What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Shemjaza]

It's not that hard to understand. A canine and a feline are not the same kind for example.

Do you have any objective measure as to why?

Where do you draw a line?

Is cat a kind? Is great cat a kind?

Are wolves and coyote's the same kind? How about foxes?

If all you have is unjustifiable conviction, then you shouldn't expect to be able to convince anyone else.

 

[Astrid]

Do you have any objective measure as to why?

Where do you draw a line?

Is cat a kind? Is great cat a kind?

Are wolves and coyote's the same kind? How about foxes?

If all you have is unjustifiable conviction, then you shouldn't expect to be able to convince anyone else.

It's not possible to answer such a question.

The Bible appears to separate domestic animals from
their wild ancestors and counterparts as
being different kinds.

It's just not a term that can be defined.

Interestingly, "after It's kind" easily allows
for evolution.
None of us are identical to our parents.

No beagle was born to a dalmatian, no
head of cabbage or ear of corn grew from
a seed from their wild ancestors.

But each generation along the way was
so obviously the offspring of its almost-
identical "parents".

"After it's kind" in no way precludes evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's not that hard to understand. A canine and a feline are not the same kind for example.

You can say it is not hard to understand kinds but you didn't define kinds or their limits. Don't feel badly about it. We recently had a topic here with a video of a debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Dan Cardinale (Microevolution vs Macroevolution). Dr Kovind wasn't able to define kinds or where you draw the lines between kinds or common ancestry. From evolution we not only know that cats and dogs had a common ancestor but also we have a fair idea of what that ancestor looked like.

 

[AV1611VET]

"After it's kind" in no way precludes evolution.

Then how did whales predate land animals?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can say it is not hard to understand kinds but you didn't define kinds or their limits.

Kind = Genus

Dr Kovind wasn't able to define kinds or where you draw the lines between kinds or common ancestry.

Common ancestry is not responsible for macroevolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Kind = GenusCommon ancestry is not responsible for macroevolution.

AIG claims that also but then there is a problem with it as many species within the genus do not hybridize.

Common ancestry is evidence for evolution beyond the species level, i.e. macro-evolution. In reality though there is no need to split evolution into micro and macro because the mechanism are the same.

You might be interested in:
Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?

 

[renniks]

Do you have any objective measure as to why?

Where do you draw a line?

Is cat a kind? Is great cat a kind?

Are wolves and coyote's the same kind? How about foxes?

If all you have is unjustifiable conviction, then you shouldn't expect to be able to convince anyone else.

Of course wolves and foxes and coyotes are the same kind.. this is basic biology.
The felines tend to be more specialised meat-eaters, have shorter faces and retractable claws. Many of them are ambush, pounce-predators, rather than runners.
The word species is difficult to define, whether you is a creationist or not.
So why all the abuse about " kinds"?
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.

Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind).

Generally, if two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.
Hybrids in the feline family include bobcats that mate with domestic cats and bobcats with lynx.

Try mating a dog and a cat...

 

[renniks]

From evolution we not only know that cats and dogs had a common ancestor but also we have a fair idea of what that ancestor looked like.

Lol, sure we do... With a whole lot of imagination and 14 billion years thrown in you can come up with anything.

 

[Frank Robert]

Lol, sure we do... With a whole lot of imagination and 14 billion years thrown in you can come up with anything.

I would not be so quick to belittle imagination. I bet you are unaware of the symbiotic relationship between imagination and hard work. You only need to consider the consilience of evidence for the ToE due to hard work in many areas of biology such as anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, fossils, developmental biology, ecology, genetics, morphology plus many others. Now if creationists did some the hard work of science and used their imaginations instead of disparaging those that do the rest of us would be able to take them seriously.

 

[Frank Robert]

Of course wolves and foxes and coyotes are the same kind.. this is basic biology.

Kinds is a biblical term not a biological term.

 

[renniks]

I would not be so quick to belittle imagination. I bet you are unaware of the symbiotic relationship between imagination and hard work. You only need to consider the consilience of evidence for the ToE due to hard work in many areas of biology such as anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, fossils, developmental biology, ecology, genetics, morphology plus many others. Now if creationists did some the hard work of science and used their imaginations instead of disparaging those that do the rest of us would be able to take them seriously.

I thought science was supposed to be raw facts. If I can just use my imagination anything can be science.

 

[Frank Robert]

I thought science was supposed to be raw facts.

You thought wrong.

If I can just use my imagination anything can be science.

Of course when you are willfully ignorant science can be anything you imagine it to be.

 

[Astrid]

It must be GREAT to know all things perfectly! Does God approve of your perfected god-like knowledge?

I'm envious of your greatness. And that's a sin, I know. But you gotta admit it is an enviable thing for you to know all things perfectly.

A lil snarky there!

But you've a point in that some
people do claim to be infallible,
they which of why being
that God graced them with
the Gift of right -reading.

So 'tis said.

 

[o_mlly]

Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?

A difference that makes the difference is that no one has read a chimp-authored study on the difference between humans and chimps. Chimps in the wild live exactly as their ancestors did across the millennia.

 

[renniks]

You thought wrong.


Of course when you are willfully ignorant science can be anything you imagine it to be.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=berkeley+what+is+science

Like deciding that a feline/ canine existed, when you can not produce current evidence that it's possible.

 

[renniks]

A difference that makes the difference is that no one has read a chimp-authored study on the difference between humans and chimps. Chimps in the wild live exactly as their ancestors did across the millennia.

Which suggests that we didn't evolve from them.

 

[Frank Robert]

Like deciding that a feline/ canine existed, when you can not produce current evidence that it's possible.

There is plenty of evidence from many different sources that you are impotent to accept because of religious beliefs. Just examine how your sources divert and deflect from DNA and fossils evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which suggests that we didn't evolve from them.

We evolved from a common ancestor not from chimps.
Much of the difference between chimps and humans is likely do to selective pressures that vary with environment meaning that chimps and humans did not have the same selective pressures.

 

[renniks]

There is plenty of evidence from many different sources that you are impotent to accept because of religious beliefs. Just examine how your sources divert and deflect from DNA and fossils evidence.

The fossil evidence for the cat/ dog is a few teeth and ankle bones of an ancient fisher type animal. Pure speculation based an assumptions.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Jesus said you will know false prophets by their fruits.

I can tell you that I seem to be a more happy and caring person when I believe the Bible's testimony that we were created from the dust of the ground rather than Darwin's speculation of the survival of the fittest.

Nowhere does the Bible say that earth is less than 10,000 years old, but it does say, from beginning to end, that we were created from dust.

When you look at the evidence presented for universal common descent, through natural selection acting on random mutations, with the right presuppositions, rather than the presuppositions of naturalism and reductionism, you realize how flimsy the evidence really is.

On the other hand, I don't need evidence that God created man. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, and if the apostles willingly died for their witness of it, then God could have created Adam from dust.