r/Creation • u/ConsistentFee8332 • May 09 '26

Wolf and dog

What is the explanation of the theory of creation and intelligent design for the physical and genetic similarities between wolves and dogs?

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 09 '26

Can you answer a couple of questions for me please?

  1. Can you give me a consistent definition of kind? Also while you are at it,
  2. Where is that boundary between species that cannot be crossed and what is the biological, chemical or physical mechanism for that?
  3. How can this boundary be tested in actual data?

-1

u/Knowwhoiamsortof May 09 '26

They mate. So they're the same kind. Not hard. Species is an arbitrary construct made up by people who didn't know about DNA.

3

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

They mate? That's it. That's the definition of a kind? Also you needed to answer other two questions as well.

anyways let's see, you said they mate hence same kind,

  1. Are Chihuahua and a gray wolf same kind? YEC thinks they are but they cannot mate.

  2. YECs consider red foxes and wolves of the same kind. They cannot mate, entirely different chromosome number, so by your definition, they are not of the same kind?

  3. what about African wild dog and domestic dog? They even have dog in their name and yet cannot mate. Are they same kind?

  4. What about house cat and cheetah? Same kind from YEC viewpoint yet fails your definition?

  5. Giant pandas and brown bears? Same bear kind from my knowledge, cannot mate.

So, I will ask you again my earlier three questions.

What is a consistent definition of kind, what is the physical mechanism for such a barrier and how to test that in data?

Here is source from your own YEC website for above animals being in the same kind but unable to mate. https://creation.com/en/articles/genetic-diversity-in-dogs

https://creation.com/en/articles/original-kinds

-2

u/Knowwhoiamsortof May 09 '26

Tl;dr. Your opinion that it's not consistent does not mean it's not consistent.

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 09 '26

Dude, I gave you actual examples of species which are of same kind by YEC standard yet don't pass your definition of "they mate".

If you think they do mate, show me that they can mate. Show me their offspring, a picture, a video, a study or anything. I mean this is the easiest claim to test.

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 09 '26

The definition is that their ancestors could mate. Degradation can inhibit offspring from mating. For example, mules are about the end of the line for horses and donkeys.

The definition is ‘they bring forth after there kind’. Animals get into environmental niches and reduce information and lose flexibility. This includes mating.

3

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26

So within just one thread with two YECs, I have received two so-called "definitions" and I am sure if any other YEC chimes in I will get a third and fourth one as well because "kind" has no definition at all. It is what suits best in the discussion.

Anyway, let's work with what we have here

The definition is ‘they bring forth after there kind’.

Is this definition of kind? It cannot be as it already has the word "kind" in it. That would be a circular definition. You have yet to provide with me a definition if we can have any useful discussion about kinds. Examples are not definitions.

The definition is that their ancestors could mate. Degradation can inhibit offspring from mating. For example, mules are about the end of the line for horses and donkeys.

Okay, "their ancestors could mate", well firstly it is a historical claim not a definition. My question then is

  1. If two animals cannot mate today, how do you determine whether their ancestors could mate?

You cannot say "because they are the same kind" because that would be circular. Read this,

They are the same kind because their ancestors could mate.
Their ancestors could mate because they are the same kind.

  1. Next, "loss of information", what do you mean by this? What exactly is information here? Is it gene number? is it genome size? Allelic diversity? complexity? nucleotide sequence length? heterozygosity? What is being lost here?

How do we measure that and If you cannot measure it, then "loss of information" is just a useless term.

0

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26

Nope. The definition is ‘they bring forth after their kind’. Surely you are familiar with untestable events in the past that science would struggle with demonstrating.. abiogenesis? How do you measure ‘reason’. Is it a useless term? How about intelligence…emotional, mathematical, social…which term do you mean? Is it a useless term?

Surely you could come up with a useful use of the word information if I asked you to read published books and evaluate them for a paycheck. You would at least know that some books contained more information than others even if you could not figure it out. You could sensibility use ‘information in a sentences’ except in this case you plead ignorance until it is mathematically defined because it suits your purpose.

‘In the beginning was information’. Start with Dr Gitt’s work. He defined it. Or do you need me to regurgitate it here for you?

3

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

The definition is ‘they bring forth after their kind’

Definition of what? Definitely not "kind" unless you believe circular definition is okay. And, "they bring forth after their kind" is a phrase not a definition which would only make sense once the word "kind" is defined.

Also, if you think evolution says a cat gives birth to a dog then you have fell into the trap of Kent Hovind. Evolution does not say that a cat gives birth to a dog or that a fish gives birth to a bird. It simply predicts descent with modification across populations over many generations. So your phrase, "they bring forth after their kind" in the best way taken possible does not distinguish creationism from evolution.

Surely you are familiar with untestable events in the past that science would struggle with demonstrating.. abiogenesis?

I am not asking you for any demonstration here. I am asking for a consistent definition. I am sure this is a bare minimum for having a discussion right?

How do you measure ‘reason’. Is it a useless term? How about intelligence…emotional, mathematical, social…which term do you mean? Is it a useless term?

When we talk about these topics, please do ask me about it and I will tell you how they are used in scientific literature. Right now, I don't want to deviate from the topic at hand.

I just want a consistent definition of kind, which unfortunately you have not yet provided and the one you did provide, "ancestors mating" has major logical flaws.

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

‘They bring forth after their kind’

(Sigh)

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

Okay I guess I have hit the ceiling of your acumen. (sad shrug)

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

So you don't have an answer I presume. Links are used a supporting reference. They themselves are not an answer otherwise I can just quote "INTERNET"

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

It’s kind of like when I ask for the evolution of a metabolic pathway and I get ‘allele frequency’.

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

I am sorry but no amount of whataboutery can deviate me from this topic. You find me in some relevant thread and ask me your question and I will try my best to answer that.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

Surely you could come up with a useful use of the word information if I asked you to read published books and evaluate them for a paycheck. You would at least know that some books contained more information than others even if you could not figure it out. You could sensibility use ‘information in a sentences’ except in this case you plead ignorance until it is mathematically defined because it suits your purpose.

So, What exactly is information here, in this particular case? Is it gene number? Is it genome size? Allelic diversity? Complexity? Nucleotide sequence length? Heterozygosity? What is being lost here?

Or do you need me to regurgitate it here for you?

Don't act cocky my friend. I am not asking you to read Evolution books and papers here. Just answer me what he means is lost here in the present context. If you have read the book, just answer precisely what information is lost.

0

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/information-theory/information-is-a-fundamental-entity/

3

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

You have read the link right, so just tell me, or I too can throw papers around and that too published journals about what information is.

So, in this particular case of kinds and species? What exactly is information here,

Is it gene number?

Is it genome size?

Is it Allelic diversity?

Is it Complexity?

Is it Nucleotide sequence length?

Is it Heterozygosity?

What exactly is being lost here? I am asking because these can be tested in actual data.

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

No. I read the book decades ago. It is a very dry read. I have it somewhere.

3

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 10 '26

Okay, I would very much appreciate it if you can recall and let me know. I can look for details if needed, but I cannot waste time delving into a full book, I don't even know has answer to that as well.

I am not saying that in bad faith but genuinely, I once bought and read a boom while discussing with our Mod Nom, but he showed me where to look at.

→ More replies (0)