Creationists, please provide evidence

[DeitySlayer]

Newhope, if you take two random humans and use them to recreate an entire population, it will be shot through with genetic deficiencies and mental/physical disabilities.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Newhope, if you take two random humans and use them to recreate an entire population, it will be shot through with genetic deficiencies and mental/physical disabilities.

From here:
"The negative health effects caused by inbreeding are due to the expression of rare, recessive deleterious genes that are inherited from common ancestors or a single shared ancestor. Studies on population in which inbreeding is common have shown increased levels of mortality and morbidity due to a variety of genetic defects. However, inbreeding can also result in the production of perfectly healthy offspring (Bittles 1991)."

 

[Atomist]

Newhope, if you take two random humans and use them to recreate an entire population, it will be shot through with genetic deficiencies and mental/physical disabilities.

ooh, oooh I know the answer to this one.

That's just a massive straw man.The people were genetically pure but after sin they gained genetic defects that's why people used to live 900 years and now only live to the 90s.

(I never found this argument convincing it's just making crap up)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

ooh, oooh I know the answer to this one.

That's just a massive straw man.The people were genetically pure but after sin they gained genetic defects that's why people used to live 900 years and now only live to the 90s.

(I never found this argument convincing it's just making crap up)

Perhaps the long life was associated with the parents eating from the Tree of Life and it had lingering and diminishing effects on the offspring.

 

[Atomist]

Perhaps the long life was associated with the parents eating from the Tree of Life and it had lingering and diminishing effects on the offspring.

maybe but then how would Christians account for the genetic defects.

 

[PolyHedral]

The fruit is obviously radioactive.

 

[Skwim]

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'

So what happens to the lineage when the offspring are unable to reproduce? It's the end of the line. The whole purpose of the creationist use of "kind" is to sidestep the the problem of interspecies infertility. Only in rare cases can different species successfully interbreed (produce offspring that can interbreed with each other and perpetuate the new lineage). This limiting factor forced creationists to explain how Noah could have assembled, fed, and cared for the millions of species we now have. So they glommed onto the notion of "kind"---a term they have yet to define in any meaningful way--- which doesn't really resolve the problem because they are still left the problem explaining how all their kinds gave rise to all the species we have today. If, as you say, kinds can reproduce then they are essentially no different than what science calls species, which brings the problem right back to square one.

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

Is that right! So what if you asked me to define "fruit" and I gave the examples of eggplants, tomatoes, string beans, okra, acorns, and olives, would that clarify what a fruit is? I'm guessing you'd probably say no, yet these are all fruits.

Biologists put all carnivores into one family....thats their perogative,

No they don't. Carnivores comprise 12 families.

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'

Okay.

 

[newhope101]

Newhope, if you take two random humans and use them to recreate an entire population, it will be shot through with genetic deficiencies and mental/physical disabilities.

Well DeitySlayer, if Two humans were created full of genetic diverstity why not? After all ToE suggests that the human line survived a chromosome 2 fusion. Also when these primitive humans, say in erectus days, travelled afar I'd suggest much interbreeding may have occured within families and small communities.

Another point is with staged evolution, does this not suggest rapid evolution at times where offspring continued to survive?

As it stand Adam and Eve's children interbred. Noah's grandchildren also apparently had no one else to beed with except each other.

One way around it is that is was a mega flood and perhaps a continent was flooded. I note the bible often says God destroyed a city or nation. But in most cases, although cities were decimated, there were survivors. These stories had been handed down and possibly exaggerated by the time they were written.

There was little media so it would not have been easy to know what was happening around the world for people living in ancient times.

Now mega floods are a real happening in earths history.

 

[Autodidact]

newhope: Would you please lay out specifically what your hypothesis is for how we get all the different variety of well adapted species of organisms on earth? Thanks. And remember: not WHO, HOW.

p. 39. I'm a it tired of asking for this. If you don't have a hypothesis, how can you have evidence?

 

[McBell]

Is anyone else here confused about newhope's position?

naw.
I am rather amused by it though.
Whatever it is actually is.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well DeitySlayer, if Two humans were created full of genetic diverstity why not?

Because being "full of genetic diversity" isn't possible. Genetic diversity is measured across populations. Asking what the diversity of an individual is like asking what the standard deviation of a constant is.

 

[newhope101]

So what happens to the lineage when the offspring are unable to reproduce? It's the end of the line. The whole purpose of the creationist use of "kind" is to sidestep the the problem of interspecies infertility. Only in rare cases can different species successfully interbreed (produce offspring that can interbreed with each other and perpetuate the new lineage). This limiting factor forced creationists to explain how Noah could have assembled, fed, and cared for the millions of species we now have. So they glommed onto the notion of "kind"---a term they have yet to define in any meaningful way--- which doesn't really resolve the problem because they are still left the problem explaining how all their kinds gave rise to all the species we have today. If, as you say, kinds can reproduce then they are essentially no different than what science calls species, which brings the problem right back to square one.

Is that right! So what if you asked me to define "fruit" and I gave the examples of eggplants, tomatoes, string beans, okra, acorns, and olives, would that clarify what a fruit is? I'm guessing you'd probably say no, yet these are all fruits.

No they don't. Carnivores comprise 12 families.

Okay.

I think researchers invented everything above 'family' to evade the creationist argument. For example in between Chimps and Homo are hominid style categories. This allows the opportunity to put any non human primate find into this intermediate phase.

We are all aware of the species problem. It speaks to it on Wiki. Race is another interesting read in Wiki.

With info like this article below it seems that bipedal walking does not indicate a transition to humanness. Most of the fossil finds are missing arms and hands, probably eaten. Researchers do not really know. Also they have reviewed these creatures and attributed more or less walking ability. It seems, researchers ability to make homonid classifications is difficult.

It was scientists that came up with the species concept and there are 2 classification methods. They are the ones that indicated the sign of a different species is their inability to breed. Then they found this was actually not the case. The boundaries between species and subspecies is vague at best. That's why many researchers now use the term homo sapiens neanderthalis, rather than homo neanderthalis. It must be very difficult for creationists to define 'kind' when researches cannot define 'species'.

Are dogs, cats, horses and mice classified together in any class because they all walk on 4 legs? For example there is no suggestion that a mouse became a cat then a dog then a horse because of the way they walk and have 4 legs.

So, I am suggesting that these early homonids were likely nothing more than non human primates, maybe some of them got cheeky and interbred, like chimp and gorilla, leaving offspring that could look confusing to researchers. Mandables also could have changed significantly due to changes in diet. There is research out there that suggests this.


So I disagree that creationists use 'kind' to evade the species problem. The species problem appears to be more a ToE problem. Creationists must use current terminology that is vague. It is not surprising that creationists have difficulty when researchers themselves, who invented the classifications, have difficulty using their own system.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 20, 2010) — More than three million years ago, the ancestors of modern humans were still spending a considerable amount of their lives in trees, but something new was happening.
A number of features in the hips, legs, and back of this group indicate that they would have walked on two legs while on the ground. But the curved fingers and toes as well as an upward-oriented shoulder blade provide solid evidence that Lucy and other members of her species also would have spent significant time climbing in trees.
This morphology differs distinctly from our own genus, Homo, who abandoned arboreal life around 2 million years ago and irrevocably committed to human-like bipedalism. Since the Laetoli tracks were discovered, scientists have debated whether they indicate a modern human-like mode of striding bipedalism, or a less-efficient type of crouched bipedalism more characteristic of chimpanzees whose knees and hips are bent when walking on two legs.

 

[Skwim]

I think researchers invented everything above 'family' to evade the creationist argument.

You think so do you. The rank of family was created by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel long before creationism reared its silly head. He also created the rank of phylum. Why not read up on issues you think about instead of just thinking about them? (Rhetorical question. Please do not reply.)

 

[evolved yet?]

Hey I thought Linnaeus made family and phylum.

 

[Gunfingers]

Hey I thought Linnaeus made family and phylum.

The way he wrote it, it went "kingdom, class, order, genera, species". Domain, phylum, and family came later. I'm not sure from where.

Linnaeus was a creationist, btw.

 

[Noaidi]

Anyone else worried about the kudos Wiki is getting on these threads? If we are debating, why not go to the source? It's too easy just to copy and paste vast tracts from Wiki.

 

[evolved yet?]

The way he wrote it, it went "kingdom, class, order, genera, species". Domain, phylum, and family came later. I'm not sure from where.

Linnaeus was a creationist, btw.

Kingdom, class and order are above family, gasp!

 

[Skwim]

Hey I thought Linnaeus made family and phylum.

Initially Linnaeus classified life in three ranks, kingdom, genus, and species. Later on, realizing the classification of life needed to be more finely tuned, he added class and order, to which Haeckle inserted the ranks of phylum and family. Botanists and bacteriologists, while recognizing the rank of phylum, will often use "division" as an alternative label. Domain, a much more recent rank, and one not yet recognized by everyone in the life sciences, was created in the early 1990s. Those not using it but still wishing to group kingdoms into a higher rank often call that rank Superkingdom or empire.

 

[Pegg]

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?

yes i'm aware of the ring species phenomenon... but the same happens in other animals too. For example small breeds of horses such as a shetland pony cannot breed with the larger horses such as Clydesdale's...yet we wouldnt say they are not the same genus of animal. In those cases we know its the genetics of the animal which prevent breeding.

its entirely possible that some of the ring species are unable to breed due to genetic factors that we are unaware of at this present time ... perhaps more research will shed light on it in years to come

 

[Pegg]

What about the new genus Raphanobrassica?

I'm no botanist, i have no idea on the genetics of plants but let me just say that we are talking about animals, not plants.

The fact that a cabbage and radish are able to hybridize I might conclude that they are of the same genesis 'kind' and so like other genesis kinds, they can interbreed...perhaps not naturally, but with intervention its possible.

and let me just say that if the descent of common ancestory of all living things were true, then you would think that all organisms should be able to crossbreed...but they cannot. So if the cabbage and radish can be crossbred, perhaps they are the same kind afterall.