Bible and "kind"

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.

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.

Point taken.

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? 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. 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?

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. 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. 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 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. 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.

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?

I think that's a mistake. For instance, nature is the very definition of the uncontrolled environment, yet studies frequently are done in the wild. Yes, and the assement of that evidence (in controlled environments) proceeds according to the scientific method.Science can tell us about the past, because the tests you perform on evidence from the past are controlled and repeatable. If we discovered that living chemistry followed entirely different laws of physics and chemistry than nonliving chemistry, that would falsify abiogenesis, as far as I'm aware. If we had never made the observation that distant objects are moving away from us, we would never have developed the big bang theory. Hence, distant objects not moving away from us would falsify the theory. Moreover, if we did cross that inflection point where the universe began to collapse - which nobody thinks is going to happen, btw - we wouldn't see it all at once - we'd see nearby objects begin to approach before we saw distant objects approach. So in fact, your explanation would be falsified as well. I agree. The problem for you is that it appears that all organisms share a common ancestor - all organisms are the same "kind." That's what evolutionists have been saying all along. It doesn't work. You still can't answer any questions with it. How many kinds? What were the kinds? How would you answer this question? If the scientific evidence shows that all organisms are from the same kind, because they all share a common ancestor, is this a finding you're prepared to accept?If the Bible didn't say anything about the creation of life - if Genesis had been torn right out and lost to humanity - would you have an objection to the theory of evolution? But apes and humans share a common ancestor. Heredity, taxonomy, and the fossil record confirm this. By your own definition of "kind" they're in the same kind. What gives?

So what about that doesn't apply to the past? Why couldn't you collect enough data about the past to get an idea about what was normal in the past? It doesn't have to be. Firstly, the past is as controlled as any other natural situation. And the tests you perform on evidence from the past are repeatable, and that's sufficient to meet the criteria of science. There's alternative explanations for events in the present, too. The present isn't different from the past in that regard.Given multiple explanations that explain the same evidence, past or present, there's no way to tell for sure which one is right. But being completely right isn't the point of science. The point of science is developing models that make accurate predictions. That's why all models in science are tentative.Evolution makes better predictions than creationism. That's why evolution is the model accepted by the most scientists. That isn't to say that it's perfectly right, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be good enough to make predictions that come true. Of course I can't prove that model wrong, because it isn't falsifiable. But because it isn't falsifiable, it doesn't matter if it's right or not - there's no situation where the truth or falsity of your hypothesis could affect any prediction about the future.So we eliminate it from consideration via Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't trim away things that are wrong, it trims away things that will never have an effect on your model. How similar is similar enough?Once again, creationism is on the losing end. For whatever reason, you're willing to take a classification that has never been observed, and can't be observed, over classifications based on real-world observation with real explanitory power.That's not science, JT. That's Biblical dogmatism. Once again, I'm sure that if Genesis had been torn out of your Bible, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Exactly. Your dispute isn't that the evidence or reasoning is flawed; your dispute is that you don't like the conclusion. To the contrary - numerous studies have confirmed the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. It's so powerful that now we use those processes to design jet planes and electronics - independantly of human design. We've generated electronics this way that are so efficient, we don't even understand how they work.Think about that for a minute. Not only is NS + RM able to design circuits - it's able to do a better job than humans. And now you say that the mechanism is insufficient to do a measly thing like spur single-celled organisms to become multicellular? Ludicrous. But, according to your definition, they might be. Your definition is one-sided, you see - it'll tell you if two organisms are in the same kind, but it won't tell you if they're not. Pretty useless.

You've got a lot of funny ideas about genes.The dominant genes you have are human genes. The recessive genes you have are human genes. Maybe you're not clear on what dominant and recessive refer to? You have two copies of each chromosome, which means you have two copies of every functional genetic sequence - every gene. The copies are different on each chromosome - each of those different copies is called an "allele."For instance, eye color is a gene. Blue eyes is an allele. Brown eyes is an allele. Think of a gene as a space where an allele goes.A dominant allele is expressed no matter what. A recessive allele is expressed only if there's not a dominant allele in the same place on the other chromosome. It's a mistake to assume that, because 50% of our genes might be like banana genes, that it's the other 50% that makes us human. A gene is a gene. There's no difference between the genes in a banana and the genes in a human, except for the specific protiens that they code for. If both humans and bananas share a certain protien, that gene for it is going to be identical in both of us. It's not a "banana" gene or a "human" gene, it's just a gene.One pair of dogs could have at most four alleles for any gene. Since we know that there's more alleles than four for some of those genes, that's more information than could fit in two dogs, unless they have extra chromosomes (polyploidy).At the risk of appearing insensitive to those with the condition, consider this example of extra genetic material crammed into a human being:That's just one extra chromosome - one extra copy of the genes on chromosome 21. What do you think that extra copies of all their chromosomes are going to do to your dogs?Your hypothetical, gene-packed dogs aren't going to be superdogs. They're not even going to be able to survive. Recessive genes don't store any more information than dominant genes, because a normal dog doesn't have any more than two copies of each gene.

Yes, those genes are not traditionally dominant. Moreover, eye color is not soley a function of genes - epigenetic factors also influence the color and pattern of the iris. It was a simple example, but I'm pleased that you took the time to look it up.Nonetheless, many genes are dominant/recessive, such as the gene for sickle-cell anemia. You can be homozygous dominant, heterozygous, or homozygous recessive. Only the latter will have the condition, but the heterozygous individual has a resistance to malaria (explaining the gene's persistence only in malarial areas.) It's the expression of genes that make us human. That expression is controlled by a combination of other control genes and various epigenetic factors. No, they wouldn't. Their offspring would still have human genes.Saying that you share 50% of your genes with a banana doesn't mean you have banana genes. It means that your body generates some of the same protiens that bananas do. No human being has any "recessive banana genes." Simply by virtue of sharing banana genes, there's just no way that a human could give rise to one with the same genetic code as a banana.For one thing, bananas have a different number of chromosomes. Or hadn't you noticed?

No, I meant genes. Controlled by? No. Genes still control the majority of traits. But epigenetic factors may have an influence that we're only beginning to uncover. I thought I made that clear. Two dogs don't have enough genes between them to have carried all known dog alleles at one time. That may not mean that the flood never happened, but it does mean that new alleles must have come into being through subsequent mutation.

Yes. If there's even one gene that has more than 4 alleles, then we know that there's more alleles than can fit into two dogs. Right?There's a well-known gene locus in dogs called the "agouti" locus. The same gene actually has been indentified in a number of species; it's a key component of fur coloration and was first uncovered in the rodent from which the gene takes its name.In dogs the gene has 5 alleles:

quote:

---

The probable alleles at the Agouti locus, in order of decreasing dominance, are: a^y (sable), a^w (wolf), a^s (saddle), a^t (tan points) and a (recessive black).

---

(From No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.kelpies.caviesrule.com/about.html)So, that's a gene with more alleles than can possibly fit into two dogs.Oh, and I should point out one more thing: It's not a supposition, it's an inference from data. Much as a conclusion of paternity is an inference from a paternity test - the genetic reasoning is the same in both cases. The problem is that creationists haven't organized any kinds. They just say that there are kinds.To expand the conversation, 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".Firstly, you've defined "kinds" in such a way that there never could be a new one - all organisms have ancestors, so a purported "new kind" will always be related to an old one (meaning that it will have a common ancestor with an old kind, making it part of that kind.) Secondly, if your model can't ascertain if two organisms aren't in the same kind, then there's no way to know if an organism represents a new kind or not.So, essentially, creationists are asking for something that can't exist, and even if it could, wouldn't be able to be detected. That's a strawman, and that's why "kinds" is worthless as a classification. Evolution - micro or macro - doesn't predict new kinds. It predicts that each "kind" - each taxonomic category - will expand to represent more and more species over time. And that's exactly what we observe.

Constantly. I'm actually impressed. That shows a considerable open mind on your part. Well done!

I think we can lay off JT a bit.Let him define "kinds" in whatever way, to describe whatever phenomenon at whatever time, as he sees fit. It's not like he's trying to use it for anything.He's repudiated creationists that try to argue that evolution predicts new kinds, and as far as I'm concerned, that's enough for me. He's good people.All we've ever argued is that "kinds" isn't a scientific classification of existing species. He's never claimed otherwise. What is there to argue about?

No prob.A few of us a while back made a pledge to cough up a few bucks (via PayPal) as a prize to the first creo who could come up with a functional definition of "kinds."I'm not saying that you've done that, but I don't mind telling you you're the closest so far.