Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

That is a very good question. And is probably found in the fossil evidence if following convergent evolution down the line and not following a strict assumption of common ancestry that is traditionally held by evolutionists. Because it is a dependable mechanism for the emergence of independently similar genetic mutations in similar loci, in anatomically similar yet ancestrally unrelated created kinds (a creationism term, not ID) living in like environments.

There's a scientific innovation! Look at the fossil record! I wonder why no one ever thought of that before? Then we could figure out the relationships between various species. I'm going to write those paleontologists and suggest it to them. I'm sure they'd find it very helpful.

Common ancestry is not an assumption, Subby, it's a conclusion--the opposite of an assumption.

 

[Autodidact]

individual creation. If he can do it via evolution as you believe, then he can also create each individual life form using the building blocks of life

O.K., and this is the magic poofing thing, right? If I remember right, for you, at sometime in the past, all over the world, God magically poofed two of each kind into existence. A kind is a grouping of animals who can be bred or cross bred. Then two of each kind got onto a wooden boat with a single family of individuals, and all the species we see now evolved from and spread out from those kinds around 4000 years ago. Is that your hypothesis?

 

[Autodidact]

we can also transplant ourselves with the organs of a Pig...it means nothing.

What would really prove if we were related to apes is if we could hybridize with them the way other species are able to hybridize because they are genetically related.

Can we?

Has this ever been tried?

 

[Autodidact]

"We discuss approaches for gaining further insights into the causes of genetic convergence and their potential contribution to our understanding of how the genetic background determines the evolvability of complex organismal traits."

OR

"We discuss approaches for gaining further insights into the causes of genetic convergence and their potential contribution to our understanding of how the genetic background determines the design of complex organismal traits."

What knowledge is lost?

One is science, the other religion. We know they're designed. What we're trying to figure out is how they got that way, by magic (outside the scope of science) or by evolution (science's conclusion.)

 

[The_Evelyonian]

This could be why we see such human like primates... Maybe it just was result of episodes of hybridization, instead of ape-to-man evolution it was man-to-ape hybridization. I dunno, that sounds bizarre, but I don't think it is impossible.

Doesn't work that way. Two separate and distinct species can't hybridize. The genetic differences won't allow it. Even species undergoing convergent or parallel evolution will never grow close enough to allow them to produce viable offspring.

This is what speciation is all about.

 

[Subby]

One is science, the other religion. We know they're designed. What we're trying to figure out is how they got that way, by magic (outside the scope of science) or by evolution (science's conclusion.)

Oh I am done with you. I cant stand your approach toward this subject, it is so insulting to me the way your language is formed.

 

[Autodidact]

We see anatomically similar organisms that have genetic mutations at similar places. Most assume that is JUST common ancestry, that the ape evolved into you and i and on down the line, however modern observation or what is convergent evolution produces the same effect. So it isn't common ancestry that emerged similar genetic mutations at similar places in the human and ape, but rather convergent evolution is the reason.

NO, it doesn't. You're jumping to your own story, which has nothing to do with convergent evolution as described by Biologists.

For example, The pronghorn antelope of North America, while not a true antelope and only distantly related to them, closely resembles the true antelopes of the Old World, both behaviorally and morphologically. It also fills a similar ecological niche and is found in the same biomes. [wiki] We observe significant morphological and, most significantly, genetic differences between these species. That is convergent evolution. What we do not observe is two species that are extremely closely genetically related, have homologous skeletons, organs and so forth, as a result of convergent evolution. In fact, humans differ significantly from chimps and bonobos, and live in a significantly different environment. NOT convergent evolution.

The assumption of common ancestry is challenged by scientific observation.

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on scientific observation. It's the only conclusion that explains and is consistent with all the facts, which is why it is the foundational consensus theory of all modern biology.

 

[Autodidact]

I have answered that with like 10 pages, by your statement you have still refused to read even recent pages of content. Now read and answer post 931.

I've read every post. This is a typical creationist evasive manuever. Refuse to answer a question, then claim to have already answered it.

I'm sorry, I missed your response to this simple, straightforward, reasonable questions:

What do you mean by "creationism?"
Do you accept or reject the Theory of Evolution (ToE)?

The knowledge that would be lost would an understanding of how this phenomenon came to be.
What is your hypothesis for how we get all the different species of organisms on earth?

Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Oh I am done with you. I cant stand your approach toward this subject, it is so insulting to me the way your language is formed.

Buh bye. I guess you'll never have to answer my questions then. Handy for you.

 

[tumbleweed41]

its not a problem for me...yes sheep and goats belong to the same 'kind' as they can be crossbred.

They are of the same kind if they can do that.

So let me get this straight. Any animal that can interbreed is the same "kind", and this "kind" diverged or, heaven help us, evolved into different species.
Right?

 

[tumbleweed41]

This could be why we see such human like primates... Maybe it just was result of episodes of hybridization, instead of ape-to-man evolution it was man-to-ape hybridization. I dunno, that sounds bizarre, but I don't think it is impossible.

No, as I have already told you, the Theory of Evolution does not say anything about ape to human or human to ape evolution.
If you have questions about Evolution or the Theory of Evolution please ask, or at least learn something about biological evolution before making such ridiculous statements.

 

[Subby]

No, as I have already told you, the Theory of Evolution does not say anything about ape to human or human to ape evolution.
If you have questions about Evolution or the Theory of Evolution please ask, or at least learn something about biological evolution before making such ridiculous statements.

I just said it was bizarre. Read it again. Then approach your comments more honestly.

 

[tomato1236]

So let me get this straight. Any animal that can interbreed is the same "kind", and this "kind" diverged or, heaven help us, evolved into different species.
Right?

Cuuuute

 

[fantome profane]

Moses 'kind' is not a 'species' for the reason that, as I have already stated, some different species can hybridize. Modern biology categorize a panther and a tiger as two different species...yet they can be crossbred.

Do you understand that the ability to breed means the animal is of the same 'kind'? How many times must I repeat this???

There are many different 'species' which can produce hybrids as i've already shown...if they can reproduce it means that they are biologically the same animal and therefore they are a 'genesis kind'

I am going to attempt to bring some clarity to this discussion. It is possible that this is a futile attempt, but I am going to give it an honest try.

I would like to ask the creationist contingent to tell me if these four statements are accurate representations of your view. I think this is what you are saying.

1. If two species are capable of producing a hybrid offspring then they are the same “kind”. This is true even if the hybrid offspring is infertile and/or has genetic defects that make it unable to survive for very long.

2. If two species are incapable of reproducing a hybrid then they are different “kinds”.

3. Created kinds are immutable. In other words it is absolutely impossible for one kind to evolve into another kind, or for one kind to split into two different kinds.

4. Change is possible within “kinds”. Changes are possible to both the phenotype and the genotype of created “kinds”, but only within “kinds”. “Kind” is still immutable.


I want to know if these four points are correct. If they are then we can make the following inference.

Let’s consider two separate species that are just barely capable of producing a hybrid. This hybrid is completely infertile and usually dies shortly after birth (especially in the wild, in a zoo it might live a little longer). Now since these hybrids are infertile there is no gene flow between these two species. And since change is possible within “kind” both these species may continue to change over time.

We can infer that if the four statements above are correct then it is impossible for a mutation to occur in the genotype of either species that will have the result of rendering them no longer able to produce this hybrid.

Do you agree that this inference logically follows from the first four points? Do you believe that this inference is correct?

 

[David M]

its not a problem for me...yes sheep and goats belong to the same 'kind' as they can be crossbred.

They are of the same kind if they can do that.

If that is your defintion of Kind then how do you explain Leviticus 19:19.

19 “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

According to Leviticus cattle can breed with other kinds. So Kind does indeed just mean species and "after their Kind" is just confirming that offspring are extemely similar to their parents.

The interpretation that kind means anything other than species is just an interpretation to get around the problems of treating the flood as a global event. There is no other basis for it.

 

[Pegg]

1. If two species are capable of producing a hybrid offspring then they are the same “kind”. This is true even if the hybrid offspring is infertile and/or has genetic defects that make it unable to survive for very long.

Yes, true.

2. If two species are incapable of reproducing a hybrid then they are different “kinds”.

This is true. Generally, the point where fertilization ceases, is the point that determines if an animal is of a different 'kind'.

However, in some cases, not all within a kind will be able to reproduce due to the extreme differences in phenotype. An example being a small horse trying to breed with a large horse...there will be difficulties in this happening naturally due to size. Even if artificially inseminated, a small horse will not be able to carry a large baby for long before something goes wrong.

3. Created kinds are immutable. In other words it is absolutely impossible for one kind to evolve into another kind, or for one kind to split into two different kinds.

this is true.
Their is a barrier between the kinds...its fertilization. There is no fertilization between different 'kinds' and for that reason its impossible to cross a chicken with a dog...they wont hybridize however, different bird 'species' can hybridize as this article lists numerous examples. Notice in all the examples listed, the birds are of the same type, ie different species of penguins can hybridize with other penguins but not with a duck or a swan or an eagle.

4. Change is possible within “kinds”. Changes are possible to both the phenotype and the genotype of created “kinds”, but only within “kinds”. “Kind” is still immutable.

Yes changes happen, but the genotype does not have to change much for the phenotype to change dramatically. The genotype is the hereditary information and it will change very slightly, but not enough to change one kind into another. Its the phenotype which can produce the big changes that we see which makes a lion a lion and a leopard a leopard. But the genotype of both are still the same 'kind'

I want to know if these four points are correct. If they are then we can make the following inference.

Let’s consider two separate species that are just barely capable of producing a hybrid. This hybrid is completely infertile and usually dies shortly after birth (especially in the wild, in a zoo it might live a little longer). Now since these hybrids are infertile there is no gene flow between these two species. And since change is possible within “kind” both these species may continue to change over time.

yes its true that the species will continue to change over time...but they will not change into a new 'kind'... big cats will remain as big cats no matter what they look like.

We can infer that if the four statements above are correct then it is impossible for a mutation to occur in the genotype of either species that will have the result of rendering them no longer able to produce this hybrid.

Do you agree that this inference logically follows from the first four points? Do you believe that this inference is correct?

I dont know if this inference is correct. I dont believe that mutations have ever been shown to be able to produce a new 'kind' of anything.

the problem with bringing mutations into the picture is that mutations dont produce new 'kinds'. Yes they can produce some small changes in existing oranisms, but mutation experiments have shown that mutations dont lead to anything 'new' and are mostly harmful to the organism. look up the fruitfly mutation experiments.

 

[Pegg]

If that is your defintion of Kind then how do you explain Leviticus 19:19.

19 “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

According to Leviticus cattle can breed with other kinds. So Kind does indeed just mean species and "after their Kind" is just confirming that offspring are extemely similar to their parents.

The interpretation that kind means anything other than species is just an interpretation to get around the problems of treating the flood as a global event. There is no other basis for it.

The hebrew interlinear puts the verse at Lev19:19 this way:

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind:
thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed:
neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

Leviticus is not saying that at all as can be seen by the 2 other regulations mentioned in the same verse.

This is to be understood that if ta was farming a particular variety of animal, the whole flock had to be of the same variety. Just as the garments were to be made of all one material rather then a combination of materials and a field had to be sown with one type of seed.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

Of course they can be compared. A building doesn't build itself. It requires a builder. The smallest cell is far more complex than the biggest building on earth.
Design requires a designer. Architecture requires an architect. A window requires a carpenter.

As to replication, variation, and selection, they do not prove one animal or plant evolves into another. People replicate and certainly have variation, but they all appear to have a common ancestor. Scientists have intentionallyu mutated fruit flies but have never succeeded in producing anything other than a fruit fly. Variety is the spice of life, as they say, not proof of the ToE.

Absolutely incorrect, the definition of a new species is a species that cannot reproduce with it's progenitor, or close phylogenic relatives, there are countless examples of both this being achieved by man (e.g. the maize plant, horses, almost any domesticated animal) and it occuring in nature within observed recorded memory - we HAVE seen new species arise.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This could be why we see such human like primates... Maybe it just was result of episodes of hybridization, instead of ape-to-man evolution it was man-to-ape hybridization. I dunno, that sounds bizarre, but I don't think it is impossible.

No, as I have already told you, the Theory of Evolution does not say anything about ape to human or human to ape evolution.
If you have questions about Evolution or the Theory of Evolution please ask, or at least learn something about biological evolution before making such ridiculous statements.

I just said it was bizarre. Read it again. Then approach your comments more honestly.

Yes, it is bizarre. Since it has no basis in biology.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So let me get this straight. Any animal that can interbreed is the same "kind", and this "kind" diverged or, heaven help us, evolved into different species.
Right?

SO then both of the above examples evolved from a common ancestor.
Correct?