Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Makes No Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
246 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:59 AM

Yes adaption is adaptive. However adaption is NOT evolution. It has been observed that adaption only changes within the kind of the organism, (pertaining to the different breeds of a species).

View Post


"Kind" is not definable.

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:12 AM

"Kind" is not definable.

View Post


And, once again, you'd be incorrect:

Definitions of 'kind' Webster 1913 Dictionary

1. (adj) kind
nature; natural instinct or disposition

2. (adj) kind
race; genus; species; generic class; as, in mankind or humankind


3. (adj) kind
nature; style; character; sort; fashion; manner; variety; description; class; as, there are several kinds of eloquence, of style, and of music; many kinds of government; various kinds of soil, etc

4. kind
characteristic of the species; belonging to one's nature; natural; native


5. kind
having feelings befitting our common nature; congenial; sympathetic; as, a kind man; a kind heart

6. kind
showing tenderness or goodness; disposed to do good and confer happiness; averse to hurting or paining; benevolent; benignant; gracious

7. kind
proceeding from, or characterized by, goodness, gentleness, or benevolence; as, a kind act

8. kind
gentle; tractable; easily governed; as, a horse kind in harness

9. (verb) kind
to beget

http://www.definitio...definition/kind

kind2 (k nd) KEY

NOUN:
1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
5. Archaic Manner.

IDIOMS:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind; see gen - in Indo-European roots

http://education.yah...ry/entry/kind_2


kind 2 (k nd)
n.
1.
a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
. Archaic
a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.
Idioms:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.

[Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind; see gen - in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kind


Main Entry: 1kind
Pronunciation: \ˈkīnd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : nature b archaic : family, lineage
2 archaic : manner
3 : fundamental nature or quality : essence
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : category b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received
synonyms see type
— all kinds of 1 : many <likes all kinds of sports>
2 : plenty of <has all kinds of time>

http://www.merriam-w...dictionary/kind

#43 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:10 AM

Dictionaries give general definitions for the sake of aiding comprehension, they do not establish technical parameters.

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:37 AM

Dictionaries give general definitions for the sake of aiding comprehension, they do not establish technical parameters.

View Post



So, in other words, you're attempting to wriggle out of your statement?

Dictionaries give the base definitions that established technical parameters are beholden to. Unless, of course, one wishes to trivialize true definitions with relativistic rhetoric. In that case, truth and absolutes are nonexistent (a statement that will surely cause you a logical and rational bind).

#45 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 06 July 2010 - 01:24 PM

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?


Humankind is evolving, though not necessarily in any direction right now.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?


According to the theory, we are not meant to evolve into anything, we simply do. Evolution is not goal related, and is guided by natural selection. In short, we will evolve into whatever traits are naturally selected. For this to happen, some individuals with specific traits different than most will have to consistently have more offspring than the average human. It is very hard to predict how evolution will occure because our genes and the forces of evolution are very complex. However, there may be some traits which will become more common among humans. For example, some people have a mutation making them immune to HIV. We may see more of this in Africa as time goes on.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

      -------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?


Some postulate that the very first primitive life form began through some sort of chemical reation. There are varying ideas about this but they are only hypotheses. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only with its evolution after it appeared.

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?


Psychology is the field which attempts to explain what consciousness is. We can only use the concepts in the theory of evolution to explain how it evolved assuming that we gain a firm knowledge of what consciousness is and how it works. Even then, if we do not have enough data, we may never be able to explain consciousness's evolution. There might be some partial answers to that question in scientific papers and articles though.

Thanks for posting the questions.

#46 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2010 - 03:04 PM

So, in other words, you're attempting to wriggle out of your statement?

View Post


Obviously "kind" has a meaning or it wouldn't be a word, pasting dictionary entries does not show that "kind' can be defined for use in classification. Even your first boldened definition equates "kind" with "race; genus; species", there is no agreement on the level of inclusiveness denoted.

From your post: "A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics." Commonality at what level? "Kind" is too flexible to be applicable.

#47 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:10 PM

Obviously "kind" has a meaning or it wouldn't be a word, pasting dictionary entries does not show that "kind' can be defined for use in classification.  Even your first boldened definition equates "kind" with "race; genus; species", there is no agreement on the level of inclusiveness denoted.

View Post

Wriggling your way out of a statement you made, isn’t so easy when you’re faced with the truth if it. And this is why I like to paste the truth itself, so you can see where you err. The only disagreement here is in the relativist’s acumen for slippery language and illogic. But the dictionary definitions have a way of grounding you in truth that is liberating in its simplicity. It gives you a wide variety in which to see the right on to choose. But some choose to hide their eyes from that truth.


I would have expected the rational person to say something like “oh, I didn’t realize that”, or “my bad, it didn’t realize I was incorrect”. Instead I get “no, it’s not true that I’m wrong in my wrongness!”

Please read the definitions again, and be big enough to correct yourself and learn from it.

From your post: "A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."  Commonality at what level? 

View Post


I see that it seems that you’re purposefully attempting to twist the dictionary definitions to meet your preferred meaning.


"Kind" is too flexible to be applicable.

View Post

It seems (again) your definitions are stricken with fluidity here.

#48 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:32 PM

Obviously "kind" has a meaning or it wouldn't be a word, pasting dictionary entries does not show that "kind' can be defined for use in classification.  Even your first boldened definition equates "kind" with "race; genus; species", there is no agreement on the level of inclusiveness denoted.

From your post: "A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."  Commonality at what level?  "Kind" is too flexible to be applicable.

View Post


****Mod hat on****

Would you like a suspension for wasting our time with equivocations?

You are dragging out this issue because you have to much pride to admit when you are wrong. Now unless you want to write your own dictionary to replace all the ones written I suggest you quit. You are just mad because you used the usual evolutionist response that gets most evos out of it, but this time it bit you.

****Mod hat off*****

#49 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 06 July 2010 - 07:44 PM

There fallacious argument is that we can't technically distinguish humans from bacteria because no kind can be defined. <_<

#50 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:17 PM

I would have expected the rational person to say something like “oh, I didn’t realize that”, or “my bad, it didn’t realize I was incorrect”.


Everyone already knew the general meaning of “kind” so I was unlikely to say “oh, I didn’t realize that”. This is a creation vs evolution forum and my comment clearly referred to the creationist use of “kind” as a class of organism. It is this usage that is relevant and is yet to be pinned down.

Instead I get “no, it’s not true that I’m wrong in my wrongness!”


Instead you got someone who wasn’t to be deflected from a central issue in the creation-evolution debate by a post (42) that withdraws from the specific theme of the forum.

Would you like a suspension for wasting our time with equivocations?


I am the one seeking a clear explanation of what creationists mean by “kind”, clarity is the opposite of equivocation. The idea of kind must be central to the creationist outlook. Is it such an Achilles heel that analyzing it here is prohibited (as is the case with the inexplicable barrier between micro and macroevolution)?

#51 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:27 PM

Everyone already knew the general meaning of “kind” so I was unlikely to say “oh, I didn’t realize that”.  This is a creation vs evolution forum and my comment clearly referred to the creationist use of “kind” as a class of organism.  It is this usage that is relevant and is yet to be pinned down.
Instead you got someone who wasn’t to be deflected from a central issue in the creation-evolution debate by a post (42) that withdraws from the specific theme of the forum.
I am the one seeking a clear explanation of what creationists mean by “kind”, clarity is the opposite of equivocation.  The idea of kind must be central to the creationist outlook.  Is it such an Achilles heel that analyzing it here is prohibited (as is the case with the inexplicable barrier between micro and macroevolution)?

View Post


It is now clear to me that no matter what we say, you would never accept it. But yet you want to keep debating it. So you can think about it for 7 days while suspended.

#52 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:40 PM

Everyone already knew the general meaning of “kind” so I was unlikely to say “oh, I didn’t realize that”.  This is a creation vs evolution forum and my comment clearly referred to the creationist use of “kind” as a class of organism.  It is this usage that is relevant and is yet to be pinned down.
Instead you got someone who wasn’t to be deflected from a central issue in the creation-evolution debate by a post (42) that withdraws from the specific theme of the forum.
I am the one seeking a clear explanation of what creationists mean by “kind”, clarity is the opposite of equivocation.  The idea of kind must be central to the creationist outlook.  Is it such an Achilles heel that analyzing it here is prohibited (as is the case with the inexplicable barrier between micro and macroevolution)?

View Post


Kind itself is very much self-explanory. Or else we can't even have a common 'platform' to talk about 'kind'. Kind is 'very defined' as a human consensus such that further analysis and discussions can be based on.

If the creationists' 'kind' concept is different too much from that of the evolutionists then we are talking apple and oranges. That consensus exists no matter how you spin it.

Kind is the characteristic to define a certain group living organism from another. It is a grouping of living organisms by human consensus. 100% sane people will not mistaken a chimp from human. That's why humans and chimp are of different 'kind'.

Based on that, you can drill down to find out the genetic difference to make humans being able to tell the difference between humans and chimps. Yet don't fall for the fallacy of 'definition must go before knowledge'. That is, you may not be able to define clearly in the genetic level about what characterize humans differently from chimps due to the lack of such a knowledge. But it by no means says that we can't base our discussion or analysis on a 'kind' basis. A more clear and specific definition will only available when the related genetic knowledge becomes fully available to humans such that humans can tell the characteristic genetic difference between humans and chimps. Before that we can't deliver a more specific definition down to the genetic level, yet it by no means says that we don't have a 'kind' definition, it's just up to our known knowledge level.

The same argument exists in the definition of soul. The atheists fallaciou argument is that 'because we can't have a more 'technical' definition of soul, such that any discussion of soul is meaningless. Yet it is obvious sane people keep talking about soul and they do 'know' what they are talking about. Because the soul concept as a consensus exist among humans which provides the 'platform' for them to do the discussion or analysis. A more specific 'technical' definition won't go before humans acquiring the related knowledge in a deeper level. It won't go the fallacious way as atheists insist on.

#53 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 12:01 AM

Kind itself is very much self-explanory.

View Post

I agree! You've got your fish kind, your amphibian kind, your reptile kind and your mammal kind. And of course, your plant kind. It's simple enough!

#54 livingdeadbeat

livingdeadbeat

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Devon

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:09 AM

Hey forum, saw this post and thought i'd should answer some of these questions.

Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer:

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?


There are 2 answers to this. Firstly as people have already said it takes at least 100's of thousands of years or more for groups to evolve significantly. As our written records cover only a tiny history of our time its not surprising that we haven't heard of any significant change.

Having said that we ARE seeing evolution in humans, such as tolerance of gluten and resistance to the AIDs virus. Usually when someone asks the question that you have they are wanting to see humans evolve something like a 3rd arm or something ridiculous like that. You need to remember evolution is a tree not a ladder and anything happening such as the afore mentioned 3rd arm or another eye etc would mean we'd no longer be humans and the tree would have branched out. Evolution would never expect nor require such a mutation to occur.

Its worth mentioning that what we haven't seen, is a creature magically just appear into existance.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?


Evolution isn't a ladder its a tree. This question is akin to the creationist favourite, "why are there still Apes if we evolved from them". In evolution groups evolve - if a group evolved significantly to no longer become what we currently deem as humans they would no longer be humans (in the current definition of the word). They would be something else. Humans may still be here as we currently are, yet there would just be another branch to the evolution tree where this other group has evolved.

Also evolution has no target or goal.

So really the question doesn't make any sense, and displays a lack of understanding of the basic theory.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:
         -------------------------------> .


Wow. Some logical fallacies there. Poisoning of the well and a straw man. That is NOT what evolutionists belive your ancestor was.

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?


This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. We barely have an understanding of what consciousness actually is, so its not surprising we don't have an explanation of its origins or development yet.

Your argument is no different than people attributing lightning to Zeus because they couldn't explain it through naturalistic causes. If something can't be fully explained you do not just get to make stuff up to fill in the gap.

#55 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:37 AM

***Mod hat on***

Just so everyone understands what happened here. I don't care if you disagree with what kind is. But when you carry out a pointless debate on the subject when you have been shown "clearly" a definition. Then the debate is not only pointless, but time wasting. And at that point when people continue to disagree it is clearly equivocating.

Tommy did not get suspended for disagreeing. He even could have just stated that and all would have been okay. What he was suspended for was disagreeing with dictionary definitions and acting as if kind is not a word and therefore undefinable (equivocating). Therefore wanting to drag it out and continue to equivocate (wasting everyone's time).

What I also see is a person not wanting to even give an inch because of how much they disagree with the whole subject of creation. When a person is that dogmatic, debating them will always be a problem. A person like this is not really interested in finding any truth on any idea, or learning what another person believes. They only come here with the intent of proving an opposing view totally wrong.

I did a thread on this type of debater: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3044

This person defines this.

***Mod hat off***

#56 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 07 July 2010 - 05:10 AM

Having said that we ARE seeing evolution in humans, such as tolerance of gluten and resistance to the AIDs virus. Usually when someone asks the question that you have they are wanting to see humans evolve something like a 3rd arm or something ridiculous like that. You need to remember evolution is a tree not a ladder and anything happening such as the afore mentioned 3rd arm or another eye etc would mean we'd no longer be humans and the tree would have branched out. Evolution would never expect nor require such a mutation to occur.


Cassiterides is referring to morphological changes, hence the quote "what are we ment to turn into physically next?" I think you have avoided the question indirectly, but you do provide an example of what a physical change could entail.

Its worth mentioning that what we haven't seen, is a creature magically just appear into existance.
Evolution isn't a ladder its a tree. This question is akin to the creationist favourite, "why are there still Apes if we evolved from them". In evolution groups evolve - if a group evolved significantly to no longer become what we currently deem as humans they would no longer be humans (in the current definition of the word). They would be something else. Humans may still be here as we currently are, yet there would just be another branch to the evolution tree where this other group has evolved.


So what beneficial physical mutations could possibly benefit an already advanced fully equipped human species? Being as superior as we are, what possible physical traits could be favoured over the current supreme ones? Humans have supposedly become taller over the generations, any ideas on the benefits of this one being favoured?

Wow. Some logical fallacies there. Poisoning of the well and a straw man. That is NOT what evolutionists belive your ancestor was.


And yet you provide no answer to correct this "logical fallacy".

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. We barely have an understanding of what consciousness actually is, so its not surprising we don't have an explanation of its origins or development yet.


I hardly think asking a question is an argument of ignorance. If there is barely an understanding of what the consciousness is (as you put it) then how is it ignorant to question its very meaning?

Your argument is no different than people attributing lightning to Zeus because they couldn't explain it through naturalistic causes. If something can't be fully explained you do not just get to make stuff up to fill in the gap.

View Post


Agreed. But also on the other hand, I don't think Cassiterides once mentioned Zeus, or where he thinks lightening comes from.
You keep using the term "we", are you a scientist? If so what are your accreditations? Or by the term "we" are you are referring to your belief system?

#57 livingdeadbeat

livingdeadbeat

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Devon

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:10 AM

Cassiterides is referring to morphological changes, hence the quote "what are we ment to turn into physically next?" I think you have avoided the question indirectly, but you do provide an example of what a physical change could entail.


Changing of the goal posts, he didn't specify. But more to the point is even if he did it is still a flawed question. You ask for examples of evolution in humans, then when given them respond with. "well i didn't want THOSE examples, i want ones where they have evolved like this"

As said large scale changes would not only take a long time but would also mean we'd no longer be classified as modern day humans are now, there may still be humans as are now but also another branch of mammel that has evolved from said humans. Again, its a tree not a ladder.

So what beneficial physical mutations could possibly benefit an already advanced fully equipped human species? Being as superior as we are, what possible physical traits could be favoured over the current supreme ones? Humans have supposedly become taller over the generations, any ideas on the benefits of this one being favoured?


Firstly we aren't perfect by any means, and secondly what makes you think we are superior? We aren't the fastest, strongest, hardest, toughest and we don't live the longest. We have organs we don't use, quite poor eye sight and hearing, can't produce vitamin C which we need to live - the list can go on and on. The fact is we have a good understanding of how we have evolved.

And yet you provide no answer to correct this "logical fallacy".
I hardly think asking a question is an argument of ignorance. If there is barely an understanding of what the consciousness is (as you put it) then how is it ignorant to question its very meaning?


Ha. I did provide an answer. We don't know. But its a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter that we don't know and it doesn't invalidate all that we do know. And as i said previous, not knowing does not mean you get to make stuff up to fill the gaps - god of the gaps.

Agreed. But also on the other hand, I don't think Cassiterides once mentioned Zeus, or where he thinks lightening comes from.


Its a useful and just equivication which shows the floor in the logic he used. His question is the same as what others have done throughout time who don't know the answer to difficult questions and invoke the answer as God.

You keep using the term "we", are you a scientist? If so what are your accreditations? Or by the term "we" are you are referring to your belief system?

View Post


Currently completing my post degree masters in bioscience.

#58 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:44 AM

Changing of the goal posts, he didn't specify. But more to the point is even if he did it is still a flawed question. You ask for examples of evolution in humans, then when given them respond with. "well i didn't want THOSE examples, i want ones where they have evolved like this"


If you view his post, he clearly states the term "physically change into next", physically being the operative word. For me, physically refers to a physical characteristic you can see, e.g. ears, colour etc. I guess it depends on your interpretation of the word. Or am I missing something here?

As said large scale changes would not only take a long time but would also mean we'd no longer be classified as modern day humans are now, there may still be humans as are now but also another branch of mammel that has evolved from said humans. Again, its a tree not a ladder.


And yet none of our ancestors survive today. And yes I'm aware you stated that hypothetically.

Firstly we aren't perfect by any means, and secondly what makes you think we are superior? We aren't the fastest, strongest, hardest, toughest and we don't live the longest. We have organs we don't use, quite poor eye sight and hearing, can't produce vitamin C which we need to live - the list can go on and on. The fact is we have a good understanding of how we have evolved.


Considering we are the most successful species to have ever have existed on earth I would certainly consider the human race superior, I think we get around quite fine.
What do you think are the benefits of being taller and what selective pressure favoured this trait?

Ha. I did provide an answer. We don't know. But its a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter that we don't know and it doesn't invalidate all that we do know. And as i said previous, not knowing does not mean you get to make stuff up to fill the gaps - god of the gaps.


You didn't actually provide an answer, you merely stated that "this is not what evolutionist believe" which didn't provide any further clues to what our ancestor actually was.
Not sure why you merged my two separate posts in one quote and then answered them separately?

Its a useful and just equivication which shows the floor in the logic he used. His question is the same as what others have done throughout time who don't know the answer to difficult questions and invoke the answer as God.


No worries, apologies for misinterpreting :lol: I understand what you mean.

Currently completing my post degree masters in bioscience.


Sounds interesting, I bet your course will run for many years though and they don't come cheap that's for sure!

#59 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:47 AM

Having said that we ARE seeing evolution in humans, such as tolerance of gluten and resistance to the AIDs virus. Usually when someone asks the question that you have they are wanting to see humans evolve something like a 3rd arm or something ridiculous like that. You need to remember  evolution is a tree not a ladder and anything happening such as the afore mentioned 3rd arm or another eye etc would mean we'd no longer be humans and the tree would have branched out.  Evolution would never expect nor require such a mutation to occur.

View Post


So if another arm or leg is ridiculous and not part of evolution, then why do humans have 2 arms verses just 1? Or most animals have 4 legs versus just 3? Why "just" 2 and not 3 arms or "just" 4 and not 5 legs? Why do some species have 2 eyes while others have more? Couldn't an extra 3rd arm in a human be selected for if it proved advantageous within a certain environment? I think you need to analyze your story a little closer.

#60 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:01 AM

And, once again, you'd be incorrect:

Definitions of 'kind' Webster 1913 Dictionary

1. (adj) kind
nature; natural instinct or disposition

2. (adj) kind
race; genus; species; generic class; as, in mankind or humankind


3. (adj) kind
nature; style; character; sort; fashion; manner; variety; description; class; as, there are several kinds of eloquence, of style, and of music; many kinds of government; various kinds of soil, etc

4.  kind
characteristic of the species; belonging to one's nature; natural; native


5.  kind
having feelings befitting our common nature; congenial; sympathetic; as, a kind man; a kind heart

6.  kind
showing tenderness or goodness; disposed to do good and confer happiness; averse to hurting or paining; benevolent; benignant; gracious

7.  kind
proceeding from, or characterized by, goodness, gentleness, or benevolence; as, a kind act

8.  kind
gentle; tractable; easily governed; as, a horse kind in harness

9. (verb) kind
to beget

http://www.definitio...definition/kind

kind2    (k nd) KEY

NOUN:
1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
5. Archaic Manner.

IDIOMS:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind; see gen - in Indo-European roots

http://education.yah...ry/entry/kind_2
kind 2 (k nd)
n.
1.
a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
. Archaic
a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.
Idioms:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.

[Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind; see gen - in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kind
Main Entry: 1kind
Pronunciation: \ˈkīnd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : nature b archaic : family, lineage
2 archaic : manner
3 : fundamental nature or quality : essence
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : category b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received
synonyms see type
— all kinds of 1 : many <likes all kinds of sports>
2 : plenty of <has all kinds of time>

http://www.merriam-w...dictionary/kind

View Post


Thanks Ron :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users