De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand your point.

From context, I assumed you meant:
"If evolution isn't true then it should be difficult to distinguish species."

Is that what you meant?

If so, can you explain the chain of reasoning?

The Voice of Experience calls back, " Fat chance ".
All I’m saying is that ‘species’ can be hard to distinguish by any measure, given its ‘whatever it is’ definition. Variation among ‘kinds’ (evolution not true) is often confused by the use of it, whether a result that was intended by evolutionists or not, I don’t know. But, unless I misinterpreted it, that seemed to be the indication in the ‘switch & bait’ portion of the article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
All I’m saying is that ‘species’ can be hard to distinguish by any measure, given its ‘whatever it is’ definition. Variation among ‘kinds’ (evolution not true) is often confused by the use of it, whether a result that was intended by evolutionists or not, I don’t know. But, unless I misinterpreted it, that seemed to be the indication in the ‘switch & bait’ portion of the article.
That's just sad. Creationists need to get over themselves and recognize that the purpose of science is not to discredit biblical creationism.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
All I’m saying is that ‘species’ can be hard to distinguish by any measure, given its ‘whatever it is’ definition. Variation among ‘kinds’ (evolution not true) is often confused by the use of it, whether a result that was intended by evolutionists or not, I don’t know. But, unless I misinterpreted it, that seemed to be the indication in the ‘switch & bait’ portion of the article.
If evolution was not true then I don't understand why variation among kinds would in any way be necessarily difficult.

Many Creationists these days accept the diversification into multiple species below the kind level so we should expect the sort of vagueness that evolution explains (dog to coyote, lion to tiger, etc)... but why would we have the same problems with kinds?
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

An interesting link. I'd appreciate it if you could help interpret for me. Does the paper claim:
1) A method for identifying De Novo Genes that overcomes problems with past methods?
2) That they have identified De Novo Genes in Yeasts of the distant past (some odd millions of years ago)?
3) That they have identified De Novo Genes in Yeasts in the recent past?

I realize your answer could be none of the above or some combination.

Regardless, de novo genes pose a problem for creationists.

For some, probably, but not necessarily for all. Regardless, let me ask this: Scientists would claim that falsifying a theory is not a problem for science. That such is part of the process. Further, biologists would claim that certain theories within the field of evolution could be falsified without falsifying evolution itself. True?

What danger do you see, then, in allowing creationists the same?
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,179
39
Hong Kong
✟147,404.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
If evolution was not true then I don't understand why variation among kinds would in any way be necessarily difficult.

Many Creationists these days accept the diversification into multiple species below the kind level so we should expect the sort of vagueness that evolution explains (dog to coyote, lion to tiger, etc)... but why would we have the same problems with kinds?
The problem is trying to invent a whole new
biology. Nothing will ever fit. Quel surprise.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If evolution was not true then I don't understand why variation among kinds would in any way be necessarily difficult.

Many Creationists these days accept the diversification into multiple species below the kind level so we should expect the sort of vagueness that evolution explains (dog to coyote, lion to tiger, etc)... but why would we have the same problems with kinds?
I'm not sure what you think I meant, but if you're saying there's no difficulty with 'kinds' and distinction... I'm okay with that.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I'm not sure what you think I meant, but if you're saying there's no difficulty with 'kinds' and distinction... I'm okay with that.
That's the opposite of my take from your initial comment. I clearly misunderstood you.

Can you describe how you can distinguish kinds in any consistent and objective method?
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,179
39
Hong Kong
✟147,404.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm not sure what you think I meant, but if you're saying there's no difficulty with 'kinds' and distinction... I'm okay with that.

The word works fine for a children's story, which is where you got it.

In the real world of biology and agriculture, its completely
worthless.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,179
39
Hong Kong
✟147,404.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's the opposite of my take from your initial comment. I clearly misunderstood you.

Can you describe how you can distinguish kinds in any consistent and objective method?

Its well that God directed the cow kind to reproduce
after its kind. Imsgine the annoyance of a dairy farmer
if his cow gave birth to a longhorn, or an angus.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That's just sad. Creationists need to get over themselves and recognize that the purpose of science is not to discredit biblical creationism.
Creation according to Genesis or Creation through evolution… it’s just something each person has to work their way through, provided they even want to give it much thought. In either case, to me the sad thing is ‘not believing in God, the Creator.’ No doubts in my mind, but it would be even more sad if that was the case and we had absolutely no higher reason whatsoever for our existence, and really were just a spontaneous string of mutations. I don’t even like to think on that much.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The word works fine for a children's story, which is where you got it.
In the real world of biology and agriculture, its completely
worthless.
Can biology point to any mistakes the Bible made with the use of the term 'kind?'
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That's the opposite of my take from your initial comment. I clearly misunderstood you.

Can you describe how you can distinguish kinds in any consistent and objective method?
Back to my first comment, "Variation is not without difficulties."
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Can biology point to any mistakes the Bible made with the use of the term 'kind?'
No. The way the Bible uses the term as a relative qualifier is fine. It's people who interpret "kind" as an immutable divine taxonomy who are making the mistake.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No. The way the Bible uses the term as a relative qualifier is fine. It's people who interpret "kind" as an immutable divine taxonomy who are making the mistake.

What's especially odd about it is that it doesn't even put a limit on evolutionary change over time. Even if kinds referred to original ancestry, that doesn't specifically limit the evolutionary path any descendants could follow.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No. The way the Bible uses the term as a relative qualifier is fine. It's people who interpret "kind" as an immutable divine taxonomy who are making the mistake.
After 3,000 years it's still kinda hard to 'trip up' the Bible on anything... ain't it?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
These two comments appear to contradict each other.
Yep, my first comment was admitting there are often difficulties with variation, when the vague definition of species is thrown in the mix. My second comment is just saying what it says. We've beat it to death... let's move on.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yep, my first comment was admitting there are often difficulties with variation, when the vague definition of species is thrown in the mix. My second comment is just saying what it says. We've beat it to death... let's move on.
You mean the intentionally vague definition of species which was concocted by scientists in order to make people doubt the Bible? You make a slanderous accusation like that you don't get to just move on from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums