Skwim
Veteran Member
Yeah, and that would work except when it comes to Noah getting the millions of kinds (species) aboard the ark.Where I live, kind and species are the same. Cows and buffaloes are considered different kinds for example.
.
.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah, and that would work except when it comes to Noah getting the millions of kinds (species) aboard the ark.Where I live, kind and species are the same. Cows and buffaloes are considered different kinds for example.
What makes dogs and cats different kinds? Why aren't humans and apes the same kind?
How is anyone supposed to know what you'e talking about if you don't provide a proper definition? How would you feel if science operated in such a way?
That tells us practically nothing.
Maybe so. But you're still biased against them and everyone else who believes in the Bible. You let your bias guide you rather than the truth.
Well guess what? By the same methods and standards you cite for DNA testing in forensics, we can "prove" that humans and other primates share a common ancestry.We can prove a man raped a woman by comparing his DNA to the DNA of the sperm found in her body. That's proof if the DNA matches. You've got zero DNA matches. You've got no proof.
Well heck, we can even show the genetic basis for the transition.....Variation in feathers, yes, but transition between scales and feathers (the topic at hand)? Please post the graphic depicting the half-scale half-feather transitionary form.
Interesting stuff. The fact remains that feathers appear suddenly in the geologic record and we have not found anything resembling a transitionary form between a scale and a feather (the topic of discussion at hand). Indeed, the first source cited confirms this:Well heck, we can even show the genetic basis for the transition.....
The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes
Here's a more layperson friendly description: Solved: the mystery of where feathers, fur and scales come from
So? We have not only very good indication that it happened, we now have a specific genetic pathway and mechanism to demonstrate how it happened.Interesting stuff. The fact remains that feathers appear suddenly in the geologic record and we have not found anything resembling a transitionary form between a scale and a feather (the topic of discussion at hand). Indeed, the first source cited confirms this:
"...the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."
You got the wrong kinder garden teacher. In my kinder garden, everyone taught that kind and species are the same. So did my mom.Then just put me on ignore. My gosh, you guys want me to be your kinder garden teacher. Please.
In the absence of even a single tangible example of a transitioning scale-to-feather skin appendage, a fossilized specimen, that we can point to as physically observable and testable data, what is the "very good indication?"So? We have not only very good indication that it happened...
...we now have a specific genetic pathway and mechanism to demonstrate how it happened.
Boy, if this isn't some the silliest stuff to pop up on RF this year I don't know what is. It certainty isn't worth further comment.
, that was my opinion.But, I think the evolution theory needs to be reworked some to make it work.
I wasn't going to bother, but since you ask. The silly parts:Hello Skwim, I was hoping to get one of your humorous posts or some other fun to read reply. But, I got something even better 'Silliest stuff on RF, of the year award'. Thank you, thank you, for this wonderful award given to me, it is such a wonderful honor; I would like to thank my Mom, Dad, brother and sisters, and to all the people here at RF for making this possible and I cannot forget... However, I assume it was all pretty silly, but would have hoped you would have indicated the silliest part so I could expand on it.
Actually, I do appreciate it. I do not get to many replies on here, so it is nice to know somebody is listening even if it is silly. I would have hoped though you would have pointed out what you felt was wrong, as I feel most of what I wrote was based in science, I did not feel I went into any beliefs or faith in anything, except for my last sentence , that was my opinion.
Why would I put you on ignore? I'm trying to get clarification from you about what you're talking about.Then just put me on ignore. My gosh, you guys want me to be your kinder garden teacher. Please.
Why would I put you on ignore? I'm trying to get clarification from you about what you're talking about.
My gosh, why is it so difficult to answer a simple question? You say it's so simple that a child could understand it, and yet post after post you refuse to give a definition of what it is you are talking about? If you don't know what you're talking about, how is anybody else supposed to know?
Wait, wait, wait......the sentence you pulled from the abstract was "However, the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."In the absence of even a single tangible example of a transitioning scale-to-feather skin appendage, a fossilized specimen, that we can point to as physically observable and testable data, what is the "very good indication?"
Done.Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference.
Wait, wait, wait......the sentence you pulled from the abstract was "However, the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."
Notice how that's talking about scale-hair transitions, not scale-feather. We do have very good morphotypes of the stages of feather evolution. So we have very good data showing that it did happen, and very good data showing how it happened. That a handful of Christians in an internet forum refuse to accept this reality isn't at all surprising.
Done.
Thanks for your input."Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference."
Inference is inconclusive. Generalizations are inconclusive.
You can't show exactly how and why it happened so I can only infer that it most likely never happened.
Inference can work both ways.
Gentle reminder regarding my reply."Homology does not demonstrate transition at a molecular level any more so than at a physiological level (as seen in fossils). You can infer transition from homology, however, and then spend time searching for forms in a true transitioning state to support that inference."
Inference is inconclusive. Generalizations are inconclusive.
You can't show exactly how and why it happened so I can only infer that it most likely never happened.
Inference can work both ways.
Okay, so what makes them like kinds, specifically? Are a lion and a house cat like kinds?All dogs are like kinds. They're all dogs.
All cats are like kinds. They're all cats.
Apes and orangutans are like kinds. They're all monkeys.
Why not?Cats and dogs are not like kinds.
Apes and humans are not like kinds.
Apparently it is, because you still haven't given me an actual definition - still just examples.There is nothing hard about it.
Okay, so what makes them like kinds, specifically? Are a lion and a house cat like kinds?
They're not monkeys though, they're apes.
Why don't you consider humans to be ape "kinds" as well?
Why not?
Apparently it is, because you still haven't given me an actual definition - still just examples.
Is a kind the same thing as a species:
"A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. Species are characterized by the fact that they are reproductively isolated from other groups, which means that the organisms in one species are incapable of reproducing with organisms in another species. The term species can also be defined as the most basic category in the system of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a scientific system that classifies organisms into categories based on their biological characteristics. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. This method of defining species is called phylogenetics, which is the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms. The evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being is called speciation."
species | Learn Science at Scitable
Wow, this is like pulling teeth. You know what would be nice and simple? A basic definition.Now you're trying to complicate it. Keep it simple. And no, it is not the same thing as a species.