Species? Kinds? Species? Something?

[YoursTrue]

I think the difference is, on the one hand YECs are using the grey areas of 'species' (or kinds as Ham calls them) to discredit evolution.
Whereas scientists find it an exciting anomaly that needs further explanation and in no way affects the credibility of evolution

I don't know what a YEC believes, but I'm wondering about evolution. I do, for the record, believe in creation of life by a superior intelligent power. The point that comes to mind is that so far no "Common Ancestor" has been shown (not speaking of conjecture now) to be the common denominator or biological reference point between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanees, and, of course, humans.

 

[Altfish]

I don't know what a YEC believes, but I'm wondering about evolution. I do, for the record, believe in creation of life by a superior intelligent power. The point that comes to mind is that so far no "Common Ancestor" has been shown (not speaking of conjecture now) to be the common denominator or biological reference point between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanees, and, of course, humans.

Firstly, who created your creator?
The common ancestor is the first living cell

 

[Twilight Hue]

The term "species" has its problems. It is more precise than "kind" which can mean anything the YEC using it wants to. But "species" has different definitions in different branches of biology and not all biologists use it consistently.
That is not because biologists are dumb or lazy but because the concept of distinguishing between species is very complex. The most used criterion in evolutionary biology, the ability to interbreed, is not applicable to single celled life and even in animals it breaks down when looking at ring species.
(Lets assume populations with slightly different characteristics that makes them distinguishable by optics alone. Subgroup A and B can interbreed and have viable offspring 80% of the time. The same goes for B and C, C and D, D and E and E and F. A can have viable offspring with C 60% of the time, with 40%, with E 20%
but A and F can't interbreed any more.
Now we have a situation where any paring of the subgroups results in them being of the same species only A and F are of different species.
This breaks logic itself as the law of identity doesn't apply here.)
In conclusion, we shouldn't mock YEC for their inability to define "kind" when we have a problem with "species" ourselves.

The species itself never changes. That's what makes tracing possible and the evolutionary tree has to do with branching rather than a whole separate unrelated group like 'kinds'.

There are no such things as this 'kinds' nonsense. There are species though, and all share common ancestors which can be traced throughout the genome.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Firstly, who created your creator?
The common ancestor is the first living cell

According to YEC only cells can produce other cells.

So much for YEC logic.

 

[ratiocinator]

The point that comes to mind is that so far no "Common Ancestor" has been shown (not speaking of conjecture now) to be the common denominator or biological reference point between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanees, and, of course, humans.

What do you even mean by being 'shown'? What do you think needs showing? A living example? A particular fossil? Both would show a profound misunderstanding.

There is, of course, plentiful evidence that we share a common ancestor, not least from genetics. Here's some of it: Genesis and the Genome (pdf).

 

[epronovost]

Firstly, who created your creator?
The common ancestor is the first living cell

Well technically there is common ancestors to all primates that appeared about 10 million years ago and then they further evolved into all primates group we know today including our own with the first hominid appearing around 2 million years ago and the our specific species around 300 000 years ago and our last cousin disappeared around 35 000 years ago.

 

[Altfish]

According to YEC only cells can produce other cells.

So much for YEC logic.

I don't do YEC logic ... thankyou

 

[YoursTrue]

Firstly, who created your creator?
The common ancestor is the first living cell

To be honest so as to answer your question, the Creator is unfathomable in understanding that He always is. We (humans) have a beginning and an end at the present time, and that can be another subject. But I'm wondering about species as discussed pertaining to evolution. I understand your point about beginning of things in nature, or natural cosmic forces, but frankly beyond speculation I don't see proof of that, although it may be a popular concept. I mean evolution teaches that it all started in what is spoken of from a "soupy mass," by so called natural forces. Also, I'd like to mention that there is what is called the UCA (or Unknown Common Ancestor) of humans and gorillas, bonobos, and so forth.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you even mean by being 'shown'? What do you think needs showing? A living example? A particular fossil? Both would show a profound misunderstanding.

There is, of course, plentiful evidence that we share a common ancestor, not least from genetics. Here's some of it: Genesis and the Genome (pdf).

The question has come up about a supposed common ancestor of humans, gorillas and the like.

 

[ratiocinator]

The question has come up about a supposed common ancestor of humans, gorillas and the like.

What question?

 

[Altfish]

To be honest so as to answer your question, the Creator is unfathomable in understanding that He always is. We (humans) have a beginning and an end at the present time, and that can be another subject. But I'm wondering about species as discussed pertaining to evolution. I understand your point about beginning of things in nature, or natural cosmic forces, but frankly beyond speculation I don't see proof of that, although it may be a popular concept. I mean evolution teaches that it all started in what is spoken of from a "soupy mass," by so called natural forces. Also, I'd like to mention that there is what is called the UCA (or Unknown Common Ancestor) of humans and gorillas, bonobos, and so forth.

AKA Special pleading.

ie You must obey the rules but my god gets a pass.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IThe point that comes to mind is that so far no "Common Ancestor" has been shown (not speaking of conjecture now) to be the common denominator or biological reference point between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanees, and, of course, humans.

So?

Suppose you come from an orphanage.
A DNA test shows that another person at another orphanage is your distant cousin.
Since both of your parents are unknown, it is impossible to find out who your shared great, great, great, great grandfather was.

Does that mean that that person didn't exist?
Does that mean that you two can't be related? Does it mean you aren't cousins?

Or does it rather only mean that who your shared ancestor was is unknown, while it's still being pretty much factually established that you actually shared this ancestor??

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be honest so as to answer your question, the Creator is unfathomable in understanding that He always is. We (humans) have a beginning and an end at the present time, and that can be another subject. But I'm wondering about species as discussed pertaining to evolution. I understand your point about beginning of things in nature, or natural cosmic forces, but frankly beyond speculation I don't see proof of that, although it may be a popular concept. I mean evolution teaches that it all started in what is spoken of from a "soupy mass," by so called natural forces. Also, I'd like to mention that there is what is called the UCA (or Unknown Common Ancestor) of humans and gorillas, bonobos, and so forth.

It seems to me that your claim that "the Creator is unfathomable in understanding that He always is," is a claim that is "beyond speculation" and lacking in proof. Yet, you freely and wholeheartedly believe it, while simultaneously rejecting a scientific theory that is drowning in evidence.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[YoursTrue]

So?

Suppose you come from an orphanage.
A DNA test shows that another person at another orphanage is your distant cousin.
Since both of your parents are unknown, it is impossible to find out who your shared great, great, great, great grandfather was.

Does that mean that that person didn't exist?
Does that mean that you two can't be related? Does it mean you aren't cousins?

Or does it rather only mean that who your shared ancestor was is unknown, while it's still being pretty much factually established that you actually shared this ancestor??

Here's the problem with that insofar as I see the theory of evolution: humans can be said to interbreed, no matter how far apart the generations are. Dogs and cows cannot. OK, gorillas and humans cannot interbreed The theory is that the intermediary breeders just haven't been found yet, right?` The "transitional" breeders with proof There's proof that gorillas mate with gorillas, but cannot with humans

 

[YoursTrue]

It seems to me that your claim that "the Creator is unfathomable in understanding that He always is," is a claim that is "beyond speculation" and lacking in proof. Yet, you freely and wholeheartedly believe it, while simultaneously rejecting a scientific theory that is drowning in evidence.

How do you reconcile this?

I believe it because of what I have learned from the Bible, and because as I learn about prophecy as well as history, I have come to realize that life is a gift and that it will get better someday Why do I believe that? Yes, it's because I have faith in what God's word says (the Bible). And now I look at (the theory of) evolution in a different light than I used to. I surely can't explain everything. God is God and I am not. But when I size things up, I see that things are greater than our mere comprehension of what we think about 'how' it all came about and how trees, birds, planets, etc., came about. It's unfathomable, including the theory of evolution when -- you look at the evidence. So part of it is based on faith, and part of it is based on knowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's the problem with that insofar as I see the theory of evolution:

You have already shown in just about every post you make on the topic of evolution that "as you see evolution", is nothing but a gigantic strawman rooted in deep ignorance. And plenty of people, including myself, have pointed this out to you on many occasions.

Yet you ignore it every time and simply stick to your strawmen and misunderstandings. This willful ignorance is 100% your responsibility.

humans can be said to interbreed, no matter how far apart the generations are.

Which is 100% irrelevant to what I presented you with.
I talked about DNA tests demonstrating shared ancestry. This is not limited to single species.
The exact same principle is used to determine relationships cross species as is being used within a single species. It makes no difference at all. DNA is DNA.

Dogs and cows cannot. OK, gorillas and humans cannot interbreed

Irrelevant.
Gorillas a humans, as well as dogs and cows, all share ancestry.
This is a genetic fact. We can determine this genetically in the exact same way as we can determine that your brother is your biological brother.

These are genetic facts. They are not open to "interpretation".
It is what it is. Regardless of your denial and willful ignorance.

The theory is that the intermediary breeders just haven't been found yet, right?`

The theory is concerned with the processes by which evolution occurs.
It is concerned with the processes that explain the facts.

And that species share ancestry is a genetic fact.
The theory explains how species split into new subspecies.
That species DO split into new subspecies, is a fact.
That species share ancestors, is a fact.

See? This is that willful ignorance I was talking about.
You have been informed on this plenty of times before. And yet here you are again, repeating the same ignorant false statements.

The "transitional" breeders with proof There's proof that gorillas mate with gorillas, but cannot with humans

Irrelevant.
The DNA of gorilla's and humans prove that both species share ancestors.
In the exact same way that your DNA and that of your distant cousin prove that you share ancestors.

You can continue being in denial and sticking your head in the sand. But the facts won't go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe it because of what I have learned from the Bible, and because as I learn about prophecy as well as history, I have come to realize that life is a gift and that it will get better someday Why do I believe that? Yes, it's because I have faith in what God's word says (the Bible). And now I look at (the theory of) evolution in a different light than I used to. I surely can't explain everything. God is God and I am not. But when I size things up, I see that things are greater than our mere comprehension of what we think about 'how' it all came about and how trees, birds, planets, etc., came about. It's unfathomable, including the theory of evolution when -- you look at the evidence. So part of it is based on faith, and part of it is based on knowledge.

Textbook example of blatant argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity.


ie: "my evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's the problem with that insofar as I see the theory of evolution: humans can be said to interbreed, no matter how far apart the generations are. Dogs and cows cannot. OK, gorillas and humans cannot interbreed The theory is that the intermediary breeders just haven't been found yet, right?` The "transitional" breeders with proof There's proof that gorillas mate with gorillas, but cannot with humans

You know what would be so great?
If you'd answer the questions instead of sidestepping them.

Interbreeding dogs and cows (or anything) has absolutely nothing to do with the questions you were asked.

 

[sayak83]

Statement defining evolution, comments from experts here on evolution, please. See what you think of the following statement since I'm looking up concept of evolution. So, first off,

"What is evolution?
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time."

Let's start there. To recap, the theory of evolution considers all species to be related and gradually change over time. All species.
What is evolution?.

No all species certainly do not have to change. A species in a stable fitness maxima will not change even in a billion years unless the environment causes the fitness peak to change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe it because of what I have learned from the Bible, and because as I learn about prophecy as well as history, I have come to realize that life is a gift and that it will get better someday Why do I believe that? Yes, it's because I have faith in what God's word says (the Bible). And now I look at (the theory of) evolution in a different light than I used to. I surely can't explain everything. God is God and I am not. But when I size things up, I see that things are greater than our mere comprehension of what we think about 'how' it all came about and how trees, birds, planets, etc., came about. It's unfathomable, including the theory of evolution when -- you look at the evidence. So part of it is based on faith, and part of it is based on knowledge.

So what you're telling me is that you just have faith in the Bible that it's all true, and that's why you believe it. Why do you have this faith? How is this faith useful? Couldn't a person just believe anything on faith?

The more important question here that you didn't answer is, why do you reject something that has mountains of evidence backing it up (evolution), while fully and without question accept some other explanation (that actually doesn't have any explanatory power) based on faith alone, that is completely lacking in any actual evidence? It doesn't make sense to me.