Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Sister_in_Christ]

You really need to educate yourself on the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution differs from creation when it comes to the tree of life. The tree of life basically states that amoebas evolved into every loving organism we have today.

Creation states we had original ancestors that reproduced after their own kind. Those offspring produced different species, but all within the same kind.

Evolution differs from creation in that it relies on mutations to develop new kingdoms. Creation states God created kingdoms, phylums, classes etc. And they bred within those into what we have today.

If two different kinds of dogs breed into a dog, that has no bearing on evolution. If a dog evolves into an elephant, that would be a point for evolutionary theory.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Foxes are NOT dogs. They belong to the same FAMILY, canidae, as do coyotes and racoon dogs (which aren't dogs, either) and wolves and domestic dogs. But they're not even close to being the same species as dogs.



You're moving goalposts, again. Before, you said kind was equivalent to species, but now you seem to be saying that it's equivalent to family. No offense, but it almost seems like a 'kind' is just whatever you need it to be at any given moment to deny evolution.



If a fox turned into a bird, that would invalidate evolution. Foxes and birds are on completely different brances. No one expects foxes to turn into birds.

Kind and species are not totally synonymous, because they are based on different assumptions.

Kind is what we started with, species is what they have become.

If you're basing evidence of evolution on any breeding whatsoever, you're not touching the evolutionary theory.

 

[lasthero]

Creation states we had original ancestors that reproduced after their own kind. Those offspring produced different species, but all within the same kind.

This is completely different to what you were saying just two or so pages ago.

It has been observed that one species can evolve into a different breed within its species. That is what creationists expect to see. It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.

 

[lasthero]

Kind and species are not totally synonymous, because they are based on different assumptions.

Kind is what we started with, species is what they have become.

Okay, fine. Give me a definition, then - what is a kind? If we have two organisms, how do we tell if they're the same kind?

If you're basing evidence of evolution on any breeding whatsoever, you're not touching the evolutionary theory.

Perhaps not as you understand it, no, but I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing. You have a very weird understanding of the theory that I can't quite get.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Okay, fine. Give me a definition, then - what is a kind? If we have two organisms, how do we tell if they're the same kind?



Perhaps not as you understand it, no, but I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing. You have a very weird understanding of the theory that I can't quite get.

Kind is anything capable of reproducing at the time it was created. So, at the time of creation, before they reproduced and became what we see today, kinds could reproduce within themselves. Now, they can't all do that, but they could before.

This is a kind of evolution that, yes, shows transition. However, it is an evolution completely in sync with creation. Therefore, any evidence used to back evolution that was obtained by reproduction is invalid, because it directly supports creation.

 

[lasthero]

Kind is anything capable of reproducing at the time it was created. So, at the time of creation, before they reproduced and became what we see today, kinds could reproduce within themselves.

Under that definition, kinds could be anything. How do you know that foxes and dogs are the same kind, and that there was no fox kind at the start of creation? How do you know that there wasn't just a fish kind or a mammal kind or a bacteria kind or a invertebrate kind? WIth that definition, you can literally say ANTYHING is a kind - the only way you can really know would be for you to know what was and was not present at the start of creation.

Now, they can't all do that, but they could before.

Why? And if you're saying it's because they lost 'information', then you need to define what 'information' actually is.

This is a kind of evolution that, yes, shows transition. However, it is an evolution completely in sync with creation.

It's starting to sound like there isn't any kind of evolution that wouldn't be in sync with creation. You seem to keep changing things as needs arise.

Therefore, any evidence used to back evolution that was obtained by reproduction is invalid, because it directly supports creation.

There's really no evolution without reproduction, so this is a weird statement. It might help if you explained how you think evolution actually works, because it seems like we're on different pages.

 

[Hoghead1]

Foxes are definitely not dogs! As I suggested, you might want to take a look at the fox project in Russia. It is a long-term project to see if foxes can be turned into dogs. So far, after about 60 years, the results look promising. The foxes have been taking on more and more dog characteristics, especially tameness, which is the sine qua non of being a dog.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Under that definition, kinds could be anything. How do you know that foxes and dogs are the same kind, and that there was no fox kind at the start of creation? How do you know that there wasn't just a fish kind or a mammal kind or a bacteria kind or a invertebrate kind? WIth that definition, you can literally say ANTYHING is a kind - the only way you can really know would be for you to know what was and was not present at the start of creation.



Why? And if you're saying it's because they lost 'information', then you need to define what 'information' actually is.



It's starting to sound like there isn't any kind of evolution that wouldn't be in sync with creation. You seem to keep changing things as needs arise.



There's really no evolution without reproduction, so this is a weird statement. It might help if you explained how you think evolution actually works, because it seems like we're on different pages.

We don't know what kinds were around at creation. The fox and the modern dog probably came from the same kind.

Sexual reproduction, regardless of the outcome, is not indicative of evolution. Evolution claims that single-celled organisms amassed information over time from their environment, and through a series of mutations that added genetic information and useful characteristics, evolved into ever-more complex living organisms.

The offspring of dogs, cats, horses, or whatever is simply God's creation reproducing as it was created to. While new kinds may develop within its kind, it is all within creation.

Since modern taxonomy is not based on creation, it's difficult to relate kinds to species or genus, because it is built on different assumptions.

 

[Hoghead1]

Woah! That's way, way off, Sister in Christ. Evolution just doesn't mean simple cells becoming more complex organisms, it means new species, new organisms, coming from existing ones. If you turn foxes into dogs, yes, that is evolution. That's why they are doing that research right now in Russia.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Woah! That's way, way off, Sister in Christ. Evolution just doesn't mean simple cells becoming more complex organisms, it means new species, new organisms, coming from existing ones. If you turn foxes into dogs, yes, that is evolution. That's why they are doing that research right now in Russia.

It may be evolution in the true sense of the word, but it is not what makes the evolutionary theory different from creation.

Breeding and getting new species is not specific to the theory of evolution. Only simple cells becoming more complex through mutation.

Breeding is right in line with creation. Even though breeding may result in new species, it is not the evolution that the evolutionary theory has hypothesized

 

[lasthero]

We don't know what kinds were around at creation. The fox and the modern dog probably came from the same kind.

'Probably'? How did you determine that?

Sexual reproduction, regardless of the outcome, is not indicative of evolution. Evolution claims that single-celled organisms amassed information over time from their environment

Can you find any scientific paper or site on evolution that makes such a claim? I've never heard it explained like that. And, again, what is information?

The offspring of dogs, cats, horses, or whatever is simply God's creation reproducing as it was created to. While new kinds may develop within its kind, it is all within creation.

That doesn't mean much until you give a rigid definiton of what a 'kind' is. You've changed the definition at least three times in this conversation alone.

Since modern taxonomy is not based on creation, it's difficult to relate kinds to species or genus, because it is built on different assumptions.

Well, if you can't say what a kind is, how do you know evolution can't produce new ones?

 

[46AND2]

If two different kinds of dogs breed into a dog, that has no bearing on evolution. If a dog evolves into an elephant, that would be a point for evolutionary theory.

I understand that you think you understand what evolution is claiming. But this statement here makes it abundantly clear that you do not. If a dog evolved into an elephant (or a bird, or a horse, or a frog, etc.), it would not be a point for evolution, it would FALSIFY evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

We don't know what kinds were around at creation. The fox and the modern dog probably came from the same kind.

Sexual reproduction, regardless of the outcome, is not indicative of evolution. Evolution claims that single-celled organisms amassed information over time from their environment, and through a series of mutations that added genetic information and useful characteristics, evolved into ever-more complex living organisms.

The offspring of dogs, cats, horses, or whatever is simply God's creation reproducing as it was created to. While new kinds may develop within its kind, it is all within creation.

Since modern taxonomy is not based on creation, it's difficult to relate kinds to species or genus, because it is built on different assumptions.

What creation?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I understand that you think you understand what evolution is claiming. But this statement here makes it abundantly clear that you do not. If a dog evolved into an elephant (or a bird, or a horse, or a frog, etc.), it would not be a point for evolution, it would FALSIFY evolution.

Satire.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

'Probably'? How did you determine that?



Can you find any scientific paper or site on evolution that makes such a claim? I've never heard it explained like that. And, again, what is information?



That doesn't mean much until you give a rigid definiton of what a 'kind' is. You've changed the definition at least three times in this conversation alone.



Well, if you can't say what a kind is, how do you know evolution can't produce new ones?

What is your definition of evolution?

 

[lasthero]

What is your definition of evolution?

Descent with ,modification.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Also, I can't help but notice that you:

a) haven't yet explained how you know foxes and dogs are the same kind.
b) cited anything that supports the notion that evolution claims animals get their information from their environment.
c) haven't explained what 'information' is or how we can tell that animals are losing it.
d) haven't explained how we can tell if two animals are the same kind. The last one really puzzles me, because you've been claiming that evolution requires a change in kinds, but you've also claimed that kinds are the original animals which were present at creation. Since you nor anyone have any idea what was or was not present at creation, you have no real way of saying what is or is not a kind.

 

[46AND2]

Satire.

Even if the elephant example is satire, the idea you presented is incorrect. The first sentence is wrong, and the second sentence has mounds of support for it, if a non-satirical example is used.

 

[46AND2]

What is your definition of evolution?

To what "kind" does a jackal belong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. They support natural selection. Which, hypothetically, supports how one species became another. It also supports the creationist view that a common ancestor of a species spawned different breeds of that species.

It has been observed that one species can evolve into a different breed within its species. That is what creationists expect to see. It has not been observed where one species evolves into another, which would support the evolutionary theory.

Creationists do have theories, and testable hypotheses, and scientific evidence. In fact, there are institutes and research programs devoted to the idea who employ many respected scientists.

Sorry, but it is not evidence for creation. This is scientific evidence that we are talking about and to have scientific evidence first you must have a scientific hypothesis at the very least. That means it has to be testable. Scientists that believe in creationism know that creationism will fail any scientific test. That is why they won't make a testable hypothesis in the first place. As I told you it is one of the "put up or shut up"s of science. Creationist scientists tend to shut up when real evidence is asked of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last time I looked horses and donkeys were considered separate species. Hence, their offspring would be a new species. That doesn't take rocket science, just common sense to figure out. Also, evolution has a far, far wider range of data to draw upon than just he example you gave here. You might take a look at the fox program in Russia. Since the early 50's, they have been working to turn foxes into dogs. So far, there have been very impressive results, and the experiment is still going on. Who knows what they will find in the end?

I have to disagree with you here. According to the Ernst Mayr's definition of species that sterile hybrid is not a species, it is just a dead end. But ring species would be an example of speciation in progress. Links to follow.