Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never understood why pro evolutionist will not address the question about evolution. They seem to resort to attacking the person asking as if they know they are promoting a lie. Surely some of you really believe what you claim and would have some evidence to support it.
Let me make it easy.
Can you show where a canine has changed into something other than a canine? Or something that changed into a canine that was not a canine before?
Can you show where a feline has changed into something other than a feline? Or something that changed into a feline that was not a feline before?
You may choose any species that has changed into another species if you can.
Now at least we're getting somewhere. You are talking about different families (canine and feline) instead of using the undefined term "kind".
Because most evolution is very gradual - even punctuated equilibrium occurs over many thousands of years - I would not expect to see a single moment in time where one would say "this is now a new species", never mind "this is now a new family". However, archaeopteryx would be a good example; a reptile-like early bird, it is considered by most to be a transition from dinosaurs to modern birds.
I am also fascinated by the lungfish - which is a fish that can live out of water for long periods of time. Most fish have an air bladder, that is used for buoyancy. In the lungfish, the air bladder is modified so that it can facilitate uptake of oxygen from the air, like a lung. The fins are also modified so that it can "walk" a bit on dry land. I'm not necessarily saying the lungfish is a fish turning into an amphibian. I'm saying it illustrates how a land animal could have evolved from fish.
I am rank confused as to the definition of a kind since it is a religious term not a science one. So two species within the same genus is a kind, are two genera within a family one kind, two family within a single order?
With the whale lobster being two different kinds where the raven and the dove one kind or two?
This is a question not a debate as from your posting and other creationist posting on this forum I am not sure what is actually meant as a kind by you.
In science it is taxonomies who decide on species and there are the lumpers and the splitters. But here it seems like the same poster using a variety of definitions for the term kind.
Thanks for any help hete.
Hi, to help you a "Kind" is any living thing that can reproduce with another of it's Kind. In every case we find a wall to further reproduction. Evolution cannot address the genetic wall except by saying, well with enough time ... and then give an example of what might be an example, and isn't. The study of Genetics is continuing to show evolution from kind to a new Kind is impossible, regardless of the amount of time involved. it just can't happen. This is simple science and as yet is shown to be consistent and unalterable.
In efforts to intentionally mutate a Kind, in every instance, while a change within the Kind can occur it is always a reduction in viability and never crosses the reproduction line. This applies to bacteria and higher life forms.
I have never understood why pro evolutionist will not address the question about evolution. They seem to resort to attacking the person asking as if they know they are promoting a lie. Surely some of you really believe what you claim and would have some evidence to support it.
Let me make it easy.
Can you show where a canine has changed into something other than a canine? Or something that changed into a canine that was not a canine before?
Can you show where a feline has changed into something other than a feline? Or something that changed into a feline that was not a feline before?
You may choose any species that has changed into another species if you can.
Don't hold your breath as all you aill get is we believe this is an example, with no genetic proof, just similarities.
The insults come from those who know they have no proof. Decent discussions come from the ones who actually want to know more about the issue regardless of which side they are on now.
Others accept evolution and understand genesis is an allegory.
A FEW CHRISTIANS THAT ACCEPT SCIENCE
I suspect that some hard core Sola Scriptura literalists feel they must take the creation as truth because otherwise their belief system crumbles. However, plenty of Christians that are highly educated see no conflict.
Why are so many forum members afraid to admit that Genesis may be an allegory?
Mainstream Christians accept science and evolution. This represents the vast majority of Christians.
Hi, to help you a "Kind" is any living thing that can reproduce with another of it's Kind. In every case we find a wall to further reproduction. Evolution cannot address the genetic wall except by saying, well with enough time ... and then give an example of what might be an example, and isn't. The study of Genetics is continuing to show evolution from kind to a new Kind is impossible, regardless of the amount of time involved. it just can't happen. This is simple science and as yet is shown to be consistent and unalterable.
In efforts to intentionally mutate a Kind, in every instance, while a change within the Kind can occur it is always a reduction in viability and never crosses the reproduction line. This applies to bacteria and higher life forms.
Wait, isn't that just speciation? Where applicable (this definition is not applicable to things that reproduce asexually, so it is incomplete.), this is one of the generally accepted definitions of a species.
Ring species, then are a great example ot this process, seen geographically rather than through time. This is when we see a series of related groups of organisms such that group A can interbreed with group B, group B can interbreed with group C, and group C can interbreed with D, but D cannot interbreed with A. This makes A and D distinct species, or "kinds" as you put it. So if we can see that small genetic changes across regions can add up to a difference in "kind", why can the same changes over time not add up to a difference in "kind"?
Wolf and dog are different species. Even punctuated equilibrium takes the and does not happen over a 1000-year period. To show some species turning into a feline you would have to go back into time to the common ancestors to felines and canines which creationist are unwilling due to the length of time involved. For an existing species of non-linear species to become a feline would DISPROVE the entire theory of evolution.
Wolf and Dog are the same Kind. They can breed.
If you or someone who know, can read German, get:
Unser Haushund: Eine Spitzmaus im Wolfspelz?: (Our house dog: A shrew in wolf's clothing ?:) Oder beweisen die Hunderassen, dass der Mensch von Bakterien abstammt? (Or do the breedsprove that man is descended from bacteria?)Broschiert – 19. Februar 2014
von Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Autor)
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2]See: Dawkins's Dogma about Dogs - Why Chihuahuas Don't Prove Macroevolution: see pp. 44-51, 79-81, 84-85, 106-119, 124, 145, 154, 223, and (all) 396) are available in English in various places on the net, if you wish to look.: [/SIZE][/SIZE]
Genetics clearly shows time is not an issue as no matter how much time is allowed, it can't happen.
Wait, isn't that just speciation? Where applicable (this definition is not applicable to things that reproduce asexually, so it is incomplete.), this is one of the generally accepted definitions of a species.
Ring species, then are a great example ot this process, seen geographically rather than through time. This is when we see a series of related groups of organisms such that group A can interbreed with group B, group B can interbreed with group C, and group C can interbreed with D, but D cannot interbreed with A. This makes A and D distinct species, or "kinds" as you put it. So if we can see that small genetic changes across regions can add up to a difference in "kind", why can the same changes over time not add up to a difference in "kind"?
-NoCapo
Nope, as even Bacteria stay within certain bounds, yes cells and above, to a point reproduce asexually, but so what?
Evolution is always speaking of certain animals becoming another Kind, like archeopteryx. Now genetically that is not possible.
To clarify, when I speak of Macro Evolution as that which creates a new "Kind" regardless of the time involved, and Micro as that which occurs within a Kind, such as the variations in birds, dogs, fish, etc. Genetically that is built in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
