Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[Stuu]

Stuu: So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

So you're just reduced to babbling foolishly?

If Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship, then there is no need for offspring to look like their parents at all. You know that's not what we see, so, if you are serious about intelligent conversation, then how about an intelligent response, or a logical counterargument? I am willing to learn, if you have something to teach. I would like to improve my understanding by being challenged by you. What do you have that is above insults?

Stuart

[Right Divider]

Stuu: So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

If Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship, then there is no need for offspring to look like their parents at all.

Another completely fallacious non-sequitur. Of course ACTUAL descendants are similar.

You know that's not what we see, so, if you are serious about intelligent conversation, then how about an intelligent response, or a logical counterargument? I am willing to learn, if you have something to teach. I would like to improve my understanding by being challenged by you. What do you have that is above insults?

Stuart

Nobody said that ACTUAL descendants are not similar.

The point, AGAIN, is that similarities are NOT ipso facto an indication of a descendant relationship, particularity among all life forms.

[The Barbarian]

Those various skulls are not more different than the range of human skulls around the world today.

Stuu accurately pointed out that is not true. But you should be given a chance to support your claim. Show us modern human skulls that match the top middle and lower left skulls. What do you have?

[Stripe]

YE creationism is an attempt to compromise scripture with biology geology, physics, and so on. Because scripture and science are about two entirely different things, the compromise never worked.

Nope.

We assume that Genesis is an account of history. If you have evidence that shows why it can't be accurate, we're open to a rational discussion. We're not at all confident that you're capable or willing to engage sensibly when you will not respect what we clearly present.

[Stuu]

Of course ACTUAL descendants are similar. The point, AGAIN, is that similarities are NOT ipso facto an indication of a descendant relationship, particularity among all life forms.

Yes, you have a good point about one of the 'problems' with the tree of life model: it's not great genealogy. When you are presented with a fossil of an 'ancestor' species, it is possibly not from a member of a species that led directly to humans, but was a bit off the direct line, a short way into one of the branches that eventually went extinct. The fossil is of 'the kind of thing' that the ancestor species was, rather than literally a member of the actual species or group that led to us.

There is a misconception out there that evolution involves one species giving birth to a different species, and therefore evolution is ridiculous. But of course no species ever gave birth to a difference species. All species are continuously the same, but change accumulates to the point that eventually you say that, at some stage, a new species has arisen.

You get a similar effect in ring species. From the Holy Wikipedia:

Larus gulls form a circumpolar "ring" around the North Pole. The European herring gull (L. argentatus argenteus), which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American herring gull (L. smithsonianus), (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian herring gull (L. vegae), the western subspecies of which, Birula's gull (L. vegae birulai), can hybridize with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull (L. fuscus). All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the lesser black-backed gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain. The lesser black-backed gulls and herring gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe.

It's like evolutionary change spread across geography, instead of spread across time.

Stuart

[Right Divider]

Yes, you have a good point about one of the 'problems' with the tree of life model: it's not great genealogy. When you are presented with a fossil of an 'ancestor' species, it is possibly not from a member of a species that led directly to humans, but was a bit off the direct line, a short way into one of the branches that eventually went extinct. The fossil is of 'the kind of thing' that the ancestor species was, rather than literally a member of the actual species or group that led to us.

The vast amount of assumption required to believe that you "know" what's what in the fossil record is another testament to the faith of evolutionists.

The fossil record does NOT show nice "progressions" of creatures from a single universal common ancestor to all life today.

The fossil record appears much more like the results of a catastrophic global flood.

There is a misconception out there that evolution involves one species giving birth to a different species, and therefore evolution is ridiculous. But of course no species ever gave birth to a difference species. All species are continuously the same, but change accumulates to the point that eventually you say that, at some stage, a new species has arisen.

That is a hilariously twisted piece of nonsense. So a new species appears in the mid-lifetime of a creature?

You get a similar effect in ring species. From the Holy Wikipedia:

Larus gulls form a circumpolar "ring" around the North Pole. The European herring gull (L. argentatus argenteus), which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American herring gull (L. smithsonianus), (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian herring gull (L. vegae), the western subspecies of which, Birula's gull (L. vegae birulai), can hybridize with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull (L. fuscus). All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the lesser black-backed gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain. The lesser black-backed gulls and herring gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe.

It's like evolutionary change spread across geography, instead of spread across time.

Stuart

Did it all happened at the exact same time?

Evolutionists "explanations" are just so funny.

I should repeat that speciation is NOT a problem for creationism. Those are ALL still BIRDS (and even gulls).

[Alate_One]

I should repeat that speciation is NOT a problem for creationism. Those are ALL still BIRDS (and even gulls).

So you accept that Penguins evolved from flying birds?

[Stripe]

So you accept that Penguins evolved from flying birds?

Darwinists love confusion.

[Alate_One]

Darwinists love confusion.

Stripe loves non-sequiturs. Also avoiding questions he finds hard to answer.

If kinds are so obvious and clear, you should have no trouble telling what is one kind and what is another. If you can't maybe, just maybe they share a common ancestor . . .

[JudgeRightly]

Stripe loves non-sequiturs. Also avoiding questions he finds hard to answer.

If kinds are so obvious and clear, you should have no trouble telling what is one kind and what is another. If you can't maybe, just maybe they share a common ancestor . . .

Darwinists love straw men.

[Arthur Brain]

Stripe loves non-sequiturs. Also avoiding questions he finds hard to answer.

If kinds are so obvious and clear, you should have no trouble telling what is one kind and what is another. If you can't maybe, just maybe they share a common ancestor . . .

Ultimately, there's no reasoning with avid YEC's as no matter what you put forward and explain, they'll fob it off no matter what. An old earth/universe/evolution etc just cannot be allowed because it's utterly contradictory to a belief system that's almost practically set in stone. Kudos to you for overcoming that in fact.

[6days]

YE creationism is an attempt to compromise scripture with biology geology, physics, and so on

Scripture tells us 'in six days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them.
* Barbarian does not believe that but has to put a spin on it.

Jesus tells us humanity existed from a Time near the foundation of the world and the beginning of the creation.
* Barbarian does not believe that but has to put a spin on it.

Scripture tells us that God initially, God gave all the animals and humans a vegetarian diet.
* Barbarian does not believe that either.

Scripture tells us that Last Adam went to the Cross because physical death entered our world when first Adam sinned.
* Barbarian compromises scripture and does not accept that.

Scripture tells us that woman was created from the side of a man.
* Barbarian rejects what scripture plainly tells us.

Scripture tells us, that the patriarchs lived many hundreds of years, and the lifetimes dramatically decreased after the flood.
* Barbarian will put a spin on that.

Scripture tells us "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."
* Barbarian doesn't believe that. He says it means only some mountains.. small mountains.

Scripture tells us that God created the Earth before the sun
* Barbarian totally rejects that.

Scripture tells us that Adam called Eve the mother of all.
* Does Barberian believe what that implicitly says.. no

Barbarian sadly is committed to a secular worldview, which rejects the plain teachings of scripture.

[6days]

So you accept that Penguins evolved from flying birds?

It is possible in the biblical model, that birds could lose the ability to fly. (I don't think that is the case with penguins). It is not possible in the biblical model that a 'perch' can become a penguin with feathers. (No matter how many years... No matter how many mutations... No matter how hard you believe)

[6days]

So how do we decide which is more likely to represent what happened? The one that explains all the evidence in terms of mechanisms, or the one that is not falsifiable (except in the cases where it has been falsified)?

Hmmm.... So, it seems from your words ...you are now a creationist?

I see, so something you are telling me about that you say I might not have heard of are things you feel I should find unconvincing.

If you are asking if I think that you believe things without understanding them...yes.

So the etc mechanism you haven't told me about doesn't match the evidence that you haven't cited.

I've mentioned various hypothetical mechanisms secularists have proposed. For example in the one article we have briefly discussed, but you didn't seem to understand, Crow proposes both relaxed selection and quasi truncation.

Even though we live longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, more productive lives with a better understanding of our place in the universe, we are in James F. Crow's opinion 'genetically inferior'.

Correct. Even though modern medicine and agriculture allows more people to live longer, it does not prevent genetic load from increasing.

...in your opinion.

Not just my opinion, but it is what Crow states. Because he thought most of the non-coding DNA was junk, he thought mutations would have no effect in that region.

I'm sure you would agree that creationist cherry-picking is a blight on any serious discourse, and so would assent enthusiastically to me posting his previous paragraph:

However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.

Uh... I don't think you're understanding the article. Crow suggests / proposes that relaxed selection is part of the reason we are genetically inferior to stone age ancestors. If you continue reading he also proposes quasi-truncation as a solution to the paradox. The paradox being that the evidence is inconsistent with his evolutionary beliefs. BTW... If it were not for modern medicine and agriculture, humanity may not even exist. Natural selection is not the answer to the paradox, since it is impossible for selection to detect and remove the near neutral mutations that accumulate causing genetic problems to future generations.

If you stick by it though, then what kind of creation just lets over 99.9% of all species go extinct...

Your comment shows a basic misunderstanding of speciation. Generally the more highly adapted (or speciated) a population becomes, the less genetic diversity exists and the closer to mutation meltdown and, or extinction.

So, real science understands that there is no 'purpose' in the appearance of a viral parasite, what is your explanation for their existence? Did your god make something that has no purpose, or are we talking about a spiteful god?

Stuu... You seem to have a mistaken concept of what science is. Science does not understand anything. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiments.

IIt's not a matter of me believing there is a pattern, a forelimb with five digits is a forelimb with five digits.

The problem with evolutionism... The reason science continues proven evolutionary beliefs to be false, is that the answer for evolutionist is always evolution did it. iIt does not matter if they believe something is homologous or analogous... Their automatic response is 'evolution did it'. It is not science it is a false belief system. For example... evolutionist used to claim that our appendix was a useless evolutionary vestige based on homology. Science has shown that to be false, so now evolutionists claim it is analogous and must have evolved independently. In other words the evidence did not really matter... all that mattered to the evolutionists was trying to explain it within their belief system.

IYou are citing a paper that conceded that at the time there was no reliable way to measure mutations in humans.

As I explained, what you were claiming was known to be false about 70 years ago. The paper explained it was a problem if the mutation rate was 0.5... we now know the mutation rate is hundreds of times greater than that.

IThere is nothing in our genomes consistent with 'several thousand years of mutation'. It's several billion years.

Science shows us that your claim is silly. Science shows us that any organism with a high mutation rate and low reproductive rate will go extinct. More than one secular geneticist has referred to this as a population bomb with a long fuse.

IOur genome looks far more like a careless, blind, wasteful tinkerer has taken unimaginable amounts of time to throw together ...

That type of 'logic' is what has led to the numerous false conclusions proven wrong by science. Our DNA is not 98% junk. Our inverted retina is a superior design. Pseudogenes are not useless evolutionary relics. Our appendix is functional and designed with purpose.

It is exciting times for bible-believing Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.

[Alate_One]

It is possible in the biblical model, that birds could lose the ability to fly. (I don't think that is the case with penguins). It is not possible in the biblical model that a 'perch' can become a penguin with feathers. (No matter how many years... No matter how many mutations... No matter how hard you believe)

Evolution doesn't say a perch became a penguin. A perch is a teleost fish, which is a sister group to the actinopterygii - the lobe finned fish which did give rise to all other Four limbed animals, first amphibians, then reptiles, some of which became two legged dinosaurs which eventually lead to birds, some of which adapted to the sea, becoming penguins.

Saying "a perch became a penguin" is a gross misrepresentation and oversimplification.

However, you're moving the goalposts. The question is, at what point do you stop believing in common ancestry. You said you believed all gulls shared a common ancestry.

Do penguins share a common ancestry with other birds or not?

Do all penguins share a common ancestry with one ancestral penguin?