What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.

Except that it's not. It's an attempt to apply the term Kind post hoc to the use of the terms of genus, family and species.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.

The issue is that scientific definitions are of flexible and changeable categories.

Kinds are apparently distinct and immutable, but there is no absolute or objective way to define them except by tacking them onto scientific definitions with caveats for personal preference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.

The problem of "kind" is one that refutes creationism. If there was such a thing as a basal kind the creationists should be able to properly define it and find examples of it. This is essentially Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge. They never have been able to do that. Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species". But for evolution that is not a problem. In fact it confirms the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that we will not be able to come up with a sharp line of which members of a population belong to a species or not. An inability to say "this was the first man" is not a problem at all for evolution. In fact it is an impossibility for evolution.

This is just a reminder that when you cannot properly define kind you are confirming the theory of evolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

The problem of "kind" is one that refutes creationism.

The problems with species (struggles with definitions, etc.) also refutes evolution then... just double standard stuff.

If there was such a thing as a basal kind the creationists should be able to properly define it and find examples of it. This is essentially Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge. They never have been able to do that.

Really... well maybe creationists should speculate more about it like evolutionists do. Oh, I forgot, that's unscientific, ignorant, crazy, silly, whatever if creationists do it. More double standard.

Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species". But for evolution that is not a problem. In fact it confirms the theory of evolution.

Of course.

The theory predicts that we will not be able to come up with a sharp line of which members of a population belong to a species or not. An inability to say "this was the first man" is not a problem at all for evolution. In fact it is an impossibility for evolution.

Not a problem for creationists. The bible is quite clear about it.

This is just a reminder that when you cannot properly define kind you are confirming the theory of evolution.

Creationistss can't confirm by default.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problems with species (struggles with definitions, etc.) also refutes evolution then... just double standard stuff.

An example of which is...?

Not a problem for creationists. The bible is quite clear about it.

The Bible is clear but there is no evidence for its claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.

It's not really a question of whether I agree or not, it's a question of whether the definition reasonably fits what we observe in the world. If 'kind' means 'genus', then its usage should be consistent with that meaning. Unfortunately, the biblical usage (and its interpretations) doesn't appear to be consistent with any scientific definition, nor with what we know about real creatures.

 

[inquiring mind]

An example of which is...?

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species".

The Bible is clear but there is no evidence for its claims.

But, its ok for evolutionists to speculate?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species".

And that's a true statement, that is accepted by biologists and is being worked on. However, when Creationists use Kind, they use it to mean whatever they want whenever they want.

But, its ok for evolutionists to speculate?

Speculation is a might bit better than just going "The Bible says it, that's final" without any actual evidence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And that's a true statement, that is accepted by biologists and is being worked on. However, when Creationists use Kind, they use it to mean whatever they want whenever they want.



Speculation is a might bit better than just going "The Bible says it, that's final" without any actual evidence.

I'd also say that that while having our terms clear is important for clear communication, the theory of evolution doesn't hinge on whatever definition is settled. (This is very unlike YEC's equivocation on "kind".)

If two entities can produce fertile offspring, evolution happens.

IOW, the definition is an issue for humans, but not for nature.

 

[eleos1954]

You are just regurgitating your literal interpretation of Genesis. The majority of Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation.

well ... the majority of the clergy in Jesus day didn't believe He was the Messiah either and look what happened there.

When one removes or skews the foundation (Genesis) then it undermines the authority of Gods Word ..... ie .... Now the serpent was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?

and....

Can it really be God created everything in 6 literal days?

Same tactic/deception being used, casting doubt on the Word of God.

 

[eleos1954]

Perhaps that is what you believe you see when you look in the mirror. When I look in the mirror I see a combination of my parents genes plus the results of the mutations they passed on to me.

well yeah .... they are your parents .... your family unit.

 

[driewerf]

No. It's a biblical term. We aren't talking about biblical definitions. We are discussing science. So is something that is air breathing, walks on land and climbs trees a fish?

If you are a cladist: yes.
Or, there are no fish at all.

 

[driewerf]

The water kind according to Genesis 1:21

Water kind?
Are dolphins, whales, crabs, lobsters, eels, cod, herring (not the red ones) all water kind? Can they bring forth?
Have you seen a sea cucumber mate with a shark? What was the offspring?

 

[eleos1954]

Who has made such a claim?

Genetic analysis suggests there may have been a long period of cross-breeding between early ancestors of the humans and chimpanzees, before they finally split into the Homo and Pan (chimp) genera around six million years ago.

Not facts ... is what l I'm saying .... and six million years ... is pre-supposed as well.

a lot of ... if's ... and's and but's within the theory(s).

Now with that being said ... it is wonderful that we have people that dedicate themselves into the matters of genetics and other science disciplines because in doing so many things are discovered that benefit humanity.

Life forms are very complex .... and science comes up with possibilities in an attempt to explain it ... that's a good thing .... but there are many many non observable and non testable ideas that come into play and it will always be that way in regard to the various life forms.

a lot of "could be's" aren't facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problems with species (struggles with definitions, etc.) also refutes evolution then... just double standard stuff.

No, it is not a double standard. I explained that. Your beliefs predict that there should be a clear definition of "kinds", yet creationists always fail at that. The theory of evolution predicts that due to the nature of evolution that there will be no hard definition of species. We observe the prediction of evolution, not the prediction of creationism. That is a fail on the part of creationism only.

Really... well maybe creationists should speculate more about it like evolutionists do. Oh, I forgot, that's unscientific, ignorant, crazy, silly, whatever if creationists do it. More double standard.

Sorry, you do speculate. That is all that you have. The scientific method starts with speculation but then those speculations are tested. Once they are tested they are no longer speculations.

Thank you for pointing out another fail of creationists.

Of course.


Not a problem for creationists. The bible is quite clear about it.

It is a huge problem for creationists since all of the scientific evidence refutes that claim. Too bad that you do not understand evidence. Would you like to discuss the topic?

Creationistss can't confirm by default.

Sure you can. When you cannot support something that you absolutely should be able to you confirm the side that can support their claims. Wishing it was not so doesn't help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Water kind?
Are dolphins, whales, crabs, lobsters, eels, cod, herring (not the red ones) all water kind? Can they bring forth?
Have you seen a sea cucumber mate with a shark? What was the offspring?

A shark sushi roll?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species".

Once again, the theory of evolution predicts that species would be a fuzzy concept. That is not a problem, that is a confirmation.

But, its ok for evolutionists to speculate?

Speculation is fine, as long as one tests one's speculations. Once tested they are evidence either for or against one's ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genetic analysis suggests there may have been a long period of cross-breeding between early ancestors of the humans and chimpanzees, before they finally split into the Homo and Pan (chimp) genera around six million years ago.

Not facts ... is what l I'm saying .... and six million years ... is pre-supposed as well.

a lot of ... if's ... and's and but's within the theory(s).

Now with that being said ... it is wonderful that we have people that dedicate themselves into the matters of genetics and other science disciplines because in doing so many things are discovered that benefit humanity.

Life forms are very complex .... and science comes up with possibilities in an attempt to explain it ... that's a good thing .... but there are many many non observable and non testable ideas that come into play and it will always be that way in regard to the various life forms.

a lot of "could be's" aren't facts.

No, presupposition is the sin of creationists. It is not allowed in the sciences. If you do not understand how a date was determined it is perfectly acceptable to ask how that was done. But when you claim it was "presupposition" that is both a personal attack on others and it puts a burden of proof upon you. It is not a wise debating technique if you cannot prove the presupposition.

 

[inquiring mind]

Water kind?
Are dolphins, whales, crabs, lobsters, eels, cod, herring (not the red ones) all water kind? Can they bring forth?
Have you seen a sea cucumber mate with a shark? What was the offspring?

That was just me responding generally, He appears to make differences... don't you think? Genesis 1:21

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That was just me responding generally, He appears to make differences... don't you think? Genesis 1:21

It still says that everything that isn't a whale belong to the Water Kind.