Answering Key Issues Against the Theory of Darwinian Evolution

[Job 33:6]

Do our understand that the taxonomy is arbitrary? Not all animals fit neatly into the categories or taxa.

If 99% (if not 100%) of sub families and genus do not interbreed, nobody could possibly suggest that they "generally" reproduce with one another.

There is nothing gray about this discussion, they simply contradict themselves.

And if everything is so arbitrary that they would confuse sub families of animal with species of animal, then they shouldn't make the claim that kinds roughly correlate to families.

 

[Deborah D]

Koma..., You didn't answer my question, but that's okay. You know.

AIG doesn't say that "everything is so arbitrary," and I haven't said that either. We're specifically talking about taxa here, and the classifications have changed over the years as scientists understand more about the plant and animal kingdoms.

 

[Job 33:6]

Koma..., You didn't answer my question, but that's okay. You know.

AIG doesn't say that "everything is so arbitrary," and I haven't said that either. We're specifically talking about taxa here, and the classifications have changed over the years as scientists understand more about the plant and animal kingdoms.

Your question was irrelevant.

They suggested that "kinds" were roughly equivalent to families and suggested that kinds can interbreed and produce more of their own kind. However, subfamilies and genus of animal never interbreed (or produce more of their own kind).

There is nothing arbitrary about this, they simply contradicted themselves.

And as I said before, if it is so arbitrary that subfamilies could be mistaken for species or subspecies, then AIG shouldnt even bother suggesting that kinds are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
So just for those of us who don't see, how about telling us which ones, and your evidence for your belief?

Why?

You made some claims about Darwinian theory, and you said:

I would think that it's obvious which of Darwin's points I think is wrong.

So tell us, and show us your evidence for that.

 

[Job 33:6]

To give a real life example of what AIG has claimed. They stated that kinds were roughly equivalent to families. One example of a family of animal might be Felidae.

Felidae - Wikipedia

If Felidae were roughly equivelant to a kind, we might expect, according to AIG, that all cats within felidae can interbreed and produce offspring.

However, no genus of the 50+ genus within Felidae can produce fertile offspring with one another.

AIGs suggestion is just completely wrong. And this isnt an arbitrary matter because the reality is, we could pick any other family of animal and we would find the same reality that their respective subfamilies and genus, do not interbreed.

AIG is flat out contradicting themselves in their own words, to the extent that their suggestions arent even "generally" correct. Rather they're completely wrong.

 

[Deborah D]

The taxonomy is arbitrary. If it's not, then why has it changed over the years?

 

[The Barbarian]

Koma..., Do you understand that the taxonomy is arbitrary?

Not quite. Genetics makes it not so. Indeed, sometimes we've made some errors. Old world and New World vultures look very, very much alike, and some ornithologists put them in a single group. But when you look at their genetics, they aren't that closely related.

Not all animals fit perfectly into the categories or taxa.

As Darwin pointed out, descent with modification would mean that there would be lots of such cases. If creationism were true, that wouldn't happen. It's a major embarrassment for creationists, who cannot explain such things.

You learn this is earth science.

Actually, taxonomy is a discipline within biology.

 

[Deborah D]

.

 

[Deborah D]

Not quite. Genetics makes it not so. Indeed, sometimes we've made some errors. Old world and New World vultures look very, very much alike, and some ornithologists put them in a single group. But when you look at their genetics, they aren't that closely related.

As Darwin pointed out, descent with modification would mean that there would be lots of such cases. If creationism were true, that wouldn't happen. It's a major embarrassment for creationists, who cannot explain such things.

Actually, taxonomy is a discipline within biology.

"As Darwin pointed out...?" Really? Like he understood genetics!

 

[Deborah D]

Your question was irrelevant.

They suggested that "kinds" were roughly equivalent to families and suggested that kinds can interbreed and produce more of their own kind. However, subfamilies and genus of animal never interbreed.

There is nothing arbitrary about this, they simply contradicted themselves.

And as I said before, if it is so arbitrary that subfamilies could be mistaken for species or subspecies, then AIG shouldnt even bother suggesting that kinds are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families.

My question is not irrelevant. Do you not admit that the taxonomy is arbitrary at all?

God made so many different kinds of creatures. This shows His greatness and His divine creativity. Can science really fit every kind of living creature into the taxa perfectly?

 

[Job 33:6]

My question is not irrelevant. Do you not admit that the taxonomy is arbitrary at all?

It is not arbitrary to the extent that someone would confuse subspecies with subfamilies. Or species with families.

This would be like confusing the idea that two species of tiger could interbreed with the idea that a tiger and a lynx could interbreed.

 

[Deborah D]

It is not arbitrary to the extent that someone would confuse subspecies with subfamilies. Or species with families.

This would be like confusing the idea that two species of tiger could interbreed with the idea that a tiger and a lynx could interbreed.

I really can't speak for AIG. They can speak for themselves, so I have no idea if you're completely understanding all that they've said on this subject.

The point is that God made animals to reproduce according to their own kind. That's what we see in nature. That's basically what you're saying, and that's basically what AIG has said.

 

[Job 33:6]

I really can't speak for AIG. They can speak for themselves, so I have no idea if you're completely understanding all that they've said on this subject.

The point is that God made animals to reproduce according to their own kind. That's what we see in nature. That's basically what you're saying, and that's basically what AIG has said.

AIG is contradicting themselves and you are clearly unable to accept this simple fact.

Lets recap...

 

[Deborah D]

Koma..., I saw on your profile page that you're a geologist. Are you a Christian?

 

[Job 33:6]

AIG suggested that "kinds" were roughly equivalent to families and suggested that kinds can interbreed and produce more of their own kind. However, subfamilies and genus of animal never interbreed (or produce more of their own kind).

There is nothing arbitrary about this, they simply contradicted themselves.

And as I said before, if it is so arbitrary that families or subfamilies could be mistaken for species or subspecies, then AIG shouldnt even bother suggesting that kinds are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families.'

To give a real life example of what AIG has claimed. They stated that kinds were roughly equivalent to families. One example of a family of animal might be Felidae.

Felidae - Wikipedia

If Felidae were roughly equivalent to a kind, we might expect, according to AIG, that all cats within felidae can interbreed and produce offspring.

However, no genus of the 50+ genus within felidae can produce fertile offspring with one another.

AIGs suggestion is just completely wrong. And this isn't an arbitrary matter because the reality is, we could pick any other family of animal and we would find the same reality that their respective subfamilies and genus, do not interbreed.

AIG is flat out contradicting themselves in their own words, to the extent that their suggestions aren't even "generally" correct. Rather they're completely wrong.

@Deborah D I am sorry that you're unable to comprehend this simple and straight forward contradiction, but it is what it is. I will be moving on now.

 

[Deborah D]

AIG is contradicting themselves and you are clearly unable to accept this simple fact.

Lets recap...

Let's not recap. It's late where I live, and I'm going to sleep.

I will take your concerns to them, and see what they say.

 

[Deborah D]

AIG suggested that "kinds" were roughly equivalent to families and suggested that kinds can interbreed and produce more of their own kind. However, subfamilies and genus of animal never interbreed (or produce more of their own kind).

There is nothing arbitrary about this, they simply contradicted themselves.

And as I said before, if it is so arbitrary that families or subfamilies could be mistaken for species or subspecies, then AIG shouldnt even bother suggesting that kinds are roughly equivalent to taxonomic families.'

To give a real life example of what AIG has claimed. They stated that kinds were roughly equivalent to families. One example of a family of animal might be Felidae.

Felidae - Wikipedia

If Felidae were roughly equivalent to a kind, we might expect, according to AIG, that all cats within felidae can interbreed and produce offspring.

However, no genus of the 50+ genus within felidae can produce fertile offspring with one another.

AIGs suggestion is just completely wrong. And this isn't an arbitrary matter because the reality is, we could pick any other family of animal and we would find the same reality that their respective subfamilies and genus, do not interbreed.

AIG is flat out contradicting themselves in their own words, to the extent that their suggestions aren't even "generally" correct. Rather they're completely wrong.

@Deborah D I am sorry that you're unable to comprehend this simple and straight forward contradiction, but it is what it is. I will be moving on now.

Tomorrow, I'll let AIG know your objections. Maybe they'll get back to me next week. If they do, I'll post their response.

 

[The Barbarian]

"As Darwin pointed out, descent with modification would mean that there would be lots of such cases. If creationism were true, that wouldn't happen. It's a major embarrassment for creationists, who cannot explain such things.?" Really? Like he understood genetics!

He recognized that there were no clear divisions between taxa. He thought it was like mixing blood, rather than like sorting beads, but he did understand that the evidence was against special creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Once, in an email exchange, creationist John Woodmorappe (author of the Ark Feasibility Study) told me that new species, genera, and families can be produced from a "kind", but that's as far as it goes.

Apparently, the Institute for Creation Research accepts this, since it endorsed his paper on the way "kinds" repopulated the Earth after the Flood.

The kicker, of course, is that the "cat kind" or the "dog kind" has much greater genetic variability than exists between humans and chimps.

 

[Deborah D]

I haven't had a chance to contact AIG yet, but I found this article on their website titled "A Biblically Based Taxonomy." The following quote, which sheds some light on their view of the taxonomy, is from this article.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says of the word kind (min in Hebrew),​

"Some have argued that when God created mîn, he thereby fixed the 'species.' This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word mîn with the biologist’s descriptive term species cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists.​

"In light of the distinctions made in #Ge 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term mîn may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in #Le 11:14,15,16,19,22 (four times), #Le 11:29, mîn appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus. However, #Le 11:4 'the falcon after its kind,' and #Le 11:16 'the hawk after its kind,' refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called mîn. Likewise, as Payne points out, the locust, bald locust, cricket, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called mîn (genus?).​

"God created the basic forms of life called mîn which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes."

​