r/DebateEvolution • u/NotAUsefullDoctor • 2d ago
Discussion I think I understand "kinds" now
I asked a question earlier about kinds, where I misunderstood the word, and attributed fertile offspring/speciation as kind, rather than kind being anout body plans.
This was pointed out by r/WannaLoveWrestling. They reached out to me in a DM to have a more personal chat. I thought I would share what I discovered (Please correct me if I am wrong).
There is a debate as to whether it was 7 or 14 critters in the boat, but we'll say 7 as they interpret "and their mate" differently than me (I think because 7 is an even number in some cases?). The idea is that there was just 1 mammal on the boat that had a general "body plan", ie bi-lateral symmetry and 4 limbs. This one creature was able to speciate (not evovle) into all the animals we see as they spread out. I think the same goes for all bugs.
So, there is no evolution. There is just a diversity that all came from a single entity.
22
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 1d ago
There's a reason they messaged you rather than engaging in the thread. They're a coward who knows they can't win the argument.
13
u/Sweary_Biochemist 1d ago
Also, they're less likely to be called out on their insatiable need to post walls of AI slop. WannaLoveWrestling is the worst.
11
7
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 1d ago
That and the fact that heās permabanned because he wouldnāt stop copy/pasting AI slop.
5
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 1d ago
I completely forgot whoops š¬
5
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 1d ago
Eh, itās understandable, so many trolls, so little time, and all thatā¦
4
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 1d ago
Yep. They do tend to fade into the background over time
9
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 2d ago edited 2d ago
So every single frickin Cenozoic mammal was the product of hypermegasuperturboultraelectriconsteroids evolution from a single common ancestral pair?
Does Wanna accept that whales evolved even toed ungulates, horses from basal Perissodactyls, and Proboscideans and Manatees from basal Tethytheres?
Why is this more reasonable than evolution at 1x speed instead of 100x, according to Wanna?
-1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 2d ago
Magic?
1
u/NorthernSpankMonkey 1d ago
Lol, is magic real now?
-2
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
When I became a Christian, it was in a Charismatic church. Yes, we believed magic was real. We would define it closer to thaumaturgy, but things like "speak into existence" was a literal phrase used often.
2
u/NorthernSpankMonkey 1d ago
Is magic real though?
-5
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not sure really. I think it depends on the definition.
A lot if my schooling was about how to bend metals into intricate ruins that would alter the flow of energy in space. By creating the correct incantation, I could focus or disperse energy. I could flip phases of incident energy by bending in one shape. I could cause energy to self annihilate by bending in another.
I am pretty sure this is magic.
4
u/BahamutLithp 1d ago
Are you obfuscating on purpose?
0
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
Yes-ish.
I got my degree in mm-wave passive wireless components design (modeling, and manufacturing).
I was just emphasizing that fir the God of the Gaps type person, maning things look like magic.
6
u/JayTheFordMan 2d ago
So, there is no evolution. There is just a diversity that all came from a single entity.
Sounds like Evolution to me, except a bunch of mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious
3
u/the2bears š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
I think because 7 is an even number in some cases?
What cases would that be?
3
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 1d ago
Look at the word "seven." It's got "even" right in it!
Checkmate, atheists!
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
Not sure, thus the question mark. But somehow if you have some number and their mate, it yields 7, meaning there mist be some situation in which 7 is even.
3
u/the2bears š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
No, there is no case where 7 is even.
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
But the creationist claims that it can be even.
2
u/the2bears š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
This is nothing to do with creationism. This is elementary school math. 7 is an odd number. Full stop.
Use your own thinking, not some random internet person's.
1
u/stairway2evan 1d ago
Then the creationist is wrong. Claims can be right or wrong, and this one just happens to be wrong. As any six-year-old could explain.
There is no number in the world that can be both even and odd. No matter what any creationist claims.
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
I have a strong feeling about 2/3rds of those replying do not understand that I am criticising the creationist as argument and including a point where most have never read the parts if the bible this was pulled from putside if sunday school.
3
u/RespectWest7116 1d ago
I think I understand "kinds" now
"Kind" is whatever creationists want it to be at a given time.
There is a debate as to whether it was 7 or 14 critters in the boat, but we'll say 7 as they interpret "and their mate" differently than me
7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals. Or 1 pair of everything, depending on which version of the story you are reading.
(I think because 7 is an even number in some cases?)
7 is an odd number in all cases.
The idea is that there was just 1 mammal on the boat that had a general "body plan", ie bi-lateral symmetry and 4 limbs.
That's not what the book says. But okay.
This one creature was able to speciate (not evovle)
Speciation is part of evolution.
Also, they are proposing this happened ~5000 years ago. There are roughly 7000 mammal species today. That's more than 1 new species every year. That's insane.
So, there is no evolution.
There observably is. We can literally see it.
2
u/UnholyShadows 1d ago
We all know that noahs ark is a bunch if pork pies and a bag of trout, but for conversation sakeā¦ā¦.
If evolution happened that quickly then dinosaurs would obviously still be alive and be the dominant life forms on earth just like back then. Humans could still be alive, however mammals would of not been able to compete and become the large animals we see today.
Also there would be more animal groups that obviously dont exist that would exist due to rapid evolution. We would also see insects evolve at uncontrolled rates that would probably honestly out compete all other land animal groups and actually be the dominant species on earth. There would be crazy flying spiders with like hyper venom and hive like structured. Probably have death hornets that would be hyper effective at killing large vertebrates and strip ecosystems dry.
There would honestly most likely be insects that dont exist currently that specifically kill non insect creatures which made all other non insect species go extinct.
2
u/riftsrunner 1d ago
Tge problem with the "kinds" hypothesis requires super, mega-evolution. We are talking one feline kind on the Ark. (Now the numbers are based on their cleanliness of the animal according to Hebrew law. An unclean animal, such as a porcine kind, would only require two animals. Sheep, being clean due to being edible and usefulness in burnt offerings dictated 7 animals be carried on the Ark). The Ark lands on Mt. Arafat, and the various kinds disembark. Now the feline kind would need to get active sexually to start procreating the various cat species. Then in the time (let's use 6000 years) between then and now, 160 species of cats. And of that 160, already 119 are known to have gone extinct. The remaining 41 have diversified so much, there are two subfamilies, Pantherinae and Felininae. The former being large and only able to roar, while the latter were smaller and had more vocally diverse. No scientist would ever suggest that evolution in the cat species took less than 10's of millions of years, not 6000 as there is no mechanism to create that much diversity in a single family of animals in such a short timeframe.
2
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
Have you considered magic? I am sure there is some gap in your reasoning of which we can inject a god.
(/s in case not obvious)
2
u/Optimus-Prime1993 š§¬ Adaptive Ape š§¬ 1d ago
Going by your responses in this thread you keep referring to that guy and what he said to you but it would be very difficult to discuss with you if you keep doing that. Since you made the post and you want to discuss, let us know what did you understand about "kinds"? Otherwise what's the point.
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
The problem is that I still don't have a clear understanding of "kinds". They talked about "body plans" but haven't clearly defined a taxonomy for such.
Like in biology, even before getting into evolutionary biology, taxonomy is such a troubled field as living things do not like to have clear cut boundaries that can apply across all living organisms. But even in that jumble of mess that we have attempted to structurize, there is a vague understanding of what a "species" is (though with lots of caveats and exceptions). For "kinda" there is no such taxonomy, making any discussion of what is stated to have occured difficult.
For example, did a bear shaped thing travel to Australia and become the marsupials Kangaroo, Wombat, Koala, etc; or were there a set of marsupials that just all knew to travel to travel to Australia, who except for the opossum that I assume got lost on the way, do not stop anywhere else along the way?
2
u/MagicMooby š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
The problem is that I still don't have a clear understanding of "kinds". They talked about "body plans" but haven't clearly defined a taxonomy for such.
You will never get a clear understanding of kinds. Even the baraminologists who allegedly study kinds cannot give you a clear definition. Creationists understand that there is no clear definition that they can actually defend. The seasoned creationists have learned that the evolutionary biologists they oppose know way more about biology and the diversity of life than any creationist does so any definition of kind will be attacked and quickly dismantled. In general, creationists have learned to ever only be on the offensive and to never make clear statements that they have to defend, because deep down they know they cannot defend any of their claims.
I talked to a creationists on this very forum across multiple threads for over a year. They would repeatedly claim to have truth for christianity from every discipline of science, but no matter how much I needled the guy they would never give me even a single shred of evidence apart from "pray to god and hope he reveals himself to you". In the end, I got that user to admit that they couldn't actually provide a shred of evidence, and yet they continued to post for a couple of months.
Online creationists are either disingenuous like the user I am talking about, or they are utterly ignorant of actual biology. Both groups have learned that it's a bad idea to present verifiable and testable claims to people who actually have the knowledge to address them. Apologetics is not a discipline for converting non-believers, it's a discipline that gives creationists academic sounding arguments to justify their own beliefs to themselves.
Like in biology, even before getting into evolutionary biology, taxonomy is such a troubled field as living things do not like to have clear cut boundaries that can apply across all living organisms. But even in that jumble of mess that we have attempted to structurize, there is a vague understanding of what a "species" is (though with lots of caveats and exceptions). For "kinda" there is no such taxonomy, making any discussion of what is stated to have occured difficult.
This is even more of a problem for creationists than they realize.
Evolution predicts fuzzy boundaries. They are annoying to deal with but do not pose a problem for evolutionary theory, just for the humans who like neatly organized things.
Creationists believe that hard boundaries are natural law, so their complete absence from the world poses an actual problem for their beliefs.
2
u/LordOfFigaro 1d ago
The problem is that I still don't have a clear understanding of "kinds".
You will never have a clear understanding of it. That is the intention. It's a feature not a bug. YECs make "kinds" deliberately unclear to ensure that they are not easily falsifiable and the goalposts can be moved to wherever the YEC wants to for their current argument.
3
u/Top_Neat2780 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
So, there is no evolution. There is just a diversity that all came from a single entity.
Explain to me how this isn't evolution.
1
u/Drudenfusz š§¬ Naturalistic Emergent Reality 2d ago
The was no boat and no great deluge. That myth has nothing to do with reality.
1
u/Parking_Duty8413 1d ago
This is what happens when you get your science from someone in a pulpit. Rediculous.
1
u/Hivemind_alpha 1d ago
I think when you started from ā7 is an even numberā you already know you are shovelling fantasy ordure.
1
u/nyet-marionetka 1d ago
So this person and perhaps yourself (?) believe that all living organisms that have or had four limbs (dogs, cats, lizards, turtles, whales, penguins) all evolved from a single common ancestor 4000 years ago, which disembarked and then began hyperevolving, producing a new species with every litter? And this is more plausible than evolution of species over millions to hundreds of million years?
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
Even when I was a minister for 20 years, I would try to argue how scripture is the "why" and evolution the "how". Now that I am free of (most of) the restrictive thinking, exploring sceiptureal traditions and origins, especially the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Messopatamia tradions that were rewritten i to what is Genesis is a fun pass time.
Now, it was after I stopped believing that I was free to fully engage in evolutionary theory. I had a fun experiment where I tricked my brain into rejecting it and then went through the history of scientific discovery to follow the reasoning that has led to the Theory.
The issue is that because if how I approach a lot of understanding, I want to hear the full counter argument. I want to find the gaps that are more than just "we don't have sample of every single thing that has every lived" and was hoping ona more concrete definition of "kinds." After searching for a while, I have started to become more facetious. I know I shouldn't, but there is a frustration.
1
u/Mister_Ape_1 1d ago
There was no boat, and no flood on 99% of the surface of the planet.
By kind anything from subspecies to genus if not even family can be meant. What do you mean by such term ?
The one mammal we mammals all evolved from needed over 200 million years to get here. We could not have any record of its existence beyond fossils.
1
u/Far_Customer1258 1d ago
Just one mammal? And we got everything from the echidna to the lion, the tenrec, the capybara, and the giraffe from that in 4500 years? Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
1
u/ursisterstoy š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
A kind according to creationism is the separate archetype. If there were dogs and cats created for the dirt creature then each cat or dog species created would be a different kind. They do not have a good way of establishing kinds and in reality they donāt exist because there was no magical creation event. In your other post I stated that the truth is between 0 and ~3 and animals are all the same kind (if you acknowledge the existence of kinds at all).
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 2d ago
For reference, here is the message they sent me in reference to my original post, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/s/YvuxLej7nW :
Kind is not āanimals that can breed and make fertile offspring.ā That is a species-level test. The definition that should be used is a shared body plan and developmental system. Populations can stop interbreeding and still be the same kind.
Cottontail vs European rabbit: they donāt give you a normal fertile cross. That can be isolation inside a rabbit/hare architecture. It does not automatically mean two created kinds and it does not mean a new body plan. Jackrabbits are hares, not āEuropean hare with a different name.ā A failed pen-crossing is not another pair on the ark.
Forest and savanna elephants hybridize in contact zones. That is one elephant cluster. Wolves belong with dogs. Saint Bernard and Chihuahua are the same kind. The breeds came later from variety already in that kind ā not seven toy breeds walking off the boat.
Mice: lots of species names, not lots of kinds. How many on the ark is a working estimate of original kinds (on the order of 1,000ā2,000 land vertebrate kinds in the usual models), not every species label alive today. A separate cottontail pair and a separate Dutch-rabbit pair are not required if they share one architecture.
Cognitum / āwhat does it look likeā is not the definition that should be used. Looks are one clue. Breeding and the whole living animal are what settle a kind when they can be watched. Horse and zebra share an equid architecture; zebroids exist. House finch and a yellow finch are still finch-level birds, not a finch becoming a hawk.
That is not ābroader evolution (not micro).ā Size, coat, isolation, even new species names inside a kind are watched. A new body plan is not. A kind is not a clade. A clade already assumes the tree. āYou never evolve out of your cladeā is their drawing. āAfter its kindā is a limit on the architecture. Croc and alligator look alike because they share that architecture. ā80 million years since a common ancestorā is the timescale attached to the bones, not something the animals printed.
They say kinds are grouped to fit a model. They group species to fit a tree. Both are labels. Splitters and lumpers fight over species all the time. Ring species, hybrids, DNA percent cuts ā the box moves. That does not make their box a filmed history. Unfinished edges on kinds (foxes next to dogs, some pairs that will not breed in a pen) stay edges or stay unassigned. That is a limit on what can be claimed. It is not āthe number of kinds is whatever is needed today.ā So: one dog kind, wolves included, breeds after the flood. Failed crosses do not automatically double the ark list. Isolation is not a new kind of creature.
This is response to your post and some of the comments that you've received that are inaccurate.
7
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 2d ago
The issue that I have with their response is that it still does not show how ākindā is even a thing. As you mentioned below, ābody planā was brought up though a meaningful definition of ābody planā that could be used to defend the conclusion somehow wasnāt included. It was just sortaā¦stated. And it seems, unless I missed something, that they didnāt bother to show why this ābody planā idea SHOULD be used to designate ākindā. They still seem to have provided absolutely nothing to justify anyone seriously entertaining the idea. Honestly? It appears completely post-hoc.
0
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 2d ago
I did state that I got lost in their explanation, which is completely true, and asked for a breakdown. They were super kind and gave me one. Do you want me to reply with it? I think it gives a little more on "body plan" but not a lot.
4
u/Fit_Swordfish9204 1d ago
Why are you arguing things you know nothing about?
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
Puting aside what I think is a clear facetious tone, the post is not an argument but an attempt to understand the creationist argument. I have tried listening to Ken Ham, but he is such a condescending a'hole that I can't get through it. I am hoping someone argues and gives a clear layout of terms and definitions to allow a better understanding.
2
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I suppose the breakdown would help us understand. Itās odd to me that they are so cagey sharing it with the community directly. So, how to they justify ābody planā as the metric for determining that ākindsā even exist at all, and where does it kick in?
Edit: I forgot for a moment they were banned for blatant willful and constant breaking of established sub rules, so thatās why they didnāt come here. OP, I would consider how much useful info youād get from someone who isnāt even speaking to you directly but is instead lazily using an AI to speak for them
1
u/nyet-marionetka 1d ago
They are certainly using a very different definition of "body plan" than used by scientists, because snakes and humans have the same body plan.
5
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 2d ago
Can finches be classified under the Theropod body plan?
1
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 2d ago
I asked for a more clear definition of "body plan" and am waiting on a response. Cause I'm not sure where the line gets drawn.
5
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 2d ago edited 1d ago
My challenge for Wanna is the phylogeny challenge, which states there is no logical reason to separate a daughter clade from a parent or sister clade.
Why does he draw the line in the sand between finches and sparrows when Wanna can classify both of them as the Passeroidea kind?
3
u/DiscordantDiscordian 1d ago
Translation: Evolution is real, 1000s of times faster than we can observe or our models predict and starts at an arbitrary point not corroborated by the fossil record or other
3
3
u/nyet-marionetka 1d ago
So they're not saying what you said they said, they're saying the normal creationist nonsense about thousands/tens of thousands (who the hell knows, there is no kind consensus list because there is no real definition or criteria to define a kind) of kinds on the Ark, and hyperevolution within those kinds.
Cognitum / āwhat does it look likeā is not the definition that should be used.
Yet this is what they use. They eyeball species and decide personally how much they feel is too much change. Voila, that's a kind. They also throw in interbreeding ability, which rescues them from having to split dogs and wolves up since phenotypically wolves look very different from chihuahuas, but only sometimes, because hares and rabbits can't crossbreed and they handwave a kind for them anyway. That's why they probably put foxes into one kind, although really phylogenetically "fox" tends to be slapped onto a variety of canines that often aren't closely related.
1
u/MagicMooby š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 1d ago
Kind is not āanimals that can breed and make fertile offspring.ā That is a species-level test. The definition that should be used is a shared body plan and developmental system. Populations can stop interbreeding and still be the same kind.
So breeding should not be used at all because it shows species and not kinds, and instead we should rely on cognitum. Got it.
Cognitum / āwhat does it look likeā is not the definition that should be used. Looks are one clue. Breeding and the whole living animal are what settle a kind when they can be watched. Horse and zebra share an equid architecture; zebroids exist. House finch and a yellow finch are still finch-level birds, not a finch becoming a hawk.
So cognitun should not be used to delineate kinds because it is vague and we should rely on breeding as the final arbiter instead.
...huh?
Literal contradiction within their arguments. Either breeding cannot be used for kinds and only for species (which kinds aren't) or breeding is how we settle kinds. You can't have both.
A kind is not a clade. A clade already assumes the tree.
If you take the kinds and map out their history with their "adaptations" that descend from an original kind, and if those adaptations have further adaptations within them, you get a structure that very much begins to resemble a tree. But it's not a tree because that is a *spits on the ground* filthy cladistics thing.
2
u/NotAUsefullDoctor 1d ago
Glad you pointed out where I got lost. It was hard to tell if it was actually contradicting or just rambling.
21
u/kitsnet š§¬ Nearly Neutral 2d ago
That would be Noah.
And not "mammal", but "tetrapod".
What would that be supposed to mean?
Speciation is evolution.