|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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". A clade in biology is defined as a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life". Genesis defines (loosely) kind as a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants ("according to their kinds") so it would seem that we are talking about the same thing, with today's species descending from a common ancestor (population\breeding pair\etc) via (micro)evolution:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. With multiple population division events followed by independent evolution, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.
Where A, B, C and G represent population division events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade. ... I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies". So the biological term is clade.
Message 1: God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy? Quick answer is yes, however care has to be taken to ensure all descendants are included in the clade to be monophyletic. The question is how far back do we -- can we -- go to find the common ancestor and determine the created kind -- ie is there a limit to how far back we can go, and what causes that limit. Here is a simplified cladogram:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate]Primates[/url] │ └─[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strepsirrhini]Strepsirhini[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct strepsirhini not listed below │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorisoidea]Lorisiformes[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct lorises │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuriformes]Lemuriformes[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct lemurs │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapiformes]Adapiformes[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct apadiformes (including Pelycodus) │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplorhini]Haplorhini[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct haplorhini │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsiiformes]Tarsiiformes[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct tarsiiformes │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian]Simiiformes[/url] (or Anthropoidea) │ └─(*) All living and extinct simiiformes not listed below │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_monkey]Platyrrhini[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct new world monkeys │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini]Catarrhini[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct catarrhini not listed below │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey]Cercopithecidae[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct old world monkeys │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colobinae]Colobinae[/url] │ └─(*) All living and extinct colobinae │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape]Hominoidea[/url] (superfamily) │ └─(*) All living and extinct apes not listed below ┌─────────┘ │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)]Proconsul[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct proconsul desendants │ └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyapithecus]Kenyapithecus[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct kenyapithecus desendants │ └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon]Hylobatidae[/url] (gibbons) │ └─(*) All living and extinct gibbons │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae]Hominidae[/url] (family) │ └─(*) All living and extinct great apes not listed below ┌─────────┘ │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryopithecus]Dryopithecus[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct dryopithicus desendants │ └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierolapithecus]Pierolapithecus[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct pierolapithecus desendants │ └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponginae]Ponginae[/url] (family) │ └─(*) All living and extinct Orangutans │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae]Homininae[/url] (subfamily) │ └─(*) All living and extinct homininae not listed below │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samburupithecus]Samburupithecus[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct samburupithecus desendants │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakalipithecus]Nakalipithecus[/url] │ └─(*) All extinct nakalipithecus desendants │ └──┬───[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillini]Gorillini[/url] (tribe) │ └─(*) All living and extinct Gorillas │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini]Hominini[/url] (tribe) │ └─(*) All living and extinct hominini not listed below ┌─────────┘ │ └──┬─?─[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus]Sahelanthropus[/url](possible common ancestor) │ └─(*) All extinct sahelanthropus desendants │ ├─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee]Panina[/url] (subtribe) │ └─(*) All living and extinct Chimpanzees │ └─────[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo]Hominina[/url] (subtribe) └─(*) All living and extinct Hominina including Homo sapiens Notes (*) denotes "a nested clade of ..." For a more complete listing see Primate cladogram evolution So the question becomes: is this what you meant by the Primate kind? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : link for cladeby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dredge,
Do you agree
Message 7: A clade in biology is defined as a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life". Genesis defines (loosely) kind as a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants ("according to their kinds") so it would seem that we are talking about the same thing, with today's species descending from a common ancestor (population\breeding pair\etc) via (micro)evolution: To my mind genesis is definitely speaking of clades as we define them in biology. The question then becomes how far back do we go? Now you might think that "primate" turns out to be too big for what you were thinking, but where do you stop and why? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
To my mind, someone took a few words from Genesis about animals giving birth to their own kind, a statement that we all agree is factual, and then ran with it off into silly land to interpret it to mean that animals cannot evolve. Curiously, I think there is a little more to it. People of the times were animal herders of domestic breeds and were familiar with breeding creating variations, but sheep only bred new forms of sheep, cows only bred new forms of cows, dogs only bred new formes of dogs, etc etc etc. Hence the comments like "dogs will always be dogs." Creationists now accept microevolution, so the gripe has moved to macroevolution. ie never breed "out of their kind"(whatever that means to them) or develop new kinds. It rather amuses me that what is described for descent from original kinds so perfectly matches the description of clades descent from ancestor populations. I would have thought that creationists would have jumped all over cladistics as vindication for their arguments ... except for that dangerous territory of finding where the original kinds fit without having any predecessors ...
If the earth is only 6000 years old, then animals did not have time to evolve regardless of whether they had the potential to do so. ... Dredge, I believe, is an old earth creationist, so time not so important for his argument.
... It's ridiculous; no more and no less so than everything else in Creation Science. Yes, but the old argument for defining "kinds" as some taxon category is also rather ridiculous imho -- when we can use clades, show how they match their description for "kinds" and then move on to what is the earliest common ancestor for each branch, and demonstrate that there is always an ancestor population in the fossil record and in the genetic record. Though cladistics the argument against original created kinds is stronger, imho, than previous arguments based on taxons. Enjoy abe -- Primate Cladogram now lists ~300 living and extinct species, with some yet to list, and is by no means complete for extinct species. I think Dredge may be surprised at how big this clade is. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : abeby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think the Bible uses the word "kind" much as we do - e.g. "What kind of dog is that?" Poodles beget poodles and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs but there's no suggestion that interbreeding is impossible. and the creationist refrain: but the offspring will always be dogs. Which happens to be true for clades as well. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. ... Then they can't say what is not a "kind" ... but then you try to explain what a "kind" is:
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds. Would that not mean that in any generation of any species, that the young would appear to be pretty much the same as their parents within the variation seen in that generation? Certainly within the variation seen in dogs, yes? Let's look at A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate quote: Does that not look like a species reproducing "according to their kinds" from generation to generation?
... 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. How so? 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But "fixity of kinds" requires an explanation of what kinds are. What, exactly, is fixed? Poodles beget poodles after their kind and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs after their kind. Dogs are not necessarily a kind. What is fixed? The dogs that don't meet the purebred standard? by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How does a playpus fit into a nested hierarchy? quote: Also:
quote: So I can expand the monotreme branch as follows:
Mammaliformes quote: Note: " mammary glands with nipples (derived from apocrine or sebaceous glands);" and viviparity (live birth) Or as Ogden Nash Wrote: The PlatypusI like the duck-billed platypus Because it is anomalous. I like the way it raises its family Partly birdly, partly mammaly. I like its independent attitude. Let no one call it a duck-billed platitude. Note that this is two different sources that give the same information. One very easy to find if you want to learn instead of troll. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : graphics Edited by RAZD, : ogden Edited by RAZD, : optional arrangementby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... "The fossilised Steropodon ... is composed of a an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth". Yep, one can tell a whole lot from just a jawbone with three teeth! ... Indeed. Teeth are very valuable evidence, and marsupial teeth are different from placental mammal teeth, so that helps identify them.
... Furthermore, this "ancestor" of the platypus had teeth, whereas the adult platypus has no teeth at all. ... quote: Curiously that is sufficient evidence for showing evolution from a toothed ancestor.
... Then there is some other "ancestor" of the platypus, "Tienolophos", which the article nonchalantly mentions,"lacked a beak". ... quote: So you see how valuable teeth are in determining evolutionary relationships. Here we see the monotreme lineage diverting from the basal mammalian ancestry.
... ... a mouthful of teeth vanish and a beak appears! The fossils show exactly the intermediate stages we would expect from evolution and stages that are illogical for any "special creation" concepts. Thanks for another opportunity to discuss evolution and educate other readers via the conduit of your ignorance. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I take your point. If you took the skeletons of all creatures in the world today, you could line them up to form lots of imaginary "evolutionary sequences". All you need to "join the dots" is a bit of imagination. You can play the same meaningless game with fossils. And yet scientists consistently come to the same nested hierarchy arrangement, just as Linnaeus had, and amazingly they also match what is derived from DNA It's the consilience of results that demonstrates accuracy. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
They have to arrive at a nested hierarchies otherwise evolution falls to pieces ... And yet, curiously, every attempt comes up with the same basic nested hierarchy pattern, starting with Linnaeus, who was before Darwin and who had never heard of nested hierarchies ... and continuing to this day, when DNA analysis keeps coming up with the same basic nested hierarchy patterns as those derived from fossils morphology. If it is just made up, why do they keep getting the same results?
... otherwise evolution falls to pieces ... Except that we see it all around us every day. That evidence still needs to be explained ... in a testable manner.
... and that would be like losing one's religion or getting kicked out of the cult. And yet it is the scientist dream to upset the apple cart.
They have to ... Says the one in deep denial of the world realities Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes. Upsettig the apple cart is my dream. That would increase my current salary of around USD 36 000 a year to millions of USD every year. And those prizes and interviews on Fox. Worth millions. Would love that. Failing that you could always fly a homemade rocket to prove the earth is flat. People will be falling all over each other to donate to your enterprise. LOL Edited by RAZD, : linkby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Look at a bat's wing and a human hand. and then a chicken wing ... look at the joints and the long bones ... one then two then many is typical of tetrapods.
Note that the phalanges are fused (eg modified) but still identifiable. Here are all three from shoulder to finger tips
You can see differences in proportions of lengths -- that's some of the modifications. The similarities between these limbs are called homologies: quote: And there we have another teachable moment, brought to you by Dredge. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Whatever do lizards have to do with flying? Nobody thinks that birds evolved from lizards! ... However there is a gliding lizard, but the wings are not homologous with bird wings or with tetrapod limbs nor even with insect wings, but with non-gliding lizard ribs:
quote: Here the ribs are modified to form the gliding surfaces. Their small size makes the task easier. There are also gliding frogs that use webbing in their feet. They were documented by Wallace:
quote: Showing once again that modification over generations of existing elements can develop significantly different structures with new abilities, but those features will be homologous with ancestral species and sister species with less derived versions, and their development and diversification will still show nested hierarchies.
Break that vicious cycle you've locked yourself into. Learn something! Another teachable moment, brought to you by Dredge. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Then there are flying fish:
quote: Here the fins are modified into gliding surfaces, and the 64 species amazingly fall into another nested hierarchy. These wings are not homologous with the bats, birds, gliding lizards, gliding snakes, flying squirrels, sugar gliders, or frogs, but with the front fins on non-flying fish.
quote: There are those pesky nested hierarchies again. And that's another teachable moment brought to you by Dredge. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024