Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Of course not, there’s no such thing as a ‘kind’.

Do you deny that speciation occurs, as described by Pita?

Variations occur at the micro level (programmed in by the Creator), but 'new' kinds do not occur through steady transformation. Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false.

 

[Speedwell]

Translation: If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the ‘separation’ of 'one kind' into ‘a different Kind,’ this is also an observable phenomenon.
Yes, I am; and No, it is not.

"Macro-evolution" as the term is used in science starts with speciation, which has been observed in the field and in the lab. It is an observable phenomenon.

 

[pitabread]

Translation: If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the ‘separation’ of 'one kind' into ‘a different Kind,’ this is also an observable phenomenon.
Yes, I am; and No, it is not.

'Kind' isn't a thing. The only differentiation when it comes to divergence of population is speciation. And this is observable.

If you're going to make up your own version of biology, then you're leaving the realm of modern, mainstream science.

 

[pitabread]

Variations occur at the micro level (programmed in by the Creator), but 'new' kinds do not occur through steady transformation. Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false.

But again there is no such thing as a 'kind' The process of new reproductively isolated groups is speciation.

 

[Jimmy D]

Variations occur at the micro level (programmed in by the Creator), but 'new' kinds do not occur through steady transformation. Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false.

Any evidence that would contradict your beliefs is rejected as false?

 

[Job 33:6]

Don't be willingly ignorant. Gravity has been proven. The speed of light in a vacuum - proven. The sun is a star? Proven. The Earth orbits the sun? Proven.

Also, don't waste my time telling me that 'scientific theories cannot be proven' and that science isn't about proving things. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. It is quite stupid to hide behind a false misnomer.

Now PROVE it or don't talk to me about it. I've had enough empty reading time on it today as it is. You've got all the DNA evidence you need to PROVE it yet you can't. So please just shut up about it.

Gravity is understood through the theory of relativety. This theory of relativity is unproven. It is confirmed by evidence but it is not a proven theory.

Evolution is understood through the theory of evolution. This theory is unproven. It is confirmed by evidence, but it is not proven.

Same with germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of plate tectonics and more.

But we are well aware that gravity exists, as do germs, atoms, plate tectonics and evolution. Because each are confirmed through evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, it isn't. Scientific theories are never proven, just confirmed by evidence. They are also constantly at risk of the discovery of new evidence which they fail to explain. It's really not a difficult concept. Science never gets to the point where scientists can say with certainty, "This is absolute truth and can never be disproved." The theory of evolution is on reasonably firm ground because there are multiple lines of evidence which confirm it from a variety of scientific fields like paleontology and genetics but it is clear that we don't know everything there is to know about it and there is always, at least in principle, the chance that something new will come along and require that the theory be modified. I'm not sure why you seem to find this unsatisfactory, but there it is.

That's all nice to say, but it doesn't square with the way we use the word "prove" in courts of law. The judge asks the jury to determine if the prosecutor proved his case. In the scientific sense you describe, it can never be proven, only asserted with a high degree of probability. But we could not live in a country where people were never convicted of any crimes. So we say the prosecutor has indeed proven his case.

In that sense, the case for evolution has been proven. The fossil record is indeed part of the evidence for that proof. Of course, we do have those holdouts who, as in juries, are never convinced regardless of the evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Variations occur at the micro level (programmed in by the Creator), but 'new' kinds do not occur through steady transformation. Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false.

You are not really saying anything without a decent definition of the word "kind" which you cannot give us.

 

[USincognito]

Don't be willingly ignorant. Gravity has been proven. The speed of light in a vacuum - proven. The sun is a star? Proven. The Earth orbits the sun? Proven.

Also, don't waste my time telling me that 'scientific theories cannot be proven' and that science isn't about proving things. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. It is quite stupid to hide behind a false misnomer.

Now PROVE it or don't talk to me about it. I've had enough empty reading time on it today as it is. You've got all the DNA evidence you need to PROVE it yet you can't. So please just shut up about it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

 

[USincognito]

Translation: If by "macro evolution" you are referring to the ‘separation’ of 'one kind' into ‘a different Kind,’ this is also an observable phenomenon.
Yes, I am; and No, it is not.

Could you give us a hypothetical example of what you mean by - the separation of one kind into a different kind?

 

[USincognito]

Variations occur at the micro level (programmed in by the Creator), but 'new' kinds do not occur through steady transformation.

How do you know?

Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false.

That is a great opinion you have there. Any chance you could actually support it?

 

[inquiring mind]

But again there is no such thing as a 'kind' The process of new reproductively isolated groups is speciation.

@pitabread, KomatiiteBIF, Jimmy D, Paul of Eugene OR, USincognito, Speedwell

Oh contraire, Kind = Biblical/Created Kind = fixity of Biblical/Created Kind = if they can breed, they are the same Biblical/Created Kind (as a general rule)... Genesis 8:17

Speciation is just a ‘horse of a different color’ term used in the modern biological classification system -- really just variations within the Biblical/Created kinds.

What exactly is your definition of species?

 

[USincognito]

Oh contraire, Kind = Biblical/Created Kind = fixity of Biblical/Created Kind = if they can breed, they are the same Biblical/Created Kind (as a general rule)... Genesis 8:17

Speciation is just a ‘horse of a different color’ term used in the modern biological classification system -- really just variations within the Biblical/Created kinds.

That means your definition (and I use that term loosely) of "kind" is basically species or interfertile species within a genus. That runs completely contrary to many other different definitions we've seen from Creationists where "kind" means everything from a single species (human) to families to entire orders (birds) to entire domains (bacteria).

What exactly is your definition of species?

A population that is interfertile. That's the most simple definition.

Also I asked a question. Any chance you could respond to it?
>> Could you give us a hypothetical example of what you mean by - the separation of one kind into a different kind? <<

 

[inquiring mind]

That means your definition (and I use that term loosely) of "kind" is basically species or interfertile species within a genus. That runs completely contrary to many other different definitions we've seen from Creationists where "kind" means everything from a single species (human) to families to entire orders (birds) to entire domains (bacteria).

We have two different definitions for species. I don’t know why you would take my definition loosely… there are only variations of one species in a Created Kind (Created Kind= one species w/variations), or fixity of a Created Kind. Yours is a biological definition of species and you’re going to have to elaborate some more on it, more than just “it’s a population that is interfertile.” Right now, you’re the one with a loose definition.

Also I asked a question. Any chance you could respond to it?
>> Could you give us a hypothetical example of what you mean by - the separation of one kind into a different kind? <<

That is my point, how can there be an example of a different kind occurring when only a Created Kind breed?

 

[Job 33:6]

We have two different definitions for species. I don’t know why you would take my definition loosely… there are only variations of one species in a Created Kind (Created Kind= one species w/variations), or fixity of a Created Kind. Yours is a biological definition of species and you’re going to have to elaborate some more on it, more than just “it’s a population that is interfertile.” Right now, you’re the one with a loose definition.



That is my point, how can there be an example of a different kind occurring when only a Created Kind breed?

You asked the question "how can there be an example of a different kind occuring when only a created kind breed?". Unfortunately, many young earthers do not hold the same logic.

There are some 13 different genus of cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae

Not including extinct genus. And in those, there are some 50 different species of cat. If genus were different "kinds", then the ark might have had 30+ cats on it. Rather than just 2.

And this doesn't seem like a big deal, but young earthers such as Ken Ham have taken issue with this, as this is just 1 example of a situation where you have 30 times the number of animals on the ark.

But the time you get through the 2 million animal species on earth, simple logic tells us that 4 million animals cant fit on such a small boat. And here, even if we bump up to each genus being a kind, we still have hundreds of thousands of animals being packed on a boat which would be way too small to fit them. And so some suggest that different "kinds" are actually closer to the family level, which is far beyond the species level, in which all 13+ genus of cat are all of just 1 "kind", even though they cannot interbreed.

Also, "kind" couldnt be on a species level, as we have observed species, which would mean that we have observed one "kind" evolving into another "kind" as we have observed one species evolve into another non interbreeding species.

 

[inquiring mind]

Also, "kind" couldnt be on a species level, as we have observed species, which would mean that we have observed one "kind" evolving into another "kind"

'Couldn't' is according to biology and its terminology, which changed the meaning of species and genus with the modern classification system. Prior to that they had both been referred to as (and meant) Created Kind (with variations) by nearly, if not all, bible interpreters. Again, there is no evidence at all of a Created Kind evolving into another Created kind. Yet another way for evolutionists to mix things up and gain a foothold.

What is your definition of species?

 

[DogmaHunter]

'Couldn't' is according to biology and its terminology, which changed the meaning of species and genus with the modern classification system.

Yes, it's called learning and making progress.
But you have already demonstrated on multiple occasions that you are somehwat allergic to progress and learning...

It's not really science's problem that you insist on continueing on with outdated information.

Prior to that they had both been referred to as (and meant) Created Kind (with variations) by nearly, if not all, bible interpreters

So?

Again, there is no evidence at all of a Created Kind evolving into another kind.

Here's another, likely in vain, attempt at asking the question: what EXACTLY do you mean by "kind" in the biological sense?

I'm looking for a definition that allows me to take any 2 organisms and objectively determine if they are the same "kind" or not.

Again, this is an honest plea: give me such a definition.
And really do your best - there WILL be a practical test of your definition. We will look at various organisms and see if the definition helps us in determining their "kind" and if others succeed in independently coming up with the same conclusion.

A definition of the word "kind" that does NOT allow us to identify if 2 random organisms are the same "kind" or not, is utterly useless and meaningless.

What is your definition of species?

From my layman's perspective, I understand that how a species is defined, might depend on the angle from which we are approaching this.

The most common definition seems to be "populations that interbreed".
Meaning that if you have population A and population B, they will be seens as different species if A and B does not naturally reproduce. So it could be that they CAN reproduce AND produce fertile off spring - but that they just don't it.

Another definition that is used at times, says "populations that can interbreed and produce fertile off spring", but which don't necessarily interbreed in the wild.

I'm happy with either definition.

So, to conclude:
Population that can't interbreed (and produce fertile off spring), are definatly different species.
Population that can interbreed, but naturally don't, can also be seen as different species.

 

[inquiring mind]

If genus were different "kinds", then the ark might have had 30+ cats on it. Rather than just 2.

But there was plenty of room for Created Kinds.

 

[Speedwell]

We have two different definitions for species. I don’t know why you would take my definition loosely… there are only variations of one species in a Created Kind (Created Kind= one species w/variations), or fixity of a Created Kind. Yours is a biological definition of species and you’re going to have to elaborate some more on it, more than just “it’s a population that is interfertile.” Right now, you’re the one with a loose definition.



That is my point, how can there be an example of a different kind occurring when only a Created Kind breed?

A biological species is a population of individuals which are interfertile but cannot interbreed with other populations. Pretty simple and straightforward.

On the other hand there is no evidence whatever, either biblical or scientific, that the use of the relative qualifier "kinds" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy.

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's another, likely in vain, attempt at asking the question: what EXACTLY do you mean by "kind" in the biological sense?

I'm looking for a definition that allows me to take any 2 organisms and objectively determine if they are the same "kind" or not.

Again, this is an honest plea: give me such a definition.
And really do your best - there WILL be a practical test of your definition. We will look at various organisms and see if the definition helps us in determining their "kind" and if others succeed in independently coming up with the same conclusion.

A definition of the word "kind" that does NOT allow us to identify if 2 random organisms are the same "kind" or not, is utterly useless and meaningless.

Deflecting.

From my layman's perspective, I understand that how a species is defined, might depend on the angle from which we are approaching this.

Well, you may need to seek a different perspective... even online encyclopedias say that a definition of species is problematic.