Bible and "kind"

It's about time. There couldn't be a better choice for an admin.

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.

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. 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.

So these differences are enough to make a pair of organisms different kinds?So a great dane and a corgi are different kinds by this standard?We are expecting one standard to be applied you understand. That is what no one seems to be willing or able to do?

Well, it seems that all animals have a body. How does this enter into it?Soul and Spirit? Just what are those? How do you know that only humans have those things? Every indication is that someother animals have some of the kind of consciousness that we have. Is that soul or spirit?

I know you don't. No one seems to. Could you give some examples of "similar enough"? You seem to be in the same mode as anyone else supporting the idea of a "kind". You want it to be a hard and fast wall between groups of organisms but you won't define it in a hard and fast way. The corgi has a drastically different skull, the dog skull you show is also drastically different from the wolf skulls. The ribcages of a whippet, bulldog and wolf are more different than an ape and human. Are you saying that a lengthening or shortening of arm bones is not possible through evolution?While we are on the topic of differences, perhaps you could tell us how much evolution you think occured after the flood and how fast it occured. (Note that the hyper evolution postulated by some creationists could not have continued through to even 1,000 years ago. When did it stop? )

I'll give my own off the cuff definition and then we can see if there are others:A transitional organism is one which has characteristics of two current taxa. These characteristics are those which are used as defining characteristics of a particular taxon. For example, birds and feathers.These characteristics are useful to devide the taxa today becuase there has been enough evolution to allow for a wider gap between the so-called "higher" taxa. However, they "break-down" when we get closer back to the point of transtion and we start to have to construct names like "mammal-like reptile".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).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-06-2004 01:32 PM

So the differing lengths of bones aren't enough to separate "kinds"? As I see no great difference in the ape and human skull other thean some changes in sizes of individual bones. 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. The muzzle of many dogs (even those closer to a wolf are appreciable shorter than wolves). The flare of bone to support jaw muscles is different. And, of course, the skull size, shape and capacity varies enormously (I suggest that is at least as much skull difference in some dogs and wolves as there is in the variation variation between us and apes). I would like to know just how much evolution you are postulating. Dogs are not a case we disagree on. 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 disagree. Legs are not a definitive characteristic of reptiles. That is they maybe part of the general description but they don't separate reptiles from other taxa that might be "close" to them.While I'm not a taxonomist I believe we use feathers as a defining characteristic of birds. There are specifc characteristics of the skulls (among other things) that define a reptile.Note the definition I gave:
A transitional organism is one which has characteristics of two current taxa. These characteristics are those which are used as defining characteristics of a particular taxon. For example, birds and feathers.
(emphasis added)While I disagree with Chiroptera's comments on salamanders his comment on your definition I do support.That is, a specific example, say one particular mammal-like reptile may or may not be on the direct path way to mammal (and us) but if it has specific characteristics that are, today, only found in mamals and other characteristics that are, today, only found in reptiles then it represents an animal that is "between" taxa (in this case between orders, IIRC) and that is what I would call a transitional.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-06-2004 03:58 PM

"exact", "exactly" - lol. when a number is shown as 4.4 you can presume at least +/- 0.1 on that which is 100,000 years. Exact is a funny term for that. I don't know the particular case here but the ranges are always published in the literature.There is no evolutionary framework applied. Pure physics is used. The bones are found in a layer of rock. The nearest dateable layers under and over are taken and dated. If the lower one is at 4.5 million years and the upper is 4.3 then a good date of around 4.4 may be obtained. This is obtained without reference to what is in the layer between.The exact dating methods aren't the subject of this thread.In fact as far as the relationship between all fossils the absolute dates aren't what is of initial interest and were not to those who initiailly went from believing firmly in the Biblical creation story to realizing that it wasn't corret. They only had relative dates and a very, very rough idea of what kind of time frames they might be dealing with. Even that was enough to falsify the literalist interpretation that was the framework that they were working with.(added by edit)from:http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm

quote:

---

Hominid and associated fossil faunas, including wood, seed and vertebrate specimens, were found entirely within a single interval overlying the basal Gaala Tuff complex, and beneath the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (these volcanic strata have produced dates of 4.389 and 4.388 million years, respectively) [Renne, et al, 1999]. This definitively places all Ardipithecine specimens just shy of 4.4 million years ago.

---

It seems that the date is to more decimal places than the 4.4 Myr indicates. It appears the date is rather "exact" with a range of around 1,000 years. However, this does not give the details of the dating of the tuffs themselves. We would need the error bars on those measurements to know just how exact we were dealing with.As noted the details of the dating of those tuffs are not part of this discussion. If you request it I will propose a topic in dates and dating for that.However, the methods will be one and probably more than one of those already discussed in topics of dates and dating. The methods have been cross checked such that you may be assured of their accuracy. You will also note that there are no serious literalist refutations of the major points raised in those threads. You may go to AIG and ICR and find that they don't touch the correlation issue for one. They don't even touch all of the dating methods just those that are considered by the geologists and geophysicists to be weakest.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-07-2004 01:38 AM

There aren't any transitionals that are a problem for the kind model.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 would have to look like but I've not seen any clarity on that either.Care to tell us what would be a nasty problem? This is what scientist do when propounding an hypothosis. Darwin devoted a fair portion of the origin to just such things.

Then you may walk calmly to the door of the science classroom and leave. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Do not expect to be taken seriously outside of your church.

If I read that correctly:

• Kinds is simply a belief. It has no suporting evidence, no depth, no details, nothing that a non-believer can check, think about or compare to other things.
• Kinds is not a theory or hypothosis. It is simply a statement with no depth, no details, nothing to consider.
• Kinds can not be falsified. There is no way, even in princple that I could determine if it was right or not. There is no way to separate it from any other creation myth.

And you ask me where you have violated scientific principles?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-08-2004 01:34 PM

The falsification thing can be a bit over done. What seems to be missed is that the reason so much is made of this. If we can't in any way show something is wrong and we have multiple conflicting ideas of that kind how do we pick on from the other? I agree, the tendancy of the majority of scientists is to leave such things untill there is some way of testing them. But there have always been those who are willing to speculate for both the chance to uncover something important and the pure fun of it. They just don't get to "believing" their speculations.If an idea can't be tested or explored we all get to believe all sorts of stuff with no way of picking and choosing but: "Is too!", "Is NOT!", "Is TOO!!!" etc. Sometimes it is darn hard but if there is actual evidence then there is often a chance to work out a way to figure out a "telling" test that would, at least, cast doubt on somethin. I thought we were talking about things that don't have evidence. (lol, now it's back to the "what is evidence" thread.)