Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Greg Jennings]

What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists.

Why won't you tell Jose what "genetic information" is? You can't dodge the same question day after day and expect nobody to take notice

 

[exminister]

Sorry... what is no surprise? That the term 'species' is rubbery and not clearly defined?*


Its been clearly defined by myself in other threads, as well as by Stripe and others. Musterion defined it in this thread..."A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc)."


You said you were interested in the definition of 'kinds' for education purposes. Its easy to find articles on the topics such as...http://creation.mobi/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

Or, if you want something more technical, there are articles in peer reviewed journals such as this one from 'Answers Journal'..."An Initial Estimate Toward Identifying and Numbering Amphibian Kinds within the Orders Caudata and Gymnophiona
Jan. 23, 2013, pp. 17–34"

I like the article. I see the author recommends avoiding the use of 'micro evolution'.

I see why now Creationist cannot specify Kinds in the questions I originally asked. The walls are unknown and the author warns against be specific to avoid moving the 'Maginot Line' as he describes it, avoiding a misperceived win by Evolutionist.

I wrote "not a surprise" because all living things come from common ancestry. I don't have a problem calling species rubbery if within Kinds it is also called rubbery.

Are there Kind trees that show the sub-kind reversals are impossible?
For example, I will use dog kind with coyote as a sub-kind. You can provide a better pair set if you know one.

Can a dog kind give birth to a coyote in one generation? It's a shuffling of info to produce a sub-kind and either DNA remains static or there is information loss. If a loss of DNA it cannot go backwards meaning a coyote cannot have a dog in one generation, but dogs could regularly give birth to a coyote granting the same shuffle and loss. With the earth being 6000 years old this would seem to have some frequency. This maybe why Creationist say "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". It's a reflection on their view of Kinds.

So do we see or why don't we see kinds giving birth to a sub-kind in one generation? Also with the mapping of the genome isn't it easy to see higher order kinds from their sub order kinds? The loss of information should be obvious?

Bump + plus testing multi-quote

 

[6days]

Why won't you tell Jose what "genetic information" is? You can't dodge the same question day after day and expect nobody to take notice

Greg.....
This is what I said
"What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists."
How does your question relate to that?
And...btw, Jose's question has been answered numerous times. Google "genetic information definition" and do some reading.

 

[6days]

.....all living things come from common ancestry.

Actually, "In the beginning God created..." All living things come from Him, our common Designer.

I don't have a problem calling species rubbery ...

Yes, not much choice on that. Its often referred to as 'The Species Problem'

Can a dog kind give birth to a coyote in one generation? It's a shuffling of info to produce a sub-kind and either DNA remains static or there is information loss. If a loss of DNA it cannot go backwards meaning a coyote cannot have a dog in one generation, but dogs could regularly give birth to a coyote granting the same shuffle and loss. With the earth being 6000 years old this would seem to have some frequency. This maybe why Creationist say "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". It's a reflection on their view of Kinds.
So do we see or why don't we see kinds giving birth to a sub-kind in one generation? Also with the mapping of the genome isn't it easy to see higher order kinds from their sub order kinds? The loss of information should be obvious?

Sorry but I really don't get your question.

Are you suggesting 2 purebred poodles could give birth to some type of dog like a German Shepherd?

No... of course not if breeding has eliminated the genetic info.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg.....
This is what I said
"What I said was "It would be impossible for natural processes to assemble even a single gene (50,000 component parts?). But its possible a mutation can duplicate or corrupt what already exists."
How does your question relate to that?
And...btw, Jose's question has been answered numerous times. Google "genetic information definition" and do some reading.

Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?

 

[exminister]

Actually, "In the beginning God created..." All living things come from Him, our common Designer.



Yes, not much choice on that. Its often referred to as 'The Species Problem'



Sorry but I really don't get your question.

Are you suggesting 2 purebred poodles could give birth to some type of dog like a German Shepherd?

No... of course not if breeding has eliminated the genetic info.

Ok within Kinds it is rubbery in a similar way as species is in a larger framework. As I originally posted there are minor outliners. The species "anomalies" are consistent with common ancestry and genetics so no surprise. However, I am not seeing how Kinds is proved by this and that's why I was asking questions about a kind giving birth to a new sub-kind in one generation. Sorry I wasn't able to give a good Kind/sub-kind example.

And you concur kinds cannot be specified because it is uncertain at this time which the article states. Therefore my questions: are all birds a kind, are all fish a kind (except mammals), are whales and dolphins the same kind cannot be answered like species. We don't know kinds from sub-kinds. Kinds would have full genetic DNA information and sub-kinds would have partial genetic DNA info due to genetic loss. We don't know whether a kind with full genetic coding could produce a sub-kind in one generation. I clearly stated before a sub-kind could not give birth to a kind with full genetic info since that info was lost. My question whether a kind with full genetic material give birth to a sub-kind in one generation.

I will keep reading CMI but so far even they admit kinds has so many open questions. They blame funding for the lack of in depth research.

Kinds on the surface seems like a clear concept but when you dig more questions arise. But human constructs are like that. Nature in so many ways is not intuitive.

 

[6days]

And you concur kinds cannot be specified because it is uncertain at this time which the article states. Therefore my questions: are all birds a kind, are all fish a kind (except mammals), are whales and dolphins the same kind cannot be answered like species. We don't know kinds from sub-kinds. Kinds would have full genetic DNA information and sub-kinds would have partial genetic DNA info due to genetic loss. We don't know whether a kind with full genetic coding could produce a sub-kind in one generation. I clearly stated before a sub-kind could not give birth to a kind with full genetic info since that info was lost. My question whether a kind with full genetic material give birth to a sub-kind in one generation.

The Bible says God created different kinds of birds.
He created the waters teeming with different kinds..... so it would seem many fish kinds.
Whales and dolphins...It would seem some are from the same created kind

Here is something I posted previously on this...
Cats may all be the same kind...I'm not sure. Likely all dogs are the same kind. The wolf, or similar, may have been the original dog kind. Breeds of are created when an existing trait is selected for and other traits eliminated. In theory you can 'create' a poodle from a wolf over many genetations.

Georgia Purdom PhD microbiology says "the first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ds-in-genesis/

 

[Jose Fly]

Greg,

Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase?

If you can get any creationist to answer that question, you'll have done something no one else could do.

 

[Jose Fly]

So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind.

Are we going with that? If so, does that mean if we observe populations diverge to the point where they are physically incapable of breeding together, we have witnessed evolution crossing the "kinds" barrier, and the concept of "kinds" is falsified?

 

[6days]

Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease.

If you quote something that I said, then I can try defend what I actually said.

 

[6days]

Are we going with that? If so, does that mean if we observe populations diverge to the point where they are physically incapable of breeding together, we have witnessed evolution crossing the "kinds" barrier, and the concept of "kinds" is falsified?

If you don't have alzheimers Jose, you are dishonest. No matter how often something is explained to you.... you seem not to remember.

So..... again...http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

 

[Jose Fly]

So AiG's "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind" is pretty much meaningless, right?

 

[Greg Jennings]

If you quote something that I said, then I can try defend what I actually said.

Can genetic information increase? Yes or no?

 

[6days]

Can genetic information increase? Yes or no?

Does a photocopying error resulting duplicated pages provide extra information?

Does gene duplication and polyploidy increase genetic information? I would say no.

 

[6days]

So AiG's "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind" is pretty much meaningless, right?

JOSE.... I know you are trying hard to make a good argument but you don't seem to know what you are talking about. This has been answered for you many times in the past. Are you forgetful? If you get off your talking points you might be able to ask more meaningful questions

 

[Jose Fly]

This has been answered for you many times in the past. Are you forgetful?

And that answer is........?

You don't have any trouble repeating yourself when it comes to your creationist talking points, but suddenly when it comes to answering questions all you can say is "I already answered" without saying what that answer is or where you posted it.

Go ahead, ask me a question you've asked before. I'll tell you "I already answered", but I'll also say "Just so we're clear, here is my answer again..." and I'll either re-state that answer or link to where I posted it before. That's how a true discussion works.

Not this "I already answered, but I won't say what that answer is or show where I posted it" nonsense.

 

[exminister]

Well I guess I'm confused because you have said that genetic information cannot increase but instead only decrease. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?

Greg or Jose,
How is genetic information measured to say it increases?

 

[exminister]

Greg or Jose,
This article if I understand it is saying Evolution can increase or decrease information.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...al-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity


Is that right? But I don't see how it is measured. Number of chromosomes would be the same, no?
The genes would turn off but remain as "junk"?

Is it measured by external traits alone ?

 

[6days]

And that answer is........?

The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information. http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

 

[Greg Jennings]

Does a photocopying error resulting duplicated pages provide extra information?

Does gene duplication and polyploidy increase genetic information? I would say no.

Ok we have now confirmed that you believe that genetic information cannot increase.

If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?