Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Aasimar]

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

It's similar to information...

 

[ericmurphy]

Ah, created "kinds." Where creationist assertions about biodiversity go to die.

So let's see. Are created "kinds" the same thing as species? Doubtful. Sure, creationists like to talk about things like dogs and wolves being in the same "kind," or housecats and leopards being in the same "kind." That's superficially plausible. Of course, foxes present a problem, with their 36 chromosomes compared to wolves,' dogs,' and coyotes' 78, but no biggie. But then there's the same problem with ocelots, which have 36 chromosomes compared to the 38 other members of Felidae have. And, of course, both Canidae and Felidae are families, not genera or species, so if there is a cat "kind" or a dog "kind," then at least in those two instances we're talking about "kinds" being families, not genera or species.

But "charismatic megafauna," i.e., doggies, kitties, horsies, and bunnies, are an infinitesimal fraction of the organisms out there. Large mammals (and "large" in this context is anything bigger than a few dozen grams) are a footnote in the history of life on this planet. There are only 4,500 species of eutherian mammals in existence today. No big deal.

But let's look at some taxa with a little more biodiversity. Birds, for instance. There are over 10,000 species of bird in the world today. How about the fish "kind"? There are 20,000 species of fish. Are they all the same "kind"? How about Lake Victoria cichlids? They're all very similar in appearance. Are they all the same "kind"? There are 400 species of cichlids in Lake Victoria.

And we're still talking vertebrates here. Things get really desperate for creationists when we start talking about invertebrates. Sure, there are only 12,000 species of ant. But there are 300,000 species of beetle.

So are "kinds" the same as species? Who was it who said, if God created earthly creatures, he must have been inordinately fond of beetles?

There are a minimum of ten million species of organisms out there. That doesn't even include bacteria or viruses, where the definition of "species" gets a little hazy. There could be between a hundred million and a billion species of bacteria and viruses. Did God create each one individually, as a separate "kind"?

Well, we get into a bit of a problem here if you think a "kind" is the same thing as a species, because there are known instances of speciation, observed instances of species splitting into one or more daughter species. Consequently, most creationists know better than to equate a created "kind" with a species, but not all do. The ones who don't run aground pretty quickly.

Well, how about genera? Could a "kind" be the equivalent of a genus? Not if dogs and foxes, or housecats and lions, or the various varieties of penguins are considered "kinds." Housecats and lions are in different genera. So are foxes and dogs. There are six penguin genera.

Maybe families are the same as "kinds"? Heavens no. Humans are in the same family—Hominidae—as all other great apes. I doubt creationists would agree with that.

And for the young-earth creationists, the biblical literalists who think Noah's flood actually happened, it's way, way worse. Because they have two ways to go, and neither will work. They can either make a created "kind" as close to a species as possible, in which case Noah needed an ark the size of Belgium. Alternatively, you could make a "kind" more like a genus or a family, except if you do that, you end up needing rates of evolution far beyond anything observed, or even possible. How many species of beetle did Noah take aboard the ark. Must have been more than one; otherwise we need sixty new species of beetle a year, or more than one a week.

The YECs are really caught between an ark and a hard place when it comes to biblical kinds. But even the not-completely-crazy creationists can't define a "kind." It's obviously not the same thing as a species, or zebras, horses, and donkeys are in separate kinds. If they're families, then there's a slight problem with humans, among other organisms, plus if you admit there can be evolution among "families," that punches a big hole in the whole "breed after their kind" argument, because organisms in the same family but in different genera are hardly ever interfertile.

So what is it, guys? What's the definition of created "kind"? I mean, you've only had 3,000 years to come up with a definition. What's the problem?

 

[England my lionheart]

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?

Mutations cannot provide new information they only become worse ie a fruit fly mutation can only produce more mutations but they are still flies.

 

[Sunstone]

Mutations cannot provide new information they only become worse ie a fruit fly mutation can only produce more mutations but they are still flies.

But isn't that false?

 

[England my lionheart]

These are some pukka questions for both creationists and evolutionists if you can supply the definite factual answers i would be both amazed and grateful.
The first starts at the beggining of life on Earth some billions of years ago,what was the first creature and how did it come into being from nothing to what ever it was.
The second is,my freind had a greyhound ***** who died whilegiving birth to her litter so we all pitched in and i took one of the pups home and nursed it and she survived.
After all her innoculations were done i took her out walking and i let her off for the run around when she saw a rabbit which darted for its burrow she chased after it,she didt catch it as she was still very young.
As she grew she chased rabbits and hares which she did catch,why did she chase the rabbit and kill some when unlike lions etc who are taught by the parents does this mean its the information already in her genes and if it is why not in other species.
If natural selection is the driving force of evolution how does it work to produce new species and why is'nt it seen working now.

 

[England my lionheart]

But isn't that false?

No i don't think it is false as Thomas Hunt Morgan a zoologist began an experiment with fruit flies witch were treated with radiation to create mutations and as yet not new species has appeared only more fruit flies.

 

[Sunstone]

No i don't think it is false as Thomas Hunt Morgan a zoologist began an experiment with fruit flies witch were treated with radiation to create mutations and as yet not new species has appeared only more fruit flies.

All swans are white until you find a black swan, right?

 

[England my lionheart]

All swans are white until you find a black swan, right?

But its still a swan right

 

[England my lionheart]

a white rhino is still a ........yep rhino a black man is still a human being etc etc

 

[camanintx]

No i don't think it is false as Thomas Hunt Morgan a zoologist began an experiment with fruit flies witch were treated with radiation to create mutations and as yet not new species has appeared only more fruit flies.

If the definition of species is a [SIZE=-1]taxonomic group whose members can interbreed, then wouldn't a group of fruit flies that cannot interbreed with the group it evolved from be a "new species"?
[/SIZE]

 

[England my lionheart]

If the definition of species is a [SIZE=-1]taxonomic group whose members can interbreed, then wouldn't a group of fruit flies that cannot interbreed with the group it evolved from be a "new species"?[/SIZE]

No apparently not

 

[painted wolf]

So England, you didn't actually look at any of the information I gave to you did you?

shame really.

could you tell me in your engineering opinion what kind the critters I posted are?

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

No apparently not

Why not? Do you have a different definition of species?

 

[England my lionheart]

So England, you didn't actually look at any of the information I gave to you did you?

shame really.

could you tell me in your engineering opinion what kind the critters I posted are?

wa:do

It does'nt really matter does it,i read an interesting article by steven hawking about the universe and toe,i think this man is quite well respected.
I thought that if toe is actual fact then he would say so but like most scientists in this field he uses words like probably or perhaps where if something is fact then normally speaking you would use fact instead of perhaps,maybe, possibly.
From his article it is clear that toe is'nt fact at all,from the big bang to us being here it was probably ,perhaps,about the first creature to live on Earth this may have happened and there may have been circumstances that caused it.
Come on, i love science and if somebody can tell me for sure how we got here from nothing to something i would love to here from you.

 

[England my lionheart]

These are some pukka questions for both creationists and evolutionists if you can supply the definite factual answers i would be both amazed and grateful.
The first starts at the beggining of life on Earth some billions of years ago,what was the first creature and how did it come into being from nothing to what ever it was.
The second is,my freind had a greyhound ***** who died whilegiving birth to her litter so we all pitched in and i took one of the pups home and nursed it and she survived.
After all her innoculations were done i took her out walking and i let her off for the run around when she saw a rabbit which darted for its burrow she chased after it,she didt catch it as she was still very young.
As she grew she chased rabbits and hares which she did catch,why did she chase the rabbit and kill some when unlike lions etc who are taught by the parents does this mean its the information already in her genes and if it is why not in other species.
If natural selection is the driving force of evolution how does it work to produce new species and why is'nt it seen working now.

Still waiting on this one ho hum

 

[camanintx]

From his article it is clear that toe is'nt fact at all

Please stop conflating evolution with the Theory of Evolution. Biological evolution, t[SIZE=-1]he change in inherited characteristics of a population from generation to successive generation, is observed fact. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or the origin of species by means of natural selection, is simply the best explanation that we have to explain how we got to where we are.
[/SIZE]

 

[ericmurphy]

Mutations cannot provide new information they only become worse ie a fruit fly mutation can only produce more mutations but they are still flies.

Of course they can. Even without a workable definition of "genetic information," it is obvious they can. Let's go through it one more time.

If you think genetic information cannot increase, you must deny two obviously true statements. You must deny that genes can be duplicated, and you must deny that duplicated genes can mutate. Since both of these things are trivially true, your claim that genetic information cannot increase is clearly false.

So why do you keep repeating it?

 

[camanintx]

The first starts at the beggining of life on Earth some billions of years ago,what was the first creature and how did it come into being from nothing to what ever it was.

Please explain what you consider to be the difference between life and non-life.

If natural selection is the driving force of evolution how does it work to produce new species and why is'nt it seen working now.

Please explain what you believe differentiates one species from another.

Not that I don't trust you but we wouldn't want you moving the goalposts after we start the game.

 

[ericmurphy]

It does'nt really matter does it,i read an interesting article by steven hawking about the universe and toe,i think this man is quite well respected.
I thought that if toe is actual fact then he would say so but like most scientists in this field he uses words like probably or perhaps where if something is fact then normally speaking you would use fact instead of perhaps,maybe, possibly.
From his article it is clear that toe is'nt fact at all,from the big bang to us being here it was probably ,perhaps,about the first creature to live on Earth this may have happened and there may have been circumstances that caused it.
Come on, i love science and if somebody can tell me for sure how we got here from nothing to something i would love to here from you.

You're failing to make a distinction between the fact of evolution, and the theory that explains how that fact happens.

There is simply no rational doubt that evolution happens. The fossil record is conclusive proof that evolution happens.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is not factual. No theory is. All theories are tentative, and subject to falsification. At this point, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is so utterly overwhelming that no one who understands it doubts it, except for religious reasons.

If you stay with this thread, you will eventually learn enough about the theory of evolution that you would have to be insane not to believe it is an accurate explanation for observation.

 

[England my lionheart]

Of course they can. Even without a workable definition of "genetic information," it is obvious they can. Let's go through it one more time.

If you think genetic information cannot increase, you must deny two obviously true statements. You must deny that genes can be duplicated, and you must deny that duplicated genes can mutate. Since both of these things are trivially true, your claim that genetic information cannot increase is clearly false.

So why do you keep repeating it?

Why then have the mutated fruit flies in the experiment remained as fruit flies.