cloudgoddess:

What is a "kind"?

Are you familiar with the biological classification system (taxonomy)?



Kind isn't recognized as a real category in taxonomy, because it doesn't work with the morphological and genetic evidence that reveals the relationships between different groups of organisms. The word kind is only used in creationist lexicon.

I actually mean organisms of the same genus and specie. I ask this because fossil records do not actually show a gradual change in morphology but diverse and distinct organisms appear suddenly. Though evolutionists have actually called the supposed obscure period of gradual change as "The Cambrian Period" if I am not mistaken. I cannot say mixed breeding is a result of change in organisms of the same genus and specie but what I do know is that mutation and change in genetic code could result to change in morphology or possibly a distortion. There is quite no relationship between aves and reptiles. Evolutionists have also tried to show the relationship between the Australopithecus and humans and also between the Orang Pebek (monkey-man of Java island) and humans but the main problem is they have actually judged based on bones not from the same organism.


Please disprove me otherwise if I have faulted in my claims and you could let me know more.

lordnicklaus:


I actually mean organisms of the same genus and specie. I ask this because fossil records do not actually show a gradual change in morphology but diverse and distinct organisms appear suddenly. Though evolutionists have actually called the supposed obscure period of gradual change as "The Cambrian Period" if I am not mistaken. I cannot say mixed breeding is a result of change in organisms of the same genus and specie but what I do know is that mutation and change in genetic code could result to change in morphology or possibly a distortion. There is quite no relationship between aves and reptiles. Evolutionists have also tried to show the relationship between the Australopithecus and humans and also between the Orang Pebek (monkey-man of Java island) and humans but the main problem is they have actually judged based on bones not from the same organism.


Please disprove me otherwise if I have faulted in my claims and you could let me know more.

She is all text book and not personal research. She is all hook line and sinker and no queries. She is all faith in science yet no faith in the one who made what science discovers. She is all there is no God yet the same science points us all to an intelligent designer.

AyaSunday:

You're not making sense.

How was the 'first simple self-replicating molecule' formed? There has to be an original of a first. The very first did not just evolve out of nothing. Even 'nothing' has an origin according to science. Now answer the question again:

How did that 'origin' come to be?

The first self-replicating molecule was assembled by chance in a soup of molecules in the sea. Physicists can take you back from there to the big bang, but they don't know what happened before that. I hereby confidently assert that a sexy self-created eternal babe was the 1st cause.

Seun:
The first self-replicating molecule was assembled by chance in a soup of molecules in the sea. Physicists can take you back from there to the big bang, but they don't know what happened before that. I hereby confidently assert that a sexy self-created eternal babe was the 1st cause.

To be honest, I've read about this claim too.
But do you know that some scientists who supports evolution disagree with this. They said life can't come from non living material.. No scientific research has proven that to be false...

Seun:
The first self-replicating molecule was assembled by chance in a soup of molecules in the sea. Physicists can take you back from there to the big bang, but they don't know what happened before that. I hereby confidently assert that a sexy self-created eternal babe was the 1st cause.

A self created eternal babe? Oh! I see, you do believe in a god then Seun. You are not an atheist. To an atheist, the self created being or babe has to have a maker. Simple.

naijadeyhia:


I have tried to see things their own way and came toa simple conclussion.

They believe there is a God but just need proof in order to take that belief 100%

Yes, they do believe. Seun in his last post here mentioned the first self created babe, that is his god.

Seun:
The first picture shows what a bull terrier used to look like. The second picture shows what a bull terrier looks like now. That's evolution.

jst got a few questions,wat hapnd to all d homo erectus and others dat yielded d formation of d homo sapiens,Y can't we see dem in d caves or forests or even zoo,wat caused there extinction

Slimshady11:
jst got a few questions,wat hapnd to all d homo erectus and others dat yielded d formation of d homo sapiens,Y can't we see dem in d caves or forests or even zoo,wat caused there extinction

The most likely reason is that we caused their extinction. We competed directly with them and they lost because we were more fit to survive. This article explains what probably happened based on the information we have: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13874671

tempem:
But do you know that some scientists who supports evolution disagree with this. They said life can't come from non living material..

The way science works is that, if you make a claim, such as "life can't come from nonliving material", it is your responsibility to prove it.

lordnicklaus:

This seems like mutation and alteration of genetic instruction to me.

Creationists have tried to draw a distinction between what they call "microevolution" and "macroevolution". They accept that a wolf/dog can evolve into a different type of wolf/dog, but assert that a wolf/dog can't evolve into a coyote or a fox, since those are different species. This is contrary to the view of scientists, that evolution leads to the formation of new species gradually over time, as the changes accumulate.

If creationists were right, you would expect there to be a sharp dividing line between species. Animals within the same species would be able to mate with each other and produce viable offspring, while animals that are not in the same species would be 0% compatible. You would expect the sperm of one species to not be able to penetrate the eggs of a different species not to mention fertilizing it, not to mention carrying the mixed embryo to maturity and giving birth to it. Not to mention having it grow up to be a healthy animal with intermediate features.

But the reality is that the separation between species is fuzzy, which is consistent with evolution. Species that separated from each other very recently, such as dogs and dingoes and wolves, can mate freely with each other and produce viable offspring that can also mate with each other. Species that have been separated for longer periods, such as leopards and lions, can mate with each other, but their offspring are only partially fertile. Those that have been separated even longer, such as lions and tigers, or donkeys and horses can mate with each other and give birth to healthy offspring, but their offspring are mostly infertile. Some species can mate with each other but the embryos will be aborted. This fuzziness exactly what you would expect if evolution is true and species are formed by the slow accumulation of genetic differences.

If God created tigers and lions, donkeys and horses, wolves and jackals, etc as distinct species, why are they able to mate and make babies?

Beyond all this, ever wondered who taught Man how to read, write, think etc. Who "invented" "science" itself? Or science also invented science?

AyaSunday:

A self created eternal babe? Oh! I see, you do believe in a god then Seun. You are not an atheist. To an atheist, the self created being or babe has to have a maker. Simple.

It's a joke, but a self-created babe is just as likely as the God of Abraham.

tempem:
I love this man..
At least two evidences, just two.
Am yet to see any too.

because man has made life easy evolution occurs during times of great hardship but are times hard now, we have made life easy physically thats why there are no physically visible evolutionary changes they might be some microscopic changes in certain animals but humans only evolve in one in way which is mentally it is evident that we making break throughs in science and are getting smarter by the generation.