Arrowman

Something I just posted in another thread, which is also relevant here;

I have a little list of "questions creationists can't answer" - I have asked these on various message boards at various times, as well as having read some creationist material, and I can honestly say I have never received or read a clear, straightforward answer.

One of these questions is "Please describe the biological or genetic barrier which prevents natural genetic diversification from proceeding beyond the 'kind' barrier." (Of course, this also implies "define a kind" which is equally impossible for creationists to answer.)

I'd suggest you ask that one on CF - but you won't get an answer

RufusAtticus

I always do. It is number 8 on my list in that post.

Shpongle

I tried asking this too on CF, focusing on the specific diversity of the Felidae (cat) family. I tried to find out why some creationists can accept all the members of that family diversifying from a common ancestor, but won't accept further diversification.

The closest I got to an answer was reference to a "natural barrier". But what that barrier is was never explained.

Doubting Didymus

I suspect that creationists are attempting to use a species of "common sense" to place the kind barriers. That is, the barrier seperating cats from another "kind", is the property of "cattiness". This might seem quite obvious to you if you did not understand evolution. After all, how can a cat lose its cattiness? To them, "losing the property of catiness" would mean "becoming a dog". I can see how this might seem like common sense to someone who does not understand evolution.

Shpongle

That's what I figured, which is why I also created an image of different cat species, to show off the incredible diversity within the Felidae family. Therefore, if anyone brought up the old "cats will always give birth to cats", it's easy enough to respond, "Really? So a tiger can give birth to a serval? How about a sandcat giving birth to a lynx?".

It never got to that point, though.

Arrowman

Pete - no, no - you're getting it all wrong. You see, tigers have lost the information necessary to produce a serval (sp?) and sandcats have lost the "lynx genes". The earliest cat ancestor was this sort of catty creature that had all the information for all the species of cat in it, and then over time as the various cat species diverged, each time they diverged they lost information....

It's all quite simple, really...

beyelzu

thanks arrowman, with that understanding, i will now shake off both my atheism and acceptance of evolution. im off to go convert to xianity

Jack the Bodiless

I've even encountered one old-Earth creationist who accepted the development of modern multicellular organisms from microbes, but "because mutations cannot increase information", the Earth was initially populated (by God) with a number of superbugs with huge genomes containing all the genetic information needed for their descendants! (...more than one is needed, because "obviously one couldn't contain all the information")

I don't think he specified whether all cats were descended from the "cat bug" and dogs from the "dog bug" though.

And, of course, humans aren't descended from the "ape bug". Regardless of the evidence for it, this is the biggest taboo. Several billion years after creating the superbugs, God put us here fully-formed.

Arrowman

LOL!

Oh, I don't know - I reckon you could get away with one "superbug" - it's just that it would probably look like this...

seesaw

lol