Isn't this cute?

[Wildswanderer]

I am literally responding to the words you type, which you clearly aren't reading, given that I explained this in my very last post.

Maybe we could get back on topic now.



Great, so you accept evolution! I guess we're done then.


Sorry, what?

You don't accept common ancestry? Is that it? How do you explain genetics and nested hierarchies?

From "answers in Genesis"
(So you can understand how creationists define evolution
"Many writers and lecturers who accept the evolutionary point of view sloppily use the term “evolution” to describe any change or development without any qualifying adjective. Such qualification, though, must be included to indicate the degree of change involved. Authors should be more precise when they—using a qualification—inform the reader of any assumed vertical change (when one kind of living thing is changed into another kind, as Darwinian evolutionists believe has happened regularly throughout life’s history, yet has not been shown).

This would be distinguished clearly from horizontal change. The degree of change (i.e., the qualification) involves variability within a kind of organism (such as that caused through artificial breeding and that has come about as a result of processes such as natural selection and mutation). Hence, this horizontal change would be no more than variation within the kind or form of an organism, which biblical creationists accept (God created animals “after their kind” according to Genesis 1). The best qualification—one that gives a more precise definition of “evolution” in the Darwinian “vertical” sense—is molecules to man, i.e., molecules-to-man evolution or some such expression (such as fish-to-philosopher, goo-to-you, etc.)."

 

[SkepticThinker]

From "answers in Genesis"
(So you can understand how creationists define evolution
"Many writers and lecturers who accept the evolutionary point of view sloppily use the term “evolution” to describe any change or development without any qualifying adjective. Such qualification, though, must be included to indicate the degree of change involved. Authors should be more precise when they—using a qualification—inform the reader of any assumed vertical change (when one kind of living thing is changed into another kind, as Darwinian evolutionists believe has happened regularly throughout life’s history, yet has not been shown).

This would be distinguished clearly from horizontal change. The degree of change (i.e., the qualification) involves variability within a kind of organism (such as that caused through artificial breeding and that has come about as a result of processes such as natural selection and mutation). Hence, this horizontal change would be no more than variation within the kind or form of an organism, which biblical creationists accept (God created animals “after their kind” according to Genesis 1). The best qualification—one that gives a more precise definition of “evolution” in the Darwinian “vertical” sense—is molecules to man, i.e., molecules-to-man evolution or some such expression (such as fish-to-philosopher, goo-to-you, etc.)."

Can you explain to me why anybody should care what creationists think evolution is?
I care what it actually is, not what misinformed people think it is.

"Kinds" is a term I hear creationists throw around a lot, but it doesn't have any actual meaning in science and it really has no clear definition when creationists use it, from my experience. And I've asked many, many times for a good definition. I am also aware that some creationists accept what they call "microevolution" but not "macroevolution" which appears to be what you are trying to to point out here. I've seen that a million times too, as creationists erroneously seem to believe that small changes can't add up to larger changes.

"Molecules to man evolution" is just some sort of word salad that doesn't actually mean anything, as far as I can see.



This is not a definition of evolution.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Molecules to man evolution" is just some sort of word salad that doesn't actually mean anything, as far as I can see.

It's pretty self-explanatory. That's what Darwin proposed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you explain to me why anybody sho

So you can quit fighting windmills.

 

[ratiocinator]

Lol, no you assume to know what I believe and respond to that.

You mean like you assume that you know something about science in general and evolution in particular (which you quite obviously don't)...?

From "answers in Genesis"

Which is just the sort of comical nonsense we expect from creationist sites. There is no such distinction between what they call 'horizontal' and 'vertical'. It's not that others are being sloppy, it's that they are desperately trying to draw a definite line where none actually exists.

Lots and lot's of little changes can add up to arbitrarily large ones. If they think there is a limit, then they need to say what mechanism does the limiting. And, of course, they can't. They can't even properly define 'kind' (see here if you can wade through all the irrelevant waffle). They say there is a definite distinction and can't even point to what it is themselves, let alone propose a mechanism.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You mean like you assume that you know something about science in general and evolution in particular (which you quite obviously don't)...?

More unmerited slander. Get lost if you have nothing constructive to say.

 

[Polymath257]

The depends on you your definition of evolution. Sine you have already said more than once the creationists don't believe in species changing, which is false, I don't think you have an idea what creationists really define as evolution.

Well, then please let me know. Let's see how it compares to what scientists mean by evolution.

because, for scientists, evolution is the same as species changing over the course of generations. In particular, when reproductive isolation occurs, you have a new species.

 

[Polymath257]

Well if you're going to argue for something... you should know what you're arguing against perhaps? Especially if you're going to claim that the person arguing against you doesn't know what he's arguing against.

Well, if you use a different definition than the scientists in order to argue against evolution, then you are showing you don't know what you are arguing against.

What do *you* mean by the term 'evolution'?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see you taking it. You and others constantly make claims against creationists that are not accurate representations of what creationists say.

I have read enough creationist literature to know what they say.

They believe that 'kinds' are stable, for example. Yet they never actually define what it means to be a 'kind' in a way that can show two things are or are not of the same kind.

They like to claim that radioactive dating is unreliable, almost always by pointing to aspects of carbon dating, but neglect to note that scientists understand what can make a dating method unreliable and test for such and that carbon dating is not, for good reasons, used for anything over about 50-100,000 years old (depending on the device used to count the atoms).

They like to point to rather trivial things in geology as invalidating the use of strata to determine relative ages and for using other dating techniques for determining absolute ages.

They also like to claim that complexity requires a creator (in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary).

I've also seen arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics that show a complete lack of understanding of that law.

I can give details with references if you really want me to.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, no you assume to know what I believe and respond to that. Show me one creationist site that claims species don't change at all. We can observe species adapting in real time. What most creationists are arguing against is the whole molecules to man hypothesis.

Actually, creationists are quite happy with a LOT of change if the change is in fish (which, for some reason, they think are all one 'kind'). They are less happy about a much smaller amount of change if it is between an australopithecine and modern humans.

So it isn't the 'molecules to man' part that they are bothered by. it is the 'other apes to humans' and, to some extent, the 'biology is chemistry' parts.

And yes, we can see species changing in real time. That *is* evolution.

Creationists like to make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, but are never quite able to clearly state what the difference is. They like to claim there are boundaries to how much change can happen through adaptation, but never state what produces those boundaries or what the mechanisms might be for them. Nor, for that matter, do they give any evidence for there being such boundaries.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Actually, creationists are quite happy with a LOT of change if the change is in fish

Not only fish.
For example:
"The whole range of canids, from domesticated dogs to wolves to jackals and beyond, constitutes the diversified members of the original “dog” kind."

Again ( and I don't care if you all like Answers in Genesis or not, I'm just using one of the most well known creationists site. )

"For years, creationists have emphasized a “kinds” model of biology (and thereby established the field of baraminology). This model starts with the Bible’s description of God creating unique “kinds” of plants and animals (and man as distinct from any animal kind), then applies what we know about natural selection and various genetic processes to understand the biological diversity we observe today. Rather than all creatures descending from the same original organism—a “tree” model of life—all creatures descend from the progenitors of their kind—an “orchard” model. Thus, the whole range of canids, from domesticated dogs to wolves to jackals and beyond, constitutes the diversified members of the original “dog” kind. And the confusion over the taxonomic placement of the Egyptian jackal reminds us of this biological reality."


Now perhaps you can understand that creationists are not claiming that species don't change.

 

[YoursTrue]

His rejection of evolution.

Just reviewing a few posts now, there is no objective 'observable' biologic evidence of evolution. If there were, it would be a different story. To go over it again -- creation or no creation, evolution or no evolution, beetles remain beetles so far, humans remain humans so far, and viruses remain viruses so far.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just reviewing a few posts now, there is no objective 'observable' biologic evidence of evolution. If there were, it would be a different story. To go over it again -- creation or no creation, evolution or no evolution, beetles remain beetles so far, humans remain humans so far, and viruses remain viruses so far.

You can say it all you want, but that won't make it anymore true now than when you first said it.

Of course, you are not refuting the theory with this misguided and erroneous claim of no evidence. You are supporting your straw man version of the theory that no scientists claims or supports. You have demonstrated that misinformation cannot be supported. Congratulations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not only fish.
For example:
"The whole range of canids, from domesticated dogs to wolves to jackals and beyond, constitutes the diversified members of the original “dog” kind."

Again ( and I don't care if you all like Answers in Genesis or not, I'm just using one of the most well known creationists site. )

"For years, creationists have emphasized a “kinds” model of biology (and thereby established the field of baraminology). This model starts with the Bible’s description of God creating unique “kinds” of plants and animals (and man as distinct from any animal kind), then applies what we know about natural selection and various genetic processes to understand the biological diversity we observe today. Rather than all creatures descending from the same original organism—a “tree” model of life—all creatures descend from the progenitors of their kind—an “orchard” model. Thus, the whole range of canids, from domesticated dogs to wolves to jackals and beyond, constitutes the diversified members of the original “dog” kind. And the confusion over the taxonomic placement of the Egyptian jackal reminds us of this biological reality."


Now perhaps you can understand that creationists are not claiming that species don't change.

As the evidence has mounted over the years, it became clear to some creationists that denial of reality revealed how foolish their anti-science position really is. That and they could not hide the fact of the creationist first principle of the denial of reality could not stand in the face of those facts. But rather than give credit to scientists and science, they had to concoct their own version of an explanation that has no real value since kind has no scientific meaning and even you guys cannot provide a stable, logical definition for it. There are about 14 genera of canines, so clearly kind does not mean species. Oh, I know. Let's declare it describes a family-level taxon. That'll fix things.

Oh crap. A lot of these families have members that could pass for the same kind. We're gonna have to move it up to the order level. No better move it to class. How about phylum? Then there will be fewer kinds and we can keep our shoes on. You know guys. Kind isn't really useful at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More unmerited slander. Get lost if you have nothing constructive to say.

Keeping it civil is a dynamic and would facilitate discussion. I think we all should consider turning the other cheek or not casting the first stone. I have confidence that you can meet that standard.

 

[Polymath257]

Not only fish.
For example:
"The whole range of canids, from domesticated dogs to wolves to jackals and beyond, constitutes the diversified members of the original “dog” kind."

Do you even realize how ridiculous it is to consider all fish one 'kind'?

Or, are all sharks a 'kind'? All chichlids another? Exactly how do you figure out the boundaries of a 'kind'?

There is more variation in 'fish' than there is in all the mammals.

Again ( and I don't care if you all like Answers in Genesis or not, I'm just using one of the most well known creationists site. )

"For years, creationists have emphasized a “kinds” model of biology (and thereby established the field of baraminology). This model starts with the Bible’s description of God creating unique “kinds” of plants and animals (and man as distinct from any animal kind), then applies what we know about natural selection and various genetic processes to understand the biological diversity we observe today. Rather than all creatures descending from the same original organism—a “tree” model of life—all creatures descend from the progenitors of their kind—an “orchard” model. Thus, the whole range of canids, from domesticated dogs to wolves to jackals and beyond, constitutes the diversified members of the original “dog” kind. And the confusion over the taxonomic placement of the Egyptian jackal reminds us of this biological reality."


Now perhaps you can understand that creationists are not claiming that species don't change.

And yet, the differences between humans and other apes is small enough we would be in any 'ape kind'.

And, at no point is it explained why there cannot be movement out of the 'kinds'. For example, from dinosaurs to modern birds. We have actual dinosaur fossils with feathers. Are they the same 'kind' or not? Are all sauropods the same 'kind'? And how do species like Dimetrodon fit in?

Are all birds a 'kind'? or are ostriches, emus, and other ratites a kind?

The strange thing is that creationists going with 'kinds' allow for much more evolution and faster evolution than standard science *without* giving mechanisms or explaining why the change is limited.

 

[Polymath257]

The 'orchard' model of evolution looks good at first. But, if you start including fossil species, it becomes less and less tenable.

For example, we can consider the 'canine kind' and the 'feline kind' (although, are house cats and lions in the same kind or not?), not to mention the 'bear kind'. Or do bears go under the 'dog' kind? They have a number of similarities, including the structure of the skull and inner ear. how relevant are those similarities?

But, if we go back 60 million years, there are no canines, felines, or ursids. There were *other* species at that time, but none of the mammals from that time period overlap with those alive now. Were they all different 'kinds'? If so, where did the modern kinds come from? if not, which kinds were those ancient species?

What creationists fail to deal with is that there were no canines 60 million years ago. None. There were no felids then either. So those 'kinds' had to come from somewhere. When did the trees in the orchard get planted?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's pretty self-explanatory. That's what Darwin proposed.

It's pretty meaningless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you can quit fighting windmills.

So, you're not actually interested in discussion and learning, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just reviewing a few posts now, there is no objective 'observable' biologic evidence of evolution. If there were, it would be a different story. To go over it again -- creation or no creation, evolution or no evolution, beetles remain beetles so far, humans remain humans so far, and viruses remain viruses so far.

There are mountains of evidence, more so than for even gravity or germ theory. Hence the reason it's the theory the scientific community uses to explain the diversity of life on earth. Because it works.

You don't understand it. That is very clear. And it doesn't even appear that you want to understand it. You just keep repeating things like this over and over, which is a pretty good giveaway as to your motives here.