How are we disconnected here? I agreed with you on universal common descent.
Forget evolutionists and creationists and look at the genetic evidence. Here is an example of genetic evidence
I would propose the the different gene patterns between these birds are evidence for separate Kinds.
Birds and cats are both tetrapods. That is the prime reason cats could not grow wings, because the wings use up two of the available limbs.
To put it in terms I hope you can fathom, tetrapod kind babies are always tetrapod kinds.
Again, I offer my apologies because the way this site is set up and the way it sends, responses, and since I am not familiar with those who frequent it, I’m not sure what anyone knows or believes.
rtmcdge@gmail.com
Those sizes are not the same as would be necessary for dinosaurs to become birds. (along with all the other changes necessary).
Two of the limbs? Such illogic is devastating. Why not just have them sprout along with the same number of limbs.
Remember you are talking about something not intelligent, (it doesn’t even have anything to use an intelligence with)
And you should know that just because humans have once again shown how much the love to form statistics, this does not mean that it all occurred due to universal common descent.
That’s the first time I’ve seen anyone demand evidence from himself. It’s definitely the first time I’ve seen some-one tell himself he didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s also the most insightful comment @rtmcdge has made.
My hope was in vain. You could not fathom it.
Then you must have the ability to reason that there was a mistake somewhere along the way.
Why would you be so ugly with your posts as to try and humiliate someone who does not agree with what you believe?
You are procrastinating.
The different kinds of lifeforms are clearly designating in real life.
And it is also clear the term SPECIES, should be delegated to those species that make up the different kinds of lifeforms.
You are producing meaningless word salad. If kinds have any significance, you should be able to provide an empirical definition with concrete, objective examples of them.
You won’t.
What I have done, is provide clear empirical evidence that supports what I have said.
I’ve said there are different kinds of lifeforms. You’d be wrong, to deny this.
I have said that all of these different kinds of lifeforms have always been observed to reproduce those that have always been found to be of the same kind classification.
Again, You’d be wrong to deny this.
Since you seem to have some reservations, simply produce the evidence there are no different kinds of lifeforms, and that they have not always been observed to reproduce others of their own kind.
It’s quite that simple.
And while you are at it, please provide the empirical evidence there has not always been different kinds of lifeforms.
You have, over and over. But you won’t identify the kinds. Please provide examples of kinds, the more the better. We all need something to work with.
Not only that, species have always been observed to reproduce those of the same species. So if that’s your definition of “kind”, then kinds are equivalent to species. If that’s not your definition of “kind”, it’s useless. Perhaps you could define the term before proceeding.
The evidence that there are no kinds is the same as the evidence that various species are related by common descent. Whatever you say are two different kinds, I can show evidence that they aren’t. But so far you won’t say.
Again, it would be necessary to know what you think the kinds are in order to know what evidence to provide. Do you think that crocodiles and alligators belong to different kinds? How about ostriches and emus? Pigeons and sparrows? Asking for a friend.
You have provided zero empirical evidence. You don’t even know what “empirical” means.
Which are accounted for by the empirical evidence for evolution, which you claim doesn’t exist without ever looking for/at any.
And I’ve pointed out that your tedious repetition of that shows that you don’t understand that evolution does not happen to individual organisms.
I don’t. I do, however, deny that evolution happens to individuals. Since you’ve studied evolution for years, can you state the most simple, all-encompassing of evolution in population biology terms?
I don’t need the evidence that someone who doesn’t understand evolution at the high-school level demands. It’s irrelevant.
Are there or aren’t there different kinds of lifeforms? It’s a simple question. Yes or no?
And do they not all reproduce those of their own kind? Again, this is another yes or no question.
Kinds are obvious. That they reproduce those of their own kind, is again, obvious.
Is this the pattern that has been observed over and over again, without fail?
All of these questions satisfy the scientific method.
And since you can not produce any empirical evidence this pattern was not what had been occurring from the beginning, there is no reason to accept that universal common descent is in anyway scientifically sound.
Until anyone can consistently articulate what a “kind” is, the answer is no. You might as well be asking if lifeforms do or do not come in “schmabuffilings” and call that a simple yes-or-no question.
If they are, then it should be trivial to articulate what a kind is, or to name examples in a way as to clarify. Yet, somehow, the only thing thinkers who insist on that term manage to do is carry on insisting that it is obvious, all whilst refusing to ever actually express what it is they mean, let alone do so in an internally consistent fashion.
What does that even mean? In what way do questions “satisfy the scientific method”? Alternatively, by contrast, what does it look like when a question does not “satisfy the scientific method”?
No.
That’s a yes/no question that presumes the answer to the previous question is “yes”, so it doesn’t apply.
You have no idea what the scientific method is, I’m afraid.
I answered your questions. Why won’t you ever answer mine?
How can you make this claim given that coding DNA is a sequence? How will a sequence not break down over time when randomly changed?
Selection will at best slow down the process.
Please show your reasoning for that. If you have any.
What is your evidential basis for this assertion?
What do you mean by “break down”?
