Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 106 of 148 (106049)
05-06-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Chiroptera
05-06-2004 3:35 PM


Re: Transitional
Chiroptera says:
This is not the definition of "transitional".
Time for a dictionary. Merriam-Webster online defines transition as:
a movement, development, or evolution from one form, stage, or style to another
It then defines transitional as:
/-'sish-n&l, -'sizh-, -'zish-; -'si-sh&-n&l, -'zi-, -zh&-/ adjective
This means that transitional is an adjective which describes something in transition, i.e. in the process of "evolution from one form...to another." A transitional fossil, as defined by the dictionary, is a fossil in the process of "evolution from on form...to another."
That is because it would be a useless definition.
That is the definition, and yes, my point is that it is a useless definition. Just because you don't like what a word means doesn't mean you can change it.
However, if you guys, for the purpose of our debate on this forum, want to use a different meaning of "transitional," that is fine with me, as long as I know what it is.
In reference to this picture of the legs of several breeds of dogs,
Ned says:
So the differing lengths of bones aren't enough to separate "kinds"?
Does the fact that the average African bushman is only four feet, ten inches tall mean that they are fundamentally different than someone who is eight feet tall? They both use their legs in exactly the same way to walk, they use their arms the same way, etc. No, differing size is not a big difference.
DIfferences in the ratios of size of different bones can signal a big difference, however. Take, for example, gorrilas and humans. The length of a human arm is approximately the same size as a human leg, while the arm of a gorilla is nearly twice as long as its leg.
The arms of a gorilla are used heavily for walking and running. Humans do not use their arms for walking, and especially not for running.
These are fundamental differences in use and structure, and yes, are sufficient to warrant seperation into two different kinds.
As I see no great difference in the ape and human skull other thean some changes in sizes of individual bones.
You are hopeless. (groan)
Here are some different pictures that better show the differences.
The gorilla jaw is in the shape of a rectangle, and the human jaw is parabolic. The human skull has barely visible brow ridges, and the gorilla has brow ridges so pronounced that they go over the top of the skull. The jawbone of the gorilla protrudes so much that it is almost a snout, while the human jawbone is in line with the rest of the face. The gorilla has an extremely pronouced ridge on its skull which is completely nonexistent on the human skull. As a result of these differences in structure, not size, the cranial capacity of the gorilla is much less than that of a human.
The structure of the dog and wolf (which are after all close enough to still interbreed) skulls are different in much the same way as ape and human are.
I maintain that they are not. Over three posts I have pointed out many differences between gorilla skulls and human skulls. Not differences of size of individual bones, but major structural differences. Can you point out some of the ways in which the differences between human vs gorilla skulls and wolf vs dog skulls are similar?
The muzzle of many dogs (even those closer to a wolf are appreciable shorter than wolves).
The muzzles are shorter because the animals are smaller. Size is not an issue, structure is.
The flare of bone to support jaw muscles is different.
Here is the picture. As can be seen, there is as very nearly as much variation amongst the wolf skulls as there is between the dog and the wolf skulls.
And, of course, the skull size, shape and capacity varies enormously
Can you back some of this up?
Dogs are not a case we disagree on.
Very cool.
There are literalists who claim that all "cats", by which I think they mean the felidae (the family of cats) decended from one pair of "cat-kind" on the ark. Is this a "kind" to you?
I have not researched cats at all, and I have no clue if they are in the same kind or not.
In Ned's next post:
I disagree. Legs are not a definitive characteristic of reptiles.
You are very correct, legs are not a definitive characteristic of reptiles. Instead of reptiles, I should simply said "animals with legs." My point is the same, though.
It'll probably be tommorrow before I get to the rest of the posts, I have to do school now.
This message has been edited by JT, 05-06-2004 06:31 PM

Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 05-06-2004 3:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Asgara, posted 05-06-2004 8:09 PM jt has replied

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


Message 107 of 148 (106051)
05-06-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
05-06-2004 5:15 PM


The guys I'm going to study with haven't shown up yet, so here it is
Crashfrog said:
Two dogs don't have enough genes between them to have carried all known dog alleles at one time.
Can you back this up?
Loudmouth said:
Just as an overall critique, the clades constructed by evolutionists are an attempt to tie in common ancestory.
Common ancestory is an evolutionist supposition. Evolutionists constructing clades is exactly the same type of behavior as creationists organizing kinds. Both are taking data and organizing it in a way which agrees with their model.
Organizing data so it fits a model is not a bad behavior; whether it is evolutionists and clades or creationists and kinds. Fitting data to a model is necessary to make any sense out of the world.
On the other hand, twisting and contorting data to fit a model IS bad behavior.
This message has been edited by JT, 05-06-2004 07:04 PM

Benoit Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2004 5:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2004 12:07 AM jt has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 108 of 148 (106054)
05-06-2004 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jt
05-06-2004 7:29 PM


Re: Transitional
Hi JT, I don't mean to jump into your conversation with the others but I wanted to bring up an issue with your post. You start at one side of an evolutionary journey (gorilla) and end up at another side (human) and claim that the differences are too much. You have to look at the claimed transitionals, at the possible evolutionary ancestors of these two sides to see if a comparison can be made.
To paraphrase the frog, it's like looking at NYC and LA and claiming that you can't get from one to the other because the distance is too great. You fail to see the many other cities, towns, villages, and roads along the way that lead you between the two.
Maybe in your discussions with the others, you could remember that it isn't the difference between a gorilla and a human...but the differences between any number of fossils that go back closer and closer to the split between the two.
http://www.scientific-art.com/...ontology%20pages/skulls.htm
No page found
No page found
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/...g_2001/ling001/boule_skulls.gif
And the ever famous (around here anyway)...

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 7:29 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 8:14 PM Asgara has not replied
 Message 110 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 8:23 PM Asgara has replied

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


Message 109 of 148 (106055)
05-06-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Asgara
05-06-2004 8:09 PM


Re: Transitional
Ahahaha, I love this. It's the return of jigsaw phenomenon. Ned will know what that means and therefore dread my post.
But all I want to say is; Isn't the claim that apes are the same "kind" as humans by our (creos) standards?
I mean, the transitionals are significant, but is there a difference between the argument that we "came from" apes and that we "are apes". I'm probably wrong ofcourse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Asgara, posted 05-06-2004 8:09 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 8:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

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


Message 110 of 148 (106062)
05-06-2004 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Asgara
05-06-2004 8:09 PM


Re: Transitional
You start at one side of an evolutionary journey (gorilla) and end up at another side (human) and claim that the differences are too much.
I agree that if I was trying to prove evolution wrong my posts about gorillas vs. humans would be irrelevant. However, all I am doing is trying to show that they are reasonably classified by creationists as different "kinds."
The way this started was with me asserting that humans and apes are very different. Jar then said:
what major differences do you see between humans and chimps? I don't see that many myself.
I said:
Which apes, specifically? Are you talking about fossilized transitionals or currently living apes?
Jar said:
Let's start with the current living ones.
So I started on gorillas.
If I was an evo, I would probably be pretty iritated if somebody set up such a dumb strawman as that, so thanks for your patience with me when you thought that was what I was doing.
(added in edit)
By the way, where did you get the "famous" picture? I'd like to know what species those are. Thanks.
This message has been edited by JT, 05-06-2004 07:25 PM
This message has been edited by JT, 05-06-2004 07:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Asgara, posted 05-06-2004 8:09 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Asgara, posted 05-06-2004 8:56 PM jt has not replied

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


Message 111 of 148 (106065)
05-06-2004 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
05-06-2004 8:14 PM


Re: Transitional
I would change that slightly to say that all the evidence seems to show that both humans and apes came from the same creature and that humans and chimps are more closely related than either are to some of the other apes.
While the human and chimp may well be comsidered cousins, the human and gorilla or chimp and gorilla relation is far more just kissing cousins. In fact, while marriage between a human and chimp might be acceptable in Mississippi, a marriage between a human and Gorilla would raise eyebrows and most likely even cause gossip.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 8:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 8:33 PM jar has replied

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


Message 112 of 148 (106067)
05-06-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
05-06-2004 8:26 PM


Re: Transitional
Yes, the common ancestor. My point is though, that people have suggested (evolutionists)- that apes and humans, by our standards (creos) - are the same kind. But if people are going to show how we have came from a CA, then surely that's a different argument. You see, the argument JT is following, is that apes are a different kind, therefore the transitionals should be in an argument about "humans having came from a common ancestor". But if no-one's bothered then ho hum, I'll butt out.
Meanwhile I'll warn the gorilla humpers to retreat to the trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 8:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 8:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 113 of 148 (106070)
05-06-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by mike the wiz
05-06-2004 8:33 PM


Re: Transitional
That goes back to the floating definition of Kind. Nobody knows what kind is and so nobody can make reasonable arguments related to it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 8:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 9:14 PM jar has replied
 Message 137 by Brad McFall, posted 05-08-2004 12:47 PM jar has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 114 of 148 (106074)
05-06-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jt
05-06-2004 8:23 PM


Re: Transitional
This is only my opinion of course, but I think that there would be greater differences between just the domesticated dog breeds than between human and the other great apes.
All Puppy Breeds – American Kennel Club
Why is the wide variety here seen as one kind and the variety seen in the human/ape/hominid group NOT seen as one kind?

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 8:23 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 9:13 PM Asgara has not replied

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


Message 115 of 148 (106079)
05-06-2004 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Asgara
05-06-2004 8:56 PM


Re: Transitional
But what about behaviour. They all bark and poop on the carpet. I do not swing in the trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Asgara, posted 05-06-2004 8:56 PM Asgara has not replied

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


Message 116 of 148 (106080)
05-06-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
05-06-2004 8:43 PM


Re: Transitional
That goes back to the floating definition of Kind.
The definition of a kind is a group of organisms descendant from a single pair of ancestors created by God. That is not a floating definition.
I think you mean a floating key, as in how do we tell what is a kind or not? If two animals can breed, they are in the same kind.
If the two organisms in question cannot breed, it is determined whether or not they could have come from an ancestor. This is where the key, not the definition, is weak.
However, speciation events are rare, so this is not a huge weakness.
Asgara says:
This is only my opinion of course, but I think that there would be greater differences between just the domesticated dog breeds than between human and the other great apes.
The differences in your pictures are mainly differences in fur, which is not substantial. The differences that matter are more than skin-deep. The skeletal structure of those dogs is extremely similar. In addition, those dogs have very similar behavioral patterns and intelligence levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 8:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 9:28 PM jt has not replied
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2004 10:20 PM jt has replied

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


Message 117 of 148 (106083)
05-06-2004 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jt
05-06-2004 9:14 PM


Re: Transitional
Well, if there is a common ancestor, then the human, chimp and gorilla were not created by GOD. Instead, it was the common ancestor is what was created by GOD. Or the common ancestor of that common ancestor. Or the initial single cell where it all started.
But if we even accepted the definition that kind is differentiated simply by whether or not a given species interbreed, then the problem becomes even bigger. Now, the number of Kind increases geometrically. It simply compounds the illogic of tales like the Ark myth.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 9:14 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 9:48 PM jar has replied

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


Message 118 of 148 (106089)
05-06-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
05-06-2004 9:28 PM


Re: Transitional
Surely this is off topic. The initial single cell is abiogenesis.
What has the ark reality got to do with this topic?
Where are you admin patrol? Surely we can't have a standard for one person and not another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 9:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 9:54 PM mike the wiz has replied

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


Message 119 of 148 (106092)
05-06-2004 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by mike the wiz
05-06-2004 9:48 PM


Re: Transitional
You are right. Drop the ARK.
But if Man and Ape have a common ancestor, then they were not created as kind. In fact, were not created. It was the ancestor in that case that must be kind. Is that correct?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 9:48 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 9:57 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 120 of 148 (106094)
05-06-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
05-06-2004 9:54 PM


Re: Transitional
The call to the admin was a little attack on Asgara, because of her statement about Almeyda being off-topic. Surely everybody is guilty of the thing, so please ignore my post admin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 9:54 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024