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

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

The ensatina is thought to have moved from the north part of California to the south. As the critter moved south the population evolved. When it hit the central valley of CA the population split and continued to move south. When they met up again they were to different species. They could not breed with each other any longer.

There is also a rather nice video on this particular event:

 

[Subduction Zone]

And another video that covers ring species. A bit of humor in this one:

 

[Hoghead1]

What on earth does Mayer's definition have to do with anything here? And who said anything about a sterile hybrid? I think you are mixed-up on the fox experiment.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is very true about ration science. They never generate any scientific studies. They simply criticize the work others. They never get published in any major peer-reviewed scientific journals. More than one of their major spokespersons has really no education in science or theology, either.

 

[-57]

Foxes are dogs. They're all of the same kind. Now, when foxes turn into birds, that's when there will be proof for evolution.

Speciation...big deal. It happend after the animals got off the ark. Basic micro-evolution. No mutation required.

On the other hand.....ask the evos to show how a species can change to the point that it is classified as a new genus, order or family.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

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.

We can't know for sure what was the same kind because we weren't there. However, since dogs and foxes are so closely related, it stands to reason they are the same kind.

Evolution claims many very small, genetic mutations occurred over a vast amount of time. The mutations that aided in survival, which is determined by the environment, allowed certain mutations to flourish and others to die off.

Information is genetic.

I'm not saying evolution requires a change in kinds. What I'm saying is evolution claims all live came from one single cell. This cell evolved into bananas and bats and whales. That kind of evolution is not possible.

The evolution of two sexually compatible species breeding and producing something new is fully within creation, and also not new. Just a different portrayal of what was already there.

Natural selection, where one species develops a new coat color or longer beak, is also within creation. The information was already present, and the individuals with that characteristic were better adapted to the area, and survived.

The point where creation theory and evolution theory disagree is evolution by mutation into every living organism on earth. There is no evidence, and whatever evidence presented for evolution is usually right in line with creation.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

 

[lasthero]

We can't know for sure what was the same kind because we weren't there. However, since dogs and foxes are so closely related, it stands to reason they are the same kind.

Humans and apes are closely related, too. Closer than foxes and dogs. I doubt you'd consider us the same kind, though.

How closely does something have to be for you to consider it the same kind?

Evolution claims many very small, genetic mutations occurred over a vast amount of time. The mutations that aided in survival, which is determined by the environment, allowed certain mutations to flourish and others to die off.

That's notably different (and more accurate) than what you were saying before.

Information is genetic.

That doesn't really tell me anything. What, exactly, do you mean by information? Taking foxes and dogs for instance, since you seem to like them so much - does a fox have more information than a dog? Less? How do you determine that?

I'm not saying evolution requires a change in kinds. What I'm saying is evolution claims all live came from one single cell. This cell evolved into bananas and bats and whales. That kind of evolution is not possible.

Let's start with the small stuff before we get to the big stuff.

The evolution of two sexually compatible species breeding and producing something new is fully within creation, and also not new.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself in a single sentence?

Natural selection, where one species develops a new coat color or longer beak, is also within creation. The information was already present, and the individuals with that characteristic were better adapted to the area, and survived.

Please give a definition of 'information' and show how you know it was present.

The point where creation theory and evolution theory disagree is evolution by mutation into every living organism on earth. There is no evidence, and whatever evidence presented for evolution is usually right in line with creation.

What evidence wouldn't be in line with creation? Since God could create life in any manner he saw fit, doesn't it stand to reason that, no matter what configuration life took, you could still call it created?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Humans and apes are closely related, too. Closer than foxes and dogs. I doubt you'd consider us the same kind, though.

How closely does something have to be for you to consider it the same kind?



That's notably different (and more accurate) than what you were saying before.



That doesn't really tell me anything. What, exactly, do you mean by information? Taking foxes and dogs for instance, since you seem to like them so much - does a fox have more information than a dog? Less? How do you determine that?



Let's start with the small stuff before we get to the big stuff.



Do you realize you just contradicted yourself in a single sentence?



Please give a definition of 'information' and show how you know it was present.



What evidence wouldn't be in line with creation? Since God could create life in any manner he saw fit, doesn't it stand to reason that, no matter what configuration life took, you could still call it created?

Humans were created in God's image. They are separate from all other living beings.

Two things breeding and creating a new species is just creating a mixture of genes that was already there. So, while it may be new in the sense that it hasn't been seen, it's not newly obtained information.

Foxes and dogs both have less genetic diversity than their ancestors. It's not in relation to each other, it's in relation to predecessors.

 

[lasthero]

Humans were created in God's image. They are separate from all other living beings.

Okay. So, the question remains - how do tell if two animals are the same kind or not? You said that closely related animals are the same kind, so how close do they have to be? Foxes are related to bears, too, are they the same kind? What about hyenas? They're closely related to other cats, like lions and tigers and housecats. Are hyenas and housecats the same kind?

Two things breeding and creating a new species is just creating a mixture of genes that was already there. So, while it may be new in the sense that it hasn't been seen, it's not newly obtained information.

I'll ask again - what is information? How are you quantifying this? You make it sound like information is some measurable thing, but you don't specify how you know any of it.

Foxes and dogs both have less genetic diversity than their ancestors.

How do you know that? Do they have equally less genetic diversity? How are you measuring this?

It's not in relation to each other, it's in relation to predecessors.

So every new generation has less genetic diversity? We have less genetic diversity than our parents?

Again, I have to ask - how do you know that?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Okay. So, the question remains - how do tell if two animals are the same kind or not? You said that closely related animals are the same kind, so how close do they have to be? Foxes are related to bears, too, are they the same kind? What about hyenas? They're closely related to other cats, like lions and tigers and housecats. Are hyenas and housecats the same kind?



I'll ask again - what is information? How are you quantifying this? You make it sound like information is some measurable thing, but you don't specify how you know any of it.



How do you know that? Do they have equally less genetic diversity? How are you measuring this?



So every new generation has less genetic diversity? We have less genetic diversity than our parents?

Again, I have to ask - how do you know that?

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/all-the-same-to-us/

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds/

 

[lasthero]

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/all-the-same-to-us/

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds/

What in those links do you feel answers the questions?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

What in those links do you feel answers the questions?

You keep asking about kinds. I keep answering, but you asked for citations.

 

[lasthero]

You keep asking about kinds. I keep answering,

But you're not really answering. And your links don't really answer, either. It gives no explanation for what 'information' is, or how we can tell whether animals have more less of it. On top of that, it actually contradicts a few things you've said. For instance, it says that dogs are all the same kind because they can interbreed, but cats and dogs aren't the same kind because they can't interbreed - however, foxes and dogs can't interbreed, either, yet you still said they were probably the same kind. It also says that cats are all the same kind, though all cats can't interbreed - it says cheetahs and housecats are related, but they can't interbreed. There's no consistency with this.

It says that kind is at the family level, and that it may be at higher classification with some animals, but lower with others - but it provides no way of telling when that is.

It doesn't give any way of telling which animals have less genetic diversity than others, or what it even means to have 'less genetic diversity'.

It also don't exclude extinct cats, like the Smilodon. How do they fit into this framework?

 

[46AND2]

You keep asking about kinds. I keep answering, but you asked for citations.

Why do you suppose it is that no creationist scientists attempt to classify animals within their kind? They ALWAYS give the same examples, dogs and wolves, cats, horses donkeys, etc., as if that explains it. They still, after decades, have not even attempted to find a scientific distinction of kinds. With DNA technology, the task should absolutely be possible.

Why are no creation scientists working on describing which animals are, and which are not related?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Why do you suppose it is that no creationist scientists attempt to classify animals within their kind? They ALWAYS give the same examples, dogs and wolves, cats, horses donkeys, etc., as if that explains it. They still, after decades, have not even attempted to find a scientific distinction of kinds. With DNA technology, the task should absolutely be possible.

Why are no creation scientists working on describing which animals are, and which are not related?

Many actually are. It's a work in progress. Just as evolutionists have no real idea what the ancestors are in the evolutionary tree. It's merely hypothetical.

It really comes down to the fact that nobody was there. Nobody knows for sure. We know some animals have gone extinct, and it's like putting a puzzle together without all the pieces. Evolutionists have the same material. Yet, the only "evolution" they have evidence for is either by reproduction or natural selection within a species. At the end of the day, they still have just a different kind of whatever they started with.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

But you're not really answering. And your links don't really answer, either. It gives no explanation for what 'information' is, or how we can tell whether animals have more less of it. On top of that, it actually contradicts a few things you've said. For instance, it says that dogs are all the same kind because they can interbreed, but cats and dogs aren't the same kind because they can't interbreed - however, foxes and dogs can't interbreed, either, yet you still said they were probably the same kind. It also says that cats are all the same kind, though all cats can't interbreed - it says cheetahs and housecats are related, but they can't interbreed. There's no consistency with this.

It says that kind is at the family level, and that it may be at higher classification with some animals, but lower with others - but it provides no way of telling when that is.

It doesn't give any way of telling which animals have less genetic diversity than others, or what it even means to have 'less genetic diversity'.

It also don't exclude extinct cats, like the Smilodon. How do they fit into this framework?

How does the evolutionary theory fit in? Have scientists perfected the tree of life? Do they have a perfect model of what the supposed ancestors of certain species are? No. They have constantly shifted where plants/animals fit in taxonomically. It's still a work in progress.

They can hypothesize about where certain species split off from each other, but they don't really know. Genetically, they can see that things are similar, but that doesn't mean they were ever related.

 

[46AND2]

Many actually are. It's a work in progress.

Are you just assuming this is true, or do you have examples of the research going into it?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Are you just assuming this is true, or do you have examples of the research going into it?

The articles I posted are written by a scientist who is collaborating with other scientists to do that work.

 

[46AND2]

The articles I posted are written by a scientist who is collaborating with other scientists to do that work.

Where is the research? Those articles are just the same old dogs are dogs, cats are cats, horses, donkeys, zebras are all the same kind. It says that kinds MAY be at the family level with some animals and MAY be higher or lower than that. In other words, it is purposely left ambiguous. She's a molecular geneticist, where is her DNA research?

 

[46AND2]

Where is the research? Those articles are just the same old dogs are dogs, cats are cats, horses, donkeys, zebras are all the same kind. It says that kinds MAY be at the family level with some animals and MAY be higher or lower than that. In other words, it is purposely left ambiguous. She's a molecular geneticist, where is her DNA research?

Where is the attempt to put ALL living creatures within their kind?