To Christians, what's a kind?

[Erth]

It's frequently claimed by Christians that we've only ever seen microevolution, which they define as a variation within a "kind", not macroevolution, which they define as a change to a different "kind". But what is a "kind". It's never well defined, and ranges from a species (humans) to a kingdom (bacteria). A "kind" is not a valid taxonomic rank.
Biologists usually use microevolution to mean evolution above the species level, which has been observed!
Apple maggot flies, ecoli capable of eating nylon and using citrate. Inability to use citrate is one of the ways biologists use to define ecoli from other species.

Really christians just use "kind" to count anything observed as merely being microevolution.

So how big is a kind really?

I believe you are addressing creationists and not Christians generally.

 

[sfs]

Evolution does not act within the confines of time except to express however long a generation is. Species which produce quickly will evolve quickly (if their biology justifies it: EG; nutritional intake, energy expended etc.).

Not necessarily. Species with fast generation times tend also to have large effective population sizes, which means genetic drift acts more slowly and purifying selection is more effective in them. This is one reason given for the fact that molecular clocks often track time better than the number of generations.

 

[Naraoia]

This is one reason given for the fact that molecular clocks often track time better than the number of generations.

Huh. That was a moment right there. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think cladistics needs shoehorning to fit. It's simply the idea that creatures should be classified by common ancestry. It's a sensible idea whether common ancestry goes back to LUCA four billion years ago or to the created kinds six thousand years ago.

Good point!

 

[AV1611VET]

Cladistics does not involve the Linneaus taxonomy -- it cuts across it.

Ya, "cladistics" was wrong and I shouldn't have used it.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[sfs]

Huh. That was a moment right there. Thanks.

Note that only purifying selection, not drift, should affect the molecular clock, since population size doesn't change the overall substitution rate.

 

[blademan9999]

The original nylon bugs were Flavobacterium, I believe.
))

I've corrected the OP.

 

[sfs]

I've corrected the OP.

While you're at it, correct your conflation of Christian and creationist.

 

[blademan9999]

While you're at it, correct your conflation of Christian and creationist.

Done.

 

[sfs]

Done.

Thank you.

 

[Styx87]

Not necessarily. Species with fast generation times tend also to have large effective population sizes, which means genetic drift acts more slowly and purifying selection is more effective in them. This is one reason given for the fact that molecular clocks often track time better than the number of generations.

See, this is why science works . Becuase other scientists won't hesitate for a second to correct a coleague when they're wrong .

It's also why creationism doesn't work... because according to creationists... they're never wrong .

That is however beside the point. The point is that creationists can not and will not define what "kinds" are... ever!

 

[Naraoia]

I've corrected the OP.

Done.

Double

 

[OllieFranz]

See, this is why science works . Becuase other scientists won't hesitate for a second to correct a coleague when they're wrong .

It's also why creationism doesn't work... because according to creationists... they're never wrong .

That is however beside the point. The point is that creationists can not and will not define what "kinds" are... ever!

Like I said, if I define a clade and suggest that a kind is a clade with a special root species, they will agree. And we can go from there. It's the whole other sciences mixed in their idea of "Evolution" that they won't let go of.

 

[Delphiki]

"Kind" ... like "faith" ... is one of those words that is difficult to define.

Faith is super easy to define. Faith is simply a belief or assertion without evidence or reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't shoehorn cladistics and other Linneaus junk into Genesis, without having to make spaghetti of the Bible.

(Or perhaps that's their intent?)

The intent on the part of taxonomists is to describe the natural world with accuracy using shared and derived features. It is not the fault of taxonomists that your interpretation of the Bible falls apart when it is compared to the facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, if I define a clade and suggest that a kind is a clade with a special root species, they will agree. And we can go from there. It's the whole other sciences mixed in their idea of "Evolution" that they won't let go of.

In that case, there is only one created kind . . . Life.

 

[OllieFranz]

In that case, there is only one created kind . . . Life.

While I agree with that, I'm taking baby steps with the Creationists it's more productive.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A kind is a class of species, such a feline. All cats are of the feline kind, and only kinds can interbreed with others in the same kind. There exists great diversity within kinds as genetic manipulation of dogs and cats have shown, but no matter how we manipulate their genes, they always remain dogs and cats. It is not surprising at all that a saber-tooth and lion belong to the same kind, our gentic manipulation of dog and cat genes has shown that their exists almost an unlimited variation of form within each kind, so that such has been mistaken as evolution is not surprising at all.

Adaptation is clearly observed, if we take 1000 black rabbits and place then up north, in a few generations we will have fat white rabbits, but they will always remain rabbits. They will not become cats. That you have birds with beaks adapted to specific feeding habits is adaptation, not evolution. They have adapted to their environment, but are still of the avian kind and always will be. Exactly why we see no transitory species evolving today, it never occurred. You have observed different forms of the same kind and mistaken that for evolution, yet a Pekinese did not "evolve" from a wolf. The canine kind already contained that genetic information within its DNA, it simply needed brought to the fore. Every canine that has ever lived and every one that may yet be bred is already contained within the DNA for that kind, one merely needs a slight rearrangement of genetic code.

But again, a canine has never been anything but a canine, and will always be a canine till the end of time, even if it does not look like something we today would recognize as a canine. Surely evolutionists are not proposing that the Bambino cat is of a different kind besides feline?

 

[AV1611VET]

A kind is a class of species, such a feline. All cats are of the feline kind, and only kinds can interbreed with others in the same kind. There exists great diversity within kinds as genetic manipulation of dogs and cats have shown, but no matter how we manipulate their genes, they always remain dogs and cats. It is not surprising at all that a saber-tooth and lion belong to the same kind, our gentic manipulation of dog and cat genes has shown that their exists almost an unlimited variation of form within each kind, so that such has been mistaken as evolution is not surprising at all.

Adaptation is clearly observed, if we take 1000 black rabbits and place then up north, in a few generations we will have fat white rabbits, but they will always remain rabbits. They will not become cats. That you have birds with beaks adapted to specific feeding habits is adaptation, not evolution. They have adapted to their environment, but are still of the avian kind and always will be. Exactly why we see no transitory species evolving today, it never occurred. You have observed different forms of the same kind and mistaken that for evolution, yet a Pekinese did not "evolve" from a wolf. The canine kind already contained that genetic information within its DNA, it simply needed brought to the fore. Every canine that has ever lived and every one that may yet be bred is already contained within the DNA for that kind, one merely needs a slight rearrangement of genetic code.

But again, a canine has never been anything but a canine, and will always be a canine till the end of time, even if it does not look like something we today would recognize as a canine. Surely evolutionists are not proposing that the Bambino cat is of a different kind besides feline?

Hello and welcome to CF!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello, and thanks for the welcome, but I'm not used to it, so may slip . Man I hate not being able to post links

Evolution ties into radiocarbon dating.

In radiocarbon dating we find that, the theory is based upon:
see Fermi's Interaction wiki

In particle physics, Fermi's interaction (also the Fermi Theory of Beta Decay) is an explanation of the beta decay, proposed by Enrico Fermi in 1933,

And presented scientifically by Willard Libby in 1949.
see radio carbon dating wiki.

yet in Weak interaction we find something peculiar happens around 1957:
see weak interaction wiki

Weak interactions are most noticeable when particles undergo beta decay, and in the production of deuterium and then helium from hydrogen that powers the sun's thermonuclear process. Such decay also makes radiocarbon dating possible, as carbon-14 decays through the weak interaction to nitrogen-14.... Although the weak interaction used to be described by Fermi's theory, the discovery of parity violation and renormalization theory suggested a new approach was needed.

But we don't use a new approach in radiocarbon dating, we use Libby's theory that he got from Fermi's theory which violates parity. A new theory was devised for the weak interaction, but not for radiocarbon dating, which is an effect of the weak interaction. They still use the broken theory to radiocarbon date objects, when it was shown it did not accurately describe the weak interaction of which beta decay is caused.

The sole reason they still use it is without it they could not but guess at the age of things, but reliance on a theory shown to be incorrect is nothing but a guess anyways.

Do you got a thread I can go post 48 more replies to real quick so I can post links and start a scientific evaluation of it