A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

mark24:
I can't wait for the work on baramins to be completed.John Paul:
Me too.mark24
I wonder what baramin the Giraffe will be under?John Paul:
Me too.mark24:
Soooooooo. How did those arterial valves evolve? The Onyx doesn't have them? Or perhaps, how did the Onyx lose its valves in a mere 4,500 years.John Paul:
Seeing that 'Onyx' is a mineral I doubt it has any arterial valves, so it couldn't have lost them. I think you meant Okapi. And just because we place the Okapi in family Giraffidae (order Artiodactyla), doesn't mean it belongs there.mark24:
Since genetic materiel is going to be used to classify, its going to be interesting to see how they squirm out of this one. The Onyx is genetically close to the Giraffe, so, how do we rationalise putting them in different baromins, whilst using the same data to put other organisms in the same baromin?John Paul:
As you just learned the Onyx is NOT genetically close to the Giraffe. In fact the Onyx has no genetic material at all.mark24:
They're going to screw up somewhere & we're going to say, hey, those creationists can't explain how such & such evolved/adapted, God/ID must therefore be false. Sound familiar? Would you accept that rationale?Life on this planet is EXTREMELY varied, if one example of a baramin has some particular adaption that they never thought of, then evolution MUST be true, because the adaption evolved from a kind that never had the adaption.John Paul:
OK, for the record, Creationists do not have a problem with evolution or adaptaion. The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.mark24:
They should have left classification well alone, they're going to get crucified.John Paul:
Did you know that Linnaeus was a Creationist? Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?If Creationists get 'crucified' doing valid scientific research then so be it. That would mean that other 'origins' scientists will most likely get 'crucified' too. Or are they excused because they are working under the materialistic naturalism framework?So tell me mark24, can you tell us what the alleged original population(s) of organisms (specifically) started the diversity of life? I have been waiting for that answer for at least 35 years.(edited for typos)
------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-03-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-03-2002]

Or mark24, did you mean Oryx (family Bovidae, order Artiodactyla)? Is the Oryx genetically close to Giraffes? If so then perhaps its classification is incorrect.------------------
John Paul

lol, my mistake, Okapi.......it was early

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Did you know that Linnaeus was a Creationist? Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?

​

---

Linnaeus was a creationist? Well, kudos to him for not letting a religious document affect his conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

OK, for the record, Creationists do not have a problem with evolution or adaptation. The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.

---

Creationists DO have a problem with evolution. Abiogenesis & evolution are different. If there’s no problem, why bother with kinds at all? Since we all accept common descent from a single ancestor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

If Creationists get 'crucified' doing valid scientific research then so be it. That would mean that other 'origins' scientists will most likely get 'crucified' too. Or are they excused because they are working under the materialistic naturalism framework?

​

---

My main point was, how would the classifiers of baramins be able to exclude genetic information (since its going to be used), when they use it elsewhere? If the Giraffe is genetically close to the OKAPI, & other organisms have been classified with this data, how will the classifiers be able to put them in separate baramins? They will need to, or they will have to explain Giraffe arterial valves, or the Okapis lack of them. The classifiers will pick & choose what information they like & ignore other criteria THEY have chosen to apply elsewhere. I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.Secondly, how will they be able to use genetic info to imply descent in say, felines, & then ignore the same methods that point to felines & canines sharing ancestors?Is this what you describe as valid scientific work? These are classifications of biblical convenience, nothing more.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:Did you know that Linnaeus was a Creationist? Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
Linnaeus was a creationist? Well, kudos to him for not letting a religious document affect his conclusions.John Paul:
Add Newton, Kepler, Pasteur et al. to the list of Creationists that have no conflict with science.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:OK, for the record, Creationists do not have a problem with evolution or adaptation. The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
Creationists DO have a problem with evolution.John Paul:
No we do not. We DO have a problem with what evolutionists are doing with the concept.mark24:
Abiogenesis & evolution are different. If there’s no problem, why bother with kinds at all? Since we all accept common descent from a single ancestor.John Paul:
Do read my posts before you respond to them? I would have to guess you do not because if you had read my post you would have read this:The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.In other words we do NOT agree with the 'common descent from a single ancestor'. In fact even Darwin said it could be a few and Larry (one of the moderators here) has posted that Doolittle says the same thing.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:If Creationists get 'crucified' doing valid scientific research then so be it. That would mean that other 'origins' scientists will most likely get 'crucified' too. Or are they excused because they are working under the materialistic naturalism framework?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
My main point was, how would the classifiers of baramins be able to exclude genetic information (since its going to be used), when they use it elsewhere?John Paul:
They don't exclude it. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.mark24:
If the Giraffe is genetically close to the OKAPI, & other organisms have been classified with this data, how will the classifiers be able to put them in separate baramins?John Paul:
Like I said there is more to the equation than genetic similarities.mark24:
They will need to, or they will have to explain Giraffe arterial valves, or the Okapis lack of them. The classifiers will pick & choose what information they like & ignore other criteria THEY have chosen to apply elsewhere. I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.John Paul:
Please tell us how to genetically check extinct organisms.mark24:
Secondly, how will they be able to use genetic info to imply descent in say, felines, & then ignore the same methods that point to felines & canines sharing ancestors?John Paul:
Because there is more than genetic info in the equation. Felines and canines sharing a common ancestor is just an evolutionist imagination gone awry. Nothing more.------------------
John Paul

Regarding religious scientists, so what? They have the ability to not allow faith to get in the way of science. I doubt the application of evidential criteria in barominic classification will be applied so scientifically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:

​

mark24:
My main point was, how would the classifiers of baramins be able to exclude genetic information (since its going to be used), when they use it elsewhere?

​

John Paul:
They don't exclude it. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.

---

What criteria will allow them to include it in one classification & not others? If its important enough to be used once, why won’t it consistently be used? So, to not use it, when it’s been used before, actually DOES mean they exclude it, just when it’s convenient, that’s all.Regarding extinct animals, if no genetic information is available, fall back on more conventional means of classification, but don’t ignore genetic information, where available.Genetics provides confirmation of common descent or it doesn’t. No ifs or buts. Creation scientists are interpreting it to mean indication of common descent on the Baraminology site, or they wouldn’t be considering it.I want to know when it doesn’t indicate common descent, but did elsewhere.

quote:

---

:
quote:

​

mark24:
Secondly, how will they be able to use genetic info to imply descent in say, felines, & then ignore the same methods that point to felines & canines sharing ancestors?

​

John Paul:
Because there is more than genetic info in the equation. Felines and canines sharing a common ancestor is just an evolutionist imagination gone awry. Nothing more.

---

Then why bother including genetic information in the first place? It seems its just evidence of convenience, to be discarded when it gets a bit too tough.Do you agree the genetic similarities in felines point to common descent within felines?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?

​

---

I do wish you would read my posts! (you’re not the only one that can be insufferable). If you did, you would have seen, I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake. , implying that I did know many organisms haven’t been classified genetically.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
I do wish you would read my posts! (you’re not the only one that can be insufferable). If you did, you would have seen, I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake. , implying that I did know many organisms haven’t been classified genetically.John Paul:
Real good mark24. Too bad my statement came before yours. So it was NOT in response to-I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.My statement came in post 46, yours in post 49. You should have given up after the 'Onyx' post. LOL! ------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Interesting... I shall make good use of this.

​

John Paul:
Most likely not to support your claims.

---

I see that you have reverted almost immediately to your usual tone. Sad.
Anyway, it should have been fairly obvious. I shall make good use of your statement "If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it". As such, you clearly have done nothing of the sort in any of the topics raised in this thread. From the Merriam-Websters online dictionary:Main Entry: substantiate
1 : to give substance or form to : EMBODY
2 : to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFYKeep these definitions in mind...

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
And the dodge goes full-circle. 'Original function' is just another layer of criteria lobbed on by the goal-post shifting creationists.
From the Harcourt online scientific dictionary:

​

vestigial [ve stijl] Biology. 1. remaining as a vestige 2. small and imperfectly developed.

​

I think my example clearly falls under category 2.

​

John Paul:
Gee whiz huxter, I never see you bring that up when Pat posts that vestigial means it no longer has its original function. But either way you still have to show that the original humans had that 'small & imperfectly developed' whatever. Ya see a human evolving into a human is not beyond the scope of the Creationists' PoV.

---

That falls under definition 1. As you can plainly see, there is an additional definition. But why would the 'original human' have to have had an already vestigial structure? It seems as though you are using one-dimensional thinking. There is no provision that I am aware of in evolution that states that some 'original' type organism must have existed in an 'as-is' form. Perhaps you can SUBSTANTIATE this?
Of course, it appears that within the creationist's PoV, the evolution of some as yet unknown original 'ape kind' both chimpanzees and bonobos is not only plausible, but necessary.

quote:

---

SLP:
Of course, as for the created kinds bit:

​

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.

​

So please substantiate the reference to 'created kinds' with verifiable documentation.

​

John Paul:
Again? How many times to you have to be linked to something?

​

Baraminology

​

Ligers & Wholphins- what's next?

---

A couple of things.1. The links have absolutely nothing to do with SUBSTANTIATING the concept of the created kind. That is, your links are basically red herrings. Recall please that you had written:
"Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds."
The concept of the created kind has not been substantiated by any means. Your links show this, in fact.
2. The author of the second link essentially admits that one of the key criterion in identifying baramina is a sham - hybridization."If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind...
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."This means that 'baraminology' is unfalsifiable. ReMine's joy is not science.
3. The first link is funny for several reasons. Among them is the fact that these baraminologists have basically taken evolutionary systematics terminology and replaced it with biblically derived names (holobaramin in place of clade, for instance). They have also co-opted the methodology and even the computer programs utilized in evolutionary systematics. The primary difference between the two is that the baraminologists have set totally arbitrary criteria as to what delineates baramina (with the exception of hybridization). I can gleefully expand on thsi if you wouold like, complete with citations and quotes form the creationists themselves.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.

​

John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."

​

That does it for me.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

SLP:
"What if I did this? "
That does it for me.
Your quote above does not in any way, shape or form support your claim above:

​

"He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position."

​

John Paul:
Sure it does. I can't help it if you have a reading comprehension problem. What do you think this means?
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out."

---

Do you know what the word "could" means?
I submit that it is not my reading comprehension skills that are in doubt.

quote:

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.

​

John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------SLP:
Not in science. In science, one infers what there is good evidence for.

​

John Paul:
Well then, that settles that. There is NO evidence, good or otherwise, that DNA, RNA or life could originate naturally. So by your logic we are right to infer ID. Thanks.

---

Are you talking about evolution or the origin of life? You seem to frequently conflate the two and slip back and forth between topics.

quote:

---

SLP:
What you are doing is taking the ignorant man's out - it is a logical fallacy and a poor way of doing science. "Until you prove blue fairies push the sun around the cosmos, I will infer that it is red fairies."

​

John Paul:
What you are doing is proving just how a small mind works. Thanks again.

​

------------------
John Paul

---

Yes - by getting you to write more and more, this is demonstrated time and again.You have thus far failed to SUBSTANTIATE any of your claims in this thread. You are a real boon to your cause.Shall I assume that you abandoned all of the other topics that have been mentioned?

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
They don't exclude it{genetic information}. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.

---

Yes, it is. Indeed, the baraminologists have co-opted the methods of molecular phylogenetics for their cause. Molecualr data, of course, is objective, and so analyses of it can provide objective results. Objective results are what is strived for in science. The creationists, on the other hand, discard the objectivity of molecular analyses when it goes against their preconceived beliefs.
Furthermore, they often try to 'rig' analyses to produce their desired outcomes.Not a very satisfactory way to win over the sceptics.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
They don't exclude it{genetic information}. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, it is.John Paul:
No it isn't.------------------
John Paul

SLP:
Shall I assume that you abandoned all of the other topics that have been mentioned?John Paul:
Assume whatever you want. All you do is twist and misrepresent whatever any IDer and/ or Creationist posts anyway so what is the difference if you want to assume something your little mind conjured up?I would like to have an intelligent debate but with you that is impossible.(for those of that don't know this, SLP, aka huxter, once wanted to have sex with my dead mother. He is a sick puppy in need of treatment.)------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:

​

"Real good mark24. Too bad my statement came before yours. So it was NOT in response to-I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.

​

---

Then why did you quote yourself AFTER I made my statement in message 49? In message 50 ;

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

"Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?"

---

It was not necessary to quote this again if your point was to add names of scientists that were creationists. However you DID quote after my statement.Too bad, as you say.I would be more impressed if you argued my points, & not just revelling in the "Onyx" mistake.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

mark24:
I would be more impressed if you argued my pointsJohn Paul:
I am not a Baraminologist. How can I clarify what it is they do to make the determinations they do? However that does not diminish from what actual Baraminologists are doing and how they are doing it.I provided the link to show it is a valid scientific research venue. Also it should be noted that it is a very recent research venue. Give them time. You guys have had over 140 years under the ToE framework and still the evidence is subjective at best.------------------
John Paul

Fair enough. They are going to have to be very, very careful on what methods they use to classify, or they are just going to be accused of bias, or worse, fitting the classification to the bible.This is not an attack on your position, just an observation.Regardless of what method(s) they use, they are still going to have to explain why genetic/protein information can be indicative of common descent, & then why it isn't indicative at genus level & above.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
They don't exclude it{genetic information}. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, it is.

​

John Paul:
No it isn't.

---

So now you are saying that genetics is not part of the baraminology equation?