"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[Skwim]

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

Excuse my ignorance here, I may have missed this point if it was explained before, but what's the definition of "kind," and does it have any relationship to taxonomic ranks?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

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

To answer that I would need to know what constitutes a 'kind' - which you refuse to say.

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.

Yet it is telling that 'kind': your term to be used for 5 and 6 year old children's comprehension of the difference between animals - can be meaningful to one uninformed about biology but not useful (and indeed nonsensical) to one who IS informed about biology - due to you repeatedly refusing to define your terms.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Toenail soul says all kinds are one in spirit.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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.



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.

So you don't believe in DNA? Because that's the important distinction between a cat and an elephant. Genotype is very important.

And what key premise? The key premise in evolution is how traits are inherited...are you saying that traits are not inherited? Observation? Things being observed are not always things you see right before your eyes. I know that's hard to grasp, which is unfortunately why in 3rd grade science they just stick to a very basic concept of it. Unfortunately some never get through this concept. It's like when a child asks you were a baby comes from, you don't sit them down and give them the full details of how sex works, but you explain it in a manner they can understand until they are old of enough to know the details.

Words like "Kind" existed in humanities scientific "infancy" we are older and can now learn the details....

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Excuse my ignorance here, I may have missed this point if it was explained before, but what's the definition of "kind," and does it have any relationship to taxonomic ranks?

I don't know how can you tell that there's different kinds of animals? What's that even mean? Are some animals made of gold? I

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I don't know how can you tell that there's different kinds of animals? What's that even mean? Are some animals made of gold? I

"kinds" isn't defined anywhere so no, you cannot tell him anything about it.

After the observation of inter-species evolution this is where creationists move the goal posts "well, did we say species? No, we said kinds".

It's not defined anywhere in any book nor is it a scientific term in any possible way.

It's just the creationists usual dishonesty.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

How do you know that god can't do it? Why can't god simply keep us held down to earth with magic? why does it have to bend space and time via the warping of space that is directly proportional to the mass and density of the particles that interact with the higgs boson?

Answer me that? Why did it take several explosions of the sun and then re-forming to get the heavy metals that we find on earth today to make these vital resources?

You don't have the authority to claim what god goes, why he does it or anything like that and still call yourself a Christian.

 

[johnhanks]

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

Yes, one's a mammal, the other a reptile. No, they're both tetrapod vertebrates.

Meaningless question without a definition of "kind".

But we know that definition will never be forthcoming, because any attempt to pin down "kind" will open more cans of worm-kind than Call or any other creationist can deal with - as evidenced by Call's long-standing failure to tell us where in the fossil record feathered-reptile-kind ends and bird-kind begins.

 

[johnhanks]

Are some animals made of gold? I

The Auk is two-thirds gold (one-third potassium).

 

[Ouroboros]

But we know that definition will never be forthcoming, because any attempt to pin down "kind" will open more cans of worm-kind than Call or any other creationist can deal with - as evidenced by Call's long-standing failure to tell us where in the fossil record feathered-reptile-kind ends and bird-kind begins.

What kind of worms and what kind of can? Don't tell me cans can give birth to worms now too! Oh, my gosh. Evolution gone wild!

 

[philbo]

What kind of worms and what kind of can? Don't tell me cans can give birth to worms now too! Oh, my gosh. Evolution gone wild!

But have you ever seen non-worms come from a can of worms? No! That proves evolution can't happen. Try to wriggle your way out of that one

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To answer that I would need to know what constitutes a 'kind' - which you refuse to say.

You say you need to know what constitutes a "kind", yet if you were in a pet store and you asked for a dog and were brought out a turtle, you would understand that there is a difference between what you asked for and what you were brought out. So if you have no problem deciphering the difference in the "kind" that you asked for and the "kind" that you were brought out, why act ignorant all of a sudden now?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you don't believe in DNA? Because that's the important distinction between a cat and an elephant. Genotype is very important.

DNA is evidence for creation.

And what key premise? The key premise in evolution is how traits are inherited...are you saying that traits are not inherited? Observation? Things being observed are not always things you see right before your eyes. I know that's hard to grasp, which is unfortunately why in 3rd grade science they just stick to a very basic concept of it. Unfortunately some never get through this concept. It's like when a child asks you were a baby comes from, you don't sit them down and give them the full details of how sex works, but you explain it in a manner they can understand until they are old of enough to know the details.

The premise is "large scale changes (macroevolution) occur over very long periods of time". That premise is unsupported, un-observed, and non-scientific.

 

[LuisDantas]

DNA is evidence for creation.



The premise is "large scale changes (macroevolution) occur over very long periods of time". That premise is unsupported, un-observed, and non-scientific.

It is also hopelessly ill-representative of reality. I do not know if you think you are attempting to refute Evolution, but you are certainly failing utterly at it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, one's a mammal, the other a reptile. No, they're both tetrapod vertebrates.

Ok, and one will only produce the same kind of mammal that it is, and the other will only produce the same kind of reptile that it is. Regardless of how you want to classify it, an animal is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. It will only produce what it is, not what it isn't.

Meaningless question without a definition of "kind".

Wait a minute, you've just said it yourself, one is a reptile, and one is a mammal, yet the word "kind" is so hard to understand? Wow.

But we know that definition will never be forthcoming, because any attempt to pin down "kind" will open more cans of worm-kind than Call or any other creationist can deal with - as evidenced by Call's long-standing failure to tell us where in the fossil record feathered-reptile-kind ends and bird-kind begins.

First off, I don't believe in a fossil record, at least in the way you do. I believe all animals of today are descendants of their original kind. All dogs came from the first dog that God created, all cats came from the first cat that was created. God said "let them bring forth after their kind" (Gen 1:24). God created an original specimen at which all other animals of its kind generated from, which is why we have different varieties of the majority of all animals, and each animals is limited to its kind. That is what I believe.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

DNA is evidence for creation.

It absolutely is not, before there even was knowledge on DNA we had the ToE and as we found out about DNA the predictions matched PERFECTLY, it's currently the best known method to use the ToE amongst biologist to predict the next step of evolution and it WORKS.

The premise is "large scale changes (macroevolution) occur over very long periods of time". That premise is unsupported, un-observed, and non-scientific.

Large scale changes have been observed in real time and it's consistent with the predictions. Of course, you have to realize that we don't have a few hundreds of thousands of years to observe large scale changes in species that procreate very slowly so for that we go by the genetics and the fossil record, both which match every single prediction of the ToE.

I don't think you know what scientific means.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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?

Not quite accurate from my perspective, but close enough.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Ok, and one will only produce the same kind of mammal that it is, and the other will only produce the same kind of reptile that it is.

Indeed, if anything else happened it would be the end of the theory of evolution since it would falsify it at it's very core.

I don't get your point here. Do you think that a crocoduck (or what have you, the creationists inventions are many and all equally silly) would prove evolution? It wouldn't, it would actually disprove evolution completely.

 

[philbo]

First off, I don't believe in a fossil record, at least in the way you do.

Hold on a sec..

When you say "you don't believe in a fossil record", what exactly do you think is wrong?
Do you think the fossils themselves are not real?
Do you think the calculated ages of fossils are wrong?
Do you think that all fossils can be categorized into the same "kinds" we see today? (for the purposes of discussion, I'm even willing to use your hazy definition of "kind")

I'm trying to work out exactly where you think all of modern science is wrong.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

Well, to observe is to see with your own two eyes. Unless you have some other definition of the word "observe". I understand that when it comes to the tough issues in science, definitions have to be changed to fit whatever speculated theory is going on at the time, such as "nothing" is said to mean "something" in quantum physics and such. Pathetic.

Have we observed macroevolution with our own two eyes? The answer is no. We are told that the reason why we can't see this kind of voodoo science is because "it takes to long". We are being conned. If you don't see the scam involved with that theory, then I can't help. "No one has ever seen it happen, nor will we ever live long enough to see it happen, but..it happens." That is basically it.

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).

These "small" alterations you are referring to is limited to within the same kind of animal. We see different varieties of dogs, cats, fish, birds, etc, but these are changes that are within the same kind. This is not what is in question. What is in question is the fact that you and others somehow believe that a mouse and a whale share a common ancestor, and that is speculative at best. It is not hard facts. It is an assumption, and a bad one at that.

"Observation" means you observe a phenomena, then you analyse the available evidence in order to reach a conclusion.

Ok, lets go with that. We observe dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, snakes producing snakes. If we only see dogs producing dogs now, why are we concluding that millions of years from now the same might not be the case???

It does NOT mean "you have to directly observe something before you can consider it scientifically viable".

But my point is you have no reason to even consider it, which you actually do. The reason is because since you don't believe in Creationism, you have to find a way to make sense of how we get all of this life from a mindless and blind process, that is the reason. The problem is, it isn't science, it is religion. And not only that, I EXPECT to be able to observe it if it occurs, but I am told that it takes so long to occur. Bull crap. Since we know so much we should be able to simulate the right circumstances at which we can observe it occurring. Just like the Miller Experiment, which failed miserably...but the point is, the effort was there.

Remember, it only takes so long because of the trial and error involved with a mindless and blind process doing all this amazing stuff. Since we are intellectual beings with brain power, and we "know" so darn much about what happened and how it happened...we should be able to make it happen. So what is stopping us?

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.

It isn't about understanding. It is about acceptance. I can understand the concept of a man telling me he ran 100 miles and hour to the grocery store with his own two feet. That is easy. The hard part is accepting the truth value of the statement. I do not accept evolution for quite a few reasons.

1. The theory defies observation, and is therefore not scientific
2. The theory commits the fallacy of putting the cart before the horse
3. Creationism provides a better explanation based on what HAS been observed, such as intelligence and language.

At least three reason why I reject the theory.