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

#61 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 03:15 PM

A good point is brought though. 

Callouses are a reaction of the skin caused by DNA....

View Post


Your DNA will not change before you have callouses to after you have callouses. When you develop callouses you are not changing your DNA at all, therefore there is no mutation according to the biological definition of mutation.

There could be a mutation that you received at birth that made it so you would develop callouses faster, better, ect. and in an environment where that had an advantage you would most likely pass on that trait to your offspring and over time it could become the norm due to its clear advantage. That would be evolution.

CTD: "Don't even try to misportray my position. Evolutionist biologists use both the original definition and the broadened, all-inclusive one you prefer. This has been established time after time, so you are wasting time if you think you can put the blame on me."

I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, within biology I only know of one definition of "mutation", and I cannot find another definition online or in my textbook. If there is another definition of "mutation" within biology what is it and can I have a source for such a definition?

#62 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:21 PM

Your DNA will not change before you have callouses to after you have callouses. When you develop callouses you are not changing your DNA at all, therefore there is no mutation according to the biological definition of mutation.

Are you joking? Lots of cells in your body rearrange their DNA all the time! It's part of living.

What? Do you think magic is behind the callous? Is there some callous goddess roaming about altering skin cells without altering the DNA?

Do us both a favour and learn how things work before complaining that they work the way they do.

Results 1 - 50 of about 42,400 for DNA callous "skin cell".

First Result

There are at least six major routes to stimulate melanin production. Melanin has other functions in the body not related to UV protection. But all routes require very strict control by several protein enzymes and if any of these enzymes in the path is missing, melanin will not be produced. Eventually these routes all stimulate a messenger (called cAMP) that is able to achieve activation of genes in the nucleus of melanocytes to make more melanin. UV light acts as one stimulus.

That's explaining how the sun tan is the result of genes being activated.

Second Result

Cells in our bodies are programmed for specific functions. A skin cell, a brain cell, and a liver cell all contain the same DNA, or set of genes. However, each cell’s fate is determined by a set of epigenetic (able to change gene expression patterns) signals that come from inside it and from the surrounding cells as well. These signals are like command tags attached to the DNA that switch certain genes on or off.

It doesn't take long to dabble and learn at least a little about epigenetics.

There could be a mutation that you received at birth that made it so you would develop callouses faster, better, ect. and in an environment where that had an advantage you would most likely pass on that trait to your offspring and over time it could become the norm due to its clear advantage. That would be evolution.

CTD: "Don't even try to misportray my position. Evolutionist biologists use both the original definition and the broadened, all-inclusive one you prefer. This has been established time after time, so you are wasting time if you think you can put the blame on me."

I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, within biology I only know of one definition of "mutation", and I cannot find another definition online or in my textbook. If there is another definition of "mutation" within biology what is it and can I have a source for such a definition?

View Post

You haven't demonstrated that you've found any definition of 'mutation', so why should I find another? Rather than inference, how about seeing your official exclusive certified perfect definition-to-end-all-definitions?

Historically, the correct definition came first, so be sure to exclude older sources from your search. Since the revised definition isn't even close to enjoying universal acceptance, you still risk accessing the correct one by accident. I don't think this can be helped, all things considered.

#63 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:49 PM

Your DNA will not change before you have callouses to after you have callouses. When you develop callouses you are not changing your DNA at all, therefore there is no mutation according to the biological definition of mutation.

View Post

I am not suggesting a DNA change prior to the work. I am suggesting a preference for the stronger skinned persons which leads to a Domination of tougher skin over time and an human group which developes the abilty to survive in the vacuum of space, with only the need of heat and air, supplied. No space suit.

My suggestion is that micro-evolution may be capable of great adaptations. No amount of micro though will ever culminate in macro.

To relate this back to our topic, taxonomy, the point of what the groups kind, genus, specie include is mute, if there is no macro-evolution.

I am still wondering what QED is wonderng regarding the ark. Maybe I am a few posts behind him.

#64 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:50 PM

I am not suggesting a DNA change prior to the work.


I thought that might be the case after reading your last post, but wasn't completely sure.

I am suggesting a preference for the stronger skinned persons which leads to a Domination of tougher skin over time and an human group which developes the abilty to survive in the vacuum of space, with only the need of heat and air, supplied.  No space suit.


I doubt life will ever evolve that far, but I agree that the concept stands and is valid.

My suggestion is that micro-evolution may be capable of great adaptations.  No amount of micro though will ever culminate in macro.


While I think the definitions of micro and macro are different between us, I do agree great adaptations can result from micro-evolution.

To relate this back to our topic, taxonomy, the point of what the groups kind, genus, specie include is mute, if there is no macro-evolution.


I disagree, if God did create different "kinds", and there are limits to evolution, than knowing what organism is in what category seems essential to the field of biology, IMO.

I am still wondering what QED is wonderng regarding the ark.  Maybe I am a few posts behind him.

View Post


I don't think you missed any of his posts, although I haven't been following the conversation very closely.

#65 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 26 November 2009 - 11:43 PM

I disagree, if God did create different "kinds", and there are limits to evolution, than knowing what organism is in what category seems essential to the field of biology, IMO.

View Post

I see the point there, and agree. In fact it is my contention that there are necessary limits. Each level of the "food chain" has certain profit to the entire "food chain" for its existance at that level. What if flies evolved beyond their current position? Consider all the lower levels of the chain. Without those organisms our biosphere would be in rapid decline.

#66 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2009 - 11:48 PM

Are you joking? Lots of cells in your body rearrange their DNA all the time! It's part of living.

What? Do you think magic is behind the callous? Is there some callous goddess roaming about altering skin cells without altering the DNA?


Yes, I do think there is a callous goddess roaming around waving a magic wand. :blink:

There are at least six major routes to stimulate melanin production. Melanin has other functions in the body not related to UV protection. But all routes require very strict control by several protein enzymes and if any of these enzymes in the path is missing, melanin will not be produced. Eventually these routes all stimulate a messenger (called cAMP) that is able to achieve activation of genes in the nucleus of melanocytes to make more melanin. UV light acts as one stimulus.


Activation of genes, not mutations. The act of activating genes is not a mutation in the DNA itself.

It doesn't take long to dabble and learn at least a little about epigenetics.


Your right, it doesn't take very long. From the first paragraph from wiki on epigenetics

"In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently."

The first thing to notice is that it refers to changes in the phenotype, not the genotype. Second, it states that "there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism". Thus, no mutation has occurred.

You haven't demonstrated that you've found any definition of 'mutation', so why should I find another?


:) So let me get this straight, you claim that I haven't found a single definition of mutation. And instead of spending a minute correcting me and ending it, you decide to proclaim that since I haven't provided us with any definition "why should [you] find [any]?"

Anyway, here is a definition from the free dictionary

"3. Genetics
a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome."

Or in other words, a change in the genotype.

Rather than inference, how about seeing your official exclusive certified perfect definition-to-end-all-definitions?


That would be nice, unfortunately my dorm room is a mess right now and I can't seem to find it. Maybe in a few days after I clean up I'll be able to retrieve it and we can settle this little dispute once and for all.

Historically, the correct definition came first, so be sure to exclude older sources from your search. Since the revised definition isn't even close to enjoying universal acceptance, you still risk accessing the correct one by accident. I don't think this can be helped, all things considered.

View Post


Personally I'm not into etymology, although my roommate is a genus in that area, and the small doses I get from him are really fascinating. However, I'm not too concerned with the original definition as opposed to what the word actually means today in relevant fields. If you have a different definition of "mutation" than the one I provided please share it.

#67 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 12:15 PM

Yes, I do think there is a callous goddess roaming around waving a magic wand.  :)

Activation of genes, not mutations. The act of activating genes is not a mutation in the DNA itself.

A change takes place. By the broad definition preferred by many, any and all changes are mutations.

Your right, it doesn't take very long. From the first paragraph from wiki on epigenetics

"In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently."

The cause should not be confused with the mechansims. The causes in epigenetics are non-genetic - life responds to circumstances in the manner it is programmed to respond.

The correctness of the last sentence depends on what they mean by "underlying". Information may be retrieved from "junk" DNA, for example. Indeed, "junk" DNA is known to be responsible for much of the regulation.

The first thing to notice is that it refers to changes in the phenotype, not the genotype. Second, it states that "there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism". Thus, no mutation has occurred.

Certainly there is a change of some sort when a gene is activated. That you choose at this time not to call such changes "mutations" is good, for they are not random accidents.

:huh: So let me get this straight, you claim that I haven't found a single definition of mutation. And instead of spending a minute correcting me and ending it, you decide to proclaim that since I haven't provided us with any definition "why should [you] find [any]?"

Huh? People who have provided no definition come to me demanding definitions and I'm just supposed to be a good little slave and fetch them? Obtain authority first, then give orders.

Anyway, here is a definition from the free dictionary

"3.  Genetics
a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome."

Or in other words, a change in the genotype.

There's a big difference between a change which happens by design and one that happens by mistake.

And if you'd scrolled just a teence down the page you'd have found the broad, all-encompassing definition:

"3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Genetics) a change in the chromosomes or genes of a cell. When this change occurs in the gametes the structure and development of the resultant offspring may be affected See also inversion [11]"

This is the new definition which intentionally includes changes due to recombination and epigenetics in order to muddy the waters, and give people the impression random mistakes are responsible for adaptations which are known to be pre-programmed.

Since this matches your "in other words" definition far more closely than the definition you'd have us believe you derived it from, I have no confidence you'll be employing the term consistently.

That would be nice, unfortunately my dorm room is a mess right now and I can't seem to find it. Maybe in a few days after I clean up I'll be able to retrieve it and we can settle this little dispute once and for all. 
Personally I'm not into etymology, although my roommate is a genus in that area, and the small doses I get from him are really fascinating. However, I'm not too concerned with the original definition as opposed to what the word actually means today in relevant fields. If you have a different definition of "mutation" than the one I provided please share it.

View Post

"What the word actually means" varies from evolutionist to evolutionist and from minute to minute in many cases.

I maintain that any attempt to trick people into believing random mistakes are behind things known to be the result of pre-programmed devices is deceptive, wrong, and subject to exposure when I'm in the area.

Anyone with half a brain can understand that random things don't repeat like clockwork. If the same individual wins the lottery every other month, something's going on. Yet time after time we see bacterial adaptations which do repeat like clockwork presented as "evidence of evolution". Even if one didn't know the first thing about epigenetics or recombination, any objective observer would smell a rat and realize something's going on. There has never for one single day been any excuse to believe the hype.

Even the methods are a giveaway. We don't see anyone attempting to feed bacteria glass or inert gases, do we? If they really believed bacteria can evolve to digest anything, we'd see such. No. They always look at what bacteria can already eat, and put some twist on it. If you had your choice, would you live on fish heads and rice, or a pure insect diet? You can adapt if you have to.

Likewise, when they "evolve" resistant bacteria, they don't administer a lethal dose and just kill off the whole group. No; they expose them little by little. It's been known forever that life develops resistance to many poisons when small enough doses are administered. That's why alcoholism works, among other things.

Do any of these adaptations hold? Read "the literature" and see how they must be preserved in isolation because they always revert back to "wild type" as soon as they get a chance. That's a clue!!! Clues don't come much bigger or more obvious.

We're told again and again new kinds of life have been evolved. B) I don't think it's the creationist who's struggling with the definition of 'kind' on these occasions.

#68 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2009 - 01:21 AM

A change takes place. By the broad definition preferred by many, any and all changes are mutations.


I don't like to call it mutations for the simple reason the changes are determined by the underlying DNA, and it doesn't change the underlying DNA. If you want to use mutation though be my guest, just be aware that these changes will not influence the offspring in any way.

The cause should not be confused with the mechansims. The causes in epigenetics are non-genetic - life responds to circumstances in the manner it is programmed to respond.

The correctness of the last sentence depends on what they mean by "underlying". Information may be retrieved from "junk" DNA, for example. Indeed, "junk" DNA is known to be responsible for much of the regulation.


Very true, although some studies have shown junk DNA to be junk DNA, while others have shown that it's not. My guess is that junk DNA has a lot of regulatory processes in it, some more important than others and it is too complicated for us to decipher it all right now.

There's a big difference between a change which happens by design and one that happens by mistake.


I'm not sure I agree with that. Are you familiar with the concept of genetic algorithms?

And if you'd scrolled just a teence down the page you'd have found the broad, all-encompassing definition:

"3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Genetics) a change in the chromosomes or genes of a cell. When this change occurs in the gametes the structure and development of the resultant offspring may be affected See also inversion [11]"

This is the new definition which intentionally includes changes due to recombination and epigenetics in order to muddy the waters, and give people the impression random mistakes are responsible for adaptations which are known to be pre-programmed.


Perhaps it is a mutation, I'll get back to you on my final answer for that in a few days. In the meantime, if it is a mutation I think there should be a distinction between those done to the underlying DNA and those done by turning genes on and off, as they are two distinct actions.

Since this matches your "in other words" definition far more closely than the definition you'd have us believe you derived it from, I have no confidence you'll be employing the term consistently.


Usually when I say "mutation", I mean point mutation, frame shift, duplication, things like that. When I say "turning genes on or off", I mean turning genes on or off.

I maintain that any attempt to trick people into believing random mistakes are behind things known to be the result of pre-programmed devices is deceptive, wrong, and subject to exposure when I'm in the area.


I assume you agree with micro-evolution. If so, how would you distinguish a mutation that is random or a mutation done by God?

Anyone with half a brain can understand that random things don't repeat like clockwork. If the same individual wins the lottery every other month, something's going on. Yet time after time we see bacterial adaptations which do repeat like clockwork presented as "evidence of evolution". Even if one didn't know the first thing about epigenetics or recombination, any objective observer would smell a rat and realize something's going on. There has never for one single day been any excuse to believe the hype.


There is much we don't know about genetics, perhaps there is something to Lamarckian evolution after all! Who would have thunk.

We're told again and again new kinds of life have been evolved. :)  I don't think it's the creationist who's struggling with the definition of 'kind' on these occasions.

View Post


I don't have all the answers. But I do know "kind" is not a defined scientific term, and the only ones who use it are creationists. I am not aware of any sound definition of the word, and as creationists claim that there are "kinds", and that one "kind" can never evolve into another "kind", a sound definition of "kind" would seem basic to the creationist movement.

#69 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 November 2009 - 03:27 AM

An enzyme can't adapt to a new food source without a change in its structure, meaning a change must occur in the DNA, unless you want to go down the denaturation route making an enzyme completely useless.

View Post


Again, just adaptation, nothing more. If it went back to its previous food source, that would be adaptation as well.

The bigger question is this: what does this enzyme adapting to a new food source prove when it comes to evolution? (Not hypothetically, but in reality)

#70 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

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

Posted 30 November 2009 - 11:00 AM

I am not suggesting a DNA change prior to the work.  I am suggesting a preference for the stronger skinned persons which leads to a Domination of tougher skin over time and an human group which developes the abilty to survive in the vacuum of space, with only the need of heat and air, supplied.  No space suit. 

Please, please tell me you do not really mean this.
Thanks

#71 Supersport

Supersport

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ft Worth, Texas

Posted 30 November 2009 - 06:12 PM

Then those that do believe that follow Lamarckian evolution, which was discounted after scientists better understood heredity and genetics.


I would like you to support this. Evidence only, please.

#72 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 08:46 PM

Evidence as to why most biologists reject Lamarckian evolution?

Basic heredity, you get your DNA from your parents, and as long as no mutation occurs in their gametes DNA your DNA will not change. Lamarck proposed that the ancestors of giraffes stretched their necks, thus their offspring had longer necks. Since the act of stretching their necks can't affect their gametes, there is no way for that act to influence their DNA. Thus it is considered an outdated principle. Although recently, biologists think that its basic ideas may have some influence with single celled organisms, but it's not unanimous and it is a new field. As a whole, it is largely discounted in the scientific community.

#73 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 02 December 2009 - 09:42 PM

Here is a good article explaining why Darwin was'nt able to discover Mendel's Laws.

Enjoy.

#74 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2009 - 04:55 AM

Please, please tell me you do not really mean this.
Thanks

View Post

That is a portion of a few posts worth of analogy leading to a hypothetical human able to survive the vacuum of space. Over time maybe they would also generate the heat required, the cost of their diet might be prohibitive and would increase their need of oxygen. What is your difficulty with the possibility?

#75 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 02:18 PM

Here is a good article explaining why Darwin was'nt able to discover Mendel's Laws.

Enjoy.

View Post


Interesting article Jason. I've heard from other sources that say that Darwin's family, like father and grandfather, have tried to tackle how heredity works. Of course they were all wrong, and Darwin's idea of heredity was just a complete mess. But remember, Darwin's contribution to evolution was never how heredity works, but how natural selection works. Put the two together with mutations, and you have the basics for modern evolution.

#76 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 10:14 PM

Species is the Latin word for " kind "  case closed.  This should be the end of the thread.

Species = kind, Kind = Species.  There is no getting around this.

We define different Species through the breeding process.  This is how Biologist figure out the different species, and is how we should seperate them.

View Post


This is not what I've heard from creationists. Creationist define cats(lions, tigers, house cats, etc) as one kind, but they're all different species.

#77 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 December 2009 - 11:56 PM

This is not what I've heard from creationists. Creationist define cats(lions, tigers, house cats, etc) as one kind, but they're all different species.


Evolutionists claim all cats share a common ancestor,not Creationists.Although,i'm willing to go along with Lions and Tigers being the same created kind because they are interfertile.





Enjoy.

#78 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 December 2009 - 02:16 PM

This is not what I've heard from creationists. Creationist define cats(lions, tigers, house cats, etc) as one kind, but they're all different species.


Evolutionists claim all cats share a common ancestor,not Creationists.Although,i'm willing to go along with Lions and Tigers being the same created kind because they are interfertile.
Enjoy.

View Post


Tigers and lions might be able to breed, but their offspring are not able to breed with each other. You can't, however, breed a cheetah with a lion. Would a cheetah and lion be classified as different kinds under the creationist model???

My original point, was that kind cannot equal species under any creationist interpretation.

Also, evolution says cats and humans have a common ancestor. I don't get your point.

#79 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 December 2009 - 05:06 PM

[quote name='tharock220' date='Dec 15 2009, 02:16 PM']
Evolutionists claim all cats share a common ancestor,not Creationists.Although,i'm willing to go along with Lions and Tigers being the same created kind because they are interfertile.
Enjoy.

View Post

[/quote]

Tigers and lions might be able to breed, but their offspring are not able to breed with each other. You can't, however, breed a cheetah with a lion. Would a cheetah and lion be classified as different kinds under the creationist model???

My original point, was that kind cannot equal species under any creationist interpretation.

Also, evolution says cats and humans have a common ancestor. I don't get your point.

View Post

[/quote]


Yes, Tigers, lions, AND cheetah's are different kinds because they are different species.

They are actually all the same TYPE/KIND of animal because they are all in the feline family, in that they are cats.

You already know this, and everyone else should. There is no problem here. The point is that not all of these CATS have to share a common ancestor, because they are not all the same SPECIES. That is by using the creationist model.

Using the evolutionist model, since all of them are CATS, then using the evolutionary model they should have a common ancestor.

You see the word Kind can be applied to FAMILY, and SPECIES. The word KIND is usually NOT USED because it can be applied to both, and it gets confusing using the word kind to describe everything. That is why biologist resort to not saying kind, so much as they apply the terms species and family.

You must also be aware that even evolutionary biologist have trouble defining what some species belong to what families. The onus is NOT on creationist shoulders to explain everything, ESPECIALLY since evolutionary biologist have the EXACT SAME problems with classifying animals.

#80 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 December 2009 - 06:03 PM

Yes, Tigers, lions, AND cheetah's are different kinds because they are different species.

View Post


Okay, that's established.

They are actually all the same TYPE/KIND of animal because they are all in the feline family, in that they are cats.

View Post


Okay.

You already know this, and everyone else should.  There is no problem here. The point is that not all of these CATS have to share a common ancestor, because they are not all the same SPECIES.  That is by using the creationist model.

View Post


Okay

Using the evolutionist model, since all of them are CATS, then using the evolutionary model they should have a common ancestor.

View Post


That's exactly what evolution predicts, and their common ancestor was a cat. If kind does apply at the species level then why have a seen creationists here saying a cat is a cat. In fact, another creationist here saw a picture of a tigon once and said it looked like the bigger, better animal that particular "kind" came from.

You see the word Kind can be applied to FAMILY, and SPECIES.  The word KIND is usually NOT USED because it can be applied to both, and it gets confusing using the word kind to describe everything.  That is why biologist resort to not saying kind, so much as they apply the terms species and family.

View Post


So can the term kind be applied to genus??? There's no confusion at all because no modern biologist would think of using the term.

You have vertebrate tetrapod placental mammals with enlarged canines and a jaw that can only move vertically. That is a cat.

You must also be aware that even evolutionary biologist have trouble defining what some species belong to what families.  The onus is NOT on creationist shoulders to explain everything, ESPECIALLY since evolutionary biologist have the EXACT SAME problems with classifying animals.

View Post


Biologists have had trouble assigning organisms to families. That's why they created things such as super order, sub families, super class, and cub genus. Now phylogenetic cladistics is used because of the increasing complexity.

Creationists have a lot more to explain than how to classify animals by the way.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users