|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Since the Hebrew word מין transliterated miyn is over 3500 years old, when was it invented as a simple get out clause? Why are Christians so damn ignorant of the history of their own religious ideas? The idea of the word having any special meaning at all, especially the Creationist Baramin meaning, dates only to the last century. For thousands of years of Jewish though, and almost two millenia of Christian thought no-one thought 'kind' meant anything special. They just thought it meant 'kind'; they didn't invent a special meaning for the word - that took modern fundamentalist (who, of course, carry on pretending they're reading "literally").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes: For thousands of years of Jewish though, and almost two millenia of Christian thought no-one thought 'kind' meant anything special. They just thought it meant 'kind'; Well I still believe that. If you will look at what I have said I think you will agree. All I have ever said is a kind is a kind and can never become another kind as they produce after their kind. If I am not mistaken science has proved that is the case. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4460 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Umm... Thanks Mr Jack for stepping up!
Good post for the most part. Now that we can hopefully move on from some of the more unnecessary arguments, i guess your increduality at the creationist concept is that this amount of variation could happen in 6000 years or hyperevolution as you call it. Going into this may be beyond the scope of this thread but I think hyperevolution is far better documented than slow and gradual darwinian evolution
Evolutionists have invented a unit called the ‘darwin’ for measuring the speed of change in the form (body size, leg length, etc.) of a species. In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwinswhereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. For the guppies in Trinidad, the rates were even higher: from 3,700 to 45,000 darwins. Artificial selection experiments on laboratory mice show rates of up to 200,000 darwins Speedy species surprise - creation.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
That evolutionary rates of change are more rapid on the smaller scale is well known. The decay in rates of change is so rapid however, that it is measurable even over observed timescales. There are at least three reasons for this:
1. Measurements of change look at Morphology and, as we all know, phenotype is only partially dependent on genotype. It's thus unsurprising that phenotypic rates of change are more rapid than genotypic rates of change.2. Even directional selection pressures are monotonically applied, the fluctuations in selection pressures due to random environmental changes are strong in the short term but overwhelmed in the longer term. 3. Short term change can exploit recombination of existing genetic variation; longer term change requires fresh mutation. Secondly, your word "incredulity" is ill-chosen. I'm not incredulous that such change could occur. It just doesn't and it certainly didn't. Our observations both of living species - their biogeography, their morphology and their genetics - and of the fossil record absolutely do not accord with the picture required by Creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
If you will look at what I have said I think you will agree. All I have ever said is a kind is a kind and can never become another kind as they produce after their kind. If I am not mistaken science has proved that is the case. So your definition of "kind" is that it is a "kind which can never become another kind since it produces after its own kind". Are you familiar with the concept of not using the word you are trying to define within the definition of that word? How can anyone possibly respond to your claims without a clear understanding of what a "kind" is? If a "kind" is "mammals" then the evidence we present to you will be very different than if a "kind" is subspecies. Further, and I KNOW you've had this explained to you before, incremental changes add up over time. I could easily state that one letter in the alphabet can only become a letter next to it, never a letter three or four steps away. But if A can become B, B can become C, and C can become D, then A can become D by going through the stages B and C. So, if you've got a reasonable definition of "kind" which you are willing to standby, then someone can present you with evidence that your claim is false. If you don't have a definition of "kind", then your claim has no merit in the first place and does not need to be disproven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Secondly, your word "incredulity" is ill-chosen. I'm not incredulous that such change could occur. It just doesn't and it certainly didn't. Our observations both of living species - their biogeography, their morphology and their genetics - and of the fossil record absolutely do not accord with the picture required by Creationism. ...which happens to coincide nicely with the fact that the geology, chemistry, astronomy, nuclear physics, astrophysics, dendrochronology, anthropology, linguistics, oceanography, meterology, etc etc etc all ALSO disagree with the Creationist timeline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
All I have ever said is a kind is a kind and can never become another kind as they produce after their kind. That is not anywhere in the Bible. There is not a single passage that states things cannot become another kind. Kind in the bible is used exactly as we'd use the term in casual conversation to mean, i.e. to mean 'type of thing' - although, of course, we can't know exactly what the scribe writing in 500-1000BC meant.
If I am not mistaken science has proved that is the case. Only if you're equivocating on what you mean by 'kind'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Arphy,
I would just like to point out what I see as a note of hypocrisy in the text you quoted.
In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwinswhereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. The fossil record? I thought you were a devotee of "flood geology"? It seems absurd and hypocritical to base one's argument upon information garnered from a mainstream understanding of the fossil record when you don't accept the validity that interpretation of said fossil record. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
For some reason, creation.com neglected to point out this comment from the source they used for the guppies:
quote: I think hyperevolution is far better documented than slow and gradual darwinian evolution Creationists seem to think many many present species have undergone hyperevolution since the flood but that this has basically stopped now ("we don't see it happening!"). However there is little evidence that this is the case. There are a small number of documented cases of populations undergoing rapid change, often when their environment suddenly changes which is what evolutionary biologists have been suggesting for some time. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
The fossil record? I thought you were a devotee of "flood geology"? It seems absurd and hypocritical to base one's argument upon information garnered from a mainstream understanding of the fossil record when you don't accept the validity that interpretation of said fossil record. The point Arphy is making is that rates observed in living populations don't match with rates measured in the fossil record. This isn't hypocritical; it's proof by contradiction that the fossil record is flawed. His conclusion is wrong, of course, but his* point is certainly not hypocritical. * - I'm using male pronouns. Is that correct, Arphy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Mr Jack,
Okay, I get your point. I retract my earlier statement. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Nuggin,
Nuggin writes: Are you familiar with the concept of not using the word you are trying to define within the definition of that word? Then you come up with a definition of Kind. We have a lot of scholars who over the last 600 years have tried to come up with a definition for the Hebrew word miyn and have so far not succeeded in producing one. In fact for the previous 2500 years there was no problem as to what a kind was.
Nuggin writes: If a "kind" is "mammals" then the evidence we present to you will be very different than if a "kind" is subspecies. There is a mankind. A mankind produces mankind nothing else. There is a cow kind. A cow kind produces a cow kind nothing else. There is an eagle kind. A eagle kind produces an eagle kind nothing else.
Nuggin writes: Further, and I KNOW you've had this explained to you before, incremental changes add up over time. Add up to what? How much do you have to add to get a single cell life form to produce mankind? That would be one kind becoming another kind. No that would be a lot of kinds becoming other kinds. It is very funny the fossil record does not show a single kind becoming another kind. In fact there is a study that shows forams of 60 million years ago were forams. After 60 million years and with 500,000 thousand of those years without a missing link in which 330 species of forams appeared at the end of the day we have a wide varity of forams nothing else. Pretty conclusive proof that the single cell life form never became anything more than many varities of that single cell life form.
Nuggin writes: I could easily state that one letter in the alphabet can only become a letter next to it, never a letter three or four steps away. You can state anything you desire to state. But try as you may you will never get A to be B. Just as you can try all you want too, you will never get a hog to grow up to be anything but a hog.
Nuggin writes: So, if you've got a reasonable definition of "kind" which you are willing to standby, then someone can present you with evidence that your claim is false. Maybe I should insert Red Butlers statement to Scarlet here. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes: That is not anywhere in the Bible. There is not a single passage that states things cannot become another kind. Agreed but it is stated:
Moses writes: Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Each seed brought forth after it's kind.
Moses writes: Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Each creature after his kind. Not another kind. So if each only produced after it own kind where did any kind produce any other kind?
Mr Jack writes: Only if you're equivocating on what you mean by 'kind'. Then you have fossil records showing one kind becoming another kind. Or do you just have the imaginations of someone who believes that a lot of little changes over time can cause a creature of one kind to cease to be that kind and become another totally different kind. We are totally different from a single cell life form. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
So if each only produced after it own kind where did any kind produce any other kind? It doesn't mention it. It also doesn't mention King David pooing but I think we can safely assume he did. Just because something is not mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Then you have fossil records showing one kind becoming another kind. We have plentiful fossil records showing the transitions of species into different species, genus into different genus, etc., etc.
Or do you just have the imaginations of someone who believes that a lot of little changes over time can cause a creature of one kind to cease to be that kind and become another totally different kind. We are totally different from a single cell life form. I believe the concept of a baramin (Creationist kind) has no reality, so talking about a kind becoming a different kind has no specific meaning. We are the descendents of single celled organisms - a very different kind of thing - of worms - a very different kind of thing - of fish, of amphibia, of therapsids, of cyconodonts, etc., etc. As for being "totally different" to single celled life. Yes, and no. We're remarkably similar in many ways to even Bacteria, a little more similar to Archaea, a lot more similar to single celled eukaryotes, particularly those such as the choanoflagellates. Among whose genes we find analogues for those that in our bodies help form the connective tissues that make us multi-cellular at all. Exactly as you'd expect given the fact of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes: We have plentiful fossil records showing the transitions of species into different species, genus into different genus, etc., etc. I have asked before but I will ask you. Where can I find all these fossils showing all this transition? If you need to you could start a thread where you could present such information I would be all ears. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024