"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[ImprobableBeing]

Exactly. Lizards are dog-kind too.


LOL. And we were specially created with 22 shared ERV mutations with chimpanzees. God wanted us to not be able to produce C-vitamins like all other animals (almost all). And God also wanted us to have the same DNA markers as chimps, but have fewer shared with species further away on the evolutionary tree, just because he wants to confuse scientists with facts contradicting to an ancient story. :areyoucra

Seems plausible... to some.

In fact i think it's a requirement to be on the Texas and Kansas school board of education.

 

[Ouroboros]

In fact i think it's a requirement to be on the Texas and Kansas school board of education.

It's probably true.

Sir Attenboroug claims humans are not evolving anymore... well, look at some of these school boards, I'd say we're devolving.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

It's probably true.

Sir Attenboroug claims humans are not evolving anymore... well, look at some of these school boards, I'd say we're devolving.

I think it has more to do with politics and enforcing your faith a la the Talibans.

Devolving isn't actually a correct term, even if people got stupider they would still get there by evolving into that state.

 

[Ouroboros]

Devolving isn't actually a correct term, even if people got stupider they would still get there by evolving into that state.

True.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Devolving isn't actually a correct term, even if people got stupider they would still get there by evolving into that state.

Let's call it "regressing."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But it still has a practical, testable definition

Well, so does the word "kind" in the context. We observe a particular "kind" we call "dogs", and so far, every animal produces its own "kind". This is all that we see, right? So why go any further beyond this?

You don't believe that dogs and cats are different species? Let's see where you're going with this...

I believe they are different kinds of animals.

Actually, yes it is, since this point of yours doesn't contradict evolution whatsoever. Nothing has to produce anything "other than what it is", it only ever has to produce what it is, but with variation which is exactly what we observe. In what way do you think this notion contradicts evolution?

And that is exactly my point!!! It produces what it is, with variation, and that is EXACTLY why we have all different VARIETIES of dogs, but they are all dogs. We have different varieties of cats, but they are all cats. They aren't changing into a non-cat or a non-dog. This is all we've seen. But the problem is you seem to think that millions of years ago, things were happening then that aren't happening now. That is where evolution has this observational problem. We observe change from WITHIN the kind. Not changes BEYOND the kind. There is a big difference there.

The fact that you still don't understand what people mean when they ask you to define your terms is staggering.

I did with the pet store analogy. If you go in the pet store and you ask for a dog and he brings you out a turtle, you would recognize a turtle is a different kind of animal than what you asked for. It is plain and simple.

You're right. A child has a much better grasp of biological diversity and phylogenetic categorization than the vast majority of educated biologists. Good point.

The child would recognize that an elephant is different than a cat, yes.

Let's make this simple. Let's say I present to you two animals that you have never seen before. They currently have no names, and their biological origin is currently unknown. They are roughly similar, but not identical. How would you go about demonstrating whether or not these two animals belong in the same or different categorization of "kind"?

First I would see if they can reproduce. If not, I would have to withhold judgment and say I don't know. They could be related, or they may not be.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Let's call it "regressing."

I don't know if you know how correct you are but you are so correct that someone should give you a bloody prize for it.

It's exactly what it is, regression of human knowledge.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well, so does the word "kind" in the context. We observe a particular "kind" we call "dogs", and so far, every animal produces its own "kind". This is all that we see, right? So why go any further beyond this?



I believe they are different kinds of animals.



And that is exactly my point!!! It produces what it is, with variation, and that is EXACTLY why we have all different VARIETIES of dogs, but they are all dogs. We have different varieties of cats, but they are all cats. They aren't changing into a non-cat or a non-dog. This is all we've seen. But the problem is you seem to think that millions of years ago, things were happening then that aren't happening now. That is where evolution has this observational problem. We observe change from WITHIN the kind. Not changes BEYOND the kind. There is a big difference there.



I did with the pet store analogy. If you go in the pet store and you ask for a dog and he brings you out a turtle, you would recognize a turtle is a different kind of animal than what you asked for. It is plain and simple.



The child would recognize that an elephant is different than a cat, yes.



First I would see if they can reproduce. If not, I would have to withhold judgment and say I don't know. They could be related, or they may not be.

Lol seeing that an elephant is different than a cat isn't the same as understanding why. Either way you're not actually making an argument against evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First of all, I said evolution is a process of trial and ERROR, which it is. The keyword is ERROR. Why would God use a process of trial and ERROR to do anything when he is a perfect God. Makes no sense.

why can't he? Why can't god use a natural process? Is your god omnipowerful or not? Is your god beyond your thoughts or not? Either you don't know what the hell god is thinking and you have to admit everything your arguing comes from YOU NOT GOD or you have to admit its possible god is doing something you don't know about.

If he is perfect, then yes.

wow. This is brilliant. So you know exactly what god can and can't do? You are the almighty prophet and return of Jesus that we have been awaiting?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I did with the pet store analogy. If you go in the pet store and you ask for a dog and he brings you out a turtle, you would recognize a turtle is a different kind of animal than what you asked for. It is plain and simple.

You have not attempted to define it in the slightest, instead you have attempted to use it in context which gives a general view on what you believe the term is supposed to represent yet by virtue of not being explicitly specified has absolutely no basis by which to be considered criteria for categorisation let alone to then have such an assertion of 'kind' delineated diversity be tested against observation.

It is inherently noncognitive (basically without meaning), it is a term which is intended to be vague because otherwise it would be subjected to investigation and found (as it has in the past every time it has been defined) to be without merit in terms of identifying some obstacle or means of organism differentiation and categorisation that evolution is not able to account for.

 

[secret2]

Hey Call_of_the_Wild, this is your world view

It indicates a certain level of education and thought. It doesn't hold water. What kind is the E. coli? Is it of the same kind as C. japonicus or what?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

There is indeed a very valid reason why few 5 and 6 year old children are among the leading edge of biological researchers; 'Kinds' just doesn't cut it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

why can't he? Why can't god use a natural process?

Its not about whether it is a natural process or not, the point of emphasis is the trial and ERROR part.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is indeed a very valid reason why few 5 and 6 year old children are among the leading edge of biological researchers; 'Kinds' just doesn't cut it.

You don't need to to be among the "leading edge of biological researchers" to determine that an elephant is a different kind of animal than a cat.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Lol seeing that an elephant is different than a cat isn't the same as understanding why.

But the difference is highly noted, and you are the ones stating that despite the vast difference in the two, that they both someone share the same common ancestor. Now you are free to believe whatever you want, but to call it science despite the lack of observation is disingenuous.

Either way you're not actually making an argument against evolution.

My argument against evolution is its key premises has never been observed, and observation is supposed to be one of the main ingredients for the scientific method.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have not attempted to define it in the slightest, instead you have attempted to use it in context which gives a general view on what you believe the term is supposed to represent yet by virtue of not being explicitly specified has absolutely no basis by which to be considered criteria for categorisation let alone to then have such an assertion of 'kind' delineated diversity be tested against observation.

It is inherently noncognitive (basically without meaning), it is a term which is intended to be vague because otherwise it would be subjected to investigation and found (as it has in the past every time it has been defined) to be without merit in terms of identifying some obstacle or means of organism differentiation and categorisation that evolution is not able to account for.

Is a dog a different kind of animal than a turtle, yes or no?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Is a dog a different kind of animal than a turtle, yes or no?

Haven't you been paying attention, science and species and such ridiculous notions are just wrong.

If it has four legs it's a dog, period!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My argument against evolution is its key premises has never been observed, and observation is supposed to be one of the main ingredients for the scientific method.

How many people have tried to explain to you that that's not what is meant by "observation" in the scientific method? I'm guessing practically everyone, and you have continually ignored them.

The premise of evolution is that small alterations in genetic diversity caused by natural reproduction (directly observed) can produce speciation (directly observed) in living populations, and that this process is responsible for the biological diversity we see today through common ancestry (observed in the fossil record). "Observation" means you observe a phenomena, then you analyse the available evidence in order to reach a conclusion. It does NOT mean "you have to directly observe something before you can consider it scientifically viable". The notion that we have to directly observe something before claiming to understand it defeats the whole purpose of scientific inquiry.

Why do you not understand this? That's not me insulting your intelligence, by the way, that is me asking you a direct and honest question: How is it that this very, very simple distinction (one of many very simple distinctions pointed out to you in this and other threads) is something you don't yet understand despite having obviously made a presumably large amount of effort to research this subject? Why do you not understand simple ideas like the scientific method, genetic variation or the fossil record? What is it about these things that is so complicated or so unbelievable to you? And if you do understand them, then why do you have to outright lie about what evolution claims or what the scientific method demands, because lies are all these arguments are if you actually know anything about science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is a dog a different kind of animal than a turtle, yes or no?

Depends. They're different species, genus, family, order and class, but they do belong in the same phylum (chordata). So does the classification of "kind" fall above or below the level of phylum?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

How many people have tried to explain to you that that's not what is meant by "observation" in the scientific method? I'm guessing practically everyone, and you have continually ignored them.

The premise of evolution is that small alterations in genetic diversity caused by natural reproduction (directly observed) can produce speciation (directly observed) in living populations, and that this process is responsible for the biological diversity we see today through common ancestry (observed in the fossil record). "Observation" means you observe a phenomena, then you analyse the available evidence in order to reach a conclusion. It does NOT mean "you have to directly observe something before you can consider it scientifically viable". The notion that we have to directly observe something before claiming to understand it defeats the whole purpose of scientific inquiry.

Why do you not understand this? That's not me insulting your intelligence, by the way, that is me asking you a direct and honest question: How is it that this very, very simple distinction (one of many very simple distinctions pointed out to you in this and other threads) is something you don't yet understand despite having obviously made a presumably large amount of effort to research this subject? Why do you not understand simple ideas like the scientific method, genetic variation or the fossil record? What is it about these things that is so complicated or so unbelievable to you? And if you do understand them, then why do you have to outright lie about what evolution claims or what the scientific method demands, because lies are all these arguments are if you actually know anything about science.

Not to mention the falsification process, do the predictions match observed reality?

So much that we are actually making vaccines for viruses that do not yet exist and developing antibiotics against the next step of bacterial evolution.

It works so well that it's remarkable, not that the predictions are correct since it's the most supported scientific theory in all of history but that we are able to pinpoint the environmental pressure and make the predictions from that.