What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

[pitabread]

OR,
since the CREATOR of ALL THINGS, gave HIS WORD to men to know the TRUTH
(those who are willing)
then
why not you agree with TRUTH?

I find Christian theology to be fundamentally illogical. Hence, I don't believe it insofar as a religious faith goes.

That and there are way too many competing religions each with their own adherents proclaiming theirs is the "one true faith". My own view is that they are all inherently human made and that adherence to religious beliefs is a result of culture, not divinity.

If it rocks your world, have at it. It's not for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find Christian theology to be fundamentally illogical.

I find it fundamentally theological -- and therein lies the difference.

 

[pitabread]

I find it fundamentally theological -- and therein lies the difference.

You find theology to be theological... Oh... kay?

 

[xianghua]

What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

And of course it is entirely possible. I'd just like to know if it is fact, and if so, how does it work.

Thanks. By the way, I have read a lot of creationist literature ( but unfortunately it is quite lacking) and in fact I was raised a creationist. I'd be happy to accept it as long as there is good evidence for it.

i will give you 2 reasons:

1) some biological systems need at least several parts to their minimal function. for instance: the auditory system need at least 3-4 parts for a minimal hearing. so it can't evolve in a functional stepwise-

the image from here:

The Auditory System | VT Hearing Aids and Evaluations | Bennington/Manchester/Rutland | Southern VT Audiology

2) since complex systems are evidence for design, we can't claim that they evolved by a natural process. so this is another reason why one kind of creature can't evolve into another.

 

[Occams Barber]

i will give you 2 reasons:

1) some biological systems need at least several parts to their minimal function. for instance: the auditory system need at least 3-4 parts for a minimal hearing. so it can't evolve in a functional stepwise-

the image from here:

The Auditory System | VT Hearing Aids and Evaluations | Bennington/Manchester/Rutland | Southern VT Audiology

2) since complex systems are evidence for design, we can't claim that they evolved by a natural process. so this is another reason why one kind of creature can't evolve into another.

From Wikipedia, 'Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles'

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented[1] and important[2] evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.​

Read and learn.
OB

 

[Jimmy D]

What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

And of course it is entirely possible. I'd just like to know if it is fact, and if so, how does it work.

Thanks. By the way, I have read a lot of creationist literature ( but unfortunately it is quite lacking) and in fact I was raised a creationist. I'd be happy to accept it as long as there is good evidence for it.

It's a good question and deserving of a better answer than the nonsense you've received so far.

Is it really so difficult to believe that a creature like this could branch off into dogs and cats over the course of tens of millions of years? Surely it would only require small "adaptations"?

What barriers would prevent it from doing so?

Look at the differences in canines achieved over a significantly less period of time...

 

[xianghua]

From Wikipedia, 'Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles'

The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented[1] and important[2] evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution.​

Read and learn.
OB

not realy, since even a minimal hearing need at least 3 parts: a part that can detect sound waves, a part that can transmit it to the brain, and a part that can process the signal for the creature. so even a minimal sense of hearing can't evolve stepwise. the wiki page already start with this complex system. so it doesn't solve the problem at all.

 

[pitabread]

i will give you 2 reasons:

1) some biological systems need at least several parts to their minimal function.

Except that biological parts are not defined by their function. Consequently they can undergo 'functional shifts' and get co-opted by other systems during the process of evolution. Thus so-called "irreducible complexity" is not the barrier to evolution you seem to think it is.

I think this goes back to the conceptualization issue I mentioned earlier. People like putting things in neat, discrete boxes with singular purposes. But when doing so we forget that biological systems are far more fluid and don't work like that.

2) since complex systems are evidence for design, we can't claim that they evolved by a natural process.

Except that complexity alone is not evidence for design. For example, weather patterns are arguably a complex system, but nobody out there still believes that there are gods actively creating weather in the heavens. Do they?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

And of course it is entirely possible. I'd just like to know if it is fact, and if so, how does it work.

Thanks. By the way, I have read a lot of creationist literature ( but unfortunately it is quite lacking) and in fact I was raised a creationist. I'd be happy to accept it as long as there is good evidence for it.

There is not one shred of evidence that Kind can become other Kind. It is simply incorrect classifications such as with Darwin's Finches. Darwin classified them as separate species in the belief that they were reproductively isolated. 200+ years later they finally get around to testing their DNA and find they have always been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. Do they correct their incorrect classifications knowing they are the exact same species? Of course not, they have the name Darwin attached and such correction would show their belief in one Kind becoming another is as false as is their other beliefs.

Incorrect classifications is what leads them to their incorrect beliefs in evolution.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation ever seen in the species. The Asian remains Asian and the African remains African. Neither "evolve" into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species. The Husky remains Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff. Neither "evolve" into the Chinook.

So too with the fossil record. T-Rex remains T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. As does every single fossil ever discovered of every single species. They simple ignore that it takes two subspecies to create a third and instead incorrectly classify those subspecies as separate species based upon their false beliefs.

Every living creature today follows this same scheme. It takes two subspecies to create a third. Never has one split into two, nor has one ever evolved into another. But they in their incorrect beliefs due to their incorrect classifications incorrectly believe that one can become a different species.

Don't be fooled by their incorrect classifications of subspecies in the fossil record. If they had never seen a dog alive but had only bones, they would incorrectly classify them as separate species in support of their incorrect beliefs. Their entire system of belief is based upon incorrect classifications because that is what they want to believe.

these:

are no different than these:

Simply each their own respective species. But because they have an incorrect view of how variation occurs, they incorrectly classify the dinosaurs of which they have never seen a living one and therefore know not their mating habits or anything about them as separate species.

Incorrect classification after incorrect classification. Error after uncorrected error is all evolution is.

 

[Jimmy D]

since complex systems are evidence for design

Says who?

There is not one shred of evidence that Kind can become other Kind. It is simply incorrect classifications such as with Darwin's Finches. Darwin classified them as separate species in the belief that they were reproductively isolated. 200+ years later they finally get around to testing their DNA and find they have always been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. Do they correct their incorrect classifications knowing they are the exact same species? Of course not, they have the name Darwin attached and such correction would show their belief in one Kind becoming another is as false as is their other beliefs.

incorrect classifications is what leads them to their incorrect beliefs in evolution.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation ever seen in the species. The Asian remains Asian and the African remains African. Neither "evolve" into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species. The Husky remains Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff. Neither "evolve" into the Chinook.

So too with the fossil record. T-Rex remains T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. As does every single fossil ever discovered of every single species. They simple ignore that it takes two subspecies to create a third and instead incorrectly classify those subspecies as separate species based upon their false beliefs.

every living creature today follows this same scheme. It takes two subspecies to create a third. Never hasone split into two, nor has one ever evolved into another. But they in their incorrect beliefs due to their incorrect classifications incorrectly believe that one can become a different species.

Don't be fooled by their incorrect classifications of subspecies in the fossil record. If they had never seen a dog alive but had only bones, they would incorrectly classify them as separate species in support of their incorrect beliefs. Their entire system of belief is based upon incorrect classifications because that is what they want to believe.

these:
View attachment 209649

are no different than these:
View attachment 209650
Simply the same species. But because they have an incorrect view of how variation occurs, they incorrectly classify the dinosaurs of which they have never seen a living one as separate species.

Incorrect classification after incorrect classification. Error after uncorrected error is all evolution is.

 

[pitabread]

There is not one shred of evidence that Kind can become other Kind.

"Kind" is a meaningless term with respect to biology.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species. The Husky remains Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff. Neither "evolve" into the Chinook.

This is a bizarre argument given that Mastiffs and Huskys didn't previously exist, but were both derived breeds from earlier canid species.

Or do you believe all dog breeds were individual created and weren't a result of domestication and artificial breeding?

It takes two subspecies to create a third. Never hasone split into two, nor has one ever evolved into another.

Except species have "split" in two: Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Jimmy D]

There is not one shred of evidence that Kind can become other Kind. It is simply incorrect classifications such as with Darwin's Finches. Darwin classified them as separate species in the belief that they were reproductively isolated. 200+ years later they finally get around to testing their DNA and find they have always been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. Do they correct their incorrect classifications knowing they are the exact same species? Of course not, they have the name Darwin attached and such correction would show their belief in one Kind becoming another is as false as is their other beliefs.

Incorrect classifications is what leads them to their incorrect beliefs in evolution.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation ever seen in the species. The Asian remains Asian and the African remains African. Neither "evolve" into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species. The Husky remains Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff. Neither "evolve" into the Chinook.

So too with the fossil record. T-Rex remains T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. As does every single fossil ever discovered of every single species. They simple ignore that it takes two subspecies to create a third and instead incorrectly classify those subspecies as separate species based upon their false beliefs.

Every living creature today follows this same scheme. It takes two subspecies to create a third. Never has one split into two, nor has one ever evolved into another. But they in their incorrect beliefs due to their incorrect classifications incorrectly believe that one can become a different species.

Don't be fooled by their incorrect classifications of subspecies in the fossil record. If they had never seen a dog alive but had only bones, they would incorrectly classify them as separate species in support of their incorrect beliefs. Their entire system of belief is based upon incorrect classifications because that is what they want to believe.

these:
View attachment 209649

are no different than these:
View attachment 209650
Simply the same species. But because they have an incorrect view of how variation occurs, they incorrectly classify the dinosaurs of which they have never seen a living one as separate species.

Incorrect classification after incorrect classification. Error after uncorrected error is all evolution is.

No one asked for your opinion the taxonomic system. The question is...

"What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Kind" is a meaningless term with respect to biology.

In your denial perhaps.
Kind - Biology-Online Dictionary
"2. Race; genus; species; generic class; phylum; domain; order; kingdom; as, in mankind or humankind. Come of so low a kind. Every kind of beasts, and of birds. (James III.7) She follows the law of her kind. (Wordsworth) Here to sow the seed of bread, That man and all the kinds be fed. (Emerson) Bacteria becoming bacteria is not a change of kind (Comfort)"

No more meanigless than species,which you seem to have a problem defining.......

This is a bizarre argument given that Mastiffs and Huskys didn't previously exist, but were both derived breeds from earlier canid species.

No, get it correct, of the SAME canid species...... There you go, incorrectly trying to classify the earlier canid species as a separate species, when even all of biology does not do so.

Or do you believe all dog breeds were individual created and weren't a result of domestication and artificial breeding?

Apparently you missed the entire gist. Let me repeat for your benefit. Pay attention this time.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff Mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is the Chinook produced.

That wolf breed A mated with wolf breed B and created what led to domesticated dogs is what you choose to ignore. What you see in dogs is what you incorrectly believe is evolution in a few thousand years instead of millions if man had not bring them together.

Tell me what would be the difference in outcomes if instead of man bringing a Husky and Mastiff together, famine or geological changes did instead? Nothing except time frame, correct? Your argument lacks any substance at all and is simply a strawman in your effort to avoid the truth.

Except species have "split" in two: Observed Instances of Speciation

All based upon incorrect classifcations of what a species is, since you people dont even have a definition of what it is.

From your own source.


2.0 Species Definitions
A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.

You cant even settle on your own meanings as to what a species is but are divided within your own group.. You have so many definitions you can make any claims you want at any given time, making the concept of species absolutely meaningless.......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No one asked for your opinion the taxonomic system. The question is...

"What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different"?

No one asked for yours, but you sure dont mind giving it. Because you know your classification system is flawed that is your only defense.... I understand, its ok, I forgive you for trying to repress freedom of speech.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The mechanism is the inbuilt correction within the DNA.
No species has ever become another species, unless incorrectly classified. Thats the entire point.....

 

[pitabread]

The mechanism is the inbuilt correction within the DNA.
No species has ever become another species, unless incorrectly classified. Thats the entire point.....

"Incorrectly classified"

Bit of an oxymoron since "species" is an artificial classification system to begin with.

 

[pitabread]

In your denial perhaps.
Kind - Biology-Online Dictionary
"2. Race; genus; species; generic class; phylum; domain; order; kingdom; as, in mankind or humankind. Come of so low a kind. Every kind of beasts, and of birds. (James III.7) She follows the law of her kind. (Wordsworth) Here to sow the seed of bread, That man and all the kinds be fed. (Emerson) Bacteria becoming bacteria is not a change of kind (Comfort)"

Read the definition you gave and then see if you can spot the issue trying to apply that to biology.

No more meanigless than species,which you seem to have a problem defining.......

Funny, I don't recall even trying to give a definition. So not exactly sure what you're going on about.

You cant even settle on your own meanings as to what a species is but are divided within your own group.. You have so many definitions you can make any claims you want at any given time, making the concept of species absolutely meaningless.......

"Species" is essentially an artificial classification humans apply to groups of organisms to make it easier to identify them. That's it.

There are multiple definitions of species due to different criteria on which the organisms being defined are based. For example, species with sexual reproduction tend to get classified based on their ability to interbreed. Fossil species get classified based on gross morphology. And so on.

It doesn't mean that species in and of itself is 'meaningless'. It just means it's artificial.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Incorrectly classified"

I guess I would make useless comments too if I knew my entire system of beliefs was based upon spurious definitions that cant even be decided amongst those who share the same beliefs.....

But denial of your own problems leads to those incorrect beliefs and no response except useless ones.

 

[Hieronymus]

What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

It's called "reality".
Kind begets kind, specific information (genetic codes for specific organs and traits) writing themselves by accident is not reality, it is a naturalistic belief invented by / for people who wish to deny God.

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

I think you may have been brainwashed.
No wonder though, the evo gospel is proclaimed everywhere.

And of course it is entirely possible. I'd just like to know if it is fact, and if so, how does it work.

Again, kind begets kind.

Thanks. By the way, I have read a lot of creationist literature ( but unfortunately it is quite lacking) and in fact I was raised a creationist. I'd be happy to accept it as long as there is good evidence for it.

It's the naturalists who have to make a case for accidental emergence of genius and efficient solutions, an overwhelmingly complex system consisting of overwhelmingly complex systems, which scientists are still trying to figure out by discovering how things work.

The hardest thing to believe is that popular science regarding the origins of things is in fact a religion, namely naturalism.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Read the definition you gave and then see if you can spot the issue trying to apply that to biology.

Race; genus; species

Funny, I don't recall even trying to give a definition. So not exactly sure what you're going on about.

I know, you'll avoid having to make a stand on anything.... evolutionists cant switch stances every post if they make a stand of specifics.

"Species" is essentially an artificial classification humans apply to groups of organisms to make it easier to identify them. That's it.

Except you have no definition to identify them with. You refuse to make a stand.

There are multiple definitions of species due to different criteria on which the organisms being defined are based. For example, species with sexual reproduction tend to get classified based on their ability to interbreed.

Untill I ask you to make a stand on that definition when it comes to Darwin's finches, then suddenly that wont be the definition anymore, right?

Fossil species get classified based on gross morphology. And so on.

Which you would never admit might be incorrect, based upon such a spurious thing.

It doesn't mean that species in and of itself is 'meaningless'. It just means it's artificial.

Meaningless, totally. Its arbitrary and switches from one day to the nwext. In reality it has no deffinition and anything can be named a species based on any criteria one decides to use at any given moment. Useless at defining anything.