Posted on 01/02/2010 10:57:44 AM PST by Restore
when did species stop producing their own kind?
>>when did species stop producing their own kind?<<
There is no scientific definition of “kind.” It is an English language interpretation of a concept introduced in the Bible.
when did species stop producing its own species?
Vestigial organs? Science has recently shown that the appendix is currently being used by our bodies. If I remember correctly, it is a repository for “good bacteria” that our intestines use to aid digestion.
It may have also been more utilized in the past, when the world didn’t have food preservation and refrigeration.
And how are male teats vestigial? That would imply that at some time in the past men, or male mammals, had functioning breasts! If that were so, then it would seem to me that we have “devolved”. That is to say, we’ve lost functionality we used to have.
What is more logical is the thought that the only thing that makes men male is the Y chromosome. We have all the code in our male bodies to product female offspring (the X chromosome), and that code gives us teats.
>>when did species stop producing its own species?<<
Many times — if a species creates a being that can’t reproduce with its own species, you have a new one.
>>And how are male teats vestigial? That would imply that at some time in the past men, or male mammals, had functioning breasts! If that were so, then it would seem to me that we have “devolved”. That is to say, we’ve lost functionality we used to have.
What is more logical is the thought that the only thing that makes men male is the Y chromosome. We have all the code in our male bodies to product female offspring (the X chromosome), and that code gives us teats.<<
None of which changes my answer. To “devolve” is a value judgment. To “evolve” means to change. The fact you don’t approve of the change is irrelevant.
So donkeys and zebras are the same species? (google zedonk) A donkey and a zebra can mate and have fertile offspring. Theis is because they are the same “kind”.
So, “kind” isn’t a scientific term. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a valuable term. Perhaps it SHOULD be a scientific term, but isn’t. Perhaps it would be relatively close to the scientific term “genus”. The Bible says that animals produce after their own “kind”.
And kinds have not stopped producing after their own kind. The dog kind will always produce more dogs, even if they become classified as a different species.
never seen a can produce anything other than a cat. never seen a human produce anything buy a human. so when did that stop?
>>None of which changes my answer. To “devolve” is a value judgment. To “evolve” means to change. The fact you don’t approve of the change is irrelevant.<<
But the answer I was replying to was your statement that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. They are not.
“Evolve” doesn’t mean just to “change” it means “develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form”. Vestigial organs would be evidence of the opposite.
“Devolve” isn’t a proper use of the word in this context, of course. It means to transfer power to a lower (governmental) level. Perhaps the best word might be “entropy”. One definition of entropy is: A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
As a matter of fact, there is.
The Earth itself provides some evidence.
Given 4.5 billion years in emerging from some unknown but likely catastrophic astronomical event, life is now present on our evolving Earth.
Very good arguments. I think we are tangential, but let me address your points as best as I can:
>>But the answer I was replying to was your statement that vestigial organs are proof of evolution. They are not.<<
I really meant evidence of more than proof.
>>“Evolve” doesn’t mean just to “change” it means “develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form”. Vestigial organs would be evidence of the opposite.<<
But you apply a very limited view of “to develop.” We no longer have tails, but have vestigial attachments for one. Certainly a tail is more complex than a flat butt, but for us it was no longer needed. At points along the continuum, what was to be Homo Sapiens I am sure it appeared “we” were losing more than gaining. But it is a complex process and it is hard to gauge the evolutionary forces against which we are now pitted.
>>. One definition of entropy is: A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.<<
It is one definition, but I don’t think it applies to Homo Sapens nor other evolutionary paths.
>>
never seen a can produce anything other than a cat. never seen a human produce anything buy a human. so when did that stop?<<
You have lived for a billion years? Wow, maybe you have a point if you have.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Restore. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
i dont get it?
Species change gradually — it takes millions and sometimes billions for someone to “see” a change.
how do you know?
We have billions of fossils and other correlated data from across the spectrum of science, including physical, physics and c chemistry. The OP itself speaks at length of its approach and results.
Sorta beats your “’just because I think so” non-refutation.
But feel free to tell me which of the OP’s approaches is incorrect and how. Or what part of the entire spectrum of natural science is wrong.
Do so and the world is your oyster.
its still all theory not factual proof.
>>its still all theory not factual proof.<<
You need to do some studying — a “theory” is the highest form of scientific analysis.
It is only laypeople who think it is just a guess writ large.
Evolution caught in the act:Hmmm, so was Al's Global Warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.