Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 16 of 148 (103918)
04-29-2004 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 7:17 PM


Mike writes:
Spiders really do produce spiders, when discussing spiders
Actually, my tarantulas just told me that they prefer to be called arachnids. It's like calling the Apes "monkeys" if you ever land on planet of the Apes. It's offensive to them.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 7:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 7:49 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:36 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 148 (103927)
04-29-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by coffee_addict
04-29-2004 7:32 PM


Okay, I'll bare that in mind from now on. But the fact you actually own tarantulas scares the hell out of me. But that's another topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 04-29-2004 7:32 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 148 (103929)
04-29-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
04-29-2004 7:28 PM


On the one hand scientists investigating evolution have come up with very good evidence of the relationships between species based on morphological comparisions
I am not arguing that there is no evidence of relationships between species. There are many species of "spider". But is there evidence of morphological similarities between "kinds"?
On the other humans and chimpanzees are classified as different "kinds" not on morphological or genetic evidence but because Genesis lists man as a seperate creation.
But there are differences. No the usual differences between animals though. For example - man made New York, chimps made ?
Humans speak, chimps ?
Humans debate on PCs - chimps ?
Humans write books sometimes with 150 laws in which to write it correctly - chimps ?
Humans worship God - chimps ?
Also - there are some differences in morphology also - surely. Put a chimp next to a human and they look different. The hands look very similar - yes, I will admitt that. But there behinds don't - and their feet? Their mouths? Even if categorized them overall as quite similar - similarities can also be because of a designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 7:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 8:32 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2004 3:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 05-03-2004 9:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 148 (103952)
04-29-2004 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 7:59 PM


Yes
I am not arguing that there is no evidence of relationships between species. There are many species of "spider". But is there evidence of morphological similarities between "kinds"?
Yes, Mike there are. This is why the taxonomic level which corresponds to "kind" is all over the map and tends to move up with time. It seems family is about where creationists are forced to put it right now.
Remember all higher levels than species are simply convenient groupings of currently extand species. As soon as you can have speciation and the chance for those new species to change and to speciate, in turn, you can't stop from getting to a point where a new genus is appropriate. Once you have enough new genera you then can't stop from getting to a new family and so on.
We see speciation occuring now (and I think, new genera). The larger jumps, of course, take more time and we see those in the fossil record.
However you define "kind" there was a point in time where that "kind" didn't exist. Once there were no birds, once no mammels, once no reptiles, once no fish and so on. Now there are. The "kinds" were not there and now are. They are "new" kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 7:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 8:49 PM NosyNed has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 148 (103958)
04-29-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
04-29-2004 8:32 PM


Re: Yes
Haha - maybe, maybe Ned....let me calibrate the wiz box.
We see speciation occuring now (and I think, new genera).
But is it within a "kind"? - A new species yes, - a new kind?
However you define "kind" there was a point in time where that "kind" didn't exist.
How can you know that for sure? What matters is that biblically it says they came forth according to their kind. However that process came about.....is history. What is your point though?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 8:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 10:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 148 (103981)
04-29-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 8:49 PM


Re: Yes
How can you know that for sure?
We can't know for absolutely sure. If a bird fossil turns up in the precambrian or a mammel or a reptile then there would be a possiblity that those kinds have always existed. However, if you are going to suggest that it is even a teensy bit likely that such a fossil will be found then I suggest you up your dosage.
What matters is that biblically it says they came forth according to their kind. However that process came about.....is history. What is your point though?
The point is that there are those who suggest that a "kind" can only come from something of the same "kind". Now if we have a time in the past when one or more "kinds" did not exist but others did then the new "kind" must be both indeed new and have come from something other than it's "own kind".
When we look back far enough we have "kinds" that no longer exist. For example, the reason that the synapsids are called "mammal-like reptiles" is because they don't fit into either current group. They are a "kind" which is gone. However, two extant "kinds" are it's decendents (well more than two obviously).
All this is hard to tie down absolutely firmly of course. Since we wait for a firm enough definition of "kind". All I've seen in my readings is that it is, to some, species; to others, genus and to others family. Which ever of those you pick there are new ones that have arisen. If you pick the lower taxa you get them appearing now (which is, of course, the reason that literalists have had to move the line up and then up again.)
Of course, now the literalists are getting into trouble. If you move the line up too far you have humans, apes and more all of the same "kind".
Additionally moving "kind" up results in hyper-super-rapid evolution in one or two thousand years after the flood. And this super-duper evolution went unnoticed. Not commented on even in that science reference text; the Bible. Nor did any of these changes leave a record of recent bones (not fossilized in such a short time of course).
The literalists have gotten squeezed into a corner with no where to go. If you'd like to show me the way out of this quandry I'd be amused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 8:49 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 148 (103985)
04-29-2004 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
04-29-2004 10:11 PM


Re: Yes
And this super-duper evolution went unnoticed. Not commented on even in that science reference text; the Bible. Nor did any of these changes leave a record of recent bones
Well, yes - obviously it is not a scientific text, Lol. My point here though, is that even if we don't somewhat define "kind" we all know what it is because we all use it. We all know what a spider is, and no-one is confused by this.
Now if we have a time in the past when one or more "kinds" did not exist but others did then the new "kind" must be both indeed new and have come from something other than it's "own kind".
I think the position is, that "kinds" have infact always been around since creation. I suppose the evolutionist view is that eventually - things got more simplistic, untill we go as far back as abiogenesis. And abiogenesis is a "must" because then there would have been creatures going back and back and.....But, the creationist view is that species have came about through natural selection from the first "kinds". So all of the "spiders" today would of - as you say, speciated from that original gene pool containing all of the necessary traits for what we see today.
In another thread, it was said that evolution can happen in a hundred years. And I myself have opened a thread which says millions of years would be too long.
If we look at the fossil record as a grave yard rather than a proof of evolution, well, you'll know the argument,,....
Anyways, my main point was that "kinds" is in the bible and we all use "kinds" despite the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 04-29-2004 10:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2004 3:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 39 by coffee_addict, posted 05-03-2004 9:31 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 148 (104066)
04-30-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 10:33 PM


We all know what a spider is, and no-one is confused by this.
Aren't they? Is this a spider?
The answer is "no."
"Spider", in addition to being the folk term for members of the order Araneae, is a term that has a specific functional definition - that is, if presented with a totally new organism no one has ever seen before, I can determine if it's a spider by following certain rules (we call this a "key.")
But no such functional rule exists for "kind." Just saying "everybody knows what it means" doesn't cut it, because that's a useless definition. What folks are asking you (and all creationists) for, Mike, is a definition of "kinds" that's useful for answering questions, like this one:
If I have two organisms that can't interbreed, how do I tell if they were once in the same kind, or have never been in the same kind?
That's a question you could answer with a functional definition of "kinds." The fact that no such definition exists means that "kind" will never be a scientific term, and therefore is irrelevant to any discussion of classification of organisms or heredity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by coffee_addict, posted 04-30-2004 3:50 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 30 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 148 (104067)
04-30-2004 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by coffee_addict
04-29-2004 7:32 PM


Actually, my tarantulas just told me that they prefer to be called arachnids.
Are you sure they're not spiders? The webpage for the International Society of Arachnology lists them under the order Araneae, which includes all spiders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 04-29-2004 7:32 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 04-30-2004 3:44 AM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 148 (104073)
04-30-2004 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 7:59 PM


The evidence can only point to similarities berween "kinds" if the "kinds" are identified in the first place. It is better to say that the morphological evidence finds no evidence of distinct "kinds" at all.
Looking at chimps the hands, feet, skeletal structure, and internal organs are not that far from human. While not fully bipedal chimps are half-way there. While their intelligence is well below that of an adult human it is well above that of most other animals. Add in the fossil hominids and no, there is no clear division between between some nebulous "ape" kind and humans.
The "common design" explanation fails to explain much of the evidence - notably the overall pattern of similarities and also the genetic evidence.
And I still bet that a spider expert could find bigger morphological differences between spider species than between humans and chimps. The ability to build a web is a big one - some spiders do, others don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 7:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 148 (104075)
04-30-2004 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 10:33 PM


Re: Yes
OK Mike, since you want to insist that 'kinds" in the sense used by creationists is in the Bible, where is it ? Not just some place where the word is used, but where it clearly and unequivocally refers to the creationist concept. Chapter and verse please.
And just to be clear having spent long threads arguing with you because you won't read what I write, I must repeat that simply finding a place where the word is used will not do. There must be clear evidence that it is used to refer to the creationist concept of "kinds".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 27 of 148 (104077)
04-30-2004 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:36 AM


Frog writes:
the International Society of Arachnology lists them under the order Araneae, which includes all spiders...
and more, like tarantulas. Spiders are common names for true spiders, which are the little 8-legged freaks you find around in your house. Tarantulas are... well tarantulas.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 3:12 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 28 of 148 (104079)
04-30-2004 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:33 AM


Hahahahaha. As an invert hobbyist, more specifically arachnid hobbyist, I've noticed that most people can't tell the difference between a daddy long leg and an arachnid.
Here are some common simple rules to tell them apart.
Insects = 3 body parts: head, body, abdomin
Arachnids = 2 body parts: carapace, abdomin
Daddy long leg = 1 body part
If you want to know what I mean by body parts, just find yourself a spider and try to notice the 2 main body parts that I am talking about. The carapace is where all 8 eyes are and where the legs are connected. The abdomin is just a "ball" attached to the carapace.
Now, go and find an ant. Notice that there are 3 body parts.
Anyway... off topic.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:33 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 148 (104242)
04-30-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by coffee_addict
04-30-2004 3:44 AM


Point taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 04-30-2004 3:44 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 30 of 148 (104941)
05-03-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:33 AM


Hey Wiz, Crashfrog wanted me to respond to his post over here, I'm not trying to steal your debate.
Crashfrog said:
That's a question you could answer with a functional definition of "kinds." The fact that no such definition exists means that "kind" will never be a scientific term,
You are correct, "kind" is an unscientific term. It is a historical term, having to deal with things in the past which we cannot observe. I agree, that is not science, it is history.
and therefore is irrelevant to any discussion of classification of organisms or heredity.
This is where I disagree. Since the changes we have now (whether changes within a "kind" or changes from microorganisms to human) occured in the past, sometimes historical terms are necessary.
Paulk said:
OK Mike, since you want to insist that 'kinds" in the sense used by creationists is in the Bible, where is it ? Not just some place where the word is used, but where it clearly and unequivocally refers to the creationist concept.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...
It is from this verse (and others like it in genesis) that creationists get the term "kind." I believe that when God created life, he created different types of life, with each type having a ton of variation possible. For example, potatoes. I am not sure how many species of potatoes there are, but I know that the common species has an incredible amount of variance. There are tiny purple potatoes, speckled potatoes, and huge, white potatoes; the list goes on and on. Those difference are not from mutations, however. The possibility of those difference were in the genetic code of the first potato, by means of dominant versus recessive genes. Maybe the first potatoe's dominant genes for size had it growing a foot long. But the reccesive size genes could have been able to make it grow only as big as a pea, only they were recessive, so they didn't do anything. But the next generation, maybe one of the seeds revieced only the reccesive size genes, and would grow a potatoe the size of a pea. The pea-sized potato would have lost the ability to have an ancestor be larger than a pea.
Does that make more clear what a kind is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 05-03-2004 1:16 PM jt has replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2004 4:16 PM jt has not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 5:25 PM jt has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024