Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Zazzy]

Creationists consider created kind.

That term may match the terms species or genus or family as used by modern biology.

These are very, very different things, Grace. I don't think you understand what modern biologists mean when they talk about species, genus, or family, since these terms are used to describe evolutionary relationships.

Yet again, you fundamentally misunderstand the language you are using, yet again showing me that you have about a 9th grade science education.

Are you going to keep misusing terms, or try and learn something that evolutionary scientists actually claim so you can make a cogent case?

[Doubting Thomas]

Creationists consider created kind.

That term may match the terms species or genus or family as used by modern biology.

May, but as soon as we take "kind" to mean species, you'll change the definition of "kind" to mean something else.

And I've never studied biology, but I know that Genus, Family, and Species are different classifications of living organisms. So which one does "kind" mean again?

[Angrboda]

Creationists consider created kind.

That term may match the terms species or genus or family as used by modern biology.

A term which you've yet to define. When asked before, you gave a counter-example; a counter-example does not a definition make.

Are you going to duck the question yet again?

Please define what a kind is, and explain the pattern of reproductive isolation in a ring species in terms of your definition.


Wikipedia:

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Creationists consider created kind.

That term may match the terms species or genus or family as used by modern biology.

A term which you've yet to define. When asked before, you gave a counter-example; a counter-example does not a definition make.

Are you going to duck the question yet again?

Please define what a kind is, and explain the pattern of reproductive isolation in a ring species in terms of your definition.


Wikipedia:

I am not ducking any questions.

Have you any evidence of a dog producing a cat offspring?
Or a cat producing a dog offspring?

[Cyberman]

Is that the only thing that would convince you of the reality of biological evolution? Something that Evolution Theory never predicts and which would, in point of fact, completely overturn it? How very reasonable!

[Angrboda]

A term which you've yet to define. When asked before, you gave a counter-example; a counter-example does not a definition make.

Are you going to duck the question yet again?

Please define what a kind is, and explain the pattern of reproductive isolation in a ring species in terms of your definition.


Wikipedia:

I am not ducking any questions.

Have you any evidence of a dog producing a cat offspring?
Or a cat producing a dog offspring?

You just did.

Ducking the question in the very post you claim not to be ducking any questions.

You are not only a liar, you're a pathetically bad liar. I don't really care about the intellectual failings of Christians such as yourself. It's the total lack of morals and character prevalent among your 'kind'.

[Zazzy]

Have you any evidence of a dog producing a cat offspring?
Or a cat producing a dog offspring?

And more fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary science, with the same strawman. No evolutionary scientist claims this occurs, Grace. Again, why don't you learn what the tenets of the field are so you can mount a convincing case? It keeps looking really bad for you to argue against what no scientist claims or thinks.

[downbeatplumb]

I am not ducking any questions.

Have you any evidence of a dog producing a cat offspring?
Or a cat producing a dog offspring?

That's not how evolution works.

A cat would produce cat like offspring a dog would produce dog like offspring and over eons they change so they could not breed successfully with their ancestors they "diverge" if you will.

This is not speculation or my opinion, but fact supported by evidence.

All you have is your ignorance that you flaunt like some sort of badge of honour.

[pocaracas]

Every now and then evolution takes a few leaps... but it's a bit gross, so those leaps don't lead many places...

The pic below is hidden for a reason!

---

---

[max-greece]

Physicists claim that things fall down due to an "atheistic falling science" that, in the service of denying god, posits that things fall variably depending on their location on Earth. Yes, those atheistic physicists DO claim that! Yes they do!

This is what you are doing, Grace.

Its called intelligent falling - enough with your atheistic gravity.

God sucks - er - I mean Jesus sucks....no.....well he doesn't swallow that's for sure, but only because its not kosher.