Have you ever been around when a batch of 17 year cicadas were hatching out? It’s happening here, now, and they’re an extremely noisy bunch of insects—they’re fairly quiet early in the morning, then as the day warms up, they become more active, making a loud, undulating whine in the trees, sometimes seeming very close, sometimes further away, and often both near and far. Sometimes, when I’m walking outside, their sound feels like a constant almost mind numbing roar; this has been going on for at least a week. And while the cicadas are making their noise, the crickets chime in periodically, and of course, birds are singing everywhere—it’s a regular cacophony of sound. Every so often the tree frogs add their voices, too. (I wish I could identify more birds by their songs—I do much better by sight.)
So you claim that adaptation and change can happen "within a kind," but that one "kind" cannot change into another. The major problem with your argument is that you don't define "kind."Actually, I don’t think that’s a problem at all. The classification of organisms is a bit arbitrary and subjective, and even Darwinian evolutionists can’t agree on how to classify some organisms, especially now that organisms can be studied to the level of DNA. And evolutionary scientists also don’t all agree on the definition of “species”. Somewhere I read that “species” was originally just another word (from Latin, I think) for “kind” and was simply a descriptive term, but the word eventually became an official scientific term related to taxonomy. This is an area in which scientists still have much to learn, so neither creationists nor evolutionists can be totally adamant about which organism fits within which category, whether the evolutionist’s “species” or the creationist’s “kind”. In general, I’d probably say that if animals can reproduce with each other, they’re of the same kind—for example wolf and dog, or different breeds of dogs. I don’t know about foxes and coyotes because I don’t know if they can interbreed with dogs. Cats and dogs definitely don’t interbreed, so are of different kinds.
The point we’re discussing, though, is whether one type (kind/species, whatever) can morph into another type, which then morphs into something else, starting from one-celled organisms and ending up with man. Darwinian evolutionists assert that this can happen. Biblical creationists assert that, while variation and adaptation within a kind occurs, one kind does not change to another kind—the canine ‘kind’ does not morph into the feline or bovine ‘kind’, nor does the ape ‘kind’ morph into the human ‘kind’. Of all the studies I’ve seen presented by evolutionists, none have shown how one kind can develop from another. Darwin’s finches always remained finches. None of the thousands of generations of fruit flies that have been studied have yielded anything but fruit flies (many of which were grossly mutated, but they were still fruit flies). Of the thousands of years of farm husbandry, farm animals have always produced after their kind—bovines produce bovines, swine produce swine, and so on. In the studies of viruses and bacteria, the virus remained a virus, and the bacteria remained bacteria.
From a biblical creationist perspective, all the basic kinds of organisms appeared during the creation week at the beginning of time (Genesis 1). Mankind was made last and separately from all the other creatures. While there is no specific list of all the ‘kinds’ of organisms, it does say that each organism is to reproduce after its own kind: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind...” (Genesis 1:11) Likewise, the birds, sea creatures, and land animals were each created according to its kind. Just as apples always produce apples (and not peaches or beans), bacteria, molds, mammals, and humans each reproduce according to its own kind.
As for dog coats, you give one explanation for where the three genes come from: that God put all three genes and their variants in wolves, and people selected for them. Another explanation is the evolutionary explanation: that wolves had a certain set of genes, and as they were being domesticated, some of the wolf offspring had mutations in those genes that gave them coats that humans found charming. Then humans selected for these. And each time a new, charming mutation occurred, humans selected for it.You’re apparently assuming that wolves were the first of the canine ‘kind’--how do you know that? Yes, I’m saying that the three basic genes were present from the beginning, and then variation resulted over time, whether due to human intervention or environmental conditions or other factors. That article stated that most variation could be accounted for by the mixing and matching of these genes. Mutation probably accounts for a small portion of the variation. For example, I believe the Mexican Hairless breed is the result of a mutation, as is presence of skin folds in sharpeis. Of course, in both breeds, negative traits go with the mutations—both breeds have ‘weak’ skin very prone to infections and allergies. Even with these mutations, sharpeis and the Mexican Hairless are still dogs—mutation changed some traits, but did not change their basic canine genome, the genes that make them canine rather than feline or something else.
It is mutations of genes that give the variety we see!On what do you base this statement? Are you saying that these three genes for hair coats are all the result of mutations over time, and that there was a time, before the appearance of these genes, when all canines looked the same? And if these three genes weren’t present in the earliest canines, what determined the appearance of their coats? You’re making this statement as if it were a fact when, in truth, there is no way you can be sure of this. It appears that you are observing something in the present (presence of three genes for canine hair coat) and then interpreting its meaning about the past (that those genes appeared through mutation over time) from an evolutionary perspective. The study in the article used empirical science to learn about these genes; it determined how these genes function now, and while it determined that these genes account for most of the variation in canine hair coat, it says nothing about where those genes originally came from.
Apparently you believe that all wolves and dogs are related. How bout foxes? Coyotes? Are all birds related? Are bats related to birds? How can you tell? What about all apes? Are the monkeys related to apes? How bout bushbabies? (cuz they're super cute) Are camels related to horses? How can you tell? How do you know cats are not related to dogs? You seem pretty confident.What do you mean by “related”? Most of these animals are classed as mammals because of morphological similarities. And these mammals are classified into various sub-groups on the basis of morphology. They are “related” in the sense that they have similar characteristics. But similar morphology doesn’t mean these animals are “related” in the sense of having shared ancestors. Bats are mammals that fly—they’re probably their own ‘kind’. I would also say that camelids, equines, felines, and canines are each different ‘kinds’. I imagine there are multiple ‘kinds’ of birds just as there are multiple ‘kinds’ of mammals. You seem fairly confident that all organisms are related through heredity in some way—on what are you basing your confidence?
I wish I could understand your integral that you wrote up. It may be trivial, but I think it’s neat that you have the knowledge to be able to write it.
Glad to hear you’re trying to keep some balance in your life by setting boundaries on your work. :o)
Congratulations to VJ! Didn’t know the major he chose existed—will he use it in his current job?
Susan
No comments:
Post a Comment