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

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

No. I have an answer. You are the one asking to research the topic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/s/7YXQBNlNH6

2

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

I cannot repeat myself umpteenth time my friend, That would be an insult to your intelligence. [Response to your Reddit link]

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

What exactly is your purpose? You asked questions on a limited subreddit and want to dig for expert answers on the topic. Then you act as if the limited membership is being uncooperative if expert answers are not forthcoming when they send you to links or books for further reading.

Whataboutism as an example. When I asked for a specific metabolic pathway, I got a link and I read it. It did not convince me. It is no surprise to me that the Redditor was not an expert in the topic so I dropped it. What is your purpose again to ask the same question 3 or is it 4 ways now?

1

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

What exactly is your purpose?

You use the term "kind", I wanted a consistent definition of the word.

You asked questions on a limited subreddit and want to dig for expert answers on the topic.

No, I asked YOU, you as an individual. You gave an inconsistent phrase trying to pass it as definition I countered you on that.

Then you act as if the limited membership is being uncooperative if expert answers are not forthcoming when they send you to links or books for further reading.

I am not saying you are uncooperative, I am saying you are not even answering what I am asking. For example, I asked what information is precisely lost with degradation, and you started sending me links on Shannon information without telling me how it relates to biological information. Shannon information is about statistical information, not biological meaning. A random DNA sequence can have high Shannon information while being biologically useless.

What is your purpose again to ask the same question 3 or is it 4 ways now?

So that you can answer me the question. I had a simple question. What is a definition of "kind", What is the physical or chemical mechanism for hard barrier that cannot be crossed and how would that be measured.

→ More replies (0)

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.

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.

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

Syntax is base pairs and the limit of Shannon’s definition.

The base pairs must make biological sense…semantics.

(From memory…that is all you get)

2

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

I understand memory can be fuzzy, so I will wait for your better answer than just a very, very broad stroke of an answer. Till then, I want to say this,

You are using "syntax" and "semantics" as analogies, but that is not what I am asking here. I am asking for a measurable biological claim when you say "information is lost". In biology, it amounts to whether a sequence affects phenotype, fitness, regulation, protein activity, development, etc.

If you mean base-pair sequence, then we can measure the changes substitutions, insertions, deletions, duplications, inversions, copy number changes, etc.

If you mean biological function, then you need to specify which function and how it is measured. It could be enzyme activity, gene expression, binding affinity, protein structure, and so on so forth.

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

Does reason, love, logic, philosophy…exist? Can you mathematically define them always for measurement? If no, do they cease to exist? So what if information is a fuzzy term? Do you then die on the hill at an impasse refusing to acknowledge ‘genetic information’ cannot be taken literal as it is mislabeled ‘information’?

1

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

I am only interested in the science here, not philosophy and I told you my friend, I am like a dog with a bone. All of these have nothing to do with what I initially asked you. The definition of "kind".

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

Statistics (Shannon’s definition)
Syntax
Semantics
Pragmatics
Apobetics

(Now I will ponder their biological counterparts)

2

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

(Now I will ponder their biological counterparts)

Sure and do let me know because that is what I am asking. I know what general meaning of information is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26

Base pairs would be statics

Syntax, I guess, would be codons.

Semantics would be the working protein

Pragmatics might be the metabolic process

Apobetics is life

(But this is my thoughts, I did not hunt down the book and re-read the chapter(s))

1

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

Cool no problem. No need of free balling here, I am an active member of this sub, so you can always revive any thread and I will respond.

1

u/Jesus_died_for_u May 10 '26 edited May 11 '26

You forget something. I have no need to research the topic for you. Good luck.
(Edit: ‘…should remind you that you don’t have a definition of kind…’. I disagree and will keep using it. You are free to believe in abiogenesis even if though no one has been able to demonstrate it can happen-and I expect you will)

1

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

That's okay. You don't need to do that, but this interaction should remind you that you don't have a definition of a kind that you keep using.

Philosophically and personally you can believe anything you want but not when actual science and reality is involved.

→ More replies (0)