PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Change within a kind

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists are always talking about "change within a kind" or "after their kind. I guess this comes back to the definition of kind that we have been asking for but it demonstrates that creationists cannot define kind in any way.

Lester
Also all we ever see now no matter how you zap an organism to get it to mutate is change within the kind -and please don't sidetrack to ask me what a kind is, that's just dumb, we all know that a bacteria ia a bacteria and a fruit fly is a fruit fly


So we are to assume from this that bacteria are a kind and fruit fly is a kind. This means a "kind" may be anything from a kingdom to a genus. If creationists are happy enough that if a bacteria evolves into another bacteria then it is micro-evolution then does it not logically follow that if an animal evolves into another animal (fish to amphibian or reptile to bird) then it should also be be deemed micro-evolution since they are both changes below kingdom level?

According to wikipedia - "attempts to estimate the true level of bacterial diversity have ranged from 10^7 to 10^9 total species - and even these diverse estimates may be off by many orders of magnitude." so potentially tens of millions of species equate to the same "kind"? Would it not be a stretch then to assume that the substantially fewer number of animal species all belong to the same "kind" and have evolved from a common ancestor?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:28 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well said. Bacteria is the most diverse kingdom, and if they are all in the same "kind", it only logically follows that every single animal is a "kind".

I think the type of response you will get from creationists is this; 'bacteria is all one kind (maybe some that know what they are talking about may say there are a few), but they are very diverse because they have such short life spans. Thus they have had the generations needed to be this diverse within 6,000 years.'

(Edited by Fencer27 1/12/2010 at 9:58 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:57 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good (even though He said so Himself).

Hahaha! Cattle kind! xDDD

Yes, good point, firechild.

Perhaps bacteria belong to the demon kind (since demons were said to cause illnesses).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:25 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species (Payne, J. Barton, 1958. "The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture". Journal of the American Science Affiliation 10, December 1958: 17–20. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA6-58Payne.html. Retrieved 2007-11-26, poorly OCR-scanned), while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another (Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984).

Way to be clear.

Another criterion is, as derwood showed us, "baramin distance", which is based on the similarity of two or more organisms' characters and uses methods borrowed from phenetics.

Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates lack of common ancestry. In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded.


Source: Wikipedia.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:35 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Noah loaded the animals into the ark two of each kind, one male and one female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. (Gen 7:1-4)

Not much point in that unless kind is synonymous with species.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 08:34 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think their idea is that the biodiversity of Noah's times were reduced to a couple of animals per kind, and then they varied again into today's species.

I guess the animals were supposed to belong to the same kind AND species, so as to avoid hybridization problems.

But that leaves the question of what happened to the 350 (or so) species of proboscideans (elephants, more or less) that have been found, dead or alive.

How and when did they diversify and die? How many of them were carried into the ark?



(Edited by wisp 1/13/2010 at 09:16 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:03 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think their idea is that the biodiversity of Noah's times were reduced to a couple of animals per kind, and then they varied again into today's species.


Really!  That is their 'explanation'  ???
But what does it mean?



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 5:36 PM on January 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They assume a certain fixed (but unknown) number of kinds in the first week of the Universe. Then they imagine a diversification (allowed by their intelligently designed DNA) that would account for the number of species they think there were before the ark. Then Noah took just two of each impure kind, and seven of the pure ones (unknown). Then they diversified again.

I guess it (the flood) would look like a great mass extinctions, where species died but not kinds.

In order to find out which species belong to the same kind they establish a pretty arbitrary "baraminic distance", with some whimsical exception that would allow for humans to stay separate from the rest of the apes. Diet, for example, could be taken as sufficient parameter to separate us. But it doesn't matter much, since they assumed that we're separate, based on the Bible.

It's all very fuzzy (and, of course, impossible).

Assumptions (those things we get accused of so very often) are the key.

Here's more about it:

http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=H3M0qOZtunjdPtM4wL%2B1cfXmOGu6M%2FAhqc6mNU9JnEY%3D

I haven't had the time to read it. Derwood would surely have a laugh.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:23 PM on January 14, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, for heaven's sake!  it's hard to imagine anyone taking that stuff seriously - I mean the tale of Noah's Ark and the flood - all of Genesis, in fact.

Get real, people.  Get real!  

E-vo-lu-sion is what happened to me.

Hey - I should make a song, something along the tune of the old 'Green Acres' TV series song from the '60s.  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:44 PM on January 14, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.