Examples

[Not_By_Chance]

Have you looked into the twin nested hierarchies of genetics and phylogeny?

Nope. What would that tell me?

 

[lasthero]

If no-one knows where the goalposts really are, how can they know if they have been moved?

You gave an example that would fit an organism becoming a new kind, and I provided a real life example that fit. Now, all of the sudden, you're backing away from your original example. You're moving the goalpost.

If you don't know what a kind is, you can't ask people to provide you an example of new kinds being made.

Just because I said they might be a different kind (and I was only expressing an opinion), doesn't mean that such change is leading anywhere down the evolutionary path that could lead to someone in the future declaring, "Hey fellow scientists, I've discovered that birds have evolved into [land-dwelling whales or whatever]"

So? A new kind is a new kind. You asked for a case of a new kind coming forth, you gave parameters, and those parameters were met.

 

[The Cadet]

I'm merely trying to determine whether or not the changes that are being reported are really leading anywhere in evolutionary terms or whether they are just dead-end slight variations, whether or not they would be classified as a different species, kind or whatever else you want to call them (note the original quote in post #72 if you will). I'm trying to find out what current evidence in the real world supports the evolutionary tree of life and not the Biblical model.

The existence of ring species completely destroys this model. We have a continuum of species that can all interbreed with their neighbors, who then loop around a plateau or mountain range or the like and at the other end can't interbreed. Which means they must be different kinds, right?

The world doesn't fit into nice, neat boxes like "kinds". Yes, this is also a problem with traditional definitions of "species" or "genus" as well, but separating the world into kinds like this leaves you completely unable to explain the facts present. It's very difficult to observe speciation in the short term, as in nature, it's necessarily a bit of a toss-up whether the species will actually split, or merge back together (this has happened in the past as well).

 

[The Cadet]

Nope. What would that tell me?

Fundamentally, that the diversity of life and genetics are both well-explained by mechanisms such as descent with modification.

 

[sfs]

I'm merely trying to determine whether or not the changes that are being reported are really leading anywhere in evolutionary terms or whether they are just dead-end slight variations, whether or not they would be classified as a different species, kind or whatever else you want to call them (note the original quote in post #72 if you will). I'm trying to find out what current evidence in the real world supports the evolutionary tree of life and not the Biblical model.

Well, you could just ask the experts whether the current evidence in the real world supports the evolutionary tree of life or not. If you do, we'll tell you that yes, the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Especially the genetic evidence, which remains completely inexplicable under a model of special creation.

 

[USincognito]

I'm merely trying to determine whether or not the changes that are being reported are really leading anywhere in evolutionary terms or whether they are just dead-end slight variations, whether or not they would be classified as a different species, kind or whatever else you want to call them (note the original quote in post #72 if you will). I'm trying to find out what current evidence in the real world supports the evolutionary tree of life and not the Biblical model.

Cats and dogs share a common basal Carnivora ancestor. Carnivora and Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates) share a basal Laurasiatherian common ancestor. There is no mechanism preventing or evidence falsifying those relationships.

 

[USincognito]

Well, they are totally different types of creatures, so I would say yes, they are.

Are birds and theropod dinosaurs totally different types of beings?

 

[USincognito]

I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters to provide, let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature. If evolution is really true, it ought to be quite simple to provide such examples from all the masses of lifeforms on this planet. Can you do it?

Could you give us a hypothetical example of what you're asking for? If your question is based on a false premise, we need to know that and sort it out.

Any chance I can get an answer to my question @Not_By_Chance?

 

[whois]

You totally did not answer his question.

And you still haven't answered mine. What's a kind? If I have two organisms, how do tell if they're the same kind or not?

i've seen you (and others) ask this question repeatedly in this thread.
let's see if i can help any.
definition: life comes from life, and that of its own kind.
dogs come from dogs.
cats come from cats.
tulips come from tulips.
humans come from humans.
bacteria come from bacteria.
so apparently the definition is wrong or the above are all different kinds.

 

[lasthero]

i've seen you (and others) ask this question repeatedly in this thread.
let's see if i can help any.
definition: life comes from life, and that of its own kind.

What does that mean, exactly?

dogs come from dogs.

Does that include wolves?

cats come from cats.

All cats? Tigers and housecats? What about extinct cats, like the Sabretooth?

tulips come from tulips.

There are quite a few species of tulips, so this really doesn't help.

humans come from humans.

Okay, so it's like species

bacteria come from bacteria.

There are, no joke, millions of species of bacteria.

There's no consistency, here.

so apparently the definition is wrong or the above are all different kinds.

If I had two organisms, how would you figure out if they're the same kind?

 

[The Cadet]

definition: life comes from life, and that of its own kind.
[...]
bacteria come from bacteria.

Um... You just compared a bunch of genera and families to a freakin' Domain. What the heck does "kind" mean?

 

[USincognito]

definition: life comes from life, and that of its own kind.

That's less a definition than an axiomatic statement.

>> dogs come from dogs.

Dogs do come from dogs. In the future something else might come from them and from something else in the past came dogs.

>> cats come from cats.

Dogs and cats share a common Carnivora ancestor.

>> humans come from humans.

Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human"?

 

[crjmurray]

Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human"?
View attachment 162647

Um.....fully ape?

 

[whois]

the definition i gave in post 89 is the best i can come up with.
another would be, whatever your parents are, then so are you.
so apparently "kinds" are things that can sexually mate with one another.
seeing as how complex biology is, there will no doubt be exceptions.
this one of the reasons i say life will resist all attempts to coherently classify it.

 

[lasthero]

the definition i gave in post 89 is the best i can come up with.
another would be, whatever your parents are, then so are you.
so apparently "kinds" are things that can sexually mate with one another.

If that's the case, new 'kinds' can be made, because we've observed animals changing to the point where they can no longer breed with their original population.

Yes. Like, for instance, every single organism that only reproduces asexually.

 

[whois]

If that's the case, new 'kinds' can be made, because we've observed animals changing to the point where they can no longer breed with their original population.

Yes. Like, for instance, every single organism that only reproduces asexually.

do you have a better definition that fits all of life?
if not, then don't ridicule mine.

 

[USincognito]

Um.....fully ape?

I have to keep it simple for the Creationists. Is this skull "fully non-Homo sapiens hominid" or "fully Homo sapiens" would just confuse them.

 

[crjmurray]

I have to keep it simple for the Creationists. Is this skull "fully non-Homo sapiens hominid" or "fully Homo sapiens" would just confuse them.

I was guessing actually....

 

[lasthero]

do you have a better definition that fits all of life?

Why would I need one?

if not, then don't ridicule mine.

How about you just don't use the word. What's the point of using a word that you don't even know the definition to?

 

[USincognito]

I was guessing actually....

Oooops, sorry about that. Tell you what, how about I show you the skeleton minus the skull and tell me what you think then?