What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

[pitabread]

The irony. What does "kind" mean exactly?

(Pssst. He doesn't know.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I've been in these debates long enough to know two simple realities:

1) Modern biological evolution, including common descent is a foundational part of modern biology and a real-world applied science.
2) Creationism is effectively a religious belief/movement with a quasi political element that appears to be on the decline, at least in the USA.

Everything else, all this back and forth, is just noise. At the end of the day, what you or I personally think or believe is irrelevant to the above.

Except your belief is faith, as is everyones belief.

Modern science once believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. What we believe as truth may in reality be false, even if we have the observation, mathematics and all of science proclaiming it as fact. Your belief in evolution will go the way of their once belief the Milky-Way was the entire universe. Sure, they were honest and sincere in their belief, no matter how wrong it was.

 

[Hieronymus]

A religion complete with their own high priests, all based upon lack of any set definitions so they can switch stances at any given time. Its what happens when one has no faith but in man himself.

It's human nature to deny God though, or so it seems.
Combine this with the horrors of what is called "Christianity" throughout history and false teachings like eternal conscious torment (where the 2nd death is not death and where eternal life is not conditional) for those who aren't 'chosen', and you have enough reasons to search for alternatives.
But let's not forget (or rather, we should realize) that evolutionary thinking got a boost from the elite who embraced luciferianism, which spawned the 'enlightenment', and since then the plebs are fed new age thinking (the version for the uninitiate).
If it weren't for the (human) 'powers that shouldn't be' pushing these ideologies hard (by funding and providing public platforms etc..) no person would consider these ambiguous naturalistic ideas, knowing what we know now, what we have discovered about our reality in general and living nature in particular.
the discovery of DNA would have killed off such ideas.
But you know, when you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Especially outrageous lies apparently...
(sorry, i'm ranting a bit...)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not making a "stand". I'm asking if you understand the difference between words like species, genus, domain, etc, insofar as they apply to biology.



You "agree with the scientific definition of species", but you continue to claim it's a meaningless concept.

Okay then.

Dont avoid the question. Do you agree Darwins finches are a mistake in classification based upon the scientific definition? Make a stand for once in your life for something.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The irony. What does "kind" mean exactly?

What does species mean exactly? Ill give you an exact definition when you make a stand on yours.

 

[Jimmy D]

What does species mean exactly? Ill give you an exact definition when you make a stand on yours.

Answering questions with questions? That's nice. Pitabread has provided you with the scientific definition has he not? I know you don't like it but so what, the world keeps turning.

Now, what is a kind?

 

[pitabread]

Dont avoid the question. Do you agree Darwins finches are a mistake in classification based upon the scientific definition? Make a stand for once in your life for something.

But again, I'm not the one trying to make an argument based on what a "species" is. And you keep contradicting yourself in the process.

I've already said that species definitions are artificial classifications. And like anything that based on artificial definitions, it's certainly subject to change as those definitions change. It doesn't necessarily make the concept meaningless, just subject to variability.

 

[pitabread]

Pitabread has provided you with the scientific definition has he not?

In fairness, I haven't provided a specific definition other that to point out there are numerous definitions (since there is no singular criteria that fits every biological form) and that there are ultimately artificial in nature, and exist merely for the purpose of making classification of biological forms easier.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's human nature to deny God though, or so it seems.
Combine this with the horrors of what is called "Christianity" throughout history and false teachings like eternal conscious torment (where the 2nd death is not death and where eternal life is not conditional) for those who aren't 'chosen', and you have enough reasons to search for alternatives.
But let's not forget (or rather, we should realize) that evolutionary thinking got a boost from the elite who embraced luciferianism, which spawned the 'enlightenment', and since then the plebs are fed new age thinking (the version for the uninitiate).
If it weren't for the (human) 'powers that shouldn't be' pushing these ideologies hard (by funding and providing public platforms etc..) no person would consider these ambiguous naturalistic ideas, knowing what we know now, what we have discovered about our reality in general and living nature in particular.
the discovery of DNA would have killed off such ideas.
But you know, when you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Especially outrageous lies apparently...
(sorry, i'm ranting a bit...)

Did you read the OP?

What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

 

[pitabread]

It's human nature to deny God though, or so it seems.

Newsflash: Biological evolution is not about denying God.

 

[pitabread]

Modern science once believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. What we believe as truth may in reality be false, even if we have the observation, mathematics and all of science proclaiming it as fact. Your belief in evolution will go the way of their once belief the Milky-Way was the entire universe. Sure, they were honest and sincere in their belief, no matter how wrong it was.

The irony is that creationism effectively pre-dates biological evolution insofar as ideas about biology go. Evolution supplanted creationist views towards biology since it better explains what we observe in the natural world.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's human nature to deny God though, or so it seems.
Combine this with the horrors of what is called "Christianity" throughout history and false teachings like eternal conscious torment (where the 2nd death is not death and where eternal life is not conditional) for those who aren't 'chosen', and you have enough reasons to search for alternatives.

Yes, throughout the ages man has inserted his own meanings into scripture. Where death isnt death and eternal life is given to everyone, just in a different place. "Thou shall not surely die" the first lie, often repeated by those sincere, but just as much in error.

[/quote]
But let's not forget (or rather, we should realize) that evolutionary thinking got a boost from the elite who embraced luciferianism, which spawned the 'enlightenment', and since then the plebs are fed new age thinking (the version for the uninitiate).
If it weren't for the (human) 'powers that shouldn't be' pushing these ideologies hard (by funding and providing public platforms etc..) no person would consider these ambiguous naturalistic ideas, knowing what we know now, what we have discovered about our reality in general and living nature in particular.
the discovery of DNA would have killed off such ideas.
But you know, when you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Especially outrageous lies apparently...
(sorry, i'm ranting a bit...)[/QUOTE]
The observational facts should have killed off such ideas. Everything remains the same exact species until it mates with another subspecies within that species and produces a new subspecies.

I am the same species as my parents, who were the same species as theirs, on back through the ages and on into the future forever. It is simply arbitrary and useless classifications where one decides that bones of which they have never observed in life suddenly break what we know of reproduction and become a new species. This is why they hate discussing dogs. They see reality of millions of years if left to nature unfolded in a few thousand right before their eyes. Knowing they are all one species and will forever be one species. Yes, lots of subspecies, my bad, breeds, wouldn't want to classify them as the rest of the animal kingdom. Nor would they wish to classify races as what they are, subspecies. takes away from their setting us on a pedestal, even if by their own words we are not special but merely evolved animals. contradiction? Let each decide.

 

[pitabread]

I am the same species as my parents, who were the same species as theirs, on back through the ages and on into the future forever.

So what is the barrier that prevents a species from eventually becoming something that we would classify as a different species?

That's the question asked in the OP, but you haven't answered it yet.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The irony is that creationism effectively pre-dates biological evolution insofar as ideas about biology go. Evolution supplanted creationist views towards biology since it better explains what we observe in the natural world.

And yet in the natural world we see Asian mate with Asian and produce Asian. African mate with African and produce African. And only when Asian mates with African do we see variation enter the species. The Asian did not evolve, nor did the African, they remained exactly as they were..... The same with Darwins finches..... with all life......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what is the barrier that prevents a species from eventually becoming something that we would classify as a different species?

That's the question asked in the OP, but you haven't answered it yet.

Sure I have, you just didnt want to hear it and wont even if I spell it out. You still haven't admitted to yourself that species do not become other species except when incorrectly classified. Until you accept this, you wont understand the barrier.

 

[Jimmy D]

In fairness, I haven't provided a specific definition other that to point out there are numerous definitions (since there is no singular criteria that fits every biological form) and that there are ultimately artificial in nature.

My apologies, I thought you did.

What does species mean exactly? Ill give you an exact definition when you make a stand on yours.

Maybe this will help.....


Perhaps the most widely accepted species concept is known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC). According to this definition, proposed by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in the mid-20th century, species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. Within this definition, a species represents a set of individuals connected by gene exchange ("gene flow") that is genetically isolated from all other such sets of individuals. There is gene flow among individuals within a species, but not between different species. This lack of gene exchange means that different species can evolve independently.

Other approaches to defining and thinking about species have focused on lineages in branching evolutionary trees, with ancestral species splitting into two different lineages and the tips of the branches representing the species that are with us today. The focus on reproductive isolation (biological species concept) versus the relationships among branches in evolutionary trees (lineage-based species concepts) represents two perspectives on the speciation process (the origin of new species) that are not mutually exclusive.

Today, most biologists are more interested in understanding the process of speciation than in trying to find a strict species definition that is always applicable. Speciation is usually a gradual process, so it is not unusual to encounter populations that are only partly reproductively isolated. This means that individuals from diverged lineages may still exchange genes to a limited degree, perhaps even to the extent that they will merge again. These situations are challenging for both the biological species concepts and lineage species concepts. Although some people may wish for a black-and-white criterion for defining species, this is unrealistic. By analogy, imagine a population of maturing humans. Most individuals will be easily recognized as children or adults, but some will be difficult to categorize and these difficult individuals might be tagged differently by different people using different criteria (e.g., different physical characteristics, different measures of emotional maturity, etc.). Similarly, most individual birds or snails or mushrooms can be readily categorized as belonging to one species or another, but exceptions are not rare.

The question of what constitutes a species can clearly be a very complex one, and in many cases it may not be obvious where a species boundary should be drawn. Nevertheless, more often than not the organisms we encounter can reasonably be placed in distinct "bins". This is why field guides work well most of the time.

What is a Species? - Encyclopedia of Life

 

[Jimmy D]

And yet in the natural world we see Asian mate with Asian and produce Asian. African mate with African and produce African. And only when Asian mates with African do we see variation enter the species. The Asian did not evolve, nor did the African, they remained exactly as they were..... The same with Darwins finches..... with all life......

Yes, yes, but you accept adaptation do you not? So what is the barrier that prevents a species from eventually becoming something that we would classify as a different species?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Answering questions with questions? That's nice. Pitabread has provided you with the scientific definition has he not? I know you don't like it but so what, the world keeps turning.

Now, what is a kind?

No, actually he didn't. He still refuses to accept the scientific definition, as do you. Or if we discuss Darwins finches will you as well refuse to make a stand on that very scientific definition and try to double talk your way around it? As you have done in may other posts showing you refuse to accept the scientific definition.

 

[pitabread]

Sure I have, you just didnt want to hear it and wont even if I spell it out. You still haven't admitted to yourself that species do not become other species except when incorrectly classified. Until you accept this, you wont understand the barrier.

All you've done is tried to goad others into an argument of your own making (rife with its own contradictions), all while avoiding actually answering the OP.

You don't appear to have an answer.

 

[pitabread]

And yet in the natural world we see Asian mate with Asian and produce Asian. African mate with African and produce African. And only when Asian mates with African do we see variation enter the species.

...

What?

So you're suggesting there is no genetic variation in various populations of humans? That all 'Asians' are the same? And all Africans?

Do you know how genetics works?