Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2018 1:17 AM
237 online now:
A Certain Cyborg, edge (2 members, 235 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,237 Year: 9,060/29,783 Month: 1,307/1,977 Week: 0/445 Day: 0/110 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Author Topic:   Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies.
Faith
Member
Posts: 28570
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 181 of 218 (825339)
12-13-2017 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by CRR
12-13-2017 3:29 AM


Re: Kinds and Nested Hierarchies
I haven't been able to make much sense of this thread, but if you're saying that a Kind will form its own nested hierarchy, that much makes sense. The problem is that evolution stacks Kinds one on top of another claiming a continuous set of nested hierarchies, so it seems to me you need an answer that shows that to be false. Perhaps "holobaramin" is the answer? But I'm not familiar with that term.

Also, of course the Bible sections must be read in terms of their author's intent, but that observation is a red flag to me that you probably represent some version of "liberal" theology that I would reject if you spelled it out carefully.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by CRR, posted 12-13-2017 3:29 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Taq, posted 12-13-2017 2:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14668
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 182 of 218 (825349)
12-13-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by CRR
12-13-2017 3:29 AM


Re: Kinds and Nested Hierarchies
CRR writes:

... the Bible obviously contains: Poetry, Parables, Prophecy, Letters, Biography, History, Wisdom, etc.


Presumably your "etc." includes fiction.

CRR writes:

The author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content.


The style and content of Genesis 1 and 2 make it quite clear that the authors did not intend to describe nested hierarchies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by CRR, posted 12-13-2017 3:29 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1433
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 183 of 218 (825350)
12-13-2017 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by CRR
12-13-2017 3:29 AM


Re: Kinds and Nested Hierarchies
As alluded to above; an unambiguous definition of species is an impossible dream as a result of common ancesty. A 'kind' by contrast, as the term is usually used by creationists, has a clear and unambiguous definition. In biology almost the same concept is called a 'clade' - an organism and all its descendants.

The difference between the sense of 'kind' and 'clade' is that a clade can be a subgroup - a part of a larger clade. A creationist kind (a 'holobaramin') cannot be nested within another kind. To biologists, the only 'kind' known to exist is life on earth.

Incidentally, welcome back CRR and Faith! I was getting a bit worried EvC had run out of C.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by CRR, posted 12-13-2017 3:29 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7435
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 184 of 218 (825353)
12-13-2017 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
12-13-2017 11:29 AM


Re: Kinds and Nested Hierarchies
Faith writes:

I haven't been able to make much sense of this thread, but if you're saying that a Kind will form its own nested hierarchy, that much makes sense. The problem is that evolution stacks Kinds one on top of another claiming a continuous set of nested hierarchies, so it seems to me you need an answer that shows that to be false.

So where is the break in the vertebrate nested hierarchy that includes everything from fish to humans? If you want to claim it isn't continuous, then show us how it isn't continuous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 12-13-2017 11:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 185 of 218 (825374)
12-14-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by CRR
12-13-2017 3:29 AM


Re: Kinds and Nested Hierarchies - another teachable moment
Next, biologists have trouble defining what a species is! There are many definitions of Species ( 26+). Similarly there can be several different definitions of Kind. Creationists have given definitions of Kind but no definition will please evLet'eryone; especially if they're looking for something to criticise. ...

Let's look at the issue of species definition in more detail, as this is a great opportunity to teach about this issue.

First off, ALL evolution occurs within species:

(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.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.

Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.

The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.

This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

The result is that every generation differs slightly from the previous generation, even though this may not be noticeable to the average observer.

If every species (breeding population) is constantly changing, then does it remain the same species or does it become a new species?

Well, if we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may eventually become sufficient for all the individuals in a breeding population to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population, and a new species name may be appropriate.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

Within the science some scientists tend to be "lumpers" - breaking the ancestral history into few species groups - and some tend to be "splitters" - breaking the ancestral history into many species groups. This doesn't change the natural history, just the labels used for different stages of the evolution of breeding populations.

quote:
Lumpers and splitters are opposing factions in any discipline that has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper-splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example schools of literature, biological taxa and so on. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change (anagenesis) occurs in each of these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of a new species is not arbitrary in this process: one species (breeding population) has split into two reproductively isolated species (independent breeding populations).

Such divides do not generally occur suddenly, however, but take several generations, sometimes with some hybrid interaction and limited gene flow, before they reach the point of not interbreeding.

If we looked at each branch linearly, from the common ancestor population to each daughter population, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.

With multiple speciation events, 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 speciation 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.

The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, and there is no sudden appearance of new species, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.

The end result is that it is difficult to define when new species (breeding populations) occur, even with speciation events (taking many generations).

Does this make it hard to define species? Inevitably, however, one point to remember is that species names are just labels we humans apply to the evidence to enable conversation, the natural world has no need to have labels for the processes of evolution to proceed.

The difficulty in defining species has to do with our desire to label things in a consistent matter that assists clear communication of observations of the natural world.

This teachable moment has been brought to you by CRR.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by CRR, posted 12-13-2017 3:29 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 186 of 218 (825378)
12-14-2017 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Granny Magda
12-11-2017 2:47 PM


lions and tigers and bears, oh my
I have to sound a note of scepticism here

Fair enough, so you'll let me keep an open mind then.

The notion that dragons were inspired by dinosaur or marine reptile bones has little to no evidence for it. Insofar as dinosaur fossils were associated with dragons, it seems just as likely that it was the other way around, i.e. someone looked at a fossil and it reminded them of pre-existing stories about dragons.

And yet, looking at that picture and image of chinese dragons shows an amazing coincidence. I can almost see a breath of fire.

The protoceratops origin for griffins is extremely dubious. The usual version of this tale is that griffins were based upon the protoceratops fossils found by Scythian gold-miners and that griffin-lore entered Greek culture when those cultures first came into contact. The problem with this is that griffin iconography pre-dates this by some thousands of years. Lots of ancient Near East cultures depicted griffins and they definitely weren't inspired by Mongolian fossils.

Which doesn't mean that their discovery had to wait for the Scythians, where the evidence could have been taken as corroboration of previous stories.

Personally I think a lot of creatures of mythology were created out of interpretations of fossil finds, such as the possibility that Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus were the basis for trolls, ogres and orcs, living in caves and more primitive socially than Cro-Magnon. Stories of encounters between populations being passed down as verbal history.

... . I think that these are simply imaginary monsters, exaggerated, mythic versions of real animals. The griffin in particular seems to be just an animal chimera. ...

Or people trying to make sense of fossils by layering over them characteristics of creatures they knew about.

They weren't scientists, and their knowledge of the variety of life was limited.

And I do think they had a better understanding of anatomy than most people today, due to skinning and butchering prey animals. So they should have been able to do rudimentary assembly of skeletons to map out the fossil finds, but they would have no idea how to flesh them out -- that's where imagination took over.

... As a keen Dungeons and Dragons player, I know just how hard it is to imagine a new monster that isn't essentially some combination of elements taken from existing organisms and I think that's all that's going on here. I think that people have been creating imaginary animal mash-ups for a long time and I think that when the Greeks said that a griffin was a combination of a bird and a big cat, they meant exactly that.

So you don't think finding fossils of creatures with beaks, four clawed legs and long tails wouldn't fuel their imagination?

Fascinating.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Granny Magda, posted 12-11-2017 2:47 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by caffeine, posted 12-14-2017 1:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 204 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2017 12:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1433
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 187 of 218 (825395)
12-14-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
12-14-2017 11:26 AM


Re: lions and tigers and bears, oh my
Personally I think a lot of creatures of mythology were created out of interpretations of fossil finds, such as the possibility that Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus were the basis for trolls, ogres and orcs, living in caves and more primitive socially than Cro-Magnon. Stories of encounters between populations being passed down as verbal history.

This is almost certainly you projecting modern myths and concepts backwards in time. Neanderthals didn't live in caves. Sure, there is evidence of Neanderthals using caves for shelter, and possibly for ritual purposes, but this is more likely to be because caves are a good place to preserve and find evidence.

You know who left a lot more evidence in caves than Neanderthals? Modern humans.

So you don't think finding fossils of creatures with beaks, four clawed legs and long tails wouldn't fuel their imagination?

I'm sure it would have. The problem is we have no particular reason to think the people who first described had ever seen such a fossil.

It's not that the idea is inherently ridiculous. It's just that it seems to be a speculation without any positive evidence, and there doesn't seem to be any particular need to invoke such an explanation. People make stuff up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2017 11:26 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 12-14-2017 2:44 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30426
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 188 of 218 (825398)
12-14-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by caffeine
12-14-2017 1:34 PM


Re: lions and tigers and bears, oh my
Humans have imagined critters never seen in fossils and even people who have never seen a fossil have been able to take those imaginings and expand and evolve them.

Humans are multi-purpose tools.

Edited by jar, : jess appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by caffeine, posted 12-14-2017 1:34 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 703
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 189 of 218 (825439)
12-14-2017 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ringo
12-05-2017 10:45 AM


ringo writes:

That isn't how it works. You can't just "invent" a branch. By definition, a branch has to be connected to something. Where would you connect the flying pig? You can't just connect it to the other pigs because the other pigs only have four legs. What branch has four-legged animals with wings?

What you do is to right back and assume there must have existed a dinosaur with four legs and wings (this is allowable, because as Gould pointed out, as the so-called Tree of lIfe contains many assumptions). Even though their are no fossils or remains found yet for such a creature, you assume it must have existed and fill in the "gap" to the flying pig with a provisional branch until the evidence shows up. As the evidence appears, you can the replace parts of the provisional branch will a real branch (or as "real" as evolution can get). Trust me, it's all very scientific and it will work - just like it did for the unicorn.

There exist humans with arms and legs missing - how do you think these people fit into a nested hierarchy?

Bats didn't grow wings out of their ribs. Have you read the thread at all? Their forelimbs adapted into wings while our forelimbs adapted into arms with grasping hands, whales' forelimbs adapted into swimming fins and pigs' forelimbs adapted into legs for walking on all fours. They're all the same forelimbs adapted to different environments.

Stop this very silly talk. Forelimbs don't evolve into fins and wings - it's impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 12-05-2017 10:45 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 12-15-2017 8:25 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 12-15-2017 10:54 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 703
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 190 of 218 (825440)
12-14-2017 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
12-05-2017 1:21 PM


RAZD writes:

Show me the evidence of a flying pig and then we can discuss it.


If flying pigs don't exist, explain the photo in post #160.

The homologous bones are shown in different colors so that even school children can see their similarities.

No doubt they could. And you might even be able to brainwash those gullible and naive children into believing that such similarities mean evolution is true.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2017 1:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by JonF, posted 12-15-2017 8:27 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2017 11:44 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 703
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 191 of 218 (825442)
12-14-2017 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
12-10-2017 9:19 PM



jar writes:

The Hobbit has a far better description of a dragon, certainly one more believable then thinking Job is talking of a dragon.


Job can be regarded as an historical document. You reject it as such due to prejudice.

The Leviathan is describe as a marine creature that breathed fire and smoke, but it could have led to legends about land-based dragons.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 12-10-2017 9:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 12-15-2017 6:58 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 703
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 192 of 218 (825443)
12-14-2017 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
12-11-2017 9:59 AM


No fossils of Leviathan have been found yet. Since it was a sea-monster, the chances of finding the remains of one may be small.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2017 9:59 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 12-15-2017 7:49 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2017 11:56 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 703
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 193 of 218 (825446)
12-14-2017 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by AlexCaledin
12-12-2017 12:02 PM


If we didn't have Bombardier beetles roaming about, no one would believe they ever existed.

Speaking of which, I wonder what nested hierarchy they fit into?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by AlexCaledin, posted 12-12-2017 12:02 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by ringo, posted 12-15-2017 10:56 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 12-15-2017 11:51 AM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30426
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 194 of 218 (825462)
12-15-2017 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dredge
12-14-2017 10:53 PM


Job
Dredge writes:

Job can be regarded as an historical document. You reject it as such due to prejudice.

Only a fool would consider Job an historical document. It is written as a fantasy. That is not prejudice but rather a conclusion based on the story itself.

Dredge writes:

The Leviathan is describe as a marine creature that breathed fire and smoke, but it could have led to legends about land-based dragons.

It could have led to marshmallows too. Yet it is still not evidence that either ever existed.

The facts is still the same, we have the evidence and so far you have never provided any.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dredge, posted 12-14-2017 10:53 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dredge, posted 12-26-2017 12:14 AM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30426
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 195 of 218 (825464)
12-15-2017 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dredge
12-14-2017 10:59 PM


Another teaching moment brought to you by Dredge
Dredge writes:

No fossils of Leviathan have been found yet. Since it was a sea-monster, the chances of finding the remains of one may be small.

Yet a very, very large percentage of the existing known fossils are of sea critters. In fact the chances of a sea critter getting fossilized is higher than for a land critter. That is why we have so many fossilized whale skeletons and shark teeth and fish and many sea reptiles and coral and even fossilized casts of seaweed.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dredge, posted 12-14-2017 10:59 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dredge, posted 12-26-2017 12:09 AM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
101112
13
1415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018