things are personal to me and me only. When it gets to the point where I no longer have these things are they relate to ME, then I am neither me nor the “other” thing……I no longer exist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As soon as you make one modification, it's not the same book. But even if you make lots of tiny changes here and there, it could still be considered the same story.

Right, it could still be considered the same story. Exactly. That is microevolution, small changes within the kind…slight variation. But no new book is being made, just like no new animal is being made. It is the same kind of animal, but with slight variations (big dogs, little dogs, etc). Made my point for me.

Then if you keep making small changes, eventually it will turn into a completely different story, but there is no single point where you can draw the line and say "this is where it turned into a different story", the transformation is so gradual. Does that make sense?

There is no observational evidence of an animal “turned in to” a different kind of animal. The changes are limited to the kind. Your reason why no one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animals is because “it takes so long”…that is clearly a con scheme at its best lol.

 

[sonofdad]

Your reason why no one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animals is because “it takes so long”…that is clearly a con scheme at its best lol.

No one has ever seen an animal produce a different "kind" of animal because it doesn't happen. It takes thousands of generations to make some really apparent changes in a species, and at no point is one animal giving birth to a different species than what it is. It's always the same species making the same species, just with tiny variations in between.
What is it about "gradual" that you don't understand?

How do you even define a "kind"? What is the criteria for two species to be of the same kind?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No one has ever seen an animal produce a different "kind" of animal because it doesn't happen. It takes thousands of generations to make some really apparent changes in a species, and at no point is one animal giving birth to a different species than what it is. It's always the same species making the same species, just with tiny variations in between.

This contradicts what you evolutionists constantly babble, some stuff about “we all share a common ancestor”….so for us to all share a common ancestor, and given the fact that there are so many different kinds of animals, obviously there had to be a lot of voodoo science going on in the past. Animals were producing different kinds of animals in order for there to be so many different kinds of animals, yet they all share the exact same ancestor.

What is it about "gradual" that you don't understand?

Understanding is one thing, accepting is another.

How do you even define a "kind"? What is the criteria for two species to be of the same kind?

One criterion is/but not limited to interbreeding. If they can interbreed, they are the same kind. Gen 1:24 states “Let the land produce living creatures according to their KINDS: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its KIND.

The flood account, Gen 7:2, God commands Noah, “Take with you seven of every KIND of clean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every KIND of bird, male and female, to keep their various KINDS alive throughout the earth”.

Specifically, when God states “seven of every kind of bird, male and female…” obviously there are many different kinds of birds, and Noah was told to take a male and a female, to keep their various KINDS alive throughout the earth. So basically, what is going on here??

So the male birds and the female birds were to produce various kinds of BIRDS. So, BIRDS PRODUCE BIRDS.

 

[sonofdad]

This contradicts what you evolutionists constantly babble, some stuff about “we all share a common ancestor”….so for us to all share a common ancestor, and given the fact that there are so many different kinds of animals, obviously there had to be a lot of voodoo science going on in the past. Animals were producing different kinds of animals in order for there to be so many different kinds of animals, yet they all share the exact same ancestor.

Are you actually picturing an animal giving birth to a different species? Like a dog giving birth to a bat or something?

One criterion is/but not limited to interbreeding. If they can interbreed, they are the same kind. Gen 1:24 states “Let the land produce living creatures according to their KINDS: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its KIND.

That is one testable criteria.
But according to that, felis and lions are not of the same kind.
What else do you got?

 

[johnhanks]

...and even the alleged transitional fossils, how do you know that those fossils aren't just of some type animal that died out?

Well of course they are animals that died out. Who on earth is claiming otherwise?

But doesn't it strike you as inconvenient, to say the least, to the creationist cause that between the strata containing lobe-finned fish but no amphibians, and the ones containing both, we have fossils of animals like lobe-finned fish but with the beginnings of amphibian-type legs? That between the strata containing no whales and the strata containing whales we have a series of animals with ever-dwindling legs and nares shifting toward the top of the head? That between the strata containing ape-like animals but no humans and those containing humans we have strata containing increasingly human-like apes?

Or do you think your god mischievously put them there to lead godless scientists astray?

 

[johnhanks]

Maybe birds did have ancestors with teeth, but guess what, their ancestors were probably BIRDS. Male lions have manes, other cats don’t. So what, they are still cats. I can believe that long ago in the past there may have been birds that had teeth, but they were still BIRDS. They never changed to a different kind of animal.

Well, let's look at the diagnostic features of modern birds, or what you would no doubt want to call "bird kind". They have (among other features)

• feathers;
• horny beaks with no teeth;
• a furcula (wishbone);
• tail vertebrae fused into a pygostyle.

Archaeopteryx had feathers and a furcula, but also teeth and a long tail with unfused vertebrae; Aurornis had feathers, teeth and unfused tail vertebrae , but no furcula. The list of feathered dinosaurs grows almost weekly.

You say you "can believe that long ago in the past there may have been birds that had teeth"; well, there were certainly feathered animals that had teeth and a wishbone, but other feathered animals with teeth and no wishbone. So where does "bird kind" begin and end? Is anything feathered automatically a member, or does it need a wishbone too? If so, where does that leave Auroronis - bird or not? Your "bird kind" is beginning to look a little porous at the edges - just as evolution would predict.