What Americans Think about Evolution

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I agree, that is the theory now, isn't it? Change over time. Its funny, because even if we were to go back in time 150 million years and still see animals producing their own kind, you would still say "that is because it takes soooo much time", and then I will say "But metis, we just went back in time 150 million years!!!"

It does take time, it takes so much time, that it didn't happen at all.



The "account" was written by a person, just like the Origin of Species was written by a person. That is irrelevant. The relevance is the truth value in what WAS written. So far, the bible said that the universe had a beginning, and that animals produce after their "kinds". Prior to the 1900's, the view was that the universe was static and eternal, and that animals produced different kinds of animals.

So 3,000 years later, we found out that the universe had a beginning, and we only observe animals producing after their own kinds. Take away alllll the fluff and feathers, and that is what we have.

So I am compelled to continue to believe in the 3,000 year ago account, because it hits the nail right on the head.

Except when a cheetah cannot reproduce with a lion or tiger?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Also what kind is a duck billed platypus?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Wait a minute, you believe that birds came from reptile, has that been observed? You have a lot of nerve to question me about anything..and they you talk about what hasn't been observed, as if a reptile changing to a bird has been observed. Please.

As it happened over very long time it has not been observed directly, but it is indeed consistent with what we have observed: changes (both small and large) in populations over time, the genetic links between different species, the fossil record, etc.

Can you please answer my question now instead of avoiding it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So now genetics matters?

Genetics does matter, but there are limits, and the limitations are within the kind. What kind of genetics, mutation, or WHATEVER term you want to use that will get you from a reptile to a bird? Please tell me.

The concept of your analogy is faulty simply because it works on on one condition. So let's agree a snake and a dog are different animals, what do you base that on? What traits? What qualities?

You answer your own question. If you wouldn't accept the snake after asking for a dog, why wouldn't you accept it? By what traits? By what qualities? You answer your own question, and I am quite positive that we will agree on that.

In this case kind means the family at large called cats right?

Yes.

Lions and tigers can mate, so can jaguars and tigers and lions and leopard so on...they are all cats they reproduce after their kind. A cheetah however cannot. If kind is defined as cat and shown by their ability to reproduce, then a cheetah cannot be a cat because it can only reproduce with another cheetah. It is a different kind of animal than a cat. This is what your logic dictates.

You are missing the point, frankie. My point is that no matter how far into the future you go, a cheetah will NEVER produce a different kind of animal, because it is a cat, and cats will only produce cats. Now based on that, there is no way you can go in to the past and find any exception to this either. The point is, what a cheetah DOES produce will always be cat, and not a non-cat. Now, the cheetah may not ever be able to produce a cat with non-cheetah, but that doesn't mean that the cheetah ISN'T a cat, frankie. That is the point.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As it happened over very long time it has not been observed directly, but it is indeed consistent with what we have observed: changes (both small and large) in populations over time, the genetic links between different species, the fossil record, etc.

No, that is an assumption that is made. You think that these small changes over time will lead to big changes over time. Speculation. Presuppostion. Interpretation.

Can you please answer my question now instead of avoiding it?

What question.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Could you PLEASE define "kind"?

 

[mycorrhiza]

No, that is an assumption that is made. You think that these small changes over time will lead to big changes over time. Speculation. Presuppostion. Interpretation.

We have observed speciation, we have observed new genetic information, etc. You would have to give evidence for some kind of genetic barrier that says "you can only change this much, no more".

What question.

1. What is the definition of a "kind"?
2. Do you believe that the animal in the cat family with the largest genome can be modified into all other cats in the cat family by removal of genes?
3. Do you believe that genetic variety can only come from a removal of genetic information?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Genetics does matter, but there are limits, and the limitations are within the kind. What kind of genetics, mutation, or WHATEVER term you want to use that will get you from a reptile to a bird? Please tell me.



You answer your own question. If you wouldn't accept the snake after asking for a dog, why wouldn't you accept it? By what traits? By what qualities? You answer your own question, and I am quite positive that we will agree on that.



Yes.



You are missing the point, frankie. My point is that no matter how far into the future you go, a cheetah will NEVER produce a different kind of animal, because it is a cat, and cats will only produce cats. Now based on that, there is no way you can go in to the past and find any exception to this either. The point is, what a cheetah DOES produce will always be cat, and not a non-cat. Now, the cheetah may not ever be able to produce a cat with non-cheetah, but that doesn't mean that the cheetah ISN'T a cat, frankie. That is the point.

Lol oh so what's the limit in genetics.

So we agree that dogs and cats are the same kind of animal right? Because you didn't answer my question. If I ask for a dog and I'm brought a cat then that's okay. Because really what's the difference between dogs and cats? It's not like if I asked for a dog they would ask me what kind of dog right? So if I ask for a pug and they bring me a husky that's cool too right?

You say a cheetah will never reproduce a non-cat, so since lions and tigers are cats why can't a cheetah produce a lion or tiger? They are all cats right? So one day if a cheetah gives birth to a lion I should not at all be surprised because well a cheetah and a lion are cats right?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We have observed speciation, we have observed new genetic information, etc. You would have to give evidence for some kind of genetic barrier that says "you can only change this much, no more".

1. What is the definition of a "kind"?
2. Do you believe that the animal in the cat family with the largest genome can be modified into all other cats in the cat family by removal of genes?
3. Do you believe that genetic variety can only come from a removal of genetic information?

A kind is whatever you want it to be it's your phylum, kingdom, class, genus, Species all wrapped up in one

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is straw man crap. I've already seen to many of Dawkins' debates and his babble. So either you are deliberating attacking straw man, or you just simply don't know what you are talking about, just for the sake of argument.

Its not a strawman. You seem to think that evolution means that a dog gives birth to a pig. That is simply not true. You keep putting these weird constraints on evolution that evolution doesn't support. Almost all of your arguments against evolution make no sense because EVOLUTION does not support what you are arguing against.

Evolution never states a dog birth's a pig. Crocoduck is not a thing. In evolution Felis Catus produces a felis catus. However the understanding of what an animal is however is not a "kind".

Have you ever seen a female dog give birth and based on the animal that came out her womb, you said "thats not a dog". Have you ever seen this? Doesn't that mean that the female dog produced her own kind? Hmmm. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a dog that was not perfectly identical to the parents?

Ok so from this point, I would like for you to just refrain from talking to me. The above quote is just simply and utterly not true. Richard Dawkins is an ATHEIST, and he opposes creationism/intelligent design. He is also an evolutionist that believes life came from nonlife naturally without intelligent design.

These are facts, and for you to sit there and say "no one argues in favor of what you are arguing against" is being flat out disingenuous, because I clearly described and defined the concept that I am arguing against. So as I said, either you are deliberating attacking straw man or you are ignorant of my position or Dawkins position. Whatever the case may be, just refrain from talking to me because this is ridiculous.

No. You went to say "evolution is wrong because of X, Y, and Z". However we point out to you evolution doesn't support X or Y and Z is simply false. However you keep going back to it over and over again. Richard Dawkins is an atheist who is against ID. That much is true. But every time you explain where evolution is wrong you find yourself in a significant amount of error about the theory itself.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I find it amazing that you have the nerve to ask that question, but you won't ask the question of what does it take to get from a reptile to a bird, which is what the ToE tells us happened. That is the bigger question that needs to be tackled.

"Evolution of birds from feathered reptiles" : Map of Life

Evolution of birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

I find it amazing that you have the nerve to ask that question, but you won't ask the question of what does it take to get from a reptile to a bird, which is what the ToE tells us happened. That is the bigger question that needs to be tackled.

I find it comical, though not the least bit surprising, that you go to such lengths to avoid a direct question.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Could you PLEASE define "kind"?

Go into a pet store and ask for a dog, and if you are brought out a snake, would you accept the snake? Yes or no?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Go into a pet store and ask for a dog, and if you are brought out a snake, would you accept the snake? Yes or no?

What if they brought you a cat?

 

[McBell]

Go into a pet store and ask for a dog, and if you are brought out a snake, would you accept the snake? Yes or no?

that is the definition of "kind"?

Is English perhaps your eighth or maybe even ninth language?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Lol oh so what's the limit in genetics.

I don't know, but based on the fact that there is no copulating being done, it is quite obvious that there must be limits.

So we agree that dogs and cats are the same kind of animal right?

No we don't.

Because you didn't answer my question. If I ask for a dog and I'm brought a cat then that's okay.

No it isn't.

Because really what's the difference between dogs and cats?

That is the difference.

It's not like if I asked for a dog they would ask me what kind of dog right?

They probably would, since there are different varieties within the dog kind, which is what I have been maintaing from jump.

So if I ask for a pug and they bring me a husky that's cool too right?

Then you are diving in the specifics of the variety within the kind. I have no problems with microevolution.

You say a cheetah will never reproduce a non-cat, so since lions and tigers are cats why can't a cheetah produce a lion or tiger?

That is like asking why can't two african americans produce a chinese child. It is ridiculous, frankie. The fact is, a cat will only produce a cat. You can create any kind of scenario you want, but the end result will always be a cat.

They are all cats right? So one day if a cheetah gives birth to a lion I should not at all be surprised because well a cheetah and a lion are cats right?

Give me a scenario at which any animal that is identifed as a cat will suddenly produce a non-cat.

 

[metis]

I agree, that is the theory now, isn't it?

But as has been explained, "theory" means something quite different in scientific circles than with the lay. To say "that is the theory now" would be lay terminology because we wouldn't be using that term in the scientific context as such unless it's refer to only just one specific item within a general theory.

Change over time. Its funny, because even if we were to go back in time 150 million years and still see animals producing their own kind, you would still say "that is because it takes soooo much time", and then I will say "But metis, we just went back in time 150 million years!!!"

Again, you have somehow totally missed the point. You simply cannot look at just one short time period, as evolution tends to be a slow process. It's like watching the hour hand on a clock-- ya really can't tell it's moving until after waiting a while.

The "account" was written by a person, just like the Origin of Species was written by a person. That is irrelevant. The relevance is the truth value in what WAS written. So far, the bible said that the universe had a beginning, and that animals produce after their "kinds".

Again, you keep missing the point-- it's almost without a doubt allegory because we pretty much know where it came from and how it was adjusted to suit our ends. If you were more correct, we should see both Jewish and Christian theologians lining up behind you, but they certainly aren't.

Prior to the 1900's, the view was that the universe was static and eternal, and that animals produced different kinds of animals.

The first part, yes; the second, no. Prior to our understanding of evolution, it was believed that "kinds" emerged only from the same "kind", so even "micro-evolution" wasn't believed in. Now we know with absolute certainty that both "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" has taken place because literally all the evidence points in that direction.

So I am compelled to continue to believe in the 3,000 year ago account, because it hits the nail right on the head.

Actually there's almost nothing in that account that can be verified. We cannot verify that God that created all, which these accounts are really all about. On top of that, to take it literally makes no sense in another way because scripture in this allegory has it that creation was done and completed in 6 days, and yet no matter how one looks at it, we well know that different species emerge as time goes on over a much longer expanse.

What you have bought into, unfortunately, is a lie that says that for some crazy reason that a literal interpretation is the only sensible one, and simple logic should tell one that this is not true. Ever been involved in any Bible study whatsoever? If you have, you should well know that different people can have different interpretations of the same narrative, so it makes not one iota of sense to put all your money on just one approach.

Science is truth because it deals with the reality called "evidence". If any religion defies that approach, then that religion is simply not on the pathway of truth. Even if one had some doubts about the accuracy of certain evidence, common sense should have it that one at least moves in that direction if common sense also seemingly points in the same direction.

Evolution is just plain old common sense based on what we now know, and for one to ignore that is moving in the direction of ignorance, not intelligence. If one has been essentially brainwashed, as I was many moons ago, one can escape that. You simply are not being told the truth, and the reality is that if you're being misled in this one area, are they also misleading you in some others?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't know, but based on the fact that there is no copulating being done, it is quite obvious that there must be limits.



No we don't.



No it isn't.

That is the difference.



They probably would, since there are different varieties within the dog kind, which is what I have been maintaing from jump.



Then you are diving in the specifics of the variety within the kind. I have no problems with microevolution.



That is like asking why can't two african americans produce a chinese child. It is ridiculous, frankie. The fact is, a cat will only produce a cat. You can create any kind of scenario you want, but the end result will always be a cat.



Give me a scenario at which any animal that is identifed as a cat will suddenly produce a non-cat.

I don't see the difference...I see two eyes, a nose, fur, two ears, a mouth, I assume the one on the left has a tongue too? I'm sorry what's the difference they both have a tail, they are both kept as pets, they both have four legs...so what's the difference?? Without bein taught what those things are how can I know the difference. I've seen kids grab cats and call them doggy if a dog was all they knew prior...so how oh how can one tell the difference?

How can a cat give birth to a non cat? Idk cheetahs aren't cats according to your definition of kind but somehow a cat made them.

Idk how two Africans can give birth to a Chinese baby unless they were self identifying as Chinese in which case they could as race is a social construct far more so than a biological one.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

@wild

Is a dog and a cat also a "mammal kind" since they have fur, produce milk and carry their young in the womb rather than lay eggs? Did god make them "more similar" or "closer to being the same kind"?

Why would there be so many similarities between kinds?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

@wild

Is a dog and a cat also a "mammal kind" since they have fur, produce milk and carry their young in the womb rather than lay eggs? Did god make them "more similar" or "closer to being the same kind"?

Why would there be so many similarities between kinds?

What about the platypus it has a bill like a duck, fur like a mammal, produces milk like a mammal, produces venom like a reptile or insect, and it lays eggs...