De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

[Estrid]

Bodie and Georgia stated this in AIG years ago:
"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."
Then they discuss the 'bait and switch' tactic regarding the definition of species that took place in scientific circles. Quite interesting.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?
(by Bodie Hodge and Dr. Georgia Purdom on April 16, 2013; last featured October 1, 2013
Featured in The New Answers Book 3)

I thought the cow and the lion (and people) were created kinds.

 

[inquiring mind]

No. "All previous writers" did not base their usage of "species" on the Bible. The term was already in both the Latin and Greek lexicons independently of the Bible.

And do you think the term referred to 'kind' or 'whatever?'

 

[inquiring mind]

I thought the cow and the lion (and people) were created kinds.

I guess that's the scientist coming out in them, just referring to plant and animal.

 

[Speedwell]

And do you think the term referred to 'kind' or 'whatever?'

"Whatever." Used as a relative qualifier, the term is actually quite flexible and only takes on a specific meaning when employed in biology. Aristotle used the word είδος to describe what we now call biological species. It would be interesting to know what Greek word was used in the Septuagint to translate לְמִינ֔וֹ.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Whatever." Used as a relative qualifier, the term is actually quite flexible and only takes on a specific meaning when employed in biology. Aristotle used the word είδος to describe what we now call biological species. It would be interesting to know what Greek word was used in the Septuagint to translate לְמִינ֔וֹ.

Yes, googled it but nothing. Whatever it is, do you think it would relate to something other than kind?

 

[pitabread]

. On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."

In the context of de novo genes being new genetic information (which is what creationists say evolution can't produce), then it's not just on "rare occasions". It's that every species is a kind.

The alternative is that creationists have to eschew de novo genes from being considered new information which means that definitions thereof cannot include things like novel gene/protein function (which is what we see with de novo genes).

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, googled it but nothing. Whatever it is, do you think it would relate to something other than kind?

It's something that has to be cleared up before you pronounce on the significance of Jerome's choice of "species" as a translation for it.

 

[inquiring mind]

In the context of de novo genes being new genetic information (which is what creationists say evolution can't happen), then it's not just on "rare occasions". It's that every species is a kind.

The alternative is that creationists have to eschew de novo genes from being considered new information which means that definitions thereof cannot include things like novel gene/protein function (which is what we see with de novo genes).

Maybe to them the rare occasion is an actual species change, and everything else is just variation.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's something that has to be cleared up before you pronounce on the significance of Jerome's choice of "species" as a translation for it.

My shoot-from-the-hip response is that many evidently chose it, for it not to be clear.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe to them the rare occasion is an actual species change, and everything else is just variation.

This isn't specifically about whether species change or not. It's about whether de novo genes would be considered new genetic information.

And since de novo genes appear to occur right down to the species level, it presents a dilemma for creationists insofar as how they explain this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you think the Vulgate ‘species’ meant ‘kind’ or the new ‘whatever-it-is’ scientific definition?

'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term.

 

[pitabread]

'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term.

And to add to this, if evolution is true, we expect it to be difficult to draw hard boundaries between organisms. The boundaries between organisms are messy, because the evolutionary processes that lead to them are also messy.

Taxonomic classifications are simply for human convenience. They aren't a strict biological reality.

 

[inquiring mind]

And to add to this, if evolution is true, we expect it to be difficult to draw hard boundaries between organisms. The boundaries between organisms are messy, because the evolutionary processes that lead to them are also messy.

Taxonomic classifications are simply for human convenience. They aren't a strict biological reality.

And difficult if it's not true.

 

[inquiring mind]

'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term.

It's almost a given they were referring to 'kind.'

 

[pitabread]

And difficult if it's not true.

If extant organisms were created independently, more defined biological boundaries seems more probable. That we don't see that is a strong indication against independent extant creation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's almost a given they were referring to 'kind.'

Another ill-defined term ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Shemjaza]

And difficult if it's not true.

Why is that?

 

[inquiring mind]

Why is that?

Variation is not without difficulties.

 

[Shemjaza]

Variation is not without difficulties.

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?

 

[Estrid]

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 ".