Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is none. A created kind was something from long ago. One would not look at features of the present nature, such as an ability to breed as the test.

So when you claim things are or aren't the same kind or repeat such claims that you read somewhere, you're really just flying blind?

That's quite.... Unsurprising.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh. You mean, how would scientists determine that?
I don't see the need to complicate matters, so could you please explain why they need to do that?

Huh? That seems very relevant to the biology, don't you think?

What do you mean by "a newly discovered species is or is not part of some kind"?

Suppose we find a species we haven't seen before. How do we determine whether or not it is of the same kind as another species we already knew about?

 

[dad]

How? By what method?

By God speaking and it was done. Jesus is the word of God and when He speaks all the atoms and forces and laws and powers in the universe fall into line.

So how come we find stars and fish to be significantly older than man?

Because you base your 'older' on beliefs that have no value or proof or evidence, such as a same state past,

So what "kind" did he create, and if all were different "kinds" why do they all share very similar genetic makeup?

I assume modern genetics is something found in the present nature, but not the past one. It is not known that genes worked as they now do exactly.

 

[dad]

So when you claim things are or aren't the same kind or repeat such claims that you read somewhere, you're really just flying blind?

That's quite.... Unsurprising.

Except I generally did not claim things were the same kind. There are some kinds we do know about such as man kind. Science cannot tell us if man was the same in the beginning and does not even realize we were here! You see, that pesky same nature in the past belief that they use incessantly fools them into assuming/believing that most creatures including man would be in the fossil record if we were alive. No. Apparently man and most animals returned to dust too fast to be even able to leave fossilized remains!

 

[SkepticThinker]

The did not arise, they were created. When? Same week man was created and the stars and sun and fish.
So what constituted a kind was that God created it one day that way. What now constitutes a kind? Nothing... science knows about because all the evolving that went on to those first created animals and man as well as the changed nature have clouded things.

What are the original kinds?

 

[dad]

What are the original kinds?

With all the evolving that went on and most of that rapidly in the fomer nature, who really knows anymore? We can glean a few from Scripture...man..crows...doves..and probably all the creatures mentioned in heaven, the new earth or elsewhere...wolves lions etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

With all the evolving that went on and most of that rapidly in the fomer nature, who really knows anymore? We can glean a few from Scripture...man..crows...doves..and probably all the creatures mentioned in heaven, the new earth or elsewhere...wolves lions etc.

So why are you asserting that they existed in the first place, if nobody could really know? How could you possibly draw a conclusion based on incomplete/missing/unknown "information?"
Where's your empirical evidence that you demand from everybody else?
Also, while you're at it, where is your evidence for heaven and "new earth or elsewhere?"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are a few of them actually....all related.

The fundamental flaw that uses language that basically says "we are making educated guesses about all this"....and the reason why they use that language is because their conclusions are mostly based on guesswork.

The fundamental flaw that not one scientific experiment on speciation demonstrated anything but a new variety in an existing family of organisms.

If you read the article on "Speciation" in Wiki e.g. what do you find? Organisms evolving into new organisms?...or simply a new variety produced through adaptation, in a single family of creatures.....whether or not they can interbreed is irrelevant. None of them step outside of their taxonomy....no creatures ever have or could.....science assumes that they have because they add time to the equation as if a little automatically proves a lot if millions of years elapse. The truth is, no one really knows. Assumption, suggestion and guesswork are not real science.

You can't even artificially breed animals of the same family and see them breed according to kind. Horses and donkeys (both equines) produce mules, but mules are sterile. Lions and tigers (felines) can interbreed but their offspring too, are sterile. These would never naturally breed in the wild. But genetic roadblocks exist even in these close relatives.

The fundamental flaw in assuming that a single celled organism can magically appear for no apparent reason, out of nowhere, and then over time transform itself into a dinosaur.....do you really believe that? That is more fantasy than what we get accused of.

Assumptions are not facts and should never be presented as such.

As Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands.....the finches were all just new varieties of finches seen on the mainland, and the tortoises were a new variety of tortoise. The iguanas were a marine adapted iguanas...but all of them were still clearly recognized as new varieties of their mainland 'cousins'. Where is the basis for evolution?

When you understand how much suggestion is used to provide "evidence" for macro-evolution, you begin to see what a colossal snow job it really is.

Let's deal with these "flaws" one at a time.

1. Educated guesses: It is not a guess that evolution happened--the evidence here is absolutely overwhelming. It is an educated guess regarding the complex driving forces behind it (natural selection, etc.). An educated guess is far, far different than just a guess.
2. Speciation: It is a fact that we have directly observed speciation within our own lifetimes. I have given the example of the Shetland Monkey Plant, the descendant of the Monkey Plant -- it is so new that it doesn't even have a scientific name yet. It has a completely different number of chromosomes than the original Monkey Plant. It can no longer reproduce with the original Monkey Plant, yet it produces fertile offspring within its own group. THAT is speciation. Now, if that can happen over a period of 200 years, what can happen over a period of a million years? Yes, you are going to have species moving out of families.
3. Abiogenesis: This is not part of evolution. It is an entirely different subject so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up as a "flaw" of evolution.

 

[dad]

So why are you asserting that they existed in the first place, if nobody could really know?

Just because science is too weak and small to be able to tell us does not mean we cannot know! We just can't know by science! Think about it, science doesn't KNOW either way. So you can't take the position that if it is not known to science it never happened!

How could you possibly draw a conclusion based on incomplete/missing/unknown "information?"

We can't, and that is why we cannot use science for origin issues.

Where's your empirical evidence that you demand from everybody else?
Also, while you're at it, where is your evidence for heaven and "new earth or elsewhere?"

Empirical evidence is for science claims. YOU need some to make a science claim against God or the bible!

How sweet it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because science is too weak and small to be able to tell us does not mean we cannot know! We just can't know by science! Think about it, science doesn't KNOW either way. So you can't take the position that if it is not known to science it never happened!

We can't, and that is why we cannot use science for origin issues.

Empirical evidence is for science claims. YOU need some to make a science claim against God or the bible!

How sweet it is.

Oh dad, you have it so backwards.

By the way, no one has made any claims "against God". Well except f for you. You do keep calling God a liar. Why do you do that?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just because science is too weak and small to be able to tell us does not mean we cannot know! We just can't know by science! Think about it, science doesn't KNOW either way. So you can't take the position that if it is not known to science it never happened!

We can't, and that is why we cannot use science for origin issues.

Empirical evidence is for science claims. YOU need some to make a science claim against God or the bible!

How sweet it is.

The claims of science are based on what can be sensed and measured. It proposes educated guesses (not guesses) as well as asserts facts). Plate tectonics would be an example of a fact that science has successfully proven as a fact. The theory behind it is an educated guess -- the reasons behind it may be more complex than we know for example. Same with evolution. We know that it is a fact that life evolves. But the mechanism behind evolution is an educated guess, meaning that there may be additional factors that we do not yet know of.

YOU need to acknowledge that the Bible includes many genres, including powerful myths that, although historically inaccurate, contain eternal truth. I'm thinking of the two creation stories in particular at this moment. For example, they teach that God created, but not how he created. The how is left to science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just because science is too weak and small to be able to tell us does not mean we cannot know! We just can't know by science! Think about it, science doesn't KNOW either way. So you can't take the position that if it is not known to science it never happened!

I know you love to shirk the burden of proof, but this is getting absurd. This isn't about "science." Science doesn't posit anything about "kinds." It's about the claims you made. You claimed there were original "kinds" but that there is no way to know what they were. YOU said it's not possible to know what they were. Not science. YOU. In other words, you've drawn your conclusion before examining any evidence. Evidence that you don't have and say cannot be found. So how on earth are you drawing conclusions from evidence that doesn't exist?? You don't get to deflect to anyone or anything else here. These are your claims we are talking about. I want to know how you are drawing conclusions without evidence.

You don't get to deflect to something else. You need to back up your myriad claims.

Or just admit that your beliefs have absolutely no explanatory power whatsoever.

My questions stand, because you completely failed to answer them. My questions were about the logical inconsistencies in your statements.

We can't, and that is why we cannot use science for origin issues.

Great. You can't. So your claims can be disregarded until you can back them up with evidence.

You say there were original created kinds. You also say you can't produce them and have no idea what they were. So how is it you think you can make any claims about something you know nothing about; something you have never seen or examined? Do you not see how absurd that is?

Just an FYI too, if you don't have evidence for a thing, then any answers about that thing should be nothing other than "I don't know." Because you can't know anything about a thing that can't be examined, tested or measured in some way.

Empirical evidence is for science claims. YOU need some to make a science claim against God or the bible!

You are claiming that something existed. Yet you cannot say what that something was or provide any explanatory power for your beliefs surrounding that something whatsoever.

How sweet it is.

Not sure why you think making baseless claims is a sweet thing.
To each their own, I guess.

 

[dad]

The claims of science are based on what can be sensed and measured.

Great, so show us how the nature and forces that existed in the past on earth are measured. Should be easy if your claim is true.

It proposes educated guesses (not guesses) as well as asserts facts).

N, it makes godless guesses based on godless beliefs, which are imposed on any facts that happen along.

Plate tectonics would be an example of a fact that science has successfully proven as a fact. The theory behind it is an educated guess -- the reasons behind it may be more complex than we know for example.

If the majority of the plate movement was in that former nature, then looking at some slow residual movements today in this nature is deceptive and totally inadequate to tell us about the past.

Same with evolution. We know that it is a fact that life evolves.

Big deal! Evolving is a gift and trait from God given to life on earth, that was especially fast in the former nature, but which started with real men and animals that were created.

But the mechanism behind evolution is an educated guess, meaning that there may be additional factors that we do not yet know of.

Yeah, who really cares? Even if you figure how it now works you would still be in the dark about how it used to work in the former nature!

YOU need to acknowledge that the Bible includes many genres, including powerful myths that, although historically inaccurate, contain eternal truth.

No. I do not need to acknowledge any such foolish thing actually. You need to acknowledge that you are misled.

I'm thinking of the two creation stories in particular at this moment. For example, they teach that God created, but not how he created. The how is left to science.

That's what you think! Science is out of the knowledge and abilities loop on that stuff! In the dark. Dark ages.

 

[dad]

This isn't about "science." Science doesn't posit anything about "kinds."

Of course the ignorant religion doesn't posit about things way too high for it's little tools and shallow pool of knowledge. So? Maybe it's time you stop being surprised at it's laughable ignorance and pretensions?

YOU said it's not possible to know what they were. Not science. YOU. In other words, you've drawn your conclusion before examining any evidence. Evidence that you don't have and say cannot be found. So how on earth are you drawing conclusions from evidence that doesn't exist?? You don't get to deflect to anyone or anything else here. These are your claims we are talking about. I want to know how you are drawing conclusions without evidence.

No not me..GOD ALMIGHTY!! Since science can't say a cotton picking thing about it, then of course it is not science..any more than it is Dr Sues!

You say there were original created kinds. You also say you can't produce them and have no idea what they were. So how is it you think you can make any claims about something you know nothing about; something you have never seen or examined? Do you not see how absurd that is?

It is not I, not Scripture that know nothing about creation, that would be you and so called science! Stop projecting your ignorance on others.

You are claiming that something existed. Yet you cannot say what that something was or provide any explanatory power for your beliefs surrounding that something whatsoever.

The bible does list some kinds actually, stop projecting your NOT knowing!
Remember to always start a claim on origins with 'I actually have zero idea what I am talking about and absolutely do not and can never know, but...'

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course the ignorant religion doesn't posit about things way too high for it's little tools and shallow pool of knowledge. So? Maybe it's time you stop being surprised at it's laughable ignorance and pretensions?


No not me..GOD ALMIGHTY!! Since science can't say a cotton picking thing about it, then of course it is not science..any more than it is Dr Sues!

It is not I, not Scripture that know nothing about creation, that would be you and so called science! Stop projecting your ignorance on others.

The bible does list some kinds actually, stop projecting your NOT knowing!
Remember to always start a claim on origins with 'I actually have zero idea what I am talking about and absolutely do not and can never know, but...'

You've certainly typed a lot of words. Too bad none of them address the point or back up your myriad claims.

Remember we're talking about YOUR claims, which you've revealed have absolutely no evidence or explanatory power whatsoever.

YOU are the one who claimed there were original kinds but that there is no way to know what they are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Insufficient evidence results in the case being thrown out by any good and fair judge.

Not at all the point that was made.
The point that was actually made, was that testimony by itself is among the weakest of evidence.

 

[dad]

You've certainly typed a lot of words. Too bad none of them address the point or back up your myriad claims.

Remember we're talking about YOUR claims, which you've revealed have absolutely no evidence or explanatory power whatsoever.

YOU are the one who claimed there were original kinds but that there is no way to know what they are.

God claimed it. Science and you have nothing to say about it. So we see bluster in big type, saying nothing and trying to obscure your world class fail.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God claimed it. Science and you have nothing to say about it. So we see bluster in big type, saying nothing and trying to obscure your world class fail.

God claimed nothing on this forum. You did.

Once again, we're talking about the lack of logic present in your argument. Not God's argument. Not science's argument.
Your argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I am saying that scientists make the assumption that DNA can be used to map every living thing into a hierarchy.

That's not an assumption. That's a fact. A demonstrable, testable, verifiable fact.
Assuming you acquire the know how on how to do it, YOU could sequence genomes and map the matches.

And it will result in the same nested hierarchy. It will even result in the same nested hierarchy if you map matches from the context of comparative anatomy instead of comparative genetics.
This tree will even match the geographic distribution of species in context of plate tectonics and geological history.

As has been explained to you many times, multiple independent lines of evidence, even coming from accross multiple independent scientific fields, ALL converge on this exact same answer.

This is not an opinion. It is a testable fact.

We factually share more ERV's, or other genetic markers, with chimps then we do with cats.
Just like you factually share more genetic markers with your close cousin then with your distant cousin.

This is exactly how relationships between individuals are inferred. Like when you do a paternity test.
Or to see if some person is your actual sibling or cousin.

The fruit flies, and bacteria experiments were used to demonstrate evolution. If they were not considered a population, then evolution did not occur. Correct?

You're going to have to be a bit less vague then that.
I'm pretty sure right out the gates that no sinlge one experiment is going to have as goal "demonstrate evolution". Typically a single experiment will be testing a single aspect of this HUGE theory.

So I suggest you do some reading and then, preferably in your own words, come back and state which exact experiment you speak off, what the purpose of the researches was and what results and conclusions were reached.

I probably am not getting you fully, on your understanding of population.
I have to go, but I will try to understand you on this later.

A population is a group of interbreeding individuals of a species.
If a population splits in two genetically isolated groups, we now have 2 groups of interbreeding individuals of a single species. This could happen if for example some natural disaster strikes, like a volcano or something or the creation of a river, splitting a population in two. Or part of a population migrates to other area's.

Due to this genetic isolation, genes aren't exchanged between the populations anymore.
Meaning that any mutations happening in population A, will stay in population A. They won't be introduced in population B, because there is no interbreeding going on between members of A with members of B.

If A and B end up dealing with different selection pressures, then A and B will gradually diverge from one another. To the point that members of A and B will no longer be able to interbreed. Now we have 2 new species. Both are sub-species of the ancestral population species.

If the ancestral species was X, then both A and B are "types" of X. Subspecies thereof.

This is why humans and chimps are both primates. We share a primate ancestor.
This is why humans and chimps and cats are all mammals. We share mammal ancestor.
This is why humans and chimps and cats and crockodiles are all vertebrates. We share a vertebrate ancestor.


See?

This is what the nested hierarchy is.
This is the explanatory power of evolution.

This is how we were able to derive from this model that there must have been a vertebrate with both fish and land animal features, living some 350 million years ago in shallow waters, swamps. Researchers pinpointed rock of that age which would have found themselves in such an environment and started digging. And lo an behold, they found exactly what they were looking for. Tiktaalik. A land walking fish. Or a fish that can walk on land. Whatever your preference is.

Can you even fathom the body of knowledge and explanatory power that was required to make this prediction?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God claimed it. Science and you have nothing to say about it. So we see bluster in big type, saying nothing and trying to obscure your world class fail.

No, you are mistaking the Bible for God. You would need to provide evidence that the Bible is reliable. Until you do it is just another book of myths.

So what do you have? What is your evidence for the Bible?