De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 20, 2021

inquiring mind said:
And you got all of that from this: "You can learn a lot in discussion... one way or the other. How much would I know about evolution, or how strengthened would my belief in Creation be without participating here the past few years?"

I shall repeat what I wrote:
No, it's not an answer in the slightest.
So why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer.

You have been saying that Kind is an acceptable term to use, but you have never given a proper or workable definition or example. Here is your chance to do so. If you cannot, don't try and play it off and act coy. Be honest and admit that if you cannot, that you cannot.

Shemjaza · Feb 20, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I see, the definition of 'speciation' can be vague, but the definition of 'kinds' can't...

Yes, precisely.

That's because the scenario that species describe in a scientific context is imprecise and vague.

However kinds are supposed to describe a entirely distinct lines of ancestry barely out of recorded history. It's not about fairness, it's about being consistent with the claims made by the two ideas.

inquiring mind said:
anyway, my take in regard to ‘Kinds” is this:

1. According to the Bible, if two animals can breed, then they are considered to be of the same kind.

2. In the beginning, God placed variety within the original kinds.

3. Other variations occurred after the Fall due to genetic alterations caused by it. And, also due to the Fall the inability to produce offspring in some cases does not in itself rule out animals being of the same kind.

4. After the Flood, the animals were directed to “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” and as a result, only then did natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms (things studied by scientists today and projected back into deep time as if it was always the governing mechanism) allowed for variation within the kinds. Variation/adaptation (even speciation if that’s what you want to call it) was needed for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world.

There are several problems with these conjectures.

One it does not propose any method of differentiating kinds.

Two the fossil evidence shows diversity spread all throughout history, not just lightning fast diversity less than 10000 years ago.

Three even if there was evidence for hyper evolution after the flood, there is also no evidence for hyper growing and hyper breeding so all the prey animals could get to the populations to maintain equilibrium with the predators.

The evidence is consistent with the evolution/deep time model and massively inconsistent with every version of creation/flood recent past model I've seen presented.

inquiring mind · Feb 21, 2021

Shemjaza said:
There are several problems with these conjectures.

One it does not propose any method of differentiating kinds.

I guess you overlooked the 'if they breed they're the same kind' part listed as #1.

Shemjaza said:
Two the fossil evidence shows diversity spread all throughout history, not just lightning fast diversity less than 10000 years ago.

I guess you just couldn't resist date stamping this statement, 'In the beginning, God placed variety within the original kinds' listed as #2.

Shemjaza said:
Three even if there was evidence for hyper evolution after the flood,...

So, a total waste of time to try to answer, even if possible.

Shemjaza said:
The evidence is consistent with the evolution/deep time model and massively inconsistent with every version of creation/flood recent past model I've seen presented.

Only if you believe you understand time and don't recognize the power of God.

inquiring mind · Feb 21, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I shall repeat what I wrote:
No, it's not an answer in the slightest.
So why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer.

So, first you need to show me which post of mine you're talking about (where I said Kind is science).

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You have been saying that Kind is an acceptable term to use, but you have never given a proper or workable definition or example. Here is your chance to do so. If you cannot, don't try and play it off and act coy. Be honest and admit that if you cannot, that you cannot.

Post #147

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 21, 2021

inquiring mind said:
So, first you need to show me which post of mine you're talking about (where I said Kind is science).

Post #147

I told you: post #33.
Now, answer my question: So why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer.

inquiring mind · Feb 21, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I told you: post #33.
Now, answer my question: So why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer.

I referenced an article, for your consideration, and said it was interesting... that's all. Why does it intimidate you so?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 21, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I referenced an article, for your consideration, and said it was interesting... that's all. Why does it intimidate you so?

Projecting quite a bit here. I'm not intimidated in the slightest. However, you have been saying, on this thread and in others, that Kind can be used in a scientific sense, and I have repeatedly asked you to either provide an example of a Kind or even to make an attempt at discussing the science behind Kind.
You have done nothing.

So, again, I ask: Why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer. And I will keep repeatedly asking this question until you answer it.

inquiring mind · Feb 21, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
However, you have been saying, on this thread and in others, that Kind can be used in a scientific sense

I don't think I've said this, but if you'll provide a post I'll stand corrected.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 21, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I don't think I've said this, but if you'll provide a post I'll stand corrected.

Post #33. When you quote an article from a website that claims to use science to back up the Bible, then don't blame me when I, and probably others too, see you as wanting to use Kind in a scientific sense.

So, again, I ask: Why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer. And I will keep repeatedly asking this question until you answer it.

inquiring mind · Feb 21, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Post #33. When you quote an article from a website that claims to use science to back up the Bible, then don't blame me when I, and probably others too, see you as wanting to use Kind in a scientific sense.

So, again, I ask: Why do you not want to discuss the science behind your use of the word Kind? Is it simply because you can't? Because I would accept that as a true and honest answer. And I will keep repeatedly asking this question until you answer it.

Well, that's certainly encouraging. Do these two comments sound like I was personally claiming science behind Kinds?

From Post #86. “And, no, I can't clarify distinguishable characteristics of kinds,”

From Post #91. “Kind is a term for the separation, and evolutionary transition is just a theory - not actually shown to happen.”

Shemjaza · Feb 22, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I guess you overlooked the 'if they breed they're the same kind' part listed as #1.

The point is that "If they don't breed, then they might still be the same kind" means that it's useless as a form of differentiation.

inquiring mind said:
I guess you just couldn't resist date stamping this statement, 'In the beginning, God placed variety within the original kinds' listed as #2.

It's irrelevant as the creation/flood scenario has them winnowed back to single pairs of kinds.

inquiring mind said:
So, a total waste of time to try to answer, even if possible.

It shouldn't be a total waste of time if it were true. Hyper evolution and hyper breeding are events that seem to be necessary for the creation/flood scenario to occur.

inquiring mind said:
Only if you believe you understand time and don't recognize the power of God.

I think understanding time on the scales and behaviors we are talking about is perfectly reasonable. We can measure time based on timing of events we can measure and on examining actual remnants.

Obviously an omnipotent God can create any situation or piece of evidence... but it doesn't explain why the evidence seems to indicate both evolution and deep time.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 22, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Well, that's certainly encouraging. Do these two comments sound like I was personally claiming science behind Kinds?

From Post #86. “And, no, I can't clarify distinguishable characteristics of kinds,”

From Post #91. “Kind is a term for the separation, and evolutionary transition is just a theory - not actually shown to happen.”

Post #91 definitely reads an attempt at it. Two attempts actually: First in saying that you have definitive on Kind being a separation, and secondly that you claim that evolution doesn't happen.
Two for one!

inquiring mind · Feb 22, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Post #91 definitely reads an attempt at it. Two attempts actually: First in saying that you have definitive on Kind being a separation, and secondly that you claim that evolution doesn't happen.
Two for one!

Yes, but I'm pointing to the 'Kind is just a term' part, and saying it appears I was distinguishing it from evolution and the related science (whether I believe they are the case or not). Look, I realize if you talk long enough you can make contradictive statements that seem to pit the two on scientific grounds, and somewhere I may have done that (personally I mean), but in this thread I've tried to talk Kinds & science without going there (It's hard to do), and that is not to say that I personally think Kind will never be backed-up with science either. I simply offered for the discussion an article about Kinds with a science-related perspective that is different from yours. But, instead of breaking down the article and countering it, you're trying to break me down.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 22, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Yes, but I'm pointing to the 'Kind is just a term' part, and saying it appears I was distinguishing it from evolution and the related science (whether I believe they are the case or not). Look, I realize if you talk long enough you can make contradictive statements that seem to pit the two on scientific grounds, and somewhere I may have done that (personally I mean), but in this thread I've tried to talk Kinds & science without going there (It's hard to do), and that is not to say that I personally think Kind will never be backed-up with science either. I simply offered for the discussion an article about Kinds with a science-related perspective that is different from yours. But, instead of breaking down the article and countering it, you're trying to break me down.

You are being needlessly defensive here. If I wanted to 'break you down', whatever you mean by that, I wouldn't have offered you the chance to say "I don't know", I would have stuck you with either a 'yes or no' question. But you really have to understand that this is a SCIENCE forum, and thus the main requisite is to TALK SCIENCE. If you come here to talk about creation or evolution and you start throwing around these articles and terms, you have to defend yourself when asked about them. It is very poor form to just throw around an article, which you very specifically chose and then when asked to talk about, you refuse to say anything about it.
When you link an article from a website that talks about using science (or misusing science in some cases) to defend the Bible, you need to be prepared for people to take you to task for it.

However, since it is clear that you seem to be getting stressed out from this topic, I am perfectly willing to drop the whole discussion and leave it by the wayside. Is that fair to you?

Estrid · Feb 22, 2021

Shemjaza said:
The point is that "If they don't breed, then they might still be the same kind" means that it's useless as a form of differentiation.

It's irrelevant as the creation/flood scenario has them winnowed back to single pairs of kinds.

It shouldn't be a total waste of time if it were true. Hyper evolution and hyper breeding are events that seem to be necessary for the creation/flood scenario to occur.

I think understanding time on the scales and behaviors we are talking about is perfectly reasonable. We can measure time based on timing of events we can measure and on examining actual remnants.

Obviously an omnipotent God can create any situation or piece of evidence... but it doesn't explain why the evidence seems to indicate both evolution and deep time.

So many ad hoc explanations are needed for
ark n' hyper, so many things that have to be
hand waved.
Your question is readily explained with
a bit of omphalos.
All of past time is embedded, like
Adam as an instant adult.

Dunno how fast hyperevolution was
supposed to have happened but it stopped
before recorded history started.
Tho Adam and Eve, ark etc are recorded..,
so maybe the quick come n' go of all those
sabre tooth tigers etc seemed unworthy of note.

inquiring mind · Feb 22, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You are being needlessly defensive here. If I wanted to 'break you down', whatever you mean by that, I wouldn't have offered you the chance to say "I don't know", I would have stuck you with either a 'yes or no' question. But you really have to understand that this is a SCIENCE forum, and thus the main requisite is to TALK SCIENCE. If you come here to talk about creation or evolution and you start throwing around these articles and terms, you have to defend yourself when asked about them. It is very poor form to just throw around an article, which you very specifically chose and then when asked to talk about, you refuse to say anything about it.
When you link an article from a website that talks about using science (or misusing science in some cases) to defend the Bible, you need to be prepared for people to take you to task for it.

However, since it is clear that you seem to be getting stressed out from this topic, I am perfectly willing to drop the whole discussion and leave it by the wayside. Is that fair to you?

Stress has nothing to do with it, and the form sort of sought its own level, but I'll agree that its not a productive conversation and move on.

May the facts be with you · Feb 23, 2021

... and there was me thinking "kind" was the opposite of "spiteful"

Estrid · Feb 23, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Stress has nothing to do with it, and the form sort of sought its own level, but I'll agree that its not a productive conversation and move on.

We will guess you meant " forum" rather than "form"
and possibly " thread" rather than " forum".

In the event the level proved to be over
your head so the parting is well made.

Seeing how it went gives a solid clue why none
of those pretending to discuss science / evolution
in the Christians only section are willing to
leave their cozy unexamined faith, and risk
venturing into Indian country where things
suddenly get too hot and real to handle.

Estrid · Feb 23, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
... and there was me thinking "kind" was the opposite of "spiteful"

Two posts and the grim spectre of Equivocation already
ariseth.

May the facts be with you · Feb 23, 2021

[QUOTE="Warden_of_the_Storm, post: 75765047, ..... But you really have to understand that this is a SCIENCE forum, and thus the main requisite is to TALK SCIENCE. When you link an article from a website that talks about using science (or misusing science in some cases) to defend the Bible, you need to be prepared for people to take you to task for it. [/QUOTE]

The problem of course though is that "Science" is restricted to the mere collection of facts. This thread and the hundreds like it are never about the facts, but people's opinion of those facts. Just earlier today I saw two articles both of which were using the same "facts", but claimed the same set of facts proved diametrically opposite conclusions.

Richard Dawkins has said he cannot prove God does not exist, however, he remains in the view that God does not exist. Both of these statements are facts. Neither fact supports the other. both are true.

De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

and a discerning heart

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads