Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 148 (104942)
05-03-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jt
05-03-2004 1:13 PM


what kind of a saying was that?
Are you saying that Wright's use of this word, "kind", in a paper on the statistical consequences of Mendelism is only "historical" and NOT scientific??? Wright even seperate the word out between commas. Come on what more do you need? Me on thorzine???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 1:13 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 2:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 32 of 148 (104962)
05-03-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brad McFall
05-03-2004 1:16 PM


Re: what kind of a saying was that?
Are you saying that Wright's use of this word, "kind", in a paper on the statistical consequences of Mendelism is only "historical" and NOT scientific???
What paper are you reffering to? Could you give us a link or something? It sounds interesting. What I mean is that (to the best of my knowledge), we do not have a "key"(to quote crashfrog) to discern whether or not two species are in a kind. I do believe that "kind" can be used in a scientific context to come to valid conclusions.
Wright even seperate the word out between commas. Come on what more do you need? Me on thorzine???
The reason I seperated the word out in commas is to make clear that I was talking about the concept. For example,
Spiders are a kind of animal.
and
Spiders are a kind.
mean different things. (the second is wrong, by the way) The commas are just to make it clear what I am talking about, they are not meant to denigrate the concept of a "kind."
By the way, I am a YEC and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, so I think we're on the same side.
Anyway, I am open to correction. If you disagree with the content in my post, please give me more details about it. Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 05-03-2004 1:16 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 05-03-2004 4:22 PM jt has not replied

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


Message 33 of 148 (104988)
05-03-2004 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jt
05-03-2004 1:13 PM


I know where creationists get the WORD "kind". My point is that the MEANING is not taken from the Bible. The creationist concept of "kind" is a creationist invention - and one with no basis in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 1:13 PM jt has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 148 (104989)
05-03-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jt
05-03-2004 2:32 PM


Re: what kind of a saying was that?
yeah, I realized that "after" I reread your post. The only thing I would say is that it does no good to give the word "history" or "historical" for the real issue aka the minor use of Wright on this is that it seems to be LARGER than Punc Eq but smaller than ALL Life while depending on how vertebrate lineages are diagrammed. Gould manages an end turn or pop up ball becuause of arthopod wings and hoxology which is why I am exicted to apply Gladyshev to "doxology" sound of Gould as this will NOT be dull in the issue of small peak shifts that at best non-creationists think can ONLY be understood by numerical techniques while I hold out a possiblity of resolution in the LOGICAL use of different baramin descriptions. It is possible for evolutionary theory to catch up to discontinuity systematics if for instance the track width of Croizat were used for ANY nonequilibrium affect in the effect of gene frequency changes but I could not even get a degree making camera lucida PICTURES of snakes so unless things have changed with this new extention on MANN LIBRARY (where I am at now) (and it doesnt appear as if any thing has changed) then it will not be possible to get the equilibrium approach of Gladyshev, Wright, Me and a balance of polybaramins across. Some day perhaps we will know if what I did not have a problem with in elementary and secondary school gets cleared up in the elite and PNAS populace but for now it seems against the history whomevers it is. Best, Brad. GOOD DAY-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 2:32 PM jt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 148 (105020)
05-03-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jt
05-03-2004 1:13 PM


It is a historical term, having to deal with things in the past which we cannot observe.
There's plenty of scientific terms that apply to events in the past, because it's possible for science to examine the past. Things that happen in the past often leave evidence we can find in the future.
But the problem with "kinds" as a concept is that it's not falsifiable. There's no evidence offered that could substantiate a model of different created "kinds" because the concept doesn't come from biological observation or paleontological data, it comes from the Bible.
If the Bible said that God had created only one kind of living thing, would we be having this discussion?
The possibility of those difference were in the genetic code of the first potato, by means of dominant versus recessive genes.
It's trivial to prove this wrong - there's more alleles for the majority of genes - even in potatoes - than could possibly fit in a single individual. Moreover we observe new alleles arising through mutation, so like in the other thread, you're put in the position of rejecting a mechanism that we observe constantly for one that nobody has ever seen, ever.
Does that make more clear what a kind is?
No. I still need a definition that I can use to answer this question:
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 1:13 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 7:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 36 of 148 (105057)
05-03-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
05-03-2004 5:25 PM


it's possible for science to examine the past. Things that happen in the past often leave evidence we can find in the future.
I disagree. Scientitic is to make an observation, formulate a hypothesis, then do an experiment and come to a conclusion. We can use scientific principles to examine evidence of the past, such as observation, prediction, and conclusion. However, we are missing the experiment part. Merriam-webster online defines an experiment as:
an operation carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
Evolution is two things; a series of events that allegedly occured in the past, and a set of mechanisms which could have been responsible for those changes. The existence of such mechanisms can be tested under controlled conditions in a lab. The historical aspect cannot be tested in a lab, however. The historical event and the mechanisms are intertwined; without the mechanisms, the event couldn't have happened. It does not follow that by experimenting on the means you are experimenting on the event. Pure science cannot look backward, but it does provide a means of determining whether things were possible in the past.
But the problem with "kinds" as a concept is that it's not falsifiable. There's no evidence offered that could substantiate a model of different created "kinds" because the concept doesn't come from biological observation or paleontological data, it comes from the Bible.
When we are dealing with the distant past (6,000 years to 4.3 billion years), there are some things we cannot prove or disprove. I accept that the idea of a "kind" is not falsifiable, but neither are the ideas of abiogenesis, or the big bang. Biological data can corroborate the "kind" model. Not prove or disprove, but agree with.
It's trivial to prove this wrong - there's more alleles for the majority of genes - even in potatoes - than could possibly fit in a single individual.
You are right, all that information could not fit into a single potato. But I checked, and there are more than 2,400 potato species in existence, and they could easily have come from different kinds.
I still need a definition that I can use to answer this question:
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?
The "kind" model is an idea about what happened in the past, and cannot be proven. There is no such definition, but that should not be expected based on the nature of a "kind."
I have to catch a bus in about a minute, I'll get to the other posts when I get home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 5:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 9:24 PM jt has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 148 (105083)
05-03-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 7:59 PM


parochialism
I can envision the members of a certain species of tarantula having a debate on evolution. One tarantula points to hominids, pointing out the evidence that humans evolved from other primates, and the creationist spider saying (okay, everyone in unison): But they're still apes!

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 148 (105087)
05-03-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jt
05-03-2004 7:26 PM


Pure science cannot look backward, but it does provide a means of determining whether things were possible in the past.
Your logic ignores the fact that science is used in a number of practical applications to ascertain events in the past. I presume, for instance, that you have no objection to the presentation of forensic evidence in the courtroom?
If you want to see science being done on the past, turn on your TV and watch an episode of CSI.
The historical aspect cannot be tested in a lab, however.
Of course not. But, events in the past leave evidence we can find in the present. (Did I say future before? That's sort of weird.)
The observation of that evidence is contemporary, even though the events that left that evidence happened in the past. To thino otherwise is to abandon all hope of substantiating any narratives about the past whatsoever.
I accept that the idea of a "kind" is not falsifiable, but neither are the ideas of abiogenesis, or the big bang.
Abiogenesis is falsifiable. The big bang is falsifiable - observing that distant objects are not, in fact, retreating from us would falsify the big bang.
But I checked, and there are more than 2,400 potato species in existence, and they could easily have come from different kinds.
But you don't know, do you? How would you find out? If all potatoes came from the same kind, would you know?
If all living things came from the same kind, how would you know? How would you know if they didn't?
The objection to the word "kinds" is that it's a word that doesn't explain anything. It doesn't add to knowledge, and it's not useful as a guide for species classification. It's just a word that means whatever creationists need it to mean - it's the ultimate ad-hoc toolkit.
There is no such definition, but that should not be expected based on the nature of a "kind."
Not in the least. Creationists claim that there's still different "kinds" of organisms. So "kinds" is very much offered as a contemporary classification. If "kinds" exist, then you should be able to tell me what it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jt, posted 05-03-2004 7:26 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 8:39 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 39 of 148 (105090)
05-03-2004 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
04-29-2004 10:33 PM


Re: Yes
Mike writes:
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.
Look at this.
Chiroptera writes:
I can envision the members of a certain species of tarantula having a debate on evolution. One tarantula points to hominids, pointing out the evidence that humans evolved from other primates, and the creationist spider saying (okay, everyone in unison): But they're still apes!
I agree with Chiroptera. While creationists claim that "they're just spiders," creationists absolutely refuse to apply the same logic to primates.

The Laminator

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 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 9:35 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 148 (105092)
05-03-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by coffee_addict
05-03-2004 9:31 PM


While creationists claim that "they're just spiders," creationists absolutely refuse to apply the same logic to primates.
Yeah. Let's have a definition of kinds that'll answer this question:
Why are felines in the same kinds, but humans and apes are not, given that there's more difference genetically among the felines than between humans and apes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by coffee_addict, posted 05-03-2004 9:31 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 05-04-2004 3:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 148 (105272)
05-04-2004 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
05-03-2004 9:35 PM


Crash,
I was quite dumbfounded when I went to the literature yesterday after tying to think thru Gladyshev's law relative to biological change and it was supprising indeed that we/people can answer your question and have the kind apply to cats or primates. The issue seems to have been that Provine INSISTED on PHENOTYPIC incomprehensibility of Wright's various landscapes BECAUSE they (Provine, Gould, others) NEVER applied the "balance" to what S*H*IFTS from physiologically to ecologically IN the difference of grade and clade. As far as I know this is undefined as to spiders but can easily be reconstructable panbiogeographically with cats and primates. Further the reason seems to be that this had not been accomplished biogeographically ONLY becuase then the elite would have to admit on any "fission" the possiblity of panmictic logical seperation. Further becuase of the literature of group theory the elite seem to try only to BALANCE the population not the materiality that shifted INTO whatever the population would have been. Working on understanding the applicability of Gladyshev's PRINCIPLE in terms of any hierarchical law that might have levels removed or interposed genetically led me to uderstand this very simple error that it must have been Gould's mission instead of this kind to compare and contrast Paley and Aggasiz. I really dont see the need to assert any hardening if Wright's SHIFTHIING BALANCE is cognized within Gladyshev's equibrateable LAW on time. It is quite suprising that this has not appeared in the literature and likely is traced back to the issues surrounding Schamlhausen where instead of going immediately to higher levels (say primate rather than cat) one should consider behavior univocally (aka Tinbergen on Cornell behavior research and the lab of O). It was all too easy once I saw this because Gould NEVER answers Provine's reliance on Wright's invocation of orthogonality which can keep all your kinds in the spider kind by fiat but actually data would be better. Gladyshev has recommened that anyone insterested in this kind of conversation seriously study some textbooks in physical chemsitry because by doing so one might be able to use ones natural history sense to resource the SHIFT phsysioloigcally via a Gladyshev principle TO the ecological or behavior FROM the population IN THE SAME EQUILIBRIUM that might even be subject to classical thermodynamic constraints on the data.
In particular (in addition to more info on entropy which I will add) Georgi suggested:
quote:
I consider it will be very useful if you recommend to anybody, who would
like to have a part in our discussion, to have a look at any good textbook
of physical chemistry.
In this case, there would not be any mistakes and misunderstanding. We will
understand each other very well! For example, there is the excellent
textbook in the USA: Alberty R.A. Physical Chemistry; 7th Ed.; Wiley: New
York, etc, 1987. 934 p. May be there is the next edition?
There are many terms in this book, which we use in chemistry, biochemistry,
biophysical chemistry, and physics, and so on. Some new terms one can find
in my website: http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/sntut/sntut.htm (in:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut )
[This message has been edited Brad McFall, 05-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 9:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2004 10:27 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 42 of 148 (105369)
05-04-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
05-03-2004 9:24 PM


Paulk says:
I know where creationists get the WORD "kind". My point is that the MEANING is not taken from the Bible. The creationist concept of "kind" is a creationist invention - and one with no basis in reality.
Could you elaborate on how the verse doesn't give the meaning? I think it is pretty clear.
Crashfrog says:
The observation of that evidence is contemporary, even though the events that left that evidence happened in the past. To think otherwise is to abandon all hope of substantiating any narratives about the past whatsoever.
For us to be able to use science to study an event, the event must be in a controlled environment. The past is not a controlled environment, so we cannot use pure scientific method to analyze it. Fortunately, events in the past commonly leave evidence. We can do an experiment in controlled envorinment similar to the environment in the past. If the results of the experiment are similar to the evidence left by the past event, we can conclude that the past event was similar to the event which occured in the experiment.
Abiogenesis is falsifiable.
How?
The big bang is falsifiable - observing that distant objects are not, in fact, retreating from us would falsify the big bang.
That would be interpreted as meaning that the universe had gone through the big bang and expanded, and had begun to collapse into itself.
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?
If two animals share an ancestor, they are in the same kind. The difficulty comes sometimes, when it is not clear if they share an ancestor. When that is not clear, it comes down to a judgement call. That is not as strong a definition as I would like, but it works.
The objection to the word "kinds" is that it's a word that doesn't explain anything. It doesn't add to knowledge, and it's not useful as a guide for species classification.
You are correct, it does not explain anything. YECs believe that God created a number of "kinds" of life, and all of the life we have now is descended from those original kinds. It is a word we use when describing the creation model, and when we can conclusively determine when two animals are a kind.
Lam says:
I agree with Chiroptera. While creationists claim that "they're just spiders," creationists absolutely refuse to apply the same logic to primates.
First, I do not claim that all spiders are a single kind. We refuse to say that apes and humans are the same kind because of the incredible amount of differences between apes and humans.
Brad, I can understand little of your post. I am not nearly well read enough to understand the numerous references to scientists and their ideas. Do you think you could, when possible, try to make it more clear for people who haven't read as much as you seem to have? I'd appreciate your humoring me in that aspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 9:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 05-04-2004 8:47 PM jt has replied
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-04-2004 9:23 PM jt has replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2004 3:44 AM jt has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 148 (105370)
05-04-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jt
05-04-2004 8:39 PM


JT????
what major differences do you see between humans and chimps? I don't see that many myself.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 8:39 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 8:48 PM jar has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 44 of 148 (105372)
05-04-2004 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
05-04-2004 8:47 PM


Re: JT????
Which apes, specifically? Are you talking about fossilized transitionals or currently living apes?

Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 05-04-2004 8:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 05-04-2004 8:50 PM jt has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 148 (105373)
05-04-2004 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jt
05-04-2004 8:48 PM


Re: JT????
Let's start with the current living ones.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 8:48 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 8:59 PM jar 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