{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Britton:
7/13/2015 3:47:17 PM
1
The lizards in that experiment underwent physical changes to their digestive systems based on the food available in the islands. Which is conclusive with predictions that the separation would cause unique changes due to natural selection.
This whole "same kinds" argument is a flawed one. A "kind" isnt a scientific classification at all. You say kinds don't change, yet kind is a made up term. I can make "kind" mean whatever I want. It could mean mammals, vertebrates, all warm blooded organisms, a specific species, etc. So if I said land mammals evolved to whales, and you say no because the kind changed, I can say the kind stayed the same because whales are still vertebrate, warm blooded, mammals.
In that link it notes several observed speciation events, so unless you want to argue that evolution says birds turn into fish and undermine any credibility you have at all, your argument is false.
Your argument that since you have an unknown, and God can fill that unkown, it must be God, is literally God of the gaps.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 4:52:46 PM[quote]The lizards in that experiment underwent physical changes to their digestive systems based on the food available in the islands.[/quote]That isn't any evidence to assume that there is any physical distinction of a new species. Yay for reading.[quote]...which is conclusive with [the] predictions that the separation would cause unique changes due to natural selection.[/quote]Remember Darwin's finches? The diet, or more so separation, that they had affected the appearance of their beaks, an outside manipulation. And you conclude that if the speciation isn't visible, it must be internal? That isn't the definition of speciation.[quote]This whole "same kinds" argument is a flawed one. A "kind" isn't a scientific classification at all. You say kinds don't change, yet kind is a made up term.[/quote]Fine. You want me to give an accurate easy translation for you? Family. There...I said it. If you are even as smart as you claim to be, you would have realized that the surrounding context clues would have alluded to the fact. Thank you for going off subject and proceeding to talk about the etymology of "kind."[quote]I can make "kind" mean whatever I want.[/quote]Make "kind" logically mean a car, and I'll believe you.[quote]It could mean mammals, vertebrates, all warm blooded organisms, a specific species, etc.[/quote]Atheist states an array of interpretations without having any basis as to what deceptively helped him conclude the thinking.[quote]So if I said land mammals evolved to whales, and you say, "No because the kind changed," I can say, "The kind stayed the same because whales are still vertebrate, warm blooded mammals."[/quote]...but now you have to convince me that the original translation of "kind" must mean "vertebrate animals." So far...you have shown no pseudo-logic as to why that may be.[quote]...so unless you want to argue that evolution says birds turn into fish and undermine any credibility you have at all, your argument is false.[/quote]Speciation is the alleged process by which evolutionists claim that we form new species. Under that denotation, what the lizards exhibited wasn't speciation.[quote]You're argument [is] that since you have an unknown, and God can fill that unkown, it must be God...[/quote]...because having an infinite cause satisfies the reasoning as to why would anything would even need to exist, as to why we have these sudden jumps in obviously differentiated species without even the fossilized anatomy of missing links over the time frame an acclaimed billion year Earth, as to why intelligence of humans far exceeds the smartest care-free creature, and as to how organic organisms can manifest from non-organic material.
-
The physical changes followed perfectly the predictions put forth for the experiment. No the lizards did not experience speciation, but the sepreate populations did start evolving in differences which is what leads to a speciation event. That's the point. [quote]And you conclude that if the speciation isn't visible, it must be internal[/quote] This sentence makes no sense. Speciation is the description of two populations of organisms becoming so different that they can no longer produce fertile offspring. I'll try and address what I think you're poorly saying. Internal changes matter just as much as external ones. They're just as visible during a dissection as external changes are. I'm not sure what you think speciation is. But your visibility statement still makes no sense. Your definition of kind is a personal one not shared or agreed upon by anyone. So your definition is meaningless. Which is the entire point that I go on to illustrate by throwing around more made up defintions. It's called an example, which I don't think you grasped at all. Family is a subjective taxonomic classification, and new ones can be added or old ones removed as new species are discovered and things are reevaluated. Taxonomy is merely a way of organizing that changes often, not a definitive end all be all. The lizards are an example of the beginning steps of speciation, not complete speciation, true. The point is though it's more evidence in favor of the current evolutionary understanding. I also really like you ignore all the other well documented speciation events in the article I shared. As for God, you can't even demonstrate, give evidence, or even hint at the universe needing an [u]infinite[/u] cause. Like I said, God of the gaps isn't God. It's just fairy tales to fill your gaps in understanding. Also, cut the gish gallop crap.
