-
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!
'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
You don’t understand speciation.
I was never biology student, and yet you cannot understand concept of natural selection.
It’s really pathetic, that you are incapable of learning even the most basic biology.
Why didn't you address the issue:"Are they still bears"? Attacking my intellect detracts from your credibility.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You should learn some basic science. There is no change of kinds in evolution. Once again, that is a creationist strawman. Just as the offspring of bears will always be bears the offspring of apes will always be apes. Which is why you are still an ape.
gnostic
The Lost One
What detract your intellect is your own ignorance, plus the unwillingness to learn from your mistakes.
I gave you a brief summary how they differed. How one group have for generations, adapted to very different climate, different terrain, so they can survive.
You don’t understand that speciation is just about changing into different species of different genus or different family.
Changes can be small enough, but still be different enough that the two species can still be of the same genus or even of the same species (subspecies).
And there are also case, any of the taxonomy hierarchy (eg tribe, family, genus, species) can be exhibited different genetic traits according to their respective clades.
Yes, they are still bears, and they belonged to the same genus (Urus), but biologists are able to classify the different species within the same genus.
How do the bible treat it?
It only speak of “kind”, but it so vague, it could mean anything, and doesn’t one species from others, nor one genus from the others, nor family from the others, and so on.
Calling all ducks, sparrows and hawks of the same “bird” kind, is something only what the uneducated would do, lumping everything into one.
You are living in the 21st century, not in the Iron Age. How about you updating your education to the current knowledge in biology?
Even the pagan Roman and Greek philosophers around Jesus’ time understood natural philosophy on wildlife better than today’s creationist over-simplistic “kinds”.
You write all this, and still don’t answer my question!
I know changes occur within species, grief! Otherwise, we couldn’t have different breeds of dogs. But are they evolving into higher taxa? No!
I have no use for those who avoid answering simple, reasonable questions, then resort to belittling my intelligence.
That’s a sorry debate style, it only highlights how ineffective your argument is.
You are close to joining a few others on ignore, who are ad-hom overachievers and simply lack reasoning skills.
Last edited:
And birds are still dinosaurs, and we are all still fish. Evolution never produces changes in taxa. You should know that.
No consensus...talk to Dr. Alan Feduccia.
You breathe water?
Come on, man! Why not just say, “We’re all still bacteria”?
We are a group of fish that lives on land and breathes air. Same kind as the lungfish.
95% consensus on birds. The rest contrarian diehards will die off, as they always do in science.
We are not bacteria, we are multi-cellular version of eukaryotes, the same kind as amoeba. So saying that we are still a kind of amoeba would be correct.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
There is no such thing as "evolving into higher taxa", and that statement doesn't even make sense. Evolution doesn't cause a change in taxa, is causes diversification within the taxa. Taxanomic ranks don't "change" and there is no "higher" or "lower" taxa.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Boy, I haven't heard that name in years, In any case, Feduccia's ideas have been roundly criticized for his methods, particularly for failing to use cladistics in his studies of the origin and the evolution of birds. He is essentially a lone penguin in a flock eagles. In short, Feduccia is a very poor source to build an argument against dinosaur-bird evolution. However, you are correct in questioning sayak83's contention that birds are still dinosaurs. Although having evolved from dinosaurs, birds are not dinosaurs .
However, ImmortalFlame is quite right in pointing out that there's no such thing as "evolving into higher taxa", and that the statement doesn't make any sense. More than anything, it shows your ignorance not only of evolution but taxonomy. My suggestion, bone up on both before posting any further on either one.
.
Hold on.
Avialae - Wikipedia
Avialae ("bird wings") is a clade of flying dinosaurs containing their only living representatives, the birds. It is usually defined as all theropod dinosaurs more closely related to modern birds (Aves) than to deinonychosaurs,
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
There is no issue other than your display of ignorance.
Unless maybe one would think "water is still wet"
constitutes raising an issue.
Regurging a moldy old creogument as if it is
a gotcha demonstrates your credibility.
You may be reasonably bright, but if smart is as
smart does, you are not showing it. You've a
normal chance to learn the subject matter, but
you cannot be bothered. How intellectual is that?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Of course we're limited to ideas and things that can be tested, observed, replicated, etc., because it's the only thing that makes any practical sense. How else would you suggest we demonstrate the existence of things?
gnostic
The Lost One
I don't know who this Feduccia is, but one scientist is not "consensus", Hockeycowboy.
You will never get full consensus from every scientists, but one person disagreeing with birds evolving from dinosaurs, don't make all other scientists agreeing with Feduccia.
To give you a hypothetical scenario as what consensus mean, say 90% of international scientific community (A) agree with birds evolved from dinosaurs, (B) 8% of these scientists disagree, and (C) 2% are undecided.
The question is which of these 3 groups hold “consensus”?
It would obviously not be group B. It is group A.
Now such consensus don’t come from personality of the scientist, but from the strength of explanation and from accurate predictions, but more importantly from the quantity of independent verifiable evidences.
Now, I don’t know much about dinosaurs and birds, and I don’t know the actual statistics of those who agreed on birds evolving from dinosaurs as opposed to those disagree, but from what I heard so far, those who agree with birds and dinosaurs connection are in the majority.
You don’t seem understand the concept of “consensus”, do you?
That’s another list of things in science you need to read up, including speciation, natural selection, empirical evidences, and so on.
gnostic
The Lost One
Higher taxa? What are you talking about?
I am not biologist, but I have never of this higher taxa. Do you care to clarify?
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Why would it need any?
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Humans and chimps share a primate common ancestor who was a primate, and we are still primates.
Humans and bears share a mammalian common ancestor, and we are still mammals.
Humans and trout share a vertebrate common ancestor, and we are still vertebrates.
Apparently, you don't understand how evolution works.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
You don't evolve out of your ancestry. When a new branch buds out on the tree of life it doesn't detach from the branch it is currently on and reattach at the base of trunk. That new branch is always a part of the branch it budded from.