Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[camanintx]

Like the apparent design evident in nature, show that evolution has a natural explanation for things like the irreducible complexity of the motors found in the flagella which consists of 40 complex protein parts the absence of any of which would cause the flagella to cease functioning, and you would have falsified that claim.

You really need to keep up on current events in intelligent design versus evolution. University of Oklahoma professor Phillip Klebba has already schooled Dembski on evolution of the bacterial flagellar motor.

Now shouldn't you be answering some of the outstanding questions such as what is information in genetics, what defines a kind and what constrains micro-evolution?

 

[fantome profane]

When being ignored by desperate creationists, I recommend large colored fonts.

It doesn’t work, but at least it is pretty.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And so 4pillars is unfortunately called away before he can address Jay's valid question. What a surprise.

Cowardice takes a holiday ...

 

[Draka]

Autodidact, you are unbelievable. I tried to read as much of this thread as I could. As I just found it today and 47 pages of this is unbearable to take in all at once I only read the first 16 or 17 pages and then skipped to the end. You are still here. Still going. Still battling the profound ignorance that would, no doubt, frustrate me to no end. I would have pounded a huge dent in my desktop with my head by now. The fact that you are still going in this is something to be marveled at. Trying to teach to the willingly ignorant. How do you do it without losing your mind?


:bow::bow::bow:

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks, Draka, does that come with frubals?

I guess I'm just pigheaded.

 

[Papersock]

Let's see what kind of definitions I can find.

There is no actual definition given in the Bible for the word "kind." Strong's Hebrew Lexicon lists the Hebrew word "Miyn" (pr. meen) as follows:

"kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind"."

The orginal kinds, or miyns, could all interbreed with each other and not breed with any other kind. There can be various animals defined by modern terms as species within the same kind. A kind can produce various species according to modern terms, by variation within the gene pool of the kind.

From here: Radaractive: <strong>Let's talk Variation in Kind (Microevolution) - part one</strong>

The definition of kind is difficult but it refers to a group or kind
of animal. For example the horse kind, the dog kind etc. There is however
variety within a kind, but it has limits, there may be many varieties of cat
but they are still cats and do not change into a dog.

From here: Preface to the evolution creation controversy essay

That seems to be the best explanation of "kind" I can find.

 

[Azakel]

It doesn’t work, but at least it is pretty.​

My eyes, they bleed!

 

[Autodidact]

AIG:

If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!
In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind &#8212; whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological &#8216;species&#8217;. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new &#8216;species&#8217; was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them...the created kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.

So it looks like any two species that can hybridize belong to the same kind, according to AIG, as well as any two species, each of which can hybridize with the same third species.

ICR:

"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances.

This is basically the same as the biological definition of a species, so would seem to indicate that a kind is a species.

Created kinds in creation biology, are organisms that share a common ancestry.

CreationWiki
Since all organisms share a common ancestry, this puts all organisms into one big kind. It is also circular: Organisms cannot evolve past their own ancestry. Well, duh.

the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity

CreationWiki.
So it's a family, except when it's an order, except for people, when it's a species.

A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species.

CreationScience FAQ

Here's why YEC creationists don't want to define "kind." There are literally millions of species in the world today, and many millions more extinct species. The more kinds there are, the more creatures Noah would have had to fit on the ark, and the more ludicrous that story becomes. The fewer "kinds," then the more species would have had to evolve in the last 6000 years, at an incredibly fast speed that (1)is not possible (2) has never been observed (3) creationists say is impossible. So they want to say that one the one hand, evolution beyond the species level is impossible, but on the other hand, has happened.

 

[England my lionheart]

I have had a good read from both evolutionists ,creationists and intelligent design which is basically the same thing and i cannot see a winner here.
If i look up Tesla for example i get electromagnetism etc and even ow to buid a Tesla coil(great fun)and the benefits he brought to us all.
If i look up Darwin or evolution i get more than one answer which to me means that something is'nt written in stone ie evolution or creationist as if it was absolute fact that by a unique accident that occurred billions of years ago out of some goo a living organism appeared and then like a caterpillar that turns into a butterfly we came to be at our present evolved state.
There are many arguments and counter arguments that will continue until someone can come forward with the mechanism that drives evolution or explain how it started can really say that what they say is fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have had a good read from both evolutionists ,creationists and intelligent design which is basically the same thing and i cannot see a winner here.

Perhaps you should read more and opine less.

 

[Papersock]

Here is something on genetic information that doesn't really make sense to me.
From: Apologetics Press - Evolution is Religion&#8212;Not Science [Part I]

When new breeds of cats and dogs are developed, genetic information is almost always lost, or is at best conserved. For example, a pair of wild dogs typically can be used to develop a breed of very large dogs or a breed of very small dogs (or both) in just a few decades, through selective breeding. However, in developing those new breeds, genetic information is lost. While the original pair of wild dogs had the genetic information to produce large dogs and small dogs, the new breeds of dogs have much less genetic information or variability. Great Danes cannot be bred from Chihuahuas, and Chihuahuas cannot be bred from Great Danes&#8212;the required genetic information has been lost. In less extreme cases much genetic information can be conserved, but in no case is information added. The evidence observed from selective breeding is once again consistent with the Christian framework, and inconsistent with the evolutionary/atheistic framework.

This seems to me to be saying that animals only inherit traits from ancestors and cannot evolve backwards and this is evidence that genetic information is lost.
Couldn't this just as easily be evidence that only new genetic information can be made. Yes, once they have changed they can't really go back, but they are still new characteristics and they could still change further into even more new forms.

 

[Papersock]

There are many arguments and counter arguments that will continue until someone can come forward with the mechanism that drives evolution or explain how it started can really say that what they say is fact.

I thought we already have the mechanism that drives evolution. Natural selection working on genetic mutations.
Why do we have to know how it started in order to know how it is working?

 

[camanintx]

For the meantime, don’t get your hope so high. The existing fact right now is ALL LIVING CREATURES ARE CONFINED TO THEIR KINDS. Now try to refute that.

Maybe when you return from your vacation you can explain how this fact refutes evolution. Evolution says that dogs and cats cannot interbreed because their genes have diverged so much that they are no longer capable of producing offspring. Lions and Tigers, however, have not diverged as much so they are capable of interbreeding. If you think this is a problem for evolution, think again.

 

[ericmurphy]

So far, we don't have a usable definition of information, and we don't have a usable definition of "kinds." Which makes creationists' claims rather worthless.

Fortunately, evolutionary biologists' claims are plainly stated and easily compared to observation. When 4Pillars gets back from his vacation, I intend to go step-by-step through "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution." I guarantee you that by the time I get to the end, not a single creationist will be left.

 

[painted wolf]

What the heck is a kind?

what "kind" am I?

What kind am I?

what kind am I?

just what the heck is a kind?

wa:do

 

[Papersock]

just what the heck is a kind?

It's a useless term, as far as I can tell.

 

[Smoke]

Autodidact, you are unbelievable. I tried to read as much of this thread as I could. As I just found it today and 47 pages of this is unbearable to take in all at once I only read the first 16 or 17 pages and then skipped to the end. You are still here. Still going. Still battling the profound ignorance that would, no doubt, frustrate me to no end. I would have pounded a huge dent in my desktop with my head by now. The fact that you are still going in this is something to be marveled at. Trying to teach to the willingly ignorant. How do you do it without losing your mind?


:bow::bow::bow:

I've often thought the same thing, and not just on this thread.

 

[Smoke]

just what the heck is a kind?

They never bother to give any clear definition of "kind," which is indicative of the kind of thought we're dealing with here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They never bother to give any clear definition of "kind," ...

It's sort of like ... well ... you know ... like ... well ... 'kind'.

 

[painted wolf]

yes, thats very nice..

wa:do