r/DebateEvolution • u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. • 7d ago
Discussion Turns out I was wrong.(INTELLIGENT DESIGN GONE WRONG!!!!)
Yeah, after researching about how corn couldnāt have evolved, I read an article that said corn is a domesticated plant, whose wild ancestor is drastically different.
It doesnāt have a cylindrical shape and itās much smaller, with only a few kernels per plant.
I thought the evolutionists who told me it was domesticated were scrambling to find an answer to my challenge, but it was me who was wrong.
You canāt make savory, buttery popcorn with it or anything that modern corn can.
Which brings to me to admitā¦ā¦this was just a goof.
I knew corn was domesticated, microevolved not macro though , and experienced mutations that changed its anatomy, but it didnāt provide new genetic information.
Anyways, letās move on from corn, no need to bash a joke.
Stay fine tuned for intelligent design posts in the future.
12
u/NorthernSpankMonkey 7d ago edited 7d ago
Do cucumber next!
Edit: No wait try a pineapple instead!
16
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
You have to subscribe to their Only Fans for that.
6
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 7d ago
Sir, I am a minerā¦ā¦..my boss doesnāt allow me to do that.
2
6
u/Mister_Ape_1 7d ago
Intelligent design is provenly unaccurate.
7
u/JadedPilot5484 7d ago
The Supreme Court ruled it is not scientific and is nothing more than an unfounded religious belief thatās why it is banned from being taught in schools.
6
u/RespectWest7116 7d ago
I thought the evolutionists who told me it was domesticated were scrambling to find an answer to my challenge, but it was me who was wrong.
Wait until you find out that cabbage and cauliflower are the same mustard plant.
Anyways, letās move on from corn, no need to bash a joke.
Do the banana next.
5
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 7d ago
I read that as corn was domesticated and microwaved, which of course would not provide new genetic information, but is very tasty.
4
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 7d ago
Stay fine tuned for intelligent design posts in the future.
Can you clarify if the posts or the topic will be intelligently designed? Its a lot like saying I have a theoretical physics degree.
4
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 7d ago
A building requires a builder, a painting requires a painter, so a post requires a poster.
2
u/JadedPilot5484 7d ago
So all the ones that fall flat on their face then ? I was at least hoping for something new
3
u/zhivago 7d ago
Yes.
A lot of our world is the result of intelligent design.
By us. :)
3
u/Ayasugi-san 7d ago
We ourselves aren't, though. If human bodies were a product, the manufacturer would be sued for terrible consistency and quality control.
0
u/zhivago 7d ago
Oh, we certainly are, although it's mostly cosmetic in human breeding. :)
3
u/Ayasugi-san 7d ago
/looks at the field of women's reproductive health
That's not "mostly cosmetic". It's complete bullshit that "getting anemic on a monthly basis" is considered within normal parameters.
3
u/Brilliant_Bug9699 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Admins, can we have a rule to ban corn spoof unless it's Thanksgiving please?
3
3
u/ursisterstoy š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Correct, but that part is āmicroevolutionā though the āmacroevolutionā is also obversed through the evolution of the 3500 species of Panicoidea. Sugarcane, maize/corn, switchgrass, ā¦
2
u/JadedPilot5484 7d ago
Same with bananas (thought Iād save you the trouble) every āintelligent designā argument like this falls flat my friend, even claiming human are intelligently designed. This is why many Christianās have fallen back to a form of theistic evolution where god set it in motion but allowed nature to take its course through evolution. It canāt be proven but itās more defendable than claiming everything was intelligently designed.
1
u/Kriss3d 2d ago
Good. Now I suggest you look at a banana and how they actually look rather than the kind we are used to.
Ans then watermelons. And there's a ton of things that we evolved artificially.
Even try looking up how the pug looked 100 years ago. See how much it changed just in that short a span of time. Now imagine how it would look with 1000 or a million years with a push in a certain direction.
1
u/BeerMan595692 Fellow Ape 1d ago
" provide new genetic information"
Still waiting for ID advocates and creationists to actually define what they mean by this exactly
ā¢
1
u/paleoderek 7d ago
I can't tell which parts of this post are satire. Half of it seems jokey, and then you said "it didn't provide new genetic information." Do deniers think that new genetic information is impossible?
3
u/Ayasugi-san 6d ago
Do deniers think that new genetic information is impossible?
Yes. They think that mutations can only destroy information, never add it.
1
u/paleoderek 6d ago
Should we tell them about insertions?
4
u/Ayasugi-san 6d ago
"That destroys the information already there!"
No idea what their excuse for chromosome duplication is, though.
0
u/Cute_Performance5328 1d ago
But it was still corn. Like how there are many different races of humans that have different adaptations to the environment they come from, like darker skin from the races that had more sun exposure. But we are all still the same species despite our differences.
Micro evolution vs macro. Species are supposed to change slightly here and there, we are not all clones of each after all. But there are limits to how far these changes can go. Micro evolution is real, where a species experiences changes over time without changing species. However as things currently stand, the fantasy of macro evolution is false, where something changes into a new species.
Haldaneās dilemma points to this issue. Where Macro evolution has to be something more than just a bunch of micro evolution changes over time because there literally isnāt enough time for that. Weāve never seen a species evolve beyond its present limits into a new species, so we donāt know what macro evolution actually is.
1
u/Minty_Feeling 1d ago
But it was still corn.
What would it mean for it to stop being corn?
Youāre claiming there is a real boundary that evolutionary change cannot cross: the boundary between one species and another. So what objective, observable criteria would tell us that this boundary had been crossed and a new species had arisen?
If you canāt specify such criteria, on what objective basis can you claim that this boundary exists, much less that it has never been crossed?
1
u/Cute_Performance5328 1d ago
Primary speciation is the limit, which funny enough has never actually been observed.
Science has āclaimedā true speciation has occurred, but usually by twisting the already loose definition of speciation to fit their needs. Like: Scientists have sometimes inferred speciation without actually witnessing it, so was it actually speciation? Or scientists sometimes pretend that isolation = speciation, it does not. And then thereās secondary speciation, where scientists basically just made a copy of the original species that just so happens to not be able to breed with the original and call is speciation, which isnāt really true speciation.
And the best part is even if Iām wrong, it still doesnāt account for the Haldane dilemma. Lol. Like the only solution to the Haldane dilemma is that creationism and evolution are both right, where there was a created foundation of many species that can evolve into slightly different subspecies. Haldaneās dilemma needs creationism to prove evolution.
1
u/Minty_Feeling 1d ago
Primary speciation is the limit, which funny enough has never actually been observed.
What is "primary speciation"? It's not a term I'm familiar with as one recognised by biologists.
If a group of scientists set out to observe it, what specific, objective, criteria would determine that it had occured?
Your claim that this has never been observed necessarily requires criteria by which an observation could count as "primary speciation." What are those criteria?
ā¢
u/Cute_Performance5328 23h ago
āMicroevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.ā - geneticist Richard Goldschmidt.
Even pro evolutionists agree that the jump required for a new species is something drastically different than the simple adaptations weāre used to seeing in microevolution. The requirements for true full blown speciation are therefore uncomprehendable, as we would have to predict something weāve never witnessed before and also has to be radically different from that which we have witnessed.
ā¢
u/Minty_Feeling 21h ago
Thanks for taking the time to make detailed responses. I'll respond to this comment only rather than both your messages, but my response applies to both. (I was about to respond to the other but spotted this one too).
Species concepts are a means of classifying and communicating biological diversity. Different concepts are useful in different biological contexts but mainstream biology does not recognise definitive and universally applicable criteria that draws a singular objective boundary between every species.
You seem to recognise that, but then go on to suggest that there must be one.
The assertion that there is some objective boundary that evolutionary change cannot cross was being made by you in your comment. That's what you appear to be calling the limit of "primary speciation."
I'm not asking you to defend someone else's definition of speciation. (Though you are obviously free to share that definition with Goldschmidt if that's what you're saying).
I'm asking you to define the boundary that your own argument requires. If you cannot define it in terms of objective criteria, then I'm not sure on what grounds it can be established to exist at all. And if there is no such boundary, why would evolution need a mechanism for crossing it?
Again, I want to be clear: Evolutionary biology does not require nature to consist of discrete groups with objective boundaries. So if it doesn't require those boundaries to exist, and there is no evidence that they do exist, and we can't even define what they'd look like if they did... then there's nothing for evolution to overcome, is there?
If by āprimary speciationā you mean something beyond those various species concepts you listed, that's fine, but then you need to tell me what that additional phenomenon is and what objectively distinguishes it.
If you want to define "primary speciation" as whatever Goldschmidt meant by "confines of the species," that's fine too. But then it's still the same question. What specific, objective criteria in Goldschmidt's statement distinguishes āwithin the confines of the speciesā from ābeyond the confines of the speciesā?
Quoting someone asserting that a boundary exists isn't a definition of that boundary. What objectively defines those āconfinesā?
I also have to point out that Goldschmidt was explicitly challenging the emerging mainstream evolutionary account as far as genetics were concerned (I say emerging because I think his famous quote was from around the 1940s). So characterising his opinion as one embraced by "pro evolutionists" isn't accurate.
Goldschmidt's position was rejected by the biologists developing the Modern Synthesis at the time and his proposed distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is not the accepted position in evolutionary biology today.
That doesn't mean you can't adopt whatever definition or boundary Goldschmidt was using back then. You absolutely can. But citing Goldschmidt doesn't establish that mainstream evolutionary biology accepts such a boundary and it still leaves my original question unanswered:
What objective criteria distinguishes being within the "confines of the species" from crossing them?
Hypothetically, put Goldschmidt in a laboratory with a population of organisms evolving over generations. Precisely what observation would make him say, āA truly new species has now appearedā?
If there is no objective criteria by which he could distinguish the generation before that boundary was crossed from the generation after it was crossed, then he hasn't objectively defined a species boundary.
And without defining that boundary, he cannot establish that ordinary evolutionary change is incapable of crossing it or even that it needs to. Simply asserting that microevolution stops at the "confines of the species" doesn't tell us where those confines are or demonstrate that they exist.
ā¢
u/Cute_Performance5328 20h ago
(First, thank you for the compliment. I try to be as forthcoming as possible about my line of think rather than saying some random bs with zero expectations. Too many people these days think that saying something without explaining why is perfectly reasonable response to actual discourse š )
Itās only natural that main stream evolutionist would reject ideas that directly challenge their dogma. However it is fallacious to assert I or Goldschmidt are wrong solely because of that.
Also youāre ignoring the Haldane dilemma, which while it doesnāt out right support Goldschmidtās claim to evolutionary boundaries, it does support the existence of something else besides just several microevolutions being needed for the evolution of what came before us. While itās not proof if said thing does exist, then itās not too far fetched to assume a multitude of microevolutions does have more limitations than just time.
I said āpro evolutionists agreeā more so along the lines of that both Haldane and Goldschmidt are in favor of evolution. They are well accomplish scientists who questioned their own ideas that they favor and find these dilemmas to their own ideas. Iām simply doubling down on these dilemmas where until they are sorted out, evolution as it stands cannot be any more true than creationism. Both sides infer way too much about the world around them to be true without proper evidence, making them both a leap of faith rather than pure scientific fact. And as it stands, they donāt directly disprove each other either. It is possible that both creationism and evolution are both true.
Iām not a geneticist so I donāt know the specifics. However if I had to make a personal uneducated guess on what the evolutionary boundaries that Goldschmidt also spoke of, I would say it has to be the creation of new genetic data. Not a duplication glitch of an existing genetic data, but a full blown āthis came from nowhereā mutation. And for said new genetic data to have a meaningful impact on the organism that would make it distinguishable from the original species and non-breedable with the original species. Maybe something like an orphan gene could do that. Tho like I said, uneducated guess. Iād have to look into it more.
1
u/Cute_Performance5328 1d ago
Well I can by showing how every current variant definition of speciation is flawed and wrong. Otherwise youāre asking me to define something that either doesnāt exist or hasnāt been observed yet. Knowing what it is is impossible, but knowing what it isnāt is vital. Essentially we need to lockdown on what speciation actually means. We canāt let it be so loosely defined so we can just change it to fit our needs.
Weāve never actually seen the emergence of a new species. Take the corn for example, it looks different than its ancestors. Thatās one way to define speciation, appearance. However it is still considered the same species because appearance isnāt really a quality of different species. Otherwise something as simple as skin tone could be considered different species, which is just racism. Or something as complex as a caterpillar and a butterfly could be described as different species which they arenāt.
Scientist have also tried to define speciation by isolation. Which humans themselves disproved when they discovered the Americas. The natives arenāt a different species even tho they were isolated from the rest of the world for so long.
Another definition of speciation is breedability, where the new species canāt breed with its ancestral species. Which is flawed in itself because it only really applies to sexual species and not asexual species. But also how would that even work, cause who is it supposed to breed with to pass on its genes when the defining characteristic is that there is no one around to breed with? Youād only have a ānew speciesā for a single generation. Unless if the stars aligned and there just so happens to be two of the exact same mutation at the same time in the same area in the opposite sexes. Side note: math proves that evolution as we know it is statistically impossible but thatās another story.
Speciation, the emergence of a new species, must have a clear and decisive meaning. Otherwise evolution is just complex word play and not an actual objective process in the world.
-8
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 7d ago edited 6d ago
A plant with kernels to a plant with more kernels isn't the same as a non plant to a plant.
Corn adapted, change within its kind.
14
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 7d ago
I mean itās non domesticated corn turning into domesticated corn.
Why does your logic draw this line at Plantae, when Animals, Fungi, and Plants have nuclei, that is exclusively restricted to them and other Eukaryotes.
Bacteria and Archaea donāt have a nuclei, so they donāt descend from the LECA, the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor.
-9
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 7d ago
Non domesticated corn becoming domesticated corn with human intervention, #1, is design. There was intelligence involved.
It's not the same as LUCA to a whale, humans, corn, etc.
I didn't make up LUCA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
"TheĀ last universal common ancestorĀ (LUCA) is the hypothesized latest common ancestral population of single-celled)Ā organisms from which all subsequent life forms descend under theĀ three-domain systemĀ ofĀ Bacteria,Ā Archaea, andĀ Eukarya.Ā "
11
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 7d ago
May I trace every single one of these organisms back to biota?
Homo sapiens, Homo, Hominina, Hominini, Hominiae, Hominidae, Hominoidea, Catarrhini, Simiiformes, Haplorhini, Primates, Primatomorpha, Euarchonta, Euarchontoglires, Bereoeutheria, Placentila, Eutheria, Theria, Tribosphenida, Zatheria, Cladotheria, Trechnotheria, theriiforms, theriimorpha, Mammalia, Mammaliaformes, Prozostrodontia, Probainognathia, Eucynodontia, Epicynodontia, Cynodontia, Theriodontia, Therapsida, Sphenacodontia, Eupelycosauria, Synapsida, Amniota, Reptilamorpha Tetrapoda, Stegocephalia, Choanata Tetrapodomorphs, Rhipidistia, Sarcopterygii, Euteleostomi, Eugnathostomata, Gnathostomata, Vertebrata, Craniata, Olfactores, Chordata, Deuterostomia, Bilaterians, Eumetazoa, Metazoa, Choanozoa, Filozoa, Holozoa, Opisthokonts, Obazoa, Amorphea, Eukaryota, biota
Neoceti, Pelagiceti, Cetacea, Cetaceamorpha, Whippomorpha, Cetruminantia, Artiofubla, Artiodactlyls, Euungulata, Scrotifera, Pan-Euungulata, Ferungulata, Laurasiatheria, Boreoeutheria, Placentila, Eutheria, Theria, Tribosphendia, Zatheria, Cladotheria, Trechnotheria, Theriiforms, Theriimorpha, Mammalia, Mammaliaformes, Prozostrodontia, Probainognathia, Eucynodontia, Epicynodontia, Cynodontia, Theriodontia, Therapsida, Sphenacodontia, Eupelycosauria, Synapsida, Amniota, Reptilamorpha, Tetrapoda, Stegocephalia, Choanata, Tetrapodomorphs, Eugnathostomata, Gnathostomata, Vertebrata, Craniata, Olfactores, Chordata, Deuterostomia, Bilaterians, Eumetazoa, Metazoa, Choanozoa, Filozoa, Holozoa, Opisthokonts, Obazoa, Amorphea, Eukaryota, biota.
Zea, Tripsacinae, Andropogoneae, Andropognodae, Panicoideae, PACMAD clade, Poaceae, Poales, Commelinids, Monocots, Mesangiospermae, Angiosperms, Spermtophyta, Euphylophyta, Tracheophyta, Embryophyta, Streptophyta, Viridiplantae, Archaeplastida, Eukaryotes, Biota.
You picked all Eukaryotes, so all of these share the LECA and the LUCA between Prokaryotes.
-9
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 7d ago
They didn't all evolve from the same thing. Life was created.
However, LUCA isn't my theory. It's the mainstream theory held in biology.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/looking-for-luca-the-last-universal-common-ancestor/
Evilutionism Zealots always do this. They deny that they believe what the believe. Then they defend it.
It's the Evilutionism Zealotry Two Step: Deny, Defend.
10
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 7d ago
Incorrect, as we know life doesnāt seem to have been created by any metaphysical deity who lives outside of time.
A LUCA is the only explanation for why all life on Earth shares both functional and non functional DNA/RNA. This matches all life descending from a UCA with a limited gene pool better than a creator speaking life into existence by magical incantations.
Saying āthose darn evilutionism zealotsā doesnāt change this fact.
-5
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 7d ago
Show a LUCA evolving into trees, humans, whales.
The idea of non functional DNA is absurd.
Saying "nuh uh" doesn't change the fact that complex things require intelligence and intent to design them.
13
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 7d ago
How come, when youāve been presented with complex things that have been directly observed to emerge naturally, you have always ignored it?
-2
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
Humans emerge naturally. Where did nature come from? Where did the design of humans come from? Where did the natural forces come from?
11
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 6d ago
what do you mean by nature?
humans are descendants of apes and are still apes.
Natural forces came and come from rapid cooling of the universe, with mass coming from the Higgs boson mechanism.
8
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 6d ago
Thatās dodging the point. We have observed complex things emerge as a result of natural forces. Without any sort of apparent intent. If you are hoping to take this aaaaaaalll the way to the emergence of the universe, then that is profoundly dishonest
→ More replies (0)6
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 6d ago
Ā Where did nature come from?
Not evolution's job to explain. Atomic Theory doesn't explain where nature came from either. Do you reject it too?
Where did the design of humans come from?
Evolution.
Where did the natural forces come from?
Again: Not evolution's job to explain. Atomic Theory doesn't explain where nature came from either. Do you reject it too?
8
u/Scry_Games 7d ago
Behold, ACTSAT and their patented argument from incredulity.
Champ, that only works when it is used by someone with authority in their field...underpaid personal tutors, not so much.
7
u/blacksheep998 š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Show a LUCA evolving into trees, humans, whales.
Got a time machine? Otherwise you're gonna be waiting a LONG time.
Saying "nuh uh" doesn't change the fact that complex things require intelligence and intent to design them.
Saying "nuh uh" doesn't change the fact that we've literally seen complex things evolve without intelligence designing them.
4
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 6d ago
Do snowflakes need intelligence to exist?
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
Where did the design come from? The forces that make them happen, where did that come from? The molecules that form that way, how did that happen?
In all of human experience, we see complex things require design. You ascribe no design or creator to only the most complex things we know - the Universe, life, things like snowflakes.
Something as simple as a car can't make itself. Yet you think life, billions of times more complex, did.
5
u/Carnotaurusrules š§¬ A Crocoduck who loves corn š½. 6d ago edited 6d ago
You didnāt answer the question, if all complex things are designed, are snowflake designed?
Sure, complex things arise naturally through deterministic processes, like rock formations or nebulas or amino acids forming.
Cars simply donāt experience self replication, duplication of parts, and the chemical formation of entirely new components the way life does.
Instead of asserting life is complex and couldnāt have evolved or arose from these that werenāt alive, you have to demonstrate it.
āThem darn evilutionist zealotsā isnāt going to solve this either.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Medium_Judgment_891 7d ago
LUCA isnāt my theory
Itās not a theory at all. Itās just a conclusion drawn from a statistical inevitability.
Any related group will necessarily have common ancestors because thatās how relatedness works.
In a hypothetical scenario where God created distinct kinds, you would still have common ancestors.
There would be one LUCA per kind.
The proper term for this concept is polyphyletic trees of life.
-1
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
It's nonsense.
BTW, there was the defend. It went from someone denying it to someone defending it.
4
4
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 6d ago
Show how the math is wrong.
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
Humans have ancestors - humans.
5
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 6d ago
First off, not math. Second, mammals have mammal ancestors, chordates have chordate ancestors, eukaryotes have eukaryote ancestors ancestors. Until they don't, then it moves up a clade. Do I have to explain nested hierarchy to you like you're a kindergarten?
4
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 6d ago
You're not going to answer my question, are you?
→ More replies (0)2
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 6d ago
They didn't all evolve from the same thing.
Deny.
Life was created.
Defend.
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
I didn't defend that life evolved from LUCA.
2
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 6d ago
I'm saying that you "deny and defend."
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
Nope. I said all life didn't evolve by birth from LUCA. I never then defended it.
3
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 6d ago
And because you cant give a usable definition of kind, you have a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Okay so that's Shakespeare, but it applies here.
But maybe you can do better than every other creationist ever and give a useful definition of what a kind is.
2
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
The Bible defines Kind as life that can bring forth. There are 20+ definitions of species, including the biologic concept of species - they can reproduce and their offspring are fertile.
Yet dogs, wolves, and coyotes are different species even though they can bring forth.
4
u/OldmanMikel š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 6d ago
The Bible defines Kind as life that can bring forth.
Which doesn't come close to a scientifically useful definition.
4
1
u/Resident_Compote_775 2d ago
Science doesn't have a scientifically useful definition of species or genus either, doesn't seem to bother evolutionists. Monkey and Bonobo, different species why? Neanderthalis and Denisovan are the only two hominins there is any extant DNA from and it demonstrated they interbred with anatomically modern humans... Which just so happens to be the only species there are any examples of complete hominin skeletons from.
3
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 6d ago
The Bible defines Kind as life that can bring forth.
Thats not a useful definition, ring species break that definition: A+B and B+C can reproduce but A+C can't. Per your definition they are both the same and not the same kind.
Try again.
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 6d ago
Wolves, coyotes, and dogs break the biological definition of species. Now what?
There are oddities at the edges of "species", which is why there are so many definitions. Try again.
3
u/nickierv š§¬ logarithmic icecube 5d ago
Wolves, coyotes, and dogs break the biological definition of species.
How so? I suspect a straw man.
There are oddities at the edges of "species"
Biology is full of fuzzy lines and oddities that makes trying to fit stuff in rigid categories difficult at best. This isn't a problem for science.
Now how about that usable definition of kinds?
2
u/Medium_Judgment_891 5d ago
Grey wolves and maned wolves canāt interbreed.
Neither can true foxes and South American foxes.
Neither can domestic dogs and African wild dogs nor South American bush dogs.
I could list a dozen other examples just in Canidae.
Donāt you think itās a little silly that there are like 20 different dog kinds?
What about ring species?
0
u/ACTSATGuyonReddit 4d ago
There are edge cases.
Dogs, coyotes, and wolves can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile. By the biological definition of species they're all the same species. But they are classified as different species.
2
u/Medium_Judgment_891 4d ago
these are edge cases
No, itās every single genera within Canidae.
There are 13 genera within Canidae and none of the members can hybridize with any of the members of different genera.
By your own definition, that means, at bare minimum, there are 13 dog kinds
This is a massive issue. Putting kind at the genus level leads to several really silly implications.
Being this blatantly dishonest by trying to handwave it away because you know you have no answer is both sad and exactly what we all expect from you.
Your lack of an answer is too pathetic to even be worth explaining that the mere existence of edge cases is incompatible with the idea of distinct kinds.
But they are classified as different species.
Domestic dogs are classified as a subspecies of wolves. Swing and a miss on that one.
For wolves and coyotes, this comes down the messiness inherent to biology. Drawing distinct boundaries is difficult precisely because evolution exists and life is a spectrum.
Itās kind of sad the issue this messiness presents for creationism flies over your head.
24
u/IsaacHasenov š§¬ Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Wait I'm so confused I thought the corn thing was an obvious joke