Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

That's what a scientific theory is meant to do. It's meant to answer a wide range of questions. When science has a theory that can do that, it means it has a working theory. It really is a blanket answer to any question regarding a heritable trait of a lifeform. That, and how life evolves. It doesn't tell us how life started though.

Tell me what you know about Natural Selection. I still don't think you understand what it is.

I know what it is and how science says it works, but to me, the whole thing falls apart when you take the species (kind) and imply that one "kind" of organism eventually became a completely unrelated kind of organism when science has no proof that any of it actually took place. It is assumed as the language in any article or book will reveal. Adaptation and natural selection are taken to ridiculous extremes just by adding zeros to the time frame. That is what I take issue with....do you understand my position?

You've said this already, which I had a response to that you never addressed. This is what keeps you going in circles and asking the same question over and over. You don't address people's follow-up points.

That is because to me you are just repeating your own pet theory. I have heard it all before. I dismissed it years ago. Nothing in modern science has been produced that makes me want to change my opinion...not even the realistic computer generated images.

What exactly is a kind? "Kind" is not a formal term in biology. If it's ever used by a biologists regarding animal groups, it means he/she is using the term loosely and informally, which also means there's no wrong way to use the term. E.g. you can say cats are a kind, but you can also say meat-eaters are a kind, or grazers, or bipeds, or digitigrades (animals that walk on their toes). It's definitely not a synonym for species, and I'm willing to bet your train of thought leads you to believe that commonly known animal groups are a kind while others are not, such as mice for example? Do mice qualify as a single kind? There's like 30 species of mice. Mice themselves fall under the group murinae, which includes rats as well. And murinae it self fall under the group known as rodent.

A Genesis "kind" is a group of living creatures who naturally reproduce in the wild.....but two related species within a "kind" can be forced to breed in captivity.
Taking a horse and a donkey e.g. and artificially forcing them to produce offspring so that the more hardy mules can be used as carriers, was something man did. But he could not breed a mule with a mule because a genetic barrier that exists (the end of the genetic line) that cannot be crossed. A lion and a tiger can interbreed but do not do so naturally outside of captivity. Artificial circumstances have to force them outside their natural selection for a mate.

We do not see herds of unidentifiable animals in the wild. They are clear and distinct "kinds" as listed in Genesis.They feed together and co-exist, but they cannot interbreed.
Fish are also definite and distinct species who do not interbreed in the oceans regardless of how many other species are around them.

So are each of the 30 species of mice their own kind, or do they all fall under one kind, or are mice and rats together considered one kind, or is rodent considered one kind?

A "kind" is any living thing that can interbreed. The speciation experiments conducted on hawthorn flies and stickle-back fish produced some interesting results, but at the end of the day, the flies remained flies and the fish remained fish, whilst minor changes occurred in their appearance. This would have remained so regardless of how long the experiment was conducted. This was also done in a lab, so hardly a natural environment for either one of them.

You're the only one here using the word "accident". The traits of lifeforms are directed, just without intent. Natural Selection directs the evolution of lifeforms.

When we talk about genetic mutations in human beings, we are talking about defects, not improvements. A genetic mutation is an accident; usually a mistake in the coding...usually making the recipient someone to be pitied, not admired.

No amount of real proof will get through to you if you're not even willing to try to understand.

If you had real proof, I'd be all ears, but the truth is,no such proof exists.....it is pure supposition, not fact. It sounds good until you strip it down and see the fairy story and the gigantic flaws in the whole argument.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I know what it is and how science says it works

Then tell me how you think it works.

but to me, the whole thing falls apart when you take the species (kind) and imply that one "kind" of organism eventually became a completely unrelated kind of organism when science has no proof that any of it actually took place.

It's not even a claim that science makes, which I've said to you already.

That is what I take issue with....do you understand my position?

No... I don't. You think the ToE says one thing when it says another.

That is because to me you are just repeating your own pet theory. I have heard it all before.

Apparently you haven't. I've already said to you before that the Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that organisms will become something unrelated. You've obviously overlooked this and continue to make statements as if that point was never presented to you.

A Genesis "kind" is a group of living creatures who naturally reproduce in the wild.....

I doubt it's defined that way in your holy scripture, but we've directly observe a population of species who naturally reproduce, split into two populations who will not reproduce by their own volition.

but two related species within a "kind" can be forced to breed in captivity.

You just contradicted yourself. You defined "kind" as a synonym for species (a group that can reproduce naturally), but then in the next sentence say that there can be two related species within a single kind. Which is it?

Taking a horse and a donkey e.g. and artificially forcing them to produce offspring so that the more hardy mules can be used as carriers, was something man did. But he could not breed a mule with a mule because a genetic barrier that exists (the end of the genetic line) that cannot be crossed. A lion and a tiger can interbreed but do not do so naturally outside of captivity. Artificial circumstances have to force them outside their natural selection for a mate.

Believe it or not, many animal hybrids come about without human intervention. Sometimes two different species are just curious, if you know what I mean.

Fish are also definite and distinct species who do not interbreed in the oceans regardless of how many other species are around them.

Fish are not a single species in the least. That's an entire class of animals with a diversity comparable to the entire mammalian group (more-so actually). Humans are more related to cows than some species of fish are related to others.

A "kind" is any living thing that can interbreed.

The vast majority of fish species cannot interbreed with each other, even with human intervention. This is what I mean when I say your definition or concept of a kind is flawed and arbitrary.

Why is fish a kind but mammals aren't?

flies remained flies and the fish remained fish, whilst minor changes occurred in their appearance.

When humans evolved from apes, we didn't stop being apes or primates or mammals. So what's the problem? No one is saying that a monkey will turn into a squirrel, just like no one is saying that an eel will turn into a shark, even though they're both fish.

A genetic mutation is an accident; usually a mistake in the coding...usually making the recipient someone to be pitied, not admired.

You have mutations. Everyone you personally know has mutations. Is anything seriously wrong with all of them? Most mutations are neutral. A mutation is just a change. That's all.

 

[Olinda]

The Bible has an explanation for that too....but I won't bore you with the detail. Lets just say that the human immune system is designed to keep out all "intruders", but due to the exercise of free will (which evolutionists too are exercising) choices were made that impacted on the body's ability to utilize this function optimally.

If all the harmful parasites only vary within 'their kind', why were they created?

That might be fine for humans, but what about the animals that are plagued with ticks, gut parasites, heartworms etc?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Evolution does not address the question of how life began.

It does, Mestemia. It starts from Macromolecules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromolecule). Had the macro-molecules not survived, there would have been no life.

 

[Deeje]

If all the harmful parasites only vary within 'their kind', why were they created?

Only God knows why he created any particular lifeform....why don't you ask him?

That might be fine for humans, but what about the animals that are plagued with ticks, gut parasites, heartworms etc?

Nothing in this world ruled by God's adversary leads to happy outcomes for most of the creatures that occupy this planet. For humans, our immune system does not function optimally, leading to many forms of sickness and death. For the other creatures affected by the continuing impact of corrupt humanity, their altered environment is leading to all manner of organisms invading bodies where they ought not to be. Nothing in this world is how it was meant to be.
All I know for sure is that when the Creator's will is "done on earth as it is in heaven", no organism will do harm to any creature.

Isaiah 11:6-9:
"And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. 7 And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. 8 And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. 9 They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea."

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Deeje]

Then tell me how you think it works.

It's not even a claim that science makes, which I've said to you already.

No... I don't. You think the ToE says one thing when it says another.

Apparently you haven't. I've already said to you before that the Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that organisms will become something unrelated. You've obviously overlooked this and continue to make statements as if that point was never presented to you.

I doubt it's defined that way in your holy scripture, but we've directly observe a population of species who naturally reproduce, split into two populations who will not reproduce by their own volition.

You just contradicted yourself. You defined "kind" as a synonym for species (a group that can reproduce naturally), but then in the next sentence say that there can be two related species within a single kind. Which is it?

Believe it or not, many animal hybrids come about without human intervention. Sometimes two different species are just curious, if you know what I mean.

Fish are not a single species in the least. That's an entire class of animals with a diversity comparable to the entire mammalian group (more-so actually). Humans are more related to cows than some species of fish are related to others.

The vast majority of fish species cannot interbreed with each other, even with human intervention. This is what I mean when I say your definition or concept of a kind is flawed and arbitrary.

Why is fish a kind but mammals aren't?

When humans evolved from apes, we didn't stop being apes or primates or mammals. So what's the problem? No one is saying that a monkey will turn into a squirrel, just like no one is saying that an eel will turn into a shark, even though they're both fish.

You have mutations. Everyone you personally know has mutations. Is anything seriously wrong with all of them? Most mutations are neutral. A mutation is just a change. That's all.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, AndromedaRXJ. I have illustrated my arguments. No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago. That fantasy is less believable than an act of creation by an intelligent and purposeful Designer.

How did the life begin? There are too many fortunate mutations in your scenario for it to be believable at all to me. The whole thing comes unstuck at the very beginning. The one question evolution cannot answer is the most important question of all.....if there is an all powerful Creator, your whole theory goes down the gurgler.
I guarantee that you will believe in him one day.

 

[YmirGF]

Another terribly boring evolution vs. creationism thread. <yawn>

 

[Deeje]

Another terribly boring evolution vs. creationism thread. <yawn>

Didn't see anyone with a big stick making you read it.

 

[YmirGF]

Didn't see anyone with a big stick making you read it.

I speed read the super-boring drivel.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I know of nothing designed that did not have a designer...

I know of nothing tall that isn't tall...

 

[YmirGF]

I know of nothing tall that isn't tall...

I too have never known intellectual inadequacy to be able to peer above the bootstraps of anthropomorphic projection either.

 

[jonathan180iq]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

How are you ever going to get laid unless someone thinks you're beautiful? You can't make babies without getting laid, can you?
That's the survival advantage to being beautiful. You're more likely to pass on those beautiful traits to the next generation, thus ensuring that they get laid and make pretty babies too...
That's really all there is to it, in a simplified form.

Why do you have the physical traits that you have? Is it because you just willed them into existence one day? Or is it because of hundreds of thousands of factors outside of your control that preceded your "creation"? How many times did your parents have sex before you were conceived? How many possible versions of you could there have been before there was you? What role did you play in any of it?

You, and your physical traits, are a product of the environment in which you were conceived. The same is true of your parents, of the ducks referenced above, and of everything that was ever alive, ever.

The social structure of the duck species that you've imaged here have them predisposed to selecting mates based on their current concepts of beauty. Wild variations from the norm will make it more difficult for an abnormal duck to find a mate and produce offspring. Different ducks will be outcasts, getting the last scraps of food and mating with other abnormal ducks. If there is a wild variation that manages to produce some type of environmental advantage to the duck population, that characteristic will eventually be adapted into the culture and accepted as desirable over time. You can see these same behaviors in all living species - including humans - yet you're somehow offended by the assertion that we are animals... Why?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Which evidence? what mutations that caused the brain to be developed.

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/4/743.full
http://blog.brainfacts.org/2014/07/where-do-brains-come-from-part-i-secret-origins/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128311-800-a-brief-history-of-the-brain/
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
http://brain.phgy.queensu.ca/pare/assets/Evolution2.pdf
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate_brain
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0000088.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2507884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-238

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only God knows why he created any particular lifeform....why don't you ask him?

With all these scriptures, God must have said something about it somewhere. You have read them, any indication of why he did it?

With theist Hindus, it is clear - 8,400,000 life forms (substantiated by science). Souls are required to pass through all these before one gets the human form. People should make the best use of the opportunity by doing good deeds and get out of the cycle, otherwise another cycle of birth and death.

"Punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam, punarapi garbhashayanam".
(Again the birth, again the death, again remaining in the womb)

"Humans share the planet with as many as 8.7 million different forms of life, according to what is being billed as the most accurate estimate yet of life on Earth.Aug 23, 2011."
(Google Search - Number of life forms on Earth)

"This cycle is also known as “Lakh Chaurasi” meaning the cycle of 8,400,000 lineages of life forms." http://www.justforkidsonly.com/truth/?tag=lakh-chaurasi
"Chaurasi Lakh means 8,400,000. This is the number of different joons (lifeforms) that constitute the circle of transmigration." http://www.info-sikh.com/DDPage2.html

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You are free to believe whatever you wish, AndromedaRXJ. I have illustrated my arguments. No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago. That fantasy is less believable than an act of creation by an intelligent and purposeful Designer.

How did the life begin? There are too many fortunate mutations in your scenario for it to be believable at all to me. The whole thing comes unstuck at the very beginning. The one question evolution cannot answer is the most important question of all.....if there is an all powerful Creator, your whole theory goes down the gurgler.
I guarantee that you will believe in him one day.

If you're not even interested in addressing people's points and want to blatantly ignore and avoid them, then why bother making a thread for discussion? If you're making a thread in Evolution vs Creation, you should expect a rebuttal from us and be prepared to engage. Otherwise, there are sub-forums dedicated solely to religious discussion where you can discuss with like-minded people.

 

[FearGod]

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/4/743.full
http://blog.brainfacts.org/2014/07/where-do-brains-come-from-part-i-secret-origins/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128311-800-a-brief-history-of-the-brain/
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
http://brain.phgy.queensu.ca/pare/assets/Evolution2.pdf
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate_brain
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0000088.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2507884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-9-238

I guessed someone will have such kind of reply, besides study biology ....etc

 

[jonathan180iq]

I guessed someone will have such kind of reply, besides study biology ....etc

So, you'd like to know how brains evolved in vertebrates but you don't want to study biology?
Which field of study do you think could answer that question most accurately?

 

[FearGod]

So, you'd like to know how brains evolved in vertebrates but you don't want to study biology?
Which field of study do you think could answer that question most accurately?

History, billions of years ago.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago.

Why?

That fantasy is less believable than an act of creation by an intelligent and purposeful Designer.

How so?

How did the life begin?

Good question! Do you know?

There are too many fortunate mutations in your scenario for it to be believable at all to me. The whole thing comes unstuck at the very beginning.

Thank goodness there are no problems with the assertion that an omniscient and omnipotent deity created everything within a 6-day window just a few thousand years ago...

The one question evolution cannot answer is the most important question of all.....if there is an all powerful Creator, your whole theory goes down the gurgler.

Seems to be a pretty big problem for theistic arguments as well, don't you think? I mean, not a single argument for deity has ever been proven true in the history of humanity. In fact, definitions of deities are either changed with new scientific/cultural findings or they're completely left behind, vestiges of silly people wishing upon imaginary friends.

For reference, please choose any diety of your liking from the list in the link and tell me which one you think is most likely to be real.
https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them

 

[McBell]

History, billions of years ago.

You think history is the best place to find answers to biology questions?