Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Duke Guilmon]

So kind just means species then?

No it means, "If this certain change does not happen then they are not the same kind, but when it does they are the same kind no matter what, because if they weren't then evolution would be true, and that would mean no more money."

[Chas]

Origins and DNA evidence
Biologists use the DNA sequences of modern organisms to reconstruct the tree of life and to figure out the likely characteristics of the most recent common ancestor of all living things — the "trunk" of the tree of life. In fact, according to some hypotheses, this "most recent common ancestor" may actually be a set of organisms that lived at the same time and were able to swap genes easily. In either case, reconstructing the early branches on the tree of life tells us that this ancestor (or set of ancestors) probably used DNA as its genetic material and performed complex chemical reactions. But what came before it? We know that this last common ancestor must have had ancestors of its own - a long line of forebears forming the root of the tree of life - but to learn about them, we must turn to other lines of evidence.

Just because organisms have DNA with common genetic materials doesn't prove all species have a common ancestor.

You don't actually understand the DNA evidence, do you?

DNA is a string of pairs of purines (Adenine and Guanine) and pyrimidines (Cytosine and Thymine), two of each.
DNA codes for making amino acids.
The code is determined by triplets of these pairs.
Since each location can be one of four combinations (A-T, T-A, G-C, C-G), there are 64 possible triplets. These triplets code for 20 amino acids and a start/stop processing code.

The odds of arriving at that particular coding are about a million million million million million to one.

Every organism on earth uses the same code. Every. Single. One.

That clearly means common ancestry.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What if God created the RNA and DNA in all living things?

Then that would mean that descent with modification, speciation, and genetic coding are all the handiwork of the Lord. Which means that every time you question biological evolution, you are blaspheming.

Boru

[eyemixer]

I am having difficulty understanding what you mean by 'kind' as it is not a scientific term nor have I ever seen it used in a biology course.

Can you explain what you mean by 'kind'? I do not need any fancy language, simply what you understand a 'kind' to mean in your own words.

I am not claiming you are wrong, I just don't understand what you mean by the term and that confusion makes any meaningful conversation impossible, contrary to the goals of a discussion forum I believe.

Read Genesis 1 for clarity:

---

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

---

That is not what I asked. You simply listed scripture, I asked:

Can you explain what you mean by 'kind'? I do not need any fancy language, simply what you understand a 'kind' to mean in your own words.

If your answer is only scripture with no commentary, then it is up to me to interpret the scripture? You want me to state what YOU think?

That does not seem to make sense, I doubt you would be willing to publicly state that you will agree with my interpretation of Genesis and it is a factual representation of your true beliefs.

If this is not the case, please tell me what 'kind' means, in your own words.

Thank you.

EDIT: Missed your earlier reply, it seems that if two animals can breed, they are a 'kind'? Is that the only criteria? Thanks!

[Esquilax]

I like how AiG says it, if the two animals could breed with each other.

Hey, look at that, a definition I can work with! Let's see how fast I can make you retract it.

Here is a scientific paper, detailing an experiment in which two groups of fruit flies were isolated from one another and given differing food sources, for several generations. When the flies were reintroduced to each other... they could not interbreed.

According to your own AiG source, we have scientific proof- repeated several times by different scientists, by the way- of one kind evolving into another kind. That's literally using the definition you just gave us. Evolution occurs.

*Drops mic*

That said, I fully expect you to come out with something typically ignorant, like "they're still fruit flies, though!" to which I'll remind you in advance that you just said the definition of "kind" is the ability to interbreed, so the problem is with your definition, not with the science. Additionally, even under the strictures of real science and not your biblically-based obfuscations, this is still considered evolution, so you would be factually wrong anyway. I know it's much easier to consider all of these taxonomic classifications in terms of what intuitively feels like they should go together, but there are multiple species of any one "kind," by that standard. This idea you keep pimping that we don't see one species evolving into another is just factually wrong.

[Mothonis]

I like how AiG says it, if the two animals could breed with each other.

Hey, look at that, a definition I can work with! Let's see how fast I can make you retract it.

Here is a scientific paper, detailing an experiment in which two groups of fruit flies were isolated from one another and given differing food sources, for several generations. When the flies were reintroduced to each other... they could not interbreed.

According to your own AiG source, we have scientific proof- repeated several times by different scientists, by the way- of one kind evolving into another kind. That's literally using the definition you just gave us. Evolution occurs.

*Drops mic*

That said, I fully expect you to come out with something typically ignorant, like "they're still fruit flies, though!" to which I'll remind you in advance that you just said the definition of "kind" is the ability to interbreed, so the problem is with your definition, not with the science. Additionally, even under the strictures of real science and not your biblically-based obfuscations, this is still considered evolution, so you would be factually wrong anyway. I know it's much easier to consider all of these taxonomic classifications in terms of what intuitively feels like they should go together, but there are multiple species of any one "kind," by that standard. This idea you keep pimping that we don't see one species evolving into another is just factually wrong.

A very through beating by Esquilax.

Now to Revelation:Here is a little advice.If you want to make a good argument only cite peer reviewed scientific journal articles.

[Simon Moon]

I like how AiG says it, if the two animals could breed with each other.

Hey, look at that, a definition I can work with! Let's see how fast I can make you retract it.

Here is a scientific paper, detailing an experiment in which two groups of fruit flies were isolated from one another and given differing food sources, for several generations. When the flies were reintroduced to each other... they could not interbreed.

According to your own AiG source, we have scientific proof- repeated several times by different scientists, by the way- of one kind evolving into another kind. That's literally using the definition you just gave us. Evolution occurs.

*Drops mic*

That said, I fully expect you to come out with something typically ignorant, like "they're still fruit flies, though!" to which I'll remind you in advance that you just said the definition of "kind" is the ability to interbreed, so the problem is with your definition, not with the science. Additionally, even under the strictures of real science and not your biblically-based obfuscations, this is still considered evolution, so you would be factually wrong anyway. I know it's much easier to consider all of these taxonomic classifications in terms of what intuitively feels like they should go together, but there are multiple species of any one "kind," by that standard. This idea you keep pimping that we don't see one species evolving into another is just factually wrong.

Nice smack down.


Get prepared for a typical Rev777 tap dance followed by some world class goal post moving.

[SteelCurtain]

A timely article, showing that humans and cephalopods (squids) evolved the eye from the same mutation. This is a preemptive strike on the sure to come irreducible complexity idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140305/s...P-20140311

[eyemixer]

I like how AiG says it, if the two animals could breed with each other.

Hey, look at that, a definition I can work with! Let's see how fast I can make you retract it.

Here is a scientific paper, detailing

---

an experiment in which two groups of fruit flies were isolated from one another and given differing food sources, for several generations. When the flies were reintroduced to each other... they could not interbreed.

According to your own AiG source, we have scientific proof- repeated several times by different scientists, by the way- of one kind evolving into another kind. That's literally using the definition you just gave us. Evolution occurs.

---

*Drops mic*

That said, I fully expect you to come out with something typically ignorant, like "they're still fruit flies, though!" to which I'll remind you in advance that you just said the definition of "kind" is the ability to interbreed, so the problem is with your definition, not with the science. Additionally, even under the strictures of real science and not your biblically-based obfuscations, this is still considered evolution, so you would be factually wrong anyway. I know it's much easier to consider all of these taxonomic classifications in terms of what intuitively feels like they should go together, but there are multiple species of any one "kind," by that standard. This idea you keep pimping that we don't see one species evolving into another is just factually wrong.

In fairness to Rev, he has not yet responded to my question if inter breeding is the only requirement for a 'kind'. If so, your argument stands, if not, additional requirements to be in the same 'kind' can be added forever and the goal posts never get set.

That said, if Rev is unwilling to respond to my multiple requests for HIS definition of what a 'kind' is, your accusation of him intentionally failing to provide a definition for 'kind' in order to disingenuously shift the goalposts becomes impossible to invalidate.

[Esquilax]

In fairness to Rev, he has not yet responded to my question if inter breeding is the only requirement for a 'kind'. If so, your argument stands, if not, additional requirements to be in the same 'kind' can be added forever and the goal posts never get set.

That said, if Rev is unwilling to respond to my multiple requests for HIS definition of what a 'kind' is, your accusation of him intentionally failing to provide a definition for 'kind' in order to disingenuously shift the goalposts becomes impossible to invalidate.

Given that it's the first concrete detail we've gotten out of Rev regarding an area of biology, and not merely regarding his faith, I'm willing to jump on what I can get with gusto. Especially when we're discussing "kinds," a term built from the ground up to be a slippery, ill defined mess to throw real people off the scent.