Creationism and kinds

[dust1n]

Any adult whose understanding of biological diversity is equivalent to the overly simplistic categories used for kindergarteners, probably isn't someone even capable of understanding even the basics of evolutionary theory.

 

[McBell]

Six!
Mwa ha ha ha!
Six Kinds!!!
Six Kinds On the ancient clock!

 

[shawn001]

That's a little misleading. The author's speculated "that there are two mutually exclusive explanations that can account for the current distribution of Pediculus and Pthirus."

Not sure if new research figured it out.


Just FYI though.

Nova

Lice and Human Evolution

Neil Degrasse Tyson

Video: Lice and Human Evolution | Watch NOVA scienceNOW Online | PBS Video


Lice Harbor Key Insights Into Human Evolution, Scientists Say

"Humans are unusual among lice hosts; they provide homes for more than one species of lice. The pubic louse looks quite different from its counterparts in human hair and clothing. Through genetic analysis, Reed and colleagues determined that more than 3 million years ago, the human pubic louse originated from gorilla lice, where it adapted to grab onto large hairs spread farther apart. This finding means that humans and gorillas must have lived in close proximity during this time period. The information is significant, because gorilla fossils from this time are virtually nonexistent, Reed said.

Reed and colleagues have also looked at the split between head and clothing lice for clues as to when humans began wearing clothes. They found that clothing lice diverged from head lice between 80,000 and 170,000 years ago, most likely at the earlier end of that range.

This means humans were likely tinkering with clothing use before leaving Africa, Reed said.

A record of long-gone ancestors?

Lice genomes may also reveal information about interactions between modern humans' long-gone ancestors and relatives.

Researchers have identified three major lineages, dubbed Clades A, B and C, within the DNA from the mitochondria, or energy-producing centers of cells, of lice collected in sites around the world. Using variations in the DNA to look back in time, the researchers saw these groups had a common ancestor about 2 million years ago. Clade C then split off from the group. Much later, between 700,000 and 1 million years ago, Clade B split from A.

The timing of these splits, and the modern geographic distribution of these clades have led the researchers to suggest that C evolved on Homo erectus as this hominid emerged, and that B evolved on Neanderthals.

But these three louse lineages did not stay apart. Some interaction, such as hunting together, brought humans' ancient, lice-infested ancestors close enough together to reunite the three lineages all of which are now carried by modern humans, Reed and others suggest."

Lice Harbor Key Insights Into Human Evolution, Scientists Say

 

[Skwim]

If it was some day demonstrated that humans and chimpanzees were capable hybridizing to produce offspring, would this peg them both as being the same "kind" as defined in creationism? Would anything about the creationist model needed to be modified if this turned out to be possible? Could it be posited as nothing more than a strange coincidence or would one need to say that God designed humans and chimpanzees to be genetically compatible in order to explain it?

How does creationism define "kind"?

 

[shawn001]

Swim, perhaps this

"What Are the Biblical Kinds?

Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry. The phrase refers to the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of plants and animals. They are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin. The term barmin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The study of baramin (known as Baraminology) is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification of the created kinds."

What are the Biblical Kinds?

 

[Pegg]

Have you looked up ring species? They're a very curious thing.

In a simple explanation, it's basically the same species, but at one point (end points) they're not compatible. Can't reproduce. All the way around the ring they can, but just not at the meeting point. So they're same species and different species at the same time. So if "kind" would apply to species, they're both the same kind and different kinds simultaneous.

Like this:

It's evidence that mutations can bring about speciation events.

.
.
there are many things in this world that we dont fully understand... trying to figure out how they work is one thing, but concluding that the biblical narrative is false because we dont know how something works is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[johnhanks]

.
.
there are many things in this world that we dont fully understand... trying to figure out how they work is one thing, but concluding that the biblical narrative is false because we dont know how something works is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ring species are very well understood in evolutionary terms. This is a case of concluding that the biblical narrative is false because we do know how something works - and the way it works is not by biblical creation of "kinds".

 

[samaelrocks]

"Kind" is a term that Creationists use to try to tell scientists how evolution works. But that's not how evolution works. Evolution didn't say that single celled organisms evolved into a "kind" of animal. They evolved into many different species that could adapt to their environment. That's why there's so many species. You don't have one species mating with another to create a new one. Species mate and due to travel and environment, can become a new species over time.

If you want to indulge a debate on "kind", just give the example of a platypus and be done with it.

 

[idav]

If you want to indulge a debate on "kind", just give the example of a platypus and be done with it.

My God, A Hybrid!!! That's not supposed to happen!

 

[Ouroboros]

.
.
there are many things in this world that we dont fully understand... trying to figure out how they work is one thing, but concluding that the biblical narrative is false because we dont know how something works is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No. We do know how these things work. We do know how Evolution explains ring species.

The problem is that the Bible cannot explain ring species, and they can't be placed in a kind.

So again, we do fully understand using natural means how these works. That's why evolution is true. It does explain how different life forms and species come about.

 

[ArtieE]

My God, A Hybrid!!! That's not supposed to happen!

OK, imagine you are God and you get this idea that you are going to make some animals. So you start to assemble atoms into molecules and proceed to make different animals as if you are building meccano sets. And after a while you get terribly bored. So you close your eyes and randomly pick some parts from animals you have already created and end up with the bill of a duck, tail of a beaver and body of an otter and smack them together just for the fun of it. Sounds right?

 

[idav]

OK, imagine you are God and you get this idea that you are going to make some animals. So you start to assemble atoms into molecules and proceed to make different animals as if you are building meccano sets. And after a while you get terribly bored. So you close your eyes and randomly pick some parts from animals you have already created and end up with the bill of a duck, tail of a beaver and body of an otter and smack them together just for the fun of it. Sounds right?

Could be all of life have the same template allowing for all sorts of variations, kind of like what the evidence suggests. We have the dna for tails which is obviously turned off. Why would we have this dna for a tail if God created humans? If he did, he sure made it look like all life has a single template that changed over time allowing for a multitude of species to come and go.

 

[ArtieE]

Could be all of life have the same template allowing for all sorts of variations, kind of like what the evidence suggests. We have the dna for tails which is obviously turned off. Why would we have this dna for a tail if God created humans? If he did, he sure made it look like all life has a single template that changed over time allowing for a multitude of species to come and go.

Interesting thought. So God assembled atoms into a human. In the process, he assembled the dna so that the offspring of this human as an embryo gets a tail measuring one-sixth of the embryo itself, and then the tail disappears as the embryo turns into a fetus. Anybody got a clue why we would need a tail in the womb?

 

[Pegg]

No. We do know how these things work. We do know how Evolution explains ring species.

The problem is that the Bible cannot explain ring species, and they can't be placed in a kind.

So again, we do fully understand using natural means how these works. That's why evolution is true. It does explain how different life forms and species come about.

in that case, mules can't be placed in a kind either.

We still have much to learn.

 

[Ouroboros]

in that case, mules can't be placed in a kind either.

We still have much to learn.

This is the reason why "kinds" is not a scientific term.

Kind only means "sort'a" something.

Four legged animals is a kind of animal.

Bald eagle is a kind of bird.

Carrots are a kind of vegetable and also a kind of root.

And so forth. In other words, "kind" isn't very specific.

With that being said, the diversity of genetic material (actual number of variations of gene codes) in animals and humans (based on research and DNA sequencing), it's impossible that we, and all species of animals, came from one single boat (only a pair of each) some thousand years ago. You would have to have a few hundred thousands of boats.

There are literally millions and millions of species of animals alive today.

"Kinds" is a term that doesn't work scientifically or practically.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

there are many things in this world that we dont fully understand... trying to figure out how they work is one thing, but concluding that the biblical narrative is false because we dont know how something works is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As pointed out, the reason why we know the Biblical narrative is literally false is because we do know how certain things work- and the Biblical narrative is absolutely inconsistent with all the data we have. We may not know how everything works, but we do know one thing- the Biblical narrative does not fit the evidence, and is not a credible account of the diversity of life.

But Genesis was likely not intended as a literal or historical account in the first place- it is far closer to poetry than it is to biology, so pointing out that it is not a good explanation for the diversity of life shouldn't be any more surprising than pointing out that MacBeth does not explain universal gravitation...

 

[shawn001]

Pegg, what came first birds or land animals according to the biblical narrative and evolution?

 

[Runewolf1973]

As pointed out, the reason why we know the Biblical narrative is literally false is because we do know how certain things work- and the Biblical narrative is absolutely inconsistent with all the data we have. We may not know how everything works, but we do know one thing- the Biblical narrative does not fit the evidence, and is not a credible account of the diversity of life.

But Genesis was likely not intended as a literal or historical account in the first place- it is far closer to poetry than it is to biology, so pointing out that it is not a good explanation for the diversity of life shouldn't be any more surprising than pointing out that MacBeth does not explain universal gravitation...

Amen!

 

[shawn001]

Not to mention its almost exactly the Babylonian creation story which was a different religion.

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World

Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[Skwim]

Amen!

Of course, but there is no amen in light of a literal reading of the Bible, which is why people persist in pushing the issue.