Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Skaloop]

No, bacteria is a kind, for crying out loud. Cats have always been feline as far back as you can trace them, nothing more than changes of appearance just like we have caused in a few generations. Yet they are not new kinds, they are still feline and always will be. Fish are their own kind, not a distant relative. Apes are their own kind, not a distant relative. Virus are their own kind, not a distant relative.

Bacteria - Kingdom
Feline - Family
Fish - Paraphyletic clade
Ape - Family
Virus - Not even part of Linnaean classification; may not even count as life.

You're jumping all over the place in terms of what a kind is, and what level of specificity it describes. If "fish" is a kind, why not "mammal"? Why do all fish constitute one kind, but "ape" and "feline" are separate kinds?

 

[Split Rock]

You're jumping all over the place in terms of what a kind is, and what level of specificity it describes. If "fish" is a kind, why not "mammal"? Why do all fish constitute one kind, but "ape" and "feline" are separate kinds?

I'd like to see an answer to this question, as well. I'm thinking it all has to do with what his "gut" tells him, since there isn't any science behind "kinds." Bacteria are all the same to most people, while cats and dogs are "different" animals.

 

[lasthero]

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a rigid definition for 'kind'. Everytime I ask, I'm given examples, but no way for me really to tell how 'kinds' are decided, or any metric I could make a list of kinds with.

 

[Split Rock]

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a rigid definition for 'kind'. Everytime I ask, I'm given examples, but no way for me really to tell how 'kinds' are decided, or any metric I could make a list of kinds with.

That's why professional creationists have never come up with a list of "kinds." They do not have a definition or a means of determining what species are different "kinds."

 

[Skaloop]

That's why professional creationists have never come up with a list of "kinds." They do not have a definition or a means of determining what species are different "kinds."

And even when they do "try" they either end up with too broad of a category, such as fish being a kind, and they have to admit that everything from a shark to a seahorse to an electric eel to a manta ray all come from one ancestor. Or they get too specific and have to admit that Noah was caring for hundreds of thousands of animals of all sorts.

Keeping it nebulous is the only way they can make it work and fit the specific circumstances they find themselves in.

 

[MarianaT]

Bacteria are all the same to most people, while cats and dogs are "different" animals.

One of my favorite "talking to creationists" papers is Phylogeny of the Ants: Diversification in the Age of Angiosperms (DOI: 10.1126/science.1124891). Having diverged from other insects at about the same time mammals diverged from the other synapsids, ants have roughly the same genetic diversity as mammals (that's just ants and all mammals). It's fun to ask creationists how many "ant kinds" they think there are.

You can paste the DOI above into the box at doi.org (since I can't post a link). The paper's free to download if you have an online account (also free) with Science Magazine.

 

[EternalDragon]

Bacteria - Kingdom
Feline - Family
Fish - Paraphyletic clade
Ape - Family
Virus - Not even part of Linnaean classification; may not even count as life.

You're jumping all over the place in terms of what a kind is, and what level of specificity it describes. If "fish" is a kind, why not "mammal"? Why do all fish constitute one kind, but "ape" and "feline" are separate kinds?

Simply because fish will always give birth to fish. Apes will always give birth to apes. The embryo follows a strict body plan with many error correcting measures.

Fish don't give birth to electric eels, Skaloop. It has it's own genus: Electrophorus and it's own species: E. Electricus.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Simply because fish will always give birth to fish. Apes will always give birth to apes. The embryo follows a strict body plan with many error correcting measures.

Fish don't give birth to electric eels, Skaloop. It has it's own genus: Electrophorus and species E. Electricus.

All species only give birth to members of their own species. That's one crowded ark.

 

[Skaloop]

Simply because fish will always give birth to fish. Apes will always give birth to apes. The embryo follows a strict body plan with many error correcting measures.

And mammals will always give birth to mammals, so that doesn't explain why the fish kind is so much more general than the ape kind.

Fish don't give birth to electric eels, Skaloop. It has it's own genus: Electrophorus and it's own species: E. Electricus.

Eels are fish. "Fish" is made up of many different species and genera, which includes Electrophorus.

But does your statement mean you're willing to nail down a kind as being at the level of genus?

 

[EternalDragon]

All species only give birth to members of their own species. That's one crowded ark.

Not really. The diversity we see today is from hundreds or thousands of years of speciation through natural selection and environmental changes. After the Ark.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really. The diversity we see today is from hundreds or thousands of years of speciation through natural selection and environmental changes. After the Ark.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Simply because fish will always give birth to fish. Apes will always give birth to apes.

That is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true.

The embryo follows a strict body plan with many error correcting measures.

What are these error correcting measures? Why doesn't every dog look exactly like a wolf?

Fish don't give birth to electric eels,

Biology fail.

It has it's own genus: Electrophorus and it's own species: E. Electricus.

That genus and species if found in the class Actinopterygii along with the other ray finned fish. You are aware of that, are you not?

 

[Skaloop]

Not really. The diversity we see today is from hundreds or thousands of years of speciation through natural selection and environmental changes. After the Ark.

I know it would be mere speculation on your part, but if "fish" is a kind, and Noah had the basic "fish" kind on his ark, what do you think it looked like? Which extant fish would you say it most closely resembled? Was it bony or cartilaginous? Did it have a jaw? What was it's basic body plan?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Not really. The diversity we see today is from hundreds or thousands of years of speciation through natural selection and environmental changes. After the Ark.

Well that's a nice assertion but with no definition of kind it's meaningless. Are bats a kind? Two kinds? 1200 kinds? Monotremes? One? Two? More? How many species per century did bats evolve into? Why don't we see these rates now?

 

[And-U-Say]

ID predicts what we would find in an intelligently designed creature and then that is what they find.

Code

There is no code. DNA is not a code. The analogy barely meets blueprint. DNA has properties, that's it. Amazing properties, yup. But just properties.

, information,

There is absolutely NO information of any kind in DNA.

machinery....

There is machinery, but by itself this means nothing. And the machinery is so Rube Goldberg that nobody would claim design.

the exact same things we find in human inventions. C

No, No, No, No, NO! Not the same thing. Not at ALL the same thing. We find it to be so different as to be unreconcilable. For one, there are no nested hierarchies in human design, because a designer does not have to follow any pattern. The nested hierarchy is the utterly fatal stake in the heart of creationism and ID.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We're not talking about complex life yet. No one except creationists says that life started as complex.

Because the oldest fossils or newest fossils in every strata is fully formed, from the beginning of the strata to its end. The beginning of the next strata is fully formed, from its beginning to its end. No exception ever noted.

There was no transition from RNA to DNA, that's why it's still debated. Because it has never been observed, so has no basis in factual evidence at all, merely someone's belief of what occurred, the same thing you disparage about religion is it not? What, not going to hold your evolution to the same factual basis you hold religion to?

There is no proof any simple form of life evolved into more complex. As a matter of fact every scientific observation of existing life shows it merely replicates itself, with basic changes in the order of code, leading to appearance changes and nothing more. Kind after kind, from the simplest to the complex, what has always been observed and what will always be observed. And no, chemicals combining into larger chemicals does not constitute proof that life itself has ever done this. All biological life replicates, one and all, it does not form from scratch every time. Chemicals once they bond into certain compounds, do not replicate, never did. They simply add what exists to their chemical bonds.

Like I said, when you get life from dirt, let me know. I don't even ask that you merely use gasses and liquids, after all, we are formed from the dust of the earth, so have at it.

 

[kellhus]

Not really. The diversity we see today is from hundreds or thousands of years of speciation through natural selection and environmental changes. After the Ark.

I'd be fascinated in seeing your evidence for a global genetic bottleneck event in the several thousand years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You had just claimed "Kinds" were similar to the family taxon.

And I also said its nothing but a name game. You got so many mixed up classifications it is not even funny. Your mistake to think bacteria is a kingdom, not a kind.

Non sequiter. Your facts are uncoordinated. Are you claiming that a parasitic species can not parasitize another species of its own "kind?' I want your answer before I give you numerous examples.

Why couldn't it? We use our own kind in parasitic relationships. The fact you want to ignore is bacteria are NOT human kind, and human kind was NEVER bacteria. that is the point being made.

True, everything above "species" is rather arbitrary. "Kinds," on the other hand, should not be. They should be obvious, since they were all recently created separately. Why do creationists have such a hard time coming up with a inclusive list of all "kinds," do you think?

I don't have a hard time at all, all felines are of a kind, all canines are of a kind, all humans are of a kind, all apes are of a kind, all cattle are of a kind, all fish are of a kind, all sharks are of a kind, all dolphin are of a kind, all whales are of a kind, all grasshopper are of a kind, all mosquitoes are of a kind. Nothing hard or difficult about it.

Are Mammals a "kind" then? Are primates a "kind?" Why not?

No, mammals is merely a classification of kinds that give live birth and breath air through respiration and are warm-blooded. it means nothing more than that, plain and simple. Primates are merely mammals that you wanted to subdivide so you could place humans and apes together in the same tree. Whale are mammals, dolphin are mammals, cows are mammals, humans are mammals, apes are mammals. Doesn't mean we are related to any of them. Some you have mixed up into the mammal classification because they have hair or breath through respiration but lay eggs, such as the platypus and enchidnas. Although warm-blooded, they are far less so than any of the mammals.

Again, it is not my fault evolutionists are not consistent in their classifications. I'm not one that believes egg laying animals belong in the same class as live birth mammals.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Based on what critieria?



Humans can kill other humans, and we live for 9 months inside another human being. Does that make humans a different kind from other humans?

Why yes, we are evolving every day into new kinds, don't you know. Get an argument to debate, not a useless comment.

Feline is a Genus, so you are playing name games again.

No, feline is kind, you are the one playing name games with different classifications. kind after kind, always has been, always will be, and never has anything else been observed.

Yes, just as it should be if evolution is true. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. How many times has this been explained?

Also, the feline group has only been around since the 1700's when Linnaeus created the group.

The Egyptians might be surprised to know this. So might the extinct saber-tooth.

Cats in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on recent DNA comparisons of living species, it has been estimated that cats were first domesticated from the Middle Eastern subspecies of the Wildcat about 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why yes, we are evolving every day into new kinds, don't you know. Get an argument to debate, not a useless comment.

Right back atcha. You claimed that since bacteria can kill humans that it makes bacteria a different kind. What kind of argument is that?

No, feline is kind, you are the one playing name games with different classifications. kind after kind, always has been, always will be, and never has anything else been observed.

Just as it should be if evolution is true. You don't evolve out of your clade. How many times has this been explained now?

Also, you still haven't explained why feline is a kind but mammal is not. Care to explain?

The Egyptians might be surprised to know this. So might the extinct saber-tooth.

The Linnaean groups you are pointing to didn't exist until Linnaeus created them in the 1700's.

Cats in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you point to where Egyptians used the word "Feline" as a group of species and as a created kind?