The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Autodidact]

I'm with you but so far you are just describing words, species, genii, they are still the same kind of animal, lizards.

No, I'm not describing words, I'm describing organisms, using words.

Can you tell us what a "kind" is? Apparently you don't think it's a species or a genus, so what is it?

For example, wiki tells me that Lizards are a very large and widespread group of squamate reptiles, with nearly 5,000 species, ranging across all continents except Antarctica as well as most oceanic island chains. The group, traditionally recognized as the suborder Lacertilia, is defined as all extant members of the Lepidosauria (reptiles with overlapping scales) which are neither sphenodonts (i.e., Tuatara) nor snakes.

So is a "kind" a suborder?

Would it help if we review some basic biological classifications?

 

[Man of Faith]

No, I'm not describing words, I'm describing organisms, using words.

Can you tell us what a "kind" is? Apparently you don't think it's a species or a genus, so what is it?

For example, wiki tells me that Lizards are a very large and widespread group of squamate reptiles, with nearly 5,000 species, ranging across all continents except Antarctica as well as most oceanic island chains. The group, traditionally recognized as the suborder Lacertilia, is defined as all extant members of the Lepidosauria (reptiles with overlapping scales) which are neither sphenodonts (i.e., Tuatara) nor snakes.

So is a "kind" a suborder?

Would it help if we review some basic biological classifications?

Let me take this post as an example of what a kind is. In this post we have 5,000 different species of lizards. Does this prove common ancestry of all species? No, it just proves that adaptation by natural selection is true, which I agree with and creation scientists agree with. What could have happened is a lizard kind was created and reproduction and adaptation took over from there. No one has ever seen a lizard produce anything other than a lizard. Which means people believe what they cannot see, that's not a theory and that is not science, it's imagination.

 

[Autodidact]

Let me take this post as an example of what a kind is. In this post we have 5,000 different species of lizards. Does this prove common ancestry of all species?

No of course not. Why would you think it does?

No, it just proves that adaptation by natural selection is true, which I agree with and creation scientists agree with.

So by "adaptation," you mean what Biologists call "evolution?" There is no such thing as a creation scientists, and as we have seen in this very thread, they don't agree on anything, so I suggest you stick with your own opinions.

What could have happened is a lizard kind was created and reproduction and adaptation took over from there. No one has ever seen a lizard produce anything other than a lizard. Which means people believe what they cannot see, that's not a theory and that is not science, it's imagination.

I understand. Your hypothesis is that new species do evolve, but only within a "kind." So what is a "kind?" That's kind of important to your hypothesis, don't you think?

 

[Autodidact]

So, using the lizard example again, your hypothesis is that around 4000 years ago, Noah took two lizards on a boat, and the 5000 known* species of lizard all developed from those in the last 4000 years.

So, simple math, we would need to see at least one new species of lizard coming into existence very year. Is that in fact what we see? Do you know?

*there are probably as many unknown, undiscovered species of lizard as well.

 

[Autodidact]

So if a lizard is a "kind," then a "kind" is a suborder, is that what you're saying?

 

[Man of Faith]

So, using the lizard example again, your hypothesis is that around 4000 years ago, Noah took two lizards on a boat, and the 5000 known* species of lizard all developed from those in the last 4000 years.

So, simple math, we would need to see at least one new species of lizard coming into existence very year. Is that in fact what we see? Do you know?

*there are probably as many unknown, undiscovered species of lizard as well.

Well, there are over 6 billion people in 4,000 years and we usually produce 1 or 2 a year approximately. Maybe a scientist will tell us how often and how many a lizard produces.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, there are over 6 billion people in 4,000 years and we usually produce 1 or 2 a year approximately. Maybe a scientist will tell us how often and how many a lizard produces.

WHAT IS A KIND?

Have we or have we not observed at least one new species of lizard emerging every year? Haven't your "creation scientists" published tons of articles describing the many new species of lizard, to support their hypothesis?

 

[Autodidact]

Within an order of magnitude, around how many "kinds" did Noah take on the ark?

 

[Autodidact]

Speaking of "creation scientists," since the "kind" concept is so crucial to their explanation, shouldn't it be a matter of seconds to find their commonly accepted definition on their websites?

 

[Man of Faith]

No of course not. Why would you think it does? So by "adaptation," you mean what Biologists call "evolution?" There is no such thing as a creation scientists, and as we have seen in this very thread, they don't agree on anything, so I suggest you stick with your own opinions. I understand. Your hypothesis is that new species do evolve, but only within a "kind." So what is a "kind?" That's kind of important to your hypothesis, don't you think?

A kind is the term the Bible uses. Let me take a term you have probably heard, mankind. That would mean humans. We see all the diversity in humans but we are still mankind. I'll have to wait in the official report on kinds from the scientists. It's important but not that important to a layman like myself. I don't get hung up on all the details because it was by faith that Enoch was taken up to heaven without dying, not by science.

 

[Man of Faith]

Speaking of "creation scientists," since the "kind" concept is so crucial to their explanation, shouldn't it be a matter of seconds to find their commonly accepted definition on their websites?

It's being studied by scientists, it's called baraminology. They want to identify all the kinds that God created. It's a pretty ambitious project if you ask me. I'll have to wait on the official peer reviewed scientific report.

 

[Autodidact]

A kind is the term the Bible uses. Let me take a term you have probably heard, mankind. That would mean humans. We see all the diversity in humans but we are still mankind. I'll have to wait in the official report on kinds from the scientists. It's important but not that important to a layman like myself. I don't get hung up on all the details because it was by faith that Enoch was taken up to heaven without dying, not by science.

So if I understand you correctly, your hypothesis is that species are limited by "kinds", and you have no idea what a "kind" is, is that right? So basically your entire concept is incoherent?

 

[Autodidact]

It's being studied by scientists, it's called baraminology. They want to identify all the kinds that God created. It's a pretty ambitious project if you ask me. I'll have to wait on the official peer reviewed scientific report.

Sorry, baraminologists are not scientists, because "kinds" is not a scientific concept. How can you study something with no idea what it is you're studying?

Anyway, I'll spare you. Believe me, I have spent years of my life studying creationism, and know more about it than you do. After convening the most sciencey creationists into a "study group," who worked for years, they came up with this definition:

we define a baramin
as the actualization of a potentiality region at any
point or period in history (including but not limited
to all of history). The baramin can include all
organisms created within a potentiality region (Wise’s
archaebaramin), all of their descendents, or all of the
extant organisms from a potentiality region. Critical
to the definition of the baramin is that it encompasses
all of the members of a potentiality region alive at any
given time. Since it is unlikely that all members of a
potentiality region can actually be known, the baramin
is a purely theoretical construct.

from here.

Now, MoF, this is YOUR hypothesis, not mine. According to you, evolution is only possible within one of these baramins. You've read the only known definition, by the most sciencey of creationists, ever committed to paper. Can you tell me what the heck it says? Because I've read it over and over, and I have no idea. Maybe you can explain it to me, since it's your word.

Now let's apply it:
Within an order of magnitude, about how many "kinds" did Noah take on the ark?

 

[ragordon168]

Within an order of magnitude, about how many "kinds" did Noah take on the ark?

depends if you use the biblical ark or a more scientific ark (as far as the ark can go)

saw some thing about a israeli scientist who believes noah did exist with the ark. BUT the flood was nowhere near as massive as the biblical and the animals taken were the equivilent of a small towns livestock.

might be BS but it seems more likely than the biblical version

 

[Man of Faith]

So if I understand you correctly, your hypothesis is that species are limited by "kinds", and you have no idea what a "kind" is, is that right? So basically your entire concept is incoherent?

Well, I'm not a scientist, I'm a man of faith so that stuff doesn't bother me.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, I'm not a scientist, I'm a man of faith so that stuff doesn't bother me.

Hey, I'm not a scientist either, but I'm humble enough to admit that if I'm going to challenge the prevailing scientific consensus, at a minimum I need to have some idea of what I'm talking about.

The fact that your entire concept is incoherent doesn't bother you? Good to know. And yet you expect the rest of us to buy it?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Well, I'm not a scientist, I'm a man of faith so that stuff doesn't bother me.

So why isn't believing your Creation myth a matter of faith for which you NEED no scientific evidence

 

[Autodidact]

So by "scientist" you mean "person of integrity" or "person who's words make sense and are consistent," something like that?

Oddly, although you have absolutely no idea what a kind is (despite it being the heart of your position) you seem certain that a lizard is one. If you don't know what the definition of "kind" is, how do you know lizard fits that definition?

 

[MSizer]

Well, I'm not a scientist, I'm a man of faith so that stuff doesn't bother me.

So then why are you even trying to argue with people who do require evidence? You've just admitted that you don't consider rationality necessary (faith is 100% subjective and 0% rational - soren kierkegaard) yet you're trying to debate with people who at least claim to value rationality.

Don't you see how futile that is? And how foolish your belief in creationism is? (I guess I already know the answer - I'm just hoping maybe you'll have an "aha moment")

 

[Autodidact]

Alright, back to evolution. Seems like MoF was with us and agreed that new species arise, and also new genii, all in the way described by evolutionary theory. He doesn't know what a "kind" is, but feels comfortable that species and genus fit within it.

Say so far we covered 10,000 years. This process continues and is going on all the time all around you. (Isn't God amazing?) So over a million years, after many new species have emerged, they will continue to differentiate from the ancestral lizard in the same way, over and over, getting more and more different from their ancestor and each other as you go along. After a million years, you have new species, new genii, new families, and so forth. Over a billion years, you inevitably get new orders, new classes, and even new phylla, all from the same ancestor.

Some important things to be clear about: you never see a new class or even a new genus emerging. All you ever see is a new species. It's only over much time, and many new species, that they can be grouped into genii, families and so forth. In retrospect, you might say.

And, as you can see, it's very, very, gradual. Individuals don't change, populations do. Each generation resembles its parents almost exactly, with slight variation. But over thousands of generations the population has gradually changes so much that the descendants are not in the same species as the thousands-of-generations-ago ancestor.

Got any problems with any of that, MoF?