The Creation/Evolution dividing line

Again, I could have picked "warm-blooded" but instead the problem came into the literature AFTER the 70's Creationism that HERPETOLOGY was not a legit discipline within phylogenic divisions so that IF I EVER ATTEMPTED to SUBTRACT from any vert lineage a HERP with mutally exclusive categories (lizard/snake, frog/salamander) so as to have cold blooded -(lizard-legs or snakes+legs) which I could think in terms of ideas on homology (which IS NOT THE SAME prob of ancestor of mammals) then by the current literature this division would be illegit. I had started to think about this LOGIC in mammals given Young's book but I just am not as familiar with them as with herps AS A ONE with mutually exclusive divisions Agassiz already noticed were being misgraded by neodarwinists but this level of organization being one remove ABOVE the data seems to get lost in discussion. Talking about the same for mammals is MORE THAN the one remove in HERPS!!Instead I guess I will have to open another teaching thread on higher ordering in macrothermodynamics in terms of detailed physico-chemistry. Yes RM&NS are a dynamic duo but I think that Gould's notion of Hominids history(old parrallels vs new orthogonalities etc) will be revamped as I, at least proceed.At that point, it might be possible to get the mammal's issue, but since we are part, I dont see it as-likely, unless, say--; everyone here focused-in, on, your thread.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-04-2004 12:15 PM

But I don't accept it is related. we are dealing with fossils here. It is just interpretation what is related to what.
The contention is that they are not related.
Rob

But I don't accept it is related. we are dealing with fossils here. It is just interpretation what is related to what.
The contention is that they are not related.
Rob

What is related? Anything? You don't believe that anything is related? That wasn't your original claim. Originally, you claimed that you could tell that a purported elephant ancestor was not, in fact, related to the elephant, because it looked different. Not because it was a fossil.Whether or not you believe that the ancestor in question looks similar enough to the elephant to be related, if we can prove that it's related to something you would consider similar enough to be related to the elephant, then we've proved you wrong.If A is the ancestor of B, and B is the ancestor of C, then A is the ancestor of B. We've proved it. The only escape for you is do what you're doing now - change your argument and claim that nothing is related to anything in the fossil record, ever, no matter how similar. Based on what evidence? Since whatever we're talking about is the ancestor of the ancestor of the elephant, it must, by definition, be related to the elephant.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-05-2004 03:55 PM

Actually I don't accept myself ,yet, random mutation as a factor in speciation. I do ,right now, accept natural selection in a limited way.Anyways I see what you mean.
The proto elephant would be likely the one where difference is clear that creation took place. Where the differences with other animals is clear.This is actually a hard question for me for unlike many creationists I stress that at the fall all creatures changed dramatically. The snake lost its legs but is still the snake KIND. And Turtles would of had no shells and so on.
What a kind is has become fuzzy.And since I see natural selection working I can only restrict it too major changes.
Still though you guys need to have evidence of kind change.Rob

Actually I don't accept myself ,yet, random mutation as a factor in speciation. I do ,right now, accept natural selection in a limited way.Anyways I see what you mean.
The proto elephant would be likely the one where difference is clear that creation took place. Where the differences with other animals is clear.This is actually a hard question for me for unlike many creationists I stress that at the fall all creatures changed dramatically. The snake lost its legs but is still the snake KIND. And Turtles would of had no shells and so on.
What a kind is has become fuzzy.And since I see natural selection working I can only restrict it too major changes.
Still though you guys need to have evidence of kind change.Rob

Why? There's no evidence that kinds even exist.

I am going to say that the evidence that kinds exist in the mammal lineage is found in Gould's Contention that SPANDRELS (AS HE, SJG, SAW first in a CHURCH architecture space) ARE the sentence in Jefferys below IF the limited number implicit (Ill discuss if I have this correctly interpreted) logically cuts the baramin discontinuity OR if the defintion of baramins remains empirical (hybrids etc) and I am correct about DETAILS of downward causation via macrothermodynamics. In the latter case the information has to do with say if electrotonics CONSTRAIN what is independent in such a way as to explain Gould's perceptual field as a missensed constraint mathematics but in the former issues the clear possiblity that heirarchical thermodynamics will not forever support any kind of baramin disscussion. But without knowledge of independence I CAN NOT SPEAK in the mammal lineage about the logics that the following sentneces would historicize on the groud that this if/then were comprehended by another mind. That is trice now, why I can not participate in this thread even though I KNOW somethings about it. This can not be the reason that I could/was (be) kicked out of school because if I went to the same Church as Gould I would have seen the same space/place.By H.Jeffreys "Methods of Mathematical Physics 1950 Cambridge (my favorite so far in this book is Mittag-Leffler's however)"These are Langrange's equations. They are usually obtained in text-books on dynamics by direct transformation of (2); but the derivation from Hamiltions' principle explains also why the left side has the characteristic form of the calculus of variations.Now it may happen that in the actual motion certain relations between the xsubri, and therefore between the qsubs, are specified. The most important case is where many particles belong to the same rigid body, and the coordinates can vary only in such ways that distances between particles of the same body remain unaltered. Another is when some coordinate is constrained by external force to vary in some prescibed way with time, as when a part of the system is made to moeve with given linear or angular velocity. Such constraints do not prevent us from considering variations dqs such that the constraints are violated, and we can therefore still treat all the dqs as independent and equate their respective coefficients. Then (15) remain true. But their physical interpretation is altered. Whereas in a system of free particles they are differential equations ... the time may appear explicitly in the kinetic energy. This does not affect the form of (15), but it will affect the first integrals."I will be giving an updated tutorial on geological and experimental time sorting in macrothermodyanmics soon, but now I am two removes away. I want to provide Tony his just due.I will have argued that GOULD mistissued "Then (15) remain true." with is vision of the muralization of the church. I have not explained how Lewontin went along with it however. The simplistic "MODIFIED" descent remains unlatered howreadever. I dont. E.Scott misthought this. Gladyshev did not. I have gotten fatter. QED

Although there is no evidence that kinds exist, what type of change would you be looking for? Speciation can occur in only a short time in some species, like mousquitos.If by "kind change", you are looking for a very large change, this cannot occur in a period of time that is easily measured by humans monitoring the organisms to be changed. It can be documented in the fossil record though, using transitional fossils.Ambulocetus, for example, was a mammal that lived in much the same way alligators and crocodiles do today. It lived in shallow water and ate smaller animals, in what is now Pakistan. This creature bore many similarities with crocodiles, as caused by convergent evolution. Ambulocetus, however, was an ancestor of modern whales. It could leave the water if it wanted, much like crocodiles can now, but this ability has been lost in modern whales.We know that Ambulocetus is related to the whales because of various skull structures. For example, it shares a structure with whales that let it swallow underwater, and it had an S-shaped ear bone that is also found in whales, among other features.This is not simply an isolated matter of convergent evolution. There are numerous other fossil animals linking Ambulocetus with the whales, as transitional fossils. These include Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus isis, Prozeuglodon, Eocetus, and many others. There are also some related fossils older than Ambulocetus.I'm not saying every fossil of a whale ever found is directly related to a current whale, many probably belong to dead lineages. However, there is a pretty clear line that can be drawn from shallow-water dwelling mammals that could walk on land to whales that stay in the ocean their whole lives. I would say that that is about the closest thing to "kind change" that exists.

Okey Dokey. This is probably the time for me to ask you what you think the limit of random mutation is. For starters would you say that a change in the shape or size of bones and teeth is beyond the reach of simple mutation? Right. Does this mean that you don’t think that deinotherium , trilophodon and gomphotherium could not have evolved from the same population as the ancestors of elephants? If you don’t think that they could, what intrinsic characteristic of each one is beyond the scope of simple mutation?Or can you safely lump together all of Proboscidea as ‘proto-elephants’? In which case we have to go back to the next step. Edit:for missing a word off a quote. Nothing major, but it did cut Robert off in his primeThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-06-2004 06:43 PM

Mutation must be very restrictive to keep a animal living. Bones and teeth seems minor enough.On the elephants. The new names you brought up I consider to be elephants or rather to be from the proto elephant. By proto I only mean the one that came off the Ark. i'm presuming it looked similiar but I'm not sure.
I' liberal about body change for creatrures.
Rob

quote:

---

Although there is no evidence that kinds exist, what type of change would you be looking for? Speciation can occur in only a short time in some species, like mousquitos.
If by "kind change", you are looking for a very large change, this cannot occur in a period of time that is easily measured by humans monitoring the organisms to be changed. It can be documented in the fossil record though, using transitional fossils.

---

This is the problem. Peering through the creationist double speak the definition becomes apparent. Any evolution observed in the last 150 years with living species is considered within kind and microevolution. Anything above this is considered outside of the kind and macroevolution. The creationist definition is not couched in biology but in obfuscation.

You brough up about the whale. Unlike many creationists I believe the whale probably was first on the land and came off the ark.
I welcome fossils to show this.
Also because we have a short time line I believe speciation into the water must of been done in just a few generations or hundred years.
Yet this creature was still similiar in or out of the water.Still a kind.
Yet to go from a mouse to a horse is what will never be demonstrated in the fossil record or have any evidence to back it up.
Rob

quote:

---

Yet to go from a mouse to a horse is what will never be demonstrated in the fossil record or have any evidence to back it up.

---

Well then, I guess it's a good thing that evolution never states that horses evolved from mice.

quote:

---

I must emphasize to creationists to first define "kind" before going any further. I have never seen or heard a creationist give a proper definition of "kind" beyond anything that is vague.

---

An equine is a kind. Canine, is also a kind. Do you get the picture? Do we see equines interbreeding and creating off-shoot kinds? Zeedonk etc? Yes we do! Why? Because of natural selection. But why then do creationists have a problem with natural selection? They dont! It fits perfectly with God creating different kinds of organisms which reproduced 'after their kinds' (Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25). The problem with the ToE is that it expects us to believe that cats 'could' interbreed with dogs. Not in the present. Because we dont observe that kind of processes. But oh yes, it definately happened in the premeval past they say. Some people say that that archaeooptrix (sp?) evolved from reptiles. But archaeoptrix isnt the oldest bird they know of. Anyway back to the point, evolution expects us to believe that one single organism could diversify into every kind of living organism we now see. A completely irrational theory.