Do you agree with these statements?

[inquiring mind]

What part is that? Speciation has been observed; the process is well understood.

But think you're barking up the wrong tree. You can think of speciation as "adaption" if you want to. Your real problem is to find a biological limit to the amount of evolutionary change which can accrue, whatever you want to call it.

I can see that… since there’s essentially no limit to the time involved. Anything imagined could happen, just project it backward or forward far enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, tell us what technically happens at speciation. DNA, RNA, immune system, sex cells. As anyone who has opened their eyes can tell you, we are dealing with something which involves machines whilst making any man made machine nothing by comparison. These machines have an ignition system no-one has come anywhere near in terms of understanding. Life. The materials making the physical bodies involved are inert chemicals organized in such a way they become part of communications systems ranging right up into quantum category. For the last several decades the world's best I.T. experts have been determinedly working on a quantum computer but have been unable to simulate even the simplest quantum processes in living things. For example, if we could do photosynthesis, the energy supply of the world would be assured. We can not even copy the basic energy capturing method of pondscum. We are yet to discern the exact nature of the species lock, which gives us distinct species. (Sex cells and immune systems, however, are being investigated for good reasons). To reprogram DNA and RNA so as to have a sure-fire new species is as far from modern science as the aforementioned quantum computer.
All this blarney about speciation is approximately as rational and scientific as children who have watched cars going up the road down the road and around and around the mulberry tree -- correction-- roundabout -- and they know as a sure fire certainty what cars are all about. You have no pathway in physics, you have nothing better than the sort of stuff that preceded even Aristotle. And he didn't get it overly straight, at that, did he.
In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, in connection with dismissing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] parliament (altered by myself): "In the bowels of Jesus Christ, Brethren: Did it ever cross your minds, you could be mistaken?"
Look up my site WWW. Creationtheory dot com and begin from where it is necessary to begin in science -- with the engine of the motor car.

Making ridiculous demands is not an honest way to debate. Your question is poorly framed. Would you like me to help you with it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see that… since there’s essentially no limit to the time involved. Anything imagined could happen, just project it backward or forward far enough.

No, the amount of time available is well understood and exists independent of the theory of evolution.
What scientists can do is to measure how fast a species can change. Every new birth can be said to be an experiment and for apes like you and I and chimpanzees and all of our ancestors the number of mutations per generation has been measured and it on the order of 100 mutations. Multiply that by the number individuals alive per generation and the number of generations and we have a rough estimate of the total number of mutations. Only a very very small percentage of them need to become fixed in the genome to account for all of the differences that we observe. Most creationists make the mistake of treating evolution as a linear process when it is a parallel one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What’s your thought on the line of thinking that speciation is just a ‘word’ that was put in place to propagate the concept of macroevolutionary change and help evolutionists defend the idea of a different beginning from that of creation. ‘Kind and variations within Kinds’ didn’t do that for evolutionists. So, they had to come up with a categorization that did, never mind that the ‘species’ definition is fuzzy itself, just begin labeling variations as different species, connect dots, and everyone falls right in line proclaiming, “Oh, I can see that… things do change.”

It sounds like a false accusation. Sadly creationists regularly break the Ninth Commandment. If that were true we could not find specific examples of speciation. Again, speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field. And remember, "change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There were no changes of kind in your ancestry.

In fact there appears to be no such thing as a "kind". Creationists cannot properly define the term. They do not have a working definition that would tell us if two populations were of the same "kind" or not. Ex-member AronRa formed a phylogeny challenge. That was over ten years ago. No creationist has met it yet.

 

[inquiring mind]

It sounds like a false accusation. Sadly creationists regularly break the Ninth Commandment. If that were true we could not find specific examples of speciation. Again, speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field. And remember, "change of kind" is a creationist strawman. There were no changes of kind in your ancestry.

In fact there appears to be no such thing as a "kind". Creationists cannot properly define the term. They do not have a working definition that would tell us if two populations were of the same "kind" or not. Ex-member AronRa formed a phylogeny challenge. That was over ten years ago. No creationist has met it yet.

That's because Kinds don't change; there's only variation and adaptation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's because Kinds don't change; there's only variation and adaptation.

Wrong, there is no such thing as "kinds". Creationists have been unable to find any. Unless you count all life as one "kind".

You see if there were such things as kinds then creationists should be able to develop a working definition of them. Evolution on the other hand predicts the "species problem". There is no hard definition of species due to the fact that life is the product of evolution.

Again, learning what is and what is not evidence and understanding the scientific method is a must. Creationists have to avoid even learning how science is done. It is not that hard of a concept, but it is one that creationists do not seem to be able to address honestly.

 

[inquiring mind]

Wrong, there is no such thing as "kinds". Creationists have been unable to find any. Unless you count all life as one "kind".

You see if there were such things as kinds then creationists should be able to develop a working definition of them. Evolution on the other hand predicts the "species problem". There is no hard definition of species due to the fact that life is the product of evolution.

Again, learning what is and what is not evidence and understanding the scientific method is a must. Creationists have to avoid even learning how science is done. It is not that hard of a concept, but it is one that creationists do not seem to be able to address honestly.

There’s really not that much difference in species and kinds. Both interbreed within their distinct group (kind). It’s that speciation thing that gives me pause... doesn't happen with kinds. On the other hand, splits had/have to happen with evolution, or you'd be back to kinds (with variation only -- no change from one kind to another -- no macroevolution).

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s really not that much difference in species and kinds. Both interbreed within their distinct group (kind). It’s that speciation thing that gives me pause... doesn't happen with kinds. On the other hand, splits had/have to happen with evolution, or you'd be back to kinds (with variation only -- no change from one kind to another -- no macroevolution).

We know that species is nowhere near a limit. No creationist can make a working definition of kind. Without a definition you cannot even begin to know if they are the same "kind" or not.

Once again you would be better off learning the basics, understanding the scientific method and the concept of evidence. And then working up from there.

 

[inquiring mind]

We know that species is nowhere near a limit.

Yet, science defines a couple of limits that are associated with species.

No creationist can make a working definition of kind. Without a definition you cannot even begin to know if they are the same "kind" or not.

A working definition is the business of science, not the Bible. The Bible says God created every living creature after their kind, and that the earth shall bring them forth abundantly after their kind. Science eventually came up to speed thousands of years later, with an attempted definition, which as I said sounds pretty similar and labeled it species, “A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.”

Once again you would be better off learning the basics, understanding the scientific method and the concept of evidence. And then working up from there.

Looks like beginning with the Bible is the wiser choice. Its basics are true (in this case science even agrees with it) and established a lot earlier. Then work up all you like. Of course, in this case our working up led to speciation... and we know how concrete that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet, science defines a couple of limits that are associated with species.

Citation needed.

A working definition is the business of science, not the Bible. The Bible says God created every living creature after their kind, and that the earth shall bring them forth abundantly after their kind. Science eventually came up to speed thousands of years later, with an attempted definition, which as I said sounds pretty similar and labeled it species, “A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.”

Once again to the problem with that is that it is not absolute. We know that it is "fuzzy". That is predicted by the theory of evolution and is contrary to creationism. And you dodged a reasonable challenge. That's is tantamount to admitting that one is wrong.

Looks like beginning with the Bible is the wiser choice. Its basics are true (in this case science even agrees with it) and established a lot earlier. Then work up all you like. Of course, in this case our working up led to speciation... and we know how concrete that is.

No, the interpretation of the Bible that you use is demonstrably wrong. You are in effect claiming that the Bible is wrong with your beliefs. Flat Earthers are merely creationists on meth. They claim that the Bible supports a Flat Earth with a dome. They too are in effect claiming that the Bible is wrong.

 

[pitabread]

That's because Kinds don't change; there's only variation and adaptation.

Nobody knows what a "kind" is though. So any claims made about "kinds" doesn't mean anything.

This is why I said previously it's a non-starter.

 

[inquiring mind]

Citation needed.


Once again to the problem with that is that it is not absolute. We know that it is "fuzzy". That is predicted by the theory of evolution and is contrary to creationism. And you dodged a reasonable challenge. That's is tantamount to admitting that one is wrong.



No, the interpretation of the Bible that you use is demonstrably wrong. You are in effect claiming that the Bible is wrong with your beliefs. Flat Earthers are merely creationists on meth. They claim that the Bible supports a Flat Earth with a dome. They too are in effect claiming that the Bible is wrong.

Nobody knows what a "kind" is though. So any claims made about "kinds" doesn't mean anything.

This is why I said previously it's a non-starter.

Did you guys not see the similarity regarding the basic biblical kind and the basic scientific definition of species that I posted? It's your side that becomes fuzzy after that... with speciation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you guys not see the similarity regarding the basic biblical kind and the basic scientific definition of species that I posted? It's your side that becomes fuzzy after that... with speciation.

Except that you're using a definition for kind... that was created for species. It's a case of post hoc logic.

 

[pitabread]

Did you guys not see the similarity regarding the basic biblical kind and the basic scientific definition of species that I posted?

Not really, because your own claim is that "kinds" don't change. But we do know that new species can form via the process of speciation.

Besides, in past discussions you've equated "kinds" with genus, family, etc. This is part-and-parcel the issue of creationist definitions of "kinds". There is no formal method of determination and consequently no consistency of definition.

It's your side that becomes fuzzy after that... with speciation.

Species boundaries are fuzzy because of the biology involved. Trying to draw arbitrary hard lines between populations in nature doesn't really work.

This is one reason that creationists have never been able to demonstrate such lines in nature with respect to "kinds". Those lines don't appear to exist.

(On a related note the creationist approach to these discussions is usually completely backwards. Creationists are trying to argue independent origins for certain biological forms, but independent origins have nothing to do with limits on evolutionary change over time. Conflating those two things is partly why these discussions often get confused.)

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that you're using a definition for kind... that was created for species. It's a case of post hoc logic.

The Genesis wording is like 4000 years older... you have allow a little latitude here.

 

[inquiring mind]

There is no formal method of determination and consequently no consistency of definition.

Clear-cut like it is with species???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Genesis wording is like 4000 years older... you have allow a little latitude here.

Except not. The Bible is not a science texbook and should not be taken as such.
If you draw your science and definitions from the Bible, then am I to assume that you want to fix your car with a copy of The Beano?

 

[inquiring mind]

Species boundaries are fuzzy because of the biology involved.

So, Kind boundaries are fuzzy because there is no biology involved. What's the point?

 

[inquiring mind]

Except not. The Bible is not a science texbook and should not be taken as such.
If you draw your science and definitions from the Bible, then am I to assume that you want to fix your car with a copy of The Beano?

I don't think the Bible is a science book... just saying it got the basics right, science even agrees. Things often become convoluted in science books... the bible remains rock-steady (as far as it goes of course).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think the Bible is a science book... just saying it got the basics right, science even agrees. Things often become convoluted in science books... the bible remains rock-steady (as far as it goes of course).

Except that the Bible didn't get the basics right.
The word 'kind' is always tried to be used to refer to species ever since the definition came about, which is a classic case of post hoc logic. It's even used by some creationists to refer to the genus level too, which really should go some way to show that it's not usable when talking science.

And I am genuinely sorry that science of 'convoluted' for you, and you using that phrase really just screams out the fact that you don't understand science, especially evolutionary theory.