Observed change in kinds.

[Paradoxum]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

 

[Paradoxum]

No one?

 

[lesliedellow]

No one?

No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.

 

[Strathos]

No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.

Exactly.

 

[Michael]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

I'd reply that such changes are typically associated with changes in highly specific genes, typically Hox genes.

University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science
http://labs.biology.ucsd.edu/mcginnis/Hoxmacroevoweb.pdf

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'ld first ask him to define the word "kind" in such a way that I can use that definition to determine if two random organism are of the same "kind".

Because a question of which the most important word is an undefined, obfuscated secret, is not a real question.

Off course he would refuse to do so. At which point I'll tell him to go stand somewhere else.

 

[[serious]]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian,

Those are both the vertebrate kind

or ferret to dog.

Those are both the mammal kind

I'll accept that kinds don't change into other kinds as long as we are talking about clades as kinds.

 

[dcarrera]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

Until you define kind more precisely, there is no use in giving a reply because every time I give an example you can just move the goal post. So instead I will ask you a few questions:

1) Are rats and mice the same kind? Would you accept rats and mice having a common ancestor?

2) Are donkeys and horses the same kind? Would you accept donkeys and horses having a common ancestor?

3) Are chimps and humans the same kind? Would you accept chimps and humans having a common ancestor?

These aren't rethorical. I do want to know what you think.

 

[Paradoxum]

No one is replying because they have heard this creationist tosh too often before. "Kind" is left conveniently undefined.

But I'm asking because I'm not totally sure what the best reply is. This has been going around the Christians on my facebook.

So you're reply is that the question isn't good, because 'kind' is undefined?

I do get that point, but I also get the point by creationists... that a bird with a different beak (or can't interbreed) still seems to be a very similar type of bird. It doesn't clearly shown that animals can radically change.

I'ld first ask him to define the word "kind" in such a way that I can use that definition to determine if two random organism are of the same "kind".

Because a question of which the most important word is an undefined, obfuscated secret, is not a real question.

Off course he would refuse to do so. At which point I'll tell him to go stand somewhere else.

What if you define it as a the difference between different Orders (in biological classification)?

I'm pushing for more of an answer because I know creationists would want more of an answer.

Those are both the vertebrate kindThose are both the mammal kind

I'll accept that kinds don't change into other kinds as long as we are talking about clades as kinds.

You think kind is too vague, so even if an example could be given, they'd change their definition of kind to be broader?

 

[[serious]]

But I'm asking because I'm not totally sure what the best reply is. This has been going around the Christians on my facebook.

So you're reply is that the question isn't good, because 'kind' is undefined?

I do get that point, but I also get the point by creationists... that a bird with a different beak (or can't interbreed) still seems to be a very similar type of bird. It doesn't clearly shown that animals can radically change.



What if you define it as a the difference between different Orders (in biological classification)?

I'm pushing for more of an answer because I know creationists would want more of an answer.



You think kind is too vague, so even if an example could be given, they'd change their definition of kind to be broader?

Exactly.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's not worth really getting into.

Many people seem happy with millions og species of insect, as diverse as all mammals being lumped into "Bug", but humans and chimps are so different that millions of years couldn't possibly be enough for their many differences.

You'll find that the unspoken definition of "kind" involves "lines that can't be crossed", making changes in kind an impossible concept.

 

[dysert]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

I would reply that there isn't any, but that's ok because it doesn't work that way. A ferret will always give birth to a ferret; a dog, a dog; etc. The way it works is that a ferret gives birth to a ferret that's a teeny tiny bit different from its parent, genetically speaking. This child ferret gives birth to a ferret that's a teeny tiny bit different from its parent, etc. After millions of generations of these teeny tiny changes the most recent ferret is of a different "kind" than was the first ferret that started everything. (I think that's what I learned in my evolution schooling.)

 

[Michael]

I would reply that there isn't any, but that's ok because it doesn't work that way. A ferret will always give birth to a ferret; a dog, a dog; etc. The way it works is that a ferret gives birth to a ferret that's a teeny tiny bit different from its parent, genetically speaking. This child ferret gives birth to a ferret that's a teeny tiny bit different from its parent, etc. After millions of generations of these teeny tiny changes the most recent ferret is of a different "kind" than was the first ferret that started everything. (I think that's what I learned in my evolution schooling.)

Don't confuse them with facts.

 

[JustMeSee]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

Give me a detailed definition and separations of kinds.

Whatever is one kind can't evolve into a different kind.

 

[JustMeSee]

Ferrets and dogs may be the same kind.

 

[RiemannZ]

there's only one kind and it's carbon-based

 

[Dizredux]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

Another way of looking at it is that of course kinds don't change. The descendents of a vertibrate kind (so to speak) will always be a vertebrate.

The descendents of a primate kind will always be a primate.

The descendents of the human kind will always be humans.

No problem then except that Comfort (banana man) can, at times, be a bit of a characterture of a not very honest creationist.

Dizredux

 

[Shemjaza]

I would reply that there isn't any, but that's ok because it doesn't work that way. A ferret will always give birth to a ferret; a dog, a dog; etc. The way it works is that a ferret gives birth to a ferret that's a teeny tiny bit different from its parent, genetically speaking. This child ferret gives birth to a ferret that's a teeny tiny bit different from its parent, etc. After millions of generations of these teeny tiny changes the most recent ferret is of a different "kind" than was the first ferret that started everything. (I think that's what I learned in my evolution schooling.)

Still all Carnivora kind.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Ray Comfort asks, 'What observable evidence is there for a change in kinds?' Kinds meaning something like a change from a fish to amphibian, or ferret to dog.

How would you reply?

I would say, "there is no evidence because evolution doesn't posit that "kinds" change into other "kinds". A ferret will never change into a dog. A human will never change into an elephant. A cockroach will never turn into a giant squid. Over millions of years humans could develop a trunk and get bigger and get grey skin and walk on four legs...but we would still not be an elephant because we did not descend from elephants. We would be human because we descended from humans. Perhaps Homo longtrunkelephantlookalikeus."

Of course, the video maker would likely just cut and paste my response to look like this: "There is no evidence".

Disingenuous quote mining is standard creationist fair. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the respondents in the video gave more intelligent answers but it was edited to make it look like they were stumped.

 

[Loudmouth]

But I'm asking because I'm not totally sure what the best reply is.

The best reply is to look at all of the evolution you do accept within kinds.

Humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with baboons is within the primate kind.

Humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with bears is within the mammal kind.

Humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with trout is within the vertebrate kind.

Humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with amoeba is within the eukaryote kind.

If they try to claim that those are not kinds, then ask them to list the criteria they use to determine what is and isn't a kind.

What if you define it as a the difference between different Orders (in biological classification)?

All taxonomic levels above species are arbitrary in Linnaean taxonomy.