Life After Death

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

...some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings...

This nonsensical statement highlights how breathtakingly ignorant you are of the science you are attempting to argue against. It is axiomatic in intelligent discussion that one should at least have a basic grounding in one's opponent's position.

Then you must be from a cult of the Darwin evil-lution religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then you must be from a cult of the Darwin evil-lution religion.

The cult of the Darwin evil-lution religion may teach that some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings, but this is not what the theory of evolution says. Darwin, who did not produce the theory of evolution but searched for an explanation of evolution, also did not ever or in any way teach that some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings.

As long as two monkey like ape creatures reproduce, they will produce offspring that are monkey like ape creatures. As long as they reproduce, their offspring will differ in all sorts of ways that are trivial and minor. For example, one may be a little taller or shorter. That difference may, in a population of a great many of similarly monkey like ape creatures, be sufficient to favour the reproductive success of some more than others, possibly because of a feature of the environment where the differences have a non trivial benefit. But in this example, this will only result on slightly shorter or slightly taller populations of the same monkey like ape creatures and need not result in the production of a different species; inter breeding may eliminate the differences or randomise them over a number of generations. And so it goes for a huge number of generations. However, if the environment is changing significantly, then the importance of a slight genetic advantage can become impressive over time. And the environment on earth is always changing over long time scales. That is why we can find ancient cities buried under desert sands for example.

Your inability to credit the capacity of organisms to change dramatically over long time scales might reflect the extent to which your thinking is made rigid and inflexible by bigotry. But as I have said nothing new or even remotely interesting, it is more likely that you just tell blatant lies with a smug grin.

Originally posted by finnegan
The cult of the Darwin evil-lution religion may teach that some type of monkey like ape creature eventually reproduced male and female human beings, but this is not what the theory of evolution says. Darwin, who did not produce the theory of evolution but searched for an explanation of evolution, also did not ever or in any way teach that some type of monke ...[text shortened]... r even remotely interesting, it is more likely that you just tell blatant lies with a smug grin.

So it sounds like you believe the biblical account that animals and plants reproduce after their kind.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
So it sounds like you believe the biblical account that animals and plants reproduce after their kind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXMcHtqk3XA

With curious exceptions like the Cuckoo, parents and social groups will only support children that are sufficiently like themselves. It would be biologically improbable that a mutation which produced a radically different child would either survive, or have parental protection, or survive socially to produce a mate and reproduce again. I suppose we could explore this notion more deeply with lesser species, since for many organisms there is no need for parental or social protection, and for many organisms there is no need for sexual reproduction. But on the whole, each organism emerges into life adapted for a pretty specific environment and a mutation which produces significant change is unlikely to be successful.

In addition, variations which may survive by chance (they cause no harm) are not likely to persist over many generations unless they do offer some advantage. If they can appear in one chance event, they can often also disappear without leaving a trace.

What you fail to bear in mind is that variation is normal in every species. Look through your family photograph album if you disagree or find this idea difficult. It is usually trivial. Those trivial differences though are capable of becoming significant over a considerable number of generations - not one generation - and in the face of environmental change which systematically favours one variant over others.

So there is never any requirement for any creature to produce progeny that differ other than trivially. Your point is itself trivial and uninteresting therefore.

Originally posted by finnegan
With curious exceptions like the Cuckoo, parents and social groups will only support children that are sufficiently like themselves. It would be biologically improbable that a mutation which produced a radically different child would either survive, or have parental protection, or survive socially to produce a mate and reproduce again. I suppose we could e ...[text shortened]... eny that differ other than trivially. Your point is itself trivial and uninteresting therefore.

Reproducing after their kind does not mean I have to look exactly like my father or mother. It only means that I be a human like my mother and father. Dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, horses reproduce horse, birds reproduce birds, fish reproduce fish, etc. A human is not going to be reproduced by sometning else, like a Chimpanzee for example. Do you understand that? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Reproducing after their kind does not mean I have to look exactly like my father or mother. It only means that I be a human like my mother and father. Dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, horses reproduce horse, birds reproduce birds, fish reproduce fish, etc. A human is not going to be reproduced by sometning else, like a Chimpanzee for example. Do you understand that? 😏

The problem is your categories are wildly different. What makes a human a human or a bird a bird? Who made those categories and why?
Also, it is pretty much well known that a wolf and a dog can interbreed producing something that is neither. I bet now that you will suddenly realise that what you meant by 'dog' includes wolves? And by cats are you including lions and tigers or just the domestic house cat?
Birds and fish? Wow. From the species level (human) you have jumped to whole paraphyletic groups of organisms.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is your categories are wildly different. What makes a human a human or a bird a bird? Who made those categories and why?
Also, it is pretty much well known that a wolf and a dog can interbreed producing something that is neither. I bet now that you will suddenly realise that what you meant by 'dog' includes wolves? And by cats are you includ ...[text shortened]... ? Wow. From the species level (human) you have jumped to whole paraphyletic groups of organisms.

My categories are wildly different because that is what Moses meant by kinds. A camel is a different kind from a snake.

Instead of dog or cat, I could have said canine or feline. However, that is not using the common words most people use. I was trying to make my example simple and understandable to those that use common English language. I did not think about confusing someone from Africa or some other foreign country that may not be familiar with common American English usage.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My categories are wildly different because that is what Moses meant by kinds. A camel is a different kind from a snake.

Camel refers to a group of several species of mammal. Snake refers to a large number of species of reptile. They are not comparable categories. If that is what Moses meant by kind, then he didn't have a clue about basic biological taxonomy just as you clearly don't.

Instead of dog or cat, I could have said canine or feline.
Well maybe you should have. The difference in meaning is quite significant.

However, that is not using the common words most people use. I was trying to make my example simple and understandable to those that use common English language.
Well instead, you got your example totally wrong. Using more common words that mean something different doesn't make things easier to understand. What should you have said instead of 'fish' or 'bird'? Or do you think 'canine' and 'bird' are comparable categories? And maybe you should have said 'primate' instead of human, but of course that would have got you in a bit of a contradiction wouldn't it.

I did not think ....
Yes, that just about sums it up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Camel refers to a group of several species of mammal. Snake refers to a large number of species of reptile. They are not comparable categories. If that is what Moses meant by kind, then he didn't have a clue about basic biological taxonomy just as you clearly don't.

[b]Instead of dog or cat, I could have said canine or feline.
Well maybe you shoul ...[text shortened]... of a contradiction wouldn't it.

I did not think ....
Yes, that just about sums it up.[/b]

I doubt if biological taxonomy was even invented in the time of Moses. And I admit that I don't actually know that Moses would have said what I believe he might have said. However, the point was to simply get across the idea that different kinds of animals and plants reproduce after their kind. I was not attempting to give a college biology course on the matter, so I avoided using scientific nomenclature. After all this is not the Science Forum, but the Spirituality Forum so there is no need to be scientifically smug when I am content to be spiritually smug.

😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Reproducing after their kind does not mean I have to look exactly like my father or mother. It only means that I be a human like my mother and father. Dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, horses reproduce horse, birds reproduce birds, fish reproduce fish, etc. A human is not going to be reproduced by sometning else, like a Chimpanzee for example. Do you understand that? 😏

I understand perfectly well as you know. Now my final sentence was

"So there is never any requirement for any creature to produce progeny that differ other than trivially. Your point is itself trivial and uninteresting therefore."

and that remains valid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, the point was to simply get across the idea that different kinds of animals and plants reproduce after their kind.

Well since you used such wildly different categories trying to get your point across, all you demonstrated was that you don't have a clue what you actually mean by 'kind'.
Worse, you have now just added 'plants' which is a whole different kettle of fish. Plants are a lot more varied in their reproduction and there are certainly exceptions to just about any rule you think you can come up with regards to them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well since you used such wildly different categories trying to get your point across, all you demonstrated was that you don't have a clue what you actually mean by 'kind'.
Worse, you have now just added 'plants' which is a whole different kettle of fish. Plants are a lot more varied in their reproduction and there are certainly exceptions to just about any rule you think you can come up with regards to them.

Isn't a banana a different kind from a wolf or dog? Even a kindergardner knows that. If you don't, then I recommend you complete elementary school.