Evolution... Do we believe?

[Caino]

Hmmm....
Abstract

Genetic diversity patterns in nuclear versus mitochondrial systems and in low versus high mutation rate systems do not support the hypothesis of a recent African origin for all of humanity following a split between Africans and non-Africans 100,000 years ago, nor do genetic distance data. Geographical analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial gene trees do not support the hypothesis of a recent global replacement of humans coming out of Africa, although a local replacement event in Europe is indicated by these analyses and recent studies on Neandertal DNA. The gene tree analyses instead indicate that genetic interchanges have ensured that all of humanity has evolved as a single evolutionary lineage with no major splits.
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1997 Dec;7(6):841-7

A quick look at the literature a couple of decades old refutes that.

Of interest,

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717?related-urls=yes&legid=sci;309/5741/1717

"The gene Microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size and has evolved under strong positive selection in the human evolutionary lineage. We show that one genetic variant of Microcephalin in modern humans, which arose ∼37,000 years ago, increased in frequency too rapidly to be compatible with neutral drift. This indicates that it has spread under strong positive selection, although the exact nature of the selection is unknown. The finding that an important brain gene has continued to evolve adaptively in anatomically modern humans suggests the ongoing evolutionary plasticity of the human brain. It also makes Microcephalin an attractive candidate locus for studying the genetics of human variation in brain-related phenotypes."​

Urantia Book 1934, published 1955

"ADAM AND EVE arrived on Urantia, from the year A.D. 1934, 37,848 years ago. It was in midseason when the Garden was in the height of bloom that they arrived. At high noon and unannounced, the two seraphic transports, accompanied by the Jerusem personnel intrusted with the transportation of the biologic uplifters to Urantia, settled slowly to the surface of the revolving planet in the vicinity of the temple of the Universal Father. All the work of rematerializing the bodies of Adam and Eve was carried on within the precincts of this newly created shrine. And from the time of their arrival ten days passed before they were re-created in dual human form for presentation as the world's new rulers. They regained consciousness simultaneously. The Material Sons and Daughters always serve together. It is the essence of their service at all times and in all places never to be separated. They are designed to work in pairs; seldom do they function alone."​

 

[Stripe]

I didn't ask you where it came from; I know where it came from (the Bible).

But remember, we're talking science here. So my question is, what's the scientific basis for "groups of kinds"?

It does not matter what basis a definition has. What matters is that it is held consistently, is falsifiable and testable.

For evolutionists, it also matters that it actually exists. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

It does not matter what basis a definition has.

I didn't ask you what the basis for the definition was either. Again, what is the scientific basis for life on earth being in "groups of kinds"?

What matters is that it is held consistently, is falsifiable and testable.

So what would potentially falsify "groups of kinds"?

 

[Hawkins]

I didn't ask you what the basis for the definition was either. Again, what is the scientific basis for life on earth being in "groups of kinds"?



So what would potentially falsify "groups of kinds"?

It actually shows that the scientists are so lame that they failed to come up with a more precise definition at genetic level, though we clearly can tell that a human is completely different from a, say, bear.

 

[Jose Fly]

It actually shows that the scientists are so lame that they failed to come up with a more precise definition at genetic level, though we clearly can tell that a human is completely different from a, say, bear.

That has nothing to do with the questions I asked.

 

[Hawkins]

That has nothing to do with the questions I asked.

It doesn't seem that your question matters until you can be more open-mindedly show your intention behind that question.

 

[Jose Fly]

It doesn't seem that your question matters until you can be more open-mindedly show your intention behind that question.

What are you talking about? All I'm asking is what is the scientific basis for the notion of life on earth being in "groups of kinds" and what would falsify it.

That's it.

 

[Stripe]

I didn't ask you what the basis for the definition was either. Again, what is the scientific basis for life on earth being in "groups of kinds"?

:AMR:

That's like asking what is the scientific basis for cars being classified into makes and models.

It's a definition. It's either usable or it's not.

You've already told us that all life is one kind.

So what would potentially falsify "groups of kinds"?

It's a definition. What you would have to show is that it is somehow self defeating or contradictory. That you've already used it to explain your belief has put it into the lexicon as a usable definition.

As for "species," it relies on the truth of evolutionism, thus it is no definition; rather it is camoflague for the paucity of the evolutionary world view.

 

[Jose Fly]

You've already told us that all life is one kind.

Ah, so there are no "groups of kinds" only "one kind". Good to know.

It's a definition.

So "groups of kinds" isn't falsifiable. Good to know.

 

[Stripe]

Ah, so there are no "groups of kinds" only "one kind".

Nope.

That's just you desperately looking for a way out of the conversation.

So "groups of kinds" isn't falsifiable. Good to know.

Nope.

When I tell you what you would need to falsify it, that shows it is falsifiable.

However, when we agree on a definition, it becomes fact. And given that you've already showed how to properly use the definition, I think it is well established that a kind is all the descendants of a universal ancestor population.

Meanwhile, "species" is a vague term; next to useless in a scientific setting.

Which explains why evolutionists love using it. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

So there are "groups of kinds"? Ok then, what is the scientific basis for this idea?

Nope.

So "groups of kinds" is falsifiable? Ok then, what would falsify it?

When I tell you what you would need to falsify it, that shows it is falsifiable.

Please proceed. What would falsify "groups of kinds"?

 

[Stripe]

So there are "groups of kinds"? Ok then, what is the scientific basis for this idea?

Trees and fish are different kinds.

So "groups of kinds" is falsifiable? Ok then, what would falsify it?

You could get trees and fish to reproduce. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Trees and fish are different kinds.

You could get trees and fish to reproduce. :chuckle:

So the criterion for a "kind" is whether two populations are inter-fertile?

 

[Stripe]

So the criterion for a "kind" is whether two populations are inter-fertile?

Nope. Try reading the definition again. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

So how do you know trees and fish are different "kinds"?

 

[Stripe]

So how do you know trees and fish are different "kinds"?

How do you know water is wet?

 

[Jose Fly]

How do you know water is wet?

By touching it.

Again, how do you know trees and fish are different "kinds"?

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe knows he's in trouble, so he's playing stupid, again. In fact, there are more genes common to fish and trees than there are genes that are not found in one or the other.

And the genes in both of them will work in the other, because they are more closely related than either is to prokaryotes.

Eukaryotic organisms are a relatively recent evolutionary development, so they have a lot of things in common.

Here's what DNA analysis shows:

 

[6days]

I quoted a 2011 article that claimed it was new back then.... we are descendants of Neandertals.

A quick look at the literature a couple of decades old refutes that[/quote]
You are trying to read too fast again.*

 

[6days]

By touching it.

Again, how do you know trees and fish are different "kinds"?

Ask anyone older than 3.