Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Mutations don't cause a new type of creature to appear.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jamie Gigliotti View Post
      Mincing words.... Kinds, species...can they breed? If yes, same type of creation. Regardless of hair color, skin color, size. Which do change through mutation, but does not change the type of creature.
      So to you, if two populations are physically unable to breed, they are different "kinds"?
      "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
        So to you, if two populations are physically unable to breed, they are different "kinds"?
        Ah, the fallacy of affirming the consequent rears its ugly head again.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          Does this mean your argument is that the original breeding pair of "the cat kind" had all the genetic information for every trait in every population of every species of cat that came after?
          Correct.

          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          If so, I assume those sequences went unexpressed until needed, correct?
          Until utilized/activated - "needed" sounds like the genetics had a mind of their own.

          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations.
          Our model is not subject to millions of years and billions of generations of mutational load.

          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood.
          Prior to the flood the rules were apparently different. Life spans were significantly longer which tells us that, although sin was beginning to take its toll, it had not yet produced the kind of load we see today.

          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.
          No, God selected and sent the animals to the ark. Noah did not need to do anything except oversee and make sure there was enough food. Gen 6:20KJV

          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          Plus, all this took place during a time when you also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.
          When you buy a car, it has already begun to degrade. Because it is close to its "creation", you don't notice it. It will keep its "new car smell" for quite awhile. Nevertheless, it is still degrading. Eventually it will rust into the ground. Animals closer to the creation event still had their "new car smell".

          _____________

          Now a question for you.

          If you are not just a lazy troll, why do you continue to ask questions of us that you could get more complete answers for elsewhere?

          I submit you aren't really looking for answers or care even if you do get them.
          Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

          It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
            Oh, I wouldn't get too worked up over this. So 6days believes evolutionary biology isn't science....so what?

            You and I both work in the biological sciences, so we know the status of evolutionary biology in the scientific community. Do the religious beliefs of some anonymous person at a fundamentalist Christian internet board really matter to that?
            Oh I wasn't worked up. Just doing a bit of teaching. I'm quite sure it'll bounce off, but it's better to put it out there than not.
            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              No need, in this situation. "Kind" has a rock-solid definition, while "species" is vague and malleable. This is uncontested.
              It's uncontested in your mind alone.

              No. The Bible makes it clear that kinds are separate groups of animals and outlines broad classifications of examples of the term.
              Species are separate groups of animals and everything named in the bible is now considered a species.

              You make demands of the text that aren't there and invent examples of kinds that do not feature.
              I didn't invent them. Ken ham specifically stated them. That the "dog family" and the "cat family" each reflect a separate kind. But maybe you should actually read this thread?

              It's part of your desperation to leave only your precious evolutionism as a contender. That you fight so hard to not allow even consideration of alternative ideas shows that you're no scientist.
              And here's how to tell you are no scientist. Science does not evaluate every idea, only ideas that are testable. Your "kind" definition is not testable since it is not specific enough to make predictions.

              Given that the "problem" was raised by people determined to reject the Biblical account who made no effort to understand scripture, I think it is up to you to actually raise a reasonable objection, rather than trying to sneak in another genetic fallacy.
              Other than the one you just stated.

              It does not matter where the idea arose from or why. What matters is that it is internally consistent and testable.
              There you are! Now tell us how kinds are testable. Give us a test you could use.
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                It's uncontested in your mind alone.
                However, we notice you do not contest the idea.

                "Kind" has a rock-solid, clear definition, while "species" is vague and malleable.

                Sverything named in the bible is now considered a species.
                Evolutionists love to demand that their regime be asserted everywhere, even where it is explicitly denied.

                The "dog family" and the "cat family" each reflect a separate kind.
                The Bible does not specify that there is a cat kind and a dog kind.

                Science does not evaluate every idea, only ideas that are testable. Your "kind" definition is not testable since it is not specific enough to make predictions.
                Equivocation is a logical fallacy. I did not present an idea; I gave a definition.

                Tell us how kinds are testable.
                First you must acknowledge that the definition is valid. There is no point defending an idea when you will not accept simple definitions of the words being used.

                While you're at it, you can retract the genetic fallacies you raised. The source of an idea has no impact on the idea's validity.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                  [The Seattle Creation Conference starts in 2 days. http://conference.nwcreation.net/ There is webcam access]


                  Dr. P. Nelson, Ph.D., presented at a creation conference sponsored by Discovery Institute at Westminster, PA. It was replayed yesterday on NRB TV (Direct 378).

                  The topic was the undercutting of biological evolution by the destructivity of mutations. The sample species was the primitive C. eleganta, a fruit fly. The two reasons were 1, that mutations for changes were systematically stopped by killing the individual. 2, unlike humans, C. Eleganta reproduces only when very mature, almost at the end of life. Ie, there is not even a chance for mutations to start across what he termed 'the bridge of life' where the moment of reproduction is at the far end, not the near end.

                  The presentation closes with peer quotes by T. MacDonald 1983 saying biological evolution fails, and a more recent one by ____ that biological evolution is unsolveable. Both peers were tenured professors in their fields.
                  The best part of this particular post is that C. elegans is not a fruit fly.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jamie Gigliotti View Post
                    Mutations don't cause a new type of creature to appear.
                    Ninja turtles
                    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                      Our model is not subject to millions of years and billions of generations of mutational load.
                      But I thought your "model" meant that after the fall, all genomes constantly degraded. So if the "cat kind" genome had been degrading for thousands of years prior to the flood, and continued to degrade after the flood, how did all those unexpressed genes for the diversity of traits we see in today's cats manage to escape mutation (which also according to your "model" can only destroy functionality)?


                      Prior to the flood the rules were apparently different.
                      And this is based on.......?

                      Life spans were significantly longer which tells us that, although sin was beginning to take its toll, it had not yet produced the kind of load we see today.
                      Where do you get the idea that cat lifespans were significantly longer?

                      No, God selected and sent the animals to the ark.
                      Oh, guess that takes us out of the realm of science. Thanks for being up front about that.

                      When you buy a car, it has already begun to degrade.
                      Yeah...um.....cars aren't living organisms.

                      If you are not just a lazy troll, why do you continue to ask questions of us that you could get more complete answers for elsewhere?

                      I submit you aren't really looking for answers or care even if you do get them.
                      Because it's funny.
                      "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        I have seen certain posters on ToL desire discussion of "kinds" vs. species.

                        So where did the idea of species come from? It's quite old but the modern conception of taxonomy and scientific names originated with Carolus Linnaeaus.



                        Linneaus was a Christian, a creationist and a originally a "fixist" (meaning species could not change over time) though he eventually changed his position.

                        So the idea of species came from a creationist viewpoint.

                        Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with the "Kinds" of baraminology?

                        "Kinds" as described in baraminology are a modern creationist invention often posited as having a biological equivalent to family. The problem is there's absolutely no Biblical basis for such an idea and is instead an accommodation of the incontrovertible truth of evolution, that species change over time.

                        Why fight against a classification system that was created by a creationist and has been the basic framework for the classification of life for nearly 300 years?

                        When evolutionists start these threads I'm always drawn to this text.

                        II Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

                        2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

                        3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

                        4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

                        5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

                        With attention to verse 5 "denying the power thereof" you refuse to believe God spoke his creation into existence.


                        everready
                        Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

                        6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                          When you buy a car, it has already begun to degrade. Because it is close to its "creation", you don't notice it. It will keep its "new car smell" for quite awhile. Nevertheless, it is still degrading. Eventually it will rust into the ground. Animals closer to the creation event still had their "new car smell".
                          So, when you buy a kitten. Has it "already begun to degrade"?

                          Then of course there are these guys:

                          The Animal that Wouldn't Die
                          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            So, when you buy a kitten. Has it "already begun to degrade?
                            Yes... it has begun to die.
                            Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 6days View Post
                              Yes... it has begun to die.
                              It's still developing and increasing in size, not dying.
                              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                It's still developing and increasing in size, not dying.
                                Your paradigm states that development and increase is improvement. But this is a construct of your own - your "happy place".

                                Physical increase and development is only part of the story of the process of death by living.

                                Is 40:7KJV 1 Pet 1:24KJV Rom 8:22KJV
                                Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

                                It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X