20 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75i know, you would think an atheist that professes evolution would at least know what he was talking about.
Humm, not accrding to these explinations. Check it out...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
http://www.answers.com/topic/species
http://animals.about.com/od/s/g/species.htm
20 Nov 10
1 edit
"'Fish', 'amphibians','reptiles', 'birds', 'mammals' etc are not 'species'"
twhitehead does know what he is talking about.
There are many species of fish.
There are many species of amphibians.
There are many species of reptiles.
There are many species of birds.
There are many species of mammals.
None of these groups fit as species by themselves, because species are subsets of these groups.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by lauseyNo denying that but no species can cross over to another species and reproduce nor do we see any proof at all on this planet that a species is in the middle of some change from one species to another. If evolution were true we should see that all around us. But nada, none, doesn't exist!!!
"'Fish', 'amphibians','reptiles', 'birds', 'mammals' etc are not 'species'"
twhitehead does know what he is talking about.
There are many species of fish.
There are many species of amphibians.
There are many species of reptiles.
There are many species of birds.
There are many species of mammals.
None of these groups fit as species by themselves, because species are subsets of these groups.
21 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by lauseydid you look at any of the definitions Galvo posted, obviously not, please tell what it is about this definition that yet evades you,
"'Fish', 'amphibians','reptiles', 'birds', 'mammals' etc are not 'species'"
twhitehead does know what he is talking about.
There are many species of fish.
There are many species of amphibians.
There are many species of reptiles.
There are many species of birds.
There are many species of mammals.
None of these groups fit as species by themselves, because species are subsets of these groups.
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
this is entirely typical of twithead, instead of actually trying to understand and address the statement (humans are not evolving because there is simply evidence of variation within the species not a transmutation to another species, genus, whatever you want to call it), he goes off on some completely irrelevant semantic argument about the definition of the term as if it somehow negates the argument being made, its nothing more than a piece on nonsense, i am sorry, but that's what it amounts to. If you are unhappy with the term species what would you like these major divisions referred to as?
21 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHumans cannot breed with dolphins. They are different species but both are mammals.
did you look at any of the definitions Galvo posted, obviously not, please tell what it is about this definition that yet evades you,
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, [b you are unhappy with the term species what would you like these major divisions referred to as?
The definition of a mammal is not the same as a definition of a species.
EDIT: You do have a point though. I haven't really been following the thread, just picked up on this particular argument of semantics. 🙂
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75evolution takes place over thousands of years. you consider the ultimate proof that evolution isn't real the fact that you can't see it. by this reasoning, you should have trouble understanding how a tree came to be 100 m tall, or how coal or oil occur
No denying that but no species can cross over to another species and reproduce nor do we see any proof at all on this planet that a species is in the middle of some change from one species to another. If evolution were true we should see that all around us. But nada, none, doesn't exist!!!
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot good enough at all. Again we see nothing on this planet in anyway shape or form that there is a process of anything in one of thousands of phases needed to change from one species into another. No cows with some stage of a wing or a tree with a hoof as a root, or a snake with a a gill. Every animal is complete in all ways and in ways that fit it perfectly.
evolution takes place over thousands of years. you consider the ultimate proof that evolution isn't real the fact that you can't see it. by this reasoning, you should have trouble understanding how a tree came to be 100 m tall, or how coal or oil occur
And no I have absolutely no problem understanding how a tree grows or how coal is formed. Weak example....
You condemn me for not believeing in something I can't see? Isn't that what atheist say about God?
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelThey proven genetically that we came from one women I believe.
Its very hard to imagine just two people starting the whole of the human race. It would be close to impossible ,right?
I think adam and eve could me metaphors for 2 tribes . Two tribes coming together to start the "human race" as we know it. (Perhaps there were other hominoid types around at the same type but the adam and eve "tribes" seem to have be ...[text shortened]... n floating around at the same time.
This would make much more sense on a practical level.
Manny
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75You still don't seem to accept that the word 'species' as used in Biology is an entirely man made definition which does not in actual fact follow any hard and fast rules. For you to claim that Biology follows a species barrier is essentially saying that Biology obeys mans commands.
No denying that but no species can cross over to another species and reproduce nor do we see any proof at all on this planet that a species is in the middle of some change from one species to another. If evolution were true we should see that all around us. But nada, none, doesn't exist!!!
As for your actual claim, it is blatantly false. There are a number of known observed examples of speciation. You may not be old enough to remember, but dogs are descended from wolves, and I think you know that to be true or at least accept that it is possible. Yet here you are denying it.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75Also the transitional species in the fossil record and the lack thereof I know there are arguments of why this is but I still would think that there would be an abundance or more than there are if they exist. Also true why are the primates not becoming more evolved?
Not good enough at all. Again we see nothing on this planet in anyway shape or form that there is a process of anything in one of thousands of phases needed to change from one species into another. No cows with some stage of a wing or a tree with a hoof as a root, or a snake with a a gill. Every animal is complete in all ways and in ways that fit it perf ...[text shortened]... condemn me for not believeing in something I can't see? Isn't that what atheist say about God?
Manny
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat definition is incorrect. Species can and often do interbreed.
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, [b]but are not able to breed with members of another species. [/b]
this is entirely typical of twithead, instead of actually trying to understand and address the statement (humans are not evolving because there is simply evidence of variation within the species not a transmutation to another species, genus, whatever you want to call it),
Variation is evolution, by definition. You cannot escape it.
he goes off on some completely irrelevant semantic argument about the definition of the term as if it somehow negates the argument being made,
Thats because it does negate the argument being made.
If you are unhappy with the term species what would you like these major divisions referred to as?
I looked up "Mammal" and it is a biological division called a "class". I think "Fish" is a higher grouping of a number of super classes. "Reptile" is also a class, as is "amphibian".
But once again, the classes are defined by us humans for classification purposes. They don't represent some physical biological barrier to breeding.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat? Are you serious? Are you implying that this proves evolution? They are all of the canine family and can be crossbread as can be done within most species.
You still don't seem to accept that the word 'species' as used in Biology is an entirely man made definition which does not in actual fact follow any hard and fast rules. For you to claim that Biology follows a species barrier is essentially saying that Biology obeys mans commands.
As for your actual claim, it is blatantly false. There are a number of k ...[text shortened]... you know that to be true or at least accept that it is possible. Yet here you are denying it.
So what is the point your trying to make exactly?
And personaly I don't care what term or word evolutionist use or play with but the Bible clearly says that they were created "according to their kinds" and this is still a clear fact today.
21 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71Good points Manny for sure but for some strange reason the can't explain that simple observation.
Also the transitional species in the fossil record and the lack thereof I know there are arguments of why this is but I still would think that there would be an abundance or more than there are if they exist. Also true why are the primates not becoming more evolved?
Manny
My son brought up a point to me the other day and I'd never thought of it this way but according to evolution theory all life forms progress and change for the better as outside influances dictate.
But if you think of evolution in reverse from what we see today it makes no sense even more.
Just a simple one is the bat with echo location abilities. Evolutionist say he developed that amazing feat so he could get up off the jungle floor to hunt insects.
So at one point millions of years ago he didn't have that ability according to them. Well....catch a bat today and take away that ability from him and what happens to that bat? Sure he can still fly somewhat and do all the little things that bats do but how long will he live? He'll starve within a couple days at best.
So how did he live millions of years ago before he supposedly didn't have that echo location ability? If he survived then why did he need to change and "invent" echo location?
Try that simple test on all life forms and it proves evolution is completely impossible.