when I accept evolution do i give up my faith?

[Autodidact]

That is about right. Again I'm not a taxonomist or scientist, just a laymen.

O.K. So, for example, chimps and gorillas are the same kind?

My term? No ma'am, not my term, the Bibles; which creation scientists have been trying to understand for centuries.

P.S. Like many of you, I only have 24 hours a day to eat, sleep, make a living, have a social life, converse with family, relax etc. So if I don't get to your specific post I'm not trying to avoid it, I just don't have the time. And since many of all y'all's questions/comments are so similar I may just choose one and respond to that.

Your term in the argument. In this argument, YOU are asserting that evolution is limited to something called a "kind," which YOU cannot define. How do you tell whether two species are in the same kind or not?

According to the Bible, each of the following is a different "kind": raven, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the water hen, the pelican, the vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron. Do you agree? There are two "kinds" of owl, and two "kinds" of hawk? Ornithologists classify vultures and hawks in the same family.

There is no such thing as a creation scientist; it's an oxymoron.

O.K. so you agree that new species evolve by descent with modification plus natural selection, you're just asserting that it is limited to within an undefined nebulous category called a "kind," which is roughly equivalent to a genus or family. Correct?

And, for the third time, your hypothesis is what? Are you asserting that God created two of each "kind" 6000 years ago...flood...ark...all land animals descended from two of each "kind" on the ark?

So, using say mice, you're saying that over 40 known species of mice, as well as extinct species and yet undiscovered species, have all evolved from a single pair of ur-mice within the last 6000 years? Is that right?

 

[fantome profane]

The word "kind" is seen in the Bible, states that kinds only produce their own kind. It used to be thought that a "kind" was equivalent to species, as species is the Latin for kind. Since then new data has emerged showing speciation, and so the term kind was revised. Unfortunately there has been no clear consensus where exactly kind falls on the taxonomic rank system, some snay genus while others say family and yet others want to say order or sub-order and so forth. The problem with this goes back to the fact all these taxonomic ranks are human conceptions, so saying that kind is equivalent to X taxonomic rank is superficial. For example, Chimps are a different genus than humans right now, but there is talk about changing it to homo. If kind is equal to genus, than that poses some problems. I'm not trying to say that change to models are bad, but to equate kind to a taxonomic rank is pointless. You can think of kind as a taxonomic rank, showing that each animal is descendant from their original ancestor, and all organisms from that ancestor belong to the same kind. Do I know exactly where each species falls? No, and as to date I don't think anyone does or ever has. I'm no taxonomist (big surprise, I know), but I see kind near the genus or family level, but I just don't know.

On the one hand I admire your honesty in admitting that you don’t know what kind is, but this is a critical flaw this is in any argument that you make using the word “kind”. If you cannot give us a definition that we can test and evaluate then you have no argument.
And the problem is even bigger than that. It is not just that you personally can’t give a testable definition of “kind”, no creationist seems to be able to do so. You are not the first creationist on this board to use the term and fail to define it. Not even the “professional” creationists seem to be able to provide a workable definition of this term that is so central to their position. I am not suggesting that the term must be related to some level of the taxonomic system, but it must be related to some kind of empirical evidence. It must mean something.

So let’s try this.

Kind isn't so much defined as the ability to reproduce, it is more about common ancestry.

“Kind” is about common ancestry, I can work with that.

So if the evidence indicates that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestry then therefore the evidence indicates that chimpanzees and humans are the same “kind”. If this in not correct in your view please explain why.

If the evidence indicates that whales and hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) have a common ancestry then therefore the evidence indicates that whales and hippos are the same “kind”. If this in not correct in your view please explain why.

If the evidence indicates that all life on this planet (humans, hippos, chimps, plants, platypuses, bunnies and bacteria etc) have a common ancestry then the evidence indicates that they are all the same kind. If this in not correct in your view please explain why.

If you can’t explain why these different species might or might not be the same “kind” then the word “kind” has no use in these debates

Perhaps what you should do is just pick any two species that you believe are not the same “kind”, that you believe do not share common ancestry and show us how you have come to this conclusion. I think it would be very helpful if you picked humans and chimps as your example and showed us what you think, but choose whatever species you wish.



But here is what you can’t do. You can’t say they don’t have a common ancestry because they are a different “kind”, and then say they are a different “kind” because they don’t have a common ancestry.

 

[painted wolf]

That is about right. Again I'm not a taxonomist or scientist, just a laymen.

I'm a taxonomist (in training)...
The really cool thing about "ur-bears" is that they are essentially dogs. And if you go back far enough you find an "ur-dog" that looks like a weasel... and further back you find an "ur-carnivore" that looks like a weasel/cat/dog thing...
It's very fun.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

I'm a taxonomist (in training)...
The really cool thing about "ur-bears" is that they are essentially dogs. And if you go back far enough you find an "ur-dog" that looks like a weasel... and further back you find an "ur-carnivore" that looks like a weasel/cat/dog thing...
It's very fun.

wa:do

Are you learning Bull ****, More ****, or are you Piling it Higher and Deeper?*

So bears are essentially sub-species of gray wolves(?)... very interesting take you have there. I'd very much like to see this weasel/cat/dog thing if you can show a picture of it. Most people, like myself, are completely ignorant of taxonomy, but it does look like a fun field, and I'm glad you're enjoying learning about it. :yes:

*A common reference to BS, MS, and PhD degrees. I'm not trying to be vulgar or argumentative.

 

[ShakeZula]

I agree but my point still stands. Yes people have been killing each other over these interpretations. I think it is more complicated than just that, but you are not wrong. But again this is not a reason to disregard the ideas that these stories are intended to convey.

I believe that we have a moral obligation to be intelligent. It is a moral imperative to be reasonable and to honestly search for the truth. Obvious people who kill over a biblical interpretation do not live up to this moral obligation.

Absolutely we should challenge these ideas. Absolutely we try to determine their truthfulness. And there might be good reasons for rejecting these ideas, but the fact that some people abuse religion is not a good enough reason to reject these ideas. Nor does it mean these ideas are in conflict with the theory of evolution.

I'm not saying do away with it. As ancient literature, it has some value. There's no reason why it can't be as read and appreciated as The Illiad or some other comparable ancient text. However, until evidence is presented that we should treat the Bible any more seriously then we treat ancient Persian or Greek myths, then those who profess that the Bible and it's God should have any control over our lives (and our education) should be laughed off their soap box just as we would from any other lunatic. Just because people hold their beliefs sacred doesn't mean they're deserving of respect.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, your right–the bible does not conflict with the ToE. No more then the back of my cereal box does. That's because it's fantasy. But I'm not the one trying to fit that round peg in to the square hole of science so until Christians come to terms with that and stop trying to destroy science education, I have to take a condescending tone when they trot out their scripture to defend a 'scientific' position.

We don't give equal time to someone who says that his toenail clippings created the universe and he's got just as much evidence to prove that as Christians have of proving divine creation. Besides having numbers on their side, can you give me a reason why Christians get more respect then the guy with his jar of sacred toenail clippings?

-S-

 

[The_Evelyonian]

So bears are essentially sub-species of gray wolves(?)... very interesting take you have there. I'd very much like to see this weasel/cat/dog thing if you can show a picture of it. Most people, like myself, are completely ignorant of taxonomy, but it does look like a fun field, and I'm glad you're enjoying learning about it. :yes:

More likely bears and wolves had a common ancestor. Something like Amphicyonidae or Hemicyonidae

As for the weasel/cat/dog thing, I guess it would be something along the lines of Miacis but I could be wrong.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are you learning Bull ****, More ****, or are you Piling it Higher and Deeper?*

So bears are essentially sub-species of gray wolves(?)... very interesting take you have there. I'd very much like to see this weasel/cat/dog thing if you can show a picture of it. Most people, like myself, are completely ignorant of taxonomy, but it does look like a fun field, and I'm glad you're enjoying learning about it. :yes:

*A common reference to BS, MS, and PhD degrees. I'm not trying to be vulgar or argumentative.

It is not "her" take on things. These are biological facts that many creationists ignore because it conflicts with their own beliefs.

 

[painted wolf]

Are you learning Bull ****, More ****, or are you Piling it Higher and Deeper?*

So bears are essentially sub-species of gray wolves(?)... very interesting take you have there.

Where did you get that? Ursids and Canids are both members of the Caniforma and shared a common ancestor around 46 million years ago. The ancestors of canids diverged first 40 mya.
Here is an early example of a still very 'weasel-like' dog Hesperocyon

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a good picture of the earliest bear, but the only thing that really identifies it (at first glance) as a true member of the bear family are the teeth. If you had been looking at a living one, you would think it was a strange raccoon. (about the same size and build)

I'd very much like to see this weasel/cat/dog thing if you can show a picture of it.

Here is a picture of a Miacid skull.

Here is a decent reconstruction... sorry I don't have a pic. of the whole skeleton.... these are really interesting critters evolutionarily. The earliest ones are very much like creodonts (an early meat-eating group) while the latest ones were true carnivora... the perfect bridge between the two groups.

[/quote]Most people, like myself, are completely ignorant of taxonomy, but it does look like a fun field, and I'm glad you're enjoying learning about it. [/quote]
I really do... seeing how life has changed over time is an endless source of inspiration and wonder for me.

wa:do

ps. I'm getting my B.A and then with any luck into a Ph.D program in Taxonomy specifically.
(we are a rather rare breed taxonomists... thanks to all that flashy genetics stuff. )

 

[painted wolf]

sorry about the giant picture... I keep trying to resize it but it just isn't taking!:sorry1:

wa:do

 

[McBell]

very interesting take you have there.

the only "take" here is yours and it isn't even interesting.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Red, a short and simple one.

You, talking to Auto, accept Evolution but deny that there is speciation (I guess), if that is correct (no species to species), you need to define what a kind is.

To be short, Else you can not claim it as you would not know what a "kind" is and can not determine if it is animal X or Y. So please tell us what it is, else you need to accept the fact that it happens (yes, it is a fact, that is how You as a human came to be here on this little space ship we call earth).

 

[RedOne77]

Sorry for the delays, I was without a computer all weekend.

Red, a short and simple one.

You, talking to Auto, accept Evolution but deny that there is speciation (I guess), if that is correct (no species to species), you need to define what a kind is.

How many times do I have to say that "I accept speciation". Just to be 100% clear, "I accept speciation as an empirical fact." If I said that there was no speciation, wouldn't that mean that species and kind is one of the same?

Painted Wolf,

Thanks for the pics and the commentary. Taxonomy really is a rare field these days, I know countless bio majors and none of them are going into that field, I think you're the first that I've ever come across.

Evelyonian,

I haven't been able to look at those links yet, but I will. If I see something strange/interesting I'll point them out.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How many times do I have to say that "I accept speciation". Just to be 100% clear, "I accept speciation as an empirical fact." If I said that there was no speciation, wouldn't that mean that species and kind is one of the same?

He asked you to define "kind".

 

[RedOne77]

He asked you to define "kind".

Kind is like a taxonomical rank in that God created separate kinds and each kind speciated until we have the diversity we see today. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp? I can understand its difficulty in placing organisms in each kind, but I would think the concept would be quite easy to grasp.

 

[fantome profane]

Kind is like a taxonomical rank in that God created separate kinds and each kind speciated until we have the diversity we see today. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp? I can understand its difficulty in placing organisms in each kind, but I would think the concept would be quite easy to grasp.

The question is if we had an example of a evolutionary change that represented a change in “kind” how would we recognize it? You say it can never happen but if it did happen how would you know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Kind is like a taxonomical rank in that God created separate kinds and each kind speciated until we have the diversity we see today. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp? I can understand its difficulty in placing organisms in each kind, but I would think the concept would be quite easy to grasp.

Do not condescend me. The "concept" is fine, but the fact that you cannot accurately define what separates one "kind" from another "kind" means that the concept is meaningless.

 

[Autodidact]

Kind is like a taxonomical rank in that God created separate kinds and each kind speciated until we have the diversity we see today. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp? I can understand its difficulty in placing organisms in each kind, but I would think the concept would be quite easy to grasp.

It's impossible to grasp when you define it terms of itself. A kind is a kind? If it's easy to define, please define it. If you can't define it, say so and accept the consequences for an argument that depends on defining it.

If you can't define it, then we can all agree with you, merely saying that God only created a single kind. If you don't know what a kind is, you have no way to disagree with that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

How many times do I have to say that "I accept speciation". Just to be 100% clear, "I accept speciation as an empirical fact." If I said that there was no speciation, wouldn't that mean that species and kind is one of the same?

Kind is like a taxonomical rank in that God created separate kinds and each kind speciated until we have the diversity we see today. Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp? I can understand its difficulty in placing organisms in each kind, but I would think the concept would be quite easy to grasp.

Here's some help on Biblical descriptions of "kinds".
Beasts which are divided into cattle,(or domesticated), and beasts of the field, or wild animals.
The fowls, including not only the birds, but also "all things that fly", even if they "go upon four feet", as the different kinds of (six legged)locusts.
Then there are the many "living beings that swim in the water", the "great whales" are set apart in that kind, while the rest are divided according to whether they have, or have not, fins and scales.
The reptiles, or "creeping things", form another kind. References to this kind few. However, it should be noted that the "creeping things" include not only the reptiles, but also all short-legged animals or insects which seem to crawl rather than to walk, such as moles, lizards, etc.
These are the same "kind" classifications used in determining if an animal is "clean" or "unclean"

 

[RedOne77]

The question is if we had an example of a evolutionary change that represented a change in “kind” how would we recognize it? You say it can never happen but if it did happen how would you know?

I cannot answer that question, you need a creationist more knowledgeable than I for that.

Do not condescend me. The "concept" is fine, but the fact that you cannot accurately define what separates one "kind" from another "kind" means that the concept is meaningless.

Hahaha, don't "condescend" you, well why not? My response wasn't even to you specifically, but to the evolution community here. Besides, it seems that nearly every evolutionist here is very condescending to every single creationist that comes here. In much more intensity than my little outburst of condescension if I might add. So very often evolutionists proclaim the double standards by creationists, yet they impose double standards as well. What defines one kind to another is common ancestry; and as I've said from the beginning I'm not a scientist or a taxonomist, nor a paleontologist etc, so I can't give you the 'trees of kinds' so to say, so stop asking.

If you can't define it, then we can all agree with you, merely saying that God only created a single kind. If you don't know what a kind is, you have no way to disagree with that.

:slap: Nice try, but such a saying is antithetical to creationist beliefs. I understand that this isn't an empirical statement, especially a scientific one, rather a faith based statement. I did get a good chuckle from it though.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now, if RedOne wants to claim to accept speciation, then I would ask if he accepts all four biological instances of speciation.
Allopatric? (A population splits into two geographically isolated populations.)
Peripatric? (New species are formed in isolated, small peripheral populations that are prevented from exchanging genes with the main population.)
Parapatric? (The zones of two diverging populations are separate but do overlap.)
Sympatric? (Species diverge while inhabiting the same place.)

And if so, how this fits into his "concept of kinds"?