Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

Why do you insist on repeating this lie?
Please, learn something about Evolutionary Biology before making such ridiculous statements.

Well tumbleweed..now you're talking. God probaly did make beetles in their own right and they didn't poof from weevils. Perhaps you think they evolved from angiosperm. Back to Biology 101 for you.

Ambrosia beetles are beetles of the weevil subfamilies Scolytinae and Platypodinae (Coleoptera, Curculionidae), which live in nutritional symbiosis with ambrosia fungi and probably with bacteria. The beetles excavate tunnels in dead trees in which they cultivate fungal gardens, their sole source of nutrition. After landing on a suitable tree, an ambrosia beetle excavates a tunnel in which it releases spores of its fungal symbiont. The fungus penetrates the plant's xylem tissue, digests it, and concentrates the nutrients on and near the surface of the beetle gallery. The majority of ambrosia beetles colonize xylem (sapwood and/or heartwood) of dying or recently dead trees. Species differ in their preference for different parts of trees, different stages of deterioration, in the shape of their tunnels (“galleries&#8221. However, majority of ambrosia beetles are not specialized to any taxonomic group of hosts, unlike most of phytophagous organisms including the closely related bark beetles.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I don't debate with fruitloops I eat em up! These are not refutes, rather just a self appraisal of your cognitive challenges and total lack of emotional intelligence.

So far no one has offered any serious refute to my original proposal for a creation style theory. All you've manged to do is ridicule. Is this your idea of scientifically refuting my assertions?? Sad but then again, I did not expect anything more from any of you.

Actually, several faults with your arguments have been pointed out to you, but instead of addressing them you just plod along and continue posting huge blocks of text taken out of context as if that somehow constitutes and argument.

As for your "proposal", you really need to read up on what a hypothesis really is. So far you have been way off the mark.

At this point all I have for you is laughter. Let me know when you are prepared to actually have a debate or when you intend to post anything resembling a hypothesis. Until then I cannot consider you anything but a troll and a spammer.

Cheers.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Don't forget it is your own ToE that says these weevils poofed into a variety of beetles.

Why do you insist on repeating this lie?
Please, learn something about Evolutionary Biology before making such ridiculous statements.

Well tumbleweed..now you're talking. God probaly did make beetles in their own right and they didn't poof from weevils. Perhaps you think they evolved from angiosperm. Back to Biology 101 for you.

Stay on track Newhope, you made a claim about the Theory of Evolution saying weevils poofed into a variety of beetles. Where do you find this "poofing" in any part of Evolutionary Biology?

 

[Autodidact]

Alright, so I think we're going with a "kind" is the same thing as a family. Creationists, including those claiming not to be and those pretending to be, please correct me if that is not your position.

For the same group: Do you also believe that Noah put two of each "kind" on a wooden boat, and that all the species we have now descended from those "kinds?" Within an order of magnitude, about how many creatures do you think Noah took on board?

 

[Pegg]

I was referring to YEC specifically.

If this is the case, how do we know that one "day" in the biblical context is not equivalent to hundreds of millions of years on our calendar?

this is exactly what the hebrew word in question CAN signify...the length of a YOM is undetermined. Its like the common farewell phrase- "i'll see you later" - When is later? Its not a determined day or time, it could be later in the afternoon or tomorrow morning or next week or next month.

In the interest of clarity, "kind" cannot be equated with "genus" for the simple fact that they are too specific and numerous to have fit two of each on the ark. Perhaps a broader grouping such as "class" or "phylum" would be more appropriate for your argument.

Looking forward to it.

As i said, the genesis kinds are those animals who can interbreed. We know that the large cats can be interbred...they produce hybrids, but it shows that they are of the same 'kind'
What do scientists call the animals which are interfertile, even though they may not be the same species? That is what a genesis kind would be equivalent to.

On that point....can monkeys/gorillas/chimps of any sort be interbred? Yes, apparently a koolakamba is a hybrid of a chimp and gorilla... but science says that humans cannot be crossbred with any of the ape family. Simple reason for that is because they are not of the same 'kind'.

We can interbreed a camels and a llamas, a Tiger and Lion, Horse and Zebra, dog and wolf, grizzly bear and polar bear, leopard and lion, bottlenose dolphin and killer whale, Gibbon and Siamang monkeys, Maraque's of different species... but humans and monkeys of any kind cannot interbreed to produce hybrids.


I have been searching for lists of animals by category of their genus and below is just as one example, the following list of birds show that its quite possible (assuming this list is exhaustive) that Noah needed to only take 2 of each of the following birds into the ark and from them, all the subcategories have slowly evolved. This list means that its possible only 56 birds (27 pairs) would have been required.
Bird orders


This is a list of the taxonomic orders in the class Aves. The list of birds gives a more detailed summary, including families.

Paleognathae:

• Struthioniformes, Ostrich, emus, kiwis, and allies
• Tinamiformes, tinamous

Neognathae:

• Anseriformes, waterfowl
• Galliformes, fowl
• Gaviiformes, loons
• Podicipediformes, grebes
• Procellariiformes, albatrosses, petrels, and allies
• Sphenisciformes, penguins
• Pelecaniformes, pelicans and allies
• Ciconiiformes, storks and allies
• Phoenicopteriformes, flamingos
• Accipitriformes, eagles, hawks and allies
• Falconiformes, falcons
• Turniciformes, button-quail
• Gruiformes, cranes and allies
• Charadriiformes, plovers and allies
• Pteroclidiformes, sandgrouse
• Columbiformes, doves and pigeons
• Psittaciformes, parrots and allies
• Cuculiformes, cuckoos
• Strigiformes, owls
• Caprimulgiformes, nightjars and allies
• Apodiformes, swifts
• Trochiliformes, hummingbirds
• Coraciiformes, kingfishers
• Piciformes, woodpeckers and allies
• Trogoniformes, trogons
• Coliiformes, mousebirds
• Passeriformes, passerines

I am in no way claiming this to be fact btw. Im not a biologist so I dont even begin to claim to know all the different species of animals today but what im speculating is roughly how many animals Noah may have taken onto the ark. Noah's instructions were to take 2 of every 'kind' of unclean animals, and 7 of every 'kind' of clean.

The bible does list clean and unclean animals but the list in Leviticus 11 would only be those animals living in the region where Moses was... so it cannot be concluded that the bible list is exhaustive of all the animals in the world. What is interesting though is that we see several birds are grouped as a kind in Lev 11:13-17 "the eagle , osprey, black vulture, red kite , black kite according to its kind"

These birds are all listed as'birds of prey' in this wiki list and so its quite possible that all birds of prey came from an original pair of 'birds of prey' that Noah took onto the ark... and from that pair all other 'birds of prey' have descended.

 

[Pegg]

O.K. so for example the family muridae, containing mice rats and gerbils would all be one kind? Is that right?

And for another example, there are about 280 different kinds of beetles? Is that correct?

btw, if a "kind" is a family, why not just use the word "family?"

Pegg, do you agree that a "kind" is a biological family?

No for the reason that a biological family cannot interbreed.

the definition of a biological family is:
Families. The order Carnivora can be broken down into Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), Ursidae (bears), Hyaenidae (hyaenas, aardwolves), Mustelidae (weasels, wolverines),

Cats and Dogs cannot be crossbred...there is a barrier preventing hybridization and so I would have to say that the definition of 'families' would not apply to a genesis 'kind'

Im going to stick with Genus (even though some disagree) the definition being:
Genus. The family Felidae, for example, can be broken down into Acinonyx (cheetah), Panthera (lion, tiger), Neofelis (clouded leopard) and Felis (domestic cats)

because animals within the same genus can be successfully interbred where as animals within a family group cannot be...here are some examples:

horse and zebra

Camel and Llama

Leopard and Lion

 

[Skwim]

No for the reason that a biological family cannot interbreed.

the definition of a biological family is:
Families. The order Carnivora can be broken down into Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), Ursidae (bears), Hyaenidae (hyaenas, aardwolves), Mustelidae (weasels, wolverines),

Cats and Dogs cannot be crossbred...there is a barrier preventing hybridization and so I would have to say that the definition of 'families' would not apply to a genesis 'kind'

Im going to stick with Genus (even though some disagree) the definition being:
Genus. The family Felidae, for example, can be broken down into Acinonyx (cheetah), Panthera (lion, tiger), Neofelis (clouded leopard) and Felis (domestic cats)

because animals within the same genus can be successfully interbred where as animals within a family group cannot be...here are some examples:

horse and zebra

Camel and Llama

Leopard and Lion

While breeding between animals of different genera can sometimes result in offspring, the offspring cannot themselves interbreed. This is also true of almost all breedings between different species. Mules, the result of the mating between a horse and an as s, cannot themselves breed to produce new mules. Mules only come from the pairing of a horse and an as s. Mules are sterile animas. As are those from a horse and a zebra, a camel and a llama, and a lion and a panther. They are dead ends. So while these specific animals can indeed successfully interbreed, it is a very limited, short-lived success. Biologist do not regard such matings as successful.

Oh yes, the definition of a biological family is NOT:
Families. The order Carnivora can be broken down into Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), Ursidae (bears), Hyaenidae (hyaenas, aardwolves), Mustelidae (weasels, wolverines),



Examples are not definitions.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

While breeding between animals of different genera can sometimes result in offspring, the offspring cannot themselves interbreed. This is also true of almost all breedings between different species. Mules, the result of the mating between a horse and an as s, cannot themselves breed to produce new mules. Mules only come from the pairing of a horse and an as s. Mules are sterile animas. As are those from a horse and a zebra, a camel and a llama, and a lion and a panther. They are dead ends. So while these specific animals can indeed successfully interbreed, it is a very limited, short-lived success. Biologist do not regard such matings as successful.

Oh yes, the definition of a biological family is NOT:
Families. The order Carnivora can be broken down into Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), Ursidae (bears), Hyaenidae (hyaenas, aardwolves), Mustelidae (weasels, wolverines),



Examples are not definitions.

Whilst all male mules are sterile, on rare occasions female mules can be fertile and give birth.

Well that's what wikipedia is telling me.

-Q

 

[Pegg]

While breeding between animals of different genera can sometimes result in offspring, the offspring cannot themselves interbreed.

they can reproduce though...which is exactly what a genesis Kind is able to do. It doesnt matter if the offspring are infertile, its the fact that two creatures CAN produce offspring which identifies them as being of the same 'kind'

Oh yes, the definition of a biological family is NOT:
Families. The order Carnivora can be broken down into Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), Ursidae (bears), Hyaenidae (hyaenas, aardwolves), Mustelidae (weasels, wolverines),



Examples are not definitions.

but examples leave no guesswork in knowing exactly what is being conveyed.

Biologists put all carnivores into one family....thats their perogative, but it has no bearing on a 'genesis kind' nor does that type of categorization differentiate between those carnivores who are closely related hence why my objection to likening a 'genesis kind' with a current 'biological family'

 

[evolved yet?]

No for the reason that a biological family cannot interbreed.

the definition of a biological family is:
Families. The order Carnivora can be broken down into Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), Ursidae (bears), Hyaenidae (hyaenas, aardwolves), Mustelidae (weasels, wolverines),

Cats and Dogs cannot be crossbred...there is a barrier preventing hybridization and so I would have to say that the definition of 'families' would not apply to a genesis 'kind'

Im going to stick with Genus (even though some disagree) the definition being:
Genus. The family Felidae, for example, can be broken down into Acinonyx (cheetah), Panthera (lion, tiger), Neofelis (clouded leopard) and Felis (domestic cats)

because animals within the same genus can be successfully interbred where as animals within a family group cannot be...here are some examples:

horse and zebra

Camel and Llama

Leopard and Lion

What about the new genus Raphanobrassica?

 

[Gunfingers]

As i said, the genesis kinds are those animals who can interbreed. We know that the large cats can be interbred...they produce hybrids, but it shows that they are of the same 'kind'

So Herring Gulls are the same 'kind' as North American Herring Gulls, because they can interbreed. North American Herring Gulls are the same 'kind' as the East Siberian Herring Gull, because they are interfertile. Some East Siberian Herring Gulls can breed with Heuglin's Gull, making them the same kind. Heuglin's Gull, in turn, can produce offspring with the Lesser Black-Backed Gull. However, many of these species, while able to interbreed with proximal species or subspecies, are unable to interbreed with more distal ones. For example the Herring Gull is completely unable to breed with the Lesser Black-Backed Gull.

To put it into more clear terms,

A is able to breed with B, B can breed with C, but A and C cannot breed. How can A and B be the same kind, and B and C be the same kind, but not A and C?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Pegg, when do you think the Flood happened? Roughly 4,000 years ago? If Noah took 'one of each kind' onto the Ark, that means one common ancestor for all felines (a genus); the ancestor for all lions, leopards, tigers, cheetahs, bobcats...

If, according to Biblical genalogies and 'timing', the Flood was indeed 4,000 years ago, then the rate of mutation required to allow diversification of a single ancestor into so many species of cat would far exceed what is predicted by macroevolution.

By claiming Biblical infallibility while defining 'kind' as 'genus', you are endorsing something like hyperevolution.

 

[Autodidact]

As i said, the genesis kinds are those animals who can interbreed. We know that the large cats can be interbred...they produce hybrids, but it shows that they are of the same 'kind'
What do scientists call the animals which are interfertile, even though they may not be the same species? That is what a genesis kind would be equivalent to.

O.K. I got you. I don't know if there is a term for that, but it's pretty close to a genus, so let's go with that.

On that point....can monkeys/gorillas/chimps of any sort be interbred? Yes, apparently a koolakamba is a hybrid of a chimp and gorilla... but science says that humans cannot be crossbred with any of the ape family. Simple reason for that is because they are not of the same 'kind'.

NO, I don't think scientists say that or have any way of knowing, because for ethical reasons no one has tried or is going to try. There is a very good chance that humans and chimps could interbreed.

We can interbreed a camels and a llamas, a Tiger and Lion, Horse and Zebra, dog and wolf, grizzly bear and polar bear, leopard and lion, bottlenose dolphin and killer whale, Gibbon and Siamang monkeys, Maraque's of different species... but humans and monkeys of any kind cannot interbreed to produce hybrids.

I have been searching for lists of animals by category of their genus and below is just as one example, the following list of birds show that its quite possible (assuming this list is exhaustive) that Noah needed to only take 2 of each of the following birds into the ark and from them, all the subcategories have slowly evolved. This list means that its possible only 56 birds (27 pairs) would have been required.
Bird orders

This is a list of the taxonomic orders in the class Aves. The list of birds gives a more detailed summary, including families.

Oops, no, big mistake here. You defined kind as pretty much a genus, and then counted how many orders. Two very different things. I'm not sure how many genii of birds there are, but I think it's closer to 1000 than to 100, not counting the extinct number, which would be around ten times that. So Noah would have had to take more like 1000 pairs of birds alone. And don't get me started on the beetles!

 

[Autodidact]

Other YECs: Do you agree that a "kind" is a genus?

 

[Autodidact]

So Pegg: Do you think all the species of homo,

• 3.1 H. habilis
• 3.2 H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus
• 3.3 H. ergaster and H. erectus
• 3.4 H. cepranensis and H. antecessor
• 3.5 H. heidelbergensis
• 3.6 H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
• 3.7 H. neanderthalensis

are all one kind?

 

[newhope101]

Can you discuss the issues without resorting to personal insults? Thanks.

I'm confused. What is your position? Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Or do you accept science? Are you Christian or agnostic?

FGS do you not undestand the word agnostic?

After calling me a liar you ask for respect. I won't respond to this nonsense again.

 

[Autodidact]

FGS do you not undestand the word agnostic?

After calling me a liar you ask for respect. I won't respond to this nonsense again.

Yes I do and that's my confusion. You claim to be agnostic, and then provide post after post stating that God did this, that or the other thing. That seems contradictory to me. You espouse creationism. How can you espouse creationism, and believe that it's not possible to know whether there is a God? Or did you say you're just posing as a creationist? Do you suffer from multiple personality disorder? I have no idea what your position is.

And when I tried to state it on your behalf, you repudiated my narrative, without ever saying what in it you disagree with.

In a separate thread, I explained ToE to you, and began to touch on the evidence that supports it. You claimed that you understood it and were satisfied, so I stopped after only beginning to explore a little bit of the evidence. Now you deny it again.

Basically, you're just a mass of contradictions. I call you a liar because you've lied. If you recall our history, quite early on I said that I doubted that you in fact are agnostic, and that you appear to be a creationist. Since then you've laid out a position supporting creationism. What am I to think?

I have no idea what your position is.

Is anyone else here confused about newhope's position?

 

[newhope101]

So Pegg: Do you think all the species of homo,

• 3.1 H. habilis
• 3.2 H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus
• 3.3 H. ergaster and H. erectus
• 3.4 H. cepranensis and H. antecessor
• 3.5 H. heidelbergensis
• 3.6 H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
• 3.7 H. neanderthalensis

are all one kind?

I think these are all non human primates in various stages of adaptation

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Other YECs: Do you agree that a "kind" is a genus?

No, I think any attempt to put Biblical definitions into a Linnaic sytem are ambiguous at best. All the Bible did was make broad generalizations about the plants and animals on the earth and put them in general and vague catagories. The plants were grasses, herbs and trees. The animals were broken up into land, water and flying creatures. All of this was done to point out that God created them not as point for scientific debate.

 

[newhope101]

Don't forget that the entire earth was destroyed in a global flood 1600 years after genesis, giving us only 4400 years in which to do that.

Well, if organisms didn't need to start from scratch that should have been enough time. Researchers speak about staged evolution where there is fast evolution followed by periods of little change. Toe requires these kinds of hypothesis to suit the fossils etc.

If Noak took a creature from each family group, they may have had the genetic diversity to start again.