The Creationist Species Barrier

Oeditor · **#21** by **Oeditor** » Jan 05, 2012 4:23 pm

An interesting post here: http://www.ecalpemos.org/2011/04/creationists-kinds-noahs-ark-and.html disputes the creationists' use of the Hebrew word translated as "kind". He argues that it really means a visibly distinct species and that the creationist usage was invented by Ham. Personally, I think that in the context it's just an archaic form of collective, being no more than an efficient way of saying that the goats went in together and the sheep went in together and the tigers went in together etc.

Robert Byers · **#22** by **Robert Byers** » Jan 06, 2012 7:10 am

LucidFlight wrote::wave: Hi, Mr Byers. Would you go so far as to say macroevolution is a presupposition of the theory of evolution?

Off topic but no.
Evolutionism has no direction or agenda.
macro evolution need not occur.
In fact they use this to explain living fossils.

Robert Byers · **#23** by **Robert Byers** » Jan 06, 2012 7:16 am

Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

Spearthrower · **#24** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 06, 2012 7:32 am

Robert Byers wrote:
LucidFlight wrote::wave: Hi, Mr Byers. Would you go so far as to say macroevolution is a presupposition of the theory of evolution?

Off topic but no.
Evolutionism has no direction or agenda.
macro evolution need not occur.
In fact they use this to explain living fossils.

I love how your word salad defeats itself.

Even if there was such a thing as 'evolutionism', then it wouldn't be a synonym for evolution as a process.

Incidentally, there are no living fossils, it's a metaphor to help scientifically illiterate people get a notion of the antiquity of a species.

Spearthrower · **#25** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 06, 2012 7:36 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

Byers - biological boundaries, in the sense you are proposing, is a presupposition that is not supported by evidence.

Just to show you how impoverished the idea is, I can point you back to your notion of the arisal of dolphins.

You suggested that dolphins arose post-flood from a terrestrial mammal.

Regarding the silliness of the post-flood claim, and the consequent silliness of this hyper-fast version of evolution you are proposing; there is no legible way of saying that a terrestrial mammal turning into an aquatic mammal has not undergone macroevolution.

z8000783 · **#26** by **z8000783** » Jan 06, 2012 9:51 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?

I would be interested to know in detail, what a 'biological boundary' is exactly.

John

Shrunk · **#27** by **Shrunk** » Jan 06, 2012 12:19 pm

Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

I don't think so, but then I have no idea what you mean by "crossing biological boundaries".

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

Well, good. Now that is a claim that could be suppported. So what is this "evidence that it didn't happen"? That's kind of what I'm asking for in this thread.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

That's as I suspected. It's just a "denial" based on no evidence or rational argument whatsoever. And since the genetic code cannot stop it, it's hard to see what else could stop it. Nothing that I can see, nor anything you or any other creationist has been able to identify..

So thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Robert Byers · **#28** by **Robert Byers** » Jan 07, 2012 10:32 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

Byers - biological boundaries, in the sense you are proposing, is a presupposition that is not supported by evidence.

Just to show you how impoverished the idea is, I can point you back to your notion of the arisal of dolphins.

You suggested that dolphins arose post-flood from a terrestrial mammal.

Regarding the silliness of the post-flood claim, and the consequent silliness of this hyper-fast version of evolution you are proposing; there is no legible way of saying that a terrestrial mammal turning into an aquatic mammal has not undergone macroevolution.

The context is always macro evolution by selection on mutations plus time.

Robert Byers · **#29** by **Robert Byers** » Jan 07, 2012 10:39 am

Shrunk wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

I don't think so, but then I have no idea what you mean by "crossing biological boundaries".

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

Well, good. Now that is a claim that could be suppported. So what is this "evidence that it didn't happen"? That's kind of what I'm asking for in this thread.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

That's as I suspected. It's just a "denial" based on no evidence or rational argument whatsoever. And since the genetic code cannot stop it, it's hard to see what else could stop it. Nothing that I can see, nor anything you or any other creationist has been able to identify..

So thanks for confirming my suspicions.

It is a "rational" arguement. its from ideas and reasoning and investigation.
What is stopping or not stopping is all lines of reasoning.
no reason to think boundaries can be crossed between quite different creatures with different features.
Your saying no reason to say they can't.
Yet all these reasonings are not scientific reasonings.

z8000783 · **#30** by **z8000783** » Jan 07, 2012 10:41 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

I don't think so, but then I have no idea what you mean by "crossing biological boundaries".

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

Well, good. Now that is a claim that could be suppported. So what is this "evidence that it didn't happen"? That's kind of what I'm asking for in this thread.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

That's as I suspected. It's just a "denial" based on no evidence or rational argument whatsoever. And since the genetic code cannot stop it, it's hard to see what else could stop it. Nothing that I can see, nor anything you or any other creationist has been able to identify..

So thanks for confirming my suspicions.

It is a "rational" arguement. its from ideas and reasoning and investigation.
What is stopping or not stopping is all lines of reasoning.
no reason to think boundaries can be crossed between quite different creatures with different features.

You haven't defined what the boundary is.

John

bert · **#31** by **bert** » Jan 07, 2012 10:41 am

About this species barrier, can't we have a law to prevent beings from doing unnatural things?

Sharks don't respect species boundaries
http://www.slashgear.com/hybrid-sharks- ... -04205934/

Bears don't respect species boundaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

And then there are cats' orgies, involving lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid

They do not respect yagolah's creation. Excommunicate the bastards!

Bert
Who is looking into the idea that the TSA should be funded to guard the species borders so as to keep our children safe

Robert Byers · **#32** by **Robert Byers** » Jan 07, 2012 11:00 am

z8000783 wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?

I would be interested to know in detail, what a 'biological boundary' is exactly.

John

Its just a knowledge that kinds of creatures or any differences in creatures and their features have obvious biological/genetic boundaries and so no reason or hunch to suspect these boundaries can be crossed on the way to something else.

Spearthrower · **#33** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 07, 2012 11:03 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?
Evidence that this happened?

To say its impossible is simply a blief in the unlikelyness of biological boundaries being crossed.
To say we have evidence is the wrong way to see it.
All one could have is evidence it didn't happen.

It is just a denial that mutations could got from a-b.
Its just a understanding of the glory of biology not allowing such radical changes from such minor steps of changes.
Theres no observed genetic code stopping anything.

Byers - biological boundaries, in the sense you are proposing, is a presupposition that is not supported by evidence.

Just to show you how impoverished the idea is, I can point you back to your notion of the arisal of dolphins.

You suggested that dolphins arose post-flood from a terrestrial mammal.

Regarding the silliness of the post-flood claim, and the consequent silliness of this hyper-fast version of evolution you are proposing; there is no legible way of saying that a terrestrial mammal turning into an aquatic mammal has not undergone macroevolution.

The context is always macro evolution by selection on mutations plus time.

Is that meant to be a reply, Robert?

You've transparently left hanging the fact that you accept macroevolution by stint of your dolphin from terrestrial mammal evolution.

LucidFlight · **#34** by **LucidFlight** » Jan 07, 2012 11:04 am

Robert Byers wrote:Its just a knowledge that kinds of creatures or any differences in creatures and their features have obvious biological/genetic boundaries and so no reason or hunch to suspect these boundaries can be crossed on the way to something else.

Would you be so kind as to provide some examples?

Spearthrower · **#35** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 07, 2012 11:04 am

Robert Byers wrote:

It is a "rational" arguement. its from ideas and reasoning and investigation.
What is stopping or not stopping is all lines of reasoning.
no reason to think boundaries can be crossed between quite different creatures with different features.
Your saying no reason to say they can't.
Yet all these reasonings are not scientific reasonings.

You've created a magical barrier Robert - you haven't provided any reasons for there being such a barrier, nor have you provided evidence of such a barrier. If you want a mechanism to be taken seriously, to be addressed rationally, simply invoking it is not sufficient.

Spearthrower · **#36** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 07, 2012 11:06 am

Robert Byers wrote:
Its just a knowledge that kinds of creatures or any differences in creatures and their features have obvious biological/genetic boundaries and so no reason or hunch to suspect these boundaries can be crossed on the way to something else.

From the perspective of a person standing on the ground, the sun clearly goes round the Earth; it's just common knowledge!

That's why we have science, Robert, to find evidence to see whether our knowledge is valid or not.

z8000783 · **#37** by **z8000783** » Jan 07, 2012 11:14 am

Robert Byers wrote:
z8000783 wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Thanks, as usual, for your thoughts Mr. Byers. However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Creationists make a positive claim about the existence of a "species barrier". They do not just say that speciation has never been observed, or that it is as yet unproven. Rather they claim to know that it is impossible for such change to ever occur, regardless of the length of time that "microevolution" has been occurring.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support this claim?

And it's OK: A "line of reasoning" would be acceptable.

Yes that was your point and I was just including another.

Is there evidence microevolution can create macroevolution results by crossing biological boundaries?

I would be interested to know in detail, what a 'biological boundary' is exactly.

John

Its just a knowledge that kinds of creatures or any differences in creatures and their features have obvious biological/genetic boundaries and so no reason or hunch to suspect these boundaries can be crossed on the way to something else.

What sort of features are you talking about specifically that cannot cross a boundary? Have you got an example?

If a creature developed long legs for example or a large head would that count? If not what difference could not change into something else.

John

Shrunk · **#38** by **Shrunk** » Jan 07, 2012 12:38 pm

Robert Byers wrote:It is a "rational" arguement. its from ideas and reasoning and investigation.
What is stopping or not stopping is all lines of reasoning.
no reason to think boundaries can be crossed between quite different creatures with different features.
Your saying no reason to say they can't.
Yet all these reasonings are not scientific reasonings.

That's not a rational argument.

We can't take a position on whether "boundaries" can be crossed until those "boundaries" are defined. And you still haven't done so.

So the scientific position is not required to take these "boundaries" into consideration at all, as they are just in the imaginatiion of scientifically illiterate creationists.

OTOH, there is clear undeniable evidence of phenotypic changes occuring as a result of genetic mutations. In the absence of any explanation as to why only the changes that respect the creationist concept of "kinds" can occur, the only rational position is that no such limitation exists.

The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Re: The Creationist Species Barrier

Who is online