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

#21 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 05:44 AM

I would wonder, Otto, if you were there and could enlighten us? Otherwise, your assumptions are no better than mine  :P

View Post

No, I was not there. Are you suggesting that there is no way to tell? Simple question, Ron. No need to get all angry about it. Yes or no, is there any way to tell whether the water in the Flood was fresh or salty? If yes, then how would you do that, or has someone already done that. If no, then your input to this part of the discussion is over.
Although if anyone else has a position I would be interested in knowing that.
Thanks

#22 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:00 AM

Macro-evolution (or, more correctly adaptation) can work relatively quickly. It was cool and raining when I left the house this morning.  I adapted (or evolved if you will) and put on a jacket. It worked quit well! I survived!!! Experiment successful  :P  I micro-evolved!!!  :lol:

View Post

AH, micro evolution in action.
Except, I am not sure that evolution, micro or macro, cares if you survived except to the extent you can pass your genes on to the next generation. And I am sure that you will now pass the wearing of the jacket on to your offspring, right? Isn't that the point of evolution--micro or macro. Change in allelle frequency in a population? Requires genes to be passed on.

Or are you suggesting that micro-evolution = adaptation, without any genetic change?

#23 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 24 November 2009 - 09:46 AM

AH, micro evolution in action.
Except, I am not sure that evolution, micro or macro, cares if you survived except to the extent you can pass your genes on to the next generation.  And I am sure that you will now pass the wearing of the jacket on to your offspring, right?  Isn't that the point of evolution--micro or macro.  Change in allelle frequency in a population?  Requires genes to be passed on.

Or are you suggesting that micro-evolution = adaptation, without any genetic change?

View Post

It can happen rapidly. There is a fish in the south that can change from drought to non-drought conditions very fast. There is another set of fish that change from a homogeneous population to a heterogeneous one in a generation or two. And this is after many years of deteriorating DNA. At the time of the flood their ability to change rapidly was probably better.

And the problem is, as you should understand how environments can change rapidly, that evolution must be able to do it via mutation, and not via systems programmed into DNA.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:15 AM

No, I was not there.  Are you suggesting that there is no way to tell?  Simple question, Ron.  No need to get all angry about it.  Yes or no, is there any way to tell whether the water in the Flood was fresh or salty?  If yes, then how would you do that, or has someone already done that.  If no, then your input to this part of the discussion is over.
Although if anyone else has a position I would be interested in knowing that.
Thanks

View Post


Angry?!?!?! Riiiiiight... Is this another assumption on your part, or a cover up for being caught in your previous assumption. :rolleyes:

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:20 AM

AH, micro evolution in action.
Except, I am not sure that evolution, micro or macro, cares if you survived except to the extent you can pass your genes on to the next generation.  And I am sure that you will now pass the wearing of the jacket on to your offspring, right?  Isn't that the point of evolution--micro or macro.  Change in allelle frequency in a population?  Requires genes to be passed on.

Or are you suggesting that micro-evolution = adaptation, without any genetic change?

View Post


Yes, micro-evolution is a cheap rip-off of adaptation. And genetic fluctuation has never been observed to change one species (or kind) to another (as macro-evolutheists have suggested). Also, evolution is not sentient that it could care about anything. Unless you are suggesting that “evolution” is sentient. And, if that is the case, it would explain a lot.

#26 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:35 AM

Angry?!?!?! Riiiiiight... Is this another assumption on your part, or a cover up for being caught in your previous assumption.  :rolleyes:

View Post

Actually, my current assumption is that you are unable to answer the question I posed and not man enough to admit it.

#27 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:43 AM

Actually, my current assumption is that you are unable to answer the question I posed and not man enough to admit it.

View Post


Actually the problem is that no one can really solidly answer your question, because no one was there at the time of the flood.

We must also note, that the entire Ocean, caused by the Flood would not necessarily have to be highly concentrated with salt worldwide. Some area's may have had a lesser, or greater degree of salt within in them. Allowing such non-salt water fish to survive in the less salt concentrated area's.

Would you accept this assumed answer? A likely possible explanation, or there may even be another explanation.

Such explanation's for your question have already been made, but do you at least understand some of the concepts behind the explanations?

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 10:50 AM

Actually, my current assumption is that you are unable to answer the question I posed and not man enough to admit it.

View Post


Actually you are in denial once again because I answered your question. And, as for your calling my manhood into question, although cheeky on your part; was also an assumption on your part. I’m not quite sure what you would consider man enough, but I have met better men than myself. Most of them served beside me in the many campaigns I’ve endured during my twenty-one plus years in the Army. Many proved their manhood with the ultimate sacrifice. And, I must admit, for my family’s sake, I did not. There again, I am unsure of your definition of manhood. But, I doubt I would dare the depth of your level of Ad hominem abusive.

#29 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 01:35 PM

. . .Or are you suggesting that micro-evolution = adaptation, without any genetic change?

View Post

= adaptation without increase of genetics. Longer claws, more succesful hunting, long clawed specimens advantaged, shorter clawed specimens reduce in population of environment in which long claws are better suited. Short claws tribe and long claws tribe live "next door" to each other. Over time they may not have reproductive encounters and even become unable to have same. = micro and cannot achieve macro.

#30 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 01:54 PM

Actually, my current assumption is that you are unable to answer the question I posed and not man enough to admit it.

View Post

Hi Otto13, I am feeling left out :rolleyes:
I know it is QED's thread but you seem to be his water nicely.

#31 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 November 2009 - 03:37 PM

Is 'kind' an imaginary concept, that we can define it according to our desires, or is 'kind' real, that we can only describe it?

#32 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 24 November 2009 - 05:38 PM

= adaptation without increase of genetics. Longer claws, more succesful hunting, long clawed specimens advantaged, shorter clawed specimens reduce in population of environment in which long claws are better suited. Short claws tribe and long claws tribe live "next door" to each other. Over time they may not have reproductive encounters and even become unable to have same. = micro and cannot achieve macro.

What kind of 'adaptation' would you call Nylonase and ß-galactosidase? Please explain both enzymes and if you are unfamiliar with either one please read the research papers explaining the experiments and the conclusions.

Is 'kind' an imaginary concept, that we can define it according to our desires, or is 'kind' real, that we can only describe it?

When you are describing kind you should be describing the largest monophyletic group and nothing else.

Just poking my head in to see what progress you'll are making on the discussion of Macro speciation from kinds.

#33 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:11 PM

Is 'kind' an imaginary concept, that we can define it according to our desires, or is 'kind' real, that we can only describe it?

View Post


I think this is a very important question that everyone should look into to move the conversation forward. Even if we look at taxonomy used by the majority of scientists, beyond the species level it is all for our convenience. What we classify as a mammal, for instance, has no bearing on anything in the natural world. What nature cares about is if it can produce fertile offspring to pass on the genes, this would be the species level.

If we say species equals "kind", this puts YEC in quite a dilemma, IMHO. This means that asserting that kinds are fixed, we should see no speciation, yet we do. In addition there are thousands upon thousands of species that cannot survive a global flood without the help of Noah's Ark. So with that definition of "kind", are YECs willing to claim that Noah had 9,000+ species of ants? I think there are around 11,000 species of bats and so on.

However, many YECs claim that several species derived from one species from the ark. This is speciation; the act of making new species. So it only makes sense that "kind" does not equate to species. This means that "kind" would be the same level of realness as scientists making up different taxonomic levels, i.e. family, class, order. But, scientists can put each animal in a specific class, order, family ect. through objective and observable traits. Like mammals have hair, birds have feathers, and we have a clear definition of the traits we look at.

So while I think that 'kind' must be above the species level, forcing it to be 'imaginary', we need a clear definition of kind that is objective and both YECs and non-YECs can look at the same set of animals and come to the same conclusion because it is objective.

As of right now I have not seen a clear, concise, objective definition of kind. As creationists are the only ones who claim that there are kinds, the burden is on them to come up with a good definition, IMO. Without a good definition, I doubt that any real conversation can be done on the actual evidence nature has provided us with.

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:13 PM

What kind of 'adaptation' would you call Nylonase and ß-galactosidase? Please explain both enzymes and if you are unfamiliar with either one please read the research papers explaining the experiments and the conclusions. 

View Post


The Nylonase has been discussed previously in this forum. And the adaptation is just that, an adaptation. The question is then; does the enzyme ever become anything other than an enzyme? Or better yet, is it just an enzyme that has adapted to a different food source?

There is one major drawback I notice about every research paper I read, and that is this: Every paper is rife with terms like “This discovery led Dr. so-and-so to speculate”, “recent studies suggest that”, “most probably” etcetera, etcetera… Not quite the solid ground some fundamentalist evolutionists, who want to cling to the theism of evolutionary fact, will spend much time thinking about.

#35 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:35 PM

The Nylonase has  been discussed previously in this forum. And the adaptation is just that, an adaptation. The question is then; does the enzyme ever become anything other than an enzyme? Or better yet, is it just an enzyme that has adapted to a different food source?


Is DNA still DNA? It is not that an enzyme changed into something that wasn't an enzyme, it is that before the mutation there was no nylonase in the population and after the mutation there is.

An enzyme is very specific in what it does. As far as I know, an enzyme will not simply adapt to a new food source without some change in the DNA, and changing the enzyme itself will probably make it useless with the original substrate.

There is one major drawback I notice about every research paper I read, and that is this:  Every paper is rife with terms like “This discovery led Dr. so-and-so to speculate”, “recent studies suggest that”, “most probably” etcetera, etcetera… Not quite the solid ground some fundamentalist evolutionists, who want to cling to the theism of evolutionary fact, will spend much time thinking about.

View Post


That is simply how science operates; science is very cautious. All scientific literature, evolution or not, is laced with terms that make it seem very tentative. And usually with new discoveries scientists do "speculate" based on the new data, they make predictions and test them out as science demands they do.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:51 PM

Is DNA still DNA?

View Post

What does DNA feed on?

It is not that an enzyme changed into something that wasn't an enzyme, it is that before the mutation there was no nylonase in the population and after the mutation there is.

View Post


I guess when I started eating squash (which I never liked before), I “mutated”. Because, before that point there was no me that liked squash. :D

No, indeed! This enzyme simply found a different food source. Its still an enzyme, no matter how you attempt to get all “sciency” by throwing around the “mutant” word. Next thing you know, you’ll attempt to make nylonase an honorary “X-Man” :lol:

#37 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 07:55 PM

What does DNA feed on?


:D Can you rephrase the question?

I guess when I started eating squash (which I never liked before), I “mutated”. Because, before that point there was no me that liked squash.  :o


Are you intentionally being hard to deal with? Surely you must know that wearing a coat or liking a food more than you used too is not a mutation in the DNA. You are trivializing and over simplifying the conversation.

No, indeed! This enzyme simply found a different food source.


An enzyme is substrate specific. You cannot take lactase and have it do anything else but break down lactose (as far as I know). If you have an example where I am wrong I would very much like to see it.

Its still an enzyme,


By that logic the DNA creating a tree can mutate into us, it's still DNA no matter how you look at it. Besides, I'm not saying that the enzyme will turn into something that is not an enzyme, only that enzymes only do specific jobs. And if an enzyme changes in function, it changes its structure, which means that the locus on the genome for that enzyme has changed/mutated.

no matter how you attempt to get all “sciency” by throwing around the “mutant” word.


What do you mean by "attempting to get all "sciency""? When talking about mutations, enzymes, DNA ect. what do you expect us to talk about other then science? Theology?

Next thing you know, you’ll attempt to make nylonase an honorary “X-Man”  :lol:

View Post


It already is, don't you know. :lol:

#38 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 12:26 AM

What kind of 'adaptation' would you call Nylonase and ß-galactosidase? Please explain both enzymes and if you are unfamiliar with either one please read the research papers explaining the experiments and the conclusions. 

When you are describing kind you should be describing the largest monophyletic group and nothing else.

Just poking my head in to see what progress you'll are making on the discussion of Macro speciation from kinds.

View Post

Well, the Nylonase appears, from the materials I read just now, mutations of original code. In the article I read Susumu Ohno (I steer clear of Christian sites for such research due to expected bias) theorized nylonase is a result of mutation by accidental combination. Seiiji Nogoro disagreed that freme shifting occured. I'll not go into detail as I believe you are aware of them or would not have asked. Neither suggested there was creation of new genetic code form code that did not exist.

Other articles seem to agree more often with Susumu than Seiiji. Gene duplication plus a frame shift. This caused the variant oraganism to be able to eat nylon by-products. No new code was used though. The genes were there, just recombined in a new configuration.

Now, if there was an intelligence behind creation, this is something I might expect to find. Organisms which can adapt to varying conditions. I doubt it would be as simple as self-selecting a new combination. But it is reasonable to allow that, if designed, there would be some failsafe mechanism to engage if the food source was to deplete. It might take serveral (accidental)variants before success occurs. But in the end, there is no macro-evolution, only a re-organized creature, now capable of the task at hand. Might even be more simple. Random re-selection of genetic code, not caused but simply continuously occuring, just in case. Such a talent would be quite useful to an organism at the level of the 'food chain" which has the responsiblility of clean-up. IF, there is intelligence behind creation. . .

Such mutations are forced in the lab often today. Oil spill cleanup etc.

As for ß-galactosidase. I found many articles discussing uses and possibilities. Nothing on the origination of it though. You will have to help, I'll read what you present.

Short answer - micro

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:46 AM

Without some sort of investigation, one can only speculate whether or not two lifeforms are the same kind. I define the term in a manner which conforms to reality, rather than attempting to dictate it. I define it the same way I did the last time the question came up. Two lifeforms are the same kind of they are both descended from a common ancestor. It's really, really simple.

#40 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:50 AM

But the simple fact that Kind=species defeats the purpose of this thread. What is the purpose of this thread? Everyone knows that Kind = Species, and Species = Kind.

Species is the latin word for kind. If it can't interbreed then it's not the same species or kind. I mean really, it's as simple as that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users