Well said. Good point.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:44, topic:455â]
Sorry Tim, itâs not presented as very clear by YEC, as they admit themselves.[/quote]
Where and when have they admitted it?
But evolutionary theory predicts that boundaries will be fuzzy. YEC predicts the opposite. I donât see how the fuzziness of âkindsâ is in any way consistent with the YEC hypothesis. Can you explain?
I think that you should review this, as thereâs no way that âkindsâ can be limited to genera and still produce the diversity of life that exists today.
[quote]âKindsâ is also somewhat fluid⌠I have not got into the details of where they get the 8000 species from.
[/quote]But it canât be fluid if YECs are correct and kinds are distinct. I think thereâs a reason why they donât go into the details. I suspect itâs the same reason why you donât get into the detailsâthere are clear empirical predictions of the YEC hypothesis.
YEC does not predict that the boundaries of species will not be fuzzy; they also acknowledge that the fuzziness is at least partly due to how âspeciesâ are defined, with definitions sometimes varying. The fuzziness of âkindsâ is not due to an inherent problem with definition, as much as it is with the lack of general scientific work done to determine what those kinds likely were. Thatâs why sometimes they would be more associated with todayâs species or combination of species, while in other cases, they would be associated more closely with genera. This is not because of the fuzziness of âkindsâ as much as it is because of the fuzziness of âspeciesâ and the associated genera.
Evolutionists should not have a great deal of problem with this concept, other than they would find the time period for this to happen incredulous. Yet, in cases where we have been able to replicate the concept through human intervention (we might call it an actual experiment) such as dogs, we find the time period relatively short.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:48, topic:455â]
YEC does not predict that the boundaries of species will not be fuzzy;[/quote]
I didnât specify species boundaries, John. YEC predicts that the boundaries of kinds will not be fuzzy.
You are the one making the impossible claim that kinds correspond to species and genera, not me.
Whatâs preventing this work from being done, other than lack of faith?
How many extant species and genera are there today? How could 8000 kinds possibly correspond with a classification as abundant as genus? Please show your calculations.
This makes no sense.
How do you explain the speed with which this divergent evolution happened, John? And how does that compare/contrast with the radiation over 40-80 million years in the Cambrian, which you simultaneously claim to be unattainable by evolutionary mechanisms?
[quote]Yet, in cases where we have been able to replicate the concept through human intervention (we might call it an actual experiment) such as dogs, we find the time period relatively short.
[/quote]We havenât achieved speciation with dogs, so I donât see that you have a point.
Iâm still waiting for your explanation of the âargument for species,â BTWâŚ
There are lots of questions on the table for you, John, and attempting to answer them might be illuminating for you.
Interesting how the topic has strayed. Following is a reference to an article by Dr. Carter that evaluates the claims made by biologos and Collins on the presumed minimum population of humans of 10,000. I have already commented on the seeming illogic of stating that such had to be the mimimum original, but Dr. Carter actually analyzes the statistics of the allelle frequencies in this article.
The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve!
Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos
[In view of the huge publicity that these claims undermining the biblical history of humanity are getting at present, we have chosen to replace our normal 2-day âweekend feedbackâ with this important article in response by CMI scientist-speaker Dr. Robert Carter, who also researches in human genetics together with genetic engineering pioneer and former Cornell professor Dr. John Sanford.]
by Robert W. Carter
Published: 20 August 2011(GMT+10)
You apparently didnât bother to read the article you cited! He actually analyzes a simulationâthereâs an enormous difference.
- What do you think of the assumptions that go into his simulation?
- Why is Figure 2 limited to chromosome 22?
- Why should we trust the expertise of someone who has published one trivial paper in Nucleic Acids Research over the expertise of someone who many consider to be the best clinical geneticist in the world and has actually used population genetics to identify and clone the genes mutated in cystic fibrosis, Huntington disease, and neurofibromatosis?
This tells you all you need to know about Carter:
So tell me, John, does being transcribed mean that a stretch of DNA is functional? If âwe donât know what a lot of these things do,â how can Carter claim function? He contradicts himself in the same paragraph!
Please answer in your own words, not a copy/paste.
The argument that I hear is that parents produce offspring âsimilarâ to themselves⌠but not identical. The argument goes that if this were to occur over many, many generations over an extended period of time, then those âsmall changesâ will add up to âbig changesââŚ
Can you explain the fundamental differences between micro- and macro- evolutionary changes? Iâve heard some claim that the differences are artificial, and the same mechanisms are involvedâŚ
The oneâs Iâve listened too (Ken Ham and Kent Hovind) make it pretty clear that they presume âkindsâ to mean âanimal familiesâ. They use the word âkindsâ without going into detail about what they mean by that word.
-Tim
I will first say up front that many YEC do not like the term micro-evolution, since it seems to give validity to the concept of evolution in general. They consider micro-evolution to be better referred to as mutations and natural selection within a specified boundary. So they say that mutations and natural selection are not automatically âevolutionâ. Macro-evolution would be mutations outside of these specified and natural boundaries, leading to macro changes, such as a change that would lead to a dramatically different species or âkindâ. Thus, while there is natural selection taking place for perhaps a color of fur, or length of fur, this would not be considered evolution, but only a narrowing of the genetic diversity. The original variety of fur lengths would now be reduced to only the long hair type. Macro evolution would be more like the change of fur to feathers, or gills to lungs, or bacteria to mollusk. The small changes cannot just add up to big changes, since the small changes are still limited by the genetic variation limitations. And changes need to be both viable, and advantageous, or they wonât persist.
The mechanisms are similar, but the scale and limitations are vastly different.
I understand most of what youâre saying here, John. But also I feel, on some issues, we running around in hopeless circles.
You say things like âspecified boundariesâ or ânatural boundariesâ, yet simultaneously admit the definition for species and âkindâ are fuzzy, both in biblical terms and scientific terms. Youâre claiming boundaries while not defining what those boundaries are. And as times goes on I feel like those boundaries are actually getting fuzzier⌠Not more distinct.
The term AiG uses is Creation Orchards, referring to a tree with sprouting branches, representing a âkindâ. Darwin agrees with the representation, but converges all the trees into one big tree.
Hair turning into feathers being defined as a big change seems more subjective to me. I think it more has to do with the capability of procreation.
-Tim
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.