Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Give me the facts.

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:45:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I would like to see a chronological report that shows the line from a one cell grub (which is presumably millions of years after the presumed big bang) across the KIND changes, not specie changes as that happens in a short time. Kinds do not change, and never have.

Some say that because there are bristles, scales and hair that this shows proof of evolving living beings; however there are still bristles, scales and hair on animals and humans today, so where is that proof.

The Bible has a chronological line from Adam to Jesus, if only Evolution had something similar they might have some cause for debate.

There are millions of fossils, but to my knowledge, they all come from the Cambrian age, which is basically a silt line in earths surface...Silt like a world wide flood might leave.

So, here is the challenge to the evolutionists: What came after the one celled bug in the Medieval slime? If it changed to another KIND what was the motivation? Where there millions of one celled bugs that changed at the one time, and what is the rationale of this thought? Is the Medieval Slime still around, and is it still producing one celled bugs?
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 9:57:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Two questions for you. Answers to both these questions are needed if you really want to find the answers you seek.

One, what is your definition of a 'biological kind'? This term is nowhere near anything remotely resembling scientific, and therefore does not have a standard definition. This is why you must define what you mean when you use it.

Two, why are you using a secondary account to post this thread?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:48:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 9:57:43 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Two questions for you. Answers to both these questions are needed if you really want to find the answers you seek.

One, what is your definition of a 'biological kind'? This term is nowhere near anything remotely resembling scientific, and therefore does not have a standard definition. This is why you must define what you mean when you use it.

Two, why are you using a secondary account to post this thread?

How do you mean, a secondary account?

KIND: Is the kinds of beings, which as far as I know are in Vegetable, Insects, Birds, animals, reptiles, fish etc.

A pig is of the porcine kind, and hippo is a species of the porcine kind, but is still porcine, so I am after a linking of kinds, and if you can show the changing of kinds, say Canine to feline, porcine to equine, and not, to give a large example, a Pomeranian to a Great Dane in the canine kind as they are species.

I ma not scientifically trained, so keep it simple.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 4:19:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:48:42 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 1/10/2016 9:57:43 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Two questions for you. Answers to both these questions are needed if you really want to find the answers you seek.

One, what is your definition of a 'biological kind'? This term is nowhere near anything remotely resembling scientific, and therefore does not have a standard definition. This is why you must define what you mean when you use it.

Two, why are you using a secondary account to post this thread?

How do you mean, a secondary account?

KIND: Is the kinds of beings, which as far as I know are in Vegetable, Insects, Birds, animals, reptiles, fish etc.

A pig is of the porcine kind, and hippo is a species of the porcine kind, but is still porcine, so I am after a linking of kinds, and if you can show the changing of kinds, say Canine to feline, porcine to equine, and not, to give a large example, a Pomeranian to a Great Dane in the canine kind as they are species.

I ma not scientifically trained, so keep it simple.

So, is dog a kind? Is mammal a kind? What about verterbrates, is that a kind? Or Eukaryote (organisms with nucleic cells)?

Are "Animals" a kind; scientifically, an animal is any multicellular eukaryote which moves at some point in it's life and has to ingest other biological organisms to survive?
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 5:10:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:48:42 AM, Peternosaint wrote:

How do you mean, a secondary account?

Uh, yeah... sure...

KIND: Is the kinds of beings, which as far as I know are in Vegetable, Insects, Birds, animals, reptiles, fish etc.

Okay, fine. Since the word 'kind' as used in the biological sense is something that creationists just kind of made up to suit their own needs, I will accept the definition you present as valid, and for the same reason I will accept any changes to said definition that you wish to make.

We will call the underlined statement above "Definition one" feel free to make a second or even a third or fourth definition if you feel it is necessary to get your point across.

A pig is of the porcine kind, and hippo is a species of the porcine kind, but is still porcine,

Hoooold it! Let me stop you right there, buddy. You say that pigs and hippos are of the same 'kind', but how do you know this? Looking at the definition you present, you offer no method on how to distinguish between different 'kinds'.

Let's talk about basic taxonomy for a moment. If I say that a dog and cat are both mammals then I can back that up by showing that among other things both are warm blooded and give live birth. I am able to do this because the definition of mammal includes the properties of warm bloodedness and giving live birth. Your first definition of the word 'kind' presents no such method of classification, and is therefore inadequate.

so I am after a linking of kinds, and if you can show the changing of kinds, say Canine to feline, porcine to equine, and not, to give a large example, a Pomeranian to a Great Dane in the canine kind as they are species.

I understand exactly the type of chain you are talking about here, but for the reasons explained above I am not able to offer an example at this time. Let us agree now, in order to avoid distractions, that my entire goal in this conversation is to answer the question you ask in the bolded portion of text. But first a proper definition must be formed.

I ma not scientifically trained, so keep it simple.

I am twenty and have a high school education. Furthermore I am not referencing any information on the internet or any other source other than my own limited memory of said highschool education in creating my responses (if I begin to do so I will inform you immediately). Therefore, if you cannot understand anything I am saying then it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with your lack of experience in the subject.

I won't ask you to ignore any other users that respond on this thread but I would ask that you not let anything distract from our current goal, which is not to argue the merits of science versus creationism but instead to answer your question that you present in the opening post.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 8:32:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 5:10:06 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:48:42 AM, Peternosaint wrote:

How do you mean, a secondary account?

Uh, yeah... sure...

KIND: Is the kinds of beings, which as far as I know are in Vegetable, Insects, Birds, animals, reptiles, fish etc.

Okay, fine. Since the word 'kind' as used in the biological sense is something that creationists just kind of made up to suit their own needs, I will accept the definition you present as valid, and for the same reason I will accept any changes to said definition that you wish to make.

We will call the underlined statement above "Definition one" feel free to make a second or even a third or fourth definition if you feel it is necessary to get your point across.

A pig is of the porcine kind, and hippo is a species of the porcine kind, but is still porcine,

Hoooold it! Let me stop you right there, buddy. You say that pigs and hippos are of the same 'kind', but how do you know this? Looking at the definition you present, you offer no method on how to distinguish between different 'kinds'.

Let's talk about basic taxonomy for a moment. If I say that a dog and cat are both mammals then I can back that up by showing that among other things both are warm blooded and give live birth. I am able to do this because the definition of mammal includes the properties of warm bloodedness and giving live birth. Your first definition of the word 'kind' presents no such method of classification, and is therefore inadequate.

so I am after a linking of kinds, and if you can show the changing of kinds, say Canine to feline, porcine to equine, and not, to give a large example, a Pomeranian to a Great Dane in the canine kind as they are species.

I understand exactly the type of chain you are talking about here, but for the reasons explained above I am not able to offer an example at this time. Let us agree now, in order to avoid distractions, that my entire goal in this conversation is to answer the question you ask in the bolded portion of text. But first a proper definition must be formed.

I am not scientifically trained, so keep it simple.

I am twenty and have a high school education. Furthermore I am not referencing any information on the internet or any other source other than my own limited memory of said highschool education in creating my responses (if I begin to do so I will inform you immediately). Therefore, if you cannot understand anything I am saying then it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with your lack of experience in the subject.

I won't ask you to ignore any other users that respond on this thread but I would ask that you not let anything distract from our current goal, which is not to argue the merits of science versus creationism but instead to answer your question that you present in the opening post.

OK, I am 77 so we are close in evolutionary age. LOL

I didn't invent the KIND classification, as in Porcine, ovine ,equine,bovine, canine, feline and etc.; however it is how I determine kind.

There are many species of these kinds, and even though they may have completely different appearances, still remain t he related kind.

It appears, from my limited knowledge, that lets say ovine (A sheep The adjective applying to sheep is ovine, and the collective term for sheep is flock or mob. The term herd is also occasionally used in this sense. ) will not produce young with a feline, other kinds have the same problems.

A Typical example is the Aardwolf which is not a species of wolf but a species of dog, adn the wold is a species of dog as is the fox. The aardwolf is sometimes called a Hyeana, but is not related to that Kind and species.

I guess if my explanations are not clear in relation to my question, then it is pointless going further.
I agree that some species of a kind, will cross, such as a horse and a donkey, or a donkey and a horse but what results is a mule, either mule (male no productive) or Hinny (female non productive)

I don't wish to bring religion into the equation but Noah was directed to bring animals in mating pairs according to their KIND.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:15:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 8:32:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I didn't invent the KIND classification, as in Porcine, ovine ,equine,bovine, canine, feline and etc.;

however it is how I determine kind.

There are many species of these kinds, and even though they may have completely different appearances, still remain t he related kind.

What I am trying to help you to understand is that there is no such thing as a 'kind classification' in modern biology. In scientific taxonomy there are several levels of biological classification, I am sure ypu have heard these words before. I do not remember them all from memory so I did have to look some of these up. They include the following:

Kingdom (such as plant, animal, etc.)
Phylum (such as vertibrae)
Class (Reptile, mammal, bird, etc.)
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Now, all of this may seem irrelevant to the question. Allow me to explain why this is not the case. You see, all of the above words are fully and properly defined. You can tell what class, family, genus, etc. a lifeform falls under by looking at the definition of these words, which define what attributes a lifeform requires to be classed under these groupings.

This is why it is necessary for you to define your entirely separate biological classification system of 'kinds' more clearly. Though you have not done so as of yet I understand that you attempt to do so below, so let's have a look:

It appears, from my limited knowledge, that lets say ovine (A sheep The adjective applying to sheep is ovine, and the collective term for sheep is flock or mob. The term herd is also occasionally used in this sense. ) will not produce young with a feline, other kinds have the same problems.

A Typical example is the Aardwolf which is not a species of wolf but a species of dog, adn the wold is a species of dog as is the fox. The aardwolf is sometimes called a Hyeana, but is not related to that Kind and species.

Given all of this I propose a change to your definition of 'kind' in order to potentially make it into a useful term for this discussion (which it currently is not)

Definition two will be, if you agree to the change:

Kind - A group of related lifeforms that are physically similar to each other and capable of producing fertile offspring when mated. A 'kind' grouping may contain multiple smaller groupings or classifications of life.

If you agree to this definition then my next post will easily be able to answer your question once and for all.

I guess if my explanations are not clear in relation to my question, then it is pointless going further.

I agree that some species of a kind, will cross, such as a horse and a donkey, or a donkey and a horse but what results is a mule, either mule (male no productive) or Hinny (female non productive)

And I agree that mules and hinnys should not be considered for the purposes of this discussion, but only because they are naturally infertile as you point out, and therefore incapable of creating a 'chain' such as the one you are seeking.

I don't wish to bring religion into the equation but Noah was directed to bring animals in mating pairs according to their KIND.

The underlined is, as you rightly point out, completely irrelevant to the topic. However it is also a potential source for other discussion such as linguistics (the bible was nor written in english, you know) or ancient scientific knowledge (which was, believe it or not, quite lacking compaed to what we know today)
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 4:09:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 8:32:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I won't ask you to ignore any other users that respond on this thread but I would ask that you not let anything distract from our current goal, which is not to argue the merits of science versus creationism but instead to answer your question that you present in the opening post.

OK, I am 77 so we are close in evolutionary age. LOL

I didn't invent the KIND classification, as in Porcine, ovine ,equine,bovine, canine, feline and etc.; however it is how I determine kind.

There are many species of these kinds, and even though they may have completely different appearances, still remain t he related kind.

It appears, from my limited knowledge, that lets say ovine (A sheep The adjective applying to sheep is ovine, and the collective term for sheep is flock or mob. The term herd is also occasionally used in this sense. ) will not produce young with a feline, other kinds have the same problems.

A Typical example is the Aardwolf which is not a species of wolf but a species of dog, adn the wold is a species of dog as is the fox. The aardwolf is sometimes called a Hyeana, but is not related to that Kind and species.

I guess if my explanations are not clear in relation to my question, then it is pointless going further.
I agree that some species of a kind, will cross, such as a horse and a donkey, or a donkey and a horse but what results is a mule, either mule (male no productive) or Hinny (female non productive)

I don't wish to bring religion into the equation but Noah was directed to bring animals in mating pairs according to their KIND.

It may sound facetious, but I think the problem is that we both want to understand what a kind is and how to determine that without relying on you telling us whether this is right or wrong.

If Kind is a classification, then there should be an objective way in which I can determine whether two animals (regardless of what they are) are the same kind or different kinds.

For example, you list sheep and pigs as part of different kinds. How did you come to this conclusion? What test may I apply when comparing two types of animal in order to distinguish them as two different kinds?

What specific features that you can compare between a cat and a dog, allows you to determine that they are different "Kinds", rather than just different. You state, for example that while Pomeranian's and great danes are different, they are not different enough to be different kinds.

If this is the case, how different is different enough, and how can I tell? When you are given two individual creatures, what criteria do you apply to determine they are different kinds, or not.

This is actually quite important, if you are asking us to find "intermediaries" between two kinds, it's very important to establish what the boundaries of that kind are. Without an objective method of being able to tell where one kind ends, how would we be able to know whether the example we cite is intermediate at all, rather than just part of one kind or another.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 4:26:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 4:09:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

This is actually quite important, if you are asking us to find "intermediaries" between two kinds, it's very important to establish what the boundaries of that kind are. Without an objective method of being able to tell where one kind ends, how would we be able to know whether the example we cite is intermediate at all, rather than just part of one kind or another.

very well said. This is rather the point I have been trying to make the whole time. Science offers precise definitions for their definitions of biological classification terms, creationists ought to do the same if they wish to be taken seriously by logically-minded people.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 9:01:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:45:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I would like to see a chronological report that shows the line from a one cell grub (which is presumably millions of years after the presumed big bang) across the KIND changes, not specie changes as that happens in a short time. Kinds do not change, and never have.

Some say that because there are bristles, scales and hair that this shows proof of evolving living beings; however there are still bristles, scales and hair on animals and humans today, so where is that proof.

The Bible has a chronological line from Adam to Jesus, if only Evolution had something similar they might have some cause for debate.

There are millions of fossils, but to my knowledge, they all come from the Cambrian age, which is basically a silt line in earths surface...Silt like a world wide flood might leave.

No, not all fossils come from the Cambrian.

So, here is the challenge to the evolutionists: What came after the one celled bug in the Medieval slime? If it changed to another KIND what was the motivation? Where there millions of one celled bugs that changed at the one time, and what is the rationale of this thought? Is the Medieval Slime still around, and is it still producing one celled bugs?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 9:55:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:45:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I would like to see a chronological report that shows the line from a one cell grub (which is presumably millions of years after the presumed big bang) across the KIND changes, not specie changes as that happens in a short time. Kinds do not change, and never have.

Some say that because there are bristles, scales and hair that this shows proof of evolving living beings; however there are still bristles, scales and hair on animals and humans today, so where is that proof.

The Bible has a chronological line from Adam to Jesus, if only Evolution had something similar they might have some cause for debate.

There are millions of fossils, but to my knowledge, they all come from the Cambrian age, which is basically a silt line in earths surface...Silt like a world wide flood might leave.

So, here is the challenge to the evolutionists: What came after the one celled bug in the Medieval slime? If it changed to another KIND what was the motivation? Where there millions of one celled bugs that changed at the one time, and what is the rationale of this thought? Is the Medieval Slime still around, and is it still producing one celled bugs?

Just from reading your first post we can all see that you don't have an adequate understanding of the very thing you wish to discuss.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:21:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
A kind from what I gather kinds are families for the most part. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are all in the canine family.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:04:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 9:55:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:45:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I would like to see a chronological report that shows the line from a one cell grub (which is presumably millions of years after the presumed big bang) across the KIND changes, not specie changes as that happens in a short time. Kinds do not change, and never have.

Some say that because there are bristles, scales and hair that this shows proof of evolving living beings; however there are still bristles, scales and hair on animals and humans today, so where is that proof.

The Bible has a chronological line from Adam to Jesus, if only Evolution had something similar they might have some cause for debate.

There are millions of fossils, but to my knowledge, they all come from the Cambrian age, which is basically a silt line in earths surface...Silt like a world wide flood might leave.

So, here is the challenge to the evolutionists: What came after the one celled bug in the Medieval slime? If it changed to another KIND what was the motivation? Where there millions of one celled bugs that changed at the one time, and what is the rationale of this thought? Is the Medieval Slime still around, and is it still producing one celled bugs?

Just from reading your first post we can all see that you don't have an adequate understanding of the very thing you wish to discuss.

If I did I wouldn't want to discuss it, Hey?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:06:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 9:55:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:45:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I would like to see a chronological report that shows the line from a one cell grub (which is presumably millions of years after the presumed big bang) across the KIND changes, not specie changes as that happens in a short time. Kinds do not change, and never have.

Some say that because there are bristles, scales and hair that this shows proof of evolving living beings; however there are still bristles, scales and hair on animals and humans today, so where is that proof.

The Bible has a chronological line from Adam to Jesus, if only Evolution had something similar they might have some cause for debate.

There are millions of fossils, but to my knowledge, they all come from the Cambrian age, which is basically a silt line in earths surface...Silt like a world wide flood might leave.

So, here is the challenge to the evolutionists: What came after the one celled bug in the Medieval slime? If it changed to another KIND what was the motivation? Where there millions of one celled bugs that changed at the one time, and what is the rationale of this thought? Is the Medieval Slime still around, and is it still producing one celled bugs?

Just from reading your first post we can all see that you don't have an adequate understanding of the very thing you wish to discuss.

If I did I wouldn't need to discuss it, Hey? And they reckon evolutionists are clever!!!!
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:26:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.

What is the difference between kinds and species? Is "kinds" the religious way to say species?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:32:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:26:00 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.

What is the difference between kinds and species? Is "kinds" the religious way to say species?

A kind is a family from what I can gather. So is "sort".
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:18:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

That's not how evolution works, it's not that a cat one day turns into a dog and thus from that moment on dog now exists cause a cat turned into a dog.

Rather evolution works on off spring being a bit different, and that off spring being a bit different.............now repeat that process a few billion times and suffice to say anything on the end of this "chain" is going to be alot different than it's predecessor 1 billion years ago.

Here is the thing about evolution if true, it's not just the past, it's the future as well. So just set up some cameras to record life on earth for the next 1 billion years and see what you get.

Now if life exists one billion years into the future and some life has it's predecessor in what we now call "human" I wonder what they would say ? hey my great great great grandfather wasn't a human, that's just stupid.

Evolution many small changes over time, not one day dog turns into duck.


I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 1:48:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 9:55:39 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:45:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
I would like to see a chronological report that shows the line from a one cell grub (which is presumably millions of years after the presumed big bang) across the KIND changes, not specie changes as that happens in a short time. Kinds do not change, and never have.

Some say that because there are bristles, scales and hair that this shows proof of evolving living beings; however there are still bristles, scales and hair on animals and humans today, so where is that proof.

The Bible has a chronological line from Adam to Jesus, if only Evolution had something similar they might have some cause for debate.

There are millions of fossils, but to my knowledge, they all come from the Cambrian age, which is basically a silt line in earths surface...Silt like a world wide flood might leave.

So, here is the challenge to the evolutionists: What came after the one celled bug in the Medieval slime? If it changed to another KIND what was the motivation? Where there millions of one celled bugs that changed at the one time, and what is the rationale of this thought? Is the Medieval Slime still around, and is it still producing one celled bugs?

Just from reading your first post we can all see that you don't have an adequate understanding of the very thing you wish to discuss.

And that is why I am relying on your brilliant minds.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 1:54:37 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 8:32:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 1/11/2016 5:10:06 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:48:42 AM, Peternosaint wrote:

How do you mean, a secondary account?

Uh, yeah... sure...

KIND: Is the kinds of beings, which as far as I know are in Vegetable, Insects, Birds, animals, reptiles, fish etc.

Okay, fine. Since the word 'kind' as used in the biological sense is something that creationists just kind of made up to suit their own needs, I will accept the definition you present as valid, and for the same reason I will accept any changes to said definition that you wish to make.

We will call the underlined statement above "Definition one" feel free to make a second or even a third or fourth definition if you feel it is necessary to get your point across.

A pig is of the porcine kind, and hippo is a species of the porcine kind, but is still porcine,

Hoooold it! Let me stop you right there, buddy. You say that pigs and hippos are of the same 'kind', but how do you know this? Looking at the definition you present, you offer no method on how to distinguish between different 'kinds'.

Let's talk about basic taxonomy for a moment. If I say that a dog and cat are both mammals then I can back that up by showing that among other things both are warm blooded and give live birth. I am able to do this because the definition of mammal includes the properties of warm bloodedness and giving live birth. Your first definition of the word 'kind' presents no such method of classification, and is therefore inadequate.

so I am after a linking of kinds, and if you can show the changing of kinds, say Canine to feline, porcine to equine, and not, to give a large example, a Pomeranian to a Great Dane in the canine kind as they are species.

I understand exactly the type of chain you are talking about here, but for the reasons explained above I am not able to offer an example at this time. Let us agree now, in order to avoid distractions, that my entire goal in this conversation is to answer the question you ask in the bolded portion of text. But first a proper definition must be formed.

I am not scientifically trained, so keep it simple.

I am twenty and have a high school education. Furthermore I am not referencing any information on the internet or any other source other than my own limited memory of said highschool education in creating my responses (if I begin to do so I will inform you immediately). Therefore, if you cannot understand anything I am saying then it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with your lack of experience in the subject.

I won't ask you to ignore any other users that respond on this thread but I would ask that you not let anything distract from our current goal, which is not to argue the merits of science versus creationism but instead to answer your question that you present in the opening post.

OK, I am 77 so we are close in evolutionary age. LOL

I didn't invent the KIND classification, as in Porcine, ovine ,equine,bovine, canine, feline and etc.; however it is how I determine kind.

There are many species of these kinds, and even though they may have completely different appearances, still remain t he related kind.

It appears, from my limited knowledge, that lets say ovine (A sheep The adjective applying to sheep is ovine, and the collective term for sheep is flock or mob. The term herd is also occasionally used in this sense. ) will not produce young with a feline, other kinds have the same problems.

A Typical example is the Aardwolf which is not a species of wolf but a species of dog, and the wolf is a species of dog as is the fox. The aardwolf is sometimes called a Hyeana, but is not related to that Kind and species.

I guess if my explanations are not clear in relation to my question, then it is pointless going further.
I agree that some species of a kind, will cross, such as a horse and a donkey, or a donkey and a horse but what results is a mule, either mule (male no productive) or Hinny (female non productive)

I don't wish to bring religion into the equation but Noah was directed to bring animals in mating pairs according to their KIND.

Do evolutionists, even the hi-ranked scientific evolutionist ever make thing up?

When do you think your brilliant mind might get a round to t he question I first asked?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:10:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

My personal issue, is saying that pig is a kind, and a cow is a kind doesn't help me determine what a kind is.

Lets use the following example.

Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I think here's your main problem. The way you are looking at animals today, and animals in the past with a perspective that has no depth.

Species alive today are not descended from species alive today.

Dogs don't change into foxes; rather there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one group became foxes, another group became dogs.

Dogs and foxes don't change into bears, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the group that foxes and dogs (and others), the other group became bears (and a few others).

Dogs and foxes and bears don't change into cats, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the groups that became foxes, dogs and bears (and others), the other became cats and tigers and lions (and others).

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).

So, no, it is not possible to show what you demand from evolution, not because evolution is wrong, but because of your misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:27:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

You have still stubbornly refused to define what a 'kind' is. Read post 7.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:30:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:26:00 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one life source then it must be that dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, but have cross bred at some time,according to any one of the evolution theories, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.

What is the difference between kinds and species? Is "kinds" the religious way to say species?

I said I didn't like bringing religion into it, you just don't listen do you?
No, Kinds is the family, species is the issue of these families, and species can change, not evolve, but change. To help you get you intellectual head a round it: A dog is a kind (of animal) a species could be a husky or any other of t he species.
Have you ever heard of mankind, by any chance?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:39:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:18:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

That's not how evolution works, it's not that a cat one day turns into a dog and thus from that moment on dog now exists cause a cat turned into a dog.

Rather evolution works on off spring being a bit different, and that off spring being a bit different.............now repeat that process a few billion times and suffice to say anything on the end of this "chain" is going to be alot different than it's predecessor 1 billion years ago.

Here is the thing about evolution if true, it's not just the past, it's the future as well. So just set up some cameras to record life on earth for the next 1 billion years and see what you get.

Now if life exists one billion years into the future and some life has it's predecessor in what we now call "human" I wonder what they would say ? hey my great great great grandfather wasn't a human, that's just stupid.

Evolution many small changes over time, not one day dog turns into duck.


I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.

The billion years of changing the dog, still leaves you with a dog (Species)

Where is the aging gene? Aging starts somewhere in Mankind, and scientists do not know why. Where is the evolutionary proof of where aging came in. Obviously it has changed its position since the Grub in the slime day, as the grub in the slime lasted billions of years, say the evolutionist? Where did thought come from, when did the big in the slime start thinking?

All these questions and more, and we haven't even decided on what we are talking about...Good logical facts and figures....Just as well I have you clever blokes to work it all out; however I do not have a billion years to wait until you invent some answers.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:45:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:10:32 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

My personal issue, is saying that pig is a kind, and a cow is a kind doesn't help me determine what a kind is.

Lets use the following example.

Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I think here's your main problem. The way you are looking at animals today, and animals in the past with a perspective that has no depth.

Species alive today are not descended from species alive today.

Dogs don't change into foxes; rather there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one group became foxes, another group became dogs.

Dogs and foxes don't change into bears, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the group that foxes and dogs (and others), the other group became bears (and a few others).

Dogs and foxes and bears don't change into cats, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the groups that became foxes, dogs and bears (and others), the other became cats and tigers and lions (and others).

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).


So, no, it is not possible to show what you demand from evolution, not because evolution is wrong, but because of your misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

No matter how long you breed in one family or one kind, you will still have the same kind or family animal, maybe it will look different, but that what makes species of kinds.

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).

Now you are talking kinds and species, very good. Show me the split of a species that became two kinds.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:50:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Three posts in a row within a timespan of 15 minutes. Likes to hear himself talk, eh? What the heck is an evolutionist anyway? There he goes making up words again...

Anyone else notice that the moment I promised him in post 7 I could answer his question once and for all if he simply gave his made-up word 'kind' a proper definition he started pretending I didn't exist? I guess that would be too much like intelectual honesty.

Clearly not trying to have his questions answered, he would rather get into an argument where he can jump from point to point, never staying on any one subject for long enough to actually learn something. Typical creasionist behavior.

If you would like to prove me wrong it's as easy as hopping off your high horse, stop sneeringly referring to everyone who disagrees with you as an 'intellectual', and try to have a serious discussion like you showed hints of doing at the beginning of this thread.

But that's not what you really want, or else you would have done so already.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 10:16:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:39:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:18:03 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

That's not how evolution works, it's not that a cat one day turns into a dog and thus from that moment on dog now exists cause a cat turned into a dog.

Rather evolution works on off spring being a bit different, and that off spring being a bit different.............now repeat that process a few billion times and suffice to say anything on the end of this "chain" is going to be alot different than it's predecessor 1 billion years ago.

Here is the thing about evolution if true, it's not just the past, it's the future as well. So just set up some cameras to record life on earth for the next 1 billion years and see what you get.

Now if life exists one billion years into the future and some life has it's predecessor in what we now call "human" I wonder what they would say ? hey my great great great grandfather wasn't a human, that's just stupid.

Evolution many small changes over time, not one day dog turns into duck.


I haven't even gone back those other billions of years to the time when there was only time and nothing else....Then came the big bang.


The billion years of changing the dog, still leaves you with a dog (Species)

Says you. Nature doesn't go around with "dog tags" saying this is a dog this is not.

You accept change right of off spring ? you accept this change process repeats right ? you accept the accumulation of change in this process right ?

The trouble with creationists is they want to create an imaginary line of okey BUT the change has to stop here (insert line here) insert something about dog only comes from dog.

The only reason to come up with that is to reject evolution, why ? cause if evolution is true then a LITERAL interpretation of genesis is false.

And that isn't honest thinking, its protect a prior religious belief at any and all cost.


Where is the aging gene? Aging starts somewhere in Mankind, and scientists do not know why. Where is the evolutionary proof of where aging came in. Obviously it has changed its position since the Grub in the slime day, as the grub in the slime lasted billions of years, say the evolutionist? Where did thought come from, when did the big in the slime start thinking?

All these questions and more, and we haven't even decided on what we are talking about...Good logical facts and figures....Just as well I have you clever blokes to work it all out; however I do not have a billion years to wait until you invent some answers.

We could just say God did it, I mean why bother admitting we don't know when we can use the "God" to explain any and all things........

Earthquakes...........God

Birds............God

Rainbows...........God

Ebola virus..............ummmmm Satan ?

Satan................God

Why is there something rather than nothing ?............God

Why does God exist........................SUPER GOD

Why does Super God exist........................shut up sinner.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:14:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:45:03 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:10:32 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

My personal issue, is saying that pig is a kind, and a cow is a kind doesn't help me determine what a kind is.

Lets use the following example.

Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I think here's your main problem. The way you are looking at animals today, and animals in the past with a perspective that has no depth.

Species alive today are not descended from species alive today.

Dogs don't change into foxes; rather there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one group became foxes, another group became dogs.

Dogs and foxes don't change into bears, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the group that foxes and dogs (and others), the other group became bears (and a few others).

Dogs and foxes and bears don't change into cats, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the groups that became foxes, dogs and bears (and others), the other became cats and tigers and lions (and others).

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).


So, no, it is not possible to show what you demand from evolution, not because evolution is wrong, but because of your misunderstanding of how evolution works.


Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

No matter how long you breed in one family or one kind, you will still have the same kind or family animal, maybe it will look different, but that what makes species of kinds.

If you can't objectively describe what a kind is, then you can't make that statement; if you cannot describe what the differences required to be present in an organism to make it a "different kind" then how can you even tell whether there are new kinds of not?

Indeed, evolution implicitly follows those rules. Humans evolved from apes but we are still apes; our kind hasn't changed. Apes evolved from primates, but apes are still primates, so that kind hasn't changed either. Primates evolved from primitive mammals, but are still mammals, so haven't changed their kind either. Mammals evolved from sarcopterygii, but are still sarcopterygii now, so that hasn't changed either, sarcopterygii evolved from chordates but are still chordates, so their kind hasn't changed either. Chordates from duetorostomes, deutorostomes from bilateralia, bilateralia from metizoa, metizoa from eukarya.

Indeed, humans are apes, mammals, primates, sarcopterygii, chordate, deutorostome, bilateralia and eukaryote to this day, and that will never change, nor has any life form ever in existence not everything that each one of its ancestors was.

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).

Now you are talking kinds and species, very good. Show me the split of a species that became two kinds.

First define what your looking for, and how I can tell whether what i provide matches your criteria. Unless your clear about how to tell two different kinds from one another, and how you will adjudicate whether this matches what you want or not, I need to know what criteria you will use in working out whether it is or isn't what you're asking for.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 11:33:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:10:32 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

My personal issue, is saying that pig is a kind, and a cow is a kind doesn't help me determine what a kind is.

Lets use the following example.

Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I think here's your main problem. The way you are looking at animals today, and animals in the past with a perspective that has no depth.

Species alive today are not descended from species alive today.

Dogs don't change into foxes; rather there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one group became foxes, another group became dogs.

Dogs and foxes don't change into bears, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the group that foxes and dogs (and others), the other group became bears (and a few others).

Dogs and foxes and bears don't change into cats, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the groups that became foxes, dogs and bears (and others), the other became cats and tigers and lions (and others).

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).


So, no, it is not possible to show what you demand from evolution, not because evolution is wrong, but because of your misunderstanding of how evolution works.

I have a simple mind, so when I see that the scientists have put animals into different categories, KINDS, I will accept those KINDs as a manner of identification..

I asked previously, have you ever heard of Mankind, if you have does this give you the sense t hat man is a kind of living being?

Lets try this: I am man KIND, meaning from the family of man, a pig is of the porcine kind, from the family porcine. Horses are equine, cows are bovine. Now if you could find the scientists that divided the KINDS with those categories, you could ask them what they meant. But regardless of the meaning, KINDS will not cross breed...A pig will not breed with a bear etc,; however a pig will cross breed within its KIND, wart hogs and domestic pigs will cross breed in the wild, Peccaries will breed with other pig family but not naturally in the wold, The same as a collie dog breeding with a Kelpie and so on, which is breeding within the kind (canine) and across species.

No matter what the animal looks like after a lot of in species crossing, it will remain a dog (Canine). I find that really simple to understand.

The question: Show me the data that proves that one KIND has evolved into another KIND.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 11:47:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:10:32 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:13:37 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
I, for the life of me, do not know why you chappies do not accept that there is a difference between kinds and species.

My personal issue, is saying that pig is a kind, and a cow is a kind doesn't help me determine what a kind is.

Lets use the following example.

Lets say I breed 1 million generations of some animal, to the point where it is no longer the same as the original. How do I determine whether it is a new kind or not?

If everything came from the one lode source then it must be t hat dogs, and cats, which wont cross breed, or horses and cows that wont cross breed, bust have cross bred at some time, and this is what I am looking for, the fossils that show a cat changing into a kangaroo or whatever.

I think here's your main problem. The way you are looking at animals today, and animals in the past with a perspective that has no depth.

Species alive today are not descended from species alive today.

Dogs don't change into foxes; rather there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one group became foxes, another group became dogs.

Dogs and foxes don't change into bears, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the group that foxes and dogs (and others), the other group became bears (and a few others).

Dogs and foxes and bears don't change into cats, rather in the past there was a species in the past that split into two groups, one became the groups that became foxes, dogs and bears (and others), the other became cats and tigers and lions (and others).

Dogs and foxes and cats and bears don't change into pigs; rather in the past there was a species that split into two groups, a group that became dogs, foxes, cats and bears, and one that became a group that split into pigs, cetaceans, ruminants, hippos, and others (each of these split in the same way as I explained with dogs).


So, no, it is not possible to show what you demand from evolution, not because evolution is wrong, but because of your misunderstanding of how evolution works.

So, tell me how evolution changes one kind to another kind so that down the evolutionary chain you have every living thing coming from a one cell grub in the medieval slime?

How can a species split in two? example please.

Species are only from the on kind. The dog species is a great example of this, but no matter what the species is called it is still a dog.

Foxes are canine. Although it is difficult to breed a fox (canine) with a dog (Canine) it can be achieved with human intervention, BUT the offspring is still canine (dog)

I do not understand you saying that species alive today are not from species alive today.
recently, in England dog breeders crossed a husky with a Pomeranian, and came up with what they call a Pomskie. This Pomskie is now a recognized "species" of dog....Species alive today do come from species alive today.

Go back a bit further to the Australian Kelpie, the Blue cattle dog or Blue Heeler, all species of dogs that were and still are alive today.

I appears, that you cannot show what I ask from evolution, simply because it never happened, and never could happen.

So, end of discussion.