Discontinuity between the different kinds

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when scientists crossed the tobacco plant with a firefly, the result was not a new 'kind' this suggests that all life is actually one single 'kind'.

You are talking about intelligent gene munipulation. This is not the same as evolution by natural selection.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/219/4581/135.short

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are talking about intelligent gene munipulation. This is not the same as evolution by natural selection.

And your point is?

In case you didn't notice, I was responding to robbies op in which it said:

Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I love it, you dump a big copy and paste job with the statement, i'm not debating it. Hilarious.

Explain this to me then, how did all of life come about? I understand the YEC viewpoint, God created all life at one particular point and the countless animals identified in the fossil record are there as a result of the flood. The scientific consensus is out them. How do you reconcile the over 250,000 different fossil species that have been found?

I am a Hindu theist and I agree with the atheist posters here that the theory of Evolution has been proved convincingly and is presently the best available scientific theory to explain the multifarious development of living beings.
However certain points are still not clear to me.
I had put this particular point to a poster here but he could not satisfy me.
Take the case of bilateral symmetry of organs found in most of the animals with skeletons.
Humans, for example, have two eyes, two ears, two hands and two feet etc. located on either side of the body. It is clear that this arrangement gives the best chance to the animal to survive predator attacks from either side etc. and that duality of important sense organs is basically a safety measure to ensure continuity of functions in case of damage to one organ.
How did the bilateral symmetry came to be the adapted arrangement ? Are there any skeletons of animals having no bilateral symmetry but only a single eye or a single ear or a single hand and so on and therefore dying out due to this weakness ?
Or take the usual case of the human baby being born with a piece of skull not yet closed but with only a thin skin covering it. In my civil engineering terminology, it appears to be a case of fast track construction, with the intention to push the baby out of the womb to save further confinement when the baby is " practically " ready to survive even with only that piece of skin covering the open skull. How was this feature got adapted ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am a Hindu theist and I agree with the atheist posters here that the theory of Evolution has been proved convincingly and is presently the best available scientific theory to explain the multifarious development of living beings.
However certain points are still not clear to me.
I had put this particular point to a poster here but he could not satisf even with only that piece of skin covering the open skull. How was this feature got adapted ?

I am not sure about the symmetry of organs other than to note that nature invariably produces mirror image symmetry in most organisms (although there are numerous anomaly's to this) and this may be reinforced by natural selection for the reasons you mentioned. As for the newborn unformed skull I thought that was to aid birthing allowing the head some flexibility in terms of size. rna and dna do I believe make mirror images of themselves and the tendency may be that deep rooted.

I am only half guessing here but I am sure someone on the forum can furnish you with the correct explanation.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I am not sure about the symmetry of organs other than to note that nature invariably produces mirror image symmetry in most organisms (although there are numerous anomaly's to this) and this may be reinforced by natural selection for the reasons you mentioned. As for the newborn unformed skull I thought that was to aid birthing allowing the head some flexib ...[text shortened]... guessing here but I am sure someone on the forum can furnish you with the correct explanation.

Thanks for the reply ! It does raise further queries e.g. why RNA and DNA have mirror image construction ? What was the evolutionary advantage ?
Another point has bothered me. Has Evolution ceased to be ? Are we, the present set of living beings, the best possible fit among ourselves ? Of course, we will have to ignore the damage that man is doing to the planet on which he lives and is thereby wiping out many species.
Has man interfered with the so called " natural selection " ? This is also a bothersome question because it means that human brain has evolved with a self-destruct mechanism-- against the well known aim of evolution to keep the species alive ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
How did the bilateral symmetry came to be the adapted arrangement? Are there any skeletons of animals having no bilateral symmetry but only a single eye or a single ear or a single hand and so on and therefore dying out due to this weakness ?

Bilateral symmetry is common but not universal. It is common because it saves on genes. It allows organ creating genes to be used on both sides of the body. There are cases where the gene is used more than twice - for example in libs (four for most larger animals) fingers/toes (ten in mammals), or in the case of skin which covers the whole body!
Also having two of many of the important organs provides redundancy as well as, in most sense organs, a certain amount of directional awareness or in the case of eyes stereoscopic vision.
But we do have many organs that are not symmetrical (even the brain is not entirely symmetrical).
There are a number of animals that have significant body parts that are not entirely symmetrical (snails usually have a shell that spirals one way, crabs often have one claw larger than the other etc).
There is a type of fish that swims on its side and its two sides are quite different. In some case both eyes are on one side so it can lie on the bottom.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Thanks for the reply ! It does raise further queries e.g. why RNA and DNA have mirror image construction ? What was the evolutionary advantage ?
Another point has bothered me. Has Evolution ceased to be ? Are we, the present set of living beings, the best possible fit among ourselves ? Of course, we will have to ignore the damage that man is doing to th ...[text shortened]... self-destruct mechanism-- against the well known aim of evolution to keep the species alive ?

It is the most simplistic way to replicate itself. the dna strand unzips down the middle and then each half collects the correct proteins in the correct order to replicate the original.

No it has not ceased it just occurs very slowly. Just a simple example is that our average height seems to be increasing. This according to the model should be the result of people either consciously or subconsciously selecting taller partners on average. There is a thread dedicated to this question currently on this forum.

The fact that we may or may not wipe ourselves out does not have any bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. It is not a model that can react to what are questions as much about nurture as nature, and of course it does not matter how much a species evolves it still has to be lucky🙂

Originally posted by humy

im not interested in debate, i said
that at the outset and secondly my capacity for learning has no relevance to the
content of the post.

we comprehend those two point just fine -THAT'S part of the problem we see with your post. You make our points for us: If you are not interested in debate and not interested in the possibility of learning something then why should we bother with this futile pointless thread?

still unable to address the actual contents of the post, im changing your name to bumy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
still unable to address the actual contents of the post, im changing your name to bumy!

You used the phrase 'theists vs materialist'. The implication here is theists are never materialistic? And that agnostics and atheists are by definition materialists?

This seems to smack more of your black V white theology, you are for me or against me, no middle ground.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You used the phrase 'theists vs materialist'. The implication here is theists are never materialistic? And that agnostics and atheists are by definition materialists?

This seems to smack more of your black V white theology, you are for me or against me, no middle ground.

no i have not stated its a theist against materialist argument, I merely stated that there
seems to me to be some confusion with regard to those different perspectives as to
what the other professes, for example RJH claims that its the work of the Devil, Googly
fudge states that it must be down to magic that theists believe what they do, neither is
particularly helpful nor an accurate portrayal of the real reasons why those who accept
the Bible as the word of God object to the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
still unable to address the actual contents of the post, im changing your name to bumy!

still UNABLE to address the actual contents of the post (my emphasis)

NO, NOT “ UNABLE” but “UNWILLING” -why? Mainly because you have already admitted you do not want to debate and clearly implied you don't want to learn anything. So, given this, what would be the point of addressing your 'points'?
There is also the fact that I and others have already addressed similar erroneous 'points' in other threads and yet you just ignore that.

If you realy want me to address the actual contents of the post then you must first promise me you would actual debate with me ( that means, among other things, actually trying to answer all answerable questions put to you without changing the subject -In return, I would try to answer all answerable questions put to me by you ) and be willing to try and learn something new ( which would mean, among other things, admitting to yourself if not to us all when your claim has clearly been proven wrong by us as it has already been proven wrong by us in other threads -I would do the same if such a thing happens ) . Since you have never shown the slightest sign of doing either in the past, I will not hold my breath.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And your point is?

In case you didn't notice, I was responding to robbies op in which it said:

Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed.

Then tell us. What new kind is there. Simply because a plant glows in the dark doesn't make it a new kind.

Originally posted by humy

still UNABLE to address the actual contents of the post (my emphasis)

NO, NOT “ UNABLE” but “UNWILLING” -why? Mainly because you have already admitted you do not want to debate and clearly implied you don't want to learn anything. So, given this, what would be the point of addressing your 'points'?
There is also the fact that I and others ...[text shortened]... have never shown the slightest sign of doing either in the past, I will not hold my breath.

Not desiring to debate is not synonymous with not wanting to learn, your first fallacy,
what transpires in other thread to other posters is also an irrelevancy, your second
fallacy and I could not care less whether you address the actual contents of the post or
not, i was merely pointing out your failure to do so on the basis of some irrelevant
premise.

Sorry but I am going to watch a Smita Patel film, Mirch Masala, and given the choice
between that and remonstrating with you, Smita wins every time, have a pleasant
evening.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Thanks for the reply ! It does raise further queries e.g. why RNA and DNA have mirror image construction ? What was the evolutionary advantage ?
Another point has bothered me. Has Evolution ceased to be ? Are we, the present set of living beings, the best possible fit among ourselves ? Of course, we will have to ignore the damage that man is doing to th ...[text shortened]... self-destruct mechanism-- against the well known aim of evolution to keep the species alive ?

Evolution is not an intelligence. How could it have a aim to do anything. Evolutionists claim it is just a random process of some sort. Maybe they should explain that. Why is there such a process that doesn't seem too random?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Bilateral symmetry is common but not universal. It is common because it saves on genes. It allows organ creating genes to be used on both sides of the body. There are cases where the gene is used more than twice - for example in libs (four for most larger animals) fingers/toes (ten in mammals), or in the case of skin which covers the whole body!
Also hav ...[text shortened]... oth eyes are on one side so it can lie on the bottom.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish

Still, there is no proof they evolved that way. It is more likely God made them that way for that purpose.