proving evolution as just a "theory"

[ruthiesea]

Once again you use man made definitions.

As opposed to definitions made by dogs?

 

[ruthiesea]

And yet you can’t provide the very same thing you demand when it comes to species....
As a matter of fact evolutionists tend to ignore mating right in front of their eyes when it comes to Darwin’s Finches.

There is no one singe definition for the term species. This is because of the varieties of organisms. Darwin's finches, however, have distinct genetic differences that divides them into different recognized species.

The term 'kind' has no scientific definition. It cannot be used to divide organisms into different groups because every body seems to want to change the definition to suit the particular argument which they are using. Organism are not changed from species to species unless there is a lot of evidence, usually genetic, to indicate that a change is needed. For example two very similar dart frogs were classified as the the same species with phenotype differences. Further genetic study showed that one type was actually a cross between its previously though co-species and another species. It was then reclassified into its own species.

You, however, seem to classify all animals as a kind. That is not very scientifically helpful, while the term animal kingdom, which is then divided into many subgroups, is useful. What are the subgroups of kind?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no one singe definition for the term species. This is because of the varieties of organisms. Darwin's finches, however, have distinct genetic differences that divides them into different recognized species.

No, you mean distinct genetic differences that divide them into subspecies, don’t you?

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs”

And what distinct genetic differences are you referring to? Mutation to the ALX1 gene? Otherwise the DNA is extensively mixed. Is this your claim to designate them as separate species, mutation to the ALX1 gene?

Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing

“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry. A 240 kilobase haplotype encompassing the ALX1 gene that encodes a transcription factor affecting craniofacial development is strongly associated with beak shape diversity across Darwin's finch species as well as within the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), a species that has undergone rapid evolution of beak shape in response to environmental changes.”

The term 'kind' has no scientific definition.

So you keep “claiming”. And then refuse to follow your own definitions....

the definition of species

“1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.”

It cannot be used to divide organisms into different groups because every body seems to want to change the definition to suit the particular argument which they are using.

Exactly as you do with species? So species cannot be used to divide organisms into different groups because every body seems to want to change the deffinition to suit the particular argument which they are using. Correct?

Organism are not changed from species to species unless there is a lot of evidence, usually genetic, to indicate that a change is needed. For example two very similar dart frogs were classified as the the same species with phenotype differences. Further genetic study showed that one type was actually a cross between its previously though co-species and another species. It was then reclassified into its own species.

And yet spiders that were classified as separate species, when found to be interbreeding were reclassified as the same species.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

“For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.”

So since those frogs were shown to be a cross, then they interbreed, and so you incorrectly changed them to separate species.

And then we have fish and birds classified as separate species for no other reason than they live in different areas or have different plumage.

So I wouldn’t argue consistency if I was you, since you have none to begin with.

You, however, seem to classify all animals as a kind. That is not very scientifically helpful, while the term animal kingdom, which is then divided into many subgroups, is useful. What are the subgroups of kind?

You can’t support that claim. I have repeatedly stated all canine are of a kind, all felines are of a kind. All bears are of a kind. All deer are of a kind.

If further classifying red tailed deer as a sub-Kind makes you happy in order to distinguish it from white tailed deer. I am not opposed to that. But I would oppose classifying both as separate kinds, since they are “known” to interbreed.

At least interpose a modicum of consistency into your classification of species.

And yet your fellow evolutionists when cornered revert to claiming poodles are still wolves, which are still mammals.... showing designations of species isn’t all too important to you. Then refuse to accept man is still fish when asking to show a fish that has hair.........

 

[rjs330]

You're still doing it. Just in this reply, you've already invoked hand-waving dismissals of anything you might potentially be given. That coupled with a clear conceptual gap in understanding of the ToE (common among creationists) allows you to remain in a perfect state of perpetual denialism.

It's quite amazing.

What is quite amazing is that evolutionists stick to their guns despite the the fact they really have no evidence of a common ancestor. They have all kinds if supposition and assumptions, but none can produce a single solitary scientific piece of a common ancestor. Nor can they show any evidence evolution from a common ancestor. They have no evidence of any order evolving into a different order. In fact they claim all things remain what they have always been. Then go one to completely turn that in it's head that all things came from one thing. It's quite amazing really.

 

[bhsmte]

No matter how many times the strawman is refuted, it just keeps coming back.

 

[pitabread]

There is no one singe definition for the term species. This is because of the varieties of organisms. Darwin's finches, however, have distinct genetic differences that divides them into different recognized species.

In addition to this, "species" is entirely an artificial classification imposed by humans. It's simply a way for use to classify and identify groups of organisms. Whereas "species" has no true biological qualification.

Conversely creationists claim that "kinds" is a real biological qualification by way of limitations imposed on biological change. And yet they are still unable to provide a proper definition and demonstration of said biological limits.

 

[pitabread]

What is quite amazing is that evolutionists stick to their guns despite the the fact they really have no evidence of a common ancestor. They have all kinds if supposition and assumptions, but none can produce a single solitary scientific piece of a common ancestor. Nor can they show any evidence evolution from a common ancestor. They have no evidence of any order evolving into a different order. In fact they claim all things remain what they have always been. Then go one to completely turn that in it's head that all things came from one thing. It's quite amazing really.

There are plenty of folks on this forum that have provided you evidence (or links to evidence). You just handwave it away and/or ignore it and then continue your denial.

 

[rjs330]

Quoting scripture is not the same thing as providing a biologically viable and testable quantification and/or qualification of "kinds" that we can apply to modern organisms.



You need to provide a specific biological definition that can be applied to any group of two or more species to explicitly determine whether or not they are the same "kind". Furthermore, as creationists often assert that there is some sort of biological barrier preventing evolutionary change beyond a certain threshold, you would also need to provide a biological definition of that barrier and ideally provide conditions under which its viability could be scientifically tested.

If the best you have to offer is scripture quotes, then you don't have anything scientifically useful.

Do you really want a complete redefining of all organisms on this planet in a thread like this? How much time do you really think I have? Myriads of scientists have spent many many years creating definitions, changing definitions and making up Thier own stuff.

How about a simple definition of kinds. A kind is something than can breed together and create offspring who can intern breed and create more offspring. That ought to be a start.

 

[rjs330]

There are plenty of folks on this forum that have provided you evidence (or links to evidence). You just handwave it away and/or ignore it and then continue your denial.

No one has shown evidence of the common ancestor. No one. What I have seen is mounds of evidence of common design. Especially from the evolution folks.

 

[pitabread]

Do you really want a complete redefining of all organisms on this planet in a thread like this? How much time do you really think I have? Myriads of scientists have spent many many years creating definitions, changing definitions and making up Thier own stuff.

Stop whining. If you want to keep making claims about "kinds" being a real biological thing in nature, then the least you can do is provide a proper definition of it. Otherwise, it's a rather useless concept isn't it?

How about a simple definition of kinds. A kind is something than can breed together and create offspring who can intern breed and create more offspring. That ought to be a start.

So "kind" is just another term for the biological species concept? Is that all?

You might want to spend some time reading up on creationist literature, because I don't think you're going to find much agreement with that definition.

 

[rjs330]

In addition to this, "species" is entirely an artificial classification imposed by humans. It's simply a way for use to classify and identify groups of organisms. Whereas "species" has no true biological qualification.

Conversely creationists claim that "kinds" is a real biological qualification by way of limitations imposed on biological change. And yet they are still unable to provide a proper definition and demonstration of said biological limits.

I gave a nice concise definition of kind. Truthseeker even gave a better more expanded version in post 4443.

 

[pitabread]

No one has shown evidence of the common ancestor. No one.

Sure they have. You just pretend it doesn't exist because acknowledging to it would be too difficult.

What I have seen is mounds of evidence of common design. Especially from the evolution folks.

Uh huh. And yet when I've pushed you to describe your "common design" model and how the evidence applies to said model, not only were you unable to do so, but you blatantly contradicted your own position in the process.

This is what happens when you work from a position based on ignorance of biology. You wind up with a baseless, contradictory position.

 

[BradB]

Come on Brad.

Show me one of his publications or quotes where he even mentions ID.

Actually, dont bother, it will be a waste of your time. The paper you mentioned in your original post investigates a very specific evolutionary mechanism and comes to the conclusion that our understanding is unresolved.

It in no way mentions or supports ID - but of course the idiots over at AIG (or wherever) like to jump on any unresolved issue in biology and claim it strengthens their "case".

Every google search about Lambert's creationist leanings repeats the same paragraph...

Let's look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up ‘Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer’, by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t ‘explicitly’ wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as ‘an unresolved problem in theoretical biology’ (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

I notice that you managed to change one or two words, but this is typical of creationist thinking (or lack of). I don't know who originally wrote "Creationist biochemist Grant Lambert" but once they did it gets copied, pasted, copied, pasted until it becomes "accepted" as true.


I haven't got any great interest in debating this, I only mention it as a warning to you not to fall for everything these dishonest Creationists tell you.

Edit: If forgot that I was going to say that it is possible that he is an actual creationist, in which case I apologise, however, all his published papers deal with 'mainstream' science, not "intelligent" design or creationism.

Well when I go to the site where the actual article is supposed to be, I hit a brick wall. It's one of those "paid members only" sites. Again I was merely responding to the claim that there were no scientists affirmed Creation. So what the actual paper does or does not say is not really relevant here. His was just one name in a list that yes I copied and pasted. I only cited the papers as reference to the types of literature they had published. I wasn't intending to imply everything on the list was ID in nature, only that the scientists were professing creationists. Thank you though for your word of warning. I do sometimes get information that has no basis for supporting a claim. That's okay because there are usually many more pages of those that are.

 

[pitabread]

I gave a nice concise definition of kind. Truthseeker even gave a better more expanded version in post 4443.

I have Truthseeker on ignore because honestly how many posts about Huskies and Chinooks does this forum really need...

But I looked at his post, and nowhere does he provide a proper definition other than quoting a dictionary definition of "species". But then he goes on to contradict that definition by providing examples that are broader than mere species and contradicts what you posted.

Which only reinforces how completely arbitrary it is and consequently how it has no true biological reality.

 

[rjs330]

Stop whining. If you want to keep making claims about "kinds" being a real biological thing in nature, then the least you can do is provide a proper definition of it. Otherwise, it's a rather useless concept isn't it?



So "kind" is just another term for the biological species concept? Is that all?

You might want to spend some time reading up on creationist literature, because I don't think you're going to find much agreement with that definition.

I thought you didn't like creationists literature and thought it absurd.
I want whining, just wondering if you recognized the absurdity of your request. Apparently not. I'll tell you what, why don't you go out and translate the entire Bible from the original languages. And I would like you to do it by tomorrow. Thats the absurdity of your demand. Just quite silly really. Showing the weakness of your position.

 

[pitabread]

I thought you didn't like creationists literature and thought it absurd.

I think if one is going to debate this stuff, it's important to understand both sides. Which is why I find it surprising that so many creationists appear so unfamiliar with creationism.

I want whining, just wondering if you recognized the absurdity of your request.

Biology is a big, messy, complicated subject. And if you're going to make claims related to biology and in particular suggest things that blatantly contradict what is known, then yes I expect you to be able to support it.

Instead, you're just making a bunch of whiny excuses. Well too bad. If you make a claim, it's your job to support it.

 

[rjs330]

Sure they have. You just pretend it doesn't exist because acknowledging to it would be too difficult.



Uh huh. And yet when I've pushed you to describe your "common design" model and how the evidence applies to said model, not only were you unable to do so, but you blatantly contradicted your own position in the process.

This is what happens when you work from a position based on ignorance of biology. You wind up with a baseless, contradictory position.

Lol! It's funny how you love to ignore what I've said. It's a nice tactic, but doesn't fly.
Claiming a contradiction is just laughable. Stick with that though if you want to. It just doesn't make it true. Please quote one contradiction.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In addition to this, "species" is entirely an artificial classification imposed by humans. It's simply a way for use to classify and identify groups of organisms. Whereas "species" has no true biological qualification.

Conversely creationists claim that "kinds" is a real biological qualification by way of limitations imposed on biological change. And yet they are still unable to provide a proper definition and demonstration of said biological limits.

You have been shown, by the most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment for evolution, the results which falsify your claims of biological change and support the claims of limitations imposed on biological change. Dogs.

But in reality you are simply attempting to distract from the fact you can’t produce a single common ancestor that split and shows the capability of biological change without limitations....

 

[rjs330]

I think if one is going to debate this stuff, it's important to understand both sides. Which is why I find it surprising that so many creationists appear so unfamiliar with creationism.



Biology is a big, messy, complicated subject. And if you're going to make claims related to biology and in particular suggest things that blatantly contradict what is known, then yes I expect you to be able to support it.

Instead, you're just making a bunch of whiny excuses. Well too bad. If you make a claim, it's your job to support it.

I did support it. You just don't like it. And I don't contradict the creationists of today. I happen to agree with them. It's pretty obvious you really don't get what they or I are saying because you just don't want to.

The support is all around you in nature. Please show me where in nature one thing where something evolved from a common ancestor. Please show the common ancestor. Please give verifiable evidence of the very first thing the ancestor evolved into or it's first split. Please take the spider back to the beginning and show me what it was and what it came from. Do the same for the bird. Any bird you pick.

Show how they evolved from the same creature. Bet you can't.

Why not? Cause kinds have always existed unique and separate from each other. They can't interbreed and create offspring. That is in line with all creationists. Show me where it's not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have Truthseeker on ignore because honestly how many posts about Huskies and Chinooks does this forum really need...

But I looked at his post, and nowhere does he provide a proper definition other than quoting a dictionary definition of "species". But then he goes on to contradict that definition by providing examples that are broader than mere species and contradicts what you posted.

Which only reinforces how completely arbitrary it is and consequently how it has no true biological reality.

No, I posted examples that contradict your claims of separate species which ignore the scientific definition of species. You can’t cite one single thing by me that contradicts the scientific definition of species. Best reread that scientific deffinition and contemplate on finches mating in front of your eyes.

But then you’ll just claim it’s arbitrary and of no real importance, even if your entire theory rests upon how you classify species. For if what you claim are separate species are in reality the same species, then claims of speciation are null and void.

I’m on your ignore list because you can’t refute the observational emperical evidence, so you pretend that ignoring the evidence makes it go away.

Not only is your classifications arbitrary, but you can’t even stick to your own convictions and not respond, despite claiming I’m on your ignore list. So your word is useless as an indicator of trust.....