"Best" evidence for evolution.

There are 35 animal phyla. One very large phyla, the chordata, includes all vertebrates, meaning fish, frogs, lizards, birds, lions, tigers and bears - oh my. If kind is the same thing as phylum then a toad could give birth to a human and it would still be according to the Bible.Maybe you want to rethink this?--Percy

Well then, that completely solves the entire problem, doesn't it?They already admit that "micro-evolution" is real, but they define it as "variation within a single 'kind'." They deny "macro-evolution" which they define as requiring change into an entirely different "kind".Well, since all vertebrates are part of that one big happy "kind" called chordates, then all the evolution of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians evolved from tetrapods, including the evolution of primates which includes humans, is just "variation within the single chordate 'kind'."So, that resolves all the differences between us and the creationists. Dredge now has a very good reason to accept evolution in full agreement with his creationism.But of course, he will most likely commit the common creationist "Peppered Moth fallacy": " ... but ... but ... but ... but they're all STILL CHORDATES!!!!" Still not the way that it works. Even though that's the entire wrong idea that most creationists have of how it would work.To point out to Dredge and others, due to nested clades, all descendants of a population, including all descendant species, are of the same "kind" (AKA "clade") as that parent species. We cannot expect an animal of one clade to ever give birth to offspring of an entirely different and distantly-related clade (ie, disregarding hybrids between very closely related species which means that they are members of the same clade going up one of two levels).Which is another way of saying that evolution teaches that organisms do indeed reproduce according to their own kind (AKA "clade"). So why do creationists pretend that it doesn't teach that?

Dredge doesn't understand what a phylum is. He doesn't realize the dog-kind and the cat-kind are the same kind by that definition. And as you and Percy point out, the human-kind is also in that same phylum.Dog-kind, cat-kind and human-kind are all the same "biblical" kind and the only differences between them are micro-evolution.I'm not sure that works for the creationist without a really bad idea of what a phylum is. Regardless, it doesn't work in reality either.The worst part of this whole scene is that the definition if phylum is very quickly and easily known. Dredge didn't even check to see if that definition fit his wet dream. I guess this lack of intellect is to be expected from creationists.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

. If kind is the same thing as phylum then a toad could give birth to a human and it would still be according to the Bible

---

Really? Which Bible verse says/implies a toad could give birth to a human?

Evolution most definitely teaches us that such an event would be impossible. Despite so sickingly frequent false creationist claims to the contrary.Rather, it is the creationists themselves who insist that that must be the case if evolution were true. Plus that would be the logical conclusion of the standard creationist claim about "kinds".Percy was just taking the creationist claims about "kinds being phyla" to their logical conclusion and a bit beyond. So the real question you should be asking is toads giving birth to humans isn't the case. We all know the answer to that one, but creationists appear to be completely clueless.So then, Dredge can you, an obvious creationist, answer that question? If you insist that evolution would require such things, do please explain that to us.Edited by dwise1, : "despite creationist claims to the contrary"

Granted. I have yet to encounter any creationist who has any clue what he's talking about. That seems to be an article of faith.Plus there's that unspoken requirement for them to lie once they have learned anything about what they are talking about. And the more that they actually learn, the more they have to lie.I have seen that happen so sickeningly often, over and over again.

Kind begets kind, right?If kind = phylum as you say then:Toads are phylum chordata. Humans are phylum chordata.Therefore toads beget humans.Your god said so.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Are you really this ignorant of the Bible? Here:

quote:

---

Gen 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

​

Gen 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

---

Take this and add to it your claim that "kind===phylum" and it turns the meaning of these Biblical passages into a claim that all chordate species are the same kind, e.g., a fish is the same "kind" as a mouse.These passages distinguish between sea creatures, birds, livestock and wild animals, and they say that each of these categories includes multiple kinds, thereby making it impossible for "kind===phylum" without contradicting the Bible.Usually creationists ignore science but not the Bible. You seem to be ignoring both.--Percy

quote:

---

Plus there's that unspoken requirement for them to lie once they have learned anything about what they are talking about. And the more that they actually learn, the more they have to lie.

---

Hilarious. Pray tell, what " lie" have I uttered?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I take your point. I'd forgotten what the Bible actually says. Having been reminded, I realize that a phylum is way too broad to be a "kind", so maybe it refers to a class, order or family. Thank you for pointing out my error.Furthermore, the creatures described in the verses you quoted are what we see today and not the 'original' creation. As someone once said, there are no rabbits in the preCambrian.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Your Message 764

quote:

---

The various phylum appear suddenly (no evidence of a line of gradual evolutionary progression) in the fossil record, and contrary to the evolutionist propaganda, there is no fossil evidence of "branches" connecting phyla to form the single "tree" of common ancestry of Darwinist folklore. The fossil evidence looks more like an orchard than one lone tree.

​

In short, the creation of separate "kinds" explains the fossil evidence better than universal common descent.

---

You lied.

We're gonna need a bigger boat. - Roy Schneider in Jaws.

Much better.

quote:

---

Family Hominid: Any of various primates of the family Hominidae, which includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and modern humans, and their extinct relatives. The family formerly included only Homo sapiens, extinct species of Homo, and the extinct genus Australopithecus.

---

Edited by jar, : fix quotebox

No, that is not a lie. The fossil record shows phyla appearing suddenly and separately; after which diversification occurs within each phylum. So the fossil evidence looks like an orchard of separate, individual trees and not at all like a single tree.The Darwinian single-tree diagrams typically presented to the masses are misleading - they are a mixture of fact and theory, but the reader is lead to believe that the diagram is based on factual fossil evidence. The reader is not informed that the "branches" connecting one phylum to another are theoretical - based on the assumption of common descent)- and are not the result of fossil evidence.Sounds like you too have been misled.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I wasn't sure what you said that dwise1 thought a lie, but AZPaul3 thinks he was referring to this from you in Message 764:

quote:

---

The various phylum appear suddenly (no evidence of a line of gradual evolutionary progression) in the fossil record, and contrary to the evolutionist propaganda, there is no fossil evidence of "branches" connecting phyla to form the single "tree" of common ancestry of Darwinist folklore. The fossil evidence looks more like an orchard than one lone tree.

​

In short, the creation of separate "kinds" explains the fossil evidence better than universal common descent.

---

I'm not sure why dwise1 called it a lie. It's seems more like a true statement followed by a misinformed conclusion. It's true that the higher levels of classification like phyla appear suddenly in the fossil record, but this is true of huge numbers of species, too, which are at the opposite lowest level of classification (only subspecies and races are lower). There's nothing unusual about sudden appearance because whether a continuous line of descent appears in the fossil record for anything, be it species or phylum or any of the other classification levels, is serendipitous. Complicating matters is that we often can't tell direct descendants from cousin branches.A phylum can be thought to begin with the oldest fossil species of that phylum. Since most phyla are near the base of the tree of life and their progenitors therefore amongst the oldest life, the likelihood of fossil preservation of continuous lines of descent for plylum origination is unlikely in the extreme.It's important to note that the oldest fossil of a phylum is unlikely to be the first species of the phylum. The oldest fossil of a phylum is merely the oldest we've found so far. Oftentimes even in the absence of direct evidence we can guestimate from other evidence when a phylum first formed, even though we never find its first species.--Percy