Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Esquilax]

Species that's what scientist used to divide up the kinds, so they could try and make evolution seem valid, Christians are not fooled by those little tricks.

Actually, you're wrong: The term "species" predates evolution by a long, long time. It was originally coined by Aristotle; are you just pulling these claims out of your ass, or is there a place that's specifically lying to you that you're regurgitating?

So, my question stands: either show me a modern definition of evolution that includes kinds and not species, or admit that kinds are irrelevant to the discussion.

Natural selection isn't what we're arguing, Christian scientist do not dispute natural selection and natural selection has never turned a dog into a frog.

Neither does evolution describe dogs turning into frogs; that would actually disprove evolution. I asked you this question in the last post, and it bears repeating: can you furnish me a definition of evolution that includes that sort of misrepresentation in it?

Any animal that can naturally breed to another is of a kind, if you must have it that way. No changes to another kind has ever been seen nor proven and will never be.

Well, I'll credit you for having the honesty to actually define kinds, and by happenstance your definition does fit rather well with a common usage of the term species, but you're still wrong. Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiments gave us groups of fruit flies that couldn't interbreed descended from a single population, so according to the definition you've given we've seen a transition in kind there. Gray Treefrogs and Cope's Gray Treefrogs were once the same species, before an autopolyploidy event produced the two distinct species we have today, differentiated by diploid genetics in one group, and tetraploid cells in the other. They too cannot breed.

Now, you might say they're still fruit flies, or they're still frogs, but now you're contradicting your own definition.

So all you've ever seen in dog breeding is the same kind being born. Mutations haven't change the canine into anything other than different looking canines, and if it wasn't for a superior mind this would have never come about, there was no need until man stepped in. So, in actuality natural selection never took place with the canine, it was human selection. You're barking up the wrong tree on this.

I agree that artificial selection is what we witness with dogs, but that's still evolution, in that genetic change is occurring within a population over successive generations. Evolution is something different to natural selection, though they are interrelated concepts; the former is influenced by the latter, and it's impossible not to have some kind of selection involved in evolution. It's just a matter of choosing which one, and with regards to dogs I would add that the wolves they all came from were influenced by natural selection before they were bred by humans.

There is none, that's why we can safely say evolution is just an imagined, made-up thing written into books to fool people into believing the supposed superior thinking of those who have deluded themselves into believing in something that has no proof of existence. You're trying to deflect what I've said because you used a simply asinine example.

GC

So, you're saying you can't find a definition of evolution, among the mainstream, commonly used definitions, that describes what you're claiming evolution is, and your conclusion is that this makes evolution imaginary? Not, say, the claims you've made that you admit don't appear in any of the commonly held usages of the term?

Micro-evolution- an invention of the evolutionary scientist once they couldn't defend against creation scientist tearing apart macro-evolution. Actually there wasn't any macro-evolution, it was called evolution only. When evolutionary scientist couldn't defend such great changes coming all at once, the terms micro and macro were placed in front of evolution. Christian scientist have always accepted natural selection, evolutionary scientist needed to call it micro-evolution.

GC

Actually, you're kinda wrong there too:The term "macroevolution is ninety years old, and the truth is the reverse of what you're saying. The term fell out of favor after its inception, as the science continued to develop. Today, it's a term mostly clung to by creationists, not evolutionary biologists.

Where are you getting this stuff?