Baraminology

>>8477592
There is nothing stopping one "kind" from turning into another because "kind" is not a genetic limit, merely a categorical meme.

>>8477601
Example please.

>>8477604
Any complex living creature alive today is an example, as it has evolved from something not of its "kind." We have traced the changes from protozoa to man in a continuous line of morphological changes and corresponding genetic changes. We don't find neat little bins, instead we find a massive tree whose roots connect all the way back. So this idea of "kinds" is both empirically and theoretically false. If you accept that genetic change can accumulate to turn one species into another then you must also accept that one "kind" can turn into another as there is no difference in the mechanism, only the amount of accumulated changes.

File: e9f704893a3772a67062caf5c39bbb38.jpg (80KB, 564x1006px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 564x1006px

>>8477623
Seems simple enough.

>>8477635
Where's race?

>>8477601

Sure there is, the key point is that genetic mutations may be random, but the particular order that arises is not, one cannot become the other because it is much better as itself, if it tried to be something it wasn't, it was surely perish.

>>8477592
Is this nu-creationism? Modifying what evolution tells us to fit the purposes of a creation story?

File: 39_ArkHorses.jpg (167KB, 1024x723px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x723px

>>8477664
Pretty much, yeah.

File: kind.gif (160KB, 827x1570px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 827x1570px

>>8477592

how do you define kind though? its kind of arbitrary when you look at how we nest animal groups within eachother.

explain why the closest living relative to an elephant is a furry little pseudoectomorphic rabbit. And are they in the same kind?

i can use shitty pictures too.

File: kindham-nye-talk.png (306KB, 913x553px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 913x553px

>>8478067
Usually, they'll claim that "similar designs mean a common designer, like different makes or model of a car." This falls flat for a number of reasons, such as the fact that cars don't reproduce.

(Pic related: one of the slides used at the Nye/Ham debate)

>>8478081
Also, here's a video by Dr. Todd Wood, one of only a few qualified creationists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxwIxyx6uzw

>>8478085
And this
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/mammalian-ark-kinds/

>>8478081
Cars do reproduce if you take into account production factory and assembly line. It's like saying an individual ant does not reproduce but the colony does. Cars evolve too. It's inherent. People think that cars are built by designers that come in fully understand what to build but that's not true at all in engineering. The process is actually quite similar to evolution in a way. A designer comes in and fuck around with a prototype trying random things and testing it out. Something works and gets mass produce. People then take the new iteration and randomly fuck with it until it improves.

>>8478099
I was meaning more along the lines of physically giving birth than people building new models.

>>8477660
>one cannot become the other because it is much better as itself
So a single celled organism is better than a multicellular organism?

>if it tried to be something it wasn't, it was surely perish.
It didn't try to be anything. It was selected for by the environment BECAUSE it survived more in the environment. So you have not presented a genetic barrier, you just said that natural selection didn't happen without providing a reason why it couldn't happen. Why would nature care about "kinds" as opposed to the best changes?

>>8478105
There's quite a variety of ways that reproduction occurs, so you have to be a bit technical and more inclusive. For example people don't reproduce on their own either, a male and female is needed.

Anyways, "kind" comes down to sorting and is relative. If you have a 100 different objects you'll naturally organize them into different sets based on their similarities in features relative to each other. A rabbit and elephant is more similar to each other than a fish or starfish. With DNA we sort by similarities in genes.

>>8478099
By that logic, all cars "evolved" from the first car, therefore the analogy fails in this context.

Anyway, all it's doing is switching genes and natural selection for memes and artificial selection. It's just assuming what you're trying to argue. The fact that things "evolved" does not imply design, as there are non-design processes that lead to evolution.

>>8478085
What a massive confirmation biased idiot. i can see how you call him one of the smartest, because that means literally jackshit when looking at creationists.

If he did the same thing with fish, he would have had to put actual fish and whales and dolphins as closely related, because they do sorta look alike. Only in biology there isnt only phenotypes. Differences and similarities are much more complex than what he suggests.

>>8477592
Doesn't explain common organelles lmao

File: 59603429.jpg (74KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 400x300px

>>8478085
>qualified creationists

>>8478088
>BRINGS UP ANSWERSINGENESIS LINK
IM FREAKING THE FUCK OUT

>>8478293
Kid, you should have realized this was a creationist thread the second you saw the word kind.

It's almost as if you've never lived in the south

>>8477592
I unironically believe in god. But the idea of creationism is dumb. No shit an all powerful god could make everything super easy, thats boring and literal.

Whats an even more amazing consideration is the idea that god made the universe and everything beget from that naturally over time. Ala Evolution.

File: CTCover.jpg (808KB, 1445x1786px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 1445x1786px

Bump