Noahs ark and the food chain

[Man of Faith]

But you don’t observe that, you just think you observe that. If you can’t define “kind” you can’t tell us that you observe “kind”. You don’t even know what kind is, you have no idea what it means to say “reproduce after their own kind” because the word “kind” has no meaning. You are speaking gibberish but you don’t know it.

Maybe I am just ahead of others. A thousand years ago if someone said DNA, someone else would have said "DNA has no meaning, you are speaking gibberish".

 

[Gunfingers]

Maybe I am just ahead of others. A thousand years ago if someone said DNA, someone else would have said "DNA has no meaning, you are speaking gibberish".

Except there was such a thing as DNA. There is no such thing as a kind. You keep saying scientists are looking into it, but virtually every scientist studying biological classifications has long since discarded baraminology in favor of cladistics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kind isn't that clear, that is why studies are being done by scientists to clear it up. However it has been compared to the family group in biological classifications. Noah didn't round up the animals, God sent them into the Ark. Noah just stood by and watched. I don't throw out any of the Bible.

Genesis 6:20 Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive.21 And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals."

Okay - now how about the problem of reconciling you argument with Genesis 1?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Kind isn't that clear, that is why studies are being done by scientists to clear it up. However it has been compared to the family group in biological classifications. Noah didn't round up the animals, God sent them into the Ark. Noah just stood by and watched. I don't throw out any of the Bible.

Genesis 6:20 Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive.21 And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals."

I take it that it was a very long time Noah had spent in waiting. -NM-

 

[Man of Faith]

Okay - now how about the problem of reconciling you argument with Genesis 1?

I need more information. I have no problems with Genesis 1.

 

[painted wolf]

You know you can see DNA with the naked eye... there are very simple experiments you can do to separate it from cells. Add to that the fact that people understood husbandry back then, and I think you could have a pretty good shot of getting them to understand.

"kind" is still so vague as to be rendered meaningless. Check out my previous post for examples.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I need more information. I have no problems with Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:24-25 describes wild animals (or "beasts of the earth", depending on the translation) being of one set of "kinds" and livestock (or "cattle") being another set of "kinds", but you've managed to put every ungulate from deer to horses into the same "kind".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe I am just ahead of others. A thousand years ago if someone said DNA, someone else would have said "DNA has no meaning, you are speaking gibberish".

Or... they would've said, "what's DNA?"

Try this: years before viruses were discovered, Ignaz Semmelweis came up with a method that he thought would reduce mortality in his hospital: getting the doctors to wash their hands after handling cadavers.

His idea was based on the notion that disease was transferred from the cadavers to the doctors hands and then to women in labour through some sort of particle that was so small it was invisible to the naked eye. He had no way of observing this particle directly.

So how did they know there was merit to the idea? By conducting an experiment: when the doctors washed their hands, mortality in the maternity ward decreased from more than 10% to less than 1%. There was a real, observable effect that could be linked to his ideas about an unobservable cause.

Same for genetics: do you think that Gregor Mendel had any way to observe DNA? No... but he observed that inheritance follows certain laws, and deduced that there was a causal mechanism behind it.

In the same way, if the notion of a "kind" as some sort of limit to evolution has any merit at all, then it would be visible in the evidence. What evidence shows us that "kinds" are real? You can't even tell us what a "kind" is supposed to be.

Here's how science works when you believe that there's some sort of invisible cause at play:

- you come up with predictions: if the cause is real, what would its observable effects be?
- you conduct experiments to look for those effects.
- if you observe the effects, then this is support for your hypothesized cause (though you should keep on looking for other possible explanations for those effects).
- if you don't observe the effects, then this shows that there's something wrong with your hypothesis and it needs to be revised (or abandoned).

An invisible cause or force is no impediment to science. As long as you have an actual hypothesis with actual predictions, you can investigate it. However, until creationists stop waffling and come up with an actual definition of "kind", none of the steps that follow can happen.

And that's why this sort of thing is rejected as unscientific: not because the barriers between "kinds" are invisible, but because they're undefined.

 

[fantome profane]

Maybe I am just ahead of others. A thousand years ago if someone said DNA, someone else would have said "DNA has no meaning, you are speaking gibberish".

And they would have been right to say it was gibberish. If someone used the term DNA a thousand years ago before the term was defined they would have been speaking gibberish. DNA would have been gibberish until DNA was defined. If you are in fact ahead of me then you should have no difficulty defining the word “kind”.

No they are not.

And big black letters makes it true. What is your definition of the word “primate”? Try looking the word “primate” up in any dictionary. If you can find a definition of the word “primate” that does not include humans I would be surprised. You see unlike the gibberish that you spout about “kind” the word “primate” actually has a definition. Look it up!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And they would have been right to say it was gibberish. If someone used the term DNA a thousand years ago before the term was defined they would have been speaking gibberish. DNA would have been gibberish until DNA was defined. If you are in fact ahead of me then you should have no difficulty defining the word “kind”.

However, as I pointed out, scientists like Mendel were able to talk about an invisible mechanism that causes inheritance to follow certain rules, even if he didn't quite know what that mechanism would be.

This is very different from the idea of "kinds", though, where there are no visible effects in need of invisible explanations. The history of life shows that evolution doesn't just stop when it reaches some predetermined point.

 

[Tristesse]

Maybe I am just ahead of others. A thousand years ago if someone said DNA, someone else would have said "DNA has no meaning, you are speaking gibberish".

DNA existed a thousand years ago, it just wasn't known. Just like the earth was a sphere a thousand years ago, but most people thought it was flat.

 

[Tristesse]

No they are not.

Sorry man of faith, but yes they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Just scroll down the page. And it gives you different classifications of primates.

 

[Man of Faith]

Sorry man of faith, but yes they are.

Primate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just scroll down the page. And it gives you different classifications of primates.

The reason why humans are classified as primates is due to assumption that humankind has evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Take away that assumption and they aren't primates. They really aren't primates, we are in a classification on our own, humankind.

 

[Tristesse]

The reason why humans are classified as primates is due to assumption that humankind has evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Take away that assumption and they aren't primates. They really aren't primates, we are in a classification on our own, humankind.

Kind of. But it's mainly due to our dna strand. Our dna is more similar to chimpanzees, than chimpanzee dna is to any other primate.

 

[Jose Fly]

Kind of. But it's mainly due to our dna strand. Our dna is more similar to chimpanzees, than chimpanzee dna is to any other primate.

Even more importantly, chimp DNA is more similar to human DNA than it is to any other primate. IOW, genetically we are the chimpanzee's closest relative.

One has to wonder why a god would create such an organism and give it genetic markers that link it directly to humans, if his method of creation were something else entirely. Why would this god give us shared anatomies, wonderful fossil specimens, and distinct genetic markers that all point to us sharing an evolutionary past with other primates? Why give "evolutionists" everything they need and want, and give creationists no supporting data at all?

What a strange "god".

 

[Man of Faith]

Kind of. But it's mainly due to our dna strand. Our dna is more similar to chimpanzees, than chimpanzee dna is to any other primate.

Again the acceptance that DNA is evidence of common descent depends on the assumption of common descent. Take away that assumption and similar DNA only means similar DNA, nothing more.

 

[Man of Faith]

Even more importantly, chimp DNA is more similar to human DNA than it is to any other primate. IOW, genetically we are the chimpanzee's closest relative.

One has to wonder why a god would create such an organism and give it genetic markers that link it directly to humans, if his method of creation were something else entirely. Why would this god give us shared anatomies, wonderful fossil specimens, and distinct genetic markers that all point to us sharing an evolutionary past with other primates? Why give "evolutionists" everything they need and want, and give creationists no supporting data at all?

What a strange "god".

Should humans be made of metal to make us different? What would metal eat, drink?

 

[Tristesse]

Again the acceptance that DNA is evidence of common descent depends on the assumption of common descent. Take away that assumption and similar DNA only means similar DNA, nothing more.

Yes, but you made the comparison earlier of primates only coming from primates. And we stated that humans are primates, and if you accept that chimpanzees are primates and our dna is closer to chimp dna than chimp dna is to any other primate. Then clearly we are genetically in the primate family.

 

[Tristesse]

Should humans be made of metal to make us different? What would metal eat, drink?

Thats a complete nonsequitor.

 

[Man of Faith]

Yes, but you made the comparison earlier of primates only coming from primates. And we stated that humans are primates, and if you accept that chimpanzees are primates and our dna is closer to chimp dna than chimp dna is to any other primate. Then clearly we are genetically in the primate family.

You have failed to provide an official percent of genetic similarity that will show who is in the same biologic family. Humans to humans are 99.9% similar, human to chimp is not. How do we know what percentage should match to say which family we belong? Where is the standard?