exminister
Well-known member
Anyone?
Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Anyone?
...not relevant, nor a concern of mine. Therefore, misdirection will not be addressed.
6days
New member
It seems strange that evolutionists are so interested in Biblical "kinds" when they can't clearly define and determine their own terminology with words like 'species'.
Jose Fly
New member
:doh:
Um, that's neither a useful definition nor criteria for grouping things by "kinds".
Jose Fly
New member
And what is "genetic information" (there's that question again)?
So is your position that only God can create and install a gene?
Jose Fly
New member
Sure we can. There are different definitions and criteria for different situations (e.g., sexual vs. asexual organisms, extant vs. extinct organisms). Or did you forget?
exminister
Well-known member
Hmmm.. 6days I have found your answers in the past well thought out. Not sure what you mean here.
Species is understandable and Linnaeus taxonomy clearly delineates it. It has been backed up and refined by DNA with great detail. You may find an oddity here and there but it is beyond anything I have seen on "kinds".
Speciations can clearly answer the questions below. Is it true Kinds is poorly defined and cannot delineate in the same way?
Kinds:
Dogs/wolves
Cats
Goats
Snakes
Are all birds a kind?
Are all fish a kind except those that are mammals?
Are whales and dolphins the same kind or two different kinds?
exminister
Well-known member
Good one. Glad to see evolution is moving towards adorable. :chuckle:
6days
New member
No....That is not correct.
"That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
There are many examples of organisms being classified incorrectly or re-classified based only on evolutionary assumptions. (Darwins finches, Neandertals ETC)
6days
New member
What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.
I love watching atheists go from acting as if they have the decoder ring to all things reason- and then turn into complete, oblivious idiots on the fly. You can seriously go through this thread and pinpoint the exact location in which it begins :chuckle:
This is one of the big tactics atheists have been using to get as far as they've come- they pretty much turn the brain off until whatever inconvenient thing passes and is forgotten, and then they turn it back on and go on the assault once more.
This is one of the big tactics atheists have been using to get as far as they've come- they pretty much turn the brain off until whatever inconvenient thing passes and is forgotten, and then they turn it back on and go on the assault once more.
It's funny, but that isn't the way the evolutionalists say it happened. This is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
I love watching creationists pretend that anybody who accepts a particular scientific theory is an atheist.
exminister
Well-known member
No surprise with common ancestry. Kinds has the hard walls, not evolution. So your shifting constantly away from my original questions shows Kinds cannot be clearly defined. Sadly I say thank you for your indirect answer. I hoped for some clarity on that position for my own education.
alwight
New member
We are indeed fortunate to have the benefit of your sage opinions of atheists.
lain:
Jose Fly
New member
So if natural processes can't create genes, what does?
And given two different genomes, how do we tell which has more "genetic information"?
Last edited:
6days
New member
exminster said:
Sorry... what is no surprise? That the term 'species' is rubbery and not clearly defined?*
Its been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."exminster said:
You said you were interested in the definition of 'kinds' for education purposes. Its easy to find articles on the topics such as...http://creation.mobi/variation-information-and-the-created-kind
Or, if you want something more technical, there are articles in peer reviewed journals such as this one from 'Answers Journal'..."An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona
Jan. 23, 2013, pp. 17–34"
exminister
Well-known member
I like the article. I see the author recommends avoiding the use of 'micro evolution'.
I see why now Creationist cannot specify Kinds in the questions I originally asked. The walls are unknown and the author warns against be specific to avoid moving the 'Maginot Line' as he describes it, avoiding a misperceived win by Evolutionist.
I wrote "not a surprise" because all living things come from common ancestry. I don't have a problem calling species rubbery if within Kinds it is also called rubbery.
Are there Kind trees that show the sub-kind reversals are impossible?
For example, I will use dog kind with coyote as a sub-kind. You can provide a better pair set if you know one.
Can a dog kind give birth to a coyote in one generation? It's a shuffling of info to produce a sub-kind and either DNA remains static or there is information loss. If a loss of DNA it cannot go backwards meaning a coyote cannot have a dog in one generation, but dogs could regularly give birth to a coyote granting the same shuffle and loss. With the earth being 6000 years old this would seem to have some frequency. This maybe why Creationist say "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". It's a reflection on their view of Kinds.
So do we see or why don't we see kinds giving birth to a sub-kind in one generation? Also with the mapping of the genome isn't it easy to see higher order kinds from their sub order kinds? The loss of information should be obvious?