Evolution's Brick Wall

[Speedwell]

Let's see if I've got this right: Kinds=species and speciation cannot occur. Scientists who observe speciation haven't really, because they've got the definition of species wrong. Is that it?

 

[inquiring mind]

You're just demonstrating your inability to understand what is being said.

@ pitabread, @ Speedwell

Same old tired game:

You're just demonstrating your inability to understand what is being said.

"Deflection"

Sure, it includes the diversification of populations into multiple reproductively isolated populations (i.e. speciation). If you're okay with that, then you've effectively accepted the process of evolution.

"Attempted confusion of the subject and making false argument about what I'm saying."

Let's see if I've got this right: Kinds=species and speciation cannot occur. Scientists who observe speciation haven't really, because they've got the definition of species wrong. Is that it?

"Attempted mockery," which the best I can tell looks pretty accurate. Your definition of species is calling it something it wasn't defined as prior to the classification system... I don't accept it; species is a Created Kind. What you are calling speciation and evolution is really variation and some form of micro evolution.

If you fellows will just read this over real slow, you won't have so many questions. But, next will come more totally confused questions, accusations of ignorance, and the wheel keeps on turning, all the while not really providing a meaningful definition of what "species" is defined as by evolutionists (at least not one that encyclopedias are willing to try to clarify).

 

[Job 33:6]

@ pitabread, @ Speedwell

Same old tired game:


"Deflection"


"Attempted confusion of the subject and making false argument about what I'm saying."


"Attempted mockery," which the best I can tell looks pretty accurate. Your definition of species is calling it something it wasn't defined as prior to the classification system... I don't accept it; species is a Created Kind. What you are calling speciation and evolution is really variation and some form of micro evolution.

If you fellows will just read this over real slow, you won't have so many questions. But, next will come more totally confused questions, accusations of ignorance, and the wheel keeps on turning, all the while not really providing a meaningful definition of what "species" is defined as by evolutionists (at least not one that encyclopedias are willing to try to clarify).

If it is true that what we call speciation, is actually variation of a single kind, then that by default means that a kind must be above what we call a species in hierarchy, else we would have observed one kind becoming another.

 

[Job 33:6]

With the above said, then a kind must be something comparable to a genus or perhaps a family. If a genus, then there would have been some 30+ cats on the ark.

 

[inquiring mind]

If it is true that what we call speciation, is actually variation of a single kind, then that by default means that a kind must be above what we call a species in hierarchy, else we would have observed one kind becoming another.

You're still trying to make it fit your classification system. But, that's understandable coming from your perspective.

 

[Aman777]

If it is true that what we call speciation, is actually variation of a single kind, then that by default means that a kind must be above what we call a species in hierarchy, else we would have observed one kind becoming another.

There are but two kinds. One is God's kind (Their kind) which is always eternal.
The second is His kind or the temporary creation of Lord God/Jesus, and subject to death.

Adam was "formed" by Lord God/Jesus on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4-7
Adam was "created" by God the Trinity on the 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2 Adam was "created" at the SAME time as Eve who was NOT made until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 To be "created" by God the Trinity is to be born again Spiritually and Eternally, in Christ.

 

[inquiring mind]

With the above said, then a kind must be something comparable to a genus or perhaps a family. If a genus, then there would have been some 30+ cats on the ark.

It's your classification system, not Created Kinds, that produce impossible numbers for the ark.

 

[Speedwell]

@ pitabread, @ Speedwell

Same old tired game:


"Deflection"


"Attempted confusion of the subject and making false argument about what I'm saying."


"Attempted mockery," which the best I can tell looks pretty accurate. Your definition of species is calling it something it wasn't defined as prior to the classification system... I don't accept it; species is a Created Kind. What you are calling speciation and evolution is really variation and some form of micro evolution.

If you fellows will just read this over real slow, you won't have so many questions. But, next will come more totally confused questions, accusations of ignorance, and the wheel keeps on turning, all the while not really providing a meaningful definition of what "species" is defined as by evolutionists (at least not one that encyclopedias are willing to try to clarify).

OK. There was just some confusion between what you mean by species and what biologists mean by species. Now, is there any way to tell what kind any particular species (as biologists identify them) belongs to?

 

[USincognito]

We have two different definitions for species.

"We" who?

I don’t know why you would take my definition loosely…

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that your explanation of what a "kind" was requires a loose meaning of the word "definition" in order for it to apply.

That is my point, how can there be an example of a different kind occurring when only a Created Kind breed?

Do you know what a hypothetical is? I'm asking for a hypothetical example of what you mean by "the separation of one kind into a different kind?"

 

[inquiring mind]

"We" who?

You and me apparently. I said, if they can breed they are the same Created Kind (as a general rule); you said, they are of the same population if they are interfertile... but then you proceed to break them up into a bunch of different species (biology definition) and say they are macro evolving... whereas I say they're only micro evolving w/ variations and are still the same Created Kind. I'm really getting tired of being the only one who can explain his position here (and yours too).

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that your explanation of what a "kind" was requires a loose meaning of the word "definition" in order for it to apply.

Splitting hairs aren't we, especially when there is an apparent problem with your definition of species?

Do you know what a hypothetical is? I'm asking for a hypothetical example of what you mean by "the separation of one kind into a different kind?"

One kind can't change into another kind... what hypothetical could I possibly make up that wouldn't sound ridiculous? You go ahead and make one up.

 

[pitabread]

"Attempted confusion of the subject and making false argument about what I'm saying."

Then you need to better describe what you are trying to argue. Because when you talk about "kinds" in relation to biology, it sounds like you're essentially describing species or something very close to that.

If you're trying to make the argument that there is some other biological reality out there (besides reproductive isolation between populations), then you need to explain what that is.

Now the other thing to consider is that when talking about lineages, it's a given that one lineage will not evolve into a completely different lineage. Organisms are naturally bound by their own lineage of descent.

For example, let's assume there were only three created "kinds": Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota (the three domains of life). No matter how the descendants of those original organisms evolved and diversified over time, they will always ultimately belong to Archaea, Bacteria, or Eukaryota. A Eukaryote will never become a Bacteria. A Bacteria will never become an Archaea. And so on.

In fact, regardless of whether you believe those original three organisms evolved from a common ancestor or were specifically created, they are going to be bound by their lineage either way.

So when you claim that a "kind" will never evolve into another "kind", I have no idea what you're really trying to say. You're either claiming there is an inherently biological limit by which extant organisms can't evolve (which is a non-Bibilical argument), or you're simply pointing out that organisms are bound by their respective lineages. The latter of which would be for the most part true of both evolutionary or created origins.

 

[pitabread]

It's your classification system, not Created Kinds, that produce impossible numbers for the ark.

If you have a completely different classification system, then what is it? What are the defined "kinds" in nature? How is that determined? Can this be demonstrated as a natural biological reality?

 

[USincognito]

You and me apparently. I said, if they can breed they are the same Created Kind (as a general rule); you said, they are of the same population if they are interfertile... but then you proceed to break them up into a bunch of different species (biology definition) and say they are macro evolving... whereas I say they're only micro evolving w/ variations and are still the same Created Kind.

What in the world are you talking about? I did no such thing.

I'm really getting tired of being the only one who can explain his position here (and yours too).

Splitting hairs aren't we, especially when there is an apparent problem with your definition of species?

No, the supposed problem with my definition of species is apparent only to you and seems to exist only in you imagination. Species are populations that are interfertile or which could interbreed, but do not due to geographic isolation or sexual selection. There's a fascinating ongoing natural experiment in Lake Victoria where sexual selection is leading to speciation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15590594

One kind can't change into another kind... what hypothetical could I possibly make up that wouldn't sound ridiculous? You go ahead and make one up.

Creationists seem to have a pathological inability to engage in hypothetical scenarios for some reason.

 

[Speedwell]

You and me apparently. I said, if they can breed they are the same Created Kind (as a general rule); you said, they are of the same population if they are interfertile... but then you proceed to break them up into a bunch of different species (biology definition) and say they are macro evolving... whereas I say they're only micro evolving w/ variations and are still the same Created Kind. I'm really getting tired of being the only one who can explain his position here (and yours too).

So if a new species forms and thus they can't interbreed with other populations any more (which has been observed) why aren't they a different "kind?"

Splitting hairs aren't we, especially when there is an apparent problem with your definition of species?

I don't see the problem. A species is a population which is interfertile (that is, they can interbreed) but which can't interbreed with any other population.

One kind can't change into another kind... what hypothetical could I possibly make up that wouldn't sound ridiculous? You go ahead and make one up.

It's up to you. You're the one who knows what a "kind" is and we don't.

 

[pitabread]

You're the one who knows what a "kind" is and we don't.

I'm not sure anyone knows what a "kind" is, since everyone either has a different definition and/or has no demonstrable way of determining what "kinds" specific organisms are supposed to be.

Every time I have these discussions with creationists my takeaway is that "kind" has no biological basis.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's your classification system, not Created Kinds, that produce impossible numbers for the ark.

That's what I'm saying, so if your definition of a kind is greater than that which we consider a species, which it must be because you don't think kinds can turn into other kinds, then you therefore must believe that kinds are more analogous to something like a genus or family.

If it is true that what we call speciation, is actually variation of a single kind, then that by default means that a kind must be above what we call a species in hierarchy, else we would have observed one kind becoming another.

With that, then kind must be something comparable to a genus or perhaps a family. If a genus, then there would have been some 30+ cats on the ark.

 

[Aman777]

One kind can't change into another kind... what hypothetical could I possibly make up that wouldn't sound ridiculous? You go ahead and make one up.

Since there are only two kinds in Genesis and they are His and Their kinds. Turning God's Truth into a classification system is missing the message. God's kinds or Their (Trinity) kinds Genesis 1:25 are always eternal creations and are a part of Heaven's "host". Genesis 2:1 His kinds are the kinds made by the Hands of Jesus and are always temporary and subject to death or eternal separation from God. That is God's Truth Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Deflecting.



Well, you may need to seek a different perspective... even online encyclopedias say that a definition of species is problematic.

The idea of a "species" is problematic because the boundaries between species is not fixed. Closely related species can mate and produce offspring of limited fertility, for example . . are they one species or two? Some "species" don't even bother with mating, being all female and bearing young without sex . . . such as whiptail lizards. Is each individual a seperate species? there are "ring" species, where A can mate with B, B can mate with C, but A can't mate with C. How many species is that?

It is not a problem for evolution theory that the matter of defining species has to be inexact, because of what nature throws at us. It is a PREDICTION of evolution theory that it HAS to be like that, beause populations diverge, and become separate species, but there has to be a transitional time before that process is complete.

And your failure to provide a workable creationist definition of "kind" is not a deflection, it is a revelation of a serious flaw in your argument that "kinds" as Creationists postulate even exist.

 

[sfs]

Creationists seem to have a pathological inability to engage in hypothetical scenarios for some reason.

That's not universally true. There is at least one creationist currently here, and there have been others, who engage in nothing but hypothetical scenarios; they consider them evidence.

 

[USincognito]

That's not universally true. There is at least one creationist currently here, and there have been others, who engage in nothing but hypothetical scenarios; they consider them evidence.

Ah, yes. I have them on ignore though so I tend to forget about them.