Originally posted by scottishinnz"The only trouble is I've never argued against changes within species
Considering that there are about a dozen different definitions of the word "species" then I'd say quite a few. You still haven't defined your "kinds" yet, nor shown why the "kind barrier" is immutable.
or kinds. I accept and except that to occur."
Is this the quote you are referring too? If you notice I said species
or kinds. You may view them as different or the same, for me when
I think of "kinds" I think of original species type where all the so
called related species sprang from. This isn't claiming that all species
at one time sprang from the same for lack of a better words to
describe it *the same single cell life form.*
The barrier is as I have been complaining about since the beginning,
is that new limbs, organs, systems and so on, do not just happen. It
hasn't been shown at any time that these have in deed sprung forth
from a single source. Coding those types of changes in the DNA
require some extremely delicate balancing acts to keep it all
functioning properly, while under going some radical modifications
within the living systems.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySO when were these "originals forms" created? What proof do you have that they were created? Why does the fossil record suggest that different species were created at all different times? Perhaps all hominids come from the same ancestor then?
"The only trouble is I've never argued against changes within species
or kinds. I accept and except that to occur."
Is this the quote you are referring too? If you notice I said species
or kinds. You may view them as different or the same, for me when
I think of "kinds" I think of original species type where all the so
called related species sprang f ...[text shortened]... properly, while under going some radical modifications
within the living systems.
Kelly
This sounds a lot like you are now suggesting that god was around at the "cambrian explosion" but hasn't done much since.
Originally posted by LhinsdaleAccording to that arguement, if all species share a common ancestor and the end result is always the same as what you began with, all species would be the same and would be able to produce the same as themselves.
According to that arguement, if all species share a common ancestor and the end result is always the same as what you began with, all species would be the same and would be able to produce the same as themselves. Where does the evolving happen? The genetic makeup of each species is different. That is why men and apes cannot reproduce together as well as ca ...[text shortened]... that one may still be a dog and the other something completely different, i.e. a new species.
The end result is not always the same exactly, no more than a chihuahua is the same as a bulldog. However, all life on Earth is some variation of cells, just as a chihuahua and the bulldog are both variations of dogs.
If men came from apes, the end result is not the same as what you began with.
Yes, it is. Humans are apes and they are cellular beings.
With the evolutionary model one species may change into another where as with the creation model each species will always maintain the genetic make that was available to it.
Species do change to other species. That's been observed.
The creation model says that the ancestor for Chihuahas and German Shepards was a dog and had in its gene pool the genes for both breeds.
Do you believe this is a scientific statement which can be experimentally investigated?
The evolutionary model says that these two breeds came from something other than a dog and may eventually have a genetic drift so that one may still be a dog and the other something completely different, i.e. a new species.
Not true. The descendents of dogs will always be dogs according to evolutionary theory. However the term "dog" may move from species status to genus status or beyond over long, long periods of time.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFirst off, in my argument I supported neither evolution or creation. You made an assumption. I was merely showing how the two share a similar concept that is viewed differently.
[b]According to that arguement, if all species share a common ancestor and the end result is always the same as what you began with, all species would be the same and would be able to produce the same as themselves.
The end result is not always the same exactly, no more than a chihuahua is the same as a bulldog. However, all life on Earth is so ...[text shortened]... "dog" may move from species status to genus status or beyond over long, long periods of time.[/b]
Second, in your argument you suggest that apes and human are cellularly the same. Then later you argue that the descendents of dogs will always be dogs according to the evolutionary 'theory'. If all life shares a common ancestor, according to your argument, all species are the same on the cellular level. That isn't the case. It's changes on the cellular level that create changes in species. Simply put: according to the evolutionary model dogs haven't always been dogs and may not continue to be dogs in the future. It is simple logic. IF:THEN
Third and final, if I believed that the statement I gave about the ancestor for Chihuahas and German Shepards could be proven I wouldn't have preceded it with 'the creation model says'. Again, I was comparing evolution to creation and you made an assumption. Obviously you cannot 'experimentally investigate' with something that is extinct. You can however speculate. Don't assume anything.
Originally posted by LhinsdaleFirst off, in my argument I supported neither evolution or creation. You made an assumption.
First off, in my argument I supported neither evolution or creation. You made an assumption. I was merely showing how the two share a similar concept that is viewed differently.
Second, in your argument you suggest that apes and human are cellularly the same. Then later you argue that the descendents of dogs will always be dogs according to the evolutio ...[text shortened]... te' with something that is extinct. You can however speculate. Don't assume anything.
I don't understand why you wrote this. What assumption did I make?
Second, in your argument you suggest that apes and human are cellularly the same.
They will be the same in that they are all cellular. The cells themselves will not be the same as they've changed over time.
Then later you argue that the descendents of dogs will always be dogs according to the evolutionary 'theory'.
That is correct.
If all life shares a common ancestor, according to your argument, all species are the same on the cellular level.
To some extent, but not entirely. All species are made of cells. That's what's the same about them. Now the cells for each species have been evolving differently than the cells for other species for a long, long time, so the cells of one species will not be the same as the cells of another species except for traits inherited from the common ancestor - like the presence of plasma membranes.
according to the evolutionary model dogs haven't always been dogs and may not continue to be dogs in the future.
They haven't always been dogs, but now that dogs have evolved, their descendents will always be dogs. You do not understand evolutionary theory.
Third and final, if I believed that the statement I gave about the ancestor for Chihuahas and German Shepards could be proven I wouldn't have preceded it with 'the creation model says'.
I didn't say anything about proof. I asked if it could be experimentally investigated.
Obviously you cannot 'experimentally investigate' with something that is extinct.
Yes you can. For example, you can make hypotheses about the genetic makeup of species based on one model or the other and then check to see if you're right.
Originally posted by LhinsdaleFYI
First off, in my argument I supported neither evolution or creation. You made an assumption. I was merely showing how the two share a similar concept that is viewed differently.
Second, in your argument you suggest that apes and human are cellularly the same. Then later you argue that the descendents of dogs will always be dogs according to the evolutio ...[text shortened]... te' with something that is extinct. You can however speculate. Don't assume anything.
All domesticated dogs are descended from the wolf.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe fossil record shows us fossils, the claims that some were made
SO when were these "originals forms" created? What proof do you have that they were created? Why does the fossil record suggest that different species were created at all different times? Perhaps all hominids come from the same ancestor then?
This sounds a lot like you are now suggesting that god was around at the "cambrian explosion" but hasn't done much since.
at different times are just that, claims. The proof is to by into
someone's views on the claims about this fossil or that one, what
they were, who they were related to, when they were alive, and so on.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayClaims? So radioactive dating means nothing to you. Never mind, I don;t fancy going round in circles again with that one.
The fossil record shows us fossils, the claims that some were made
at different times are just that, claims. The proof is to by into
someone's views on the claims about this fossil or that one, what
they were, who they were related to, when they were alive, and so on.
Kelly
I remember when people were complaining that this thread had reached 40 pages. How ignorant we were then....
I guess most religious people see Intelligent Design as the perfect opportunity to validate their faith. Not only does it attempt to refute evolution but it also vinidicates their religious convictions and affirm their trust in the bible.
I guess that is why I hate Intelligent Design. It just encourages those sorry bustard fundamentalists.
Originally posted by Conrau KI guess that is why I hate Intelligent Design. It just encourages those sorry bustard[sic?] fundamentalists.
I remember when people were complaining that this thread had reached 40 pages. How ignorant we were then....
I guess most religious people see Intelligent Design as the perfect opportunity to validate their faith. Not only does it attempt to refute evolution but it also vinidicates their religious convictions and affirm their trust in the bible.
I g ...[text shortened]... s that is why I hate Intelligent Design. It just encourages those sorry bustard fundamentalists.
What's with the vitriol? Have you never tried to justify your beliefs? You sir, are as closed-minded as any of the Bible-thumping, inbred, fundies that you deplore. Bigot.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseYou sir, are as closed-minded as any of the Bible-thumping, inbred, fundies that you deplore. Bigot.
[b]I guess that is why I hate Intelligent Design. It just encourages those sorry bustard[sic?] fundamentalists.
What's with the vitriol? Have you never tried to justify your beliefs? You sir, are as closed-minded as any of the Bible-thumping, inbred, fundies that you deplore. Bigot.[/b]
Strange, I don't recall deriding funamentalists as any such things (though admittedly it might be an implicit given).
EDIT: And what's with the sic?
Originally posted by Conrau KIt's certainly the stereotype image that fundamentalists are lambasted with.
[b]You sir, are as closed-minded as any of the Bible-thumping, inbred, fundies that you deplore. Bigot.
Strange, I don't recall deriding funamentalists as any such things (though admittedly it might be an implicit given).
EDIT: And what's with the sic?[/b]
The sic? I didn't think you'd be comparing them to a gregarious, long-legged bird. My mistake.
evolution, in my opinion, is a load of rubbish.
if evolution is true, then how come there are still monkes and apes around today? surely if evolution was in existance and still is, then the creatures that we supposedly evolved from would have evolved themselves into extinction.
the theory is that evolution takes place over millions of years, and so if it was true, then surely there would be those still evolving and are 'part human - part ape'. this isn't possible.
the term evolution means to get better/ to improve/ to become superior and move beyond a previous, inferior form. animals have instincts and can sense when natural disasters are about to happen. this is an ability that would benifit the human race greatly, and surely, if we did evolve we would still have those instincts. we don't.
if evolution is a continious thing, then why havnt some of the human race evolved into super-humans? and why has it only been humans that have evolved? if we trace evolution back, the most basic lifeform is an amiba. so if evolutin was and is a continious process, then we must have evolved from something before we were apes/ monkeys. if you keep tracing back then you would find that all life came from amibas- so why are there millions of different species of animals?
these are just a few reasons why evolution is the biggest hoax ever.
1 edit
Originally posted by skinbinYour name is most appropriate. A skin that's full of garbage? Skinbin.
evolution, in my opinion, is a load of rubbish.
if evolution is true, then how come there are still monkes and apes around today? surely if evolution was in existance and still is, then the creatures that we supposedly evolved from would have evolved themselves into extinction.
the theory is that evolution takes place over millions of years, and so if species of animals?
these are just a few reasons why evolution is the biggest hoax ever.
EDIT: My favourite bit is how monkeys should have evolved themselves into extinction.