Biblical "kinds"

The difference with evolution is that we don’t expect a hard barrier between species groups. Because of evolution there is always going to be a hazy barrier between populations during the process of speciation. Any paraphyletic group (e.g. genus, family) is also going to be arbitrary due to evolution and common ancestry.

2 Likes

The haziness doesn’t really affect the points we are making to YEC’s regarding the “kinds” that God created during the first 6 days.

The one thing that seems absolutely certain is that you can’t make two populations that look vaguely similar into a single “kind” - - if they can’t reproduce a new generation. This is a strong limit on this kind of reasoning by the very vocabulary used in Genesis 1.

Let’s embrace it … instead of disputing it for another decade!

Sounds to me like this issue reveals the link between creationism and racism.

This article seens to plays in this area from a creationist position, using the Vit C genome for discussion.

From your article:

So, did Adam and Eve have a gene to code for an enzyme that would synthesize vitamin C and was this information eventually lost as a result of the curse, or were they simply created without this information in their genomes? That question might not get answered until Christ returns. But in the meantime, humans require plenty of vitamin C in their diet – so have an orange!

It appears that the author seems to completely ignore how one actually establishes relationships between individuals/organisms utilizing genetics, proteins, and/or morphology. This primer I think could be helpful for getting us all on the same page:
https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/signature-in-the-pseudogenes-part-1

Though this topic is a little different from ‘kinds,’ I think it is helpful in that there is no evidence at all in either the fossil record or the genome or even in the structure and genomes of all eukaryotes cells that there were organisms that were created spontaneously without any common descent. It should be painfully obvious to every expert who has ever looked at any of these topics but yet with every chance to demonstrate kinds are anything real–the evidence has not been there to support it.

2 Likes

@Joel_Duff has a great collection of articles on his blog critiquing the scientific claims of baraminology, including how these models even contradict Scriptural evidence of the diversity of species in Bible times.

3 Likes

Thanks for that, i wasnt aware of the link with YEC, but i guess thats normally associated as part of the creationist view (though most dont prescribe to it). Of interest, it seems proven that post dinosaur speciation was significantly faster so their is a level of agreement on that…

I haven’t the time or desire to fully critique the linked article but this caught my eye.

of which Darwin’s finches are just 10 of 1200+ species! For a pair of finches to give rise to 1200 species of finches in 4500 years would necessitate that we should be able to witness species formation right before our eyes.

Darwin’s Finches interbreed in the wild so they are varieties of the one species. If this is typical there might be 120 species with multiple varieties. But even so, if each species splits into 2 then we could get over 1000 species in 11 doublings in 4500 years or 400 years to form each new species. Allowing for more rapid speciation immediately following the flood it is plausible to get 1000 species in 1000 years.

With larger animals and longer generation times speciation would be expected to take longer but it is still plausible that the horse kind could have produced 3 species; horse, donkey, and zebra; by biblical times.

Setting aside the dubious science and disregard for natural history, how would you explain from a YEC perspective that Abram already had donkeys as early as Genesis 12?

And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels. (v. 15)

1 Like

With larger animals and longer generation times speciation would be expected to take longer but it is still plausible that the horse kind could have produced 3 species; horse, donkey, and zebra; by biblical times.

From the YEC view, we’re talking about less than 2000 years from Adam to Abraham and we already have donkeys. Do you still think this is plausible?

1 Like

From the YEC view it’s about 350 years from the flood to Abraham. Say 10 generations for a horse/donkey. That’s not much but
(a) it depends on the genetics of the original pair in the kind. Even the first generation could have produced offspring with marked variation. As Darwin has noted in regard to pigeon breeding even a few generations can produce marked differences in the hand of a skilled breeder.
(b) the difference between horse and donkey need not have been as marked as it is today for them to have been differentiated as separate varieties by Abraham’s time.
(c ) even today the horse and donkey are close enough to breed and occasionally produce fertile offspring. They might have been closer in Abraham’s time.

So it is possible that even by purely natural means donkeys could have been around in Abraham’s time. However
(d) Theistic evolution does not preclude guidance or intervention by God in the differentiation process, and neither does YEC.

How could it account for the polymorphism we observe just within one of those species today?

The original pair could have no more than 2 alleles per locus. Where did all of the other alleles for polymorphic loci come from?

Your description of the YEC view does not fit the reality we observe today.

3 Likes

4 alleles per locus (except for X/Y chromosomes).

Hey, I just doubled the genetic diversity available.

2 Likes

@aarceng

So speciation in evolution cant lead to dramatically different animals in millions of years…

But speciation can create zebras in 10 generations?

1 Like

Remember that at 10 generations they (horses, donkeys, zebras) were probably not as differentiated or as reproductively isolated as they are today; noting that they can still occasionally produce fertile offspring so even today it is incipient speciation using the biological species concept. All that was required by Abraham’s day was that they should be recognised varieties. This is the approximate equivalent to producing a new dog breed.

To create a new dog breed , a dog breeder must establish a set of clearly measurable and visible traits known as the breed standard. It is a list of characteristics that formally describe the breed to an audience. The breeder needs to build up the new dog breed over several generations , generally taking decades. Breeding Business, 2016-2017

So yes, 10 generations would be sufficient.

Could it be repeated today? Maybe not. Each of the equine varieties (horses, donkeys, zebras) have a subset of the original genetic diversity. There is less to work with so it’s more difficult to create new varieties. Each new variety or species would have less genetic diversity and be less able to adapt to changing environments, increasing the risk of extinction. Speciation is a step toward Extinction.

I’m not familiar with Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer however the implication of the quote would seem to be that the Australopithicines are a different Kind to Homo.

btw. Did nobody notice my huge calculation error! :flushed:

I don’t think its a matter of less to work with, but a matter of how fast each generation can differ from the previous one. In other words, you need an exquisitely high number of substitutions per site and then a decrease to the present rate. Even if you could have ‘lots of raw genetic material’ inside of an organism and could somehow make lots of combinations of such material there would be no reason why you should ever get the zebra stripes for example unless there was a population of such animals and they were subject to selective pressure. Otherwise every single unique combination would be completely lost in the generation afterwards with so much changing. There would not be any convergence on anything in particular without massive numbers of offspring with all similar genetics. But again this could never happen because each one is apparently changing so incredibly fast you would never get any two offspring even remotely similar.

The fastest change we’ve ever measured today is this one which is less than 3,000 generations:
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

No it’s not. The number of species has been increasing:

If your prediction or idea is correct, then we should have seen a massive slope in the early fossil record and then a decrease ever since then. Even if you want to condense the fossil record into 4-6 thousand years, the pattern we see doesn’t match what you are telling us.

1 Like

10 generations in 350 years would be 35 years per generation. Horses can breed from as young as 2 years (according to the internet) so allowing 3.5 years gives 100 generations.

What an embarrassing blunder.

1 Like