[__ Science __ ] All bets are off

[brujaq]

How do you define a kind and what is the barrier between kinds?

That isn't an explanation of how the theory works
That is literally an argument of "I don't understand so therefore inteligence"


I'm the one who is actually posting demonstrable theories. So far you have only posted testimonials and that you are offended by a poster that states we are related to other apes.

You're not descended from an ostrich are you ?

 

[Milk-Drops]

You're not descended from an ostrich are you ?

No and I can explain why. Also humans aren't decended from any modern species.

 

[brujaq]

No and I can explain why. Also humans aren't decended from any modern species.

You answered your own question with your first word , ''No'' no explanation needed

 

[Milk-Drops]

You answered your own question with your first word , ''No'' no explanation needed

You are aware that there has never been a claim that we decended from modern species right?

 

[Cygnus]

I don't get that last post MD , You remember that popular poster showing the progression from monkey to man each one a little less monkey and a little more Elvis ? That is an insult my friend and it only exists on the wall in those posters ..

Didn't piltdown man as well as Nebrasks man who were once presented as factual science placed on that poster?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Didn't piltdown man as well as Nebrasks man who were once presented as factual science placed on that poster?

Nope, Nebraska man was never recognized by the Scienctific community. And Piltdown Man was a hoax discovered by other scientists.

 

[brujaq]

Didn't piltdown man as well as Nebrasks man who were once presented as factual science placed on that poster?

Haha, That struck me as funny for some reason .. I don't know who that bunch was, I thought it was the same guy but now that you mention it I'm pretty sure they probably got'm penciled in there too .. They seem to show up a lot except in reality ..

 

[brujaq]

You are aware that there has never been a claim that we decended from modern species right?

I'm pretty aware and I'm pretty and aware

 

[brujaq]

Nope, Nebraska man was never recognized by the Scienctific community. And Piltdown Man was a hoax discovered by other scientists.

That's your problem MD you have to work on your reasoning skills ..

 

[Cygnus]

Nope, Nebraska man was never recognized by the Scienctific community. And Piltdown Man was a hoax discovered by other scientists.

Perhaps not but it was given the taxonomic name of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.....Nebraska man hung around for about 5 years before the tooth was pulled and placed under a pillow waiting for the evo-tooth fairy to take.

 

[Cygnus]

How do you define a kind and what is the barrier between kinds?
.

The created kinds can reproduce with each other. Lions and Tigers can produce offspring together....this means they are of the same kind.
The technical word is ...Baraminology

 

[Milk-Drops]

The created kinds can reproduce with each other. Lions and Tigers can produce offspring together....this means they are of the same kind.
The technical word is ...Baraminology

so it's just another word for kinds based on a mash up of Hebrew words. The issue then is that some lions and tigers can have off spring, but they aren't fertile, and pumas can't mate with either, so that seems odd. Not to mention that not all those new sub species of salamanders can breed with eachbotger, so that means a new kind was formed?

 

[Cygnus]

so it's just another word for kinds based on a mash up of Hebrew words. The issue then is that some lions and tigers can have off spring, but they aren't fertile, and pumas can't mate with either, so that seems odd. Not to mention that not all those new sub species of salamanders can breed with eachbotger, so that means a new kind was formed?

As we move away from the flood and the species continue to de-evolve we would expect to see animals who can no longer breed together or are not fertile.

 

[Milk-Drops]

As we move away from the flood and the species continue to de-evolve we would expect to see animals who can no longer breed together or are not fertile.

How to you measure De-evolving?

 

[brujaq]

so it's just another word for kinds based on a mash up of Hebrew words. The issue then is that some lions and tigers can have off spring, but they aren't fertile, and pumas can't mate with either, so that seems odd. Not to mention that not all those new sub species of salamanders can breed with eachbotger, so that means a new kind was formed?

That would be a loss of information , still the same kind

 

[Cygnus]

How to you measure De-evolving?

Loss of information.

The blind cave fish is an example.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Loss of information.

The blind cave fish is an example.

what is information?

 

[Milk-Drops]

That would be a loss of information , still the same kind

How do you measure that?

 

[brujaq]

They may have recessive genes that would block off the norm . Do you think a group of Great Danes could mate with Chihuahuas, bad example I know but my point is a loss of info not a gain or improvement of DNA info due to mutation or a new kind and certainly not compatible with another kind ..

 

[Milk-Drops]

They may have recessive genes that would block off the norm . Do you think a group of Great Danes could mate with Chihuahuas, bad example I know but my point is a loss of info not a gain or improvement of DNA info due to mutation or a new kind and certainly not compatible with another kind ..

Here is the issue. The concept of Kind is way too vague and "information" doesn't explain anything since it seems to just be a stop gap to explain away inconsistencies.

In the theory of evolution I can use to the Hardy Weinberg Equation to see the changes in allele frequencies in a population of organisms and test each generation that is observed to track what genes are being expressed. I can get genetic samples of members of separate populations and compare and tack their lineages to see what genes and alleles are arising and what genes are being weeded out. That is evolution. I know Inteligent design makes an arbitrary distinction between macro and micro and uses kinds Baraminology instead of taxonomy and phylogeny. My issue is that when checking genetics, taxonomy, and homology the findings are consistent and lead to the tree that Darwin pointed out that showed relations between all organisms. With the current models paleontologists have used the information to find and predict what we should find in the fossil record and where we should find them. Nothing has ever been found with intelligent design, its mostly just commentary on what we do find, and also all the misrepresenting people with little to no scientific accreditation as Doctors or masters is also very troubling.

I have been accused of being dogmatic and religious with accepting the current theories of Common Decent and Evolution and also dogmatic for accepting the fields of Taxonomy and genetics, yet the reasons I support these is not because I unquestionable follow them, but because they work. I have yet to see intelligent design make any prediction or hypothesis that helped expand human knowledge, only attempts to tear down what others have found.

That is why I don't accept Intelligent design. I'm open to the idea of a god existing and possibly creating the universe and everything in it, but I have yet to see a theory that actually demonstrates that.