Also, there are other subjects that I'd like thwp to address here such as the fine-tuning problem, or the calculated probability that the universe would form with the exact entropy state needed for life (1/10^10^123. (in the denominator there are more zeros than there are elementary particles in the known universe.))
How much is too much evolution?
Sort:
Perefalcon07 wrote:
Also, since you specifically asked me to comment on this, I will. A Kind is a group of animals that can interbreed with each other and produce offspring in appearance related to the parents. (dog+dog=dog). Sounds very close to the definition of a species So you have the dog kind, the cat kind, the fish kind, the bird kind. So, what I am concerned about from a biblical or theistic perspective is that schools teach that a dog can become a cat (to simplify terms). No one teaches that, but yes, I understand the gist of what you're getting at The word Kind used to mean the same as the word species, That's true. Species is a Latin term that essentially means 'kind' that Linnaeus actually got his inspiration for from the Bible the definition switched out from under them to become more specific over time. Right, most YECs now recognize that a Genesis 'kind' and 'species' are not the same thing, and that a Genesis 'kind' would have to be a higher taxonomic category. But I have yet to seen where YECs actually draw the line and on what basis they do so The church started to look ignorant when it said a Species stayed the same when they were really referring to a Kind. True, and the further difficulty is that 'kind' is not a recognized scientific term, and is still poorly defined by YECs. You're actually one of the few who has tried to define it, so thank you when you talk about Interkindal ( a word I just made up) change, I shake my head because biblically, that is wrong, How is that wrong biblically? I must fight fire with fire. Since you do not believe the Bible as I do, How do our beliefs about the Bible differ? I must argue with the same media you are, Science. And so I say, to give me any scientific (we can see it happening in from of our eyes) proof of a kind changing into another because that is what's needed to make evolution happen. It's still unclear to me: (1) What is the definition of a Genesis 'kind'? For example, the definition you provided above may apply to some animals but not to others. For example, you would probably say 'frogs' constitute a 'kind', yet there are thousands of different species of frogs and these different species do not interbreed with each other. So it seems to me that the 'interbreed and have offspring' part of the definition you supplied above doesn't quite capture the essence of what a 'kind' is.
***It seems--and correct me if I'm wrong--that 'kinds' are distinguished on the basis of appearance. That is, if the morphological differences seem to be too great--like the difference between cats and dogs--then they are separate kinds like you noted, but...
(2) Where precisely do you draw the line? Here I'm not talking about obvious examples on the extremes. For example, you would no doubt say a whale and a tree are different kinds, but what about dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes? Together do they constitute a single 'kind' or four different kinds? To give some more examples, are cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs, saber toothed tigers, etc. part of the same 'kind' or are they separate kinds? Do elephants and wooly mammoths belong to the same kind or different kinds? How about squirrels and chipmunks? How about bacteria? Metabolically, bacteria are actually more diverse than the plant and animal kingdoms put together. Are all bacteria lumped into a single 'kind' even though they exhibit a greater range of diversity than plants and animals? I think things get even tougher with the plant kindgom.
***My main point: What I'm getting at--and again correct me if I'm wrong--is that it seems to me that YECs speak about different 'kinds' in very general terms, but when we really get down to details and specifics YECs don't seem to actually know where to draw the line when we come to more ambiguous cases like the examples I give above.
***It all seems very subjective and arbitrary to me. YECs say they reject large-scale changes from one 'kind' to another, but don't seem to actually know where to draw the line. How large of a change does it have to be? And how do we quantify it so it's not subjective?
The evaluation of a gorilla to a human. Ultimately, it is all just speculation. It is disserving for me to see it taught as fact. I say this most respectfully and lovingly possible.
Pere
Regarding the humans and apes example you raise, there is a separate thread on that which gives evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/what-would-you-conclude-ervs-human-chimpanzee-common-ancestry#comment-49114668
It's still unclear to me: (1) What is the definition of a Genesis 'kind'? For example, the definition you provided above may apply to some animals but not to others. For example, you would probably say 'frogs' constitute a 'kind', yet there are thousands of different species of frogs and these different species do not interbreed with each other. So it seems to me that the 'interbreed and have offspring' part of the definition you supplied above doesn't quite capture the essence of what a 'kind' is. *If those frogs were to breed then would the result be a frog?
Yes, so they are a Kind
Where precisely do you draw the line? Here I'm not talking about obvious examples on the extremes. For example, you would no doubt say a whale and a tree are different kinds, but what about dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes? Together do they constitute a single 'kind' or four different kinds? To give some more examples, are cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs, saber toothed tigers, etc. part of the same 'kind' or are they separate kinds? Do elephants and wooly mammoths belong to the same kind or different kinds? How about squirrels and chipmunks? How about bacteria? Metabolically, bacteria are actually more diverse than the plant and animal kingdoms put together. Are all bacteria lumped into a single 'kind' even though they exhibit a greater range of diversity than plants and animals? I think things get even tougher with the plant kindgom.
Tigers, lions, etc. as you mentioned are the feline kind
Foxes, domesticated dogs, coyotes, etc. are the dog kind
Any animal that looks anything like its parents is considered the same Kind as it
Perefalcon07 wrote:
Also, there are other subjects that I'd like thwp to address here such as the fine-tuning problem, or the calculated probability that the universe would form with the exact entropy state needed for life (1/10^10^123. (in the denominator there are more zeros than there are elementary particles in the known universe.))
Sure. What specifically did you want me to address about those topics?
Bacteria are considered a Kind, because if they breed they will still be bacteria they will not become a feline, for example
"When you talk about Interkindal ( a word I just made up) change, I shake my head because biblically, that is wrong, How is that wrong biblically?"
It is wrong biblically because the bible shows the creation of the Different Kinds of animals that we see today, so they couldn't have changed since then
May 17, 2021
0
#130
Now where in genetics would a cat turn into a dog or a gorilla to a man. The idea is that man and gorilla had a common ancestor long ago. Cats and dogs are not closely related at all.
Perefalcon07 wrote:
Any animal that looks anything like its parents is considered the same Kind as it
How about these examples? Are the differences to great for them to belong to the same kind?
How about these? Would you lump all these different skulls together into one kind or more than one kind?
tbwp10 wrote:
Perefalcon07 wrote:
Also, there are other subjects that I'd like thwp to address here, such as the fine-tuning problem, or the calculated probability that the universe would form with the exact entropy state needed for life (1/10^10^123. (in the denominator there are more zeros than there are elementary particles in the known universe.))
Sure. What specifically did you want me to address about those topics?
How does evolution explain this, and can you disprove the fact that scientists have literally put odds that this universe could support life, and that number is VERY, VERY low? SO how can you explain how naturalism made this universe ex nihilo?
May 17, 2021
0
#133
They are different kinds but are related. The picture with 9 skulls appear to be at least 3 species.
I am not a biologist or a paleontologist (in fact I am 14) and you are using the fossil record. You weren't there to see the animals. However, it is clear, the bottom picture includes 4 different kinds. The top 3, bottom 3, middle left and right, and center. (at least these appear to be the same kind, I wasn't there so I can't make a conclusion.
Perefalcon07 wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
Perefalcon07 wrote:
Also, there are other subjects that I'd like thwp to address here, such as the fine-tuning problem, or the calculated probability that the universe would form with the exact entropy state needed for life (1/10^10^123. (in the denominator there are more zeros than there are elementary particles in the known universe.))
Sure. What specifically did you want me to address about those topics?
How does evolution explain this,
It doesn't. Evolution has nothing to do with that topic. This is actually another good point of clarification. YECs tend to lump biological evolution, the origin of life, the origin of stars and galaxies, the origin of the universe--all these things--under the banner of "Evolution". But these are all actually very different things from each other. Different topics/subjects entirely that should not be confused with each other
and can you disprove the fact that scientists have literally put odds that this universe could support life, and that number is VERY, VERY low? SO how can you explain how naturalism made this universe ex nihilo? I don't. I'm actually a Christian and don't believe in metaphysical naturalism
I don't. I'm actually a Christian and don't believe in metaphysical naturalism
Nice
YECs tend to lump biological evolution, the origin of life, the origin of stars and galaxies, the origin of the universe--all these things--under the banner of "Evolution". But these are all actually very different things from each other. Different topics/subjects entirely should not be confused with each other.
Couldn't you call astronomic change astronomic evolution because the systems are "changing" like different systems in organisms "change"?
May 17, 2021
0
#138
I have a degree in biology and I worked years as a paleobiogeographer. This means I have studied a lot of comparative anatomy.
wsswan wrote:
I have a degree in biology and I worked years as a paleobiogeographer. This means I have studied a lot of comparative anatomy.
Yeah, so you'd know a lot more than me 
Perefalcon07 wrote:
YECs tend to lump biological evolution, the origin of life, the origin of stars and galaxies, the origin of the universe--all these things--under the banner of "Evolution". But these are all actually very different things from each other. Different topics/subjects entirely should not be confused with each other.
Couldn't you call astronomic change astronomic evolution because the systems are "changing" like different systems in organisms "change"?
I don't know, could we? The word 'evolution' is a neutral term that simply means 'change', so sure we could use it to describe ANY change, such as the evolution of fashion. But the evolution of fashion has nothing to do with biological evolution in the same way that stellar evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution.
So sure one could employ the term but ONLY IF they don't make the mistake of lumping them altogether, and ONLY IF they use the word 'evolution' in a neutral way (instead of how YECs speak; they speak of evolution as if it were a dirty word or the epitome of evil)
Also, since you specifically asked me to comment on this, I will. A Kind is a group of animals that can interbreed with each other and produce offspring in appearance related to the parents. (dog+dog=dog). So you have the dog kind, the cat kind, the fish kind, the bird kind. So, what I am concerned about from a biblical or theistic perspective is that schools teach that a dog can become a cat (to simplify terms). The word Kind used to mean the same as the word species, but the definition switched out from under them to become more specific over time. The church started to look ignorant when it said a Species stayed the same when they were really referring to a Kind. So when you talk about Interkindal ( a word I just made up) change, I shake my head because biblically, that is wrong, but I must fight fire with fire. Since you do not believe the Bible as I do, I must argue with the same media you are, Science. And so I say, to give me any scientific (we can see it happening in from of our eyes) proof of a kind changing into another because that is what's needed to make evolution happen. The evaluation of a gorilla to a human. Ultimately, it is all just speculation. It is disserving for me to see it taught as fact. I say this most respectfully and lovingly possible.
Pere