De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

inquiring mind said:

Can biology point to any mistakes the Bible made with the use of the term 'kind?'

Click to expand...

I said its useless to biology and agriculture.
But if you can't to introduce the concept of
" midtake" instead of " useless"...

Depends if you think vague / meaningless is a mistake.
Its ok for a children's story, a child's understanding.

The mistake is on the part of adults who try to
read children's stories literally and force fit them
to reality.

Speedwell said:

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.

Click to expand...

I made no slanderous accusation. And, I'm still here.

Estrid said:

Uh, what? Seriously?

Click to expand...

Yes, seriously.

inquiring mind said:

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.

Click to expand...

But we were talking about kinds, not species.

Can you clarify if they are distinguishable or not?

Estrid said:

I said its useless to biology and agriculture.
But if you can't to introduce the concept of
" midtake" instead of " useless"...

Depends if you think vague / meaningless is a mistake.
Its ok for a children's story, a child's understanding.

The mistake is on the part of adults who try to
read children's stories literally and force fit them
to reality.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of children... its at the top of the most printed list.

Shemjaza said:

But we were talking about kinds, not species.
Can you clarify if they are distinguishable or not?

Click to expand...

Hasn't species been mentioned just as much as kind? And, no, I can't clarify distinguishable characteristics of kinds, but I can link some good reading:
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

inquiring mind said:

There's a lot of children... its at the top of the most printed list.

Click to expand...

So?

inquiring mind said:

Hasn't species been mentioned just as much as kind? And, no, I can't clarify distinguishable characteristics of kinds, but I can link some good reading:
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

Click to expand...

"Good" reading?
A lot of extra biblical stuff and zero evidence
from outside the Bible that any of it is true.
As noted, the mistake is thinking its anything
more than a children's story and trying to ram-fit
a literal meaning to fit the book or reality.

Do you have a link to show how water
really came from heaven's windows?

inquiring mind said:

Hasn't species been mentioned just as much as kind? And, no, I can't clarify distinguishable characteristics of kinds, but I can link some good reading:
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

Click to expand...

I've read it before, but I went over it again.

It most certainly does not demonstrate how to distinguish kinds.

There is a reasonably common Creationist summary:
"If they can reproduce and produce viable offspring, then they are the same kind."
"If they can not reproduce and produce viable offspring, then they might still be the same kind."

This does not demonstrate any way to actually define where one kind leaves off and another begins.

Personally, given that I do not believe there is any such thing as a created kind, this is not surprising. However, I am always interested in new ways of seeing things and new evidence to help me understand the world, so I'm open to a better understanding of kinds.

Shemjaza said:

I've read it before, but I went over it again.

It most certainly does not demonstrate how to distinguish kinds.

There is a reasonably common Creationist summary:
"If they can reproduce and produce viable offspring, then they are the same kind."
"If they can not reproduce and produce viable offspring, then they might still be the same kind."

This does not demonstrate any way to actually define where one kind leaves off and another begins.

Personally, given that I do not believe there is any such thing as a created kind, this is not surprising. However, I am always interested in new ways of seeing things and new evidence to help me understand the world, so I'm open to a better understanding of kinds.

Click to expand...

I went back over it and took note when I found a bit of
wheat in the chaff.

We find-
A priori "facts " include that Christianity
of needs is yec and yec is True.
There is much sciency talk but beneath it
is antiscience, working backwards from a
prior immutable conclusion.
Total intellectual dishonesty from the get go.

The theory of evolution and deep time are
hand waved with a couple of gratuitous falsehoods
tossed in; " taught as fact " ( their sin, projected
onto others) and somethug about belief in species
remaining the same for millions of years, again the
opposite of what is so.

A "baramin" is anything from an order to a species.
Vague?

The old saw about " cat can't descend from dog"
Is introduced, skipping their common ancestry
revealed in the fossil record and modern anatomy/
genetics.
We guess such is avoided as it implies far too much
to fit the a priori conclusion


The basic concept is that 4300 years ago there were type
specimens of each " baramin " that the hyperevolved and
diversified into the huge variety of species found today.

The intellectual dishonesty is in full bloom
there, as no evidence whatever of this hyper
evolution exists.
Further, is the determination that relationships
cannot go deeper than order, so that fish frog crocodile
duck and cow "baramins' cannot be related.
Despite the very extensive fossil record of intermediate
forms such that, with our familiarity with modern
fish, amphibians etc, if one were to see some of them
alive today nobody could put them in a "baramin".

Few would be confidentv figuring
if a little feathered dinosaur was a bird, or this thing
that crawls out of the water is a fish or what.
What that Synapsid might be, likewise. Mammal, reptile?
It doesn't fit either.

The sciencey pretense also notably ignores the
fact that deep time is consistently supported
by a vast body of actual research, which likewise
disproves the flood, and any other creation myth from
any other religion.
Such data is simply ignored by yec " research ".

The invitation to paleontologists at the end will
get few takers but it's a nice end cap, to illustrate
the gap between the sales talk and the reality.

The only yec paleontologist of whom I am aware is
a Dr.K Wise, who sums the intellectual dishonesty
of creationism quite nicely here:
" ...evem if all the data in the universe turned against
Yec, I would still be yec as that is what the Bible
seems to indicate".

So there you go. Only only one, foregone conclusion
will be accepted, regardless of data.

Shemjaza said:

I've read it before, but I went over it again.

It most certainly does not demonstrate how to distinguish kinds.

There is a reasonably common Creationist summary:
"If they can reproduce and produce viable offspring, then they are the same kind."
"If they can not reproduce and produce viable offspring, then they might still be the same kind."

This does not demonstrate any way to actually define where one kind leaves off and another begins.

Personally, given that I do not believe there is any such thing as a created kind, this is not surprising. However, I am always interested in new ways of seeing things and new evidence to help me understand the world, so I'm open to a better understanding of kinds.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I don't know why so many are completely dismissive of the Bible story. Naturally, it makes me suspect of their motive. I just can't see how the classification of kind is that much different from the messy boundary difficulties and messy evolutionary process pita was talking about??? Kind is a term for the separation, and evolutionary transition is just a theory - not actually shown to happen.

inquiring mind said:

Yes, and I don't know why so many are completely dismissive of the Bible story. Naturally, it makes me suspect of their motive.

Click to expand...

What "motive" does one need to dismiss nonsense?

I just can't see how the classification of kind is that much different from the messy boundary difficulties and messy evolutionary process pita was talking about???

Click to expand...

I wonder why you think an arbitrary transition point in a continuous process is "messy?"

Estrid said:

I went back over it and took note when I found a bit of
wheat in the chaff.

We find-
A priority "facts " include that Christianity
of needs is yec and yec is True.
There is much sciency talk but beneath it
is antiscience, working backwards from a
prior immutable conclusion.
Total intellectual dishonesty from the get go.

The theory of evolution and deep time are
hand waved with a couple of gratuitous falsehoods
tossed in; " taught as fact " ( their sin, projected
onto others) and somethug about belief in species
remaining the same for millions of years, again the
opposite of what is so.

A "baramin" is anything from an order to a species.
Vague?

The old saw about " cat can't descend from dog"
Is introduced, skipping their common ancestry
revealed in the fossil record and modern anatomy/
genetics.
We guess such is avoided as it implies far too much
to fit the a priori conclusion


The basic concept is that 4300 years ago there were type
specimens of each " baramin " that the hyperevolved and
diversified into the huge variety of species found today.

The intellectual dishonesty is in full bloom
there, as no evidence whatever of this hyper
evolution exists.
Further, is the determination that relationships
cannot go deeper than order, so that fish frog crocodile
duck and cow "baramins' cannot be related.
Despite the very extensive fossil record of intermediate
forms such that, with our familiarity with modern
fish, amphibians etc, if one were to see some of them
alive today nobody could put them in a "baramin".

Few would be confidentv figuring
if a little feathered dinosaur was a bird, or this thing
that crawls out of the water is a fish or what.
What that Synapsid might be, likewise. Mammal, reptile?
It doesn't fit either.

The sciencey pretense also notably ignores the
fact that deep time is consistently supported
by a vast body of actual research, which likewise
disproves the flood, and any other creation myth from
any other religion.
Such data is simply ignored by yec " research ".

The invitation to paleontologists at the end will
get few takers but it's a nice end cap, to illustrate
the gap between the sales talk and the reality.

The only yec paleontologist of whom I am aware is
a Dr.K Wise, who sums the intellectual dishonesty
of creationism quite nicely here:
" ...evem if all the data in the universe turned against
Yec, I would still be yec as that is what the Bible
seems to indicate".

So there you go. Only only one, foregone conclusion
will be accepted, regardless of data.

Click to expand...

Evolutionary transition has not been shown to happen, and the use of 'deep time' is also hypocritical, when you dismiss the Bible, faith, etc. We know nothing about deep time. So, your comment is built on sand.

Speedwell said:

What "motive" does one need to dismiss nonsense? I wonder why you think an arbitrary transition point in a continuous process is "messy?"

Click to expand...

That is what pita said, wasn't it? I'm just discussing it. Don't start twisting things now.

inquiring mind said:

Evolutionary transition has not been shown to happen, and the use of 'deep time' is also hypocritical, when you dismiss the Bible, faith, etc. We know nothing about deep time. So, your comment is built on sand.

Click to expand...

The fossil record clearly shows a great many transitions,
your denial is merely typical of the denial i noted earlier.

"Dismissal" is your deal, both on deep time and the
TOE; the "science" in yec is where the hypocrisy is.
Ptetending it is science when it so blatantly is not.

As for dismissing of " Bible, faith, etc", no, no, and no.

That is not so, AT ALL.

The meticulous gathering of data in physics, chemistry,
biology, geology and all subsets theog, dismissed. Hand - wave disnissed.
Seperately and in total science dmonstrates what it does.
That concerns the yecs as it shows their supposedly
infallible reading of the Bible - creation story
doesnt match ANYTHING from science.

The dismissal comes from yecs, who can't handle Itl

Educated, intellectually honest people of faith don't
have a problem with science.

But it is simply impossible to be educated, intellectually
honest, and a yec- as your linked article and Dr. Wise
so well illustrate.

Your response - more of a quip, really-skips
all of what I said about that, and unfortunately introduces
yet more falsehoods, as noted.

IF you have a substantive reply, as in employing
reason and verifiable facts, go for it, please; that is
fun and challenging.
Your response falls way short so far.

ETA if "we" are the yecs, then you got one
thing right re knowledge of deep time.

inquiring mind said:

Yes, and I don't know why so many are completely dismissive of the Bible story. Naturally, it makes me suspect of their motive. I just can't see how the classification of kind is that much different from the messy boundary difficulties and messy evolutionary process pita was talking about??? Kind is a term for the separation, and evolutionary transition is just a theory - not actually shown to happen.

Click to expand...

The point is that the classification of species are an attempt to apply an ordered system onto a reality there there aren't hard and clear borders between groups of animals.

The concept of kinds proposes a reality where there are hard and clear borders between groups of animals. The discussion comes from the expectation that there should be objective methods of distinguishing these kinds.

You appeared to claim that you were able to do this earlier in the thread, but I haven't seen evidence that it is possible.

Estrid said:

The fossil record clearly shows a great many transitions,
your denial is merely typical of the denial i noted earlier.

"Dismissal" is your deal, both on deep time and the
TOE; the "science" in yec is where the hypocrisy is.
Ptetending it is science when it so blatantly is not.

As for dismissing of " Bible, faith, etc", no, no, and no.

That is not so, AT ALL.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't mean all that stuff about it being a children's story???

Estrid said:

The meticulous gathering of data in physics, chemistry,
biology, geology and all subsets theog, dismissed. Hand - wave disnissed.
Seperately and in total science dmonstrates what it does.
That concerns the yecs as it shows their supposedly
infallible reading of the Bible - creation story
doesnt match ANYTHING from science.

The dismissal comes from yecs, who can't handle Itl

Educated, intellectually honest people of faith don't
have a problem with science.

Click to expand...

It's usually not science that's a problem, but rather some conclusions drawn from science.

Estrid said:

But it is simply impossible to be educated, intellectually
honest, and a yec- as your linked article and Dr. Wise
so well illustrate.

Your response - more of a quip, really-skips
all of what I said about that, and unfortunately introduces
yet more falsehoods, as noted.

IF you have a substantive reply, as in employing
reason and verifiable facts, go for it, please; that is
fun and challenging.
Your response falls way short so far.

ETA if "we" are the yecs, then you got one
thing right re knowledge of deep time.

Click to expand...

Just presenting some information regarding kinds, which I was asked for, and you guys are continually claiming doesn't exist.

Shemjaza said:

The point is that the classification of species are an attempt to apply an ordered system onto a reality there there aren't hard and clear borders between groups of animals.

The concept of kinds proposes a reality where there are hard and clear borders between groups of animals. The discussion comes from the expectation that there should be objective methods of distinguishing these kinds.

You appeared to claim that you were able to do this earlier in the thread, but I haven't seen evidence that it is possible.

Click to expand...

I thought the article explained that very thing. You keep trying to interject species into it.

pitabread said:

Huh? We observe evolutionary transitions happening real time. It's an observable process.

Click to expand...

You observe variety and adaptation in real time, that's all, and give it leaps and bounds on a macroevolutionary scale.