Man is Evolving into...

[xianghua]

Well, it is a problem because there is no evidence that such a thing happened--the physical evidence just isn't there--and even more striking that it could have happened during historical times and nobody noticed or mentioned it. But no; Pitabread's point was that creationists not only have to believe in evolution too (and some do and are quite happy to admit that evolution of the "kinds" happened after The Flood) but that it would have to happen even faster than science supposes.

but i just showed you empirical evidence that speciation take less tham 100 years. so how you are saying that i have no evidence?

 

[Speedwell]

but i just showed you empirical evidence that speciation take less tham 100 years. so how you are saying that i have no evidence?

You provided evidence that it can happen in some cases. What did happen in all cases? Where is the evidence that all species evolved from the "kinds" (whatever they were) to all the millions of species alive today since 2600 BC? And how come nobody noticed?

But I'm not going to argue with you about it. I'm more interested in what your argument reveals about you personally, that you may be a YEC and not an IDist.

 

[xianghua]

You provided evidence that it can happen in some cases. What did happen in all cases?

how do you know that its not the rule?

 

[Speedwell]

how do you know that its not the rule?

I don't care. I'm not defending the assertion that it couldn't have happened. I merely entered the discussion to voice my opinion that you were missing Pitabread's main point. I remain in the discussion, entranced by the possibility that you are not really an IDist after all, but a YEC.

 

[inquiring mind]

That wasn't the point. The point was that creationists must believe in speciation because there are more species alive now than the number of "kinds" which would have fit on the Ark, that's all.

Not necessarily... this is only true because evolutionists divided the number of kinds and labeled them different species, instead of adapted kinds.

 

[pitabread]

Not necessarily... this is only true because evolutionists divided the number of kinds and labeled them different species, instead of adapted kinds.

"Kind" has no meaningful biological definition. Even creationists can't agree on what it means.

 

[Speedwell]

Not necessarily... this is only true because evolutionists divided the number of kinds and labeled them different species, instead of adapted kinds.

OK, so there are more different "adapted kinds" than would fit in the Ark. The argument stays the same. The creationists must believe in "adapted kinds" produced by evolution and that all of this "adaptation" must have occurred since 2600 BC.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Kind" has no meaningful biological definition.

No, because it doesn't fit the macroevolution model.

Even creationists can't agree on what it means.

And, evolutionists have the same problem with species.

 

[pitabread]

No, because it doesn't fit the macroevolution model.

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact there don't appear to be any demonstrable "kind" barriers in nature.

The onus is on creationists to demonstrate that such a barrier exists and thus far they've failed to do so.

And, evolutionists have the same problem with species.

Well sure. I mean, the only real reason to classify organisms is just for easier identification.

Remove the classifications and there nature is full of fuzzy boundaries between populations. Nature demonstrates the opposite of what creationists claim.

 

[inquiring mind]

OK, so there are more different "adapted kinds" than would fit in the Ark. The argument stays the same. The creationists must believe in "adapted kinds" produced by evolution and that all of this "adaptation" must have occurred since 2600 BC.

Good point. I'll have to think about that.

 

[inquiring mind]

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact there don't appear to be any demonstrable "kind" barriers in nature.
The onus is on creationists to demonstrate that such a barrier exists and thus far they've failed to do so.

I thought it was the inability to mate.

Well sure. I mean, the only real reason to classify organisms is just for easier identification.
Remove the classifications and there nature is full of fuzzy boundaries between populations.

But, isn't a lot of that fuzziness still there?

 

[inquiring mind]

OK, so there are more different "adapted kinds" than would fit in the Ark. The argument stays the same. The creationists must believe in "adapted kinds" produced by evolution and that all of this "adaptation" must have occurred since 2600 BC.

Ok, at this point I guess I'm forced to go with Xianghua's 'empirical evidence that speciation (adaptation) can take less than a 100 years' argument.

 

[Speedwell]

I thought it was the inability to mate.

That is a definition of species. What you call "adapted kinds." It merely is way of determining when two populations have evolved sufficiently differences that they can be usefully regarded as separate species for classification purposes.

But, isn't a lot of that fuzziness still there?

Of course. "Species" is merely a man-made taxonomic system designed to classify what is almost a continuum of living types. For example, as one population gradually evolves away from its parent species there will be a long period of partial interfertility. Is it a new species or merely a subspecies? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok, at this point I guess I'm forced to go with Xianghua's 'empirical evidence that speciation (adaptation) can take less than a 100 years' argument.

What I always wonder about that is, give how many "kinds" there were (How many was that? Do creationists even know?) and how many millions of "adapted kinds" there are now, how come nobody noticed it happening? Mind you this all is supposed to have happened during a relatively recent period, a period of recorded history when people were becoming interested in the systematic study of nature to at least some degree.

 

[pitabread]

I thought it was the inability to mate.

It's not.

The creationist need to define "kinds" is based on a definition broad enough to reduce the number of kinds so they can fit on the Ark. At the same time, they need a narrow enough definition so that humans aren't grouped in with any other kinds.

Last I checked, creationists were trying to use statistical morphology to define kinds. But even then they have no real agreement over what to include or exclude, and still no demonstrable barrier preventing the evolution thereof.

But, isn't a lot of that fuzziness still there?

Sure. Nature's barriers are fuzzy. Human classification is merely for our own convenience. It has no true meaning in nature.

 

[pitabread]

Ok, at this point I guess I'm forced to go with Xianghua's 'empirical evidence that speciation (adaptation) can take less than a 100 years' argument.

Speciation can occur rapidly. But the real issue is genetic diversity. The Young Earth creationist scenario requires cramming millions of years worth of genetic diversification into a few thousand years. This would require genetic changes occurring several orders of magnitude faster than they are otherwise observed. The genetic load alone would likely lead to extinction rather than diversification.

 

[pitabread]

why do you think that we cant get so many species in few thousands years? as i said in the past- we have empirical evidence that speciation may take about less then 100 years:

The issue isn't just rapid speciation. The issue is the generation of the genetic diversity we observe in nature today.

Young Earth creationists effectively need to cram millions of years worth of genetic diversity into the spam of only a few thousand years. And they are starting with an extremely limited population to boot. They need genetic changes to occur several orders of magnitude faster than we otherwise observe in nature. The problem is that the resulting genetic load in populations would be untenable and you'd wind up with massive extinction rather than diversification.

Some creationists try to get around this by invoking arbitrary "super genomes" that are front loaded with all that genetic diversity. But there is no evidence such a thing is even possible, what such organisms would look like, or that such a thing ever happened.

This is just one of many reasont the entire YECist Noah's Flood scenario is a non-starter (basic physics and geology also being a huge problem).

 

[inquiring mind]

What I always wonder about that is, give how many "kinds" there were (How many was that? Do creationists even know?) and how many millions of "adapted kinds" there are now, how come nobody noticed it happening? Mind you this all is supposed to have happened during a relatively recent period, a period of recorded history when people were becoming interested in the systematic study of nature to at least some degree.

I certainly can't answer your 'how many kinds' question... but, you know the simple answer to the rest of your question is that (no offense to anyone) it may be that most creationists haven't traditionally been into the biological pursuit of things. That doesn't make it right, but it is also argued that many of the conclusions drawn from that pursuit aren't right either.

 

[Speedwell]

I certainly can't answer your 'how many kinds' question... but, you know the simple answer to the rest of your question is that (no offense to anyone) it may be that most creationists haven't traditionally been into the biological pursuit of things. That doesn't make it right, but it is also argued that many of the conclusions drawn from that pursuit aren't right either.

Maybe you should get into it. All we have been doing so far is posing obvious questions of the sort which would occur to any layman. That you have no answers is telling. If maintaining "kinds" as a impenetrable barrier to evolution (or "adaptation" if you prefer) is as essential to the Christian faith as creationists insist, then a credible response is surely called for.

 

[pitabread]

but, you know the simple answer to the rest of your question is that (no offense to anyone) it may be that most creationists haven't traditionally been into the biological pursuit of things.

Yet those same creationists keep telling biologists they have it all wrong. Odd, that.