But seriously...
I presented one article they wrote and it knocked the wind out of you, almost to the point of being hysterical.
This article, yes?
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?
By Bodie and Georgia, yes?
I thought it was very good..
Well sure - what, with your science background I'm sure you found their essay with 3 whole citations and 1 footnote to totally explain creationism regarding what a Kind is.
"Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t
necessarily so."
Hmmmm.... OK. Not 'necessarily so.' Let's take a closer look.
"And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!"
True - and the very nature of evolution and biology make that understood - population dynamics, interbreeding, etc., all tell us why it is difficult to come up with a single all-encompassing definition of species.
Yet, in creationism, we are told that the Creative acts produced discreet entities. A horse "Kind" was poofed like magic from dust of the ground (I suppose), all at once. No hybridization produced The Horse Kind. No accumulation of mutations. Nothing like that. God made A Horse, and there it was.
But then creationists ran into trouble - if that is so, then there are a LOT... A LOT.. of Kinds to account for on the Ark.
No problem - creationists just co-opted some evolution, and declared that "Kind" was roughly equivalent to "Family" ala Linnaeus, and welcomed all manner of MACROEVOLUTION.
But that was problematic, since creationists hate macroevolution - they hate it so much, that they have concocted
fake definitions of it to argue against it! So, how to get around the dreaded macroevolution.... hmmm...
"So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. "
Ok - WHY??? Where would the variation come from if the Kinds were initially Created? The bible does not seem to indicate that horses AND zebras AND hyracotheria were of the Horse Kind, does it? Sounds like wishy-washy definition making.
"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. "
But not Foxes? So there was a created Fox kind. Even though they are basically dogs. But dogs and foxes have extensive karyotypic differences, so interbreeding is not likely. What about bears? There is an extinct critter called a dog-bear. Bears and dogs are both Caniforms.
The paper that Georgia and Bodie cite used a tiny amount of mitochondrial DNA to look only at Canids - yet there are many papers that use the same kind of data to look at the bigger picture - why did Bodie and Georgia not use any of them, I wonder? They accept analyses using mtDNA analyzed using the PAUP phylogenetic analysis software, so why not this paper:
Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45 (3): 863-874?
This paper used complete mitochondrial genomes to look at all Caniforms - here is one of the figures:
I do hope that you are not one of the many creationists that actually seem to think that these phylogenetic trees are simple made-up...
It is like Georgia and Bodie specificllay sought out a paper that only look at dogs, such that they could make it look like their position had scientific merit. For this more extensive paper shows that dogs and foxes are closely related, and are as a group related to pandas, badgers, seals, and bears. Showing something like this would have been devastating to their tidy little "Kind" story, I suppose.
Using your science background, explain to us the fatal scientific flaws of this paper.
Bodie and Georgia continue with their fantasy:
"From a biblical perspective, though, land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s ark, only about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time."
4300 years ago..
The Egyptian Old Kingdom dates to as long ago as 2575 BC, or ~4500 years ago.
Weird that they didn't seem to notice this giant flood that killed them all.
Sorry, but there is little reason to go beyond this in their essay - cherry picking a science article and relying on obviously incorrect dates for their claims renders them unreliable.
Well, OK - one more thing:
" If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind. However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall)....As they did this [became fruitful and multiplied post-flood], natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur."
First, what is the logic for cursing non-humans for 'the Fall'? What did hyenas or wombats do to have their descendants cursed with mutations? Seems unnecessarily cruel to me.
Anyway - cool how creationists simply adopt evolution when it suits them. This is likely because they cannot weasel their way out of the facts.
. and I don't need to prove anything to you; you need to prove something to me.
Just did. Can you accept it? Or will you flail and dodge and condescend some more? Or will you blow it all off with a snarky one-liner?
You're just being more hyper about your position is all, maybe because you feel like you're in a corner.
Yes, that must be it.