Macroevolution:

AV1611VET · Aug 22, 2017

pitabread said:
Is the above post supposed to make some sort of sense?

Are you following the conversation?

Here's the straight-up lie I'm addressing:

Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind".

When I've been giving a working definition here for years.

pitabread said:
The point is that creationists are unable to agree upon what "kind" is supposed to mean.

No, that's not the point.

The point is that we cannot come up with one -- and that's not true.

Yes, we may differ.

But at least we have one.

You ... ahem ... educated folks don't.

pitabread said:
I've seen everything from species to domains to everything in between.

Then you should have corrected Subduction Zone, instead of waiting until I corrected him, then got on my case about it.

pitabread said:
It's clearly a useless concept.

It's called a "working definition."

Something you guys don't have ... and apparently don't think we do either.

tevans9129 · Aug 22, 2017

Obliquinaut said:
I apologize I didn't realize this was YOUR PERSONAL BOARD.

Apology accepted.

Obliquinaut · Aug 22, 2017

tevans9129 said:
From what to what?

And for the 3rd or 4th time: check out section 5.0 of this link: Observed Instances of Speciation

Subduction Zone · Aug 22, 2017

tevans9129 said:
An example of "speciation".

[The scene: a population of wild fruit flies minding its own business on several bunches of rotting bananas, cheerfully laying their eggs in the mushy fruit...

Disaster strikes: A hurricane washes the bananas and the immature fruit flies they contain out to sea. The banana bunch eventually washes up on an island off the coast of the mainland. The fruit flies mature and emerge from their slimy nursery onto the lonely island. The two portions of the population, mainland and island, are now too far apart for gene flow to unite them. At this point, speciation has not occurred — any fruit flies that got back to the mainland could mate and produce healthy offspring with the mainland flies.

The populations diverge: Ecological conditions are slightly different on the island, and the island population evolves under different selective pressures and experiences different random events than the mainland population does. Morphology, food preferences, and courtship displays change over the course of many generations of natural selection.

So we meet again: When another storm reintroduces the island flies to the mainland, they will not readily mate with the mainland flies since they've evolved different courtship behaviors. The few that do mate with the mainland flies, produce inviable eggs because of other genetic differences between the two populations. The lineage has split now that genes cannot flow between the populations.

Download the graphics on this page from the Image library.

This is a simplified model of speciation by geographic isolation, but it gives an idea of some of the processes that might be at work in speciation. In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence. However, the evidence that this sort of process does happen is strong.]

Guess what, they are still fruit flies, that have adapted to their environment. I love learning about evolution.

Yes, and you are still an ape. You just can't (hopefully) breed with other apes.

Subduction Zone · Aug 22, 2017

Obliquinaut said:
And for the 3rd or 4th time: check out section 5.0 of this link: Observed Instances of Speciation

He will simply move the goalposts again and call that "adaptation". Or claim it is still the same "kind". The problem is that by his own definition he and other apes are of the same "kind".

Subduction Zone · Aug 22, 2017

This video should clear up the errors of the creationist here. It also demonstrates how Hovind actually accepts evolution:

pitabread · Aug 22, 2017

AV1611VET said:
No, that's not the point.

The point is that we cannot come up with one -- and that's not true.

Yes, we may differ.

But at least we have one.

But it's entirely arbitrary. Which makes the whole thing pointless to begin with.

It's called a "working definition."

No, it's called "making stuff up as you go".

According to you, there should be six individual "kinds" of penguins. According to AiG, there is a single "kind" of penguin.

That's a pretty significant difference.

Sort all this out among yourselves, then come back when you've got something consistent.

Something you guys don't have ... and apparently don't think we do either.

I know you don't. Creationists make up whatever they want when it comes to defining "kind". I've been around the block enough times in these debates to know there is little to no consistency in that regard.

And if creationists could ever agree on a definition, the next step would be to try to demonstrate the supposed biological barriers limiting the evolution of species so they don't cross this mystical 'kind' barrier.

tevans9129 · Aug 22, 2017

Obliquinaut said:
So are you only interested in when something changes at the CLASS level now? So if it changes from Class Aves to Class Mammalia it will count as "evolution"?

I guess the OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF SPECIATION shown earlier wasn't enough?

This is why it is important to pay attention to the technical terminology. It keeps Creationists from moving the goalposts all over the place.

You see, a few decades ago you wouldn't even get Creationists to accept "micro-evolution", let alone "Macroevolution". Now it seems we are moving the goal to include changes from one species to another?

And why does it only count now if it is up at the Class level?

You have to help us because it seems you are moving the goal all around.

I ask this question.

"If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?"

And that is your response...I thought someone wrote that you had a Ph.D, am I mistaken?

Speedwell · Aug 22, 2017

tevans9129 said:
From what to what?

From one species to two. That's all that ever happens with evolution. But it keeps happening, and pretty soon the biosphere is so cluttered with different species that biologists had to invent a system of classification, a taxonomy, to keep track of them

AV1611VET · Aug 22, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
Actually there can't really be since it is an artificial boundary that does not exist in reality.

Then go find someone else's definition if you don't like mine.

According to pitabread, he's seen everything from 'species to domains to everything in between.'

Maybe he gets around more, eh?

AV1611VET · Aug 22, 2017

pitabread said:
Why? Especially keeping in mind that "genus" is an artificial human classification to begin with.

Tomato - tomatto.

Potato - potatto.

A rose by any other name.

It's still a genus -- a very important part of your ungodly classification system.

pitabread · Aug 22, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Tomato / tomato

Potato / potato

A rose by any other name.

It's still a genus -- a very important part of your ungodly classification system.

So you don't have an answer. Got it.

tevans9129 · Aug 22, 2017

Speedwell said:
Hard to say. I'm not sure what you mean by "adaptation" and how you distinguish it from "evolution."

The chicken is classified with the horse--they are in the same phylum. At higher levels of discriminatory resolution they are classified in different classes, orders, families and genera. And, of course, they are different species.

So why not provide a simple answer to my question to begin with?

"If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?"

It seems to me your original response to my question was disingenuous at best.

AV1611VET · Aug 22, 2017

pitabread said:
And if creationists could ever agree on a definition,

What definition?

According to you guys, we never had one.

tevans9129 · Aug 22, 2017

Obliquinaut said:
And for the 3rd or 4th time: check out section 5.0 of this link: Observed Instances of Speciation

Yep, and every time I looked they were still flies. I could not even find where one of them evolved into a chicken.

AV1611VET · Aug 22, 2017

pitabread said:
So you don't have an answer.

To the fact that genus is artificial?

I guess not.

If it's so artificial, then don't use it.

Just call a Tyrannosaurus rex a rex and be done with it.

Just call a Homo sapiens a sapiens and be done with it.

tevans9129 · Aug 22, 2017

Speedwell said:
From one species to two. That's all that ever happens with evolution. But it keeps happening, and pretty soon the biosphere is so cluttered with different species that biologists had to invent a system of classification, a taxonomy, to keep track of them

Great, from one chicken to two, I am finally beginning to understand this evolution thing.

Subduction Zone · Aug 22, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Then go find someone else's definition if you don't like mine.

According to pitabread, he's seen everything from 'species to domains to everything in between.'

Maybe he gets around more, eh?

Your claim, your responsibility.

pitabread · Aug 22, 2017

AV1611VET said:
To the fact that genus is artificial?

I guess not.

If it's so artificial, then don't use it.

Just call a Tyrannosaurus rex a rex and be done with it.

Just call a Homo sapiens a sapiens and be done with it.

Do you know the purpose of taxonomy?

AV1611VET · Aug 22, 2017

tevans9129 said:
Great, from one chicken to two, I am finally beginning to understand this evolution thing.

You do realize that, according to evolution, your avatar is a "terrible lizard," do you not?

And evolutionists say terrible lizards and man have never coexisted?

No wonder they're confused.

Macroevolution:

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency