Jump to content


Photo

Creationists, What Do You Define As A Kind?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
229 replies to this topic

#201 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 11 February 2010 - 09:23 AM

Why is a human being more evolutionarily "better" than an ant?


You dug yourself into a hole again,Otto. According to the theory,ants evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. You need to explain the need for them to evolve upward into reptiles,mammals,etc.
Enjoy.

View Post

No, that is the whole point, there is no need for ants to evolve into anything else. It fits where it is. Ants have been around a lot longer than humans and probably will outlast humans.

#202 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 12 February 2010 - 12:52 AM

No, that is the whole point, there is no need for ants to evolve into anything else.  It fits where it is.  Ants have been around a lot longer than humans and probably will outlast humans.

View Post


I'd like to add to this. Ants are several species. It is true that there were ant species long before the human species appeared and ant species will probably be here when we are gone aswell.

And finally, back to the OP. When it comes to ants what is a Kind? And what is the trait that makes it a kind?

#203 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 12 February 2010 - 05:14 AM

I'd like to add to this. Ants are several species. It is true that there were ant species long before the human species appeared and ant species will probably be here when we are gone aswell.

And finally, back to the OP. When it comes to ants what is a Kind? And what is the trait that makes it a kind?

View Post


Were ants on the ark?

#204 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2010 - 09:20 AM

Ants evolved from proto-wasps. How? By the selective pressure of the environment filtering some of the slowly emerging endogenous traits but not others leading to change within the gene pool and divergence from other pools.

#205 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:31 AM

Ants evolved from proto-wasps.  How?  By the selective pressure of the environment filtering some of the slowly emerging endogenous traits but not others leading to change within the gene pool and divergence from other pools.

View Post


Unless you have empirical evidence to back up that statement, you are doing nothing more than positing your opinion, and you are attempting to pass it off as fact.

You may want to review the "equivocation" portion of the Forum rules:

http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

#206 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:51 AM

Unless you have empirical evidence to back up that statement, you are doing nothing more than positing your opinion, and you are attempting to pass it off as fact.

You may want to review the "equivocation" portion of the Forum rules:

http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

View Post


From Wiki

"Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae (pronounced /fɔrˈmɪsəˌdiː/), and along with the related wasps and bees, they belong to the order Hymenoptera. Ants evolved from wasp-like ancestors in the mid-Cretaceous period between 110 and 130 million years ago and diversified after the rise of flowering plants.[3] Today, more than 12,500 species are classified with upper estimates of about 22,000 species.[4][5][6] They are easily identified by their elbowed antennae and a distinctive node-like structure that forms a slender waist."

Now I recognize that Wiki is not the be all and end all of information. However with a little bit of digging I am sure that you can find the information in the literature that supports this contention.
However, if you are looking for "empirical evidence" meaning experiments that actually show ants evolving from wasp like ancestors, well we all know that no one can supply that.

But lets start with the concept that wasps, bees and ants may be related. Are they the same kind or are there 3 separate kinds here? Lets assume for the moment that ants are a separate kind. Lets also assume that there are 10,000 species (lower than the Wiki amount). Did they all come from the first ant kind? Did they ride on the ark? When did the ant kind start to speciate? Did they somehow survive the flood? Therefore have 6000 years to diversify rather than 4000?

Anyone, anyone?

#207 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 February 2010 - 10:58 AM

From Wiki

"Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae (pronounced /fɔrˈmɪsəˌdiː/), and along with the related wasps and bees, they belong to the order Hymenoptera. Ants evolved from wasp-like ancestors in the mid-Cretaceous period between 110 and 130 million years ago and diversified after the rise of flowering plants.[3] Today, more than 12,500 species are classified with upper estimates of about 22,000 species.[4][5][6] They are easily identified by their elbowed antennae and a distinctive node-like structure that forms a slender waist."
Now I recognize that Wiki is not the be all and end all of information.  However with a little bit of digging I am sure that you can find the information in the literature that supports this contention.
However, if you are looking for "empirical evidence" meaning experiments that actually show ants evolving from wasp like ancestors, well we all know that no one can supply that.
But lets start with the concept that wasps, bees and ants may be related.  Are they the same kind or are there 3 separate kinds here?  Lets assume for the moment that ants are a separate kind.  Lets also assume that there are 10,000 species (lower than the Wiki amount).  Did they all come from the first ant kind?  Did they ride on the ark?  When did the ant kind start to speciate?  Did they somehow survive the flood?  Therefore have 6000 years to diversify rather than 4000?

Anyone, anyone?

View Post


Were you, at any time, going to provide “empirical” evidence?

If not, you are basing it on faith....

#208 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 12 February 2010 - 11:03 AM

Were you, at any time, going to provide “empirical” evidence?

If not, you are basing it on faith....

View Post


What is it that you mean by "empirical evidence"? Experimental evidence where a proto wasp turns into an ant?

And do you have any answers to the questions I raised?

#209 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 February 2010 - 06:27 PM

Unless you have empirical evidence to back up that statement, you are doing nothing more than positing your opinion, and you are attempting to pass it off as fact.
You may want to review the "equivocation" portion of the Forum rules:
http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

View Post


I wasn't opining, that is the unchallenged mainstream zoological view on the origin of ants (a species mentioned by another poster).

I wasn't equivocating, I was explaining speciation in terms that did not require design or "upward" direction (a theme of the last page or so of this thread).

#210 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 February 2010 - 11:20 PM

You know your totally convinced by your imagination when you hear;

"This is just your opinion." and it's answered with "It's wikipedias' opinion too." "It's still an assumption." and that is answered with "It's the mainstream zoological view." as if that proves it's not an assumption.




Enjoy.

#211 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2010 - 06:02 AM

I wasn't opining, that is the unchallenged mainstream zoological view on the origin of ants (a species mentioned by another poster).

I wasn't equivocating, I was explaining speciation in terms that did not require design or "upward" direction (a theme of the last page or so of this thread).

View Post


It is still nothing more than opinion (i.e. without observed empirical evidence). The term "mainstream zoological view" is still opinion not evidence.

#212 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 13 February 2010 - 06:36 AM

You know your totally convinced by your imagination when you hear;

"This is just your opinion." and it's answered with "It's wikipedias' opinion too." "It's still an assumption." and that is answered with "It's the mainstream zoological view." as if that proves it's not an assumption.
Enjoy.

View Post

What is the specific assumption you claim is being made?

#213 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 07:32 AM

YEC is such a hypocritical position.


You would like to classify different kinds, and yet, you recognise, that despite enormous differences, a whale and a bat are both mammals. Im willing to bet that, if YEC did develop into a natural science- the natural science- it would promptly recognise that common descent has had a part in developing the world. Otherwise, its just:

"and the lord god created them after their own kind.. but left enough simliarity to cause arguments about common ancestry"

#214 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:29 AM

YEC is such a hypocritical position.
You would like to classify different kinds, and yet, you recognise, that despite enormous differences, a whale and a bat are both mammals. Im willing to bet that, if YEC did develop into a natural science- the natural science- it would promptly recognise that common descent has had a part in developing the world. Otherwise, its just:

"and the lord god created them after their own kind.. but left enough simliarity to cause arguments about common ancestry"

View Post


Different kinds is all about enormous differences. That's common sense sir.

Now, I don't actually understand what your saying about Creationist being hypocritical, because we also fully accept that animals have common ancestors. Adam and Eve are our (common) human ancestors.

Evolutionist, like you on the other hand, percieve the goldfish in the bowl, at one point in time, had a common ancestor with Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds.

Plus, Species is the Latin word for Kind. This has already been discussed, and such is why this thread is becoming extremely tiring, explaining the same things over and over.

#215 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 09:48 AM

It is still nothing more than opinion (i.e. without observed empirical evidence). The term "mainstream zoological view" is still opinion not evidence.

View Post


This link shows the citation for a transitional specimen. I don't have subscription to access the full text but you will see under the abstract that it has been cited in recent papers.

http://www.sciencema...t/157/3792/1038

#216 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 February 2010 - 07:02 PM

This link shows the citation for a transitional specimen. I don't have subscription to access the full text but you will see under the abstract that it has been cited in recent papers.


Tommy,

Many more ants have been found since 1967. They go back to at least 120 million years,which puts ants in place 20 million years before this ancestor you linked to.

Source

Could you find us a picture of the transitional specimen? The abstract you provided says nothing about it's morphology.

There is also a new spider fossil in the news this week and it shows sudden appearance and stasis too.

: “Stunningly Preserved 165-Million-Year-Old Spider Fossil Found”

When it comes to fossils, people usually think about the bones of dinosaurs or the shells of marine creatures. Considering that, a nearly perfect fossil found in China is quite unique.

The fossils are of Eoplectreurys gertschi spiders, said to date to 165 million years ago. The fossils were found at a site thought to have been an ancient fossil bed, filled with numerous kinds of fossils.

University of Kansas paleontologist Paul Selden, lead author on a study of the find, extolled the remarkable preservation of the spiders. “You go in with a microscope, and bingo! It’s fantastic.” He believes the fossils were formed during a volcanic eruption, when the spiders were trapped in volcanic ash. The find reminds us that such perfect fossils do not form in typical conditions; they generally require catastrophic circumstances to instantly bury a creature. Those circumstances would have been present throughout the Flood year (which likely included volcanic activity), which is why the Flood can help us explain the fossils found worldwide. Of course, even in catastrophic circumstances, not every fossil is intact.

Also notable is that the spiders are almost identical to their modern relatives. “Looking at modern ones, you think, well, it’s just a dead ringer,” Selden said of part of the spider anatomy. For creationists, of course, it’s no surprise to encounter spiders in the fossil record as fully formed creatures, little different from today.


http://www.wired.com.../spider-fossil/



Enjoy.

#217 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:32 PM

http://www.wired.com.../spider-fossil/
Enjoy.

View Post


Your first link implies they dated the waspy ant using the molecular clock method which is an approximation, but in any case my ancestor ant's lineage might not have changed much for millions of years prior to throwing out that specimen as gene pools can evolve at different rates. In a settled environment that's not overpopulated a species might not undergo much morphological change (oil degrading bacteria don't appear to have evolved at all).

#218 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 February 2010 - 05:36 AM

YEC is such a hypocritical position.
You would like to classify different kinds, and yet, you recognise, that despite enormous differences, a whale and a bat are both mammals. Im willing to bet that, if YEC did develop into a natural science- the natural science- it would promptly recognise that common descent has had a part in developing the world. Otherwise, its just:

"and the lord god created them after their own kind.. but left enough simliarity to cause arguments about common ancestry"

View Post


Since evolution did'nt leave the transitional fossils to argue for common descent,then the only rational conclusion is common design. :blink:

Oh wait,they might be found one day.

"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."


And then,120 years later....

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience [sic] of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the mesozoic Brachopoda has proved them equally elusive.'
(Dr. Derek V. Ager (Dpt. Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK), 'The nature of the fossil record.' Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, vol 87(2), 1976, pg 132)


And then,30 years later...

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans...

...The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.


http://www.pnas.org/...104/16/6568.ful

"These results force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals," says Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University, one of the two leaders of the study.

For nearly eighty years, palaeontologists have been scouring the planet for fossil bones and skeletons of the earliest land vertebrates or "tetrapods" - the ultimate progenitors of all later amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals including ourselves. Their discoveries have suggested that the first tetrapods evolved relatively rapidly from lobe-finned fishes, through a short-lived intermediate stage represented by "elpistostegids" such as Tiktaalik, about 380 million years ago.

But there is another potential source of information about the earliest tetrapods: the fossilized footprints they left behind. In the new study a Polish-Swedish team describe a rich and securely dated footprint locality from Zachelmie Quarry in Poland that pushes back the origin of tetrapods a full 18 million years beyond the earliest skeletal evidence and forces a dramatic reassessment of the transition from water to land.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=47833


At least Creationists pioneered the science of taxonomy before evolutionists came along and tried to wreck it. They think Chimps and Humans belong in the same genus,even though they are at least 5% geneticly different.

Chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should properly be considered as members of the human family, according to new genetic research.




http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3042781.stm









Enjoy.

#219 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 15 February 2010 - 01:43 AM

YEC is such a hypocritical position.
You would like to classify different kinds, and yet, you recognise, that despite enormous differences, a whale and a bat are both mammals. Im willing to bet that, if YEC did develop into a natural science- the natural science- it would promptly recognise that common descent has had a part in developing the world. Otherwise, its just:

"and the lord god created them after their own kind.. but left enough simliarity to cause arguments about common ancestry"

View Post

We would not have to suddenly adopt common ancestry. We already recognize it. All canines have a common ancestor. Because there origin ancestor was given a great span of genes to allow adaptation, we have a diverse canine population today via microevloution.

Where is the hypocracy?

#220 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 February 2010 - 06:34 AM

This link shows the citation for a transitional specimen.  I don't have subscription to access the full text but you will see under the abstract that it has been cited in recent papers.

http://www.sciencema...t/157/3792/1038

View Post



Cited by mere opinion (i.e. without observed empirical evidence).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users