The Thylacoleo: Australia's Extinct 'Marsupial Lion'

Funny but no. He said traits were created by creatures while surviving and then passed to their offspring.
YEC would see profound hidden mechanisms for biological change.
Therefore a blueprint would exist that makes boundaries. Then creatures can change within these boundaries.
nevertheless evolutionists or anybody making biological classifications based on trivial traits must prove their point. not just SIMPLY presume it.
The creation of the MAMMAL group was a simple/silly invention. they just couldn’t imagine a common blueprint in nature and couldn’t imagine creatures have hair. mammary glands only because its a good idea in limited options. NOT because it shows any realtionship anymore then having eyeballs. And all creatures have eyeballs.
Then when some critters cross boundaries THEY ARE MYSTIFIED.

Amoebas don’t have eyeballs.

Corals don’t have eyeballs.

Sea anemones have no eyeballs.

Paramecia don’t have any eyeballs.

Earthworms don’t have eyeballs—but they do have light detectors.

Robert, do you agree that all of the above are creatures?

No, you gave 3 examples. You provided no definition. I’m still waiting on a definition and how you derived it. This might be a good time to admit that the concept of “KINDS” is very poorly defined and ANY sort of definition is NOT derived from the Bible.

2 Likes

The principal of grouping creatures by eyeballs would work as well as any other invented definition.
I’m not saying DEFINE by eyeballs but making a point about classification being invented by people and not by real time nature.

I did answer. anyways KINDS is not settled. i said that . only basic boundaries can be figured out from genesis.
the bible gives examples. one must start there and figure it out. Noah figured it out unless god just brought them to him…
its a side issue anyways.
Classification is rightly questioned by creationists , i say, in saying marsupials are just the same creatures as elsewhere. this marsupial lion,Nova episode too, is excellent evidence for a cat creature clearly being just another cat in the world.
However the marsupial wolf is on the internet in moving/still pictures. It proves the lion would also be as alike to other lions as elsewhere. Probably purred.

If there is no definition for a “kind”, how can you possibly say it is a “real boundary”? And how could you possibly support such a boundary scientifically if you really don’t know what it is?

2 Likes

Its a real boundary based on genesis. Then it adds up there would such boundaries. Then the examples lead in a fitful way.
How can thee be a scientific boundary based on traits as they do now? There can not be! its just old school guessing and unreasonable at that.
it interfered with true scientific investigation. Classification tripped up everyone.
If they removed classification WOULD their conclusions stand on their own? NO!

If your classifications were removed, WOULD your conclusions stand on their own? NO!

3 Likes

There is nothing in Genesis that claims that “kinds” are not flexible over time. If animals are reproducing “according to their kind”, then progeny look like parents. That is all that is claimed. Any further interpretation is purely a guess, at best.

The closest thing to a boundary in biology is at the species level, where reproductive compatibility is the most-frequently used criterion. Of course, this categorization has many exceptions, and it is well-recognized even by students that other levels of classification are for convenience purposes. Classification hasn’t been an impediment to scientific observation or discovery.

There is nothing in Genesis that teaches kinds are reproductively fixed.

1 Like

Oh i insist it has. It disturbs everything at the gate. They never imagine marsupials/many other families are just mildly adapted types of creatures due to unique geographical areas.
The marsupial lion os like a lion they must invoke CONVERGENT evolution to explain it.

I do not agree species level is a boundary. I don’t think evolutionists do either.
Reproduction ability is a trivial thing. Horse types, zebras , mules, etc are clear;y the same KIND yet reproduction fails.
Whales and dolphins have been made to reproduce together yet are called different species.
I don’t agree reproductiveness is relevant to nature. mechanism that changes bodyplans for populations has no goal/or awareness of reproductive boundaries being created . Yet speciation has occurred.
thats why humans are rightly seen as separate species and not one.

i’m not sure if KINDS is flexible in genesis.
YEC sees it as fixed and I did.
However I wonder if KINDS dividing, which we think they do, does cross a threshold.
my example is the two types of common birds on the ark.
Did god on creation week make a dove and crow.? before the impact of the fall?
Was thee just one kind of bird and later diversity?
yet on creation week AFTER ITS KIND means a real classification segregation.
I think mostly KINDS don’t get created but heaps of diversity in KINDS are possible.