The First Principles of Created Kinds

They are supported by reasoning and can be rationally discussed or we wouldn’t be here at PS or in dialogue now. Where mechanisms can be described, they are the same regardless of overarching interpretive paradigm. The gaps are predicted from first principles of created kinds.

All of these are (arguably in the case of hominids) observed gaps, not predicted gaps. The gap between humans and non-human primates would be a predicted gap in creationist models.

I would love to see a thread on this topic where these mechanisms and first principles are spelled out.


As TA already noted (more or less), we continue to find new fossils, and these always fit a pattern of nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. The gaps don’t really matter. It evolution is not true, it should be a simple matter to find pattern-breaking fossils in the geologic column. :rabbit2:

1 Like

OK, I understand you better now. You are saying, the Kinds model parallels the evolution model, therefore we see the same sort of nested hierarchy from both."

Is that a fair statement?

1 Like

Where is the line between humans and non-human primates?

1 Like


A suggestion for participants and moderators here. This topic is meant to explore a model for Creationism [RTB, yes?]. We should accept the assumptions of this model as given for the purpose of this discussion. We can argue about implied contradictions, but these First Principles should be assumed to be true. That will be hard for some of us (myself included), but I think it will be a useful exercise in understanding others.


Another prediction by evolution is the phylogenetic tree produced from genetic data will show the same branching nested hierarchy as the fossil phylogeny. This prediction has proven correct with the twin nested phylogenies matching to well over 99.9%.

What does the Creation “kind” model predict about genetic data, and why?

1 Like

Calling the absence of evidence “a gap” is a theory laden evaluation. A lack of evidence is just that. The data, or actual observations (not “gaps”), can be fit to a variety of competing models. If one cannot see this one is too entrenched in one’s own paradigm. This is the hurdle for most meaningful dialogue and affects salaried professionals, the general public, and all other categories of people in between.


Would you agree that we can’t use gaps in our current fossil collections as evidence for a gap in life’s history?


The point I’m making is more nuanced. For anyone to say there are gaps in the fossil record and then conclude one way or another what those gaps mean, he or she is simply making inferences. Evolutionists infer they are merely gaps and imply that they will persist (because some evolutionary perspectives support that interpretation) or be filled one day (because some evolutionary perspectives support this interpretation). Creationists infer or imply that gaps will remain. The gaps are just a lack of particular kinds of observations. Persistent gaps can imply a fit to creationist models, but all that can be said is that gaps are predicted by these models. Whether or not they are interpreted as gaps in life’s history, is just that, an arguably reasonable interpretation.


The fact that we know where the gaps in the fossil record are is because of evolution. The theory of evolution predicts a specific nested hierarchy, and it is this predicted nested hierarchy that tells us where the gaps in the fossil record are. For creationism, there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy and therefore no gaps. In the creationist model there should be a mix of many types of features without requiring a nested hierarchy. You are just as likely to find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features as you are a fossil with a mixture of mammal and reptile features.

I also don’t see how you can look at a fossil and determine that it had no ancestors. What method allows you to do that? Also, how can someone determine that our fossil collections contain a specimen from every species that has lived? The problem is that people treat the fossil record as a complete record of life. It isn’t. This is proven almost every month as a new fossil species is discovered.


No, there are gaps and forms of nested hierarchies in creationist models as well. The gaps occur between created kinds and the nested hierarchies exist within created kinds due to adaptation, diversification and speciation.

This is an unsupported inference. Creationists (or evolutionists critiquing creationists) cannot make any predictions about which “mixtures” (using your word) of phenotypic traits are more likely between different created kinds. I don’t know any that do or have made any of these kinds of predictions or inferences. It seems ludicrous to try to guess what these might have been.

I don’t see how anyone can do this either.

I agree with you, these are inferences and predictions that are not supported by observations and need not be true.

This seems like an absurd assertion. We know where the gaps are because of observations - observations free of any interpretive paradigm.

1 Like

None of those models are supported by any reasoning or mechanisms. They aren’t predictions from first principles.

If they can’t predict which mixtures of features should or shouldn’t exist as part of creationism then a nested hierarchy can’t be a prediction of creationism.

This is the main criticism of Meyer’s work. He looks at a fossil and pronounces that it doesn’t have any ancestors.

Really? Then why did we think there was a gap between dinosaurs and birds and not between mammals and birds? Why is there a presumed gap between humans and apes and not humans and dogs?

1 Like

I suppose it would be overkill here to point out once again Creationists have never come up with a definition of created “kind” or any sort of objective test to tell what “kind” a species belongs to.

With all the advances made in genetics is there any genetic test or dividing line which can be used to tell one “kind” from another “kind”?

1 Like

This thread starts out hanging in mid-air, and it’s therefore difficult to determine what it’s about and what the claims of the initial participants are. Could this be clarified?

1 Like

Two things are important here:

  1. @AJRoberts argues that a special creation model predicts gaps in the fossil record that we actually see.

  2. @AJRoberts tells us there are principles underlying their model that make this a principled prediction.

Both these are being discussed together here, though the split ended up jumbling the order somewhat.

Could we at least start with some kind of clear and sufficiently detailed thesis statement? What creation model? What gaps? How are those specific gaps predicted? What are “kinds”? Answers to all these questions would seem necessary precursors for any discussion.

And what are these principles?


That’s what this topic is intended to find out, and why I asked we accept the basic premise without argument. Lets understand the model first, arguing about it can wait until later.


@John_Harshman Apologies for the odd start, I spotted at interesting topic in a Back Porch thread and brought it back to Conversation for more serious discussion. The additional requirement to “accept these Principles” is meant push our atheists into thinking like the other guy (excuse me) gal for a change.

Seconded. Let’s have the First Principles, and work our way up.


A post was split to a new topic: Byers Notion of Kinds