Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No matter how many times you repeat this error you will be wrong. There is no change of kinds in evolution. That is a strawman argument. Your side cannot even define "kinds".
Once again you are still a "monkey".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Once again you are still a "monkey".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are countless intermediates. Why do you think that a record of them do not exist? One thing that you must realize is that it is predicted that we will not have every intermediate in fact demanding that is incredibly ignorant.
How could my type of being have evolved in primordial soup if there is no change of kinds?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yep, and evolution shares quite a bit of similarity to the development of languages.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Poorly asked question. Define "kinds" properly first.
Tell me, how would you tell if two populations are the same "kind" or not?
Kinds is a unique type of being. Bacteria and animals and plants are all distinct from one another. Plants and animals and bacteria are so distinct that you can tell the kind instantly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Try again. That is just hand waving.
How would you tell whether two populations are the same kind or not?
How can evolution be similar to languages if it doesn't have changes of kinds? Languages have an equivalent of changes of kinds.
It would make more sense to at least see more intermediates where there wasn't a question about if certain species evolved. We have records about the existence of intermediate languages. There is Etruscan languages and extinct dialects of Italian.
By if they can reproduce with each other.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Because there is no "change of kind" in the development of languages either. A Latin speaking mother never gave birth to a Spanish speaking baby. The changes are slow and gradual. Lines drawn separating various languages are rather arbitrary.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Seriously dude! There is no lack of intermediates in evolution. I am linking a series of videos for you that traces just human evolution (with a few short side trips) from abiogenesis to man:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW
He gives endless examples of just a fraction of the species that have been found. They are all by definition intermediates.
Meanwhile there is no evidence for your beliefs. You do not even know what is and what is not evidence. We should take a short detour and go over that concept.
There were different dialects of Spanish that existed in between modern Latin and Spanish. The slow and gradual changes within languages imply eventual changes of kinds. languages could have gray areas and intermediates in comparison to other languages that still exist, by definition of gradual changes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If that is your standard then evolution has been proven. We can see examples of species that have evolved to the point that they no longer reproduce with each other. In other words there is a slow steady change, with no clear boundary that shows evolution to your version. At no point was there a sudden change that was a "change of kinds".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that shows the exact opposite of 'change of kinds'. You appear to be confused. A change of kinds would be a change without intermediates.
What animals can reproduce with each other in the past, but they can't now? Either two beings can reproduce or not. There are no intermediates for something like that.
How would kinds change without intermediates? That goes against the laws of nature. If I evolved from an ancestor of people and apes, there would be gradual intermediates in my ancestry.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Don't make foolish claims after you ask a question. That is rude and only makes you look even more ignorant.
Try again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? Again, drop the "kinds" word since you have not been able to define it. Try to ask proper questions if you want an answer. And clearly you do not know the "laws of nature". There is no such "law" that refers to this.
Fossils don't show intermediate reproductive systems.