Christians: "Kinds" in evolution. Can you define?

Question

I hear lots of talk from Christians about micro-evolution existing but macro-evolution not existing (like they are two different things). Their evidence is that one "kind" has not been observed changing into another "kind".

Christians, what do you mean when you say "kind"? The meaning of that word is defined by humans, not by some pre-existing principle. I'll get some response like "a dog is a kind and a cat is a different kind". Well, what about a wolf. Is that a dog or a different kind? What about a fox? How is a fox or wolf different from a dog?

There are no KINDS. There are merely closer or farther relationships between organisms. The difference between a golden retriever and a shi tzu compared with the difference between a retriever and a human is a difference in degree, not in type. If you keep breeding dogs, eventually they will look so different that by your definition they would be different kinds.

Mark777: They are only finches and dogs because you call them that. You are telling me that even if a dog "micro-evolves" to the point where it looks like a lizard, you are still going to call it a dog? Let's say I define one kind to be "animals that have two hands and two feet". Then apes and humans are of the same kind. Is it then acceptable for you to believe they evolved from a comon source?

Ok...The definition given for a "kind" as a group of animals that cannot breed with another group is getting closer. It would be better if all Christians agreed on that. What about a Horse and a Donkey? They can breed but their offspring is sterile. Are they one kind or two. Lions and Tigers can breed? Are they one kind or two?

Answer 1

It's about time someone pointed this evasive bullsh*t out.

Answer 2

It is really not that complicated. Bacteria may adapt and become resistant to antiboitics but it is still bacteria. Darwin's finches adapted to the weather by having larger or smaller beaks, but they still remained finches. You can breed dogs for eternity and yes, maybe they will look different, but they are still dogs. The fact that wolves and foxes are of the same family as other dogs doesn't prove that they evolved.

However you want to frame the question, a dog is still a dog. The genetic limitations are cyclical and never move in the direction of becoming an entirely different animal.

Response to original comment:
So your argument against Christians is that we cannot define kinds? Do you believe in differnet species or has science just come up with these names for no reason? Is there not vast differences between kinds or species? Even science has a hard time defining species or how many have existed and now exist. But can we not agree that we know there are differences between these species?

Is a finch not a finch or am I mistaken? What do you call them? Does it really matter? The point is that they may have adapted to their environment but they did not change into a new species. This is what macroevolution says is happening.

When you can show me a dog that has "microevolutionized" into a lizard, then ask me that question. Until then, that statement alone proves the absurdity of the macroevolutionst agrument.

The evidence that leads to your conclusion of a common ancestor can also lead to the conclusion of a common designer. With irreducible complexity, genetic limitations, nonviability of transistional forms, and molecular isolation it seems more logical that some type of intelligence was involved.

Answer 3

it really is going to be "creationists", as maximum Christians actual settle for evolution even if or not they could outline the medical time period "theory". @AJ- incorrect-o. Dictionary definitions are for ordinary language utilization of words. The medical definition of the note "theory" isn't an same. EDIT- Definition 5 remains not quite correct for the medical definition of the time period "theory". it really is overly simplistic and means that it remains a "ideal wager", which isn't ideal. @James M- Evolution is, in truth, a medical theory. that's the middle of all organic and organic sciences. effective to work out that you'll apparently re-outline technology for all and sundry dimwit scientists that actual have preparation interior the concern. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. The heliocentric sort of the universe is a theory. Germs as a reason for disease is a theory. Get with this system, or perchance study a textbook.

Answer 4

By their definition, macro-evolution is when one species divides into two species. Two groups of animals are considered two different species if they can't mate and produce viable offspring.

But their data is a bit old. Speciation has been observed many times, both in the lab and in nature. So, by their own definitions, macro-evolution has been observed to happen.

Answer 5

Kind is a species until speciation is demonstrated. Then the standard becomes genus. I've seen people call for plant to animal transmutations as the standard of proof.

Answer 6

Amen they are the exact same thing because species like us are thousands of micro organisms so they evolve and inturn we evovle. I dont see why people think micro is reasonable but macro isnt. Damn the american school system.

Answer 7

We know speciation occurs when the two original and mutated species can't produce fertile offspring.

I am not sure when 'kindation' occurs, though.

Answer 8

there are "kinds", if they can't interbreed , they are a different species, a species is defined as a population of organisms that can interbreed

and i'm not a christian

Answer 9

Good luck with this question. I will watch it with great interest because evolution-deniers never fail to amuse when asked for specifics.

Answer 10

Linnean Classification...
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

guess they didnt learn this in school...