Super Evolution and the Flood

There's convergent thinking as well as convergent evolution, bluejay. That exact point occured to me as I was typing the post. I was also thinking of saying that, at the rate of super-evolution we're considering, one of Noah's sons may already have had distinctly simian features, and perhaps a slight tendency to walk on all fours occasionally. Yes, but remember, YECists are trying to get together a creationist science that has the credibility to eventually be taught in schools.Noah as the common ancestor solves some difficult problems in relation to ERVs in the respective genomes, and a certain one from two fused chromosome (which, in the view of catastrophological scientists, becomes a de-fused chromosome somewhere along the line of Ham's descendants). All very neat, you see. Edited by bluegenes, : minor correction

I don't think the Bible actually says anything about gene pools or ancestry or descendancy at all. In fact, the Bible doesn't say much about what "kind" means: it only lists in a few places what a few "kinds" are. Most of these baraminology ideas stem from religious movements realizing that they have to answer to science in some way or another.There is some indirect (and inconclusive) evidence for Taz's interbreeding requirement in Genesis 1 (verse 12):

quote:

---

...and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind...

---

Whether or not this amounts to anything is anybody's guess.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Good. Then the credit goes to you: you can publish it. You be Darwin; I'll be Wallace. I think they're trying to get public acceptance, not scientific credibility. Only a minor difference. Your idea also gives them the convenience of Noah not having to put up with noisy monkeys and silverback gorillas on the Ark. Well, it would if we considered all primates under one "kind."

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

That was a definition from Blue Letter Bible that makes sense. Statements like "herb yielding seed after his kind" indicates clearly that the parent and the offspring are the same created kind. If we trace that all the way back, then ancestry has everything to do with the original created kind.

Actually the jellyfish include all the class syphizoa (sp) & part of the class hydrozoa both classes in the phylum Coelentrata (Cnidaria)

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

...unless the message actually has something to do with mammals.Come on people. How about some subtitles that connect up with your message's content?No replies to this message!Adminnemooseus

I can't. If we drop this part of it, might as well say Noah brought on-board a male and female of the mammal "kind". So far, no YEC has objected to my attempted definition yet, so I must be doing something right.Added by edit.Guys, instead of complaining and nitpicking, why not help me compile this list? Try to make it as favourable to the YEC's claim as possible.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm not YEC, but find this interesting for the sake of argument. Interbreeding is not how to identify kinds, but is the definition of species. So it would be inaccurate to use that as criteria. A kind has more to do with ancestry, if they share the same ancestral gene pool.Instead of trying to find the minimum number of kinds, a better approach might be to figure out the maximum occupancy of the ark based on its dimensions. Bearing in mind a pair of all unclean animals and seven of all clean. From there you can whittle your list down to figure out how much evolution YEC's would have to believe.

We've already been down this route. I think the last time we tried this our resident YECs objected to this.

So would you put humans in chimps in the same "kind"? Afterall we do share 95%+ of our DNA.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

I don't think DNA proves ancestry. Man can be created independently of chimps, using much of the same base materials. You can't determine where something came from just by looking at the end product, you have to trace it to its source. That's like buying two meat products at the grocery store and concluding that they came from the same farm because they have the same manufacturer label on it.

So the DNA tests used to determine paternity aren't valid? So then how do you determine "kinds"? Afterall a Dog and a Wolf can be created independently of eachother using much of the same base materials, does that mean that we can have a dog "kind" and a wolf "kind"?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

And yet it always confirms evolutionary predictions.Mmm ... looks like proof to me. No it isn't. It's like doing a DNA test to determine relatedness, a procedure which we know to work.

I don't get it. Usually when we point out that there are way too many species of animal for Noah to have on his ark, we get like a kazillion objections from YECs saying Noah had kinds on the ark instead of species. The purpose of this thread is to give the YECs a chance to present us a list of kinds, or probable kinds, on the ark. What happened to all the YECs all the sudden?Note: I will begin listing possible reptile kinds tonight... or tomorrow, depending on if I have the time or not.

I don't know anything about DNA testing, but it seems it would have to be very accurate. I mean, if they have a margin of error of 5%, then they could conclude the chimp to be your dad. I think interbreeding is the best way to determine kinds. It is about the same as what we call species today that are the original kinds. This is my OEC view.My point is that from a YEC or evolution perspective the kinds are harder to determine sense they are different today than what they were originally.So, go ahead and proceed Taz... I don't have any better suggestion than what I presented earlier about using Arc capacity to determine kinds.