Evolution... Do we believe?

[Stripe]

I'm not the one who is claiming that there is always a clear distinction, that in fact it's often blurred around the edges, you seem to be the one who thinks that original "kinds" convenienntly don't need any definition at all.

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists hate reading.

:deadhorse:

 

[Stripe]

So, you aren't going to tell us what you mean when you say "species"? You're just going to keep using the term as if your implied demand that your evolutionism be assumed is reasonable.

YECs prefer a rational discussion; we will clearly define our terms up front and stick with them until they are shown untenable.

 

[Stripe]

So would it be fair to say that the definition of "species" is a vague and malleable term that can be used to group organisms?

 

[alwight]

So, you aren't going to tell us what you mean when you say "species"? You're just going to keep using the term as if your implied demand that your evolutionism be assumed is reasonable.

Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier. Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.
However the typical YEC is much more interested in any possible discrepancies that can be picked at than in anything else, since ultimately anything that tends toward the common ancestry of all life and an old Earth must automatically be presumed wrong however good and rigorous the science is, if a literal Genesis says otherwise.

YECs prefer a rational discussion; we will clearly define our terms up front and stick with them until they are shown untenable.

This from AiG's statement of faith rather says otherwise:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."​

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

The above says that a literal Genesis will always trump any science even if it cannot be faulted. A more honest and informed YEC like Kurt Wise knows when science cannot be faulted and says so but simply chooses to believe the Bible anyway by faith alone not rationality.

 

[Stripe]

Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier.

The "definition" that says there is no clear definition?

And "most people say" is nothing approaching a rational argument. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and defend your position.

Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly be a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.

Definitions don't work that way. We are talking science. When you make a claim, you have to defend that claim. Are you willing to defend your position using the "reproduction" definition of species?

However the typical YEC is much more interested in any possible discrepancies that can be picked at than in anything else, since ultimately anything that tends toward the common ancestry of all life and an old Earth must automatically be presumed wrong however good and rigorous the science is, if a literal Genesis says otherwise.

:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

 

[alwight]

The "definition" that says there is no clear definition?

And "most people say" is nothing approaching a rational argument. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and defend your position.

Definitions don't work that way. We are talking science. When you make a claim, you have to defend that claim. Are you willing to defend your position using the "reproduction" definition of species?


:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

:deadhorse:

 

[Stripe]

:deadhorse:

So you're plain not interested in answering, right?

Are you prepared to pick a definition of "species" and stick to it in a conversation?

 

[alwight]

So you're plain not interested in answering, right?

Are you prepared to pick a definition of "species" and stick to it in a conversation?

Perhaps you just hate to read what I wrote Stripe, Morton's demon no doubt. lain:

 

[Stripe]

Perhaps you just hate to read what I wrote Stripe, Morton's demon no doubt. lain:

So you're going to stick with the definition that says there is no set definition, right?

Would it be fair to say that your definition of "species" is a vague and malleable term that can be used to group organisms?

 

[alwight]

So you're going to stick with the definition that says there is no set definition, right?

Would it be fair to say that your definition of "species" is a vague and malleable term that can be used to group organisms?

You would no doubt like to spread any slight differences as far as you possibly can Stripe, but as I pointed out there is no real practical problem at least for more rational people who perhaps don't find it necessary to adhere literally to an ancient scripture.

 

[Stripe]

You would no doubt like to spread any slight differences

Slight difference in what? I'm asking you what you mean when you use the word "species." It looks like you want it to mean a number of different things, requiring an assumption of your evolution.

Is that accurate? Do you hold that "species" is a malleable term?

 

[alwight]

Slight difference in what? I'm asking you what you mean when you use the word "species." It looks like you want it to mean a number of different things, requiring an assumption of your evolution.

Is that accurate? Do you hold that "species" is a malleable term?

Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier. Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring. There is clearly a few minor points of difference on some of the detail of course, but it nevertheless remains a largely workable definition for more reasonable people to use.

lain:

 

[6days]

Most non YECs at least seem to have very little problem in understanding the scientific definition of a species similar to that Wiki link I posted earlier.*Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring.....

Such a flexible definition becomes somewhat silly when evutionists look at bones thousands of years old and try determine species. Scientists continually are reclassifying*live organisms..IE. *with huge anatomical differences between male and female sometimes; or between members of same species (poodle and great dane).*


An example of the silliness is with Neandertals. Even though they are similar to many modern humans, evolutionary assumptions lead to them being called a different species. Archaeological discoveries and DNA evidence show their humanity and show we are Neandertal descendants. But in spite of the evidence, many evutionists are reluctant to admit Neandertals are as fully human as us. ( They are descendants of Adam and Eve, as we are.)

 

[Cruciform]

Evolutionists hate reading.

"Biblical Creationists" hate thinking.

 

[The Barbarian]

Such a flexible definition becomes somewhat silly when evutionists look at bones thousands of years old and try determine species.

As Darwin predicted, it is often difficult or impossible. Creationism predicts neat and easily defined species. Evolutionary theory predicts that a hard definition of species is impossible. This is one of the reasons that creationism is not accepted by science.

Scientists continually are reclassifying*live organisms..IE. *with huge anatomical differences between male and female sometimes; or between members of same species (poodle and great dane).*

You've been misled. Poodles and great danes are not considered separate species.

An example of the silliness is with Neandertals. Even though they are similar to many modern humans, evolutionary assumptions lead to them being called a different species.

As you saw, creationists called them apes. In fact, genetic analysis shows them to be one of three subspecies of H. sapiens, with anatomically modern humans and denisovans.

Archaeological discoveries and DNA evidence show their humanity and show we are Neandertal descendants.

Not all of us. Most Europeans have a few Neandertal genes. But many humans do not. The two subspecies mingled mostly in Europe and West Asia.

But in spite of the evidence, many evutionists are reluctant to admit Neandertals are as fully human as us.

Show us that. Since genetic analysis has shown how close they are, scientists have acknowledged them to be subspecies of our own species.

Perhaps you're thinking of Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, who thought that blacks were genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality to other humans.

 

[alwight]

Such a flexible definition becomes somewhat silly when evutionists look at bones thousands of years old and try determine species. Scientists continually are reclassifying*live organisms..IE. *with huge anatomical differences between male and female sometimes; or between members of same species (poodle and great dane).

YECs probably aren't too interested in a reasonable working definition imo, they're only interested in that which might show some possible conjecture, no matter how trivial or unimportant. A bone of contention is better than conceding anything possibly dangerous to a literal Genesis perhaps?

Huge anatomical differences couldn't reasonably be expected to happen naturally imo.
Mind you I've just thought of the Black Widow spider now. :think:
Arguably a very early human might not be easily able to produce a viable offspring with a modern human, it isn't always an easy thing to define. Why creationists would insist that only a clear definition will do has probably more to do with defending their YEC doctrine than in any concession to factual reality.

An example of the silliness is with Neandertals. Even though they are similar to many modern humans, evolutionary assumptions lead to them being called a different species. Archaeological discoveries and DNA evidence show their humanity and show we are Neandertal descendants. But in spite of the evidence, many evutionists are reluctant to admit Neandertals are as fully human as us. ( They are descendants of Adam and Eve, as we are.)

As far as I know many of us carry Neanderthal DNA, so some viable offspring must have emerged, it rather depends on the similarity of specific DNA. But face it they were physically different in many ways, how your A&E might have looked I'll let you decide for yourself.

 

[flintstoned]

evolution is just the religion atheists are using today

So Christians who believe in evolution, therefore believe in two religions?

 

[6days]

..., but as I pointed out there is no real practical problem ....

Google "species problem"..
.
You will find thongs such as "One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an*organism*belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable"

 

[Jonahdog]

Google "species problem"..
.
You will find thongs such as "One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an*organism*belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable"

Oh my goodness, science is not always totally accurate. How can we then proceed? Scientific understanding changes as more information about the real world becomes known. My oh my, would we not all be better off just accepting the cobbled together group of ancient myth?


Uh, probably not.