Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Right Divider]

And nor should it.

Then quit doing it.

Are you saying it is not possible to observe big changes in biology?

Possible... sure. Actually observed ... no.

Are you denying that accumulated small changes add to give big changes?

Stuart

Yes, in this context I most certainly do.

Once again, mutations are vastly damaging to the one that receives them. Even honest evolutionists say the same. That's why they try to explain around the problem.

Every "advantageous" mutation comes at a great cost to the integrity of the original design. Mutation are NOT fuel for progress.

 

[Alate_One]

Every "advantageous" mutation comes at a great cost to the integrity of the original design. Mutation are NOT fuel for progress.

This is simply wrong. Can you drink milk as an adult? Thank an advantageous mutation. There's no cost associated unless you're eating too much ice cream.

 

[Right Divider]

This is simply wrong. Can you drink milk as an adult? Thank an advantageous mutation. There's no cost associated unless you're eating too much ice cream.

Again, those are extremely trivial changes and NOT the kind of changes that can construct the highly complex interdependent human body from the supposed "single universal common ancestor" (that is supposedly a single celled creature of some kind).

 

[Alate_One]

Again, those are extremely trivial changes and NOT the kind of changes that can construct the highly complex interdependent human body from the supposed "single universal common ancestor" (that is supposedly a singled celled creature of some kind).

How about the difference between the beak of a cactus finch and a ground finch?

Is that trivial? Or is the loss of toes in a horse along with the increase in size of a single toe, is that trivial?

Is the change in human skin color "trivial"?

Could cats and dogs have shared a common ancestor?

I am fairly sure anything you could consider "not trivial" is something that would never occur in one evolutionary step or by one mutation.

So you claim that all mutations are bad, then you're shown beneficial mutations. You claim those are "trivial" so you move the goalposts to something that requires many mutations and is harder to reconstruct, then you say, "see no mutations are beneficial".

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: Are you saying it is not possible to observe big changes in biology?

Possible... sure. Actually observed ... no.

How do you account for all the very different human (or hominid) fossils that have been discovered?

As you will appreciate, it's not just the big differences in the skulls.

Once again, mutations are vastly damaging to the one that receives them. Even honest evolutionists say the same. That's why they try to explain around the problem. Every "advantageous" mutation comes at a great cost to the integrity of the original design. Mutation are NOT fuel for progress.

You will understand I'm sure that this is a matter of chance, and also a matter of probability: very large mutations are almost certain to be very damaging and probably fatal to development; but the smaller the mutation, the closer it gets to having a 50% chance of being advantageous.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

How about the difference between the beak of a cactus finch and a ground finch?

Is that trivial?

YES... that is very trivial. They are ALL still finches with beaks.

Or is the loss of toes in a horse along with the increase in size of a single toe, is that trivial?

Conjecture based on the fossil record?

Is the change in human skin color "trivial"?

Absolutely!

Could cats and dogs have shared a common ancestor?

Not likely.

I am fairly sure anything you could consider "not trivial" is something that would never occur in one evolutionary step or by one mutation.

Or trillions

So you claim that all mutations are bad, then you're shown beneficial mutations. You claim those are "trivial" so you move the goalposts to something that requires many mutations and is harder to reconstruct, then you say, "see no mutations are beneficial".

It's not harder... it's impossible based on actual scientific observations.

BTW... you are LYING about what I said. I have NEVER said that "there are no beneficial mutations". I said that EVEN those mutations that seem to have some benefit come at the cost of damage to the original design.

Of course, you think that the entire animal kingdom is in a constant state of design or redesign. That's not science, that's silly.

 

[Right Divider]

Stuu: Are you saying it is not possible to observe big changes in biology?

How do you account for all the very different human (or hominid) fossils that have been discovered?

Those various skulls are not more different than the range of human skulls around the world today.

As you will appreciate, it's not just the big differences in the skulls.

:juggle:

You will understand I'm sure that this is a matter of chance, and also a matter of probability: very large mutations are almost certain to be very damaging and probably fatal to development; but the smaller the mutation, the closer it gets to having a 50% chance of being advantageous.

:rotfl:

Nothing about random mutations can design the highly complex interdependent systems requires for a human body.

I feel that you and many other evolutionists here are a lot like those that once talked about the "simple single cell". You also grossly underestimate the incredible complexity of the human body.

 

[Stuu]

Those various skulls are not more different than the range of human skulls around the world today.

That's just not true, I'm afraid. And my point wasn't about skulls specifically, which you did not address. So we have a situation where you have been presented with a good example of what you deny (not to mention Alate's One).

Nothing about random mutations can design the highly complex interdependent systems requires for a human body.

We have covered this already. I recommend you do more reading on this topic if you wish to be taken seriously.

I feel that you and many other evolutionists here are a lot like those that once talked about the "simple single cell". You also grossly underestimate the incredible complexity of the human body.

I would like to know what I have posted that has denied the complexity of biological systems in any way. I have posted in the last month somewhere here that I think creationists underestimate the complexity of living cells.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

That's just not true, I'm afraid. And my point wasn't about skulls specifically, which you did not address. So we have a situation where you have been presented with a good example of what you deny (not to mention Alate's One).

You're not fooling anyone with this attempted ploy.

Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship. So you and your fellow evolutionists can continue to push that narrative all that you like. It's proof of nothing.

We have covered this already. I recommend you do more reading on this topic if you wish to be taken seriously.

Your attempted knock on my "education" is sophomoric at best.

I would like to know what I have posted that has denied the complexity of biological systems in any way.

:duh:

Your belief that random mistakes can create exceedingly complex interdependent systems, like the human body.

I have posted in the last month somewhere here that I think creationists underestimate the complexity of living cells.

:rotfl:

If nothing else, you're good for a laugh.

 

[The Barbarian]

YE creationism is an attempt to compromise scripture with biology geology, physics, and so on. Because scripture and science are about two entirely different things, the compromise never worked.

 

[Stuu]

You're not fooling anyone with this attempted ploy. Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship. So you and your fellow evolutionists can continue to push that narrative all that you like. It's proof of nothing.

So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

Your attempted knock on my "education" is sophomoric at best.

Is your attitude that you would like to learn?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

YE creationism is an attempt to compromise scripture with biology geology, physics, and so on. Because scripture and science are about two entirely different things, the compromise never worked.

Given the number of times it makes testable claims, the conclusion would have to be then that scripture is historical fiction, or historical science fiction.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

YE creationism is an attempt to compromise scripture with biology geology, physics, and so on. Because scripture and science are about two entirely different things, the compromise never worked.

False accusation are all the rage these days. :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

Given the number of times it makes testable claims, the conclusion would have to be then that scripture is historical fiction, or historical science fiction.

Stuart

What else would an irrational, illogical atheist say?

 

[Right Divider]

So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

So you're just reduced to babbling foolishly?

Is your attitude that you would like to learn?

Stuart

More childishness.... and here you pretend to want to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

So you're just reduced to babbling foolishly?

If Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship, then there is no need for offspring to look like their parents at all. You know that's not what we see, so, if you are serious about intelligent conversation, then how about an intelligent response, or a logical counterargument? I am willing to learn, if you have something to teach. I would like to improve my understanding by being challenged by you. What do you have that is above insults?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Stuu: So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

If Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship, then there is no need for offspring to look like their parents at all.

Another completely fallacious non-sequitur. Of course ACTUAL descendants are similar.

You know that's not what we see, so, if you are serious about intelligent conversation, then how about an intelligent response, or a logical counterargument? I am willing to learn, if you have something to teach. I would like to improve my understanding by being challenged by you. What do you have that is above insults?

Stuart

Nobody said that ACTUAL descendants are not similar.

The point, AGAIN, is that similarities are NOT ipso facto an indication of a descendant relationship, particularity among all life forms.

 

[The Barbarian]

Those various skulls are not more different than the range of human skulls around the world today.

Stuu accurately pointed out that is not true. But you should be given a chance to support your claim. Show us modern human skulls that match the top middle and lower left skulls. What do you have?

 

[Stripe]

YE creationism is an attempt to compromise scripture with biology geology, physics, and so on. Because scripture and science are about two entirely different things, the compromise never worked.

Nope.

We assume that Genesis is an account of history. If you have evidence that shows why it can't be accurate, we're open to a rational discussion. We're not at all confident that you're capable or willing to engage sensibly when you will not respect what we clearly present.

 

[Stuu]

Of course ACTUAL descendants are similar. The point, AGAIN, is that similarities are NOT ipso facto an indication of a descendant relationship, particularity among all life forms.

Yes, you have a good point about one of the 'problems' with the tree of life model: it's not great genealogy. When you are presented with a fossil of an 'ancestor' species, it is possibly not from a member of a species that led directly to humans, but was a bit off the direct line, a short way into one of the branches that eventually went extinct. The fossil is of 'the kind of thing' that the ancestor species was, rather than literally a member of the actual species or group that led to us.

There is a misconception out there that evolution involves one species giving birth to a different species, and therefore evolution is ridiculous. But of course no species ever gave birth to a difference species. All species are continuously the same, but change accumulates to the point that eventually you say that, at some stage, a new species has arisen.

You get a similar effect in ring species. From the Holy Wikipedia:

Larus gulls form a circumpolar "ring" around the North Pole. The European herring gull (L. argentatus argenteus), which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American herring gull (L. smithsonianus), (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian herring gull (L. vegae), the western subspecies of which, Birula's gull (L. vegae birulai), can hybridize with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull (L. fuscus). All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the lesser black-backed gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain. The lesser black-backed gulls and herring gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe.

It's like evolutionary change spread across geography, instead of spread across time.

Stuart