The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, Starise said:

This is why I questioned how the term was being used, because obviously I have a different concept of the word. I associate species with kind

I think it unwise to try and "associate" any level of the Linnaean classification system with Biblical "kinds". They are different classification systems that group creatures according to different criteria - and are therefore not designed to be compatible. The terms can therefore not be used interchangeably - without things becoming messy.

 

21 hours ago, Starise said:

if everyone in New York died but two people, a man and a woman who had a child, that child would not be a new species, same as the finches, so I fail to see any advance to this discussion using a term that doesn't apply to "kind".

The creationist position is that differing groups of creatures can be related within a created "kind" - back to their created ancestors. Whether or not that "kind" now consists of different "species", as determined by a different classification system, is irrelevant to the creationist argument - and a way for the opposing side to muddy the conversation.

 

21 hours ago, Starise said:

My point all along has been to show that we heave zero evidence for one kind producing another kind.

I think I know what you mean, but what you stated here would not be logically possible - because any offspring of a "kind" is necessarily part of that "kind".

Both sides of the debate recognize that there is a close relationships between certain groups of creatures. Creationism teaches that these groups are related to each other, independent to other groups. The secular story claims all groups are ultimately related to each other.

Relationships within these recognized groups is generally better-evidenced.  But putative relationships between the groups requires a lot more imagination.

Since "evidence" just means facts that have been interpreted to support a position, I would presumptively advise avoiding "zero evidence" claims.

 

21 hours ago, Starise said:

According to their definition of "species" Asians would be a species apart from Caucasians

Asians readily, and commonly, interbreed with Caucasians. They would therefore be considered, by any "definition", to be the same "species".

 

[Tristen]

19 hours ago, teddyv said:

The use of "kind" as used by creationists like AiG is just as, if not more, squishy than the modern use of species

The evidence that is required to characterize a "kind" can be nebulous, but the definition itself is very straight forward. It is very clear, and everyone knows what we mean when we say "kind". "Species" however - much less so.

 

19 hours ago, teddyv said:

The bird kind will include an ostrich and a finch. 

There is no overarching "bird kind" in the creationist position. There are considered to be many different "kinds" of birds. That is to say, God created several types of birds - each now reflected in diverse groups of descendants (including multiple "species" per kind).

 

19 hours ago, teddyv said:

Remember, the reason this is done is because the ark will not hold all the current species. So they create arbitrary groups of animals as sort of "master" kinds which then speciate in a couple thousand years to what we see today.

The logic fallacy you apply here is called an Appeal to Motive. You are presuming to know he motives of those presenting an opposing position - as a strategy to dismiss what they have to say.

Motives aside, all that matters is that the provided argument is logically consistent with both the evidence, and the Biblical narrative. Rational rebuttals deal with arguments, regardless of the motives of those providing the arguments.

It would furthermore be highly Anachronistic to apply the relatively modern concept of "species" to the ancient Biblical narrative. 

The Bible uses "kinds" consistently - to refer to the created groups. Only a single-pair representative of each created group was permitted on the Ark - regardless of how many "species" of each "kind" might have existed at the time.

The fact that this argument makes the Ark narrative more plausible adds credence to the Ark narrative. Yet your Appeal to Motive here illogically insinuates the opposite.

 

[Starise]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think it unwise to try and "associate" any level of the Linnaean classification system with Biblical "kinds". They are different classification systems that group creatures according to different criteria - and are therefore not designed to be compatible. The terms can therefore not be used interchangeably - without things becoming messy.

I agree, my goal was a common ground discussion, and I believe things have already became "messy".

The first niggle was the term "species"

Definition- Species  1. : a class of things of the same kind and with the same name : kind. 2. : a category of living things that ranks below a genus, is made up of related individuals able to produce fertile offspring, and is identified by a two-part scientific name.

Species seems to mean the same thing as kind, however the term has been expanded. I was using layman's terms, which in my thinking, should have been easily interpreted at face value, and would be expected, I think, on a public forum.

Next the definition of "kind" was in question. In a nutshell I am being told there are different definitions for both species and kind. 

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

The creationist position is that differing groups of creatures can be related within a created "kind" - back to their created ancestors. Whether or not that "kind" now consists of different "species", as determined by a different classification system, is irrelevant to the creationist argument - and a way for the opposing side to muddy the conversation.

This is what I have been attempting to put across. Your version of it is welcome. 

Humans will only ever filter into other classifications of humans.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think I know what you mean, but what you stated here would not be logically possible - because any offspring of a "kind" is necessarily part of that "kind".

My statement this refers to-

Quote

 

My point all along has been to show that we heave zero evidence for one kind producing another kind.

 

My attempted clarification- One kind of animal only produces the same kind of animal.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

Relationships within these recognized groups is generally better-evidenced.  But putative relationships between the groups requires a lot more imagination.

 

Well, I try to omit imagination in these discussions, and rely on what we are told in the bible, along with science.

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is an observed fact.   The scientific definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequencies in a population."   And God doesn't care if you like it or believe it.   That's not how you will be judged, unless you make an idol of your opinion and claim that everyone must believe as you do to be saved.

[Starise]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, apes have two legs and two arms.   Hands on the arms.  So do we.

I'm not going to argue that ape appendages don't look like hands, but they walk on them like feet. Totally different anatomy. God designed apes for a different application.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Don't have to.  I accept it as it is, without the addition of "reproduce according to kind."

Isn't reproduction what happens regardless?

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Show me a version where it is.  Why not just accept it as it is?

I am accepting it as it is. Why imply otherwise?

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If we take away the word salad, we get "Those with traits that favor survival tend to live to reproduce.  Those with traits that don't favor survival, don't.   Which is precisely what Darwin said.  There is no "programming."    He created nature to work this way.

My word salad was pretty descriptive and it didn't say what you are stating. Sure, God programs everything.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes.   That's how it works.

According to who?

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm just showing you what natural selection does.

So you reject the idea that all cats today evolved from a single "cat kind" on the Ark just a few thousand years ago?   Lions, cheetahs, Siamese, ocelots, etc.   Looks like a huge amount of evolution to me.   Assuming you believe the Ark flood was a real event.

No, I don't reject that idea, they are all in the cat family.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  Microevolution is evolution within a species.  Macroevolution is speciation.   In the case of cats, 37 species, 18 genera, and 3 subfamilies.   A lot of macroevolution there.

Call it anything you like, it's still contained within a kind, which we both agreed on already.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Why would it bother you if He chose to give two humans immortal souls and become the ancestors of all living humans?

you can't show us those supposed "limits" to evolution.   Because they are religious beliefs, not observed facts. 

The first part is a fact and I adopt it wholeheartedly. The second statement is very presumptive. I haven't mentioned religion here or said I based that particular idea on "religion". I mentioned before that boundaries or limits between kinds is apparent and needs no proof. The umbrella here may be pretty wide, even so these are observable and need no proof. No matter how many men jump off a cliff, one will never fly under his own power, even baby leaps along the beach every day for 100 years won't change that, so we have limits and so does every other creature God made.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, you posted a hoax.   We don't actually know who planted "Piltdown Man" , but we do know it was exposed by evolutionists.   Which suggests...

Yes?? I'm waiting for the rest of your statement. You are correct I did post a hoax.I posted several in the beginning of this thread and then I uncovered "evidence" you were attempting to post as fact, as a hoax.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And He put inactivated centromeres and telomeres in one of them to fake evidence for a chromosome fusion, because...?

• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere in the q21.3–q22.1 region.^[12]
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the q13 band, far from either end of the chromosome.^[13]

We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2

 I am not discounting all of the hard work good men and women put into genetic research. ,So far as claiming it is some kind of a merge from humans to apes this is a claim .Notice it says "we conclude" This was their private conclusion.

 

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But Jesus says that God is a spirit and He says that a spirit has no body.   Jesus has a body only because He became man as well as God.   Hence, our likeness to God is not in our physical appearance.

Jesus says that God is a spirit.  And he says a spirit has no body.   God says that when he breathed a soul into man, he became a living soul.

I believe God.  We all should.

Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, 'Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving but believing' (John 20:27).

Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have (Luke 24:39).

Question- If Jesus only intended to be in a body while He was on earth, why does He have his SAME body resurrected? The same body the disciples seen him go to the Father in.

[teddyv]

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

The evidence that is required to characterize a "kind" can be nebulous, but the definition itself is very straight forward. It is very clear, and everyone knows what we mean when we say "kind". "Species" however - much less so.

If you say so. 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

There is no overarching "bird kind" in the creationist position. There are considered to be many different "kinds" of birds. That is to say, God created several types of birds - each now reflected in diverse groups of descendants (including multiple "species" per kind).

True. I misstated there. According the AiG's work, there are 89 extinct bird kinds and 195 living bird kinds. (See link provided below).

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

The logic fallacy you apply here is called an Appeal to Motive. You are presuming to know he motives of those presenting an opposing position - as a strategy to dismiss what they have to say.

This is the stated reason by Answers in Genesis, so no there is no appeal to motive here. I don't know your reasoning or specific beliefs around this, but I generally refer to the big three creationist organizations with respect to what creationists believe because they are the main voices.

Quote

Based on initial projections, the Ark Encounter team estimates that there were around 1,400 animal kinds on the ark. It is anticipated that future research may reduce that number even further.

The Ark Encounter team projects that there were fewer than 7,000 animals on board the ark. The wide discrepancy between the number of ark kinds and individuals is due to the relatively large number of flying and “clean” kinds—each estimated at 14 animals apiece.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/

 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

Motives aside, all that matters is that the provided argument is logically consistent with both the evidence, and the Biblical narrative. Rational rebuttals deal with arguments, regardless of the motives of those providing the arguments.

It would furthermore be highly Anachronistic to apply the relatively modern concept of "species" to the ancient Biblical narrative. 

The Bible uses "kinds" consistently - to refer to the created groups. Only a single-pair representative of each created group was permitted on the Ark - regardless of how many "species" of each "kind" might have existed at the time.

The fact that this argument makes the Ark narrative more plausible adds credence to the Ark narrative. Yet your Appeal to Motive here illogically insinuates the opposite.

One of the bigger issues I see is the necessary rate of speciation (and extinction) following the landing of the ark. The extinction side seems somewhat capricious -  God saves a whole series of organisms, only to have them wiped out within a very short time after disembarking. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by teddyv
Removed unnecessary language

[Retrobyter]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:39 AM, Starise said:

This is what is taught as factual in most schools today, that we came from apes.

I agree, our universe is declining, winding down, so it's absurd on several counts really.

Shalom, Starise.

Yes, entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the overall norm for the universe. Neither matter nor energy are being created (anymore) nor destroyed; they merely change in form between the two. BUT, when they change, the product is always of lesser efficiency than the source.

Fortunately, God has provided our world with the influx of energy (and even some matter) from the sun, and God has provided LIVING PLANTS on this earth that converts that energy to the things we need to survive. The grass in the grasslands and meadows and the trees in the forests and woods of the world provide the nutrients and oxygen we need every minute.

The truth is, however, that the macroevolutionary theory, or speciation, as our beloved Barbarian would call it, requires FAR MORE TIME than probability would require and FAR MORE ENERGY than even the sun can provide! 

Regarding probability, which is a branch of mathematics, while it is true that "anything is possible," there is a LIMIT based upon the size and characteristics of the particles that make up matter where a thing must be called "IMPROBABLE." On a graph, the tail of the probability curve, like the normal distribution curve, may technically be infinite in length, but there is a PRACTICAL LIMIT to the samples existing within that tail! Evolution's required length of time EXCEEDS that practical limit for the operations that must be performed within that length of time. Furthermore, there are some operations that are LIMITED by the complexity of the molecules required to make up the various components of life. They are often LIMITED in the amount of complexity they can exhibit in the molecules, and they are LIMITED by the materials required to perform those operations.

BUT,

All of this PALES to the true Achilles' Heel of the Evolutionists: They FAIL to accept the Scriptures at face value! God SAID it was all accomplished in six days, the SAME six days within a normal week, which is why the SEVENTH DAY, the Shabbat, was declared by that SAME GOD as "holy" - "special" - "set apart" for time with God! The Shabbat was made to COMMEMORATE the accomplishments of God in His Creative Acts! To say that it took Him LONGER to perform these Acts, is to DIMINISH His Creative Power! As IF He couldn't get it all done in six 24-hour days! Such audacity and faithlessness!

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, Starise said:

The first niggle was the term "species"

Definition- Species  1. : a class of things of the same kind and with the same name : kind. 2. : a category of living things that ranks below a genus, is made up of related individuals able to produce fertile offspring, and is identified by a two-part scientific name.

Species seems to mean the same thing as kind, however the term has been expanded

Firstly - kudos for finding a definition of "species" containing the word "kind".

Unlike the second definition which defines "species" in terms of "living things", first definition is not referring to biological "species", nor referencing the Biblical concept of "kinds".

When creationists use the word "kinds", they are referring to separate, independently-created groups of living creatures. When everyone, including creationists, use the term "species", we are all generally referring to a group with the capacity to interbreed (or, as your definition says, the ability to "produce fertile offspring").

These are very different concepts. It is therefore unhelpful and confusing to treat them as "the same thing".

 

16 hours ago, Starise said:

I was using layman's terms, which in my thinking, should have been easily interpreted at face value, and would be expected, I think, on a public forum.

I think using precise terminology will serve you better.

 

16 hours ago, Starise said:

Next the definition of "kind" was in question. In a nutshell I am being told there are different definitions for both species and kind. 

Not really.

There is a general definition of "species" that is broadly agreed-upon. The problem is, when we dig a little deeper, we find that nature - as created to glorify God - almost never fits neatly into human-defined categories.

When we refer specifically to the Biblical use of "kind", we simply mean a created set of ancestors, and all of their descendants. That could include sub-groups of descendants that are so different from each other, they no longer interbreed with each other (i.e. multiple extant "species" representing a single "kind").

 

16 hours ago, Starise said:

This is what I have been attempting to put across. Your version of it is welcome. 

Humans will only ever filter into other classifications of humans.

Humans would be an example of 'one-"kind", one-"species"' (Homo sapiens). Although, different "species" designations have been given to groups that were arguably, equally human (e.g. Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus etc.)

According to creationism, these are all descendants of Adam/Noah.

And given the evidence that Neanderthals interbred with so-called "modern" humans, they were evidently (by general definition) the same "species" as us.

 

16 hours ago, Starise said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think I know what you mean, but what you stated here would not be logically possible - because any offspring of a "kind" is necessarily part of that "kind".

My statement this refers to-

Quote

 

My point all along has been to show that we heave zero evidence for one kind producing another kind.

 

 

 

 

My attempted clarification- One kind of animal only produces the same kind of animal.

I think this exposes the problem with trying to apply the concept of "kinds" to the secular narrative.

By definition, no descendant of any creature can ever belong to a different "kind" than its ancestors - even if it was 100% genetically different to the ancestor.

Again - I know what you mean. But I don't think you can use "kind" to make that point. You're essentially making the micro vs macro evolution argument (which terminology I also despise - as it falsely indicates that one is just the same as the other, but only on a different scale).

 

16 hours ago, Starise said:

Well, I try to omit imagination in these discussions, and rely on what we are told in the bible, along with science.

I'd say that's wise - though we all rely somewhat on imagination to interpret the facts. Facts are rationally objective. But the facts themselves can not be fit into any historical narrative without the subjective process of interpretation.

 

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, teddyv said:

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

The evidence that is required to characterize a "kind" can be nebulous, but the definition itself is very straight forward. It is very clear, and everyone knows what we mean when we say "kind". "Species" however - much less so.

If you say so. 

Ummm - yep. I just said so. In fact, your response was to me saying so.

 

12 hours ago, teddyv said:

This is the stated reason by Answers in Genesis, so no there is no appeal to motive here

So when you said, "Remember, the reason this is done is because the ark will not hold all the current species. So they create arbitrary groups of animals as sort of "master" kinds which then speciate in a couple thousand years to what we see today." what you really meant was - this is how they simply, rationally answer the question as to how representatives of all "kinds" of land creatures could fit on the Ark?

In no way were you trying to undermine confidence in their arguments by insinuating something disingenuous underlying their arguments.

Basically, they had a question, they examined the facts and came up with a plausible answer that fits both the facts and their understanding of the Bible. That is "the reason" creationists started using the Biblical "kinds" argument. How dare they presume to generate answers to their questions - I guess?

 

12 hours ago, teddyv said:

One of the bigger issues I see is the necessary rate of speciation (and extinction) following the landing of the ark

I don't see this as an issue at all. Speciation can occur in a generation or two - especially when there would be rapid expansion into varied, uninhabited territories. The sheer variety of environmental pressures each group would be exposed to could drive speciation very quickly - especially in isolated and/or bottlenecked and/or founder groups.

 

12 hours ago, teddyv said:

The extinction side seems somewhat capricious -  God saves a whole series of organisms, only to have them wiped out within a very short time after disembarking. 

You'll have to expand on this before I can offer a comment.

 

[Starise]

On 9/7/2023 at 10:57 AM, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is an observed fact.   The scientific definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequencies in a population."   And God doesn't care if you like it or believe it.   That's not how you will be judged, unless you make an idol of your opinion and claim that everyone must believe as you do to be saved.

Yes there are changes in a population. I never argue that.