What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[eleos1954]

A penguin is a bird. An emu is a bird. Are they the same 'kind'? A koala is a marsupial as is a kangaroo. Are they the same kind? A dwarf gecko (half an inch long) is a lizard. As is a Komodo dragon - 10 feet long. Are they the same 'kind'. A bee is an insect as is an ant. Same 'kind'?

God evidentially looks at kinds differently than how man classifies them and breaks them down into species/groups etc ... what He says is they reproduce after their kind ... and I'm ok with that.

Like I said He attaches kind to reproducing off spring that will in turn reproduce off spring.
Simple ... but true.

 

[Bradskii]

God evidentially looks at kinds differently than how man classifies them and breaks them down into species/groups etc ... what He says is they reproduce after their kind ... and I'm ok with that.

Like I said He attaches kind to reproducing off spring that will in turn reproduce off spring.
Simple ... but true.

So what 'kind' is a penguin? Ditto an emu?

I'm not looking to correlate it with any specific scientific term. But birds can't be a 'kind' so it makes no sense using the term in that context. Similarly insects. Or marsupials. Or any number of groups of animals. Is there a kind that's specifically penguins?

I think it was you that said earlier that we can determine kind by determining if two examples can breed together. Which is pretty much the definition of species.

 

[eleos1954]

So what 'kind' is a penguin? Ditto an emu?

I'm not looking to correlate it with any specific scientific term. But birds can't be a 'kind' so it makes no sense using the term in that context. Similarly insects. Or marsupials. Or any number of groups of animals. Is there a kind that's specifically penguins?

I think it was you that said earlier that we can determine kind by determining if two examples can breed together. Which is pretty much the definition of species.

Biologists and taxonomists have made many attempts to define species, beginning from morphology and moving towards genetics. Early taxonomists such as Linnaeus had no option but to describe what they saw: this was later formalised as the typological or morphological species concept.

It's a manmade concept/construct .... naming system(s).

Would a penguin have a name if man didn't call it that? Would an Emu have a name if man didn't call it that? Something new gets discovered? Hmmmm, yeah man will give it a name and classify it.

With God It's the principle, not the individual names, categories/classifications/ that man came up with. God left the task of naming things to a large degree up to mankind and we certainly do that.

So with God the principle is .... able to produce offspring and the offspring capable of doing same and He calls that process after their kind ....which is reproduction.

 

[Bradskii]

So with God the principle is .... able to produce offspring and the offspring capable of doing same and He calls that process after their kind .... reproduction.

So 'birds' is not a kind. And are we taking about what might have emerged from an ark here? Because what is usually proposed is that a 'kind' such as a dog was taken on board and then all dog-like creatures (wolves, foxes etc) evolved from the original kind. But there is a colossal amount of variation in birds, insects, mammals, reptiles, marsupials etc etc and very few of them can interbreed. So you'd need a pair of each. The biomass of just the insects would have been giga tonnes.

 

[eleos1954]

So 'birds' is not a kind. And are we taking about what might have emerged from an ark here? Because what is usually proposed is that a 'kind' such as a dog was taken on board and then all dog-like creatures (wolves, foxes etc) evolved from the original kind. But there is a colossal amount of variation in birds, insects, mammals, reptiles, marsupials etc etc and very few of them can interbreed. So you'd need a pair of each. The biomass of just the insects would have been giga tonnes.

The genetic code Gods marvelous design doesn't need a pair of each, His remarkable code is able to stay within it's kind ... yet produce wonderful differences within those kinds. Such are we humans .... most of us look very different from one another ... but yet we are all humans ... the same kind.

 

[Bradskii]

The genetic code Gods marvelous design doesn't need a pair of each, His remarkable code is able to stay within it's kind ... yet produce wonderful differences within those kinds. Such are we humans .... most of us look very different from one another ... but yet we are all humans ... the same kind.

You don't need a pair to mate? And I'll ask again...are birds not a 'kind'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biologists and taxonomists have made many attempts to define species, beginning from morphology and moving towards genetics. Early taxonomists such as Linnaeus had no option but to describe what they saw: this was later formalised as the typological or morphological species concept.

It's a manmade concept/construct .... naming system(s).

Would a penguin have a name if man didn't call it that? Would an Emu have a name if man didn't call it that? Something new gets discovered? Hmmmm, yeah man will give it a name and classify it.

With God It's the principle, not the individual names, categories/classifications/ that man came up with. God left the task of naming things to a large degree up to mankind and we certainly do that.

So with God the principle is .... able to produce offspring and the offspring capable of doing same and He calls that process after their kind ....which is reproduction.

Evolution has no "change of kind" in it either. The problem is that creationists cannot properly define what a kind is. Biologists on the other hand can do so. There was no "change of kind" in our evolution from the common ancestor that we share with chimps. Like it or not we are still apes.

 

[eleos1954]

You don't need a pair to mate? And I'll ask again...are birds not a 'kind'?

Biblically it is the principle of producing off spring (kind) ..... that is Gods "classification" system. Simple .... but true.

We only need a pair of a "family kind" (able to produce off spring) .... ie we only need one pair of dogs and from that one pair (because of the very complex variety contained within their genetic code) we get many different varying types of dogs from that one pair ... but they are all from the dog family .... cats from the cat family ... and so on. So, as far as the ark goes .... one pair from each family kind is all that is needed.

We know DNA is a very complex, efficient “information system” for encoding life ..... marvelous design created by God ... or for those who do not believe in God as the creator ... it (complex DNA coding) somehow "evolved" and is theorized "evolved" over billions of years somehow (and there are varying theories on this "could have" occurred)

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[Landon Caeli]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been cleaned of off topic posts and other violations. Please stay on topic and be mindful of the rules going forward.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblically it is the principle of producing off spring (kind) ..... that is Gods "classification" system. Simple .... but true.

We only need a pair of a "family kind" (able to produce off spring) .... ie we only need one pair of dogs and from that one pair (because of the very complex variety contained within their genetic code) we get many different varying types of dogs from that one pair ... but they are all from the dog family .... cats from the cat family ... and so on. So, as far as the ark goes .... one pair from each family kind is all that is needed.

We know DNA is a very complex, efficient “information system” for encoding life ..... marvelous design created by God ... or for those who do not believe in God as the creator ... it (complex DNA coding) somehow "evolved" and is theorized "evolved" over billions of years somehow (and there are varying theories on this "could have" occurred)

There is quite a bit of scientific evidence against your beliefs and there does not appear to be any for it.

First off only two of most species will go extinct due to the lack of genetic diversity. Just about all mammals will fail when this happens. And yes, DNA is very complex, but it is far from efficient. Of our genome 98% of it is noncoding DNA. So even though you have on the order of 100 mutations in your DNA that you got from your parents they could easily all be in noncoding DNA which would mean that they would do not harm:

Non-Coding DNA

So complex, yes. Efficient no. Complex is often not a sign of design. Complex and inefficient points away from design.

 

[Bradskii]

Biblically it is the principle of producing off spring (kind) ..... that is Gods "classification" system. Simple .... but true.

We only need a pair of a "family kind" (able to produce off spring) .... ie we only need one pair of dogs and from that one pair (because of the very complex variety contained within their genetic code) we get many different varying types of dogs from that one pair ... but they are all from the dog family .... cats from the cat family ... and so on. So, as far as the ark goes .... one pair from each family kind is all that is needed."

Like a pair of birds for example. Which we have seen doesn't work.

 

[Astrophile]

Would a penguin have a name if man didn't call it that? Would an Emu have a name if man didn't call it that? Something new gets discovered? Hmmmm, yeah man will give it a name and classify it.

If an emu and a penguin were to meet on a beach in Australia, even without man-made names each would at least know that the other was not an appropriate mating partner.

 

[inquiring mind]

Here’s my litmus test regarding ‘Kinds’: ex., are penguins and birds the same kind? Can they breed? If yes, then they are the same kind, with penguins having a ‘fins instead of wings’ variation. If they can’t breed, then they are not the same kind, and if science says otherwise, it is yet another mistake of the man-made scientific classification system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here’s my litmus test regarding ‘Kinds’: ex., are penguins and birds the same kind? Can they mate? If yes, then they are the same kind, with penguins having a ‘fins instead of wings’ variation. If they can’t mate, then they are not the same kind, and if science says otherwise, it is yet another mistake of the man-made scientific classification system.

You might want to define that a bit better. If merely attempting to mate counts then dogs and cats could be said to be the same "kind" Male dogs will hump almost anything. In fact if you used the definition that I just gave (I did not say or imply that it was your definition) then dogs and human legs are the "same kind"

Perhaps you mean that they cannot breed successfully?

 

[inquiring mind]

You might want to define that a bit better. If merely attempting to mate counts then dogs and cats could be said to be the same "kind" Male dogs will hump almost anything. In fact if you used the definition that I just gave (I did not say or imply that it was your definition) then dogs and human legs are the "same kind"

Perhaps you mean that they cannot breed successfully?

I'll change that... thank you.

 

[eleos1954]

Like a pair of birds for example. Which we have seen doesn't work.

I know you to be an intelligent person. The principle of what we see in reproduction is not difficult to understand. In fact you have to believe it to a large degree to support the theory of evolution in the first place.

Family kind .... REPRODUCTION ... if it can't reproduce off spring then it is outside of it's family kind and that's the way God created things (simple to understand). Evolutionists don't believe in a creator ... I get that so therefore it is theorize of what "could have happened".

We have fully formed human beings .... and we have fully formed apes .... they are not able to produce off spring because they are not from the same family kind.

Ability to reproduce offspring that in turn reproduces offspring holds true and is undeniable fact ... it doesn't need to be theorized.

When apes and humans reproduce a living being of some kind happens, and then those beings are able to reproduce ... let me know ... until then ... yeah I believe in creation.

 

[eleos1954]

If an emu and a penguin were to meet on a beach in Australia, even without man-made names each would at least know that the other was not an appropriate mating partner.

Most animals are indeed able to recognize their own family kind ... by sight and smell.

Not sure what your point is?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Family kind .... REPRODUCTION ... if it can't reproduce off spring then it is outside of it's family kind and that's the way God created things (simple to understand). Evolutionists don't believe in a creator ... I get that so therefore it is theorize of what "could have happened".

So what do you make of the ring species question I asked in #85 ?

[a chain of species, each of which can interbreed with the next, but the first and last in the chain can't interbreed - how can they all be the same kind if the first and last don't satisfy the criteria? Yet how can the first and last be different kinds if they're connected by a chain of species that can interbreed with them?]

 

[Bradskii]

I know you to be an intelligent person. The principle of what we see in reproduction is not difficult to understand. In fact you have to believe it to a large degree to support the theory of evolution in the first place.

Family kind .... REPRODUCTION ... if it can't reproduce off spring then it is outside of it's family kind and that's the way God created things (simple to understand). Evolutionists don't believe in a creator ... I get that so therefore it is theorize of what "could have happened".

We have fully formed human beings .... and we have fully formed apes .... they are not able to produce off spring because they are not from the same family kind.

Ability to reproduce offspring that in turn reproduces offspring holds true and is undeniable fact ... it doesn't need to be theorized.

When apes and humans reproduce a living being of some kind happens, and then those beings are able to reproduce ... let me know ... until then ... yeah I believe in creation.

Then apparently there is no such 'kind' as birds. What we have is penguins being a 'kind' of their own. Emus the same. Bees likewise. Dolphins the same. Komodo dragons, giraffes...I could go on for pages. And we'd eventually realise that 'kind' equals species. So what we had (presumably from the ark) was a 'kind' of creature which then must have then gradually evolved into another creature with which they could not reproduce (this is your argument, not mine). This is the evolutionary process.

And this development into other organisms which can't reproduce with the original is, by definition, speciation. Which is nothing more than macro evolution.