If asked...

[AndromedaRXJ]

Again, as I just told him...if you go back in time to when the very first organism began to exist (however that happened), that organism looks vastly different than an elephant...so the only way to explain any species leading up to an elephant is for an elephant to come from a non-elephant.

A something can come from a non-something. But a non-something can't come from a something. Once something becomes something, it stays that something, but different variations of that something can always arise.

You already accept the former if you accept that all felines share a common ancestor because that would mean a tiger came from something that was a "non-tiger", since not all cats are tigers. And if you're gonna keep iterating that it's still a cat, well an elephant is still a mammal. It's still an amniote. It's still a tetrapod. It's still a vertebrate. It's still an Eukaryota.

Just like how a basic feline split into different cat variations such as lions, cheetahs, housecats, a basic mammalia split into different groups such as cats, dogs, primates, elephants etc... And you keep going on about looks. There's more to it than looks. As I said, despite looks, a dolphin has more in common with a cow than it does with a fish.

If you want to go back to the first microbial life, Eukaryotas split off from bacteria. Eukaryotes evolved into the majority of macroscopic organism such as plants, animals, fungi etc... all three are still eukaryotes. Animals split off into different groups; fish, arthropods, molluscs, tetrapods etc... yes "animal" is just another group. No one is proposing that an animal will evolve into a non-animal.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wrong. You are clearly unaware of the most basic concept behind evolution - change over time.

Yeah, and the interesting thing about the "basic concept behind evolution" is the fact that no one has ever observed these kind of changes. Science cannot predict when the next change will occur, nor can science prove that such a change did occur. That is your presupposition speaking, not the science.

At no point from the evolution of the first cell to an elephant did any critter give birth to an offspring of a different species.

Evolution does not suggest that an elephant could ever give birth to a non elephant, and if such an event did occur it would be evidemce AGAINST macro evolution, not for it.

I will repeat what I said...if the very first living and breathing organism, you know, the one that we all allegely are descended of (according to Darwinism)...that organism did not resemble a modern day elephant...so as we look at the modern day elephant, the only logical explanation is for the very first ogranism to give rise to an present day elephant, which would be an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal...whether instantaneously, or gradual, that is the bottom line. And there is nothing you nor anyone else can say that will change this.

If you start off with the original organism from which every other living thing that has lived, then the end result is vastly different than what was started off with...thus, animals producing different kind of animals.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yeah, and the interesting thing about the "basic concept behind evolution" is the fact that no one has ever observed these kind of changes. Science cannot predict when the next change will occur, nor can science prove that such a change did occur. That is your presupposition speaking, not the science.



I will repeat what I said...if the very first living and breathing organism, you know, the one that we all allegely are descended of (according to Darwinism)...that organism did not resemble a modern day elephant...so as we look at the modern day elephant, the only logical explanation is for the very first ogranism to give rise to an present day elephant, which would be an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal...whether instantaneously, or gradual, that is the bottom line. And there is nothing you nor anyone else can say that will change this.

If you start off with the original organism from which every other living thing that has lived, then the end result is vastly different than what was started off with...thus, animals producing different kind of animals.

Dude, read what I said.

which would be an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal.

Elephants are still a variation of eukaryotes. It never stopped having cellular nuclei, the defining feature of eukaryotes.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah, and the interesting thing about the "basic concept behind evolution" is the fact that no one has ever observed these kind of changes. Science cannot predict when the next change will occur, nor can science prove that such a change did occur. That is your presupposition speaking, not the science.

Hang on buddy - just because you are ignorant of the science, does not mean it doesn't exist. Of course those changes have been observed. Such changes have been observed many, many times - and you have been told this before. Why do you repeat the same false claim? It smacks of denialism, as opposed to any rational objection.

I will repeat what I said...if the very first living and breathing organism, you know, the one that we all allegely are descended of (according to Darwinism)...that organism did not resemble a modern day elephant...so as we look at the modern day elephant, the only logical explanation is for the very first ogranism to give rise to an present day elephant, which would be an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal...whether instantaneously, or gradual, that is the bottom line. And there is nothing you nor anyone else can say that will change this.

Do you mean that there is nothing that will make you see your error? No. At no point from the evolution of the single cell to the elephant did any organism give birth to an organism of a different kind. Such an event would disprove evolution,not confirm it.

If you start off with the original organism from which every other living thing that has lived, then the end result is vastly different than what was started off with...thus, animals producing different kind of animals.

No. At no point would any organism give birth to an organism of a different kind. As I said - that is the most basic principle of evolution -and you simply refuse to consider it.

 

[Simurgh]

Hang on buddy - just because you are ignorant of the science, does not mean it doesn't exist. Of course those changes have been observed. Such changes have been observed many, many times - and you have been told this before. Why do you repeat the same false claim? It smacks of denialism, as opposed to any rational objection.


Do you mean that there is nothing that will make you see your error? No. At no point from the evolution of the single cell to the elephant did any organism give birth to an organism of a different kind. Such an event would disprove evolution,not confirm it.


No. At no point would any organism give birth to an organism of a different kind. As I said - that is the most basic principle of evolution -and you simply refuse to consider it.

Oh poor baby! Now CotW got a new victim ensnared in his web of ignorance dished up as lecture material for the eternally confused bible bullies.

Those are just the same old, same old lines from before when nothing else that made any sense was disseminated. And our all-time favorite "kind". Yeah, someone who has no clue as to how science works, what DNA is and does, what mutations are and what they mean within the framework of evolution really should not display his rampant science phobia over and over again. Considering it's all a rinse and repeat from earlier threads.

So, just ignore his forays into nonsense of the obnoxious kind and save yourself for a worthy debate.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh poor baby! Now CotW got a new victim ensnared in his web of ignorance dished up as lecture material for the eternally confused bible bullies.

Those are just the same old, same old lines from before when nothing else that made any sense was disseminated. And our all-time favorite "kind". Yeah, someone who has no clue as to how science works, what DNA is and does, what mutations are and what they mean within the framework of evolution really should not display his rampant science phobia over and over again. Considering it's all a rinse and repeat from earlier threads.

So, just ignore his forays into nonsense of the obnoxious kind and save yourself for a worthy debate.

Sadly those worthy debates seem pretty thin on the ground here abouts.

 

[Simurgh]

Sadly those worthy debates seem pretty thin on the ground here abouts.

Yep, so what should we debate then? How great cats are regardless of "kind"?

 

[Bunyip]

Yep, so what should we debate then? How great cats are regardless of "kind"?

Or possibly the alternative hypothesis to YEC - that all life was created as is by Chuck Norris.

Don't tell anyone - but yesterday I found proof of god AND evolution!

In my yard I found an early semi evolved fossilised god, he had a fully developed robe and beard - but the staff of vengeance was missing.

Could have been a hobo.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Dude, read what I said.
Elephants are still a variation of eukaryotes. It never stopped having cellular nuclei, the defining feature of eukaryotes.

What does this have to do with what I said??? There is nothing you can say, bro. The very first living and breathing organism was entirely different than a modern day elephant, yet the elephant is a descendent of it? This is voodoo science...an animal producing an entirely different kind of animal. No other way to put it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh poor baby! Now CotW got a new victim ensnared in his web of ignorance dished up as lecture material for the eternally confused bible bullies.

A new victim? Yeah, that is another way to describe my interactions with Bunyip

Those are just the same old, same old lines from before when nothing else that made any sense was disseminated. And our all-time favorite "kind".

It never fails. People on here act brand new when it comes to the word "kind" in reference to evolution...but if they went in a pet store and asked to see the "dogs", but the clerk brought them to the "cats" section, they would have no problem distinguishing the different "kinds" then.

I know the game, and watch it unfold.

Yeah, someone who has no clue as to how science works

A reptile changing into a bird is not science, bro.

what DNA is and does

DNA is not proof of macroevolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hang on buddy - just because you are ignorant of the science, does not mean it doesn't exist.

There is nothing scientific about Darwinism.

Of course those changes have been observed. Such changes have been observed many, many times - and you have been told this before. Why do you repeat the same false claim? It smacks of denialism, as opposed to any rational objection.

Will a cat ever produce a dog? Don't give me any bio-babble. Just give me a simple yes or no, please.

Do you mean that there is nothing that will make you see your error? No. At no point from the evolution of the single cell to the elephant did any organism give birth to an organism of a different kind. Such an event would disprove evolution,not confirm it.

The modern day elephant is a result of something that looked completely different than it did hundreds of millions of years ago, according to your theory. That is the theory, Bunyip. The only way you can explain the origin of the elephant is if you back in time to the very first living and breathing organism, and the further you go back in time, the more vastly different the elephants ancestors will become.

There is no way to explain all the different kinds of animals we have, and if you negate the existence of God (naturalism) evolution is the only game in town, as there is no other way to explain the "origin of species", which is EXACTLY why Darwin made the stupid "common ancestry" theory.

No. At no point would any organism give birth to an organism of a different kind. As I said - that is the most basic principle of evolution -and you simply refuse to consider it.

Look, you want to stick to the bio-babble. I don't need to be a biologist or scientist to understand how evolution works. According to Darwinsm, we all share a common ancestor, as we are all animals. I understand the theory, but what I want is the experimental and observational evidence to support it.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Yeah, and the interesting thing about the "basic concept behind evolution" is the fact that no one has ever observed these kind of changes.

Have you ever observed a magic snake talking to a dirt-man and a rib-woman before?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Have you ever observed a magic snake talking to a dirt-man and a rib-woman before?

No. But I admit that what I believe in is a RELIGION that I accept by FAITH, nor is my religion being taught in schools and being paid for by tax dollars (Kent Hovind lol), unlike evolutionists.

 

[Bunyip]

There is nothing scientific about Darwinism.

You wish.

Will a cat ever produce a dog? Don't give me any bio-babble. Just give me a simple yes or no, please.

Of course not.

The modern day elephant is a result of something that looked completely different than it did hundreds of millions of years ago, according to your theory. That is the theory, Bunyip. The only way you can explain the origin of the elephant is if you back in time to the very first living and breathing organism, and the further you go back in time, the more vastly different the elephants ancestors will become.

Correct. And of course at no point does any of those ancestral elephants ever give birth to an offspring of a different species.

There is no way to explain all the different kinds of animals we have, and if you negate the existence of God (naturalism) evolution is the only game in town, as there is no other way to explain the "origin of species", which is EXACTLY why Darwin made the stupid "common ancestry" theory.


Look, you want to stick to the bio-babble. I don't need to be a biologist or scientist to understand how evolution works. According to Darwinsm, we all share a common ancestor, as we are all animals. I understand the theory, but what I want is the experimental and observational evidence to support it.

Then why do you keep asking for observational evidence of someth7ng that the theory predicts to be impossible?

The reason why science has never observed one 'kind'giving birth to another is because science would not expect that to ever occur.

What you are asking for as proof of evolution would in fact disprove it.

 

[Bunyip]

No. But I admit that what I believe in is a RELIGION that I accept by FAITH, nor is my religion being taught in schools and being paid for by tax dollars (Kent Hovind lol), unlike evolutionists.

Buddy, the irony there is fantastic.

You do realise that HOVIND IS IN PRISON FOR TAX EVASION?

Evolutionary biology generates billions for the global economy, Hovind is in prison for defrauding the tax department.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What does this have to do with what I said???

A basal eukaryote was a microorganism. It would have looked superficially very different from an elephant. But an elephant is still an eukaryote.

There is nothing you can say, bro. The very first living and breathing organism was entirely different than a modern day elephant

And that's where you're wrong, because you're basing organism's similarities off of superficial looks due to a lack of detailed knowledge of biology and how similar organisms really are beyond looks. A major fallacy I recommend you try to overcome.

The fact of the matter is an elephant has everything the first organism has and more. The first organism doesn't have any major unique features the elephant doesn't have.

As I keep telling you, in Evolution, organisms develop off of existing features. An Elephant is just a very advanced variation of the first organism, as is all other life. The reason it may seem "totally different" is due to the degree of advancement and/or superficial looks. But at the end of the day, an elephant is still a variation of the first organism.

yet the elephant is a descendent of it? This is voodoo science...an animal producing an entirely different kind of animal.

Two different kinds of organisms are two different organisms that have a collection of unique features the other doesn't have. That's why it would not be Evolution if an eagle turned into a squirrel, for example. Eagles have a large collection of unique features a squirrel doesn't have, and a squirrel has a large collection of unique features the eagle doesn't have.

A human evolving from a basal ape ancestor wouldn't be the case. The human has every major feature the basal ape has and more. Granted, minor features can get lost, like fur or a tail.

I repeat, an elephant has everything the first organism has and more. The first organism doesn't have anything the elephant doesn't have, therefor, it's not a different kind. Rather, the elephant is a vary advanced version of the first organism, as is every other organism.

I don't need to be a biologist or scientist to understand how evolution works.

Wow, okay. You know, I don't think we really need to understand Newtonian Physics or Engineering to send man to The Moon. I'm sure we could have just have done it on a whim and would have gotten the job done. Hey, I bet I don't need to know **** about chemistry. Let me mix a bunch of random substances together anyway. I'm sure it'll be safe. Hold my beer.

Oh, you need someone to give you a heart transplant? I know this great guy! He doesn't know **** about medical science, but he's REALLY good at acting like he does. Also, he can make a fine plate of lasagna, which has nothing to do with medical science, but that of course doesn't matter. So who cares?!

 

[Simurgh]

Or possibly the alternative hypothesis to YEC - that all life was created as is by Chuck Norris.

Don't tell anyone - but yesterday I found proof of god AND evolution!

In my yard I found an early semi evolved fossilised god, he had a fully developed robe and beard - but the staff of vengeance was missing.

Could have been a hobo.

Sorry to burst your bubble buttercup. But that was my missing garden gnome. But you are right, how did that little dude get to your yard? God did it! yes! That was a sign from god (fill in multi-nominational deity of choice), probably as a sign that global warming is not happening.

 

[Simurgh]

A new victim? Yeah, that is another way to describe my interactions with Bunyip

Hey, you provide some brainless entertainment and we are willing to play along. It’s all good.

It never fails. People on here act brand new when it comes to the word "kind" in reference to evolution...but if they went in a pet store and asked to see the "dogs", but the clerk brought them to the "cats" section, they would have no problem distinguishing the different "kinds" then.

I know the game, and watch it unfold.

Another instance of an highly polished ignorance halo blinding you to the facts. Who is that dumb that they actually fall for your “kind” argument anymore—if anyone outside the creationist lobby ever did?
Just in case you are still confused “kind” is a meaningless designation in science. We are actually pretty specific with our nomenclature… and kind is just a meaningless word in that context.

A reptile changing into a bird is not science, bro.

Ah, yes! This is where you display your non-grasp of evolution and science in general. Funny how you bible bullies always act as if your non-comprehension of scientific discovery disproves said science.
No reptile ever changed into a bird.

DNA is not proof of macroevolution.

The ignorance and perfidy displayed by your heroes Ham and Hovind are not proof that god exists either, but that does not stop you from making some pretty asinine statements at times. Still, in the spirit of displaying good will to all mankind I let you look at that link dealing with scientific reasons why DNA points toward macroevolution. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

No. But I admit that what I believe in is a RELIGION that I accept by FAITH,

Well then, since it hasn't been observed, then we should presume it to be false right? After all... That is what you said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can't present evidence that doesn't support theistic evolution, but I can present evidence that doesn't support naturalist evolution.

They are the exact same process. Whether God started life or life what started naturally, or by aliens, or goblins, or a discarded egg sandwich left by a wizard, the process of evolution, as described and explained by the theory of evolution, REMAINS EXACTLY THE SAME.

I've said this a dozen times already, my argument is against naturalistic evolution, and based on this, evolution is impossible, because in order for any life to evovle, life must first exist (obviously). But science has yet to prove that it is even possible for life to come from nonlife..and not only life, but conscious life. Science cannot be used to explain the origin of consciousness.

A huge jump there. You went from "science has yet to prove life can come from non-life" to "science CANNOT be used to explain the origin of consciousness". I would absolutely love to hear your evidence for this outrageous claim.

So since science cannot do this, naturalism is a irrational position and therefore naturalistic evolution could NEVER have occurred, not to mention the fact that the theory itself is unscientific anyway.

I can't help but notice that you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, despite saying you could.

Look, without the bio-babble,

It's really not complicated to understand. Do you know what taxonomy is?

in a nut shell..it is quite simple. Go back in time before there was any living, breathing organisms. Now fast foward to the very first living and breathing organism (whatever that is). Now keep in mind I said "the very first" living and breathing organism. That specific organism looks very different than an elephant, right? So if we share a common ancestor with that first living and breathing organism, then obviously, animals were producing different kinds of animals..otherwise, there is just no way to explain the different kinds of species that we see.

So you're justication for this is "it looks different to an elephant, therefore it couldn't happen?"

So how do you get from the very first organism to the modern day elephant?

So, you literally haven't attempted to learn anything about evolution? You do realize that this question has been answered by biologists for years, right? One of the earliest living organisms that replicated were eukaryotes - organisms made from cells which contained a nucelus. What they replicated were variations of themselves, in other words: other organisms made from cells which contain a nucelus. Every living organism (aside from bacteria) on the planet belongs in this taxonomic rank. Every kind of animal and plant on the planet belong in this taxonomic rank. Hence, the first living thing didn't have to produce something other than what it was, only a variation on what it was.

What does this have to do with what I said??? There is nothing you can say, bro. The very first living and breathing organism was entirely different than a modern day elephant, yet the elephant is a descendent of it? This is voodoo science...an animal producing an entirely different kind of animal. No other way to put it.

So, really, your only and best argument is "But, they don't look the same! Therefore it cannot be possible!"

Do I need to explain to you why that's not a strong, scientific argument?