Major Creationist Breakthrough! "Kind" defined, Human evolution admitted!

[Papias]

In the Ev II thread, Calypsis wrote:

My position, as well as that of my colleagues in creationism is that the only changes that we see among the species is seen within the kind (order/family classification)

So a "kind" is either a order or family! First, which is it, order or family?

Secondly, either way, Calypsis just agreed that we evolved from a chimpanzee like ancestor! We are members of the family Hominidae, as are chimps and many of our common ancestors.

If one goes with the "Order" definition, then that inlcudes all primates, from monkeys to lemurs. (I like to move it, move it, he likes to....)

This is simply another case of creationists moving the goalposts. First, the defined "kind" as species - the most obvious and literal reading of the text. Then, when it became increasingly obvious that the evolution of new species has been observed many times, they had to back that up to family or order. Yet, we see plenty of transitional fossil series that bridge that and higher levels, so they'll have to move those goalposts back yet again.

So, then, it is settled, right? "Kind" is defined?

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Do I hear eukaryote?
...
Who'll give me archaobacteria?

 

[sfs]

Oh come on, you know that the one absolute in creationism is that humans are not related to any other species. Anything else may be negotiable, but that one rule can never be violated.

 

[Willtor]

Oh come on, you know that the one absolute in creationism is that humans are not related to any other species. Anything else may be negotiable, but that one rule can never be violated.

You're very right. Honestly, I think creationism hinges on an opposition to human evolution. If the evidence were such that humans were not biologically related to the other apes, creationism would have its foundation swept out from under it and I suspect it would nearly disappear over half a generation.

 

[Papias]

Hey, Calypsis4 has posted volumes on the adjacent threads since Willtor's post, and hasn't responded here to acknowledge that he just admitted to the evolution of a chimp like ancestor to a human? Or do we need to redefine what a "kind" is?

Papias

 

[The Barbarian]

Long ago, I was surprised to see the Institute for Creation Research endorse John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study. In it he "solves" the problem of space on the Ark by supposing a few kinds from which all other species evolved by hyperevolution in a few thousand years.

In an email conversation, he told me that he though the limit to "kind" was at the level of families. But that does indeed make humans and chimps one "kind."

 

[Willtor]

Hyper-evolution, eh? Haha! So we go from "zero evidence of evolution" to "loads of evolution dated to the last ~4000 years?"

 

[Papias]

Surprisingly (to many), hyperevolution is the standard scenario in most major creationist organizations, including AIG. It's really the only refuge when one realizes that there are literally multiple millions of species around today - there is no way to fit 2 (much less 7) of each of them on the ark, much less food & water for all of them for a full year, cleaning out literally tons of dung every week, keeping special habitats (like species that can only live on ice or on certain kinds of trees), and so on.

Even at the family level these are serious problems, and still pose problems of getting them to the ark, and then afterwards getting them to there current locations (like getting all the marsupials to Australia). I think a creationist publication recently suggested that volcano blasts were used to fly them there.

So, yeah, hyper evolutionary generation of millions of species in 4,500 years is fine, but evolution of a similar number of species over 4,000,000,000 years is "too fast".

Go Figure.

Papias

 

[shernren]

No biggie there, creationists have been admitting that chimps are biologically far too similar to humans for ages now. See this paper by a creationist:

Paper title: "The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity"
Link here: BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group
CF.com thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7231859/