So you think that mammals are one kind, and reptiles are one kind?
No, it doesnât matter if itâs evolution or design. Letâs say you determined there where five events in the last 10 million years. The average would be 1 every 2 million years. Now this could be the rate the Intelligent Designers or evolution duplicates traits outside of lineages. However, since there are no such events, we can conclude that either itâs practically improbable for evolution OR itâs something the Intelligent Designers choose not to do.
Itâs not that hard.
1 Like
Ah, so @scd ducks the question. I guess that means all we need to respond to your claim is say âI donât believe its possible for a fin to evolve twice, so I donât have to answer your question.â
That work for you?
no. i just gave it as example. of course that there are many mammals and reptiles kinds.
so since the designer made many fins by separate creation the rate is about single fin per say 1 million year or something close?
i actually dont believe that it can evolve even once.
Try to make your examples be something that you actually mean. But you have, by accident, managed to point out the absurdity of âkindsâ. There is no level of the nested hierarchy you can point to and say âthis is a kindâ. Itâs nesting all the way down: cats, felids, carnivores, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, deuterostomes, animals, eukaryotes, life. Nowhere do we find the sort of endpoint of the nested hierarchy that would signal the start of separate creations.
5 Likes
No, since this was all about evidence against evolution, specifically genetically identical traits reappearing in other (discontinuous) lineages. The whole fins on a dolphin, penguin thing - remember? Thatâs what you wanted a calculation for.
But you are arguing it can evolve twice.
Yeah, youâre not confused at all, are you?
are you saying that we cant distinguish between a cat and a dog? if it was the case then the felidae family will also include dogs. but its clearly not the case.
No. Your question shows that you still have no idea what a nested hierarchy is. Cats and dogs are different, but they belong to the same kind, related by common descent. Cats are felids, dogs are canids, but they both belong to Carnivora, etc.
We can distinguish between a chihuahua and a great dane. We can distinguish between individual dogs. If your criteria is being able to distinguish between kinds then each individual dog is a separate kind.
1 Like
no they arent if we consider them to be different families. they cant interbreed with each other for instance, they probably have different genes etc.
and yet we consider them to belong to the same family. they can also interbreed (at least theoretically).
That just means theyâre not the same species, they can still be members of the same clade in a nested hiearchy.
Are you a mammal?
1 Like
Hereâs a few carnivorans:
Tell us, which of these species can interbreed? Which have âdifferent genesâ?
Which of them, if any, are related, and how are you making that judgement?
3 Likes
thats a good question for biologists who check for their taxonomy. i do think that the family level should represent the most similar classification of creationists âkindsâ for several reasons i mentioned above. it doesnt mean that we can always know what is the true original kind but it will be very close.
Are you saying interbreeding determines what is a âkindâ? If members can interbreed and produce offspring, theyâre of the same âkindâ? And if they cannot interbreed, theyâre of different âkindsâ?
That is not a requirement. Most fox species can not interbreed yet AIG/YECers consider them all of one kind.
Correction, AIG believes all dogs/wolves/foxes comprise just one kind.
1 Like
How did you decide that âfamilyâ and âkindâ are the same thing? Again, we expect a nested hierarchy within but not between kinds. So there is only one kind.
You mentioned no reasons other than hybridization. But there are many cases in which hybridization can happen beyond families and many others in which hybridization doesnât happen between groups within families. Further, the nested hierarchy contradicts your criterion.
1 Like
it might be true for many cases but not for all of them. i do think its a good start.
i think they base it on the fact that many different species can interbreed with other species in the same family. its clear when we see the felid case:
(image from wiki)
look at the image above. there is a good match between interbreeding and the family level for start. they also look very similar with a similar morphology.
indeed. but i dont think its the rule. by the way what is the instance of interbreeding above the family level you are talking about? i remember at least one case in birds.
Why? It looks as if, by your criterion, the big cats are a separate kind from the small cats, incidentally.
But there isnât, is there?
âFamilyâ is arbitrarily defined, and are at most only a very rough guide to genetic distance, which is the real thing preventing hybridization: the longer the separation, the more likely that additional isolating factors will evolve by drift. I was thinking of pheasant-grouse, turkey-chicken, and similar things within Galliformes.
The more important point is that there is no reason to suppose that lack of hybridization is evidence of separate creation. We know that reproductive isolation can evolve.
But if itâs not true for all of them, then you have effectively conceded that reproductive incompatiblity can evolve from a state of reproductive compatibility, which undermines your basis for using reproductive incompability as a putative measure of kind-boundaries.
And if you are conceding that reproductive incompatibility can evolve, thereâs doesnât appear to be any basis for saying the boundaries must exist elsewhere. Any supposed boundary you can imagine is arbitrarily defined, and youâre still faced with the problem of multiple levels of nesting hierarchical structure. You simply donât have a good reason to assume a priori that any rational method of species-creation should result in such a hierarchy.
But there is a process by which that result is both expected on logical grounds, and directly observed in real time: Common descent (with modification).
2 Likes