|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I see they are as knowledgeable as you about evolution. All those examples are issues only if you ignore real evolution theory.
Pick one and defend it. You won't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: "Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. No, only the truly ignorant or dishonest might "know that" but the rest of us understand that has not been true for millions, maybe billions of years and all the evidence shows that things do not always get better. In fact, almost all life forms have failed and no longer even exist instead of continuing to get better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yeah, if you define "everyone" as "the abysmally ignorant". Anyone with a clue doesn't "know" that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Here's the article.
Onward and Upward? It's actually quite sensible and the only thing it disagrees with is the old naive assumption that evolution automatically leads to increased complexity at every step. It does not, however, give any reason to think that evolution cannot produce increased complexity - quite the opposite. The discussion of ammonites is a case in point. Of course Dredge has probably never read it. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yeah, but Discover is a pretty good magazine written for those who are ignorant of the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.
And as Gould said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Notice how Gould says "however reasonable" - how quaint. Beware of what a Darwinist considers to be "reasonable"! The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - "reasonable" junk science, in other words. The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. Darwinists justify this farce by adopting the a priori position that all life is related, therefore every creature must somehow fit into the "bush of life". Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I love it when creationists quote-mine Gould. My bold in the next Gould quote-mine.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260. Hey, Dredge, have you discovered those organisms not falling into a nested hierachy you were telling us about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
This gets us into the whole issue of science popularization, especially since creationists love to quote-mine out of that genre.
The text below is from Wikipedia's article, Popular science:
quote:o the forms of popular science, I would like to add museums and, unfortunately, primary- and secondary-grade textbooks. The reconstruction that Porky was denouncing in Message 1 was undoubtedly intended for a museum display (or perhaps for a TV production), as several participants pointed out to him and which he doesn't seem to have ever acknowledged. So while the tone of the scientific literature is appropriately tentative, both explicitly and implicitly, the tone of a science popularization can appear more certain and more final. In a presentation he gave in 1983, Fred Edwords cited that as one of the problems with science education, that it tends to present the material as "here are the conclusions of science, take them or leave them" when instead it should present the reasons for those conclusions and demonstrate why they are valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists. Sorry,no. A nested hierarchy is a specific type of arrangement of elements of sets and is a concept invented by mathematicians. Very few sets can be arranged in a nested hierarchy. As evinced by the many failed attempts by creationists to arrange vehicles and whatnot into a nested hierarchy. The fact that life can be arranged in a nested hierarchy is an observation. It's data. It's so unusual in the universe of all sets that it demands explanation. We have one. You don't (other than magic).
And as Gould said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." A quote-mine from a non-technical essay aimed at people unfamiliar with the subject. The Quote Mine Project, item 3.2. If you want to discuss the inferences and demonstrate they are not valid, go ahead. But you'll have to do a lot of studying first. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
He tried, and failed.
quote: By Casey Luskin, a lawyer famed for his ignorance of biology. For example:
quote: Of course there's no reason to believe that a flat face couldn't have evolved independently in a species that later died out. No problem at all. ABE: Of course no biologist or knowledgeable person calims that any hominid fossil is a direct ancestor of us. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists. So now you are recanting on your claim that "Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies" ... interesting. In Message 1 you said:
Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds". Creationist Literalists are often critiqued for not being able to define what "kinds" are. I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies". If "kinds" don't fall into nested hierarchies, then that would be evidence to me that they never existed ... because life does fall into nested hierarchies. It is one of the pieces of evidence we have for macroevolution. In Message 3 you asked: "God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy?" ... presumably you agreed with the simplified nested hierarchy of primates I listed in Message 7 (with over 300 species of primates included), seeing as you haven't replied. Then you attempted to clarify your position in Message 31 by saying:
I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. That is not the point of the Scripture, which is this: If God initially created simple life forms that later evolved into all the life we see on earth today, there would be no point in him saying creatures were created "according to their kinds", because the original "kinds" were destined to evolve into oblivion. That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds. To which I replied in Message 32 with an example of smooth transition in the fossil record and asked "Does that not look like a species reproducing "according to their kinds" from generation to generation?" ... and you haven't answered that, yet, but now appear to give up your argument, saying
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists. Interesting ... basically an admission of failure for your original thesis Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists. The nested hierarchies were first described by Linnaeus, hundreds of years before Darwin. Also, phylogenies are objective observations of nature:
quote: The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - "reasonable" junk science, in other words. As shown above, phylogenies are rigorously tested and objective. They aren't baseless assumptions or speculation.
The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. How does a platypus not fit into a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. Darwinists justify this farce by adopting the a priori position that all life is related, therefore every creature must somehow fit into the "bush of life". Um, you do know how babies are made, right? Life comes from life. It has to be related.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dredge,
You sure dredged one up here. pun intended.
Dredge writes: Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds". Lets get the facts straight.In Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth. In Genesis 1:21 God created the sea monster. (Prepared for Jonah). In Genesis 1:27 God created mankind, male and female. There are no other creation events in Genesis. The creatures you are referring too was called forth after their kind. Which had already existed, as they were formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis chapter 2 and had perished prior to Genesis 1:2. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone will claim that a new kind has began to exist in the last 6,000 years that was not engineered by humans. To not derail this topic if you wish to discuss what Genesis states about creation I would be glad to oblige you and participate in such a thread. All you would have to do is start one and notify me of its existence. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024