|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Define "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
In another thread, it was proposed that evolution outside of "kinds" was not observed, and was predicted to be impossible within the Creationist model.
I asked for a definition of "kind", as it is not a scientific term, and one was not forthcoming from the claimant. As it was somewhat off-topic, I thought I'd start yet another topic on this subject, this one rather narrowly focussed. I would like to know the definition of "kind". I would also like to know the consistent system by which I can identify what "kind" an organism is. I suppose this should go in "Biological Evolution"? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 08:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I actually had randman in mind as the poster, but any and all are welcome to offer a definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If there is not in existence a definition of "kind", nor any method in place for differentiating the "kinds" from each other, then it is a useless term and should not be used at all. At least, it should not be used in any sort of scientific discussion regarding the origin of species, biology, or the like. Would you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Of course, but without a definition, there is no basis for using the word at all. It is so vague as to be meaningless, and therefore useless in science. It's not scientist's fault that your side can't get it's act together. If you are hindered, it's by your own doing. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 09:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Modulous writes:
However, this doesn't discount macroevolution since that could easily be the case if the created kinds are extraordinarily general (cow, dog, monkey, bird, serpent, fish, crab etc). It does obviously discount universal common descent. quote: But what do you do with humans, which appear to very much belong in the "primate" kind? Most Creationists do not believe that humans are primates and share a common ancestor with other primates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But this contradicts all known genetic evidence utterly. This means that within the Creationist model shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, I certainly do see a great similarity between pimates and humans. However, the most powerful evidence that humans are primates is genetic. That's why the discovery of DNA and it's role in heredity was such a enormous confirmation of the ToE 60 or so years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Actually, it's much more than "basic physical structure", Faith. Humans and apes share a broken gene for producing vitamin C, and that is about as far from "basic physical structure" one can genetically get.
quote: Our behavior is not that different. Chimps and a few other apes have the intelligence and similar behavior to a 6 year old human, and can be taught hundreds of sign language words. And I still don't get how you think that apes and humans are "strikingly" different in appearence. Why were blacks called "jungle monkeys" if people didn't think they looked "strikingly" like primates?
quote: Raccons are quite a lot smarter than bears, IIRC. And aren't raccoons noctournal, whereas bears move about in the daytime?
quote: Except the paws of the two are totally different, and raccoons have long tails and bears do not.
quote: Actually, that is not true, as I gave an example above. Why do we do human medical research, including aids research, on chimps and other primates, if we were not incredibly similar to them in many, many ways? Do you deny that genes determine the nature of ALL of the structure of an organism's body?
quote: They have language, Faith, and they teach tool use and culture to their offspring. We can teach them a little of our language. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 01:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Humans and apes share a broken gene for vitamin c production.
Do you agree that this is more than "basic structural similarity"? We use chimps and other primates to do human medical research, including aids research. It is very expensive, so if it did not result in fruitful results, it wouldn't be done. Do you agree that this indicates a great similarity in many systems between humans and other primates?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do you agree, Faith, that within the Creationist model, shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Humans and apes share a broken gene for vitamin c production.Do you agree that this is more than "basic structural similarity"? We use chimps and other primates to do human medical research, including aids research. It is very expensive, so if it did not result in fruitful results, it wouldn't be done. Do you agree that this indicates a great similarity in many systems between humans and other primates? Do you agree, Faith, that within the Creationist model, shared genes and using genetics to determine relatedness at any level are rejected?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you consider the broken vitamin C gene that humans and apes share to be a "macro structure"? If so, why? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-21-2006 04:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Actually, Copernicus and Galileo started that ball rolling long before Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Are you going to address my direct questions or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, is it "merely a coincidence" that I share more genes with my parents than I do with my grandparents, and fewer still with my great grandparents, and so on, and so on? Is that a result of the fall too? It is clear that you have completely rejected the genetic basis for relatedness.
quote: Guinea Pigs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024