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

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

I would use with the current biological definition of species. Must be capable to interbreed and produce viable offspring.

In nature.    There are, for example, many different species of birds that can be induced to crossbreed in captivity, but they never do that in the wild.

 

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, Starise said:

Those finches- still finches with a new genetic track due to the reduction of population. Call it anything, but it's not a new species.

"Species" is too malleable, and ambiguous, a term to be useful in conversations such as this. There is no all-inclusive, agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "species". Some consider "species" to only be those creatures that are observed to interbreed in nature. Others consider a population to be "species" if they can theoretically interbreed (whether they actually do interbreed or not), and still others consider mere molecular compatibility to be the marker of "species".

Therefore, they can call their "finches" a new "species" if they want. It doesn't actually speak to how they are related (or even if they are related) to other living organisms - beyond what is already recognized by all sides of the debate - i.e. "finches" are related to other "finches".

As was suggested, two related "finches" from diverse backgrounds can interbreed to produce a unique subtype of what? ... You guessed it - "finches". All that means is that "finches" are still reproducing according to their own "kinds".

Thus, the notable Biblical category is "kinds" - meaning those creatures that are related to each other, being descended from creatures that God created independently from each other (some of which were subsequently bottlenecked through Noah's Ark). A Biblical "kind" can therefore be represented by multiple subjectively designated "species".

The terminology of "species" is therefore far too arbitrary to have any consequence for the debate. The fact that one subjectively designated "species" can change into another subjectively designated "species", within their boarder "kind", is of no logical significance. That is, since both sides of the debate agree that this happens, the fact that it happens doesn't support one side over the other.

 

 

[Starise]

30 minutes ago, Tristen said:

"Species" is too malleable, and ambiguous, a term to be useful in conversations such as this. There is no all-inclusive, agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "species". Some consider "species" to only be those creatures that are observed to interbreed in nature. Others consider a population to be "species" if they can theoretically interbreed (whether they actually do interbreed or not), and still others consider mere molecular compatibility to be the marker of "species".

Therefore, they can call their "finches" a new "species" if they want. It doesn't actually speak to how they are related (or even if they are related) to other living organisms - beyond what is already recognized by all sides of the debate - i.e. "finches" are related to other "finches".

As was suggested, two related "finches" from diverse backgrounds can interbreed to produce a unique subtype of what? ... You guessed it - "finches". All that means is that "finches" are still reproducing according to their own "kinds".

Thus, the notable Biblical category is "kinds" - meaning those creatures that are related to each other, being descended from creatures that God created independently from each other (some of which were subsequently bottlenecked through Noah's Ark). A Biblical "kind" can therefore be represented by multiple subjectively designated "species".

The terminology of "species" is therefore far too arbitrary to have any consequence for the debate. The fact that one subjectively designated "species" can change into another subjectively designated "species", within their boarder "kind", is of no logical significance. That is, since both sides of the debate agree that this happens, the fact that it happens doesn't support one side over the other.

 

 

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, and 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".

In fact, it takes us off the main course if we are discussing kinds according to the biblical meaning of it.

Thanks for the clarifiction.

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

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

[Starise]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In nature.    There are, for example, many different species of birds that can be induced to crossbreed in captivity, but they never do that in the wild.

 

OK , I'm going to use another more accurate word since you see species the way you do. From now on I'll use the word "kind",

Can we begin to advance this discussion now?

[Starise]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yep.   No evidence, no theory.   That's the way it works.   Tough game, but nothing else man can do, is better at explaining the physical universe.

Evidence doesn't need a theory, and all evolutionists have is a theory. A poor one at that.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

But let's test it ourselves.   You can name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional.    Let me know what you pick.

Let's cut to the chase. Show me a transitional human. Do you think we came from Apes? How do you resolve it when the bible clearly says God made man from the dust of the earth.

Macroevolution is a thing as has been covered in this thread, although I believe most evolutionists read far too much into it.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Or you mean my physical body?   Should I make stork jokes here?    My soul?    Given directly by God.   You mean where I live?     I-35.   What?

We all know it was the stork 

I'm asking you a serious question and I think you know what I mean't.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That would explain why I'm a human.    I have their genes mostly, plus a few dozen mutations neither of them had.   Evolution, you know.

Do you believe apes were involved I dunno, let me spin the wheel again, 5 million years ago?

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, in fact our bodies came from the earth like the other animals.   The stand alone was our immortal souls.

Even though the bible doesn't technically say animals also came from the dirt of the earth, it is likely in my opinion. I believe God took the elements of the earth and made Adam, who He then breathed a living soul into. If we remove all water from the human body, we are left with course elements, so nothing has changed in that regard.

The first man was probably made as an adult. I only say this because God was communicating with him it seems early on, with Adam naming the animals.

No millions of years. No apes.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Just a newly-evolved species of finches.   That's how it works.    Over time, new species, genera, families, and so on.

I was mainly referring to kind and not species because what you are calling species is simply more variation within kinds and doesn't prove we came from apes, or that different kinds come from another kind.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

By definition, that's what it is.   

Let's not confuse this then. The focus of this thread is on kinds. I always understood species to mean kind. Maybe in your line of work it isn't seen that way. I will, from now on be using the word "kind".

[Starise]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So is this a pig?

The fact that scripture doesn't say animals reproduce according to kind, is a big problem for that belief.

This is an inaccurate statement. Whatever it is, it's the same kind as it's parents. 

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look...

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.  25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So nothing about reproducing after a kind.

3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

Where are you going with this?, because honestly, it says what it says, and you appear to be missing what it says.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No "possibly" about it.   Some will aid survival and some will endanger survival.   Scientists call variations "mutations."   Most don't do much, some are harmful and a few are useful.

Natural selection sorts it out.

I don't believe survival of the fittest coming from the evolutionist definition in any way explains reality.

Animals come with a set of tools already, and that package has the ability to change to some extent in order to cover the creature for future changes. Some of the changes will be passed to the next generation. I see the genetics as locking into a setting that proves advantageous to that creature, for instance moths that change colors for camoflauge over time. That change will be added to the next generation. Some external thing initiates this change depending on the creature. These changes never go outside of certain confines designed into the animal.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.   Speciation is an observed fact.   It's just what we see going on in nature.

From the Institute for Creation Research:
Speciation may be defined as the separation of populations of animals or plants that resemble one another closely and originally able to interbreed—into independent populations with genetic differences, and sometimes not able to interbreed with other populations to which they are directly related. Put another way, speciation is when one creature becomes two or more species. However, according to a respected evolutionist, “Speciation remains one of the most controversial and least understood topics in evolution.”¹ The main problem is that the use of the term ‘species’ can be arbitrary and non-definitive.

Remember, Darwin predicted that it would be very hard to identify closely-related species because the process of evolution would produce all sorts of transitional forms.  If creationism were true, this would not be the case, and species could easily be defined.

Yes but these transitions are often overhyped by evolutionists. If we breed a donkey and a horse we get a jackass, ahem, I won't take that one any further.The donkey and the horse are from the same kind but a jackass can't breed. This is God's way of making sure there isn't a serious mutation error in the system.

And not to be gross, buy they have attempted to breed humans and apes with no success. Now possibly in a lab somewhere they managed to splice genes to make some kind of frankenstien animal to human hybrid. This is man meddling. None it will help humans because humans are already the highest created order here on earth.

 

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

"Species" is too malleable, and ambiguous, a term to be useful in conversations such as this. There is no all-inclusive, agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "species". Some consider "species" to only be those creatures that are observed to interbreed in nature. Others consider a population to be "species" if they can theoretically interbreed (whether they actually do interbreed or not), and still others consider mere molecular compatibility to be the marker of "species".

Therefore, they can call their "finches" a new "species" if they want. It doesn't actually speak to how they are related (or even if they are related) to other living organisms - beyond what is already recognized by all sides of the debate - i.e. "finches" are related to other "finches".

As was suggested, two related "finches" from diverse backgrounds can interbreed to produce a unique subtype of what? ... You guessed it - "finches". All that means is that "finches" are still reproducing according to their own "kinds".

Thus, the notable Biblical category is "kinds" - meaning those creatures that are related to each other, being descended from creatures that God created independently from each other (some of which were subsequently bottlenecked through Noah's Ark). A Biblical "kind" can therefore be represented by multiple subjectively designated "species".

The terminology of "species" is therefore far too arbitrary to have any consequence for the debate. The fact that one subjectively designated "species" can change into another subjectively designated "species", within their boarder "kind", is of no logical significance. That is, since both sides of the debate agree that this happens, the fact that it happens doesn't support one side over the other.

 

 

The use of "kind" as used by creationists like AiG is just as, if not more, squishy than the modern use of species. The bird kind will include an ostrich and a finch. 

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 Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Starise said:

This is an inaccurate statement. Whatever it is, it's the same kind as it's parents. 

But as you learned, slightly different from either parent.    And that's why we have things that look like pigs, that are genetically very close to pigs, but aren't pigs.   It's what Darwin predicted.   Lot's more of this.  Would you like to learn more?

(claim that scripture says things "reproduce according to kind")

Well, let's take a look...

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.  25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So it doesn't say what you said it says.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

Where are you going with this?

I'm pointing out that it doesn't say things reproduce according to kind.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

because honestly, it says what it says

And what it doesn't say, is that animals reproduce according to kind.   That's man's revision of scripture.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

I don't believe survival of the fittest coming from the evolutionist definition in any way explains reality.

As you have seen, it is reality.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

Animals come with a set of tools already, and that package has the ability to change to some extent in order to cover the creature for future changes.

In fact, God gave living things the means to change over time to adapt to new environments.   He didn't build limits into DNA, so it can change over time in any way that permits stepwise changes.    There is no barrier to such variation.    This is what concerns creationists, I think.  A God that powerful and wise is a bit too much for some of them.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

I see the genetics as locking into a setting that proves advantageous to that creature, for instance moths that change colors for camoflauge over time.

That's the point; it doesn't "lock."   It continues to vary and over time, we see new species arise as a result.   As we discussed, even many YE creationists now admit speciation.   Since it's observed to happen there's really no point in denying it.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

These changes never go outside of certain confines designed into the animal.

That's a testable belief.  Show us an organism that can't vary any further.   Show us the genetic limits you think exist.   What do you have?

Remember, Darwin predicted that it would be very hard to identify closely-related species because the process of evolution would produce all sorts of transitional forms.  If creationism were true, this would not be the case, and species could easily be defined.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Yes but these transitions are often overhyped by evolutionists.

I've cited the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and YE creationist Kurt Wise.   He admits that those transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."  

And none of them are "evolutionists."

4 hours ago, Starise said:

And not to be gross, buy they have attempted to breed humans and apes with no success.

Some point in our evolution, there was a chromosome fusion, so we have one less chromosome than other apes.   Which means we can't interbreed, even if we are genetically very close to chimpanzees.    Would you like to learn how we know about that fusion?

4 hours ago, Starise said:

None it will help humans because humans are already the highest created order here on earth.

Spiritually.   Not physically.   We are like God in our minds and souls, not in our bodies.

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Evidence doesn't need a theory, and all evolutionists have is a theory. A poor one at that.

Theories need evidence.   Specifically, to qualify as a theory, it must make testable predictions that are repeatedly verified by evidence.   For example, the huge number of transitional fossils predicted by Darwin, but contrary to creationist doctrine.

The observed action of natural selection.    The observed evolution of new species.   That kind of thing.  

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Let's cut to the chase. Show me a transitional human.

Sure.   H. erectus.   Pretty much human in almost every aspect but the skull.   And later H. erectus are just about impossible to differentiate from archaic H. sapiens.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Do you think we came from Apes?

Actually, we are apes.   Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is related to other apes.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

How do you resolve it when the bible clearly says God made man from the dust of the earth.

All living things ultimately come from the Earth.   You're trying to read too much into an allegory and missing the whole point.   God gave a pair of humans an immortal soul and thus made us different from the other animals.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

I'm asking you a serious question and I think you know what I mean't.

I'm wondering if you know what you meant.    If you are a Christian, then I'm here because God directly gave me an immortal soul.    My body is incidental, but it was produced naturally, as human bodies have always been produced.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Do you believe apes were involved I dunno, let me spin the wheel again, 5 million years ago?

That's more like humans first appeared about then.   The first apes were earlier.   DNA evidence indicates that apes diverged from cercopithecoids about 20 to 25 million years ago. (Barbarian checks)...

A new fossil find has supported that prediction:

Oldest Fossils Reveal When Apes & Monkeys First Diverged

https://www.livescience.com/32029-oldest-monkey-fossil-found.html

4 hours ago, Starise said:

I was mainly referring to kind and not species

"Kinds" is a vague religious term without a scientific definition.  Within humans, for example there are anatomically modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one yet to be found kind.    Yet they are all the same species, H. sapiens.

4 hours ago, Starise said:

Let's not confuse this then. The focus of this thread is on kinds. I always understood species to mean kind. Maybe in your line of work it isn't seen that way. I will, from now on be using the word "kind".

Since "kind" can refer to different populations of H. sapiens, it doesn't seem like a useful term.    Give us a testable definition of "kind" and we'll use that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a YE attempt to produce a better definition of "kind."   Walter Remine came up with the term "barmin" to define what YE would consider a kind.    Here's an article by Kurt Wise describing barminology.   

Might be useful to read over this, to see if it fit your religious convictions.    If so, maybe it's a place to start,since it's an attempt to present a scientific creationism.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol2/iss1/63/