Problem is that I don't know for sure because I wasn't there, this is just a skull and there is more to a Kind than its skulls. Using your reasoning then we could say that the sky is black because subjectively it is (it's just space, the blue is an illusion).
How much is too much evolution?
Sort:
Perefalcon07 wrote:
Problem is that I don't know for sure because I wasn't there, this is just a skull and there is more to a Kind than its skulls. Very true. You think like a scientist Using your reasoning then we could say that the sky is black because subjectively it is (it's just space, the blue is an illusion).
No I'm definitely not saying it's an illusion. I'm just saying that YECs don't actually know 'How much evolution is too much evolution'. They have no objective criteria or quantitative measure to distinguish between 'kinds'. Now if YECs said something like, 'two animals are different 'kinds' if they are 25% or more different in appearance,' then that would be something measurable and a more objective standard.
Now it would still be arbitrary unless it could be shown that no evolution was possible beyond this.
I know it may seem like I'm getting nit-picky, but this is actually a very, very big problem for YECs. It is a big problem because they don't actually know what they believe. Sure, they make general claims about rejecting large-scale changes, but they can't actually tell you what's the supposed maximum amount of change AND how they know that no further evolution can occur beyond this point.
***This is because YECs are approaching the issue from a lack of understanding. They look at a change, and if in their subjective opinion it 'seems' 'too big'---whatever that means--then they simply assume evolution can go no further. But how they know this? Short answer: they don't actually know. They assume. YECs assume for example that the addition of new bones and muscles to a fish fin to make it look more like a land animal limb is 'too great' a change and impossible to occur by evolution. But how do they know this? Did they do experiments that proved evolution can go no further? Do they actually know what genetic changes it would take to add new bones and muscles to a fin? Not that I see. So how can YECs emphatically state that something's impossible--such as an impossible 'jump'---if they don't actually know how far of a jump it even is?
This is why such things are a big problem for YECs.
Take this example again which you recognize as more than one kind. But how do you know evolution can go no further and produce all these 'kinds'?
YECs have done no experiments to support their claims
I know this because there is no evidence of evolution happening today. Or yesterday. Btw it is not that hard to see if two animals are the same kind. If you really want a number I'd say that if the two animals have different core body shapes (this applies to human's too), different spacing of eyes, walk in a different orientation in their adult life, are relatively different in size, have different sizes of reproductive organs across the similar sexes, then they are different. A number would be about 30%. Here is a link that is very helpful in showing what a Kind is:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/
They actually have done many experiments:
https://creationresearch.net/exciting-research/
I actually find it a bit insulting that you say we have a "lack of understanding." You haven't asked these YECs what change is too big, so you do not know if our opinions differ. I think that most YECs would reject the change any bigger than a loss of 60-80% of visible characteristics that I described above. I know I would.
In the most loving and respectful way possible, Pere
P.S I am signing off. I don't mean to be rude but this is taking too much time out of my day. I am currently writing this in my 7th period class.
"YECs have done no experiments to support their claims"
*By contrast, you seem to be the positive exception to the rule. Most people jump to conclusions on the basis of limited information. But you had the good sense to go back and qualify your statements, saying that it seemed like the skulls represented more than one kind, but that you weren't sure because you needed more information before drawing an emphatic, hard-line conclusion. And you're only 14??? Wow!! Very impressive. I've taught science to students from all ages and rare indeed is the person who shows such good reasoning, much less a person of your age.
Again, this is exactly what a scientist does. There's this YEC myth going around that scientists simply 'assume' evolution happened without providing evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's actually the complete opposite. Scientists do what you did: they qualify their conclusions and they qualify like crazy ('it seems,' 'the data suggest', 'under different circumstances we might get different results,' 'our conclusions are only valid for a narrow set of conditions,' etc., etc., etc.).
Why??? Because their careers and professional reputations are at stake. If they make a claim that further research later shows to be in error they lose credibility (or possibly even worse, they lose funding!).
So well done! I am seriously very impressed (I don't do fake compliments 
). You passed the test and did exactly what you were supposed to do (and you're the first one I've seen do it so far on this thread!): you reasoned like a scientist by not taking the evidence farther than it can go. The skulls seem like they represent more than one 'kind' but you rightly qualified that you weren't certain without more information. Bravo!
And it's a good thing you did too! Because when we add a little more information into the mix we find that our conclusions change.
Thus, with the first set of skulls, the skulls are from the same species. But this species show large variation between males and females. The skull on the left is that of a male gorilla while the skull on the right is that of a female gorilla.
Similalry, all the skulls below belong to the same species. All the skulls below are the skulls of different dogs.
*Take home point: Large-scale changes can occur *within* 'kinds' as well. This is why YECs need objective criteria for distinguishing between 'kinds' and why they need to approach from a position of knowledge, instead of basing things on assumptions, opinions, and subjective guesswork.
***There's nothing wrong with not knowing. But there's a great deal wrong with not knowing and still pretending to know. If more YECs were like you, then YECs would have greater respect because you don't take the evidence further than it can go.
***The truth is most YECs reject large-scale changes between 'kinds' but don't really know what that means--they haven't thought through and sorted it out. Most YECs just arbitrarily guess about what feels or seems like too much evolution, but without actually knowing what types of genetic changes would be needed to produce said changes and without doing any experiments to demonstrate that evolution can go no further.
The scientifically proper and honest way to go when faced with such a situation is simply to acknowledge 'I don't know' or 'I think but I'm not certain. I don't have enough information,' as you have done. Again, bravo!
Perefalcon07 wrote:
I know this because there is no evidence of evolution happening today. Or yesterday. There's actually a staggering amount of evidence. We have more evidence for evolution now than we've ever had before, including evidence of large scale genomic restructuring and instantaneous speciation we've observed in real time. In addition, it is now well documented that 'large-scale' changes in morphology can result from minor, 'small-scale' genetic tinkering under biologic control Btw it is not that hard to see if two animals are the same kind. If you really want a number I'd say that if the two animals have different core body shapes (this applies to human's too), different spacing of eyes, walk in a different orientation in their adult life, are relatively different in size, have different sizes of reproductive organs across the similar sexes, then they are different. But again this begs the question of what exactly we mean by 'different' and how 'different' they have to be A number would be about 30%. That's a start, but this is still an arbitrary guess, right? What evidence can you present that no further evolution is possible beyond a 30% difference? Here is a link that is very helpful in showing what a Kind is:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/
This article actually covers a lot of the ground that we already went over. It is good to see acknowledgment that the origin of species (speciation) is a scientific fact. Beyond this, though, the article adds nothing to the discussion, but supports my points about the arbitrariness and subjectivity of distinguishing 'kinds.'
They actually have done many experiments: I never said YECs hadn't (although, the examples at the link are not professional peer reviewed by the scientific community). My reference was to specific type of experiments.
https://creationresearch.net/exciting-research/
I actually find it a bit insulting that you say we have a "lack of understanding." Free advice: never get insulted by something that was never said. Go back and read closely. I didn't say YECs 'lack of understanding' period as a pervasive, all-encompassing statement. I said they are approaching this specific issue from a lack of understanding. That's not an insult. That's a simple fact. YECs say such and such a large-scale change can't happen, but they never prove it. They assume it. If they could cite experimental evidence that shows there's a limit to evolution, then that would be working from a position of knowledge/understanding. But they don't do that. You haven't asked these YECs what change is too big, Actually I have so you do not know if our opinions differ. Actually I do I think that most YECs would reject the change any bigger than a loss of 60-80% of visible characteristics that I described above. I know I would. Right, and that is a useful start, but again the problem is that it's still arbitrary. YECs haven't demonstrated that no further evolution can happen to create more than a 60-80% difference. It's just a guess. It's just subjective opinion. That's what I mean by saying they are approaching the issue from a lack of understanding/knowledge. They don't actually know that further evolution can't occur. They haven't demonstrated that.
In the most loving and respectful way possible, Pere
P.S I am signing off. I don't mean to be rude but this is taking too much time out of my day. I am currently writing this in my 7th period class.
On a side note, it's interesting how people can too easily read between the lines and add things in the text that aren't there. For example, a lot of people think Genesis teaches that God killed animals to provide garments for Adam and Eve. But Genesis doesn't actually say that. That's an assumption read into the text.
Similarly, it's worth noting that Genesis says different plants and animals were created according to different kinds. But does Genesis say that these kinds couldn't have changed and evolved into new varieties and kinds of organisms subsequent to their creation? No, Genesis doesn't actually say that. That's a subtle assumption people add in their reading.
May 17, 2021
0
#147
I think the very first problem to be overcome in any discussion with a YEC is that of the available timescale for evolution to occur?
Someone who believes 'as fact' that the Earth is less than (say) 10,000 years old is only being consistent in rejecting any modern theory of evolution because it couldn't possibly explain the variety of lifeforms on our planet. First it's necessary to convince them that the Earth is several billions of years old.
stephen_33 wrote:
I think the very first problem to be overcome in any discussion with a YEC is that of the available timescale for evolution to occur?
Someone who believes 'as fact' that the Earth is less than (say) 10,000 years old is only being consistent in rejecting any modern theory of evolution because it couldn't possibly explain the variety of lifeforms on our planet. First it's necessary to convince them that the Earth is several billions of years old.
The issue I'm addressing here has less to do with convincing, and more to do with clarifying YEC beliefs. YECs recite the mantra 'I accept small scale limited evolution within 'kinds', but reject large-scale changes between 'kinds', without having a clear understanding of what precisely is a 'kind', how is it objectively identified, and how does one know that further evolution is impossible beyond this point.
The purpose of the OP is to show that YECs are unclear about their own beliefs, and encourage them to clarify what exactly is this 'kind' of which they speak, how much is too much evolution (where exactly does one draw the line between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' evolution), and on what empirical basis does one do so?
Here the YEC is pretty much in the dark. Genesis 1 speaks of different 'kinds' but without delineating what constitutes a 'kind'. And without an empirical basis or a biblical basis the YEC is largely left to guesswork and subjective opinions as to what 'seems' like too great of a change without knowing what such a large change would require genetically and without demonstrating that no further evolution can occur beyond it.
But neither science nor the Bible identifies where this supposed barrier to evolution is located ('How much is too much evolution?'). It is a fuzzy, undefined nebulous belief that is just hanging out there and supported by nothing--neither science nor religion.
This is a major problem in the YEC position that is too often glossed over, which YECs need to clarify their position on via objective, measurable criteria.
May 17, 2021
0
#149
tbwp10 wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
I think the very first problem to be overcome in any discussion with a YEC is that of the available timescale for evolution to occur?
Someone who believes 'as fact' that the Earth is less than (say) 10,000 years old is only being consistent in rejecting any modern theory of evolution because it couldn't possibly explain the variety of lifeforms on our planet. First it's necessary to convince them that the Earth is several billions of years old.
The issue I'm addressing here has less to do with convincing, and more to do with clarifying YEC beliefs. YECs recite the mantra 'I accept small scale limited evolution within 'kinds', but reject large-scale changes between 'kinds', without having a clear understanding of what precisely is a 'kind', how is it objectively identified, and how does one know that further evolution is impossible beyond this point.
The purpose of the OP is to show that YECs are unclear about their own beliefs, and encourage them to clarify what exactly is this 'kind' of which they speak, how much is too much evolution (where exactly does one draw the line between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' evolution), and on what empirical basis does one do so?
Here the YEC is pretty much in the dark. Genesis 1 speaks of different 'kinds' but without delineating what constitutes a 'kind'. And without an empirical basis or a biblical basis the YEC is largely left to guesswork and subjective opinions as to what 'seems' like too great of a change without knowing what such a large change would require genetically and without demonstrating that no further evolution can occur beyond it.
But neither science nor the Bible identifies where this supposed barrier to evolution is located ('How much is too much evolution?'). It is a fuzzy, undefined nebulous belief that is just hanging out there and supported by nothing--neither science nor religion.
This is a major problem in the YEC position that is too often glossed over, which YECs need to clarify their position on via objective, measurable criteria.
It's only fuzzy because it is not specifically spelled out how a kind is defined. What is clear however that they were created on mass, plants, sea creatures, birds, livestock, creepy things, beasts after their own kinds then after they were created were told to multiply. Creation by the Word of God, 'and God said' numerous times.
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
I think the very first problem to be overcome in any discussion with a YEC is that of the available timescale for evolution to occur?
Someone who believes 'as fact' that the Earth is less than (say) 10,000 years old is only being consistent in rejecting any modern theory of evolution because it couldn't possibly explain the variety of lifeforms on our planet. First it's necessary to convince them that the Earth is several billions of years old.
The issue I'm addressing here has less to do with convincing, and more to do with clarifying YEC beliefs. YECs recite the mantra 'I accept small scale limited evolution within 'kinds', but reject large-scale changes between 'kinds', without having a clear understanding of what precisely is a 'kind', how is it objectively identified, and how does one know that further evolution is impossible beyond this point.
The purpose of the OP is to show that YECs are unclear about their own beliefs, and encourage them to clarify what exactly is this 'kind' of which they speak, how much is too much evolution (where exactly does one draw the line between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' evolution), and on what empirical basis does one do so?
Here the YEC is pretty much in the dark. Genesis 1 speaks of different 'kinds' but without delineating what constitutes a 'kind'. And without an empirical basis or a biblical basis the YEC is largely left to guesswork and subjective opinions as to what 'seems' like too great of a change without knowing what such a large change would require genetically and without demonstrating that no further evolution can occur beyond it.
But neither science nor the Bible identifies where this supposed barrier to evolution is located ('How much is too much evolution?'). It is a fuzzy, undefined nebulous belief that is just hanging out there and supported by nothing--neither science nor religion.
This is a major problem in the YEC position that is too often glossed over, which YECs need to clarify their position on via objective, measurable criteria.
It's only fuzzy because it is not specifically spelled out how a kind is defined. That's exactly my point! YECs say they don't believe in change between 'kinds' but don't know what a 'kind' is.
May 17, 2021
0
#151
It isn't the fault of the YEC that a specific portion of scripture isn't to the level of scientific nomenclature. Many things are not addressed in scripture, some things with plenty of specificities, others not so much. It isn't wise to make something up that isn't clear. What I don't see kinds allowing is evolving and intermixing of species as the text is written.
But neither is it the fault of the non-YEC who didn't make such an ambiguous claim. You're right it isn't wise to make up something that isn't clear, which is why the YEC belief that things can't change beyond 'kinds' is tenuous at best, because we are given no clear understanding of what a 'kind' is nor does the text say that the created kinds were inviolably fixed and couldn't undergo further change
May 18, 2021
0
#153
What it does say that during a course of days specific kinds were made, one day one type, the next another it doesn't say that they all came from a single lifeform evolving into the variety we see today either. So the YEC don't make something up to make the text fit their understanding of what they think happened but they also don't ignore what is there completely to come up with another story altogether.
But you've left out the biggest mistake that they do make: they treat Genesis 1 like it's a modern scientific account when it's not, and they do the same with the story of Noah's flood which is presented as a poem--even more so than the stylized poetic elements of Genesis 1. It's like going to Shakespeare to learn science and missing the whole point of Shakespeare! These stories don't claim to present scientific facts nor is that their concern. Their concern is to present theological truths and to do so through the eyes and Ancient Near East (mis)understanding of the world and space that puts the sun, moon, and stars in the earth's atmosphere with a solid, firm 'firmament'--which is the meaning of the word--to hold back water. In this YECs do the greatest violence of all to the text by forcing it to be read in a context that is completely foreign to the Bible and it's original audience, thus failing Hermeneutics 101 right from the off.
The Bible was given to tell us about the Rock of Ages, not the age of rocks!
May 18, 2021
0
#155
A poem? I think the account from the people involved to the particulars around the event are spoken of elsewhere in scripture and done as actual events.
The Noah's flood story is presented in a chiastic mirror image format which is the defining feature of Hebrew poetry. The creation account employs similar elements of Hebrew poetry.
May 18, 2021
0
#157
TruthMuse wrote:
It isn't the fault of the YEC that a specific portion of scripture isn't to the level of scientific nomenclature. Many things are not addressed in scripture, some things with plenty of specificities, others not so much. It isn't wise to make something up that isn't clear. What I don't see kinds allowing is evolving and intermixing of species as the text is written.
But does it make much sense to argue page after page to establish something that you claim to be fact, when you're not at all clear what that fact is?
Indeed, it does not make sense and that's kind of my point, because that is, in fact, what YECs do: argue page after page for a belief that they're unclear on themselves. So instead of getting sucked into that and going round and round in circles arguing about an unclear, muddled, nebulous claim, the onus should be on the YEC to first clarify what precisely they are and aren't claiming. That's on them to do, and if they're unable to do so, well, then that's on them as well.
***So again YECs, how much is too much evolution? Where exactly is that dividing line? We're not talking about the extremes but the dividing line in the *middle*. Can you pinpoint for us where precisely that purported 'barrier' is between 'acceptable' evolution within 'kinds' vs. 'impossible' evolution between or above 'kinds'? (And what exactly is a 'kind' and what objective criteria are used to recognize and distinguish the various 'kinds' in the plant and animal kingdoms?).
***The central issue at stake here is the implicit claim in the YEC assertion that there is 'no evolution between or above 'kinds'. This implies there is some type of 'barrier' to evolution beyond which evolution cannot occur. Now the most logical candidate for such a 'barrier'--biologically as well as biblically (since types 'reproduce according to their kind')--is the reproductive (aka species) barrier. This makes good logical sense, in fact. But this is no longer an option for YECs, because most YECs today--including Ken Ham--now recognize that speciation (the origin of new species) is a well-documented scientific fact. This leaves YECs without a viable replacement candidate, which in turn muddies the water more than ever before. Because now YECs are not only unable to say where precisely this purported 'barrier' is (i.e., at what taxonomic level?) that draws a line between 'possible' and 'impossible' evolution, they also now have the added problem of not being able to articulate the nature of this 'barrier'---*what* this 'barrier' actually is--since they can no longer appeal to the reproductive-species barrier.
***But it just dawned on me as I type this that there is yet an additional problem still for the YEC--a problem that to my knowledge no one has ever mentioned or noticed before (I'll have to double-check). It just hit me that YECs *can't* actually reject the "Genesis 'kind' = biological species" without contradicting the Bible. Let me see if I can explain why. The Bible isn't clear as to what constitutes a Genesis 'kind', except for one defining feature; namely, that different types 'reproduce according to their own kind'. Thus, examples of speciation that YECs accept such as different species of lizards or beetles or frogs that have evolved apart over time (by 'acceptable' evolution) to the point where they can no longer interbreed *cannot* actually be the same 'kind' according to the Bible but must be new and different 'kinds'. Now the YEC will protest, saying the different species of lizards, for example, are all the same 'kind'. They're all still lizards after all. But this would seem to contradict what the Bible says, because according to Genesis if all lizards truly make up one 'kind', then at the very least shouldn't they be able to interbreed with each other and 'reproduce according to their own kind'? Yet not all lizards can interbreed with each other, so how then can they be part of the same Genesis 'kind' if they can't reproduce with each other? If they can't 'reproduce' then they must be a different Genesis 'kind'.
***See the significance of this!? In short, this would mean that most YECs---whether they're aware of it or not---acknowledge that evolution can occur between and above different Genesis 'kinds'--not just within 'kinds'. Genesis 'kinds' are NOT 'fixed' and immutable but can evolve into new and different 'kinds'. Technically, this doesn't contradict the Bible because the Bible doesn't say that created 'kinds' can't subsequently evolve (*it doesn't say one way or the other). But it is extremely problematic for YEC because it pretty much pulls the rug out from under one of the biggest claims of the YEC position.
May 18, 2021
0
#160
stephen_33 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
It isn't the fault of the YEC that a specific portion of scripture isn't to the level of scientific nomenclature. Many things are not addressed in scripture, some things with plenty of specificities, others not so much. It isn't wise to make something up that isn't clear. What I don't see kinds allowing is evolving and intermixing of species as the text is written.
But does it make much sense to argue page after page to establish something that you claim to be fact, when you're not at all clear what that fact is?
What have I argued from a factual point of view, that life doesn't alter itself in time so that it becomes some new kind of creature on the planet? You have an issue saying a one-cell life is different than a cow, an oak tree, a zebra, grass? If not getting very specific about something that is not very specific is a problem, well life is full of problems.
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.
That's very insightful on your part to recognize the limitations of one's knowledge and understanding. Wish more people had this positive trait.
Perhaps it would help to know that none of the skulls in either picture are fossils. They're just regular bones from dead animals.
But let's go ahead and work with your answers. My next question to you would be 'how do you know' *objectively* they represent different 'kinds'? It seems like just your subjective opinion, doesn't it?