Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

Right Divider

Body part
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.
:rotfl:

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).
 
Last edited:

Alate_One

Well-known member
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

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
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

Well-known member
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

New member
The Barbarian said:
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

New member
Alate_One said:
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

New member
Stuu said:
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?
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
...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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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.
Stuu said:
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

Well-known member
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?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Scripture tells us 'in six days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them.
* Even thought the text clearly indicates that it is not a literal history 6 Days does not believe that but has to put a literal spin on it.

Jesus tells us humanity existed from a Time near the foundation of the world and the beginning of the creation.
6Days altered Jesus' statement to make it acceptable to him. In fact, Jesus says that at the beginning of creation male and female were there.
But God says that neither male nor female were there at the beginning of creation. Is this a contradiction? No. Jesus meant at the beginning of the creation of humans.

Scripture does not deny that there were carnivores before the fall. 6Days does not believe Him.

Scripture tells us that Last Adam went to the Cross because spiritual death entered our world when first Adam sinned.
* 6Days compromises scripture and does not accept that.

Scripture uses an allegory to tell us about the realationship between man and woman.
* 6Days rejects what scripture plainly tells us.

Scripture tells us, that some humans lived many hundreds of years, but does not say that all humans were like that, nor does it say that lifetimes dramatically decreased after the flood.
* 6Days will put a spin on that.

Scripture tells us The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. There is actually, in the Middle east, submerged peaks in what is now a vast sea that includes many submerged human settlements.

* 6Days doesn't believe that. He says it has to mean a global flood that covered all the Earth, even though the Bible does not say that it did.

Scripture uses allegory to tell us about creation. It is not a time sequence, nor is it a science text.
* 6Days totally rejects that.

Scripture tells us that Adam called Eve the mother of all.
(6Days finally gets something right)

6Days sadly is committed to a YE creationist worldview, which rejects the plain teachings of scripture.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Stripe loves non-sequiturs. Also avoiding questions he finds hard to answer.

Let's see:

Speciation is NOT a problem for creationism. Those are ALL still BIRDS (and even gulls).

That's what prompted you to ask your question, which has the sole goal of sowing confusion.

If kinds are so obvious and clear.

Did someone make this claim?

If you can't maybe, just maybe they share a common ancestor.

Have you no interest in rational discourse?
 

Stuu

New member
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.
Would you care to make a short list of examples?
The fossil record does NOT show nice "progressions" of creatures from a single universal common ancestor to all life today.
And nor would you expect it to.
The fossil record appears much more like the results of a catastrophic global flood.
In what way does it appear like that?
That is a hilariously twisted piece of nonsense. So a new species appears in the mid-lifetime of a creature?
Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations of individuals. I seem to remember we have covered this already.
Did it all happened at the exact same time?
The point is that all the species involved are extant but spread out over distance. The species we are discussing that have evolved, for example hominids, are spread out over time.
I should repeat that speciation is NOT a problem for creationism. Those are ALL still BIRDS (and even gulls).
But once their ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
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.
Yes. Have you got anything newer than 1997?
Even though modern medicine and agriculture allows more people to live longer, it does not prevent genetic load from increasing.
I think James Crow was blaming these (and other) technologies for decreasing selection pressure, wasn't he?
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.
Epigenetics knowledge has improved quite a bit since 1997.
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.
But you seem to be using mortality rates as a proxy for population control as a way of reducing the occurrence of mutation, without acknowledging that there are increasing numbers of both beneficial and deleterious mutations in an exponentially increasing population.
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.
And what are his inconsistent evolutionary beliefs?
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.
You wouldn't want natural selection to remove beneficial near-neutral mutations, with the potential to accumulate phenotypic benefits for future generations, would you.

Stuu: 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.
What definition of the word speciation are you using there? What do you mean by 'highly adapted'? Is that some creationist term? One word I can't remember you using is fitness.
Stuu: 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?
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.
I wasn't asking you a scientific question. I was asking you a theological question.
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.
The appendix is a perfect example of a vestigial feature, by the proper definition of that term. And it is the reason why Intelligent Design died: vestigial features aren't necessarily ones that no longer have a function, they could be features that have adapted to a different function. But of course there are great examples of features that are disappearing because of adaptation to new environments. My favourite remains the plantaris muscle. Have you got one? 9% of people don't.

Stuu: There 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.
No, science shows that life has been present on this planet for not far off 4 billion years. The size of your mistake is the equivalent to claiming the distance from Los Angeles to New York is about 9 yards.
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.
Do you believe the fuse is long, or do you believe it has only been a matter of thousands of years? James Crow gives it up to 100 generations before you might expect to see problems. I think he has not analysed 100 generations of human DNA, and I see you have not cited any paper written after the establishment of routine sequencing of the human genome. There should be plenty of evidence of increased mutation rates in the various ancient sequences that have been done. Where is all that?

You might also care now to answer my question about the best way to describe a creation in which well over 99.9% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct. I dare say this has not been because of mutation rates, either. The dinosaurs did not have artificial sources of ionising radiation and mutagenic chemicals that loaded them up to extinction. They had a big rock hit the Earth.

Can I take it you believe dinosaurs existed? You don't believe in the time period in which they lived.
That type of 'logic' is what has led to the numerous false conclusions proven wrong by science. Our DNA is not 98% junk.
Strawman argument. You sound desperate.
Our inverted retina is a superior design.
The octopus thinks you are deluded.
Pseudogenes are not useless evolutionary relics.
What do you think they are, then?
Our appendix is functional and designed with purpose.
...but millions of people live perfectly healthy lives without one. Some people are even born without one.

It is exciting times for bible-believing Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Yes, christians must be thrilled to learn that the appendix they might not ever have had is functional and designed with them in mind. Those who survived peritonitis when an infected one burst must be wondering what it's designed purpose really is. Maybe they are even suspicious of their god's motives.

Stuart
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The reason science continues proven evolutionary beliefs to be false, is that the answer for evolutionist is always evolution did it.

What a silly misconception. The Flynn Effect, for example is not attributed to evolution.

For example... evolutionist used to claim that our appendix was a useless evolutionary vestige based on homology.

That's a common creationist superstition, and quite false. "Vestigial" does not mean "useless", and never did. There are some useless vestigial structures, but most have evolved a new function. And it's always been that way in evolutionary theory; Darwin mentioned it in his book.

The appendex no longer serves to ferment cellulose, but it does have other functions, as evolutionary theory predicts. Would you like me to show you Darwin's point on this?

"Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given."

Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species Chapter XIV: Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs

Science has shown that to be false, so now evolutionists claim it is analogous and must have evolved independently.

Creationist just-so story. "Vestigial" has never meant "useless." See Darwin's statement. Often, creationists would do well to simply learn what evolution is, and what evolutionary theory says about it. It would save a lot of embarrassment for them.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"Vestigial" does not mean "useless", and never did.

Notice how nobody said that it means "useless"?

There are some useless vestigial structures.

Notice how you use the exact same English construct that you just got finished criticizing in others?

Most have evolved a new function.

Nope. The function was discovered. Big difference.

Darwinists call everything evolution.
 

6days

New member
Alate_One said:
Do all penguins share a common ancestry with one ancestral penguin?
No... Not from one penguin. There would have been both a mom and a dad penguin. There might have been many penguins. And God might have created different kinds of penguins.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So you accept that Penguins evolved from flying birds?
If penguins are birds, then they are descendants of birds.

Gen 1:21 KJV And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Would you care to make a short list of examples?
Evolutionists like to show "horse evolution".

And nor would you expect it to.
Evolutionists do.

In what way does it appear like that?
Do your homework.

Evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations of individuals. I seem to remember we have covered this already.
:rotfl:

Populations are just groups of individuals.

The point is that all the species involved are extant but spread out over distance. The species we are discussing that have evolved, for example hominids, are spread out over time.
The point is that speciation is NOT a problem for creationism. The original kinds are reproducing and splintering.

The "tree of life" branches from many kinds and NOT a single universal common ancestor.

But once their ancestors were theropod dinosaurs.
:french:

Sheer speculation.
 
Top