The Creation/Evolution dividing line

quote:

---

An equine is a kind. Canine, is also a kind. Do you get the picture?

---

Are all primates a "kind"? Are humans and Chimpanzees the same "kind"?Are all cats a "kind"? Are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same "kind"?

quote:

---

Do we see equines interbreeding and creating off-shoot kinds?
Zeedonk etc? Yes we do!

---

What defines an "offshoot kind"? How do I know it is an offshoot kind and not a new species?

quote:

---

Why? Because of natural selection. But why then do creationists have a problem with natural selection? They dont! It fits perfectly with God creating different kinds of organisms which reproduced 'after their kinds' (Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25).

---

How can I tell one "kind" from another?Be specific.

quote:

---

The problem with the ToE is that it expects us to believe that cats 'could' interbreed with dogs.

---

No it doesn't.Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you could explain to me where the ToE proposes that cats could interbreed with dogs? Be specific.

quote:

---

Not in the present. Because we dont observe that kind of processes. But oh yes, it definately happened in the premeval past they say.

---

Please explain where the ToE says that cats and dogs interbred in the primeval past.I think what you may be misrepresenting is the idea that, long ago, dogs and cats had a common ancestor.

quote:

---

Some people say that that archaeooptrix (sp?) evolved from reptiles.

---

Actually, archaeopteryx is thought to have evolved from dinosaurs because it has a long bony tail, teeth, and other dinosaur features.

quote:

---

But archaeoptrix isnt the oldest bird they know of.

---

So what? Why is that relevant?Archie isn't a true bird. It has both bird characteristics and dinosaur characteristics, which makes it a transitional.

quote:

---

Anyway back to the point, evolution expects us to believe that one single organism could diversify into every kind of living organism we now see. A completely irrational theory.

---

Have you done the exercise, almeyda?Where have you found the dividing line between what can be the result of evolution and what has to have been created?Why not start with equus?

Im not going to say much here cause im so sick of arguing this science crap, it just goes on and on and on.

quote:

---

Are all primates a "kind"? Are humans and Chimpanzees the same "kind"?

​

Are all cats a "kind"? Are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same "kind"?

---

Humans and chimpanzeez are not the same kind. Humans are homosapiens, chimps are apes. If a human has sex with a gorilla, will the gorilla get pregnant? No it wont. Man was made to rule, have dominion, over the animals. Do we observe this kind of "law" in the present?, yes we do. Various kinds of animals and plants were also created individually. Animals were to reproduce offspring, 'after their kind' meaning that plants would produce plants, cattle would give birth to cattle etc. And that is all that we see in the present. We do not see different kinds interbreeding because over millions of yrs and chance, one could change into the other anyway. This defuncts a major part of the ToE because they claim that in the premeval pasts millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. Can we believe it all happened on its own? No we cant. Because natural selection does not work like that. Because natural selection is no friend of the ToE, if they believe he can do all that for them.Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwins ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendels conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the ToE. Genetics of animal kinds are, shuffling of the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendels great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000—100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless, none of them produce a more successful fruit fly, exactly as predicted by the creation model.Is there such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.These sources make evolution woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys and zebras from the same kind, or of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind, or some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creators command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see. Does this fit the evidence we observe in the present? Yes it does.

quote:

---

What defines an "offshoot kind"? How do I know it is an offshoot kind and not a new species?

---

As long as they can interbreed. Then the chances are that they are the same kind. Like i said before, we dont see cats interbreeding with dogs, because they are not in the same kind. And yes your cat is in the same kind as a bengal tiger. They have huge variations, but they are both feline. We see kinds all around us, reptiles, birds, plants, mammals, amphibians, insects, felines, canines etc the list goes on.

quote:

---

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you could explain to me where the ToE proposes that cats could interbreed with dogs? Be specific.

---

It tells us to believe that these different 'kinds' which cannot interbreed or give rise to each other no matter how many magic wands of billions of yrs and chance are waved. All we observe is that they are each constant. Just as God said in Genesis. Millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. This is what evolution tells us happened, from the a single cell, through chance and time, and by itself.

quote:

---

Archie isn't a true bird. It has both bird characteristics and dinosaur characteristics, which makes it a transitional.

---

The ToE predicted millions of transitional fossils to be found, yet none have been found. Only handfuls of disputables. Even archaeopteryx, showed no sign of the crucial scale-to-feather or leg-to-wing transition.

wow, i'd hate to see the long-winded posts! so basically, kind = species? noah must have had boat a lot bigger than the bible says. also, how do you explain new species arising from existing species? but if a donkey has sex with a horse, you get a mule. are donkey, horses, and mules all the same kind? except for, you know, when that's not what we observe. wow. back to bio class for you! i dunno if that's a strawman or what. then why does the genetic family tree exactly line up with the evolutionary tree? don't you think that's sort of suspicious? that's the most preposterous claim i've ever heard on this board. you don't believe in inheritance? go get a picture of your father and mother, and see how they match up to your own. and if they dont, well, i'm sorry.but like you said,"cattle would give birth to cattle." characteristics are heritable, otherwise, cattle wouldn't give birth to cattle. yes, they were. and darwin's ideas were partly based on mendel's studies on genetics and heritability. mutation is not the driving force of evolution. heritability is. if something has a feature that makes it survive better, it's more likely to breed, especially with other members of the species with that feature. therefore, according to mendels work, there will be a higher chance of having that feature, and having a more pronounced version of that feature. that's evolution. that doesn't mean evolution is not at work. part of it *IS* trying things out. trial and error. you're a lot more likely to get errors. and that's NOT evolution? one kind originally, that then branches out? sounds like common ancestry to me.and are bengal tigers and my russian blue housecat the same kind? but they can't interbreed. that's evolution again. actually, this is closer to what evolution tells us:

quote:

---

the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see

---

and you've still got the order all wrong. why have no transitional fossils been found? because creationists are completely unwilling to admit that they exist, even when shown.and yes, archaeopteryx DOES show part of the wing-to-leg transition, as does, say, velociraptor. as for scale-to-feather, how many examples of dinosaur scales have you seen? personally, i've been into dinosaurs since i was a kid, and i've seen ONE. it's flat out amazing that we have fossils of archaeopteryx with feathers. soft features don't fossilize well.

quote:

---

Humans and chimpanzeez are not the same kind. Humans are homosapiens, chimps are apes. If a human has sex with a gorilla, will the gorilla get pregnant? No it wont.

---

OK, but are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same cat "kind"?They cannot interbreed at all.

quote:

---

Man was made to rule, have dominion, over the animals. Do we observe this kind of "law" in the present?, yes we do.

---

That's a nice religious view, but not relevant to the discussion of the dividing line between creation and evolution.

quote:

---

Various kinds of animals and plants were also created individually. Animals were to reproduce offspring, 'after their kind' meaning that plants would produce plants, cattle would give birth to cattle etc. And that is all that we see in the present.

---

So, all plants are the same "kind", and all cattle are the same "kind"?"Plants" seems to be a much larger "kind" than "cattle", and you have put what scientists would call a single species, homo sapiens, in it's very own "kind".So, what are the rules for all of the millions and millions of species on the planet WRT what "kind" they are? How many "kinds" are there, IOW, and what system is used to determine if they go into a huge "kind" grouping (plants) or a tiny "kind" grouping (humans)?

quote:

---

We do not see different kinds interbreeding because over millions of yrs and chance, one could change into the other anyway.

---

This is extremely vague. How do I know which "kinds" are single "kinds", subgroups of other "kinds", or really enormous uber"kinds" groupings?

quote:

---

This defuncts a major part of the ToE because they claim that in the premeval pasts millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, then the insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. Can we believe it all happened on its own? No we cant.

---

But where is the dividing line between creation and evolution in any of the progressions you mentioned?Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?

quote:

---

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts.

---

Gee, why do scientists call the melding of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology "The Modern Synthesis", then?Why do they use that term, Almeyda?

quote:

---

Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

---

So, have you done the exercise yet?Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?

quote:

---

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts...(snip)

---

Almeyda, is it OK in your religion to plagarize someone else's work?You lifted the next several paragraphs from an article at AIG, except you edited it slightly to remove some of the more flowery language in the hopes that we would think you wrote it. Not only is this very much in violation of the forum guidelines, it is realy sleazy and utterly lazy on your part.I guess that makes you a Liar for Christ, right? Genetics: No Friend of Evolution | Answers in Genesis For example, the article reads:"Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution."You changed it to read:"Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the ToE."

quote:

---

As long as they can interbreed. Then the chances are that they are the same kind.

---

The "chances are" they are the same kind? Don't you have anything less vague than that?

quote:

---

Like i said before, we dont see cats interbreeding with dogs, because they are not in the same kind. And yes your cat is in the same kind as a bengal tiger. They have huge variations, but they are both feline.

---

But my housecat and a Bengal tiger cannot interbreed. Why are they considered the same "kind"?Also, genetically, my housecat and a Bengal tiger are much, much more different than a human and a Chimpanzee, but you put the two cats into the same "kind" and separate the human and the Chimp into separate "kinds"?What role does genetics play in determining what "kind" a creature is?

quote:

---

We see kinds all around us, reptiles, birds, plants, mammals, amphibians, insects, felines, canines etc the list goes on.

---

Wait, you say that mammals are a "kind", but then you list felines and canines as "kinds" as well.Does the Bible list "mammals" somewhere?What about things that don't breed to reproduce such as viruses?

quote:

---

It tells us to believe that these different 'kinds' which cannot interbreed or give rise to each other no matter how many magic wands of billions of yrs and chance are waved.

---

Unresponsive.Please go to TalkOrigins or another science-based site and look at explanations of the ToE and cut n paste the parts about cats interbreeding with dogs back here.

quote:

---

All we observe is that they are each constant. Just as God said in Genesis. Millipides evolved into fish, fish-to-amphibians, insect kingdom, plants, crocodiles, beez, to-mammal, rabbits, apes, reptiles-to-birds, and eventually to philosophers. This is what evolution tells us happened, from the a single cell, through chance and time, and by itself.

---

Did you do the exercise?Start with equus, and work your way backwards. Where does creation kick in?

quote:

---

The ToE predicted millions of transitional fossils to be found, yet none have been found.

---

Archaeopteryx has feathers, wings, a long, bony tail, and teeth.Why is this not to be considered a transitional between a dinosaur and a bird, since it has characteristics of each?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-10-2004 10:15 AM

This is incorrect. Darwin just accepted that something was inherited. He had no idea at all of the mechanism and Mendel did his work after Darwin published. Mendel's work was ignored and/or not noticed then for some decades.

quote:

---

Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.

---

Mutation certainly can be considered to be the "driving force of evolution" (with NS the steering I guess ). In addtion, "according to Mendel's work" is out of place here. Mendel never considered the possibility of mutation. You're not totall wrong here but it seems a bit muddled. You skipped over the example given. I don't think we know if offspring could result from a human-chimp breeding. Any volunteers?

quote:

---

All of the mutations are harmful or harmless, none of them produce a more successful fruit fly, exactly as predicted by the creation model.

---

You missed the main point: It is demonstarably incorrect that all mutations are harmful or neutral (which is what he meant I think). (LOL, of course they are all harmful or harmless ). The correct statment is that most are harmful or neutral (It may be that "most" are neutral in fact,but I don't know how to measure that) and some are beneficial. The "some" that are beneficial is all that it takes.

Hi NoseyNed,I would like to suggest a focus for this topic: the leap from non-breast-feeding to breast-feeding. It is a level of change that is clear.Using the mammilian attribute of breast-feeding as the defining difference for this discussion, I ass/u/me for the moment that the first mammal would have as an "ancestor" a reptile, a bird, or some other animal without breasts.Infant mammals are notoriously unable to fend for themselves. Additionally, they require breast milk for a significant period (by significant I mean long enough that they will die without getting it and there are very few substitutes).Infant birds and snakes generally feed on insects.I would be interesed in an explanation of how this "kind" change would succeed?Thanks,
BAE

BAE - read up on echidnas and platypuses. No "breasts" - just a patch of skin that seeps milk. Several marsupials have a similar, slightly more obvios, patch to feed their young.Q.E.D.

Breasts are modified sweat glands. I don't see it as a big leap.

Okay, maybe we are finally getting somewhere.Are you saying that the quote you made are all kinds?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i guess that's my mistake, there. darwin definitally understood that features were heritable, and mendel is sort of considered the father or heritability. eh, no, not today thanks. well, yes, they can't all be "right" solutions.anyhow, i guess i should be more careful posting late at night.

NosyNed Sorry Ned my drinking days are over though I am sure there are some close examples of interspecies breeding in some of the bars in Surrey. Might even be alien species though I cannot remember anything after 1 AM.

Now that we have the topic moved to one of my favourite subjects I'll just have to jump in. However, it is odd to pick one of many equivalent characteristics that doesn't fossilize all that well. However, others have, above, shown that we still have a few clues left in existing animals.As noted breasts don't seem to be a huge leap from what "primitive" mammals have. When we add that to the transitionals with characteristics that do fossilize you will have to struggle to come up with a reason why we wouldn't accept the transition from reptile to mammal-like to mammal.I'm glad you have suggested that this is a "kind" transition. Since it is one for which we have reasonable fossilzed transitionals.

Hi Coragyphs,To quote JAR "Okay, maybe we are finally getting somewhere."The list you gave me were all mammals, were they not? Thank you. You seem to have stayed with my proposal of focusing only on the nursing aspect of mammals for which I thank you.I assume that you agree that evolutionary changes happen near the point of conception; that the physical charasterics of a birthed animal do not change. In other words and using a simple example, a male amphibian, bird, reptile, or some other "kind" of non-mammal fertilized one or more eggs of a female of the same kind and normally an animal of the same kind would have been the offspring. When the material within the egg that determines what the offspring will "look" like is disturbed then an unexpected (different) offspring results.Now, focus on that very moment when the "non-mammal ancestor" is expecting to feed it's offspring with insects or expecting them to take care of themselves. In the "nest" is one helpless mammal offspring which must nurse to survive. The "non-mammal ancestor" has no way to feed the mammal offspring and the mammal offspring can not take care of itself. What do you predict the result will be?Just out of interest, what non-mammal is the proposed "evolutionary non-mammal ancestor" of all the mammals you listed?Very best regards,
BAE

Hi NosyNed,As you will see in my posting, I am not asking about breasts but about nursing. I am not asking about the gradual change from one structure to another for the purpose of feeding an offspring. I am asking about the leap from no structure from which an offspring can obtain milk to an offspring which must have milk to survive.I know from working with you in other topics that you can express scientifically what I ask in a probably confusing way so would you please help by providing a more clearly worded question or example if this round of my postings does not clarify my question?Thanks,
BAE

You've got the timeline backwards. The dependancy on milk doesn't predate the development of mammaries.What could happen is, an organism that can do just fine on regurgitated insects finds that a secretion from its parent is even better, easier to digest, and fatalities from starvation or choking are reduced; also, organisms who hatch too early to have fully-developed digestion systems survive on the simpler secretions.The gene for the secretions spreads throughout the population due to differential survival; the reduced egg gestation time improves survivability of offspring by reducing the vulnerability of being egg-bound and stationary. Getting mobile at an earlier age improves survival. A branch of reptiles called "therapsids." The first development on the path that ended up with mammals was the development of more efficient teeth. These teeth gave the premammals considerable metabolic advantage over reptiles, allowing for a host of developments like endothermia and viviparity.