How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

There were different dialects of Spanish that existed in between modern Latin and Spanish.

Latin = roman language.

Latin over time evolved in spanish, french, italian and portugese.

Spanish, french, italian, portugese = still roman languages.

What "change in kind"? What is being meant by "kind", if "roman languages" doesn't qualify as a "kind" of language?



There is off course a major difference between language evolution and biological evolution... And that difference is in how it reproduces. Language reproduces culturally. Let's say that a culture is the equivalent of species. Now in human society, cultures can merge with one another, or heavily influence one another.
So a language like japanese for example, might adopt english words like "computer". Such words couldn't be traced by through its own cultural history into proto-japanese and beyond, as it got "imported" from english.

In biology, such a thing can not happen. It would be like human beings "importing" the trait of feathers from birds. Biology doesn't work that way off course.

But if we ignore those "imported" words in languages that got in "horizontally" from peer languages instead of "vertical development" from ancestral languages, then language development forms a perfect parallell to how species change over time, over generations, through population mechanics.


But hey, don't let the truth of the matter get in your way.
And whatever you do, do NOT answer the question of how "roman language" doesn't qualify as a "kind" of language, as it will most certainly expose the deep dishonesty of the slippery slope that is the word "kind" in creationist propaganda.

Gotta protect them dogmatic beliefs, after all...

The slow and gradual changes within languages imply eventual changes of kinds.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What animals can reproduce with each other in the past, but they can't now?

You should enter "ring species" into an internet search engine and start reading up.

Either two beings can reproduce or not. There are no intermediates for something like that.

Ring species prove you wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not everything has an absolute answer. Whether things are kinds is determined on a case by basis.

The criteria to determine if things are the same "kind" seems to be "what should I say in order to make it look like it supports my creationist propaganda?"


This is you admitting that you have no workable definition of "kind" from which one could determine in an objective way if x and y are the same "kind" or not.

This makes the label useless and just a matter of your personal and biased opinion.

Good job rendering yourself irrelevant in this conversation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans and apes are different kinds.

You keep claiming this.

Yet when I posted the criteria by which one determines if a creature is an "ape" or not, you failed to point out how humans don't qualify according to those criteria.

Instead, unsurprisingly, you went on some non-sequitur while, off course, misrepresenting evolution.


You are still very welcome to take those criteria and point out specifically how humans don't qualify.

But you won't, won't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What fossil evidence supports ancient mutated humans?

1. australopethicus, homo erectus,...

2. every newborn is a "mutated human", as every newborn on average has 55-ish mutations in its DNA. It's called the "mutation rate".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans looking distinct from chimps is why we are different kinds.

And chimps look distinct from gorilla's.
And labradors look distinct from chiwawa's.
And tigers look distinct from lions.

Every species looks distinct. That's kind of what defines them, in part at least, as different species.

So according to this logic, Every single species is its own "kind".
Seems like a useless word to be using which can only confuse. We already have a term for such a category. It is "species".

They are canines who can breed with each other.

And there are canines that can't. So what?

They aren't exactly different kinds.

But the canines that can't interbreed, are different kinds then?

So what is it... is "canine" a kind or not?

Aren't gradual things determined on a case by case basis what they are, influenced by the gray areas and intermediates that exist?

This question makes no sense to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Chimps gorillas orangutans bonobos and gibbons all look different from each other but they all look like apes. They are of the same kind.

Out of that list, gibbons are "lesser apes" while the others are "great apes".
But, just like humans, they are all primates though.
And just like humans and canines, they are all mammals though.
And just like humans and canines and crocodiles, they are all tetrapods though.
And just like humans and canines and crocodiles and fish, they are all vertebrates though.
And just like humans and canines and crocodiles and fish and pine trees, they are all eukaryotes though.

So yeah... Not much else to say really.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans and apes have superficial similarities in appearance.

About as "superficial" as the "shared similarity" that all mammals have mammary glands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The baboon bones show that Lucy was a hoax.

Why do you lie about the article you are posting?


From the article:

He stresses, though, that the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage.

 

[Colt]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

No, the existence of God doesn't negate Darwins observation of the evolution of life. God created life as we know it by the process of evolution.

 

[Skywalker]

And you have already been given several examples of such.

In the human lineage, intermediates between the common ancestor with chimps and modern humans would be species like australopethicus and homo erectus.

An intermediate between sealife and land crawlers, would be Tiktaalik - found by prediction in terms of location, age and anatomical features.

Not sure what you mean by "gray area" though. Likely some falsehood based on some misrepresentation of evolution.

A gray area is similar to an intermediate but it's less intense. For example, whether caspain tigers were the same subspecies as siberian tigers is a gray area.

 

[Skywalker]

No, the existence of God doesn't negate Darwins observation of the evolution of life. God created life as we know it by the process of evolution.

Why do you think theistic evolution is supported by the Bible? In Genesis God created animals after their own kind and in the creation account said let there be light.

 

[Colt]

Why do you think theistic evolution is supported by the Bible? In Genesis God created animals after their own kind and in the creation account said let there be light.

The Israelites created Genesis using existing Mesopotamian lore. Genesis was written for the common Israelite, it was finalized during the Babylonian captivity period. But there are fascinating clues about the arrival of Adam and Eve to a previously fallen, populated earth.

 

[Skywalker]

The Israelites created Genesis using existing Mesopotamian lore. Genesis was written for the common Israelite, it was finalized during the Babylonian captivity period. But there are fascinating clues about the arrival of Adam and Eve to a previously fallen, populated earth.

How could Adam and Eve have arrived if there was theistic evolution?

 

[Colt]

How could Adam and Eve have arrived if there was theistic evolution?

If God used the process of evolution to create life beginning 550 million years ago then the arrival of Adam and Eve from another would after humans evolved would work just fine.

 

[Skywalker]

If God used the process of evolution to create life beginning 550 million years ago then the arrival of Adam and Eve from another would after humans evolved would work just fine.

Why do you think the earth is hundreds of millions and not billions of years old? I think Genesis genealogies support a young earth or a young-ish earth.

 

[Colt]

Why do you think the earth is hundreds of millions and not billions of years old? I think Genesis genealogies support a young earth or a young-ish earth.

I don't, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. When it reached a point of sustaining life agents of God initiated the life forms that evolved into life as we know it.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. When it reached a point of sustaining life agents of God initiated the life forms that evolved into life as we know it.

I don't believe God used evolution, because God said let there be light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should enter "ring species" into an internet search engine and start reading up.





Ring species prove you wrong.

I was working towards that idea. I was trying to make his obvious beliefs clear. He is another that appears to be looking for an excuse to believe and is not interested in learning. It is rather difficult to debate with someone that refuses to learn. Not because one cannot defeat them in the debate. That part is easy. But because they cannot see how badly that they have lost and will not acknowledge their loss due to their lack of knowledge.

Self imposed ignorance is the shield that they use. And oddly enough many are proud of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe God used evolution, because God said let there be light.

Non sequitur. So God started the universe with a magic spell. Interesting belief.