Rapid Adaptation
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
See how what works? :idunno:
We were asked for a definition and it was provided.
That you don't like it and refuse to face the challenge is not our problem.
Stipe knows what he thinks it is; he just can't give you a testable definition of it. So if asked if all frogs are one kind or not, neither he nor anyone else can say one way or another.
It doesn't do anything. And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?
It doesn't do anything. And if it doesn't do anything, what good is it?
It's sad that creationists have so little confidence in their new religion that they feel they have to pretend it's science.
:darwinsm: This is why darwinists are mocked.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Ya, its kind of like this -
If evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth, where did the earliest forms come from?
answer: We're not sure.
See how that works? (Or rather, doesn't work?)
Stripe's definition of "kind" cannot tell us if there is one frog kind or 100 frog kinds. This confirms the statement by NCSE that I posted earlier:
"Creationists do not have an exact definition of the original created kind for the same reasons that taxonomists cannot precisely define species: every imaginable gradation between species exists."
But at least the mainstream scientific definition of "species" is much more workable: "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." From this definition, we can observe that there are approximately 4,810 species of frogs known to exist. However, the creationists cannot say how many "kinds" of frogs there are, because...?
The definition of a sphere — the set of points equidistant from a common center — cannot tell us how big a planet has to be before it will be rounded by its own gravity.
A definition is a definition; evolutionists like to pretend it is a classification system when they face this challenge.
You're not the first to make this mistake.
Last edited:
U
Stipe thinks of an analogy:
Which is not surprising, if your definition of the gravitational constant is:
"the set of points equidistant from a common center"
Incidentally, that's the definition of a sphere. A circle would be like that, but confined to a plane. This is very much like your definition of "kind"
It's about something, but totally useless for the job at hand.
But some are testable. Those are the ones that actually work. So far, you can't seem to give us a testable definition of "kind."
Maybe if you contacted Kurt Wise (he's doing work in "discontinuity systematics", which might help you figure out what an honest creationist is doing) you could at least come up with some kind of attempt at a testable definition.
Stipe thinks of an analogy:
Which is not surprising, if your definition of the gravitational constant is:
"the set of points equidistant from a common center"
Incidentally, that's the definition of a sphere. A circle would be like that, but confined to a plane. This is very much like your definition of "kind"
It's about something, but totally useless for the job at hand.
But some are testable. Those are the ones that actually work. So far, you can't seem to give us a testable definition of "kind."
Maybe if you contacted Kurt Wise (he's doing work in "discontinuity systematics", which might help you figure out what an honest creationist is doing) you could at least come up with some kind of attempt at a testable definition.
Affleck writes:
From creationists who actually have some science background, I've been told that this corresponds roughly to the level of families, meaning that a single order could be expected to produce new families, genera, and species. However, it has been very difficult to draw those lines. And the real kicker is that such a definition would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "baramin." (a new word for "kind")
At Bryan College some YE creationists are making an attempt, but so far not particularly successful. I noted the preliminary idea that chimps and apes are in one created kind, and humans in another. But the difficulty comes in when you compared genomes. Humans and chimps fit together, with other apes as the outgroup. I'm not sure how they are dealing with that.
The problem for that idea is that many new and useful alleles have appeared in various species, which pretty much ends the idea of "deterioration."
From creationists who actually have some science background, I've been told that this corresponds roughly to the level of families, meaning that a single order could be expected to produce new families, genera, and species. However, it has been very difficult to draw those lines. And the real kicker is that such a definition would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "baramin." (a new word for "kind")
At Bryan College some YE creationists are making an attempt, but so far not particularly successful. I noted the preliminary idea that chimps and apes are in one created kind, and humans in another. But the difficulty comes in when you compared genomes. Humans and chimps fit together, with other apes as the outgroup. I'm not sure how they are dealing with that.
The problem for that idea is that many new and useful alleles have appeared in various species, which pretty much ends the idea of "deterioration."
6days
New member
You couldn't find a more biased opinion than that of NCSE who is against academic freedom, promoting 'darwinisn only'.User Name said:
User Name said:
Interesting how evolutionism always involves flexible definitions and explanations. Different definitions have been attempted by Darwin, Dobzhansky, Templeton, Mayr, and even some creationist scientists such as ReMine.... all definitions slightly different.
Also interesting is how evolutionists bend the definitions for inconvenient truths such as with Neandertals.
The Biblical model would predict rapid formation of new varieties.... and that is what observational science shows.
Funny.....and a side point, but this is on the news just as typing this. Camel bones with DNA has been found in Northern Canada (Yukon). The interview with the paleontologist says this forces them to "re-draw" the family tree. He said the bones are "hundreds of thousands...maybe a million years old". Evolutionism is a 'just so' story..... a story is not falsifiable...a story that flexes and bends to accommodate completely contradictory statements. (Ex. Statement 1 'our eyes have the appearance of good design,,, evidence for evolution'. Statement 2 'our eyes are wired backwards and have a sloppy design... evidence for evolution')
6days
New member
Not true... From God's Word we know humans are not the same created kind as chimps. No creationist would say chimps and humans are the same kind.
Yep. It's a daunting problem for creationists. As Darwin pointed out, there is no way to draw a definition of species that will always work. If creationism were true, it would be easy. But obviously, it's not.
Sounds interesting. Neandertals are pretty easy to identify, if you have the skull. Aside from a few creationists who called them apes, or diseased modern humans, there doesn't seem to be any confusion about them.
Nope. Creationists have, until recently denied any speciation whatever. They've retreated in recent decades, but that is a large concession from the original position.
Yes. Science, when the evidence requires, changes theories to fit. Must seem like cheating to creationists, who try to change the facts to fit their new religion.
More precisely, it's a straw man creastionists try to conflate with evolutionary theory.
Actually, they have a few flaws, like the blind spot, degradation of acuity due to the retinal facing backwards, and so on. So not optimal design; other organisms lack these deficiencies. But the visual cortex of the brain confabulates information to cover the blind spot, and this is generally (but not always; fighter pilots have to constantly compensate for it by head motion) reduced in effect by other adaptations.
It's not hard to figure out. There are some things that are suboptimal in our vision, but on the other hand, there are some adaptations that help to reduce their effect. Consistent with evolution, but not design.
The creationist definition for "kind" is even more flexible. And why is this? Because, as NCSE states, "every imaginable gradation between species exists." The difference between the two terms is that "species" can be used to interpret and investigate nature, whereas "kinds" cannot.
See this article on "baraminology," for example: http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Baramin
Alate_One
Well-known member
Um no. I can use the definition of a circle to look at a polygon and decide if it is a circle or not. Your "definition" has no functional meaning.
Species however, does have a functional meaning, while the boundaries are sometimes fuzzy, scientists can with reasonable certainty tell if something is one species or another species. Scientists write papers describing new species and species boundaries all the time. In our raccoon dog example, there may actually be separate species of raccoon dog, because there is a lot of variation in chromosome number which can affect interbreeding.
You on the other hand can't tell if anything is a kind or not, unless it's already been defined as a species.
Barbarian outlines the "Baraminologist" attempts which fail because there are no hard and fast lines between "kinds".
So back to frogs, how about these?
Same kind? Probably you say. Well there are two species - Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis that appear identical. The colors above are variations in both species.
Why does science refer to them as separate species? Because Hyla versicolor has twice the number of chromosomes as Hyla chrysoscelis and the two rarely interbreed, primarily due to different calls. If there is interbreeding most of the tadpoles die, the few that survive have reduced fertility.
So could those two species have come from a common ancestor? Even though once has twice the information content of the other?
What do you think?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Where the earliest life forms came from isn't part of the definition.
You can just as easily be asked where Creator came from in the kind "definition".
6days
New member
No... not really. If you want to discuss where life originated, the most logical and scientific explanation, and scriptural answer is that life comes from life. And, that the original Life / Creator must be uncaused.
Well, let's see how this one plays out...
If the interaction of valence electrons is the process by which different kinds of atoms combine and form new substances , where did atoms come from?
And...?
So unless we can show how atoms came to be, chemistry is wrong?
Chemists just assume the existence of atoms and describe how they interact and change.
If you'd like to imagine that God just poofed atoms into existence, from which all the other substances formed, that would be OK.
Can you guess how this applies to evolution? Hint: Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things.
God doesn't agree with you:
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
He says it came from non-living matter. Unless you're one of those guys who think the Earth itself is alive. Is that the problem?
As you know, but still don't want to admit, Christians generally acknowledge that God created all things, which is consistent with evolution. Creationists are just unhappy with the way He created life and made it change over time.
6days
New member
False.... The word 'species' does not have a precise definition.... Both terms (kinds and species) are somewhat based on beliefs about our origins.
And your notion that a term 'species' can be "used to interpret and investigate nature" is silliness. Essentially you are saying you start with the conclusion, then create a story to fit.