• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

when I accept evolution do i give up my faith?

RedOne77

Active Member
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"?

Yes I do. This is how kinds diversify.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
But you can give some specificity of what is and isn't included in a few specific "kinds", can't you? After all, the Bible provides some lists, as tumbleweed pointed out:

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"

So... you say that the term "kind" is defined based on common descent. Does this mean that you agree with these statements?

- whales share common descent with fish, but not with land mammals.
- bats share common descent with birds, but not with non-flying mammals.
- flying insects share common descent with birds, but not with non-flying insects.
- moles share common descent with lizards, but not with longer-legged land mammals.

Are you okay with all 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.
IOW, you have no factual support for the claim that evolution between "kinds" has never been observed?

Do you make this claim?
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
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"?

Yes I do. This is how kinds diversify.

Since humans and chimpanzees speciated apart 4.1 million years ago, as shown by anthropological and genetic evidence, then would you define primate as a "kind" including humans and apes?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
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.
No problem... I like to help where I can. There are a lot of things people don't think about when they see a skeleton.
The issue with "kinds" is that, when you actually study the form and function (and genetics) of species you see that they eventually all mush back into common ancestry. There is no real solid line between "canids" and "bears" and so on back though time. True they look very different today, but their ancestors did not. Much like you don't necessarily look like your great great grandparents and your grandchildren won't necessarily look like you.
The only "kinds" I can figure out are "living things", "viruses/viroids" and "prions". (and even then the lines are blurry as viruses are often made a part of living things through ERV's... so I guess it's just "living things/viruses" and "prions")

wa:do
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I cannot answer that question, you need a creationist more knowledgeable than I for that.
Well if you ever find one, send him or her in. Meanwhile, FAIL.


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.
The world you're looking for is not evolutionist, which is a very specific kind of scientist, it is merely "people who accept evolution," or pro-science people. Please present an example of anyone here who supports ToE using a term they cannot define, or a category without criteria. If you cannot, you should retract this spurious accusation.


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.
You don't believe it because you don't believe it? Nice try, but such a statement is completely circular. If you're saying that God created kinds, and a kind consists of every organism with common ancestry, and the evidence is that every organism on earth shares common ancestry, then you are stuck with ToE, unless you have some EVIDENCE that this is not the case. In order to find evidence in favor of your hypothesis, you would first need to clarify what it is, which so far you have been completely unable to do.
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
No. Personally, I believe evolution fits the Biblical creation perfectly.

So do you believe that Evolution has stopped?
Or that Humans are the Ultimate and End?

Please explain how you relate to the fact of Evolution as we will be different and not defined s Humans in one million years from now, as well as we existed for only a fraction of the worlds time, it seems a bit racist/discriminatory towards other animals and rather arrogant to claim such an absurd thing.

Do you have any Basis for your belief/claim?
 

RedOne77

Active Member
The only "kinds" I can figure out are "living things", "viruses/viroids" and "prions". (and even then the lines are blurry as viruses are often made a part of living things through ERV's... so I guess it's just "living things/viruses" and "prions")

I wouldn't say the line of life is blurred for viruses because of ERVs, but because they have genetic material and reproduce; ERVs are more of a product of the properties of viruses than a property itself.

How can you claim that this is how kinds diversify when you do not know what a kind is?

Is this a real question? How can we claim that gravity attracts masses without knowing exactly what gravity is?

Would you agree that speciation takes place in the manner described by ToE? That is, descent with modification plus natural selection?

Yes.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I wouldn't say the line of life is blurred for viruses because of ERVs, but because they have genetic material and reproduce; ERVs are more of a product of the properties of viruses than a property itself.
They only reproduce by hijacking the cellular machinery of cells...
ERV's are viruses that have been incorporated into the geneome of a living being. It happens because of a property of viruses (their ability to insert themselves into genes to lay dormant) however once they are switched off so they can no longer produce viruses they become something new.
What is really cool is when parts of the virus gene is still active and codes for a useful protein in the cell. Essentially being 'domesticated' for lack of a better analogy.

This makes the line between the virus and the host all but invisible.

wa:do
 

Gabethewiking

Active Member
They only reproduce by hijacking the cellular machinery of cells...
ERV's are viruses that have been incorporated into the geneome of a living being. It happens because of a property of viruses (their ability to insert themselves into genes to lay dormant) however once they are switched off so they can no longer produce viruses they become something new.
What is really cool is when parts of the virus gene is still active and codes for a useful protein in the cell. Essentially being 'domesticated' for lack of a better analogy.

This makes the line between the virus and the host all but invisible.

wa:do

Virsuses are generally not defined as obvious "life" because of their properties. But a hypothetical Question, say that a Virus comes into your body and takes over, intergrates/morphs into you, and becomes you, what is the virus then, which no longer exist? Another life, or you?
 
Top