An important aspect of science is being open to and even seeking out that which might disprove your theory.

@BibleData

[quote]Not really, though. It's not unique to science.[/quote]

lol yes, really. Even if it's not unique to science it is the foundation of scientific advancement.
My subject post is nothing more than an exercise in keeping honest the tool of science.

[quote]Until you transcend the evidence into the realm of fantasy[/quote]

Well we haven't yet done that when it comes to evolution. The synthesis of data from various fields of science all converge on common ancestry and descent with modification.

[quote] So, we see an apple tree makes apples. Grass seed makes grass[/quote]

And apes make apes and dinosaurs make dinosaurs.
But the evidence is that we share ancestry with apes and that birds are anatomically dinosaurs with a few extra derived traits.
The argument that life can change but not into something else is self defeating because once you acknowledge that a population can change over time you have to have a mechanism which somehow halts that compound change at a certain point.
Such a mechanism has yet to be identified.

@Pikachu Like I said, we observe apple trees making apples. That is the evidence. You have to define ape. If you classify man as ape then you have to observe an ape making a man. There isn't any evidence for that. None.

@BibleData

[quote] Like I said, we observe apple trees making apples. That is the evidence[/quote]

Incorrect. That is one[i] part[/i] of the evidence.
What would you consider to be the justification for excluding the other lines of evidence? Fossil, genetic, ontogenetic, geologic? Can you account for what those lines of evidence show or can you only reject them?

[quote] There isn't any evidence for that. None.[/quote]

But of course there is. Humans are apes in the same way that we're mammals and vertebrates. The evidence that shows we're related to other apes is the same evidence that shows you're related to you father.
Genetics show us degrees relatedness between individuals and populations. That's how you know you're 1/8th Irish or that your ancestors came from japan. It's all the same test.

So that brings us back to the self defeating aspect of your contention: We know that life changes over time...so what mechanism do you identify that should stop change at a certain threshold?
What mechanism do you identify which causes genetics to show relatedness between human ancestries but not between non-human animals?

@Pikachu [quote]Incorrect. That is one part of the evidence.
What would you consider to be the justification for excluding the other lines of evidence? Fossil, genetic, ontogenetic, geologic? Can you account for what those lines of evidence show or can you only reject them?[/quote]

If the evidence is that apple trees make apples then where is the evidence that apple trees change into cherry trees or anything else? Any line of evidence you need will do.

[quote]Humans are apes in the same way that we're mammals and vertebrates.[/quote]

Right. Classification. How do you classify an ape? It isn't that a man can be produced from a gorilla or a gorilla from a man. So the question becomes where does evolutionary theory differ from the Biblical kind, i.e., apple trees making apples?

[quote]The evidence that shows we're related to other apes is the same evidence that shows you're related to you father.[/quote]

That very well may be but I promise you that, contrary to appearance and mannerisms, my father wasn't an gorilla. To say we're related doesn't mean anything until an actual gorilla shows up at the reunion.

A rose by any other name.

[quote]Genetics show us degrees relatedness between individuals and populations. That's how you know you're 1/8th Irish or that your ancestors came from japan. It's all the same test.[/quote]

It doesn't matter. You might as well say an ape is classified as anything with 2 eyes and a nose. That doesn't mean a gorilla can produce a man.

[quote]So that brings us back to the self defeating aspect of your contention: We know that life changes over time...so what mechanism do you identify that should stop change at a certain threshold?
What mechanism do you identify which causes genetics to show relatedness between human ancestries but not between non-human animals?[/quote]

Doesn't matter. All you have to do is show me an apple tree producing some other fruit than an apple the seed of which will produce an apple tree. Or a gorilla giving birth to a man.

@BibleData

[quote] It isn't that a man can be produced from a gorilla or a gorilla from a man[/quote]

You keep repeating this in different iterations so i want to ask you...do you think that evolution predicts that a gorilla should be able to give birth to a human or that an apple tree will produce a cherry?

[quote][quote]It doesn't matter.[/quote][/quote]

How does it not matter? The same uncontentious use of evidence that tells you that you share ancestry with people from Austria also tells you that you share ancestry with non-human apes.
Logically speaking, how do you justify accepting the former conclusion but rejecting the latter?

And same again with the acknowledged and observable fact that life changes over time.
I've presented you with a crippling challenge to the denial of common ancestry. You must explain it, not simply reject it by claiming it doesn't matter unless you see a gorilla give birth to man.
I want you to try and apply the same intellectual rigour to this question that you do with your scriptural arguments.

So once again, what mechanism can you identify that allows life to change over successive generations but to stop at [i]x[/i] amount of change?

@Pikachu [quote]You keep repeating this in different iterations so i want to ask you...do you think that evolution predicts that a gorilla should be able to give birth to a human or that an apple tree will produce a cherry?[/quote]

No idea. Do you think that at some time in the distant past a gorilla eventually became a man, or that at some time in the distant future a man will become a robot or anything other than a man?

[quote]How does it not matter? The same uncontentious use of evidence that tells you that you share ancestry with people from Austria also tells you that you share ancestry with non-human apes.
Logically speaking, how do you justify accepting the former conclusion but rejecting the latter?[/quote]

You're just using jargon that doesn't mean anything in the real world. If I say a recession is this and then change the definition to that then that's fine, but the this is still this and the that is still that. You've only changed the definition or classification. Does that make sense?

The fact that we think we share ancestry with non-human apes doesn't mean anything until you can show evidence of a human producing a non-human ape. It doesn't matter if they're from Austria or someplace else. So, before I even begin to contemplate what ancestry means or how it is defined, classified, determined, I have to see evidence of a non-human ape producing a human. And no one ever has. Ever.

You're playing word games.

[quote]And same again with the acknowledged and observable fact that life changes over time.[/quote]

You're equating life changing over time with the theory of evolution? What does that even mean?

[quote]I've presented you with a crippling challenge to the denial of common ancestry. You must explain it, not simply reject it by claiming it doesn't matter unless you see a gorilla give birth to man.[/quote]

No, you haven't even defined ancestry let alone shown any evidence that it contradicts what we observe in the real world. The Biblical kinds.

[quote]I want you to try and apply the same intellectual rigour to this question that you do with your scriptural arguments.[/quote]

I am. Exactly the same.

[quote]So once again, what mechanism can you identify that allows life to change over successive generations but to stop at x amount of change?[/quote]

Can a apple tree produce something else? That probably seems obtuse to you, but these discussions always put the apple before the cart.

Have you seen my discussion with @newjaninev2 ?

The evolution vs creation debate is illogical because;

a) Science investigates the natural, theology investigates the supernatural. Science is primarily observation, theology is primarily analysis.
b) The debate is always biased, ideological and emotional.
c) Biological and theological terms aren't typically defined.
d) Amateurs on either side (who are the ones engaging in the debate) are ignorant of the fundamental principles of the other.
e) Faith and evidence are the same. Faith being defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and evidence being defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. You have to have evidence for the faith and faith in the evidence.

@BibleData

[quote]No idea[/quote]

That is...troubling. You're making a case against evolution when you have "no idea" what evolution theory actually says?
That's bad skepticism, m y dude.

[quote]You're just using jargon that doesn't mean anything in the real world. [/quote]

Are you sure that the problem is not rather that you just don't have a very good grasp on the definitions involved here?
You're accusing me of playing word games but i think i've been speaking pretty plainly. Perhaps you could be more specific about the terms you don't understand.

[quote]I am. Exactly the same.[/quote]

Really? What religious argument would you vehemently protest while admitting that you don't have any idea what the argument actually is?
Think on that.

[quote]So, before I even begin to contemplate what ancestry means or how it is defined, classified, determined, I have to see evidence of a non-human ape producing a human[/quote]

And what would that evidence look like, do you think?
Would it be something like a chimpanzee giving birth to a homo sapiens?
Would it be a fossil record that shows a sequential progression of basal primate features to more derived homo sapiens features until we reach anatomically modern humans?
Would it come in the form of specific genetic markers that overlap with increasing frequency with more closely related hominids?

Let me help you out: If a non-human ape gave birth to a modern human then evolution would have to be thrown in the trash because that is not how it works lol


[quote]You're equating life changing over time with the theory of evolution? What does that even mean?
[/quote]

Sorry if i wasn't clear.
We agree that populations of organisms adapt to their environment and produce phenotypic and genotypic changes down the line of decedents.
Life changes over time.
That's evolution. That's all it is. Changes compounded over time until the daughter population is so distinct from the parent population that they are no longer considered the same sort of animal.
Since you accept that this is successive alteration over generations is a fact of nature, you must identify the mechanism by which this compound alteration is halted at a certain point.
If you cannot then you recognize the flaw in your objection.

[quote]No, you haven't even defined ancestry let alone shown any evidence that it contradicts what we observe in the real world. The Biblical kinds.[/quote]

Ancestry means exactly what you think it does: The line of descent. In the case the line of descent connecting all life.
You keep saying "the real world"...what do you think fossils are? What do you think genetics are? These are parts of the real world also, yes?

@Pikachu [quote]That is...troubling. You're making a case against evolution when you have "no idea" what evolution theory actually says?
That's bad skepticism, m y dude.[/quote]

More like I'm saying evolution theory doesn't really say anything. I'm not making a case against it, I'm saying I don't see any reason to entertain the idea. Probably the same with most skeptics and the Bible.

[quote]Are you sure that the problem is not rather that you just don't have a very good grasp on the definitions involved here?[/quote]

I've already affirmed that. The same as you with Biblical terms.

[quote]You're accusing me of playing word games but i think i've been speaking pretty plainly.[/quote]

It isn't your speaking, it's the terminology. The terms mean something to you. Not to me and not in the real world. That is, outside the theory of evolution. Therein lies your first obstacle. I see - I observe - the Biblical kinds. Creation. The simple apple tree. I don't see mechanisms and ancestry.

[quote]Perhaps you could be more specific about the terms you don't understand.[/quote]

Your application of ancestry. In my world an ancestor is a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended, but you're saying its an early type of animal or plant from which others have evolved. If I accept the possibility of a distant ancestor I haven't seen, but it's plausible because men produce men. In that context it makes sense. If you give ancestor more in the context of an early version of a machine, system, etc. that isn't an observable context outside of my reference because I've never seen that. I have to take your word for it? Why should I? Because everyone else does? Not good enough. The same as it wasn't good enough for me as a Bible skeptic before I became a believer.

[quote]Really? What religious argument would you vehemently protest while admitting that you don't have any idea what the argument actually is?
Think on that.[/quote]

I know what the argument is. By the way, you may have heard me say that the average atheist is most likely far more knowledgeable than I am on religious doctrine and dogma. Terminology. It isn't necessary in either case because first it has to fit, then I learn the terminology, if it isn't just jargon. If I can't explain it then that is a problem.

[quote]And what would that evidence look like, do you think?[/quote]

What we observe. Not something that supposedly just happened millions of years ago. Not just jargon. An example. If you hear from a believer that God has performed some miracle healing you as a skeptic don't believe it and you happen to be right for the wrong reason. I don't believe it for the right reason. Healing was just a sign and temporary. It only took place briefly.

Now, if you tell me I can't observe evolution because changes occur over great periods of time that is acceptable to me. It fits. But when you say the pepper moth evolved in a short period of time that creates a problem.

[quote]Would it be something like a chimpanzee giving birth to a homo sapiens?[/quote]

It would look like it fits.

[quote]Would it be a fossil record that shows a sequential progression of basal primate features to more derived homo sapiens features until we reach anatomically modern humans?[/quote]

That isn't what it shows. It shows non-human and humans. It doesn't show a mix. You have to interpret it that way.

[quote]Would it come in the form of specific genetic markers that overlap with increasing frequency with more closely related hominids?[/quote]

It would look much simpler. It would look like you showing me evidence that says the Bible kinds isn't true, something else is.

[quote]Let me help you out: If a non-human ape gave birth to a modern human then evolution would have to be thrown in the trash because that is not how it works lol[/quote]

What specifically was our common ancestor?

[quote]Sorry if i wasn't clear.
We agree that populations of organisms adapt to their environment and produce phenotypic and genotypic changes down the line of decedents.[/quote]

You think that was clarification or jargon? Guess which one I see it as.

@BibleData

[quote]You think that was clarification or jargon? Guess which one I see it as.
[/quote]

lol my dude. I'm just trying to use precise language. If there's something you don't understand then ask me about it, don't label it jargon and use it as an excuse to dismiss what i'm trying to explain to you.

[quote]I'm saying I don't see any reason to entertain the idea[/quote]

Being honest with me and yourself, how familiar are you with the body of evidence for evolution or what the theory predicts about how life will diversify?

[quote]In my world an ancestor is a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended ... I've never seen that. I have to take your word for it? Why should I?[/quote]

That's the same meaning i am using for ancestry and the ancestry is being determined in the same way. It's basically an amped up paternity test.
I understand that you haven't seen it with your own eyes...but that's where we start pursuing various lines of evidence. The same thing a crime scene investigator would do in order to understand what happened at a crime scene even if they didn't see it happen. They won't expect a judge to accept their version of events on their say-so. They will apply reliable techniques that lead to one conclusion over others.
That's what's happening with the evidence for evolution.
And this connects to your other issue about evolution taking place over a long period of time but things like peppered moths appearing rapidly.
Speciation events wherein a daughter population becomes either reproductively or behaviorally separated from the parent population can happen very quickly and has been observed in the wild and in the lab. This is what you might call change within a "kind". We can see this within our own lifetimes. But largescale evolution does indeed take a time span not available to any one person and it is for these examples that we turn to our crime scene investigation techniques. We look to the fossil record and genomes and even ontogeny and these lines of evidence converge on the same answer: descent with modification and common ancestry.

[quote]That isn't what it shows. It shows non-human and humans. It doesn't show a mix. You have to interpret it that way.
[/quote]

And this is an area where i think your unfamiliarity with the subject matter does you a disservice.
That's exactly what the hominid fossil record shows: Basal (ancestral) traits mixed with more and more derived (descendant) traits. And not only within a skeleton but within even a single skull.
Understand, in the same way you appeal to understanding ancient languages or social contexts in order to properly interpret the bible, you must familiarize yourself with how scientists are analyzing and assessing the anatomical features of these fossil hominids to draw the conclusions that they do.
If you just eyeball them and don't understand what you're seeing and use that as sufficient reason to reject that posited evolutionary relationship then you haven't applied proper skepticism any more than someone rejecting a theological position by just saying "Nah, it's fake, innit? "

I like to throw this out to people. Look at this series of hominid skulls and point out to me the last skull which is non-human ape and the first skull which is human.


[quote]r. It would look like you showing me evidence that says the Bible kinds isn't true[/quote]

What would that look like? Just hypothetically, what would be an example of a piece of evidence that would show biblical kinds aren't true?
Additionally, please define the Biblical "Kind" because that has problems of it's own.

@Pikachu [quote]lol my dude. I'm just trying to use precise language. If there's something you don't understand then ask me about it, don't label it jargon and use it as an excuse to dismiss what i'm trying to explain to you.[/quote]

You recall that I compared my jargon with your jargon? It's just speaking another language, as they say. The language is specific to each of the subjects we present, but not really useful to the one we are addressing. This is an exercise of competing ideologues.

[quote]Being honest with me and yourself, how familiar are you with the body of evidence for evolution or what the theory predicts about how life will diversify?[/quote]

Almost non-existent, comparable to your knowledge of substitutional atonement.

[quote]That's the same meaning i am using for ancestry and the ancestry is being determined in the same way. It's basically an amped up paternity test.[/quote]

It's not the same. One didn't give birth to their alleged predecessors. It seems they are only reading markers and placing unnatural significance to them based upon similarities. Eukaryotes have the nucleus in common.

So tell me why you think they are the same. How do I tell an ancestor of the familial with an ancestor of the evolutionary. How do each of them work and how are they then similar? To me it's like some hippy saying we are all God and God is a part of us because we are one with the universe. It's meaningless. We came from dirt. Water. Energy. We have a lot in common. That doesn't constitute ancestry in my opinion.

[quote]I understand that you haven't seen it with your own eyes...but that's where we start pursuing various lines of evidence. [/quote]

I didn't see Jesus heal the blind, I didn't see Jehovah create the heavens and earth.

[quote]And this connects to your other issue about evolution taking place over a long period of time but things like peppered moths appearing rapidly.
Speciation events wherein a daughter population becomes either reproductively or behaviorally separated from the parent population can happen very quickly and has been observed in the wild and in the lab. [/quote]

Why couldn't you just say both moths existed prior to the discoloration of the trees due to pollution making the lighter moths more visible to the birds eating them? Prior to that the color of the trees were light giving the dark moths the disadvantage.

[quote]I like to throw this out to people. Look at this series of hominid skulls and point out to me the last skull which is non-human ape and the first skull which is human.[/quote]

I have no idea and it doesn't matter because they are either non-human or human. Nothing in between.

[quote]What would that look like? Just hypothetically, what would be an example of a piece of evidence that would show biblical kinds aren't true?[/quote]

It would look like skulls that were in between. Not one or the other. And not just similar.

[quote]Additionally, please define the Biblical "Kind" because that has problems of it's own.[/quote]

We've been there. It isn't complicated. Plant grass seed you get grass.

@BibleData

[quote]It's just speaking another language,[/quote]

Sure. But if you want to understand then you need to ask for clarification, not dismiss it as jargon.

[quote]Almost non-existent[/quote]

If i'm being honest, that was my impression. And that's why you ask things like could, under evolution, a gorilla give birth to a man. It's why you claim there is no evidence for the things i am giving you evidence for.
That's what i'm trying to help you with here. I'm trying to expose you to the evidence so that you can apply proper skepticism and not ideologically motivated cynicism.

[quote] One didn't give birth to their alleged predecessors. It seems they are only reading markers and placing unnatural significance to them based upon similarities[/quote]

lol well i'm not sure how under any system one could give birth to their predecessors.
But i think here we're getting down to an important gap in your knowledge. You don't understand the reasons that scientists are making the conclusions they are and so you characterize it as "unnatural significance".
Let's drill down to an answer for a question i've been asking you for a while.
You accept that by examining DNA, scientists can tell who your father is and who his father is and where their ancestors came from, yes? DNA shows relatedness. This is uncontentious.
So why when that same uncontentious method shows relatedness between humans and non-human apes do you suddenly consider scientists placing unnatural significance on the markers denoting said relatedness?

[quote]So tell me why you think they are the same.[/quote]

Because ancestry just means where you came from. Parents, grandparents and webbing out into a population. Your ancestors came from Asia, your ancestors were non-human apes. It's the same thing and we arrive at both using the same tools. What justification do you have for accepting those tools as reliable in the former case but rejecting them in the latter?

[quote] they are either non-human or human. Nothing in between.[/quote]

Well yes and no.
They are indeed either human or non human because we recognize certain specific traits that make a species distinct from other species. But the "nothing in between" characterization fails to take into account the traits that make up the specific distinction. There are ancient apes that begin more and more to show the traits associated with anatomically modern humans right up until we hit that threshold of anatomically modern human.
The fact that you can't look at those skulls and tell where ape stops and human starts is a result of that progression. Descent with modification. Minor changes compounding over time until the daughter species is distinct from the parent species. Each generational change being ever so minor.

[quote]It would look like skulls that were in between[/quote]

Yes! And even though you don't have the education to know it, that is exactly what you're looking at there.
Skulls with a mosaic of features that are a mix between basal hominids and derived humans.

[quote]We've been there. It isn't complicated. Plant grass seed you get grass.
[/quote]

No, that's what you think a kind does. I'm asking you to define "kind" in a taxonomic context.
Example: there is no bird "kind" even in the bible. There are a number of bird "kinds".

@Pikachu [quote]And that's why you ask things like could, under evolution, a gorilla give birth to a man.[/quote]

Below is an image like I was presented with in school. How do you suppose there isn't a point in time where there is a non-human that at some time doesn't give birth to a human? At one point there is a non-human and another there is a human.


[quote]That's what i'm trying to help you with here. I'm trying to expose you to the evidence so that you can apply proper skepticism and not ideologically motivated cynicism.[/quote]

It seems to me like you are telling me what allegedly happened using jargon and expecting me to accept it. It's like giving a word as a definition of a word. Happy means happy.

[quote]You accept that by examining DNA, scientists can tell who your father is and who his father is and where their ancestors came from, yes? DNA shows relatedness. This is uncontentious.[/quote]

Is it? Do you realize that at one time it was thought that no two fingerprints were the same and you could read them accurately? People were thrown in prison and executed on that premise. Lie detector tests, fire patterns. And those are only the recent ones. Most people still believe lie detector tests are accurate. Uncontentious.

So. Show me how you can tell who your father is by examining DNA.

[quote]So why when that same uncontentious method shows relatedness between humans and non-human apes do you suddenly consider scientists placing unnatural significance on the markers denoting said relatedness?[/quote]

Because it doesn't show the same thing. So what does it show. What, for example, does it show regarding human relationship to, let's say, an eggplant?

[quote]They are indeed either human or non human because we recognize certain specific traits that make a species distinct from other species. [/quote]

Exactly. Human and non-human apes. Mammals. Creatures. How you categorize them. Related. Family. Daughter. Ancestor. You haven't established that you've only marked similarities and categorized accordingly. Those words you use to deceive. You don't mean daughter, family, ancestor. It's doublespeak. Categorization according to similarities I have no problem with - you recall my example of isolation in molecular biology? I think it was in this thread. That isn't a problem so long as the distinction is made, so define your use of those terms. Because, they may not necessarily be commensurate with the common use.

[quote]But the "nothing in between" characterization fails to take into account the traits that make up the specific distinction. There are ancient apes that begin more and more to show the traits associated with anatomically modern humans right up until we hit that threshold of anatomically modern human.[/quote]

That don't necessarily mean they are the same. Humans are non-humans. Define ape. What creatures have eyes and what does that mean? Again. Define trait. What traits do humans share with non-apes? Wouldn't everything be related? Is there a common ancestor to everything? And if we have a common ancestor what exactly is it? Do you even know? Does anyone?

[quote]The fact that you can't look at those skulls and tell where ape stops and human starts is a result of that progression.[/quote]

Or that they just look similar.

[quote]Yes! And even though you don't have the education to know it, that is exactly what you're looking at there.
Skulls with a mosaic of features that are a mix between basal hominids and derived humans.[/quote]

That doesn't mean anything to me with all of the jargon and doublespeak I have to employ to reach that conclusion. According to you there are humans and non-humans, humans are apes, humans are animals.

[quote]No, that's what you think a kind does. I'm asking you to define "kind" in a taxonomic context.[/quote]

I know nothing about taxonomy, that's your bag.

What I know about the Biblical kinds is that they appear to constitute divisions of life forms in which each allows for cross fertility . The boundary between is drawn where fertilization ceases to occur. A species is "a sort; a kind; variety" any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. There could be many species within a single division of a Biblical kind. There is no evidence for any new "kinds" ever having been formed since creation.

"The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” - (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)

[quote]Example: there is no bird "kind" even in the bible. There are a number of bird "kinds".[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean there. In the Bible there are about 300 references to birds, about 30 of which different varieties are specifically named. They were some of the earliest souls created, along with marine creatures, on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-23; 7:14)

@BibleData

[quote]At one point there is a non-human and another there is a human.[/quote]

[i]Sort[/i] of.
Let's begin by understanding that the "March of Progress" graphic is representative of an idea, not the hard science.
There would indeed begin to be hominids that were a population of individuals would be exhibiting traits that were significantly different from an earlier population. But it would never, [i]never[/i] be so dramatic as something like a gorilla giving birth to a human. Minute degrees of change. That's the important thing to understand. You already accept that successive generations can, by degrees differentiate themselves from earlier generations...so ask yourself how and where does that natural process stop?

[quote]It seems to me like you are telling me what allegedly happened using jargon and expecting me to accept it.[/quote]

I can't do any more for you than i have. I'm not trying to dazzle you with scary words. I am using the language of the field. I understand that you are not well educated in that area but you just have to ask and i will explain as well as i can.
Ignorance is where we all begin. Don't use that as an excuse.

[quote]Show me how you can tell who your father is by examining DNA.[/quote]

Do you genuinely consider DNA tests to be unreliable or reliable?

[quote]Because it doesn't show the same thing. [/quote]

Why do you say that? What's the difference?
Our relationship with eggplants? We're eukaryotes. We share a lot of DNA but rather little of functionally expressed proteins.

[quote]Exactly. Human and non-human apes. Mammals.[/quote]

...well sure. But there are also tiger felines and non-tiger felines. Are as passionate about insisting that tigers are not related to lynxes?

[quote]Wouldn't everything be related? Is there a common ancestor to everything? And if we have a common ancestor what exactly is it? Do you even know? Does anyone?[/quote]

lol yes! everything is related to greater and lesser degrees. What exactly is that common ancestor? No on knows. It's lost to time.
But that doesn't mean you can ignore the evidence.
If we don't know how matter began to exist does that mean we can't study and predict its interactions, gravity? strong and weak nuclear forces?
We needn't know the origin to observe the phenomenon.

[quote]That doesn't mean anything to me with all of the jargon and doublespeak ... I know nothing about taxonomy, that's your bag.
[/quote]

Dude, you're killing me. Why are you continuing to hold your lack of familiarity with the subject matter as a defense against my arguments?

[quote]It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural History.[/quote]
Linnaeus. Father of taxonomy. Christian.

[quote]They were some of the earliest souls created, along with marine creatures, on the fifth day[/quote]

Why then do they appear in the fossil record AFTER dinosaurs which as land-going animals were created on the 5th day?

@BibleData

I don't want to delete my previous response because i don't want to appear dishonest.
But we're getting too much into the weeds and i'd rather you respond to this post than continue the ever lengthening chain which will result from the previous one lol

This is getting too cumbersome. I understand that a large part of your resistance is due to your unfamiliarity with the terminology and what the theory of evolution actually is so just want to drill down on a couple key questions that don't rely on you understanding the body of evidence:

1) Since you accept that life can diversify over successive generations, what justification do you make for the idea that life [i]stops[/i] changing at a certain point?
If diversifying populations are separated, what prevents them from changing so dramatically over time that they are as dissimilar as dogs and cats?

2) If you reject the fossil record as evidence of evolution, how do you account for it under the idea of created "kinds"?
Example: Why do certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds (fused synsacrum, perforated acetabulum, semi-lunate carpel etc) when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?
Is that better explained by common ancestry or created kinds?

3) Do you accept genetic comparison of the sort we use to determine paternity to have a high confidence of reliability or do you consider it to be mostly unreliable?

Here's the thing, my dude. There are a number of specific arguments that preclude created kinds and favour evolution which i have not bothered to articulate for fear of your hatred of "jargon".
But if you have the interest and the honesty to expose yourself to them, i think you'll find it very challenging to propose an explanation from creation that is superior to the one given by descent with modification.

Just say the word and we can get into actual examples. Are you brave enough to test your worldview?

@Pikachu I don't think deleting your post would be dishonest, it would just mean you changed your mind or didn't like the post for some reason.

I don't think I have resistance to evolution. Let me explain. When I'm discussing or debating the Bible my objective is never to get the person to accept the Bible, it's to inform them so they comprehend and can think for themselves. So I never answer by quoting scripture as if by rote or using words that are specific to religion. In fact just seeing someone doing that puts me off. The reason is it requires memorization rather than thought. I never intentionally memorize scripture. Most people want more than anything to fit into a group. When you know specific terminology it may be that you are familiar with the subject as a part of a group but not necessarily the meaning. So, often I try to get evolutionists to teach me evolution and they become impatient when I don't accept the terminology without question. They don't even explain terms. Either because they don't understand them themselves or because they don't want you to be informed they just want you to accept evolution.

I want you to inform me about evolution. Don't worry about whether or not I accept it. I want to know the evidence as you do. Familiarity with the terminology will follow. I'm willing to do that to get to know viewpoints and beliefs different than my own. I'm not interested in doing it on my own because I have very little interest in the subject other than exploring different beliefs. If they want me to just be a part of a group without thinking chances are the religion - in this case evolution - is just and ideology. A worldview. To me it means they just want me to join their group so they can control the world they live in. Step in line, don't ask questions, think like us (not at all). This is most common with religious or educated people. It becomes the most important part of the process.

[quote]1) Since you accept that life can diversify over successive generations, what justification do you make for the idea that life stops changing at a certain point?[/quote]

If by "diversify over successive generations" you mean to change, then my justification is that they wouldn't need to be labeled as something other than what they started out as if it were not for the labeling or categorization itself. In nature, which science is supposed to observe, we don't see that. Whenever anyone has ever told me "look! it's happening right here!" like with germs or the pepper moth or skulls or behavior patterns or similarities in creation etc. it never is something becoming something else outside of it's nature (caterpillar/butterfly), or it is a mutant that doesn't proliferate (fruit fly).

Let's say a human is born without arms or with a 13 inch long tail. Are they still human and at what point would they no longer be human? Even if they were, for whatever reason, more adapted to their environment over time they would still be human. They may be called something else or classified, categorized or labeled something else but they wouldn't be. If their arms were no longer necessary in a specific environment and millions of years from now they find the useless skeletal remnants they are still human. When would they give birth to a human without arms? When they mated with another without arms? Why would that insure their offspring not having arms? Interesting questions but irrelevant to their non-human status.

When someone tells me that evolution trumps the Bible my first inclination is to ask why?

[quote]If diversifying populations are separated, what prevents them from changing so dramatically over time that they are as dissimilar as dogs and cats?[/quote]

You can't fairly ask me that question because it isn't within the realm of my study. It would be like me asking you "If all angels aren't the same then what is the difference between cherubs, seraphs and angels?" You don't care, right? You don't know, right? That doesn't make my Bible beliefs right. You could google it and get all sorts of scholarly answers which are based upon tradition and not scripturally supported and that isn't going to help you. I could tear that to pieces blindfolded.

Well, I should be able to explain why science sees it the way they do? No. I don't have to explain your science to you any more than you have to explain my spirituality to me. Now, in debate that would differ to some extent. I trust you don't think this a debate. I don't know evolution enough to debate it. I also don't know Buddhism, Hinduism or even the apostate Christian trinity enough to debate them well. We don't have to justify that. To explain it I would say those things are too complicated to engage in such vulgar displays (debate) and it isn't necessary when the reasoning for not accepting them is probably very simple.

However, just because I don't accept something, like Buddhism, the Trinity or Evolution, doesn't mean I perceive it as competition, a threat, something to be dismissed or done away with. I don't think prayer or creationism should be in public schools. I don't care that evolution is taught there. If it is desired to do away with religion by means of education in science I would say that is exactly what God has purposed and there's nothing I would do to stand in the way.

To speculatively answer your question from my own anecdotal perspective I would ask if it mutates is it something other than what it started out as and can it proliferate? What would it proliferate with? It always boils down to is it or is it not something other than what it was? The answer has never been yes. So, what examples could you show me and could you distinguish what it's Biblical kind is? I couldn't. I have no idea.

[quote]2) If you reject the fossil record as evidence of evolution, how do you account for it under the idea of created "kinds"?
Example: Why do certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds (fused synsacrum, perforated acetabulum, semi-lunate carpel etc) when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?
Is that better explained by common ancestry or created kinds?[/quote]

I have no idea. You are asking me to teach you the Bible with science? Because I've never been interested in science. But I would ask you what makes you think just because there are similarities that they are a different kind? What makes you think that your idea of a kind is in line with the Biblical? Just that we see them as such? Because we call them feline and canine? If the Biblical answer is can they produce according to their own kind or can they not then it seems to me that that is the question.

[quote]3) Do you accept genetic comparison of the sort we use to determine paternity to have a high confidence of reliability or do you consider it to be mostly unreliable?[/quote]

Everything I've ever been told, about everything, is pretty much unreliable. That goes for everything I've ever thought or believed as well. Knowledge is an evolutionary process. But when my thinking changes it's still thinking.

[quote]But if you have the interest and the honesty to expose yourself to them, i think you'll find it very challenging to propose an explanation from creation that is superior to the one given by descent with modification.[/quote]

Again, you want me to explain science to you using creationism? That's silly. Can you explain miracles using science?

[quote]Just say the word and we can get into actual examples. Are you brave enough to test your worldview?[/quote]

The question is do you have the patience to educate me on your worldview without thinking you have to destroy mine.

@BibleData

[quote]The question is do you have the patience to educate me on your worldview without thinking you have to destroy mine.[/quote]

Yes. Above all yes.
I'm here to explain my position until you at least understand it whether or not you can mount a good rebuttal or whether or not you come to agree with me.

[quote]or didn't like the post for some reason.[/quote]

lol yes. The reason being we we're straying very far from concrete evidence and into areas that would require you to understand a lot more background information.

[quote]o I never answer by quoting scripture as if by rote or using words that are specific to religion[/quote]

Yeah i appreciate that actually. It's begging the question and it's something the faithful tend to do instinctively without apparent understanding how meaningless it is to those who don't share their faith.

[quote]you want me to explain science to you using creationism?[/quote]

Yes.
If you think creationism accurately represents the world then you should be able to explain observed natural processes using creationism as a foundation. That's not something creation is very useful for which is telling.

[quote]They may be called something else or classified, categorized or labeled something else but they wouldn't be[/quote]

You're actually hitting on an important aspect of phylogeny there. You don't every escape your genetic heritage.
You'll never stop being a eukaryote or a vertebrate or a mammal.
So let me turn that question back on you. If a human has all the characteristics of a mammal, at which point do they stop being a mammal just because they have additional characteristics?
If a human has all the characteristics of an ape, at which point do they stop being an ape just because they have additional characteristics specific to them?
Another example: If birds have all the characteristics of dinosaurs, at which point do they stop being dinosaurs just because they have additional characteristics that are unique to birds?

[quote]When someone tells me that evolution trumps the Bible my first inclination is to ask why?
[/quote]
Because evolution can be used to [i]predict[/i]. Evolution allows us to predict what should exist in the world before we discover that it indeed does.
The Bible has no predictive power.

[quote]You can't fairly ask me that question because it isn't within the realm of my study.[/quote]

I can and should ask you than question and if you can't answer it then you should endeavor to do so.
You keep asking the question and i keep trying to get you to understand that you don't have an answer but you keep backing away and refusing to think about why you don't have an answer. Or so it seems to me.

You've repeatedly dismissed the idea that life can evolve beyond the Biblical "kinds".
Well...why not? What's stopping life from changing indefinitely over successive generations under different selective pressures?

[quote]It would be like me asking you "If all angels aren't the same then what is the difference between cherubs, seraphs and angels?[/quote]

Nope. Because all classes of angles are created and there is no identified and observed mechanism by which they change over time. This cannot be said for nature.

[quote] if it mutates is it something other than what it started out as and can it proliferate? What would it proliferate with[/quote]

This is where you must understand that evolution does not occur on the individual level but at the population level.
The mutated offspring will be almost entirely the same as the parent and as such will be able to breed with the general population. But if the mutation has an adaptive advantage then it will have more reproductive success than its cohort. It will have more children than its competitors and its offspring will be more likely to carry that advantage and therefore more likely to reproduce more often as well. That is how an adaptation becomes fixed in a population.
Now imagine that one population of animals is separated by a flood which sequesters one group on an island.
Both of those populations will continue producing mutated offspring and under the different environmental conditions, different mutations will confer an advantage for different reasons in different ways.
Over time, those divergent trajectories of adaptation will produce differences which becomes more and more fundamental until these two estranged populations can no longer successfully reproduce which each other even if they are re-introduced.
That is a natural progression of the way we observe life in the real world. What reason do you have reject that process and at which point do you reason it would stop?

[quote]I have no idea. You are asking me to teach you the Bible with science? Because I've never been interested in science[/quote]

And isn't that sort of telling? When you're only using the the Bible to understand these natural observations, you're left with "no idea".
But don't just throw your hands up and give up.
Using your knowledge of the Bible, give me your best guess at why certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?

[quote]Everything I've ever been told, about everything, is pretty much unreliable[/quote]

Actually, i'd like to see you answer this question more specifically because we are discussing a specific concept.
I'll make it simple: Do you think paternity tests are generally reliable or generally unreliable?