Human & Ape Inquiry

[inquiring mind]

The problem with "kind" is that it can't be detected in a useful, consistent manner.

It's a label for the gut feeling creationists get when they think about what they believe the base lines of life are.

Although we disagree, I appreciate the manner of your responses.

 

[46AND2]

People, I know what you're thinking... why does he keep subjecting himself to this stuff?

Indeed. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[inquiring mind]

Eliminated it from what? Species were defined well before the theory of evolution was proposed. "Kinds" as a relative qualifier never figured into a taxonomy in any way.

We’ve discussed this before in other threads. Yes, that’s what I’m talking about, kinds were eliminated by taxonomy. Briefly, the religious bodies had taught ‘fixity of species’ (like dog kind) for centuries prior to the taxonomic tables. But, the tables changed that definition to mean many dog species instead of a dog kind. People looked at the 'variations,' and thought they do change, so it appeared that created kinds were becoming something different by the new definition.

 

[Shemjaza]

Although we disagree, I appreciate the manner of your responses.

Please explain it then.

I have never seen how the necessary barrier between kinds was discovered or even described.

It seems to just be a consequence of assuming correct a particular interpretation of Genesis that requires both separate creation and post flood diversification.

 

[inquiring mind]

Please explain it then.

I have never seen how the necessary barrier between kinds was discovered or even described.

It seems to just be a consequence of assuming correct a particular interpretation of Genesis that requires both separate creation and post flood diversification.

I know this isn’t the focus of your question, but just keep in mind that the definition of ‘species’ is also debated in the scientific community. Having said that, the 'general qualifier' for a particular ‘kind’ is the ability to breed.

 

[Shemjaza]

I know this isn’t the focus of your question, but just keep in mind that the definition of ‘species’ is also debated in the scientific community. Having said that, the 'general qualifier' for a particular ‘kind’ is the ability to breed.

Species is a necessarily vague descriptor because they are mutable and applied after the fact for convenience.

If there are different definitions of species used by context, then that context can be defined for the situation.

Kind is theoretically immutable and set, so they are not really comparable.
Do you think there it is possible to detect and define the kind barrier? Has it been done?

 

[inquiring mind]

Species is a necessarily vague descriptor because they are mutable and applied after the fact for convenience.
If there are different definitions of species used by context, then that context can be defined for the situation.

Flexibility is wonderful, isn't it?

Kind is theoretically immutable and set, so they are not really comparable.

'Kind' isn't necessarily immutable as you'll see below.

Do you think there it is possible to detect and define the kind barrier? Has it been done?

I think the 'What are Kinds in Genesis' article by Hodge & Purdom (2013) explains them pretty well:
1. General rule of thumb is if two things can breed they're the same created kind.
2. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they're the same kind.
3. The inability to produce offspring doesn't rule out the possibility that animals may be the same kind, as it may be the result of mutations since the Fall.

 

[Shemjaza]

Flexibility is wonderful, isn't it?

That's the point, species change.

'Kind' isn't necessarily immutable as you'll see below.

Then humans can be the same kind as an Ape and a dog and a slug?

I think the 'What are Kinds in Genesis' article by Hodge & Purdom (2013) explains them pretty well:
1. General rule of thumb is if two things can breed they're the same created kind.
2. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they're the same kind.
3. The inability to produce offspring doesn't rule out the possibility that animals may be the same kind, as it may be the result of mutations since the Fall.

That's some general examples... that amount to nothing.

"If they can breed then they are the same kind... but if not, they might still be."
So it's not a useful definition for demonstrating the barrier.

Can you present any reason to assume kinds even exist aside from your personal preference in interpretation of your religious texts?

 

[inquiring mind]

That's the point, species change.

Yes, my point too.

Then humans can be the same kind as an Ape and a dog and a slug?

Now, that's a far stretch from what I said.

That's some general examples... that amount to nothing.

Examples are what you asked for... examples are what you got. If they are meaningless to you, then nothing would be meaningful to you. Why are you wasting my time?

"If they can breed then they are the same kind... but if not, they might still be."
So it's not a useful definition for demonstrating the barrier.

Yes it is, you left off the qualifier... "as it may be the result of mutations since the Fall." More waste of my time.

Can you present any reason to assume kinds even exist aside from your personal preference in interpretation of your religious texts?

You've wasted enough of my time. Join the ranks of the others crying about my one liners and being snarky.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, my point too.


Now, that's a far stretch from what I said.

You point was that kinds can change... how far, how do you know?

Are there answers?

Can you answer?

Examples are what you asked for... examples are what you got. If they are meaningless to you, then nothing would be meaningful to you. Why are you wasting my time?

My point was that since your examples aren't exhaustive, they aren't useful.

I asked if you could detect the barrier and you presented an example where it might be there but wasn't necessarily there.

So, not an example of the barrier at all.

Yes it is, you left off the qualifier... "as it may be the result of mutations since the Fall." More waste of my time.

That qualifier doesn't change that your example isn't exhaustive. It adds no information.

You've wasted enough of my time. Join the ranks of the others crying about my one liners and being snarky.

Trite, rude and avoiding any meaningful, detailed discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, I'll answer again. From post #467, "There is zero proof that species gradually appear through a slow transformation from a common ancestor (something other than man). In fact, you could say its science fiction because it has not been observed happening, and there is no way to test it, thus it cannot be confirmed. So, people should speak up, and not be ashamed or be made to feel stupid if they believe in Creation. That’s my issue here."

Ah. So personal incredulity, general ignorance and religious belief.
Nothing special then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's the truth... Biology, a great observational tool in and of itself, has been stretched to ridiculous limits in the support of macroevolutionary science, which the scientific community wants so bad to be true. They need it to be true because they’ve hung their hats on it, and realize at this point how ridiculous they will look if they don’t keep it alive and well. So, they are continually doubling down and making the theory look like a reasonable assumption, despite it still being very much speculative in nature. They create and change well-established definitions and meanings (such as ‘kind’ to ‘species’) and assign characteristics in such a way as to codify the idea where they can defend it in a seemingly irrefutable scientific manner. With this well-designed approach, anyone disputing them is made to look ignorant, by their own design. Yet, the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on. And, we Creationists are labeled stupid for believing God’s Word… go figure.

Considering your comments on this thread, and all the other threads you've participated in or started, you really have no reason to say this. You have no authority in the sciences to say that this is truth or right.
Especially since the whole purpose of this thread is based on a feeling.

 

[inquiring mind]

You point was that kinds can change... how far, how do you know?

Are there answers?

Can you answer?

I provided a general answer and pointed you in the direction of a great article that answers your question in detail, which I doubt you will pursue, with any interest anyway.

That qualifier doesn't change that your example isn't exhaustive. It adds no information.

See the answer above... it would be a further waste of my time to try and explain it to you. Leaving off the qualifier was a dead give-away you're trying to scramble the issue.

Trite, rude and avoiding any meaningful, detailed discussion.

When you demand 'exhaustive answers' in a forum, you have no intentions of having a meaninful discussion. If you want to 'actually' read and study an article or book-length response, go to them when they are pointed out for you. Then you counter with a meaningful response, if you have one?

 

[inquiring mind]

Ah. So personal incredulity, general ignorance and religious belief.
Nothing special then.

No, "There is zero proof that species gradually appear through a slow transformation from a common ancestor (something other than man)."

 

[inquiring mind]

Considering your comments on this thread, and all the other threads you've participated in or started, you really have no reason to say this. You have no authority in the sciences to say that this is truth or right.
Especially since the whole purpose of this thread is based on a feeling.

Why would I need authority in the sciences to say it. The truth doesn't always require science's approval.

 

[pitabread]

And that makes it so?

It's the only explanation we currently have.

I'm just enjoying discussions and learning.

Fair enough.

Please give me a break with the lack of knowledge stuff. Evidence left behind is evidence left behind and can be observed, yes, but the actual situation can't be determined without some speculation.

Depends on what you mean by speculation. If you mean we lack 100% complete knowledge of everything, sure.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean we can't have high confidence and form general conclusions based on the available evidence and testing thereof. One of those conclusions is that life shares common ancestry. And yes, this can be and has been scientifically tested.

Do you actually think I would spend months on end here if I wasn't trying to learn? If it was otherwise, I'd have tired of it long ago.

Based on what you post, the sense I get is that you're more here for arguing than learning. Which is fine, that's also why I am here too.

Don't you think this concise answer to one of your questions above, "Evidence left behind is evidence left behind and can be observed, yes, but the actual situation can't be determined without some speculation" displays some understanding of things? You're not going to get a book out of me.

The rest of us can only judge your knowledge of science by what you post. When you claim that past events can't be tested (scientifically) then it suggests a gap in understanding of how the scientific method works.

If you want to show that you are knowledgeable, then explain how one can scientifically test a hypothesis related to a process that occurred in the past.

 

[inquiring mind]

Based on what you post, the sense I get is that you're more here for arguing than learning. Which is fine, that's also why I am here too.

I can toast to that… as General Patton supposedly said to a Russian general, one ‘you know what’ to another.

The rest of us can only judge your knowledge of science by what you post.

If you want to show that you are knowledgeable, then explain how one can scientifically test a hypothesis related to a process that occurred in the past.

I will attempt that… if you will first demonstrate your knowledge of science by telling me how such a test can ever be ‘proven’ correct?

 

[Speedwell]

I can toast to that… as General Patton supposedly said to a Russian general, one ‘you know what’ to another.


I will attempt that… if you will first demonstrate your knowledge of science by telling me how such a test can ever be ‘proven’ correct?

It can't, of course. "Proof" is the conclusion of an axiomatic formal system like math or logic. On the other hand, science is inductive and draws its conclusions from empirical evidence. Scientific theories are never "proven," they are provisionally confirmed pending further evidence.

 

[pitabread]

I will attempt that… if you will first demonstrate your knowledge of science by telling me how such a test can ever be ‘proven’ correct?

First, I'm not sure how you are using the term "proven". If you are referring to 100% absolute proof, then surely you know by now science doesn't deal with that. All conclusions in science are provisional.

Second, assuming we're not dealing with 100% absolute proof, then it comes down to further testing. If a hypothesis is tested and a conclusion drawn, that conclusion can be further tested. The strength of ideas in science comes down to repeated testing and accumulation of evidence to support the idea.

 

[inquiring mind]

It can't, of course. "Proof" is the conclusion of an axiomatic formal system like math or logic. On the other hand, science is inductive and draws its conclusions from empirical evidence. Scientific theories are never "proven," they are provisionally confirmed pending further evidence.

First, I'm not sure how you are using the term "proven". If you are referring to 100% absolute proof, then surely you know by now science doesn't deal with that. All conclusions in science are provisional.

Second, assuming we're not dealing with 100% absolute proof, then it comes down to further testing. If a hypothesis is tested and a conclusion drawn, that conclusion can be further tested. The strength of ideas in science comes down to repeated testing and gathering of cumulative evidence.

Then by your own admission, not mine, it really is just something you believe to be, or may have been as in the case of macroevolution, and is based only on your particular testing method (including fallibilities) and personal conclusion, which can differ from others.