Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense

I don't know if everyone saw this on another thread. At first, I thought it was a joke by CobraSnake. Then I read more of his/her posts and realized he/she is a creationist. I asked a creationist to define the barrier for evolution (i.e. what limits 'micro' evolution from 'macro'). Here is the response (I still don't know if this is a serious response or a joke):

quote:

---

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

​

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."

---

In other words, according to creationists a bacteria may, or may not be descended from the same original created kind. I can't tell you how many creationists have lamented that evolution is a 'bacteria to man' myth. When pressed for the limits on what evolution can accomplish, they reach the same exact conclusion. Is this really the definition creationists are touting as the limits to evolution. I still think someone is yanking my chain.CheersJoe Meert

what the hell joe? thats all i can say... what the hell?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
I don't know if everyone saw this on another thread. At first, I thought it was a joke by CobraSnake. Then I read more of his/her posts and realized he/she is a creationist. I asked a creationist to define the barrier for evolution (i.e. what limits 'micro' evolution from 'macro'). Here is the response (I still don't know if this is a serious response or a joke):
In other words, according to creationists a bacteria may, or may not be descended from the same original created kind. I can't tell you how many creationists have lamented that evolution is a 'bacteria to man' myth. When pressed for the limits on what evolution can accomplish, they reach the same exact conclusion. Is this really the definition creationists are touting as the limits to evolution. I still think someone is yanking my chain.

​

---

Sorry, this was a pretty crappy post. It was late at night and I wasn't really reading very carefully.Creationists are touting that kinds are the limit to evolution. I don't think creationists are close to coming up with a definitive answer, but they are at least trying. (The reason that the hybridization only works one way is that mutations could cause the original created kind to not be able to hybridize, despite being from the same created kind.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Sorry, this was a pretty crappy post. It was late at night and I wasn't really reading very carefully.

​

Creationists are touting that kinds are the limit to evolution. I don't think creationists are close to coming up with a definitive answer, but they are at least trying. (The reason that the hybridization only works one way is that mutations could cause the original created kind to not be able to hybridize, despite being from the same created kind.)

---

JM:Actually, your definition is something i've seen before from creationists. They have the same escape clause for 'baramins' (created kind=bara min) as you have for hybrids. It's hilarious because it includes the possibility of exactly what they claim as impossible (eg bacteria to man)!cheersjoe meert

Joe,
In all respect, I do not use the word (baramin) or any term in science for that matter, merely for a lexical escape given your grammer, but I use it to extend the written expression of evolution thinking, into a textual space that evolutionists so far a wont to go but with use may find that, (text) says something in any biology afterall. This is because cladistics and phenetics with community of phylogeneticists have made some points between biometricians and mendelists impossible to express grammetological in any other differANCE for the genetic difference not any different no matter the C/E.But that you would class my posts less classy as Derridian would be a mistake even though the New Zelanders may so associate the same English for a time, till a Journal of Panbiogeography be formed and USA work therethrough be accounted in or out the generalized track.As far as I am aware, and this comes from a constraint, from HM MOrris, it, is only necessary for good science to clearly keep the biology and the math seperate. Croizat did a good job of combining things while Wright can be used as seperationist if one is needed in the human realm ABOVE the Cebu level.Good luck with the difference of projective geometry and affine transforms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Joe,
In all respect, I do not use the word (baramin) or any term in science for that matter, merely for a lexical escape given your grammer, but I use it to extend the written expression of evolution thinking, into a textual space that evolutionists so far a wont to go but with use may find that, (text) says something in any biology afterall. This is because cladistics and phenetics with community of phylogeneticists have made some points between biometricians and mendelists impossible to express grammetological in any other differANCE for the genetic difference not any different no matter the C/E.

​

But that you would class my posts less classy as Derridian would be a mistake even though the New Zelanders may so associate the same English for a time, till a Journal of Panbiogeography be formed and USA work therethrough be accounted in or out the generalized track.

​

As far as I am aware, and this comes from a constraint, from HM MOrris, it, is only necessary for good science to clearly keep the biology and the math seperate. Croizat did a good job of combining things while Wright can be used as seperationist if one is needed in the human realm ABOVE the Cebu level.

​

Good luck with the difference of projective geometry and affine transforms.

---

BRAD McFall is a bot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:

BRAD McFall is a bot.

---

Que? Me no understand I come from Barcelona....
(Manuel from Fawlty Towers)He`s a bot how? I thought he was just either a)crazy or b)doing a real good job of pretending to be crazy...

i think hes a crazy bot with intentions of world domination. i have not understood any of his posts. im not sure if anyone has.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think hes a crazy bot with intentions of world domination. i have not understood any of his posts. im not sure if anyone has.

​

---

JM: Like I said, if you think you start to understand him, check yourself into a hospital immediately.CheersJoe MEert

lol. your a funny guy, joe.

Joe,The original response that you quoted is a near verbatim quote from creationist Don Batten.It is exactly why what they are doing is not scientific. The very type of evidence (genetic) that Don and pals accept for placing various species into one 'baramin' is flatly rejected when the same type of evidence places humans in the same group as apes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Sorry, this was a pretty crappy post. It was late at night and I wasn't really reading very carefully.

​

Creationists are touting that kinds are the limit to evolution. I don't think creationists are close to coming up with a definitive answer, but they are at least trying. (The reason that the hybridization only works one way is that mutations could cause the original created kind to not be able to hybridize, despite being from the same created kind.)

---

How can they honestly be attempting to understand the issue if they can't even define the word "kind"?Please tell me how I can tell one "kind" from another. What methodology is used, and what criterion?Why do all cats, from a Bengal tiger to my housecat, tend to be classified as the same "kind", yet humans and chimps are never considered to be the same "kind"? What is the scientific rationale for this?

A presented a testable effect.You can dis by missing it, so look below before you cause me to read more about Croizat and Cebu but good look any way

Don't say I didn't "tell" you.
Wed 13 The use of Clausius' work to side with Einstein and not Dirac nor Feynaman whether a theorem or equation as far as potential goes unless some qusi- isolated system, say by electrotonic dissection of a fish modulus of angles between histogeny and morphogeny (in which case the probabalistic nature of thermodynamics would have been better undersood) does not affect the question as to whether seeds fall to the Earth of Sun or some place else? because the immigration pressure can always be re-current when or if not re-entrant currently bioentropically or not as to adaptive understanding of whatever molecular adapations be; the logical
constant that that work would represent need not "homogenously" approach the same definite vaule especially if fundamental series materialized posses ... materiality (as per iobservation in flame spectra, say) larger than w (first actual infinity#) but due as in meristic data based to repetitions of this instantiation no matter the implementation>
as per specification (Ernst Mayr thought this had to final cause be of Aristotle, it does not and Dr. Mayr was polemically mistaken)

Brad, please do not reply to my posts any more. I grow weary of your complete and utter full of crap-ness.