If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

No we don't, because "kind" isn't a scientific term. You're making this claim. And what the hell does "roughly" equivalent mean? Either it is equivalent or not. And how do you know that the "kind", which I'm assuming you're pulling from the Bible, is equivalent to the taxonomic family?

Why are you solely talking about animals? There are six taxonomic kingdoms: animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea. And why should I show you evidence of one family changing into another? Evolution isn't "an animal changing into another animal". Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of alleles in a given population over time. That's it. A wolf being domestically bred into a modern day Chihuahua is evolution.

But here, here's a genetic study dealing with the evolution of mammalian families:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

Give up yet?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it actually is. How can a bacteria evolving not be an example of evolution?

 

I gave you plenty of examples, including new species.

Please remember that ONE example should really be enough as a proof of concept.

 

I am still waiting for an explanation other than evolution for the variety of species on this planet . If you don't believe in evolution maybe now is the time to put up or shutup to put it in terms those opposed to evolution might possibly understand.

 

It merely means you need a clue and a Cause. Homo sapiens sapiens is said to have evolved from predecessors. That could only be accomplished through evolution.

 

Nonsensical drivel.

Evolution can only be accomplished through evolution? Why, that's real tenure level stuff, daniel.

 

The current hierarchy of classifications wasn't 'invented' until about 250 years ago. That means scientists used 'kinds' for about 5,750 years. Learn a little bit about science if you want to debate science.

Show us evidence of one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal, or sit down and shut up.

A bacteria mutating into a bacteria is not even close to being evolution. A bacteria changing into a porcupine is.

Come back after you learn a little about the topic being debated.

- - - Updated - - -

SPECIES to species in not does not get you close to evolution of man from a bacteria. Try again after YOU learn something about the topic being debated.

 

Now, I understand your difficulty. Evolving can only be accomplished through evolution. Evolution can happen without evolving.

 

Wolves are of the canine SPECIES as are Collies, Terriers, and Coyotes. They can breed, so they are of the same species. I better explain, due to your ignorance exhibited so far, a wolf can not breed with a horse. They are not the same species, they are different FAMILIES.

What your fairytale propports is one animal given a few trillion years and a few trillion mutations will change from one Family of aninal to another Family of animal. There is no evidence to support this.

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

- - - Updated - - -

Not quite true. That is your only opinion.

 

Oh yeah, care to point out any biologists, modern to ancient, who used "kinds" in biological classifications?

I already have. Care to address it?

In case you missed it: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

Provide any sort of scientific evidence to back up this statement. Provide a textbook, a study, or any other scientifically reputable site that backs this up. Because it's false. I can provide you at least twenty five links off the top of my head that say that your definition of evolution is erroneous.

Says the guy who is just pulling definitions of evolution out their ass.

 

How in the world can evolution, which you define as "change", happen without evolving, or "the process of changing"? How can change occur without something changing?

 

Wait - are you talking about the Bible, or the Qur'an, here?

 

All of them before 250 years ago.

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution? All sorts of redirection and running down bunny holes to escape the question you have NO answer for.

 

Nope. Aristotle is a counter point right off the top of my head. You're just making a statement without any evidence to back it up. You've done this multiple times. Why should we continue to content you with evidence if you're so opposed to using it yourself?

Are you a robot and incapable of seeing the hyperlink I provided for you? Are you a troll? Are you scientifically illiterate or illiterate in general?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000085

There's the link five more times, hope you don't miss it this time.

 

This guy. Gets evidence over and over again. Denies everything that is valid. Chooses not to respond to legitimate points. And then asks for evidence already received.

...Just trying to start fires

 

I challenge you to give us the Ancient Greek language he did use.You are proving to be a troll.

- - - Updated - - -

I have not gotten any evidence. You saying such and such is not scientific evidence, even if you believe it does.

 

Because there had to be change in the first place and be successful to evolve.

 

Wow, again you choose to ignore every point that you're either incapable of responding to, or maliciously avoiding. Why should we continue to provide you with evidence if you refuse to do the same?

Here is a Berkeley page about how Aristotle classified organisms:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html

Why in the world would I need to provide the Ancient Greek language he used? Can you read ancient Greek? Are translated works somehow irrelevant?

 

Just to humor you:

[h=2]Abstract[/h]Gene families are groups of homologous genes that are likely [SUP]Speculation [/SUP]to have highly similar functions. Differences in family size due to lineage-specific gene duplication and gene loss may provide clues [SUP]wishful thinking [/SUP]to the evolutionary forces that have shaped mammalian genomes. Here we analyze the gene families contained within the whole genomes of human, chimpanzee, mouse, rat, and dog. In total we find that more than half of the 9,990 families present in the mammalian common ancestor have either expanded or contracted along at least one lineage. [SUP]Opinion [/SUP]Additionally, we find that a large number of families are completely lost from one or more mammalian genomes, and a similar number of gene families have arisen subsequent to the mammalian common ancestor. [SUP]Opinion [/SUP]Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer [SUP]Inference [/SUP]the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, [SUP]Opinion [/SUP]including changes likely [SUP]Speculation [/SUP]driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply [SUP]Another guess [/SUP]that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) [SUP]​Now closer to 26% of the 300 Billion genes. That's a lot!!! [/SUP]in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives.

 

Again, do you not understand that "change" and "evolve" are synonyms?

"Because there had to be change in the first place and be successful to change."

Does that make any logical sense to you?

 

Hey brainiac, those terms are Latin and of course he would speak and write ion the language of science. Even so, that was 600 A.D., so for only 4,000 years kinds was used.

 

Do you not understand how science works either? Science isn't dictated by some omniscient and infallible deity; it's done by humans in the search for truth. Science doesn't work on absolute certainty, hence the "are likely" and "may provide clues". Do you have some problem with speculation based on evidence or something?

Would you jump off a bridge if I told you that you may die from it? I mean, obviously it's only speculation.

- - - Updated - - -

By who? You haven't been able to provide a link to ANY scientist, let alone biologist, that uses "kind" in a biological classification system. Provide us evidence, NaturalBorn. Since you seem to find it necessary to prod us for evidence it's only fair for you to provide evidence as well.

 

You have had plenty of evidence, you choose to deny/ignore/dodge it all.

I never said "such and such".

 

Rudeness does NOT count as argument. Plus, it's a poor representation of the religion you seem to think you are defending.

I gave you plenty of evidence you have not even tried to controvert - including documented cases of the evolution of new species along with several methods by which that occurs.

Please think about this - you're giving Christianity a bad name.

 

Science is not speculation and opinion. Science in knowledge.

- - - Updated - - -

No evidence as I proved above. Speculation, opinion, conjecture.

Evidence for evolution. ANYONE???

-

- - - Updated - - -

YOU profess to lecturer ME about religion.

What Would Jesus Do? Criticizing the Pharisees, turning over tables and chasing people with a whip is not outside of His realm.

 

I wonder why they gave up on the term "kind" 100 years before Evolution was formulated? Maybe because even these biologists could recognize the nested hierarchy all life exhibited.