Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Justatruthseeker]

How many times to we have to go over this?? Define "Kind," and how we can distinguish them. If you cannot, then don't ask us for evidence of one "kind" evolving into another "kind."

Using vague terminology will not get you anywhere with scientists. Funny how that works.

Good question, how many times do we have to go over this? I have defined kind 20 times already. It is you that seems to have a problem with classification of animals, not me. Felidae is a kind. Canidae is a kind. In simple english, cats, dogs, apes, birds, fish, whales, shark, man. None of them have ever evolved outside of their kind.

Yes, but you are so adept at using vague terminology like species, taxonomy, kingdom, order, phylum, etc that one can silly putty it together almost any way one wants. I figured a concrete definition of kind 20 times already would be enough. One more time, all feline creatures are of the same kind. All canine creatures are of the same kind. All apes are of the same kind. All humans are of the same kind. All birds are of a kind. They are simply more diverse because they can like fly, you know, and spread easier than the other kinds. Subject to more climatic and geological affects and have adapted to their environment. But they have always been birds, and will always be birds. Just different appearances of the same kind.

What does modern genetics teach us? That kind always remains the same kind, even through appearance changes. All cats are of the same kind, regardless that you might want to sub-classify them into different species. It seems to me it is evolutionists inability to classify what a species is that is the problem.

 

[lasthero]

You're giving examples. That's not a definition.

 

[kellhus]

Good question, how many times do we have to go over this? I have defined kind 20 times already. It is you that seems to have a problem with classification of animals, not me. Felidae is a kind. Canidae is a kind. In simple english, cats, dogs, apes, birds, fish, whales, shark, man. None of them have ever evolved outside of their kind.

Yes, but you are so adept at using vague terminology like species, taxonomy, kingdom, order, phylum, etc that one can silly putty it together almost any way one wants. I figured a concrete definition of kind 20 times already would be enough. One more time, all feline creatures are of the same kind. All canine creatures are of the same kind. All apes are of the same kind. All humans are of the same kind. All birds are of a kind. They are simply more diverse because they can like fly, you know, and spread easier than the other kinds. Subject to more climatic and geological affects and have adapted to their environment. But they have always been birds, and will always be birds. Just different appearances of the same kind.

What does modern genetics teach us? That kind always remains the same kind, even through appearance changes. All cats are of the same kind, regardless that you might want to sub-classify them into different species. It seems to me it is evolutionists inability to classify what a species is that is the problem.

Canidae and felidae are families. Apes are a superfamily. Birds are a class. Fish are paraphyletic, whales are an order. Sharks are a super order, humans are a species.

Your definition makes no sense because it has no consistency. "Kind" appears to be a made-up term you use in whatever fashion is most convenient to you. If you want us to take your claim that nothing evolves outside it's "kind" seriously, you need to offer a coherent, consistent and precise definition of what constitutes a kind.

 

[lasthero]

All birds are of a kind

Also, I'm confused. When I asked Eternal Dragon if all birds came from the same kind 4,400 years ago, he said they didn't, but you seem to be saying they did. So which is it? Are all birds of the same kind? If not, how many bird kinds are there, and why are they divided as such?

Are all ants the same kind? Because there's some 12,000 species of ants on the planet. How did we get that many species of ants in only 4,400 years? What about flies? About 100,000 species of those. Did they all come from two flies, 4,400 years ago?

And while I'm thinking about it, are a house cat and a tiger the same kind? If so, what did they come from and how they get so different with just 4,400 years of speciation? If not, how come they're different kinds, but all dogs are the same kind? What about hyenas? Are they part of the cat kind, too, or are they their own kind?

And you said that birds are more diverse because they can fly...but not all birds can fly, so how does that work? If all birds started as the same kind, I'm guessing the first kind could fly, so why would certain birds lose that ability?

And wait, wait, wait - fish are a kind, and sharks are a kind? How does that work? Sharks are fish. So, I mean...

And what about spiders? Are all spiders the same kind? Even tarantulas? They all came from a common ancestor, 4,400 years ago? And bacteria, what about them, are all bacteria the same kind?

Oh, man, I forgot about plants, that's a whole different ballpark, isn't it? Are all grass the same kind? All 10,000? They all came from a single grass-ancestor, 4,400 years?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Good question, how many times do we have to go over this? I have defined kind 20 times already. It is you that seems to have a problem with classification of animals, not me. Felidae is a kind. Canidae is a kind. In simple english, cats, dogs, apes, birds, fish, whales, shark, man. None of them have ever evolved outside of their kind.

That's not a definition, that's just examples. What measurable qualities are you using to get these examples?

 

[EternalDragon]

Also, I'm confused. When I asked Eternal Dragon if all birds came from the same kind 4,400 years ago, he said they didn't, but you seem to be saying they did. So which is it? Are all birds of the same kind? If not, how many bird kinds are there, and why are they divided as such?

Are all ants the same kind? Because there's some 12,000 species of ants on the planet. How did we get that many species of ants in only 4,400 years? What about flies? About 100,000 species of those. Did they all come from two flies, 4,400 years ago?

And while I'm thinking about it, are a house cat and a tiger the same kind? If so, what did they come from and how they get so different with just 4,400 years of speciation? If not, how come they're different kinds, but all dogs are the same kind? What about hyenas? Are they part of the cat kind, too, or are they their own kind?

And you said that birds are more diverse because they can fly...but not all birds can fly, so how does that work? If all birds started as the same kind, I'm guessing the first kind could fly, so why would certain birds lose that ability?

And wait, wait, wait - fish are a kind, and sharks are a kind? How does that work? Sharks are fish. So, I mean...

And what about spiders? Are all spiders the same kind? Even tarantulas? They all came from a common ancestor, 4,400 years ago? And bacteria, what about them, are all bacteria the same kind?

Oh, man, I forgot about plants, that's a whole different ballpark, isn't it? Are all grass the same kind? All 10,000? They all came from a single grass-ancestor, 4,400 years?

Really?

When the Bible says God created creatures "according to their kinds" it does not mean God created one pair of each kind. Like only one pair of birds. Or only one pair of spiders.

It was definitely not as many kinds/species as we have today and 4000 years is plenty of time for natural selection to work. There is a description of fast natural selection change in the "evolution" theory. It is called Cladogenesis.

Even Dawkins has said that there are variable speeds in "evolution" and what we see in the fossil record is Punctuated Equilibrium. That is how they explain the gaps. Most fossil species we find were in a stasis mode and other evolution events happened so fast we can't see the steps in the fossil record. If you want my opinion, I don't think they know as much as you think they know.

 

[kellhus]

Really?

When the Bible says God created creatures "according to their kinds" it does not mean God created one pair of each kind. Like only one pair of birds. Or only one pair of spiders.

It was definitely not as many kinds/species as we have today and 4000 years is plenty of time for natural selection to work. There is a description of fast natural selection change in the "evolution" theory. It is called Cladogenesis.

Even Dawkins has said that there are variable speeds in "evolution" and what we see in the fossil record is Punctuated Equilibrium. That is how they explain the gaps. Most fossil species we find were in a stasis mode and other evolution events happened so fast we can't see the steps in the fossil record. If you want my opinion, I don't think they know as much as you think they know.

What are the mechanisms of this "stasis mode"?

 

[EternalDragon]

What are the mechanisms of this "stasis mode"?

Are you beginning to see how evolutionists try to talk their way out of the clear evidence against evolution?

Plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-25 stabilizing selection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Lieberman-26 the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-27 constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Lieberman-26 normalizing clade selection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-28 and koinophilia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Koeslag.2C_1990-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Stasis

 

[kellhus]

Are you beginning to see how evolutionists try to talk their way out of the clear evidence against evolution?

No...

Plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-25 stabilizing selection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Lieberman-26 the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-27 constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Lieberman-26 normalizing clade selection,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-28 and koinophilia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-Koeslag.2C_1990-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Stasis

Alright.

 

[lasthero]

When the Bible says God created creatures "according to their kinds" it does not mean God created one pair of each kind. Like only one pair of birds. Or only one pair of spiders.

Okay. So how many kinds of birds are there? How many kinds of spiders? Are house cats and tigers the same kind?

It was definitely not as many kinds/species as we have today and 4000 years is plenty of time for natural selection to work.

Really? So, house cats and tigers came from a single ancestor only 4,000 years ago? Care to back that up with any actual data?

There is a description of fast natural selection change in the "evolution" theory. It is called Cladogenesi

I'm aware of cladogenesis. I'm not aware of it happening anywhere near the speed you seem to be suggesting. Care to proffer any evidence to this effect?

And you didn't answer...many of my questions, honestly. Are all fish a kind? Why are sharks a separate kind from fish? How many ant kinds are there?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Canidae and felidae are families. Apes are a superfamily. Birds are a class. Fish are paraphyletic, whales are an order. Sharks are a super order, humans are a species.

Your definition makes no sense because it has no consistency. "Kind" appears to be a made-up term you use in whatever fashion is most convenient to you. If you want us to take your claim that nothing evolves outside it's "kind" seriously, you need to offer a coherent, consistent and precise definition of what constitutes a kind.

Who says they are famalies? Evolutionists? The same ones that classify different cats or birds or dogs as different species? Like I said, it seems evolutionists have a classification problem, not me. You want to call them families, that's fine, still a kind. What, family is an acceptable term for the feline species, but kind is not? I fail to see your reasoning, since no feline has ever been observed to evolve into anything but a feline.

If you want to be taken serioisly you need to show some evidence where a feline has been anything but a feline, otherwise all you got is wishful thinking and flights of fancy. So as soon as you can give a consistent definition of species or family I see you capable of defining anything anyway you want.


Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity, though other taxonomic levels such as families may be considered in broad-scale studies. Extinct species known only from fossils are generally difficult to assign precise taxonomic rankings, which is why higher taxonomic levels such as families are often used for fossil-based studies.

As I said, it is your problem, not mine.

While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, it seems you are the one having problems defining what a species or family or kind is, not me. All felines are a kind, call them different species if you want, play all the word games you want, but in the end it always has been and always will be kind after kind. The only thing you have ever observed.

I think you are trying to sell me another religion, and one not even based on any actual experimental or observational science at all.

 

[biggles53]

Good question, how many times do we have to go over this? I have defined kind 20 times already. It is you that seems to have a problem with classification of animals, not me. Felidae is a kind. Canidae is a kind. In simple english, cats, dogs, apes, birds, fish, whales, shark, man. None of them have ever evolved outside of their kind.

Yes, but you are so adept at using vague terminology like species, taxonomy, kingdom, order, phylum, etc that one can silly putty it together almost any way one wants. I figured a concrete definition of kind 20 times already would be enough. One more time, all feline creatures are of the same kind. All canine creatures are of the same kind. All apes are of the same kind. All humans are of the same kind. All birds are of a kind. They are simply more diverse because they can like fly, you know, and spread easier than the other kinds. Subject to more climatic and geological affects and have adapted to their environment. But they have always been birds, and will always be birds. Just different appearances of the same kind.

What does modern genetics teach us? That kind always remains the same kind, even through appearance changes. All cats are of the same kind, regardless that you might want to sub-classify them into different species. It seems to me it is evolutionists inability to classify what a species is that is the problem.

Tell me, what "kind" is a koala...? What kind is a platypus...? What kind is a kangaroo ...? An echidna...? How about Archaeopteryx....?

 

[kellhus]

Who says they are famalies? Evolutionists? The same ones that classify different cats or birds or dogs as different species? Like I said, it seems evolutionists have a classification problem, not me. You want to call them families, that's fine, still a kind. What, family is an acceptable term for the feline species, but kind is not? I fail to see your reasoning, since no feline has ever been observed to evolve into anything but a feline.

If you want to be taken serioisly you need to show some evidence where a feline has been anything but a feline, otherwise all you got is wishful thinking and flights of fancy. So as soon as you can give a consistent definition of species or family I see you capable of defining anything anyway you want.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, it is your problem, not mine.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, it seems you are the one having problems defining what a species or family or kind is, not me. All felines are a kind, call them different species if you want, play all the word games you want, but in the end it always has been and always will be kind after kind. The only thing you have ever observed.

I think you are trying to sell me another religion, and one not even based on any actual experimental or observational science at all.

So basically, you really have no idea what a kind is. Thanks.

 

[EternalDragon]

Okay. So how many kinds of birds are there? How many kinds of spiders? Are house cats and tigers the same kind?



Really? So, house cats and tigers came from a single ancestor only 4,000 years ago? Care to back that up with any actual data?



I'm aware of cladogenesis. I'm not aware of it happening anywhere near the speed you seem to be suggesting. Care to proffer any evidence to this effect?

And you didn't answer...many of my questions, honestly. Are all fish a kind? Why are sharks a separate kind from fish? How many ant kinds are there?

Well, we managed to breed a wide range of dogs in a short time.

"Genetic studies have shown that the hawthorn fly appears to be in the process of splitting into two species (Annual Review of Entomology, vol 47, p 773). What's more, the parasitic wasps whose larvae feed on the maggots are also splitting into two species (Science, vol 323, p 776).

More examples keep turning up. A species of fish in a lake in Nicaragua has split in two in only 100 years. The new variety has evolved a narrower, pointier head and fatter lips, ideal for nibbling insects from crevices. The original variety has sturdier jaws and extra teeth to crack snail shells. Lab studies suggest the strains do not mate with each other even when put together, which would mean they are on their way to becoming separate species."

 

[Split Rock]

Good question, how many times do we have to go over this? I have defined kind 20 times already. It is you that seems to have a problem with classification of animals, not me. Felidae is a kind. Canidae is a kind. In simple english, cats, dogs, apes, birds, fish, whales, shark, man. None of them have ever evolved outside of their kind.

Yes, but you are so adept at using vague terminology like species, taxonomy, kingdom, order, phylum, etc that one can silly putty it together almost any way one wants. I figured a concrete definition of kind 20 times already would be enough. One more time, all feline creatures are of the same kind. All canine creatures are of the same kind. All apes are of the same kind. All humans are of the same kind. All birds are of a kind. They are simply more diverse because they can like fly, you know, and spread easier than the other kinds. Subject to more climatic and geological affects and have adapted to their environment. But they have always been birds, and will always be birds. Just different appearances of the same kind.

What does modern genetics teach us? That kind always remains the same kind, even through appearance changes. All cats are of the same kind, regardless that you might want to sub-classify them into different species. It seems to me it is evolutionists inability to classify what a species is that is the problem.

You've given me a few examples of what you "feel" are kinds... but no definition. I have some questions for you:

1. Why aren't mammals all one "kind?"
2. Why aren't humans in the same "kind" as apes?
3. What "kind" would you classify hyenas, jackals, and jaguarundis?

One more question for you: According to evolutionary theory, are species fixed or variable? If they are variable, why would you expect a fixed definition of species? "Kinds," on the other hand, were created separately, and therefore should be easily distinguishable.

 

[lasthero]

Well, we managed to breed a wide range of dogs in a short time.

We will, of course, ignore that all evidence points to this happening in longer 4,400 years. But barring that, how do we know that's the case? How did we determine that dogs came from wolves? It's not like humans left any records of this change.

Also, why did cats change so much, but dogs didn't? How come tigers became so distinct that they can't even breed with housecats, but dogs didn't develop in such a way?

And you're still not answering my question - how many kinds of birds are there? Spiders? Ants? Are house cats and tigers the same kind? If so, why are house cats and tigers the same kind, but fish and sharks aren't the same kind?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Why aren't mammals all one "kind?"
2. Why aren't humans in the same "kind" as apes?
3. What "kind" would you classify hyenas, jackals, and jaguarundis?

1. Ontological reductionism.
2. Ontological reductionism.
3. I don't know, but I'm not beyond guessing: the unicorn kind?

 

[Split Rock]

Who says they are famalies? Evolutionists? The same ones that classify different cats or birds or dogs as different species? Like I said, it seems evolutionists have a classification problem, not me. You want to call them families, that's fine, still a kind. What, family is an acceptable term for the feline species, but kind is not? I fail to see your reasoning, since no feline has ever been observed to evolve into anything but a feline.

And eukaryotes always evolve into eukaryotes.
And animals always evolve into animals
And mammals always evolve into mammals
And primates always evolve into primates.

What is your problem with that? Why aren't these categories all "kinds?"

As I said, it seems you are the one having problems defining what a species or family or kind is, not me. All felines are a kind, call them different species if you want, play all the word games you want, but in the end it always has been and always will be kind after kind. The only thing you have ever observed.

Species are not supposed to be fixed according to the T.O.E. "Kinds" on the other hand, are.

I think you are trying to sell me another religion, and one not even based on any actual experimental or observational science at all.

That would be creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

1. Ontological reductionism.
2. Ontological reductionism.
3. I don't know, but I'm not beyond guessing: the unicorn kind?

Thanks for your input buddy....

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for your input buddy....

Um ... you're welcome?

(I'm not sure if you're being serious here.)