Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


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 95 of 148 (105973)
05-06-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NosyNed
05-06-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Transitional
I'll give my own off the cuff definition
What follows is not a definition, it is a "key" to tell whether something is a transitional or not. A definition of a transitional is more like the following: "A transitional is an organism on the evolutionary path from one taxa to another taxa." I should have been more specific in my post, the miscommunication was my fault.
But anyway, for this key to work, it has to be able to tell if an organism is a transitional or not. It should be able to be applied to any organism.
By your key, a salamander would be a transitional, because it has gills, like fish, and legs, like a reptile. But we know that modern reptiles are not descended from salamanders, they are cousins(according to the evolutionary model).
But your key would return a resounding yes to the question, "are salamanders transitionals?"
In current living things we see a bluring at the genus level and these would be considered, in my definition, living transitionals (but the same "kind" in the creationists view I'm sure).
Yes, in my view, they are the same "kind."
I have to go to school, I'll get to your other post later, as well as anything from this post that you want me to cover in more detail.

Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 2:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 05-06-2004 3:35 PM jt has replied
 Message 99 by Brad McFall, posted 05-06-2004 3:52 PM jt has not replied
 Message 102 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 4:51 PM jt has not replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 123 of 148 (106117)
05-06-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Coragyps
05-06-2004 10:20 PM


Re: Transitional
I don't know how to quantify that similarity, but there sure look less similar...there are dogs where the whole breed lacks a tail altogether!
You need to back up your claims. What breed of dog is born without a tail (Asgara got this one for you, but next time you need to do it on your own)? A species losing part of its skeleton is not a major structural difference. It is a difference, but the rest of the dog is the same.
Corgis also show a mutation that has become fixed in the breed.
An organism losing an entire part of its skeleton is not good evidence for evolution. There was nothing gained; there was a loss of genetic information.
About the achondroplasty, I'll get to that later (tommorrow morning?) because I have to leave right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2004 10:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 05-07-2004 12:03 AM jt has not replied

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


Message 131 of 148 (106293)
05-07-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
05-07-2004 12:07 AM


Crashfrog says:
the reason we're beating you about the head and shoulders with this stuff is because creationists like to say "evolution predicts new kinds, but there aren't ever any".
Several things come to mind in response to that:
1. Creationists actually say that?!
2. I have not, nor will I ever, claim that the concept of "kinds" has anything to do with invalidating evolution. I agree that doing so would be a worthless strawman.
Arrrgh, is that what we were debating about? I was wondering why you guys were trying so hard to "beat me about the head and shoulders with it". I guess that explains it.
I have homework to do, so I'll finish the other posts later. Thanks Crashfrog and Asgara for providing some specifics I can work with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2004 12:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Loudmouth, posted 05-07-2004 4:47 PM jt has replied
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2004 5:44 PM jt has not replied
 Message 139 by Brad McFall, posted 05-08-2004 12:53 PM jt has not replied

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


Message 134 of 148 (106414)
05-07-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Loudmouth
05-07-2004 4:47 PM


Loudmouth says:
The Kind argument is just that, an attempt to invalidate evolution.
No, "kinds" are part of the YEC model. I believe there are kinds, because I do not believe the evolutionary model. The possibility of the existence of "kinds" was being attacked, and I was defending it.
I am not trying to disprove evolution on the basis of the existence of kinds; I am defending the plausibility of this particular aspect of the YEC model. I can see how you could have misunderstand my attempts, especially if creationists had tried that argument on you before.
This theory must also be able to explain transitional forms found in the geologic column that seem to be between the newly constructed kinds.
I maintain that the transitionals are not a problem for the "kinds" idea, but if you have some transitionals you think are especially nasty for the kind model to deal with, I'd be happy to be stumped by them (kidding, of course ).
Thanks Crashfrog, I do try to have an open mind.
I'm just taking a break from homework, I'll be back later to answer some of the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Loudmouth, posted 05-07-2004 4:47 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 6:51 PM jt has replied

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


Message 136 of 148 (106458)
05-07-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by NosyNed
05-07-2004 6:51 PM


Re: a problem?
There isn't any defined model to test. If we knew what a kind was then we might have a clue about what transitionals would be a problem. We'd also need a definition of what an inter-kind transitional
It seems that you are claiming that we cannot falsify the idea of kinds, to which I definitely agree. The idea of "kinds" is not a hypothosis or a theory.
"Kinds" describes the way YECs believe God created life. That is the extent of what I claim about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 6:51 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 12:50 PM jt has replied

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


Message 140 of 148 (106611)
05-08-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NosyNed
05-08-2004 12:50 PM


Then you may walk calmly to the door of the science classroom and leave.
I do not understand where I have violated scientific principles in this argument. If I have, however, I would be happy to have it pointed out so I don't do it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 12:50 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 2:32 PM jt has replied

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


Message 142 of 148 (106623)
05-08-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NosyNed
05-08-2004 2:32 PM


And you ask me where you have violated scientific principles?
I have not claimed scientific status for the idea of "kinds." I have not been arguing for the existence of "kinds." I have been defending my interpretation (which I believe I have good reasons for believing is the the correct interpretation) of the idea of "kinds," as set forth in the Bible, from various attacks on it.
If by "scientific principles," you mean only postulating that which can be falsified, yes, I admit that I am not sticking to "scientific principles." But I have stated several times that I was not claiming hypothesis or theory status for the idea of "kinds." Every time I departed from "scientific principles" I clearly stated that I was doing so.
The fact that I am willing to examine, and if the evidence is strong enough, to believe, non-falsifiable ideas does not mean I am unscientific. It means that there are non-falsifiable ideas in the world that need examining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 2:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by sidelined, posted 05-08-2004 4:12 PM jt has not replied
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 4:36 PM jt has not replied

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


Message 146 of 148 (106698)
05-08-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 7:46 PM


Thanks Crashfrog.
I don't think there is anything left to debate in this thread either. But if anybody differs, I'm happy to keep going. Some of you guys brought up good points about various things, mainly the genetics. I think those things would make for good debates on their own merits, if anybody wants to open up (a) thread(s) about it.

Benoit Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 7:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 10:11 PM jt 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