Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221214 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118394 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, only fools try to argue against evolution by referring to the extremely few frauds, or even errors that there have been. Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution. When you live in not only a house that is glass, but surrounded by glass furniture, art, and even food, you should not throw stones.
Nebraska man was a simple mistake by a man who had very little education in biology. It was quickly found to be a pig's tooth and was never accepted by scientists. It was accepted by the private press which is why you always go to scientists first for scientific questions.
Piltdown man was a fraud and it fooled quite a few people, but again since it made no sense it was not widely accepted and was not part of the theory of evolution.
Your using these two examples is a much worse crime than me pointing to Jim Jones and the Waco nut and using those to attack Christianity. And those are only two of the whackos created by your side.
.
<quoted text>
By the way, only fools try to argue against evolution by referring to the extremely few frauds, or even errors that there have been.
.
I agree, the reference wasn't to disprove evolution, it was to show the hypocrisy of those claiming a religious fraud would disprove a bonafide artefact.
.
<quoted text>
Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution.
.
I don't suppose you have any evidence for this do you? Can you cite a study?
.
<quoted text>
When you live in not only a house that is glass, but surrounded by glass furniture, art, and even food, you should not throw stones.
.
I would think you would direct this to the one who made the first mention of fraud, which I believe was you.
.
Regarding Piltdown man in school curriculum
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-piltdown-...
.
I was taught about Piltdown man as late as the mid 60's in public schools. It seems the scientific community is lax in their responsibility to correct past mistakes. We are talking 40 years minimum. It says even less for teachers of whom you are probably parroting.
.
Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118395 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
You didn't show me anything like that.
I see you've resorted to lying again.
messianic114 wrote:
Part of the scientific method is testability. Can you cite a test that proves that evolution (meaning change from one kind to another - macro-evolution) occurs. We already know change within a kind can occur like dogs changing size and appearance, but we still have a dog.
Why yes I can:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

So far you've not been able to refute it. Not surprising really considering you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. As evolution has been passing tests for 150 years. It's WHY Darwin got famous in the first place.
messianic114 wrote:
You may even convince me there can be a change within families, ie a something to the foxes, dogs, wolves etc.
I can't convince you of anything, but it doesn't matter. Your ignorance is something you treasure, so that's not my problem. All I need to do is demonstrate my position. I can. And it stays that way until you can refute it. You can't.

But don't worry, neither can anyone else on the entire planet.

That's not because I'm super-smart. But rather it's because those who reject evolution are super-dumb. And some of them have PhD's.(not many though, comparatively speaking)
messianic114 wrote:
For evolution to be true we have to go beyond these limits to a different family. If all life came from one organism, which branched off to others, at some time a change of this magnitude must have occurred. We don't have an observation of this, we don't have fossil evidence of this and we don't have the fossil evidence of the millions of intermediate forms which would be anticipated by evolution.
Then just give one fossil which is out of place.
messianic114 wrote:
What we have is an assumption that, since change can occur, given enough time (which there isn't) anything is possible biologically speaking.
False. If ANYTHING was possible then CREATIONISM would be true. However evolution has VERY SPECIFIC limits, which is WHY we can tell it's correct in the first place.
messianic114 wrote:
Provide a model which predicts how long it takes for one sequence in the DNA to change and then multiply it by the millions of changes needed for an ape to evolve into a man and lets see if that is possible. Be sure there is some testing to go along with this so we aren't making assumptions so it can be possible.
.
That seems like good science to me, how about you? Is this an unreasonable request?
No problem. Address the linky above. You can do the math yourself if you want. It's not hard.

By the way, humans ARE apes. What is NEEDED is a demonstration of DNA change and how it matches up compared with other species, both in fossil anatomy and genetic drift. The above linky explains that. But again, your position on evidence is that you don't care. So why ask? Especially when it's been provided before?

In short, why are creationists such monumentally massive lying hypocrites?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118396 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, there were several countries mention in the two articles you posted. South Africa, China, the US and others. I did read them, jackass.
Now are you too lazy to back up anything your posted? I even invited you to pick one but you are apparently too lazy to do even that.
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118397 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what you assume?(shrug)
Any time you wish to stop showing yourself to be a hypocrite, just say so. Until then I don't have to consider your BS to be valid until you can demonstrate it.
.
Ditto
1 post removed
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118399 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Since there are probably a thousand religious fraud for every scientific one that makes your religion one thousand times more likely to be false than evolution.
.
I don't suppose you have any evidence for this do you? Can you cite a study?
Yup - EVERY magic claim in the Bible.

Just prove one.
messianic114 wrote:
Regarding Piltdown man in school curriculum
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-piltdown-...
It's unknown how long Piltdown was taught in public schools therefore it was taught in public schools? They didn't even mention which books, which schools, or provide evidence of it.
messianic114 wrote:
I was taught about Piltdown man as late as the mid 60's in public schools. It seems the scientific community is lax in their responsibility to correct past mistakes. We are talking 40 years minimum. It says even less for teachers of whom you are probably parroting.
Funny, since the scientific community falsified it in about 1953. But hey, don't let that stop you from making baseless accusations straight after lying.(shrug)

Again.
messianic114 wrote:
Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]
So you're saying the very same scientists using science you reject found out there was something wrong and corrected it? It would be a miracle of Biblical proportions if creationists ever tried anything like that!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118400 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Atheist, you say?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118401 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Ditto
Yet I have. So far no rebuttal.

(sound of crickets chirping)
1 post removed

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118403 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
As I said, there were several countries mention in the two articles. Sorry if I'm not able to read your friggin mind as to which one you were referring to. Perhaps if you simply answered the question instead of being a total dick, we could have save some time.

What does it being reported by Pravda have to do with anything, anyway?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118404 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've resorted to lying again.
<quoted text>
Why yes I can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
So far you've not been able to refute it. Not surprising really considering you don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. As evolution has been passing tests for 150 years. It's WHY Darwin got famous in the first place.
<quoted text>
I can't convince you of anything, but it doesn't matter. Your ignorance is something you treasure, so that's not my problem. All I need to do is demonstrate my position. I can. And it stays that way until you can refute it. You can't.
But don't worry, neither can anyone else on the entire planet.
That's not because I'm super-smart. But rather it's because those who reject evolution are super-dumb. And some of them have PhD's.(not many though, comparatively speaking)
<quoted text>
Then just give one fossil which is out of place.
<quoted text>
False. If ANYTHING was possible then CREATIONISM would be true. However evolution has VERY SPECIFIC limits, which is WHY we can tell it's correct in the first place.
<quoted text>
No problem. Address the linky above. You can do the math yourself if you want. It's not hard.
By the way, humans ARE apes. What is NEEDED is a demonstration of DNA change and how it matches up compared with other species, both in fossil anatomy and genetic drift. The above linky explains that. But again, your position on evidence is that you don't care. So why ask? Especially when it's been provided before?
In short, why are creationists such monumentally massive lying hypocrites?
.
<quoted text>
Why yes I can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
.
This is obviously flawed. For our common ancestor to be 6 millions years ago would require 12 million changes (from a modern ape) in 6 million years. Are we seeing anything like that occurring? NO we aren't. Since you can't produce the genome of that ancestor, on what basis can we say that any change has occurred? You may say that we were closer to the ancestor than a modern ape, so how many changes needed to occur?! million? We still aren't even close to observing that rapid a change.
.
Part of the scientific method is predictability. For this to be true (unless you dispute the gene sequences) would be 1 change every 6 months and at that we would have to assume the rate isn't changing. If anything I would say the rate of change is increasing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118405 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then you need to improve your comprehension skills as the article stated this was reported by the Russian news source Komsomolskaya Pravda.
I found no reference to Pravda in
http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp...
or that Chapman PDF..

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118406 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
I agree, the reference wasn't to disprove evolution, it was to show the hypocrisy of those claiming a religious fraud would disprove a bonafide artefact.
What bonafide artifact?
.
.
I don't suppose you have any evidence for this do you? Can you cite a study?
Who needs a study to point out the obvious? There are two known frauds in all of paleontology that I can think of. There are numerous religious frauds every year. I named only two fairly infamous ones. But if you include all of the small time grifters you might be up to thousands a year. Religion is rife with fraud, by your standards Christianity is disproved, that is why only fools try to use fraudulent people against evolution. If those are any sort of evidence against evolution then the thousands upon thousands of religious fakes scream out that Christianity and every other religion is false.

Hmm, you might have a valid point there.
.
I would think you would direct this to the one who made the first mention of fraud, which I believe was you.
.
Regarding Piltdown man in school curriculum
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-piltdown-...
.
I was taught about Piltdown man as late as the mid 60's in public schools. It seems the scientific community is lax in their responsibility to correct past mistakes. We are talking 40 years minimum. It says even less for teachers of whom you are probably parroting.
.
Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]
Try to find valid sources. And once again you are making the gross error of trying to use fraud against evolution. I just pointed out why that was an idiotic move in my prior post and you are doing it again. <Massive Brain Splitting Face Palm>!!!

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118407 Jul 17, 2014
And a note on this quote:

"Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23] "

I Google searched for the article and could only find claims by creationists. No link to the original article. That reeks of dishonesty. That is not a valid source. No link, no source.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118408 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Why yes I can:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
.
This is obviously flawed. For our common ancestor to be 6 millions years ago would require 12 million changes (from a modern ape) in 6 million years. Are we seeing anything like that occurring? NO we aren't. Since you can't produce the genome of that ancestor, on what basis can we say that any change has occurred? You may say that we were closer to the ancestor than a modern ape, so how many changes needed to occur?! million? We still aren't even close to observing that rapid a change.
.
Part of the scientific method is predictability. For this to be true (unless you dispute the gene sequences) would be 1 change every 6 months and at that we would have to assume the rate isn't changing. If anything I would say the rate of change is increasing.
Actually we do see changes on that order.

Let's use some gross numbers and I will use the most conservative of these. There are an estimated 75 to 150 mutations per generation. In other words you have at least 75 mutations in your genome. The average population was in the millions, but may have been as lows as 10,000 over that time period. A generation can be anything from only a few years for some apes up to 25 years for humans. Let's use the smallest numbers for all of those. And we need 2 mutations a year over a period of 6 million years. In fact I will go directly to mutations per year. We have 75 mutations per generation times 5,000 couples divided by 25 years per generation. That gives us 15,000 mutations per year. Now most mutations are bad etc. yada yada yada. We only need 2 positive mutations out of those 15,000 for the observed evolution to occur. And that is using extremely conservative numbers.

Are you going to claim that evolution still could not occur with those numbers staring you in the face? If I used the most probably numbers the number of available mutations would have been at least ten times higher.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118409 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
This is obviously flawed. For our common ancestor to be 6 millions years ago would require 12 million changes (from a modern ape) in 6 million years. Are we seeing anything like that occurring? NO we aren't.
Show your calculations. How are you getting these numbers?
messianic114 wrote:
Since you can't produce the genome of that ancestor, on what basis can we say that any change has occurred?
Then show me that ape DNA (and by apes I'm including humans in there too) never changes from generation to generation. Good luck with that.
messianic114 wrote:
You may say that we were closer to the ancestor than a modern ape
Why the HECK would I say something stupid like that?

Clarify - by "ancestor" in this instance, do you mean the **common ancestor** proposed between man and chimp?
messianic114 wrote:
so how many changes needed to occur?! million? We still aren't even close to observing that rapid a change.
Um, my number was MUCH larger than that...
messianic114 wrote:
Part of the scientific method is predictability.
And we already have that. Chimps are our closest to us anatomically. They are also closest to us genetically. They are also closest to us when we compare ERV orthology. Not to mention the list of transitional fossils I left for you, which goes to show the general trend over millions of years from stooped to upright plus those other characteristics I mentioned. As I said, genetics aside DARWIN predicted this kinda thing 150 years ago. History proved him right. And genetics is just a nice juicy bonus. But each on their own would demonstrate evolution. It's just that they tie up pretty nicely.
messianic114 wrote:
For this to be true (unless you dispute the gene sequences) would be 1 change every 6 months and at that we would have to assume the rate isn't changing. If anything I would say the rate of change is increasing.
I wouldn't. Besides which an increase in mutation rate NOW would not change what happened in the past. A good average for our mutation rates currently is approximately 125 to 175 per generation. However some might be born with only 100. Some might be born with 300. But so far there's no indication of anything in genetics that would DRASTICALLY alter the figures over a long period of over 6 million years. Secondly it's kinda silly averaging things out to one change every 6 months (even if that were an accurate number) when a generation (in scientific terms, when applied to apes at least) is roughly 20 to 25 years. There are NO apes reproducing in a single lineage at a rate of every six months. Most 6 month old apes have trouble walking, never mind reproducing. And thirdly, according to my calculations, the numbers you're giving (12 million), you are telling me they are too HIGH for evolution to handle. According to my calculations that number is too LOW. And again, according to my calculations, my much higher number IS reasonably achievable.

So again I must ask you what calculations you are using, because seriously I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118410 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is obviously flawed. For our common ancestor to be 6 millions years ago would require 12 million changes (from a modern ape) in 6 million years. Are we seeing anything like that occurring? NO we aren't. We still aren't even close to observing that rapid a change.

Part of the scientific method is predictability. For this to be true (unless you dispute the gene sequences) would be 1 change every 6 months and at that we would have to assume the rate isn't changing. If anything I would say the rate of change is increasing.
You are completely wrong. And I mean completely.

Here we go:
1) humans and chimps DIVERTED from their common ancestor. That means that the total amount of differences between humans and chimps are the SUM of the genetic changes in the chimps lineage AND those in the human lineage TOGETHER. You assume that the differences between humans and chimps are only in the human lineage. That is WRONG.
But let's take ONE lineage ANYWAY. That is disadvantageous for MY CASE but it doesn't matter much as you will see.

2) let's take the human lineage. From genetics we know that every single newborn human carries an average of 120-158 mutations. For sake of calculation ease let's assume 100. disadvantageous for my case but it will not matter. Let's assume that the human population counts 100,000 individuals. A gross underestimation but this also will not matter. i like easy calculations. Then we assume that every women in that population delivers 3 healthy babies. Also a\n underestimation.

Here is the calculation: 50,000 females X 3 children X 100 mutations are 15,000,000 mutations in just ONE generation accumulated in the human GENOME (=gene pool). Some of those will be doubles (the same mutation by accident occurring in two different individuals). In a total of 3billion base pairs this will not happen very often but, gee, let's be merciful and assume that 5 million are doubles, leaving 10 million mutations.

2) in 1,000 generations (just about 20,000 years, second to nothing in evolutionary terms) the total of mutations accumulated in the human GENOME will be 1,000 generations X 10 million = 10 BILLION mutations.

The human genome only counts 3 billion base pairs.
The total number of mutations accumulated in the genome are grossly underestimated in the calculations above.
I assumed a stationary population (that's why I assumed 3 children per women).
There were no 20,000 years since the splitting of the chimp's and human lineages, but 6 million years.
I didn't count the mutations accumulating in the chimps genome IN THE SAME TIME and that account too of the differences in the human and chimp genome.

Your very next big flaw is thinking that those mutations happened in just one individual each generation (hence your senseless "1 change every 6 months" story). In 6 million years there were 4.5 SEXTILLION mutations in a stationary 100,000 human population. An average of 750,000 each YEAR. in the human genome according to the calculation assumptions above. Which were GROSSLY underestimating.

That will be your third major flaw: not understanding that mutations occur in individuals but add to change into the SPECIES genome. Evolution is happening on the population level.

And THEN I didn't even account for the indels. Indels are changes in genes that affect more base pairs in ONE INSTANCE. The best known of idels are gene duplication and deletion. Due to an mutation in a particular part of the DNA, a whole gene or DNA sequence is copied AT ONCE. In just ONE INSTANCE thousand or more base pairs are duplicated or deleted.

One wonders why the change between splitting lineages are not faster and more dramatical. The answer is your 4th major flaw: you "just" leave out natural selection. which is unforgivable to ANY understanding of modern biology.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118411 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I found no reference to Pravda in
http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp...
or that Chapman PDF..
And funny how Pravda is written by creationist cranks, eh?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118412 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
And a note on this quote:
"Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23] "
I Google searched for the article and could only find claims by creationists. No link to the original article. That reeks of dishonesty. That is not a valid source. No link, no source.
To be fair, the article is out of print and could well have been valid. They do so often love to quote scientists from a long time ago and bring up irrelevant objections today as if they're still valid. That's why they still ask for the missing link even though that argument hasn't been valid in over a century. And the fact that New Scientist reference is hard to find is a bonus for them.

What we'd likely find is that the scientists in question were not criticizing evolution, but the zeal of some anthropologists who want to find a "missing link" type fossil to boost their careers. We've already seen this happen before in the case of fossil Ida. But as always, it was evolutionary scientists that spotted the flaw and put things back on track.

On the other hand though, creationists are known to be massive liars for Jesus.(shrug)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118413 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
And a note on this quote:
"Addionally:
the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed "flipperpithecus":
"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23] "
I Google searched for the article and could only find claims by creationists. No link to the original article. That reeks of dishonesty. That is not a valid source. No link, no source.
It is just the parrot circuit of the bronze age mythology dwellers.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118414 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
We only need 2 positive mutations out of those 15,000 for the observed evolution to occur.
In the context of this argument I'd say "positive" mutations are basically any that don't make either lineage extinct. Remember we're just calculating the feasible changes that occurred over time based on average mutation rates, so the whole "positive and negative" mutations here are not relevant to either side of the argument. This issue is purely about the numbers. We don't wanna confuse our already confused fundies even further!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118415 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
After all, I was able to show you how evolution passed the scientific method.
.
You didn't show me anything like that. Part of the scientific method is testability. Can you cite a test that proves that evolution (meaning change from one kind to another - macro-evolution) occurs. We already know change within a kind can occur like dogs changing size and appearance, but we still have a dog. You may even convince me there can be a change within families, ie a something to the foxes, dogs, wolves etc. For evolution to be true we have to go beyond these limits to a different family. If all life came from one organism, which branched off to others, at some time a change of this magnitude must have occurred. We don't have an observation of this, we don't have fossil evidence of this and we don't have the fossil evidence of the millions of intermediate forms which would be anticipated by evolution.
.
What we have is an assumption that, since change can occur, given enough time (which there isn't) anything is possible biologically speaking.
.
Provide a model which predicts how long it takes for one sequence in the DNA to change and then multiply it by the millions of changes needed for an ape to evolve into a man and lets see if that is possible. Be sure there is some testing to go along with this so we aren't making assumptions so it can be possible.
.
That seems like good science to me, how about you? Is this an unreasonable request?
There are no kinds.
"Kind" is an oblivious creationist's concept that is not used in biology.
What do you mean with "kind"? Species? Genus? Clade? Family? class? Phylum? Kingdom?

So let's assume you meant speciation.
Wikipedia "evidence of common descent".

But I shall mention one very obvious and already irrefutable line of evidence: the geological record. Basically: when descend in a mine shaft and stop at every few meters, you observe thousands of layers. Each layer is of different composition and origin.

there is a very logical and basic rule in geology: the layer beneath is older than the one on top. Because a layer can not been formed underneath an already existing one.

Now what do we see when we descend in the mine saft. Or, just do yourself a favouw and go to the next website: http://www.oldearth.org/stratigraphy.htm . BTW mind the source, it is a creationist's website. There the total geological column og the Grand Canyon is described painstakingly in 5 pages. Read them all.

What we observe is this:
- in the deepest (hence: oldest) layers where we find life, we only have single cellular organisms, bacteria
- ascending many layers, we first see the first eukaryotes (still unicellular)
- ascending even more layers, we see the first, very primitive multicellular life (Ediacara biota)
- ascending ever more, we observe trilobites and the like
- ascending more we observe the first fish
- then the first bony fish
- then the first amphibians
- then the first reptiles
- then the first mammals

In other words, life started as unicellular organisms and became ever more complex.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This is why the first 100 days is a 'ridiculous... 1 min Geezer 45
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min VetnorsGate 1,522,327
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 9 min Fcvk tRump 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 22 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 265,267
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 32 min ThomasA 2,060
News Under Trump, ICE arrests soar for migrants with... 42 min Chilli J 225
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 48 min ThomasA 313,980
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 1 hr spud 332
News Americans have rendered their verdict on the fi... 2 hr Retribution 106
More from around the web