DK Jaleel:
he was claiming there is no experiment or evidence to prove evolution, and i tried telling him one of d most obvious examples in recent times..
Imagine him saying mosquito is the causative agent for malaria...and mosquito has adapted to quinine...that guy is a dunce...

Kay 17: @joshthefirst

Interesting OP and keen eyes.

However there are foundational diggings that must be made.

How do you define kind?

Will your definition of kind cut across species or is kind the equivalent of species to you?

Joshthefirst: when did I imply this happens within a generation? It seems you are the one with special needs.




Maybe you didn't even read the op. Its good to read the op wiegraf before lashing out in butthurt because of a belief scientists hold to be true today without scientific proof.

wiegraf:

Ah, I see. I gave you too much credit. You don't even know what bu.tthurt is. You haters will grasp any straw....

Anyways, you're confused as to how this



Could become this?



^This under 5,000 years of artificial selection

You're confused as to how nature, given thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, or hundred of millions of years could invoke even more drastic changes?

The question should be "why wouldn't new species evolve?", not the other way round.

Same way you clowns love to claim entropy means evolution is impossible. Erm, no. It means nature must always interact, never staying stable. It means evolution must occur, of all sorts of systems. Nature must always mix and match, nothing is stable, that is what makes this universe tick. Eventually entropy will make everything useless as far as we're concerned, but we're a long, looooooonng way away from that.

And it seems you're even denying shared ancestry and DNA evidence, [size=20pt]vestigials[/size] and evolution of microorganisms in labs

But jewish man less than 6,000 years ago tricked by talking snake? Yeah, much more plausible and scientific.

No one has seen a species evolve, therefore it isn't science...... Did you watch the planet evolve, bros? So astronomy, paleontolgy, etc aren't science. Actually, what in the world makes you, great pupil of answeringgenesis, know better than 99% of proffessional scientists involved with biology as to what science is? The bible?

Kayi..

Note; You're right about one thing though, finally the broken clock is correct. Obviously, I don't really pay attention to what you post.....

Joshthefirst: sorry, I skimmed your post. You make even less sense these days. I don't bother sometimes. Just look at the enlarged. Just proves you'd still grab at crap to sound good to yourself.

wiegraf:

So, vestigials don't exist?

Thank you, kind ser

Mr Troll: una de waste una time. the guy say im no go ever accept the theory. I wonder who he fancies himself to be. no gree na, e concern me?

Kay 17: @joshthefirst

Does your definition of "kind" cover just a species or several species?

Joshthefirst: several species.

Kay 17:

Sorry for the late response.

Humans are homo sapiens -- a specie

It is very possible, for humans to have a evolutionary relationship with other apes, and possibly homo erectus, homo habilis etc. In so far they are of the same kind, which obviously they shld.

Area_boy:
The main issue is the origin of first life.. stick to that and maybe you'll at least sound a little smarter.

aManFromMars:
Indeed.

Long time Bro. Merry Xmas in advance.

Joshthefirst: what kind of relationship then do you speak of? Be specific.

Homo erectus and homo habilis cannot be of the same kind. Kinds reproduce, as the excerpt states.

Area_boy: Josh, the more you waste your time fighting evolution, the more silly you make yourself look. You cannot base 90% of your arguements from works of people that pre-concluded evolution was bogus before researching. Open your eyes and your mind.

Evolution does nothing to your religion if that's what you are afraid of. The catholic church accepts it and they are doing fine. better than your money hungry, evil minded, deceitful MOG's.

Organisms evolve, and this is fact. Since we accept this, and we are just complex organisms, it means we too must have evolved or still evolving.
If you don't accept my premise, next time you get malaria (hoping you don't), please go find malaria drugs from the 80's and see if you will live to talk about evolution.

The main issue is the origin of first life.. stick to that and maybe you'll at least sound a little smarter.

Thank me later

Kay 17:

I mean an ancestorial relationship.

Point out a species that reproduces another of their same kind.

Mr Troll: Josh, this is in good faith.

take it or leave it... http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Kay 17: ^^
I meant naturally, without human intervention

Joshthefirst: don't get me wrong guys;
I agree with speciation and most aspects of the theory, its proved. but I do not agree with the assumptions of a common ancestor and man's origin(not just the origin of life)

I know adaptation takes place, but that adaptation and speciation will lead to other diverse kinds of organisms arising, like pisces becoming amphibians and reptalia becoming aves is not coherent. It is preposterous and stupid.

Of course speciation takes place. Even the bible says that God placed a parent kind group of each living thing and allowed them to reproduce. They reproduced and became diverse and adapted to different kinds of environments over the years, but each kind-group had ancestors. There were old species of birds suited to the environment of then. But to say that every single species on earth, every kind on earth descended from the same ancestor, and that there has been a gradual change of kind over the ages is a blind leap of unreasonable faith I am not willing to believe. Simple.


@Kay: what is unnatural about the killer bee hybrid?
They were introduced into new environments and reproduced with the local bees.

Logicboy03:


You agree with speciation but not common descent Speciation in terms of humans would mean what?

I give up. You are silly

Mr Troll: Josh, is a crocodile a reptile or an amphibian?

furthermore, have you gone through the link I gave you?

Joshthefirst: Hybridization will almost always be the result of cross species reproduction.

Different species may not produce viable offspring(wolves and domestic dogs can do so, but will not naturally because of different behaviours and ecological niches I think)

So different species will not reproduce(generally) without human intervention.


But my point is that in all the different species we have of say birds today, from the ostrich to the harpee, they are all birds(of the bird kind), and they will continue to be birds.

Kay 17:

Joshthefirst

Iwas not talking about hybridization. You said earlier that animals reproduce offsprings of their kind. You admitted there can be a number of species within a kind. Hence I'm tempted to ask: can an animal from a specie reproduce an offspring of a different specie but of the same kind. Example, a chicken having an eagle as its offspring WITHOUT hybridization.

Joshthefirst: went through some of the link. A croc is a reptile.

Mr Troll: Do you agree that reptiles actually evolved from amphibians?

Mr Troll: Do you agree that the term 'species' is not as distinct as you may think? that it is just a human term of convenience?

Joshthefirst: I do not

yes. Classification is for human convenience.