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

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Which has already been shown to be how useless that is, based upon the sound science of bone growth.

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

Yet you still talk of useless morphology..... even if you have an actual scientific way to help define them. But that science might show all your other classifications just as incorrect, so they wont be cutting open bones anytime soon.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Oh, I didn't miss the gist of anything. I'm just not sure if you appreciate the consequences of your own argument.

If Huskies mating with Huskies produce Huskies, then where did Huskies come from? Likewise, if Mastiffs mating with Mastiffs produce Mastiffs, then where did those Mastiffs come from?

And so on...

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.

So how does one go from a wolf to a Mastiff or a Great Dane or a Pekingese? Or again, are you arguing that those were originally created breeds?

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.

I haven't really made an argument yet. I'm just pointing to the consequences of yours.

 

[pitabread]

Race; genus; species

You do realize that each of those are different things, yes?

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.

Do you not see the contradictions in what you are arguing? You're on the one hand claiming that species can't evolve into other species, then simultaneously claiming that species is in effect a meaningless concept.

Maybe you need to sort out your arguments first, then come back when you're a little more prepared.

 

[pitabread]

Which has already been shown to be how useless that is, based upon the sound science of bone growth.

Where are the baby dinosaurs?

Yet you still talk of useless morphology.....

Morphology is "useless"? Tell that to an anatomist.

If the entirety of your arguments are going to handwaving dismissals claiming "X is useless", then this discussion has nowhere to go whatsoever.

Good luck with that.

 

[Hieronymus]

You do realize that each of those are different things, yes?



Do you not see the contradictions in what you are arguing?

The question is: Do YOU see the point he makes?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

A religion complete with their own high priests, all based upon lack of any set definitions so they can switch stances at any given time. Its what happens when one has no faith but in man himself.

 

[pitabread]

The question is: Do YOU see the point he makes?

Considering how contradictory their arguments have been so far, I'm not sure they see the point they are trying to make.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You do realize that each of those are different things, yes?

Are they, are you sure???? What species is Asian? African? You cant even get yourself to admit that Asian and African are merely subspecies of the human species. You have no problems defining animals as subspecies, yet when it comes to the human Kind, suddenly its races, even IF we are supposed to be nothing but evolved animals....

Do you not see the contradictions in what you are arguing? You're on the one hand claiming that species can't evolve into other species, then simultaneously claiming that species is in effect a meaningless concept.

Maybe you need to sort out your arguments first, then come back when you're a little more prepared.

It is meaningless because you cant decide what a species is....

You wont even stick the the very definition you gave when it comes to Darwins finches, even if I show you where your own classification system has said so many times. Youll argue against reclassifying them correctly. Refuse to admit to any mistakes in classification that might take away from the flawed concept of evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

I responded to the OP, you copied and pasted your usual rant which in no way addresses the OP.

 

[pitabread]

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.

"Kind" has no biological reality. At least none yet demonstrated by creationists.

Furthermore arguing about "information" in the genome entirely depends on how one defines that. And generally you either run into one of two scenarios:

1) Attempted definitions that are not applicable to genetics;
2) Definitions that are applicable to genetics, but don't demonstrate any kind of "barrier" to the evolution of novel information.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Considering how contradictory their arguments have been so far, I'm not sure they see the point they are trying to make.

Because you dont want to open your eyes and admit to any possible mistakes in your religion.... mistakes that show how incorrect it is. Instead you choose to not see and justify it in your own mind. Id make that same statement I guess if I didnt want to have to question my beliefs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Kind" has no biological reality. At least none yet demonstrated by creationists.

Furthermore arguing about "information" in the genome entirely depends on how one defines that. And generally you either run into one of two scenarios:

1) Attempted definitions that are not applicable to genetics;
2) Definitions that are applicable to genetics, but don't demonstrate any kind of "barrier" to the evolution of novel information.

Im still waiting for anyone to show new DNA can be made where it never existed before? Copying what already exists into a different format is not new DNA.

 

[pitabread]

Are they, are you sure????

Quite. Have you heard of the Linnaean classification system?

It is meaningless because you cant decide what a species is....

But I'm not the one making the argument based on it.

You are claiming that species can't evolve into other species, but then simultaneously claiming that "species" itself is a meaningless concept.

You're blatantly contradicting your own arguments and you don't appear to notice.

 

[pitabread]

Im still waiting for anyone to show new DNA can be made where it never existed before? Copying what already exists into a different format is not new DNA.

What exactly you do mean by "new DNA can be made where it never existed before"? How do you think DNA works?

 

[Jimmy D]

Copying what already exists into a different format is not new DNA.

That's right, descent with modification, sound familiar?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Quite. Have you heard of the Linnaean classification system?

Is this the classification system you are making your stand upon? Yes or no?

But I'm not the one making the argument based on it.

You are claiming that species can't evolve into other species, but then simultaneously claiming that "species" itself is a meaningless concept.

You're blatantly contradicting your own arguments and you don't appear to notice.

Then what is species? Define it or just admit you have no definition. You cant without giving me half a dozen conflicting definitions... Lets look at what you said earlier - reproductive creatures tend to be based upon the ability to reproduce.

Since DNA tests have shown Darwins Finches have been reproducing with one another from the start, then you agree by your own definition that they have been incorrectly classified as separate species?
No? why not, dont you agree with your own definitions, or is it you just dont want to admit to classification errors?

I agree with the scientific definition of species, but then I am not the one refusing to follow what they wrote as its definition.

 

[pitabread]

Because you dont want to open your eyes and admit to any possible mistakes in your religion.... mistakes that show how incorrect it is. Instead you choose to not see and justify it in your own mind. Id make that same statement I guess if I didnt want to have to question my beliefs.

I've been in these debates long enough to know two simple realities:

1) Modern biological evolution, including common descent is a foundational part of modern biology and a real-world applied science.
2) Creationism is effectively a religious belief/movement with a quasi political element that appears to be on the decline, at least in the USA.

Everything else, all this back and forth, is just noise. At the end of the day, what you or I personally think or believe is irrelevant to the above.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's right, descent with modification, sound familiar?

Not at all since the first organism had simple DNA and we have DNA that did not exist to be copied with modification. I asked if you had evidence new DNA could be made, not that we both agree what exists can be modified.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.....

The irony. What does "kind" mean exactly?

 

[pitabread]

Is this the classification system you are making your stand upon? Yes or no?

I'm not making a "stand". I'm asking if you understand the difference between words like species, genus, domain, etc, insofar as they apply to biology.

I agree with the scientific definition of species, but then I am not the one refusing to follow what they wrote as its definition.

You "agree with the scientific definition of species", but you continue to claim it's a meaningless concept.

Okay then.