From land animal to ocean-dweller

[-57]

Below is evidence a fork evolved into a spoon...or was it a spoon evolving into a fork?

 

[pgp_protector]

Below is evidence a fork evolved into a spoon...or was it a spoon evolving into a fork?

View attachment 168560

You do understand what reproduction is right?

 

[-57]

You do understand what reproduction is right?

I was just showing how easy it is to lne up objects...and claim the cause was evolutionism.

 

[pgp_protector]

I was just showing how easy it is to lne up objects...and claim the cause was evolutionism.

So no then, given evolution requires reproduction.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Do you have any speciation where DNA information has been increased via beneficial mutations?

How are you defining 'information'? You're making that word impossibly vague.
But yes. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

 

[-57]

How are you defining 'information'? You're making that word impossibly vague.
But yes. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

OK, so I went to your link...didn't see anything but claims.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

OK, so I went to your link...didn't see anything but claims.

There were references to scientific journals in that link. You clearly didn't read them. How about you do that and then come back here and summarize.

 

[lasthero]

If you want to "debate", I am not the guy

If you don't want to debate, why did you post a topic in the 'formal debate' forum?

 

[Hieronymus]

Speciation has been observed http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

That's not speciation.

You can also look at transitions in the fossil record.

And you wont find it, you will find extinction and stasis.

And the grand slam, home run of evidence is in DNA and genetics, which irrefutably demonstrates common ancestry.

Of course living nature has a common Ancestor (Creator rather).

 

[Hieronymus]

How are you defining 'information'? You're making that word impossibly vague.

No, because we all understand perfectly well what he means.
There is no such thing as junk DNA, it's all information, data.

But yes. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

No.

 

[-57]

There were references to scientific journals in that link. You clearly didn't read them. How about you do that and then come back here and summarize.

So what? A forum isn't about linking me to "Scientific' Journals"...then saying HAH!!! there it is.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's not speciation.And you wont find it, you will find extinction and stasis.

Denying observable evidence won't make it go away.

Of course living nature has a common Ancestor (Creator rather).

Present the evidence for this claim.

 

[Oafman]

Species is a scientific term. 'kind' is not used by any evolutionary biologist, anywhere.

1) So, because an "evolutionary" biologist does not use the term, we are bound to it? Are we not free to think critically according to our model?

The term 'kinds' is completely useless. Determining what 'kind' an animal is seems to be done at a cursory glance. 'That animal looks a bit like that animal, so same kind.' Following such thinking might lead you to put tapirs and pigs in the same 'kind', or whales and dugongs, or salamander and lizards, or dolphins and porpoises. As much as these animals may look similar, in each case they are actually quite different.

Or how about these two animals:

On the left is a grey-faced sengi. On the right is a shrew. 'Same kind' you might think, but actually animals which are quite different to each other, in very many ways, and not closely related.

This is why biologists do not use the term 'kind' and have, over centuries, come up with a detailed and accurate way of categorising animals.

 

[-57]

The term 'kinds' is completely useless. Determining what 'kind' an animal is seems to be done at a cursory glance. 'That animal looks a bit like that animal, so same kind.' Following such thinking might lead you to put tapirs and pigs in the same 'kind', or whales and dugongs, or salamander and lizards, or dolphins and porpoises. As much as these animals may look similar, in each case they are actually quite different.

Or how about these two animals:

On the left is a grey-faced sengi. On the right is a shrew. 'Same kind' you might think, but actually animals which are quite different to each other, in very many ways, and not closely related.

This is why biologists do not use the term 'kind' and have, over centuries, come up with a detailed and accurate way of categorising animals.

Are you saying there is no scientific definition of "kinds"?

Secondly you do know... "kinds" are not based upon looks.

 

[lasthero]

Are you saying there is no scientific definition of "kinds"?

I've never seen a consistent definition of kinds.

Secondly you do know... "kinds" are not based upon looks.

What is based on?

 

[-57]

I've never seen a consistent definition of kinds.


What is based on?

It's based on animals having the ability to reproduce with each other.

Now, if you haven't seen a "consistent definition of kinds"....I would suggest you google a few of the leading YEC web sites.

 

[lasthero]

It's based on animals having the ability to reproduce with each other.

So if two animals can reproduce with each other, they're the same kind?

Now, if you haven't seen a "consistent definition of kinds"....I would suggest you google a few of the leading YEC web sites.

They often have different defitions.

For instance, you just said that kinds are determined by their ability to reproduce. However, Answers in Genesis has this.

This would indicate that all cats are one kind. However, all these animals can't reproduce with each other. It also completely leaves out hyenas and certain other extant and extinct cats.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Now, if you haven't seen a "consistent definition of kinds"....I would suggest you google a few of the leading YEC web sites.

As demonstrated by lasthero, you don't have a consistent definition of 'kinds' This is why REAL scientists don't use that term. You should order yourself a biology textbook. You can find Kenneth Miller's student edition on Amazon.

 

[-57]

So if two animals can reproduce with each other, they're the same kind?



They often have different defitions.

For instance, you just said that kinds are determined by their ability to reproduce. However, Answers in Genesis has this.

This would indicate that all cats are one kind. However, all these animals can't reproduce with each other. It also completely leaves out hyenas and certain other extant and extinct cats.

I fail to see your point...

That definition is a more expanded definition of the simple one liner I gave you.

 

[-57]

As demonstrated by lasthero, you don't have a consistent definition of 'kinds' This is why REAL scientists don't use that term. You should order yourself a biology textbook. You can find Kenneth Miller's student edition on Amazon.

Go to 4 different YEC websites...cut and past the definition....and show me the inconsistency. If you can't then I suggest you retract your post...that is if the moderators don't remove it for slinging ad-homimens