No Macro-evolution = no Global Flood?

[Vance]

Here is an interesting thought from Lane Lewis in another discussion group:

"The Scientific classification system is based on the relationship to
ancestors while some of these animals are very closely related they no
longer can breed due to physical, behavioral, or chromosomal differences.
This is a direct contradiction of creationist who don't believe in
macroevolution, they insist that if the animal cant breed it can't be
related.

Foxes and wolves would be a good example, They are both canines but to creationist they are different kinds so comparing the scientific system to the creationist system makes no sense whatsoever. They are based on two completely different ideas.

One of the biggest problems with the Ark story is that it conflicts with the creationist idea that macroevolution can't happen. How many times have creationist said that it would only take a few kinds of birds to repopulate the earth, but there are literally thousands of birds that cannot mate, so in reality all these bird kinds would have to have been on the Ark or their idea of nonexistent macroevolution is false.

Thousands of birds roosting on the Ark would have been bad enough but what's true for the birds is also true for mammals, reptiles, and amphibians and not just the animals today but all the different animals of the past. The different dinosaurs kinds alone would have sunk the Ark since there is no believable way that there was just a few dinosaur kinds. What is true for birds, and other animals of today would have to be true for all the animals of the past.

So which is it creationist, The Ark Story or nonexistent macroevolution."

I guess it may be time to change the definition of "kind".

 

[Arikay]

They have changed the definition of "kind" the Wolf and the Fox are both part of the "dog kind" and thus its ok for them to have a common anccestor.

 

[Vance]

Ah, so the "ability to breed" is not a definition of "kind" anymore? I really have a hard time keeping up with these definitional issues! :0)

 

[Arikay]

Yep, AIG even accepts Speciation. They just keep up with their claim that no "kind" can change into another "kind" and just change kind.

Recently AIG has even been dropping that and going with Evolution cant produce "new Information." And guess what, its very hard to get them to define what "new information" really means. I see a pattern forming.
However it has been shown to be false, one example is in the Nylon bug thread, as the Nylon eating ability is new.

 

[Vance]

As shown in my "Progression of YEC'ism", the latest is that while new information is created, we have never seen a case where a "net increase" of information results from mutations, only a rearrangement or net decrease of information. They follow this with the idea that with net decreases only, there is no way for evolution to create more complex beings from less complex.

Stay tuned for more wiggling as needed.

 

[Arikay]

But one problem is that the Nylon bugs had a "net gain" they gained the ability to digest nylon without the lose of any information.

Next I predict they will say "well yes, you can have small "micro" net gains, but never "macro" net gains"

 

[Vance]

A lot of little micros = a macro :0)

Or, as Bertie Wooster says: Every little bit, added to what you got, is just a little bit more.

 

[Arikay]

Well, of course, there will be some magical barrier that keeps the Micro from becoming Macro. When asked to show us or explain this Barrier, they will fall silent.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think the people at AiG say that animals that can produce hybrids are the same kind. AFAIK no one knows if Chimps and humans are cross fertile. I can tell you thing for sure that if it ever is shown that chimps and humans are cross fertile AiG will drop that definition of kind like a hot rock.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Angel4Truth]

But one problem is that the Nylon bugs had a "net gain" they gained the ability to digest nylon without the lose of any information.

Next I predict they will say "well yes, you can have small "micro" net gains, but never "macro" net gains"

Well I can get a tan without any loss of information , does that mean I have "evolved" ?

 

[lucaspa]

Ah, so the "ability to breed" is not a definition of "kind" anymore? I really have a hard time keeping up with these definitional issues! :0)

Here is the current definition of kind:

"From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. "

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species! " http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp

I'm sure you saw the escape hatch: if the species can hybridize they belong to a kind. But the INABILITY to hybridize does not indicate a separate kind.

BTW, look at that duck in the last sentence: comparing individuals within a population to an entire population.

As you noted, the goalposts keep moving in order to avoid falsification. Speciation got dropped when observered speciation falsified it. Now we are at kinds but since triticosecale is a new GENUS and falsifies that, we are now at "new information".

The goalposts keep moving to a point where the creationists think they aren't falsified. When they are, the goalpost is moved.

 

[Vance]

Well I can get a tan without any loss of information , does that mean I have "evolved" ?

Not unless you've mutated.

That brings up some very disturbing images . . .

BTW, this raises an interesting point. Has anyone pointed out recently that individuals do not evolve, only groups in a gene pool (IIRC).