Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 178 by DrNoGods]

And I'm sure you appreciate that oral transmission of stories over time very often results in embellishment and exaggeration. What may have been a simple, everyday event when witnessed live can easily turn into a fantastic miracle after the story has been told and retold many times through many people, all orally.

You could say that the stories 'evolved' over time.

The game of 'Telephone' illustrates your point very well. But it is also a good illustration of how evolution in living things works. You clearly understand it already, but I will describe it for the benefit of the other posters who continue to reject the theory.

You have a message that you want to convey to a distant person and the only available method is by oral transmission. You carefully recount the message to a person and ask them to convey it to the next person. They then do the same, each time being as careful as possible not to introduce any errors. After passing through a thousand people the message is finally recorded. Even in a simple version when a small number of people attempt this, the final message is significantly different from the original because the method is not infallible. There are many factors which will affect the accuracy of the transmission, but clearly, the larger the group, the more different the final message will be from the original despite the care taken by each individual. The message received at the end may bare very little relationship to the message transmitted at the beginning.

Importantly, if we could record any pair of adjacent messages along the chain we would probably notice very little difference in the messages at that point. At times there may be no difference. It is when we look at them further and further apart in the chain that the differences become more apparent, and they should be more common the longer the chain.

Transmission of genetic information is also not infallible. Small changes occur over generations and these changes can be expressed in changes to the characteristics of the organism. In terms of evolution, adjacent animals in the chain will have enough common characteristics for them to be of the same species. But when you look at widely separated animals in the chain that is less likely. Far enough apart and the animals are sufficiently different to be distinctly different species. Small incremental changes over countless generations has achieved this evolutionary change.

[Divine Insight]

And it is my belief that abiogenesis followed by macroevolution is a indefensible position that most believers recognize as nothing more than voodoo science and bio-technical babble.

What you choose to believe is irrelevant. Science has proven its facts for anyone who's interested in knowing the truth.

Face it, the obvious and clear reason that you reject truth is for the sole purpose of clinging to a belief in an ancient fable about a God who supposedly had humans brutally crucify his Son so he could offer them undeserved amnesty from having been created with built-in flaws that they would be incapable of overcoming.

Just think of how utterly absurd this religion truly is.

If humans truly were as inept as your favorite religion demands, that would only demonstrate how utterly inept their creator was.

So gee whiz. If you're going to believe in a religion why not at least find a decent religion to believe in? At least you wouldn't need to continually make apologies for why your current religion is so absurd.

Using your religion as an excuse to rebel against the truth of science, is truly a useless hobby. It doesn't do anyone any good.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 181 by brunumb]

Small incremental changes over countless generations has achieved this evolutionary change.

And if some kind of selection driver is added in, like the need to please the leader of each clan along the transmission chain to avoid being chosen as the next human sacrifice, it is easy to see how the message could develop certain exaggerations regarding the leader if there were any references to the qualities of the leader within it.

Unfortunately, I expect any analogy will be lost on people like our friend FTK and his ilk who have decided that what they call "macro" evolution is simply an impossibility, despite the solid evidence from both the fossil record and genetic studies that it does in fact happen. and routinely.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And I'm sure you appreciate that oral transmission of stories over time very often results in embellishment and exaggeration.

True..and it is something that I appreciate, however, I don't think that was the case with Christianity.

What may have been a simple, everyday event when witnessed live can easily turn into a fantastic miracle after the story has been told and retold many times through many people, all orally.

Yeah but if you have the originators of the story still living around the time that the story is spread, they (the originators) would be able to combat any kind of embellishment or exaggeration.

So those embellishments would never "stick"...they would never "stick" until after the originators were long gone, which is EXACTLY why those later denominations of Christianity crept in to the mix well after the 2nd century AD...after the original apostles were long gone.

there were scribes and other people who did have the ability write down things during Roman times. If there was a guy walking around healing people and performing miracles, then being crucified and resurrected, and (especially!) graveyards emptying when news spread of this event to dance in the streets, someone at the time would have written this stuff down. But that never happened.

Jesus was teaching/preaching in relatively Jewish communities...he wasn't appealing to the mainstream Roman society. Those Jewish communities were relatively illiterate..and this fact was alluded to even as it relates to Peter and John (Acts 4:13), who were part of Jesus' inner circle.

The "uneducation" of Peter and John reflects the Jewish community as a whole. So there wouldn't have been much "writing stuff down" during those times...and the only ones who were educated and could write would be the Jewish leaders and scribes who worked at the Temple...and it is obvious that since most of the Pharisees were envious of Jesus and dismissed his miracles and good works (Luke 11:15), that they would have been the last ones to start writing about Jesus' exploits.

But not only that, though...I don't mean to get all "religiousy" on you, but I think the idea, from God's/Jesus' perspective was: "We can take 12 (11 discounting Judas) men, and from these 11, we can shake the world". Which is exactly what happened.

And not only that, either...it is rather amazing that despite none of that stuff being "wrote down" as you would like, Christianity STILL rose, spread, and became the world's #1 religion...which is a point I've made in other posts as well. All that you require just wasn't needed, apparently.

Why restrict news of these events to oral transmission only during the actual times they were happening, and only see written descriptions decades later? You don't find that hard to believe? Or impossible to take literally?

Well, since the Apostles wouldn't have lived forever, it became obvious that if the real, authentic message was to remain real and authentic, that they needed the written official story which stemmed from them to be written down...so that the authenticity of the message would remain after they were long gone...which is exactly what happened.

Did Paul write any of this down while he was alive and breaking bread with his buddy Jesus?

He did write it as it was alive...and he never met Jesus. But he was a contemporary of Jesus, though.

He had his revelation in 37 CE on the road to Damascus, and according to his writings, he "saw a blinding light, fell to the ground unconscious, heard voices, and became temporarily blinded" (from link below). During this episode, Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him. He didn't pen his first Epistle until 52 CE ... 15 years later.

Who are you to decide when a man should write his own personal testimony?

He never actually saw Jesus in the flesh as far as anyone knows, so I don't think you can claim that he was hanging around with Jesus or wrote anything down at the time of the events.

But he was a contemporary of Jesus, though..and the apostles. He would have known what was going on during those contemporary times. And as Acts indicate, he certainly knew of Jesus (Acts 8:2-3).

Unless the oral accounts were embellished as they were told and retold, which is by far the most common thing that happens when humans are involved. That is my point ... that these after-the-fact stories were likely heavily embellished and exaggerated, or outright fabricated to support the new religion and create a divine aspect to the Jesus character.

Paul's own testimony stated what the Christians believed as they passed down the information to him (1 Corin 15:3-8)..which is the same thing they believed as he wrote this testimony down (50's AD)..which is the same thing that is believed this very day.

Now sure, there were embellishments, but the embellishments came much later, and if it weren't for the written accounts that we have, we would never be able to tell the real from the fake. That's why the written accounts are so valuable.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 181 by brunumb]

That is actually a good spiel on the "Telephone" game. It is a good example as to how stories can change over time. We actually played the game at school one day..and it went like this..

The instructor took student A outside of the classroom, and proceeded to tell the student a seemingly long story (she read the story to the student). After reading the story, student A's job was to tell student B the same story, but in his own words (everything that he remembered).

So student B stepped outside the classroom, and student A proceeded to tell student B the same story (as much as he could remember).

Student A, relying on memory, obviously left some parts of the original story out...but all Student B could do was go by what Student A told him.

So student C was called outside of the classroom, and Student B told student C the same story...and so on and so forth.

Obviously, as the story goes on and on and on, key information was lost, and it may have gotten to the point where information that was never in the original story may have crept in.

So having played the game, I recognize how stories can change/evolve over time...but again, I don't think this was the case with Christianity.

The difference between the telephone game and the spread of Christianity is simple...the originator of the story wasn't standing there as the story was being spread to keep the story in line.

Had the originator of the story been there, he/she would have been able to put things back in its proper perspective as soon as things got out of hand. Obviously, if the originator isn't there, then all kinds of stuff can creep in or creep out. There is no quality control if the originator isn't around.

The fact of the matter is simple, there wouldn't have been a Charles T. Russell, a Jim Jones, a Joseph Smith around from 33 AD to 70 AD...because the original apostles would have been around to quell any of that mess before it even got started.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics...that is stuff that came around decades/centuries after the apostles were long gone.

That is why the telephone game doesn't work with Christianity...and history even proves that it doesn't.

[For_The_Kingdom]

What you choose to believe is irrelevant.

And what you choose to disbelieve is also irrelevant. You can disbelieve in the death penalty, and still get the electric chair. LOL.

Science has proven its facts for anyone who's interested in knowing the truth.

What good is science to one who created the universe??

Face it, the obvious and clear reason that you reject truth is for the sole purpose of clinging to a belief in an ancient fable about a God who supposedly had humans brutally crucify his Son so he could offer them undeserved amnesty from having been created with built-in flaws that they would be incapable of overcoming. Just think of how utterly absurd this religion truly is.

As crazy and outrageously absurd as such a notion is to you...at least it is conceivable. I will tell you what isn't conceivable, is the notion that natural law can explain how your couch (inanimate matter) can come to life and begin to talk to you.

I will stick with my Christian theism on that note.

If humans truly were as inept as your favorite religion demands, that would only demonstrate how utterly inept their creator was.

So gee whiz. If you're going to believe in a religion why not at least find a decent religion to believe in? At least you wouldn't need to continually make apologies for why your current religion is so absurd.

LOL that is actually funny.

Using your religion as an excuse to rebel against the truth of science, is truly a useless hobby. It doesn't do anyone any good.

You love science, huh? So you love Microsoft, but hate Bill Gates? LOL gotcha.

[Bust Nak]

Obviously, every animal that has a trait/characteristic; they have it because it "works for them". The horns on the ram "works for it", but that doesn't explain why the ram has it and other animals don't...unless something/someone is selectively choosing which animals gets what.

Why do you think there has to be some deeper meaning than the obvious answer you are getting now? You said you were asking an honest, genuine, straight-forward question, so why refuse to listen to the honest, genuine, straight-forward answer?

The whole point of evolution is whatever works, works. Survival of the fittest, where fitness is defined along the lines of surviving long enough to breed. It is just that simple at its core which is why it such a great theory.

And I don't think such selections are "natural".

Some selection are artificial, we've been doing the selection for at least tens of thousands of years.

Sure, you can name any arbitrary trait/characteristic an animal has and ask the same question. No problems there.

Right, so doesn't that render the question moot, when you've acknowledge that the trait in question is arbitrary, and "special" is purely subjective?

A digestive system to digest food...an immune system to fight diseases...a circulatory system for blood flow, etc. Those systems are specified systems with specified parts for specified functions of the anatomy.

I will call such specified complexity a "grand plan/design", and so would you in any other circumstance in nature except for the one circumstance at which if you believe otherwise, it will shatter your worldview.

Incorrect. I would call it a grand plan/design only in circumstance only where there is a grand plan/design.

Regardless, the point remains: you want to understand the scientific answer, take off your theistic goggle. You can't judge the validity of the scientific answer by how different it is to the theistic answer; a theory isn't invalidated because it's not what the Bible says.

SMH. I'm not gonna even answer this..

I can only hope that you won't answer because you see where I am going with that line of question - this talk of "kinds" is based on an arbitrary distinction, there no objective criteria for what is and isn't a fundamental difference.

And as I said, foxes are in the "dog" category, obviously.

That doesn't tell me why you drew the line where you've drawn it.

And legs are good enough for birds, too. *cough* ostrich. If it works for ostriches, why can't it work for all birds.

It can work for all bird, just not as well as wings in many instances, hence wings.

If you are a rabbit and you have this giant wolf coming after you...would you rather run away from it, or fly away from it? I don't know about you, but I choose the latter. Just sayin'.

You better be "just sayin," as the idea that rabbits would somehow evolving wings just by preferring to fly away is ridiculous.

It is still a fox, though...isn't it? There can be as many different varieties within the fox/dog kind you like...but it is still a fox.

Just as a 2 legged field vertebrate (or ostrich) is still a vertebrate... isn't it?
Just as a 4 legged river vertebrate (or crocodile) is still a vertebrate... isn't it?
There can be as many different varieties within the bird/reptiles kind you like..but it is still a vertebrate. If you didn't see where I was going with the "line in the sand" question above, you should to seeing it now.

You think you are slick by making the distinction between a "field fox" and a "forest fox". LOL.

Just as you think you are slick by making the distinction between a "4 legged field vertebrate" and a "2 legged river vertebrate." LOL.

Bruh.. it is still a vertebrate.. the equivalency to a field fox-forest fox type of transformation.

I hope we are finally making some head way here, lets say I could some how demonstrate to your satisfaction that crocodiles and ostriches do share a common ancestor, would you then say it still isn't good enough because it's not the equivalent to invertebrate-vertebrate transformation? You see this talk of "kinds" doesn't help your case against evolution one bit, because "kinds" are contrived.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Why do you think there has to be some deeper meaning than the obvious answer you are getting now?

Because, if my printer came to life and began to talk to me..or if it suddenly/gradually began to evolve from a small, desk printer to a large, mega label maker..I would say that the meaning of what is going on has become...deeper.

You said you were asking an honest, genuine, straight-forward question, so why refuse to listen to the honest, genuine, straight-forward answer?

We have to make the distinction between honest intentions, and honest answers. Your intention to answer to question honestly as it relates to your religion (evolution), was honest. However, the answer itself...is factually incorrect, to say the least...and since it is false and being passed off as true, that makes the answer; dishonest.

The whole point of evolution is whatever works, works.

So why aren't animals who are at the bottom of the food chain given more stuff that "works"? Makes no sense.

Survival of the fittest, where fitness is defined along the lines of surviving long enough to breed.

They can survive all they want to...I am just saying that those large-scale, macro changes aint happening..or at the very least; I see no evidence of happening.

It is just that simple at its core which is why it such a great theory.

It is as simple as an advocate of the theory will make it to be.

Some selection are artificial, we've been doing the selection for at least tens of thousands of years.

Sure, the leonberger dog is an example. Still a dog, tho.

Right, so doesn't that render the question moot, when you've acknowledge that the trait in question is arbitrary

You can use any arbitrary weapon for self defense...but that doesn't answer the question as to why you specifically use weapon X instead of weapon Y. I am sure you have an answer for why you use that specific weapon, regardless of how arbitrary the chooses are.

, and "special" is purely subjective?

When you were in kindergarten, and your teacher gave ever student in the class a cupcake EXCEPT you..and you ask your teacher in your 5 year old, mature voice "What is so special about everyone else in the classroom in the fact that they got a cupcake, and I didn't?"

And your teacher answers: "I feel you, Bust Nak, but at the same time; "special" is purely subjective".

I guess you would say, "You know what, you are right, Mrs. Thomas. You deserve the "Teacher of the Year" award for such an adequate response to the question of why I am the only student in the classroom without a cupcake".

Incorrect. I would call it a grand plan/design only in circumstance only where there is a grand plan/design.

Right, because a mindless/blind process creating and configuring all of that "stuff" inside of your stomach (kidneys, stomach, liver, pancreas, intestines, etc)..that is what mindless and blind processes do. SMH.

Regardless, the point remains: you want to understand the scientific answer, take off your theistic goggle.

I don't consider it a scientific answer. Unless you can scientific back up the answer, it isn't a scientific answer. Science is based on observation, experimentation, and prediction.

So what you've got is a scientific hypothesis, of which you've yet to corroborate. Face it, you've never seen any kind of reptile-bird transformation in nature, and you certainly have never seen inanimate matter come to life from nonliving material and begin to talk.

If you believe that stuff despite no evidence, then you are expressing faith in the unseen...so what you've got there is a religion.

You can't judge the validity of the scientific answer by how different it is to the theistic answer

Even if I wasn't a theist, I still wouldn't believe in abiogenesis or macroevolution. I would simply be agnostic.

; a theory isn't invalidated because it's not what the Bible says.

All I know is; the Bible says that animals will produce after their kinds..and all I see is animals producing after their kinds. That is all see. That is all I know. If you would like me (or care) that I should see additional things, then I need to see additional evidence.

I can only hope that you won't answer because you see where I am going with that line of question - this talk of "kinds" is based on an arbitrary distinction, there no objective criteria for what is and isn't a fundamental difference.

As I said to you before; if you go in a pet store and ask them "Where are your reptiles", and you are taken to the consisting of nothing but birds..would you accept this? If the answer is "yes", then I simply don't believe you.

If the answer is no, then you know the distinction. You guys (evolutionists) only want to play these "distinction" games when it comes to subjects on evolution...but in practical, every day life when stuff actually matters, you know the difference... You know whats up.

That doesn't tell me why you drew the line where you've drawn it.

And I see nothing in nature which tells me that I need to draw the line beyond it.

It can work for all bird, just not as well as wings in many instances, hence wings.

But the ones that it doesn't work for..why aren't they getting it? Not to mention the simple question of; why in the heck would they even BEGIN to evolve wings.

And yeah, I remember that nonsensical article you provided on this very subject in the past.

You better be "just sayin," as the idea that rabbits would somehow evolving wings just by preferring to fly away is ridiculous.

You are only saying that now because rabbits obviously don't have wings. But if they had it, you would be saying "because they needed it for survival, you know, to escape from predators".

But the fact that they don't have it now, you call it ridiculous. SMH. And not only that, but before reptiles evolved wings (as you believe), you could have said the same thing; "reptiles evolving wings, that is just ridiculous"...but since they now have wings and you believe that they evolved it...now all of a sudden, "they evolved it for survival".

Mannnn please.

Just as a 2 legged field vertebrate (or ostrich) is still a vertebrate... isn't it?
Just as a 4 legged river vertebrate (or crocodile) is still a vertebrate... isn't it?

Just as a 2-wheeled motor vehicle (motorcycle) is still a motor vehicle..isn't it?
Just as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle (honda civic) is still a motor vehicle..isn't it?

Therefore, the 2-wheeled motorcycle evolved into a 4-wheeled honda civic a hundred million years ago.

Non sequitur.

There can be as many different varieties within the bird/reptiles kind you like..but it is still a vertebrate.

Right, now prove that one vertebrate evolved into another vertebrate. You had your fun. Now, back to reality.

If you didn't see where I was going with the "line in the sand" question above, you should to seeing it now.

Oh I got you, now see what I did.

Just as you think you are slick by making the distinction between a "4 legged field vertebrate" and a "2 legged river vertebrate." LOL.

Cool. Now prove that one vertebrate evolved into another vertebrate. Because after all, that is what you are saying occurred.

Not so amusing now, is it?

Bruh.. it is still a vertebrate.. the equivalency to a field fox-forest fox type of transformation.

A fox is a fox.

I hope we are finally making some head way here, lets say I could some how demonstrate to your satisfaction that crocodiles and ostriches do share a common ancestor, would you then say it still isn't good enough because it's not the equivalent to invertebrate-vertebrate transformation? You see this talk of "kinds" doesn't help your case against evolution one bit, because "kinds" are contrived.

Sure, crocs and ostriches share a common ancestor...because after all, their parents and grandparents looked just like them!!! SMH.

[Divine Insight]

As crazy and outrageously absurd as such a notion is to you...at least it is conceivable. I will tell you what isn't conceivable, is the notion that natural law can explain how your couch (inanimate matter) can come to life and begin to talk to you.

I will stick with my Christian theism on that note.

You are living under the assumption of a false dichotomy.

Apparently you view science as secular materialism (which it isn't). So you've already made a grave error of misunderstanding there.

Secondly, you seem to believe that either secular materialism is true, or Hebrew mythology is true, and specifically the offshoot of Hebrew mythology that became Christianity.

Again, this is a grave error on your part. Thinking that the truth of reality must either be secular materialism or a specific offshoot of Hebrew mythology is your second grave error of misunderstanding.

There are countless other possibilities. Many of which make far more sense than the offshoot of Hebrew mythology called Christianity.

So you are living your life based on an entirely false dichotomy.

Also, there is nothing in science that says that there cannot be a creator God. So science itself does not proclaim secular materialism.

The reason the God of Hebrew mythology cannot be true is because that mythology proves itself false via the countless contradictory claims it makes about it's God character. Not to mention that its God character behaves like an immature spoiled brat who is totally absorbed in his own ego as the most important think on his mind.

I mean seriously, as religions go you could do far better to be sure.

Pitting a clearly flawed Hebrew mythology against science is truly nothing more than an act of extreme ignorance. All you've managed to do is twist Christianity into being propaganda machine to spew hatred toward science and the intellectual pursuit of knowledge.

In short, you are demanding that Christianity represents a religion that despises truth and demonizes truth. All because you have embraced the idea that some self-centered egotistical monster created humans for his own personal enjoyment, which apparently includes a sadistic desire to watch humans suffer, potentially for all of eternity.

Christianity is one seriously sick religion to be sure. Never mind your false dichotomy that it somehow represents the only alternative to secular materialism.

"There must be a God, therefore Christianity is true", is not even close to being a logical statement. Yet that appears to be the only argument you have to support this self-contradicting mythology.

[Bust Nak]

Because, if my printer came to life and began to talk to me..or if it suddenly/gradually began to evolve from a small, desk printer to a large, mega label maker..I would say that the meaning of what is going on has become...deeper.

I don't understand, why must there be a deeper meaning, over the actual mechanism and string of event that lead to a talking printer?

We have to make the distinction between honest intentions, and honest answers. Your intention to answer to question honestly as it relates to your religion (evolution), was honest. However, the answer itself...is factually incorrect, to say the least...and since it is false and being passed off as true, that makes the answer; dishonest.

First of all, that's not how things work. Honesty/dishonesty depends entirely on intention, not the factual correctness of the answer. If you acknowledged my intention to be honest, then you got an honest answer.

Secondly the only reason why you'd think the answer is false in the first place, is that it is at odds with your understanding of your religion's doctrine.

So why aren't animals who are at the bottom of the food chain given more stuff that "works"?

Because they already have stuff that works! Animals at the bottom of the food chain have lots more offspring, can digest plentiful food for example.

They can survive all they want to...I am just saying that those large-scale, macro changes aint happening..or at the very least; I see no evidence of happening.

If that is all there is to it, then how are you so sure it's false, instead of mere agnostic over it?

It is as simple as an advocate of the theory will make it to be.

Why do you want it to be more complex? Sure we can go into the mutations or what have you, but the concept itself really is that simple - organism reproduce; reproduction are not direct copies but varies; said variations changes it fitness; survival of the fittest; repeat.

Sure, the leonberger dog is an example. Still a dog, tho.

Right.

You can use any arbitrary weapon for self defense...but that doesn't answer the question as to why you specifically use weapon X instead of weapon Y. I am sure you have an answer for why you use that specific weapon, regardless of how arbitrary the chooses are.

X is just more handy than Y, I picked whatever is close by, I picked whatever worked. But somehow that's not a good enough answer for you. Why would there be a deeper meaning?

When you were in kindergarten, and your teacher gave ever student in the class a cupcake EXCEPT you..and you ask your teacher in your 5 year old, mature voice "What is so special about everyone else in the classroom in the fact that they got a cupcake, and I didn't?"

And your teacher answers: "I feel you, Bust Nak, but at the same time; "special" is purely subjective".

I guess you would say, "You know what, you are right, Mrs. Thomas. You deserve the "Teacher of the Year" award for such an adequate response to the question of why I am the only student in the classroom without a cupcake".

I'll have you know that I was smart enough when I was 5 years old to know there is no objective difference between "what is so special about everyone else in the classroom that they got a cupcake" and "what is so special about me that I didn't get a cupcake?" As such would have left "special" out of the question. More to the point, I would have accepted "no particular reason, I just ran out of cupcakes" as a valid (but entirely unfair) answer to my question, without insisting on there being a deeper meaning on me missing out.

Right, because a mindless/blind process creating and configuring all of that "stuff" inside of your stomach (kidneys, stomach, liver, pancreas, intestines, etc)..that is what mindless and blind processes do.

You shake your head but that's exactly what mindless and blind processes do. You need to bring more to the table than simple incredulity.

I don't consider it a scientific answer. Unless you can scientific back up the answer, it isn't a scientific answer. Science is based on observation, experimentation, and prediction.

And that's exactly why evolution is the scientific answer, it is backed with observation, experimentation, and prediction.

Face it, you've never seen any kind of reptile-bird transformation in nature, and you certainly have never seen inanimate matter come to life from nonliving material and begin to talk.

True enough, but I have personally done the experiment to scientifically observe (granted a tiny part of) evolution and the prediction matched the theory. You do accept that observation in science doesn't mean seeing with your own two eyeballs, right?

If you believe that stuff despite no evidence...[, then you are expressing faith in the unseen...so what you've got there is a religion.

Sure, IF I believe it despite no evidence, but I have evidence so that's moot.

Even if I wasn't a theist, I still wouldn't believe in abiogenesis or macroevolution. I would simply be agnostic.

You are just confirming my thesis - the reason you go beyond agnostic to active rejection of evolution and abiogenesis for one reason: because it does not gel with your religious belief.

All I know is; the Bible says that animals will produce after their kinds..and all I see is animals producing after their kinds. That is all see. That is all I know. If you would like me (or care) that I should see additional things, then I need to see additional evidence.

That right there is part of the evidence for evolution - it says animals will produce after their own "kind" and that's exactly what we observe. There are of course additional things like genetics and fossils, not to mentioned observed instances of speciation with bacteria experiments.

As I said to you before; if you go in a pet store and ask them "Where are your reptiles", and you are taken to the consisting of nothing but birds..would you accept this? If the answer is "yes", then I simply don't believe you.

If the answer is no, then you know the distinction.

Of course the answer is no, there is a distinction! That's why there is a different term. No one has ever denied that. Evolution acknowledges there is distinction and explains how such distinctions can arise naturally. That's the point I was making: the mere existence of distinction between species is not a valid attack on the theory of evolution.

You guys (evolutionists) only want to play these "distinction" games when it comes to subjects on evolution...but in practical, every day life when stuff actually matters, you know the difference... You know whats up.

Ironically that's exactly the "distinction" games you are playing now. In every day life you'd have no problem accepting that "iphones and androids are different but both are phones; cars and buses are different but both are vehicles; iphones and buses are very different but both are machines."

But when it comes to evolution: "ostriches are ostriches and crocodiles are crocodiles. They are fundamentally different and that's all there is to it! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!" But they are both verte... "I SAID GOOD DAY!"

And I see nothing in nature which tells me that I need to draw the line beyond it.

So don't. I am not the one evoking anything beyond nature.

But the ones that it doesn't work for..why aren't they getting it?

Why oh why would a species evolve something that does not work?! Isn't that the most basic thing about evolution, that features evolve because it works? I can even imagine what you had in mind that lead you to ask me this to give you a preemptive answer.

Not to mention the simple question of; why in the heck would they even BEGIN to evolve wings.

And yeah, I remember that nonsensical article you provided on this very subject in the past.

Then explain in detail what you found nonsensical about the article. (that was the article, right?)

You are only saying that now because rabbits obviously don't have wings. But if they had it, you would be saying "because they needed it for survival, you know, to escape from predators".

And had rabbits evolved wings, that response would have been the perfectly sensible answer. I don't understand why you'd think it worth mentioning. I just told you traits that evolve, works for those organism; traits that are discarded, they don't work (or not as well.)

But the fact that they don't have it now, you call it ridiculous.

No, that it's ridiculous because the implication was an organism can, via the power of his preference, will a feature such as wings to evolve.

And not only that, but before reptiles evolved wings (as you believe), you could have said the same thing; "reptiles evolving wings, that is just ridiculous."

No, I would not. Instead I would have said "reptiles willing themselves to evolve wings by preferring to fly, that is just ridiculous!" And I would still say that now, after I came to realize reptiles evolved wings. You simply misunderstood what I said.

Just as a 2-wheeled motor vehicle (motorcycle) is still a motor vehicle..isn't it?
Just as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle (honda civic) is still a motor vehicle..isn't it?

Therefore, the 2-wheeled motorcycle evolved into a 4-wheeled honda civic a hundred million years ago.

Non sequitur.

Correct. 3 out of 3! The following conclusion however:

"Therefore, the 2-wheeled motorcycle and 4-wheeled honda civic are of the same kind," is perfectly logical. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that ostriches and crocodiles are indeed of the same kind (vertebrate,) could you bring yourself to say that?

Right, now prove that one vertebrate evolved into another vertebrate.

Do I really need to prove it when you accept that Grey wolves (vertebrate) evolved into Leonberger (vertebrate)? Seems like a waste of my time to prove something you already know to be true.

Not so amusing now, is it?

No, still quite amusing, but this doesn't need to be about me, you know; maybe just leave the chip off your shoulder for a moment? Take the time to understand what we are telling you. You don't need to compromise any of your religious belief to understand an alternative. I see you saying evolution doesn't make sense, we are here to explain it until it makes sense to you.

A fox is a fox.

Indeed it is, but repeating that doesn't make a fox any less a vertebrate. It's about time you stop holding on to the "kinds" argument.

Sure, crocs and ostriches share a common ancestor...because after all, their parents and grandparents looked just like them!!! SMH.

You know full well that's not the extent of the evidence; just as you know full well we are not drawing the conclusion that crocodile and ostrich share a common ancestor simply because we observed that they are both vertebrates. So don't you "SMH" at me. I repeat my earlier plead, this doesn't have to be a confrontation despite being in a debate forum. Don't just shut down the conversation by shaking your head, the mere existence of theistic evolutionists should be enough to prove that evolution isn't something that could be dismissed out of hand with a LOL.