My latest understanding on the formation of the diversity of life

[Christian Doc]

I think I had been asked to start a thread on this topic. If nobody is interested then it can merely sink to the bottom.

Anyway, here goes.

I believe that God created all the kinds in Genesis 2. These would probably have diversified within their kind but when the global flood occurred, God selected a breeding pair from each kind (exception being clean animals where 7 pairs were selected). They all went on to the ark.

Therefore, the earth was repopulated 4,500 years ago from this starting stock.

They have all diversified within their kinds over the time that has elapsed. The diversification has taken place using the mechanisms described as evolution. However, I do not believe that they account for the different kinds of animals. They do account for the different species.

Please note that I have changed my thinking on this point. I do modify my thinking based on the evidence. The evidence is that speciation does occur. I would just put a limit on it and say that speciation only occurs within its kind.


I suspect none of this is new to the seasoned debaters and so I suspect that this won't raise that many eyebrows.

I was asked what my thoughts were and here they are.


What does my theory predict:

"Rapid" speciation within the various kinds.

Genetic similarity between species of the same kind.

Genetic compatibility between species that have diverged recently.

No examples of one kind giving rise to another.


I think that summarises what my belief is.

 

[Venatoris]

Just to help you out before the nit-picky people get here. I have a few questions you should answer right from the get-go.

the earth was repopulated 4,500 years ago from this starting stock.

How do you account for civilizations recording their history further back than this, with no mention of a massive flood?

The evidence is that speciation does occur. I would just put a limit on it and say that speciation only occurs within its kind.

Can you name the different "kinds"? Given your previous statements it would probably be wise to name which are clean and unclean animals. Unfortunately numbers do count to those who will be posting on this one.

What does my theory predict:
"Rapid" speciation within the various kinds.

To be taken seriously you must name the "kinds" right from the start.

Genetic similarity between species of the same kind.

But no genetic similarity between species of separate kinds?

Genetic compatibility between species that have diverged recently.

How recently? Specifics aren't necessary here, just an approximate time frame.

No examples of one kind giving rise to another.

This is kind of irrelevant until you state the "kinds", but for the sake of argument, a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees would not exist?

I think that summarises what my belief is.

Great, now throw out some specifics before the wolves descend.

 

[Christian Doc]

Venatoris

Thank you for your reply. I'm just about to head off but thought I would quickly reply to your message.

First of all, thank you for the manner in which you have posted. It is a breath of fresh air compared to the way that I am usually treated - I am appreciative.

How do you account for civilizations recording their history further back than this, with no mention of a massive flood?

Well, I think you will find that the civilisations do not go further back that 4,500 years. The Egyptian history would only go further back if the dynasties reigned in order but we know that they didn't - a couple dynasties reigned simultaneously. There are many questions raised regarding the exageration of the lengths of the reigns of the various dynasties.

You would also be surprised by how many cultures have a flood story in their history. This would be expected if the global flood were true. It would not be expected for every culture to retain this story as not all stories are continued in cultures.

Can you name the different "kinds"?

Nope. I couldn't name every different kind. I do not have that breadth of knowledge. Nor do I think I need to for people to understand my viewpoint.

Given your previous statements it would probably be wise to name which are clean and unclean animals.

Well, clean and unclean animals relate to the sacrificial system in the bible. The reason that more clean animals were required in the ark is so that Noah could continue sacrificing animals during their time at sea.

But no genetic similarity between species of separate kinds?

Good question. I suppose it depends on what is defined by similar I suppose doesn't it.

When I see the data on how DNA similarities are found between humans and cabbages, it doesn't make me think that we are derived from a common ancestor. It makes me think that we were created by a common designer.

When I see lions and tigers able to mate to form offspring, it makes me think that they come from a common ancestor - from the same kind.

I don't think I have answered the question fully yet. Would need to think on that one more but those are my initial thoughts.

This is kind of irrelevant until you state the "kinds", but for the sake of argument, a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees would not exist?

Indeed - I think that humans are a separate kind and do not share any common ancestor with any other kind.

I am quite happy however to believe that horses, zebras, ponies etc have a common ancestor.

I am quite happy to believe that dogs derive from wolves.

I am quite happy to believe that cows, bison etc are derived from the same kind.


However, I do not believe that cows and elephants and giraffes come from the same kind.


Thank you for your post.

I may not be on here for a while. I'm oncall tonight. Will be free again on Friday evening. When I suspect that I will have a few more posts on this topic to respond to!

 

[David M]

"Rapid" speciation within the various kinds.

You mean "hyper" speciation within the various "kinds". Leopards, cheetahs and Lions were all around in the ANE just a short time after your date for the flood according to the ancient egyptians.

Genetic similarity between species of the same kind.

So what is the explanation for genetic similarity between species of different "kinds".

No examples of one kind giving rise to another.

Define kind or your ideas have no foundation.

I think that summarises what my belief is.

Unfortunately your belief completely fails to answer some very simple questions. Why is there no commonly dated genetic bottleneck for all species? What did all those predators eat after the flood when all animal life had been destroyed?

 

[Willamena]

Please note that I have changed my thinking on this point. I do modify my thinking based on the evidence. The evidence is that speciation does occur. I would just put a limit on it and say that speciation only occurs within its kind.

In a sense, this is correct. A "species" is one that will only mate with its kind, so will only ever produce offspring of its species. Speciation happens over multiple generations.

 

[Gunfingers]

Well, I think you will find that the civilisations do not go further back that 4,500 years. The Egyptian history would only go further back if the dynasties reigned in order but we know that they didn't - a couple dynasties reigned simultaneously. There are many questions raised regarding the exageration of the lengths of the reigns of the various dynasties.

But Egyptian culture, even before the dynasties, can be traced back 7500 years. In fact, according to wikipedia, the Old Kingdom was in the middle of a giant drought through the period the flood would have taken place.

You would also be surprised by how many cultures have a flood story in their history. This would be expected if the global flood were true. It would not be expected for every culture to retain this story as not all stories are continued in cultures.

I really wouldn't, considering that in many cases the flood myths are built on each other. The biblical flood myth, for example, is a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Nope. I couldn't name every different kind. I do not have that breadth of knowledge. Nor do I think I need to for people to understand my viewpoint.

Even if you can't name all the kinds, surely you can name what distinguishes one kind from another, or explain why all species no matter how diverse share so many fundamental things in common

When I see lions and tigers able to mate to form offspring, it makes me think that they come from a common ancestor - from the same kind.

Lions and tigers can produce either a lyger or a tigon, depending on which species had the male and which the female. Neither a lyger nor a tigon is capable of reproducing, however, much like a horse and a donkey making a mule.

Indeed - I think that humans are a separate kind and do not share any common ancestor with any other kind.

Then you can explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw

 

[Man of Faith]

The OP is correct in that evolution is within types or kinds of originally created life forms and the animals remain the same kind or type forever. The ability to evolve to its surroundings is a built-in mechanism given all life forms via natural selection of built in genes. This is what we actually see in nature and the fossil record. We don't see common descent of all life forms, we see life forms that adapt to their surroundings.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unfortunately, the OP does not match known scientific evidence.

Now, if our esteemed Doc has access to actual scientific evidence in support of his "theory", I would love to hear it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, I think you will find that the civilisations do not go further back that 4,500 years.

:thud:

I don't see how it will be useful to you, but:

notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predynastic_Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I do modify my thinking based on the evidence. The evidence is that speciation does occur. I would just put a limit on it and say that speciation only occurs within its kind.

Just how is thinking not based on evidence modified by evidence?

This is what we actually see in nature and the fossil record. We don't see common descent of all life forms, we see life forms that adapt to their surroundings.

... only by people who don't know how to "read" the fossil record.

Both of you guys possibly could benefit from learning from scientists, archaeologists, palentologists, and geoloists rather than just making stuff up based on your misuse and misunderstanding of Scripture. Heck, on that note, maybe you should listen to reputable Bible scholars and the history of interpretation before you use the Bible to construct a pseudo-scientific and pseudo-intellectual "understanding" of the world.

 

[Venatoris]

Venatoris
Thank you for your reply. I'm just about to head off but thought I would quickly reply to your message.
First of all, thank you for the manner in which you have posted. It is a breath of fresh air compared to the way that I am usually treated - I am appreciative.

You're most welcome, it's nice to have a polite discussion once in a while.

Well, I think you will find that the civilisations do not go further back that 4,500 years. The Egyptian history would only go further back if the dynasties reigned in order but we know that they didn't - a couple dynasties reigned simultaneously. There are many questions raised regarding the exageration of the lengths of the reigns of the various dynasties.
You would also be surprised by how many cultures have a flood story in their history. This would be expected if the global flood were true. It would not be expected for every culture to retain this story as not all stories are continued in cultures.

Egypt is not the only civilization with written historical records dating that far back, China for example. Most, if not all cultures would have a flood story somewhere in their history if we consider that floods are a natural occurrence across the globe but shouldn't a truly global flood be recorded in the histories of all cultures at relatively the same time?

Nope. I couldn't name every different kind. I do not have that breadth of knowledge. Nor do I think I need to for people to understand my viewpoint.

Fair enough, I wouldn't ask you to speak outside the realm of your ability. To the best of your knowledge, has any accredited person tried to define the different "kinds" in the creationist view? Any links you could provide would be appreciated.

Well, clean and unclean animals relate to the sacrificial system in the bible. The reason that more clean animals were required in the ark is so that Noah could continue sacrificing animals during their time at sea.

I only ask because from a mathematical perspective it would be helpful to know a general number of the animals on the ark.

Good question. I suppose it depends on what is defined by similar I suppose doesn't it.
When I see the data on how DNA similarities are found between humans and cabbages, it doesn't make me think that we are derived from a common ancestor. It makes me think that we were created by a common designer.

I can't find anything about similarities in DNA between humans and cabbage, any links you could provide would be appreciated.

When I see lions and tigers able to mate to form offspring, it makes me think that they come from a common ancestor - from the same kind.

Understandable, Ligers are awesome! Lions and Tigers are different species but are still of the same genus "Panthera" and are fully capable of breeding with each other so I'm not sure if this helps the argument for either side of this debate.

I don't think I have answered the question fully yet. Would need to think on that one more but those are my initial thoughts.

Take your time, a quality response can't be rushed.

Indeed - I think that humans are a separate kind and do not share any common ancestor with any other kind.

Now we are getting somewhere. If we keep this up we might actually sort out the details from both sides of the issue. Then we can have a really good debate.

Thank you for your post.
I may not be on here for a while. I'm oncall tonight. Will be free again on Friday evening. When I suspect that I will have a few more posts on this topic to respond to!

You're welcome and I look forward to talking to you later.

 

[Wotan]

"Please note that I have changed my thinking on this point. I do modify my thinking based on the evidence. The evidence is that speciation does occur. I would just put a limit on it and say that speciation only occurs within its kind."

OK then please explain what barrier exists that prevents further change. Or this your "kind?" If so, then you MUST have a working definition of "kind" to make this assertion.

If not then where is this barrier that prevents change located? How do you know? What evidence do you have for it?

I suggest you are really following this line of reasoning. And we would have more respect for intellectual integrity if you simply said SO.

 

[Skwim]

In a sense, this is correct. A "species" is one that will only mate with its kind, so will only ever produce offspring of its species.

FYI
Not entirely true, but close enough for these purposes.

 

[Autodidact]

Doc:

1. What is a kind?
2. So do I understand correctly that you accept the Theory of Evolution (ToE) in its entirely, and your only disagreement is whether there is a single common ancestor, or many separate ancestors? What I mean is, in your hypothesis, there would be a single common ancestor for each "kind," whatever that turns out to be? Is that right?

(I wonder if it's time for a thread on "What is a kind?" The conversation is now going on in at least two threads. In the other one, it's fluctuating between species, genus and family.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Doc:

1. What is a kind?

Ever get the feeling that you're going in circles?

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I think you will find that the civilisations do not go further back that 4,500 years. The Egyptian history would only go further back if the dynasties reigned in order but we know that they didn't - a couple dynasties reigned simultaneously. There are many questions raised regarding the exageration of the lengths of the reigns of the various dynasties.

Historically, the ancient city states of Mesopotamia in the fertile crescent are most cited by Western and Middle Eastern scholars as the cradle of civilization. The convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers produced rich fertile soil and a supply of water for irrigation. The civilizations that emerged around these rivers are among the earliest known attempts humanity made at establishing non-nomadic agrarian societies. But it is because Ubaid, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylon civilizations all emerged around the Tigris-Euphrates, the theory that Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilizations might be the strongest.[15]
The Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer emerges in the Ubaid and Uruk periods, culminating in the mid 3rd millennium before giving rise to the Akkadian Empire in the 23rd century BC, often identified as the first empire in history.
Eridu was the oldest Sumerian site, settled during the proto-civilized Ubaid period. Situated several miles southwest of Ur, Eridu was the southernmost of a conglomeration of early temple-cities, in Sumer, southern Mesopotamia, with the earliest of these settlements carbon dating to around 5000 BC. By the 4th millennium BC, in Nippur we find, in connection with a sort of ziggurat and shrine, a conduit built of bricks, in the form of an arch. Sumerian inscriptions written on clay also appear in Nippur. By 4000 BC an ancient Elamite city of Susa, in Mesopotamia, also seems to emerge from earlier villages. Whilst Elam originally adopted their own script from an early age they adapted the Sumerian cuneiform script to their own language. The earliest recognizable cuneiform dates to no later than about 3500 BC.
[wiki]

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, I see - "late" as in "deceased."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, I think you will find that the civilisations do not go further back that 4,500 years.

Incidentally, I found intact pottery from Corinth dated 5200 BCE.

R. J. Hopper, “Ancient Corinth,” Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Feb., 1955), 4 [2-15].

 

[Amill]

They have all diversified within their kinds over the time that has elapsed. The diversification has taken place using the mechanisms described as evolution. However, I do not believe that they account for the different kinds of animals. They do account for the different species.

Do you realize how diverse canines are? It's not as if we have just wolves and domesticated dogs. There are many different kinds of wolves and other canines besides domesticated dogs. What about Jackals and foxes? Are they their own "kinds"?

Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To go from one "kind" of canine to all of those different species in 4500 years seems a bit unrealistic.:sarcastic

Are humans from descended from the same ancestor as neanderthals and homo erectus in your view?

 

[painted wolf]

How does your model account for the diversity within the Rodentia?
With over 2,000 modern species you would need an average of 2 species to appear per year.

How do you get such fast speciation and why don't we see it still going on today.
Did a rat give birth to a litter of mice or was it gradual within the years reproduction?
If it was gradual, what about rodent species that only reproduce once per year?

Are the Rodents actually more than one kind? Such as the "Sciuromorph kind"?

What about fossil species and fossils of Modern species?
For example: We have fossils of modern wolves and Coyotes... did both go on the Ark or did they "re-evolve" from the "dog kind"?

wa:do