Why is evolution even still a debate?

[ppp]

In general, if two things can breed together, then they are of the same kind.

How general is in general? Are birds a kind? Canids? Cats? Lizards? Cattle? There are a buttload of animals that have the same "form" that cannot inter breed.

Are only birds that can interbreed a kind? Cats?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

None of this is true. We can see evidence of the gradual spread of the oceans over time in a multitude of ways.

Incidentally while the movement is often slow and regular most of the real changes to earth's landscape occurs in sudden fits and starts. The very nature of reality is a matter of repeating cycles and processes that express themselves suddenly but where life all change is sudden with things like plate tectonics or orbits most changes will tend to be gradual for protracted periods of time until there are sudden changes that are frequently violent. There's a lot going on in these "gradual" periods that are not apparent. There's are no gradual periods with life on any level and virtually all change in all life occurs in a very very brief period of time. I have an idea right now to go do something else so I'll dot this sentence and click "post reply".

Guess what -- it's those "sudden changes" that are the primary reason for what people call "punctuated evolution." A sudden change in habitat (an earth-quake raises a hill, or re-routes a river) makes habitat changes that must be responded to by those living in the habitat.

There is another reason, though, too -- unlike what happens geologically, which lays down much quite permanent evidence -- fossilization is in fact extremely rare, requiring very special circumstances. That needs consideration as well.

So you see, I can get where you're going, while still accepting the FACT of evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

Because that's the way kinds work.

Define a 'kind' in a way that shows this. Why are all canines the same 'kind'? Why are all felines the same 'kind'? Why not all mammals?

Are all snakes the same 'kind'? Say, garter snakes and boa constrictors? Why? Are all lizards the same 'kind'? Say geckos and Mexican beaded lizards. How about Komodo dragons?

Are deer the same 'kind' as elk? How about as giraffes?

Are all primates the same 'kind'? How about all insects? or are grasshoppers a different kind than beetles?

Please answer *and justify* by means of the definition used for 'kind'.

 

[Polymath257]

In general, if two things can breed together, then they are of the same kind.

And if they can't?

For example a housecat cannot interbreed with a tiger. So are they different 'kinds' because they can't interbreed? Or are they the same 'kind' because they are both felines?

A wolf and a coyote cannot interbreed. Are they the same kind or different kinds?

I would note that your definition of 'kind' is very close to the scientific definition of 'species', which contradicts your previous claim that all felines are the same 'kind'.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm talking about our knowledge of the past. We don't even get our own history right and we are expected to believe we know what happened billions of years before we existed.

The Bible is a prime example of us not even getting our own history right. If you dont expect modern humans to know what happened before we existed with all their sophisticated tools and evidence it is strange that you expect a bunch of ancient theological storytellers who disagreed with each other to know what happened before they existed in the absence of these tools.

In my opinion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How general is in general? Are birds a kind? Canids? Cats? Lizards? Cattle? There are a buttload of animals that have the same "form" that cannot inter breed.

Are only birds that can interbreed a kind? Cats?

I think I already said felines are canines were each one kind.

If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind but the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind.

There's a bit of wordplay involved with the word: " species" because it originally was similar to the meaning of kinds and has been now defined in narrower terms.

I believe in reference to birds that God created many kinds from which today's bird species descended.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The Bible is a prime example of us not even getting our own history right. If you dont expect modern humans to know what happened before we existed with all their sophisticated tools and evidence it is strange that you expect a bunch of ancient theological storytellers who disagreed with each other to know what happened before they existed in the absence of these tools.

In my opinion.

The ancients were closer to the source. And we agree that we take the Bible on faith while the so called science has no room for faith.

 

[Wildswanderer]

would note that your definition of 'kind' is very close to the scientific definition of 'species',

Species is a rather vague term that has changed a lot.

 

[Wildswanderer]

A wolf and a coyote cannot interbreed.

I wound not be too sure about that.

Coywolf is an informal term for a canid hybrid descended from coyotes, eastern wolves and gray wolves. All members of the genus Canis are closely genetically related with 78 chromosomes and therefore can interbreed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Define a 'kind' in a way that shows this. Why are all canines the same 'kind'? Why are all felines the same 'kind'? Why not all mammals?

Are all snakes the same 'kind'? Say, garter snakes and boa constrictors? Why? Are all lizards the same 'kind'? Say geckos and Mexican beaded lizards. How about Komodo dragons?

Are deer the same 'kind' as elk? How about as giraffes?

Are all primates the same 'kind'? How about all insects? or are grasshoppers a different kind than beetles?

Please answer *and justify* by means of the definition used for 'kind'.

Lizards and snakes are considered different kinds. How would it make sense for all mammals to be the same kind?
Read your Bible and you will have the answer.
Deer and elk are closely related, so I'm guessing yes...I'm not going to look up every one
Look up baraminology..

 

[ppp]

I think I already said felines are canines were each one kind.

Foxes cannot interbreed with coyotes, and wolves cannot interbreed. Neither by habit or by genetics.
Cheetahs and leopards cannot interbreed due to incompatible genetics.. Neither can Jaguars and Tigers.

If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind but the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind.

In which case, you kind reverts back to having no definition. How can I look at two random animals and determine that they are definitely the same kind?

What the heck does the word "kind" even mean?

Do you know? That is a serious question. Do. You. Know?

 

[Valjean]

This is all nonsense, in terms of science. Evolution is a theory because it is only partially developed and partially effective as a method of understanding complex biological interactions and their results.

↑

If all the mysteries were solved, it would no longer be a theory.

You're still misunderstanding the word.
So what would the ToE be if it were 'fully developed'? What would we have if all the mysteries were solved? A revelation? a doctrine? an edict? a bull?

What would full development even be? Is there anything in science that isn't subject to new information and ongoing research?

Consider: It's pretty well established that the Earth orbits the Sun, and that germs cause disease, yet these remain, and will always be, theories. A theory is an explanation so well evidenced that it would be obtuse in the extreme to doubt it. Degree of development is not a definitive criterion.

 

[Audie]

I think I already said felines are canines were each one kind.

If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind but the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind.

There's a bit of wordplay involved with the word: " species" because it originally was similar to the meaning of kinds and has been now defined in narrower terms.

I believe in reference to birds that God created many kinds from which today's bird species descended.

Kinds of birds with species descending....

Or like, one " kind" of deer from which we
now have the moose and the mouse deer and the muntjac?

Sounds like you are starting to see how
evolution works!

 

[Valjean]

So what? Species changing doesn't equal the entire theory.... There's a lot of speculation added on.

That's called ongoing research. The major mechanisms of evolution are well established, and becoming better established every day, as scientists' 'speculations' about the details of these mechanisms are tested, peer reviewed, and incorporated into the theory.

Science investigates and tests speculations.

Wildswanderer said: ↑
It doesn't even do that well.

Stop making these ridiculous, ignorant and unfounded statements about a subject you know little about. You're just embarrassing yourself.

As TagliatelliMonster pointed out, you're in over your head.

 

[Valjean]

Why is it always about kids? In a world created by evolution, kids are just as much cosmic accidents as the rest of us. If they get sick and die, well it's just survival of the fittest...why should it matter?
The very fact that we care more deeply about children points to a Transcendence that could not exist in a world created by chance.

Huh? How do you come to that conclusion? Please show your work.

Wildswanderer said: ↑
I'm aware that that's one of the guesses.

So you think scientists just pulled it out of a hat? Do you understand how science came up with that number? If not, it might be a good idea to find out before you voice an opinion.

 

[Audie]

So you think scientists just pulled it out of a hat? Do you understand how science came up with that number? If not, it might be a good idea to find out before you voice an opinion.

Maybe not really so very aware.

 

[danieldemol]

The ancients were closer to the source.

Mere assertion unsupported by evidence

And we agree that we take the Bible on faith while the so called science has no room for faith.

That faith is what blinds a person to contrary evidence.
In my opinion.

 

[Audie]

I think I already said felines are canines were each one kind.

If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind but the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind.

There's a bit of wordplay involved with the word: " species" because it originally was similar to the meaning of kinds and has been now defined in narrower terms.

I believe in reference to birds that God created many kinds from which today's bird species descended.

At the time when there were no
cats or dogs there were ancestral forms
to both. Youd never be able to say which if either it was.
These fossil forms show characteristics of both cats and dogs.

Descendants grew less alike over
millenia.

The creos love their inane "no transitional forms" but, they are there for cats n dogs and
the others.

 

[Valjean]

Of course not. It's obvious by the fact that the science is always changing... That most of what we're getting fed is actually false. And this is particularly true about the past... They can't even get things a few centuries years ago totally correct, yeah we are expected to believe they know what was going on 13 billion years ago.

The fundamental theories and facts are well established. The change occurs at the edges, as ongoing research makes new discoveries and clarifies details. This is a strength, not a flaw. It's an expansion of our knowledge.

Compare this to religion, which ties itself in knots trying to ignore, suppress or explain away new discoveries and ideas. Religion's "stability" is neither a strength nor evidence of veracity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thanks for proving my point. There's no reason we should have emotion or a spirit in a world created by random chance. The fact that we NEED emotion is telling us we are not just animals.

Other animals have emotions. The fact we have them doesn't demonstrate or suggest we aren't "just animals."

Go back and read it.

I did. You said there's no reason for an atheist to experience awe and wonder at a "mistake." But that claim was very easily shot down so you tweaked your parameters to make it seem suddenly like we all get this sense of awe.