Originally posted by KellyJayThat might be possible, but then the entire, currently cohesive picture would not make any sense anymore. Connecting dots is something we do every day, I've pointed that out to you many times. Even were your point true, it would still contradict the biblical creation story, so no help for your point of view. Oh, and you'd be substituting a theory with a high level of parsimony (simplest explanation being the most likely to be true) for one with a low level of parsimony. In essence, you'd make a scientifically simple theory into an inherently complex one, without any basis in either fact or evidence.
Baseless assertions?
You are connecting dots and have no way of being proved wrong!
That is my main point, nothing you have said has changed that,
you believe evolution through time has changed a simple life
form into the the vast variety we see today. So, this another
question, how do you know? It could have just as easily all
started with several di ...[text shortened]... t
evolution it must be believed in as it cannot be shown in the
present to that degree.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayUntil you get to a wolf (or vice versa). Of course species that directly evolve from another species are going to be "similiar"; what else would they be? Evolution takes place in gradual steps. Usually the definition of a species has to do with interbreeding in the wild; if an animal can't breed with another animal it's of a different species (though there are a few different species they can produce sterile hybrids). An objection that modern Man hasn't seen with his own eyes evolutionary steps that took place millions of years ago is just petty. But if that's what makes you happy, stay ignorant.
Read it, didn't notice anything outside of what I have been saying
all along. You care to point out a specific line that does, because
it seems to me that like the saying, you start with dogs, you end
with dogs still seems true.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayhere's a dot for ya :
Baseless assertions?
You are connecting dots and have no way of being proved wrong!
That is my main point, nothing you have said has changed that,
you believe evolution through time has changed a simple life
form into the the vast variety we see today. So, this another
question, how do you know? It could have just as easily all
started with several di ...[text shortened]... t
evolution it must be believed in as it cannot be shown in the
present to that degree.
Kelly
"The view that species change is an old one, but in the scientific tradition it derives from Lamarck, who made it a more or less respectable view. Numerous earlier writers, including Linnaeus, Maupertuis, Buffon, and even Aristotle, had suggested that some species might give rise to new species, but this was contrary to church teaching and was a dangerous view to hold in Christian Europe. There were hints of species transmutation in the ancient Greek writers, but their views tended to ignore heredity, and so do not count as truly evolutionary"
Originally posted by frogstompnice quote. What's the text?
here's a dot for ya :
"The view that species change is an old one, but in the scientific tradition it derives from Lamarck, who made it a more or less respectable view. Numerous earlier writers, including Linnaeus, Maupertuis, Buffon, and even Aristotle, had suggested that some species might give rise to new species, but this was contrary to church tea ...[text shortened]... riters, but their views tended to ignore heredity, and so do not count as truly evolutionary"
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually it would support the Biblical view, since during the creation
That might be possible, but then the entire, currently cohesive picture would not make any sense anymore. Connecting dots is something we do every day, I've pointed that out to you many times. Even were your point true, it would still contradict the biblical creation story, so no help for your point of view. Oh, and you'd be substituting a theory wi ...[text shortened]... y simple theory into an inherently complex one, without any basis in either fact or evidence.
story God created everything and told them to multiply after their
own kind. The changes that occur within kind after that would be
toward filling out the variety of life we see today, but it would always
be within kind. There would not be changes, like taking a worm and
latter on X amount of years later we now get a whale, or a blade of
grass, you'd just get other worm kinds.
The process is still there small changes over time, the debate would
be then on how fast small changes within kind could occur, how
long has this process been going on? The trouble I see is here
is that there really is 'no way' you can say how it started by looking
at life today; that you could say with confidence that all life started
with a single simple life form X so many years ago, or all life started
with several types at once so many years ago. With the variety of
life it makes more sense to me that it started as the creation story
suggests, since we have plants and animals, warm blooded and cold
blooded creatures, male and female, and on and on.
The diversity and complexity of life is vast, and as I have been
pointing out for some time now, I have only see people's faith when
it comes to massive changes within life over time, like going from a
worm to a whale. I don’t believe those dots were ever connected!
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderI have always maintained there are changes within kind, dog breading
Until you get to a wolf (or vice versa). Of course species that directly evolve from another species are going to be "similiar"; what else would they be? Evolution takes place in gradual steps. Usually the definition of a species has to do with interbreeding in the wild; if an animal can't breed with another animal it's of a different species (though the ...[text shortened]... ce millions of years ago is just petty. But if that's what makes you happy, stay ignorant.
is a great example of that, but that is not the same things as having
a simple cell growing eyes and a brain now is it over time?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompThere were and are a lot of things that certain churches view as
here's a dot for ya :
"The view that species change is an old one, but in the scientific tradition it derives from Lamarck, who made it a more or less respectable view. Numerous earlier writers, including Linnaeus, Maupertuis, Buffon, and even Aristotle, had suggested that some species might give rise to new species, but this was contrary to church tea ...[text shortened]... riters, but their views tended to ignore heredity, and so do not count as truly evolutionary"
dangerous, just as atheistic humanism dislikes the possibility
of other discussions becoming mainstream without getting all
hot and bothered, that their view of the truth in the natural
world gets questioned. That pendulum of censorship has
swung the other way now, the "church’s view" is now the one
that is censored in public.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYes spot on again Kelly never wrong except for all the mistakes in your posts but not to worry carry on and dont let reality bother you in any way at all and couninue pontificating on matters you clearly know so much about. As I said before you damage your religion more than you harm science with this ignorant claptrap but please keep going you have science on the ropes I think. Maybe you should write a book with all this great stuff?
Actually it would support the Biblical view, since during the creation
story God created everything and told them to multiply after their
own kind. The changes that occur within kind after that would be
toward filling out the variety of life we see today, but it would always
be within kind. There would not be changes, like taking a worm and
latter on X , like going from a
worm to a whale. I don’t believe those dots were ever connected!
Kelly
Originally posted by micarrJust to keep the sarcasm vein going here: This must be the greatest post ever. Do it again. Please, please, please. Oh, great one. 😛
Yes spot on again Kelly never wrong except for all the mistakes in your posts but not to worry carry on and dont let reality bother you in any way at all and couninue pontificating on matters you clearly know so much about. As I said before you damage your religion more than you harm science with this ignorant claptrap but please keep going you have science on the ropes I think. Maybe you should write a book with all this great stuff?
Originally posted by KellyJayfor your info there are about a dozen current definitions, which tend to work at all different scales. The classical Linean one we learn at school (brreds to give viable offspring) is, of course, only any good for sexual things, not asexual things. I think most people would accept the standard Linean definition though.
No matter what answer I give that can be said, not good enough.
Kelly