Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 69 (37551)
04-22-2003 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
04-22-2003 1:46 AM


Re: Cats and?
quote:
Are you aware that, given reprductive "help" (artifical insemination techniques) those two dogs are interfertile?
Really?!! Please provide a good reference. I can hardly contain my glee if this is true. It seems to me it would be a case of speciation (based on the creationists favorite definition) in an example they like to use. I would however be surprised if it is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 1:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 11:49 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 1:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 69 (37556)
04-22-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
04-22-2003 11:28 AM


Re: Cats and?
I already knew about larger and smaller dogs becoming interfertile (but they would not do that without the "artificial insemination technique") I love animals (i've already had 4 cats, dogs, a dwarf rabbit, an iguana, and a cockatiel) but larger and smaller dogs being able to reproduce together does not support the evolution theory.
Besides, the larger and smaller animals still need "help" with their breeding. You can't expect me to believe that, thousands of years ago, a st. bernard ancestor and a terrier ancestor made the first 'batch' of a modern species of dog on their own.
Also, 'kind' is defined as whether or not they can reproduce. if they can bring forth offspring on their own, without any 'help' then they are the same kind of animal. I once saw a first-grader taking a test--the teacher asked "which kind does not belong with the others?" In front of the child was (a) a dog (b) a wolf (c) a coyote (d) a banana. Being only 5 or 6 years old, the kid was smart enough to guess the right answer--even if the banana had been replaced by a cat, there is no doubt in my mind that the kid still would have answered the question right.
Besides, it is not totally uncommon for a wolf and a dog to crossbreed on their own.
In Christ,
Booboo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 11:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 04-22-2003 1:20 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 1:20 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 54 by Budikka, posted 04-22-2003 9:29 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 48 of 69 (37563)
04-22-2003 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:21 AM


Re: Cats and?
Did you listen to last weeks SCIENCE SCRIPTURE AND SALVATION from ICR (if not log on to their site and you can down load the audio). Bud may indeed have an underdermined aleorelative between the MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE nature of his two points in this thread if he is correct but I already have said most of what I can and wanted at this time to say about it but do note that ICR is predicting that the bariminologist may indeed CONTINUALLY find that the field of exploration of what comes after a kind of continiuty (notice I did not say a "kind") at this post is narrower THAN what evo-devo seem to time out on etc. Specifically independent of my virtual conversation with Russel against Mayr's beans for birds anatomy tangently out space morphometrically it seems that this all (the denial of a kind suitable to evolutionary logic)may be about the reversible or not (by 2nd law etc) codablity of traits that using Saussare's philosophy one may discuss hermenutically the DOUBLE signification of HYBRID or PARENT, which niavely is just the word "family". And since I find that Mayr is correct that Gould's idea for or aginst Russel towards species' stuff then the bias sexually that a hierarchial selection new notion ADDS does not refound Mayr's founder but that is an argument wholly from evolution which in my own continuance may no matter this evo-devo development be a polymorhphic set I was kicked out of Cornelll for telling me that I was crazy to simply scan the Bauplan in to the computer and not to use any statisitcs. If I can resovle the LOGICAL difference in Poincare's materialism against Cantor (critically) then well... indeed even BUD two clear things that could not be done would already have been done. It seems to me what he wanted from me at least was a scholaly review and judgement of the creationist literature which I take it is behind his claim but he never seemed to have considerd me a resource as well.
For as I said earlier and now in agreement with ICR that this field narrows and does not expand. time will tell. I started this becuase you mention Cats and in the creationist lit there is a tendency to stress hybridization as a standard and I do not know if this is due to my own selection of materials to read or is indeed a way that bariminology IS going?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:21 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Budikka, posted 04-22-2003 9:32 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 69 (37570)
04-22-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
04-22-2003 11:28 AM


Re: Cats and?
Really?!! Please provide a good reference. I can hardly contain my glee if this is true. It seems to me it would be a case of speciation (based on the creationists favorite definition) in an example they like to use. I would however be surprised if it is true.
Actually I believe it was salty himself that first made that assertion. I confess I took him at his word. Sorry if that's not the reference you were looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 11:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 69 (37572)
04-22-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 11:49 AM


Re: Cats and?
Booboo writes:
I already knew about larger and smaller dogs becoming interfertile (but they would not do that without the "artificial insemination technique") I love animals (i've already had 4 cats, dogs, a dwarf rabbit, an iguana, and a cockatiel) but larger and smaller dogs being able to reproduce together does not support the evolution theory.
You stated that large and small dogs were two different kinds according to Creationism. Evolution holds that they are the same species, the only reproductive barrier being anatomical due to differing size. Since all dogs are interfertile, and since you asserted small and large dogs are separate kinds while evolution says they are the same species, the evidence supports the view of evolution. Plus many modern breeds of dog have been developed during recorded history - we know they have a common origin.
Besides, the larger and smaller animals still need "help" with their breeding. You can't expect me to believe that, thousands of years ago, a st. bernard ancestor and a terrier ancestor made the first 'batch' of a modern species of dog on their own.
The Saint Bernard and the terrier share a common ancestor from the wolf family some thousands of years ago. Many of the most dramatic differences in dog breed appearance are the result of intensive human breeding over the past 500 years - in other words, it is a very recent development.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 11:49 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 69 (37573)
04-22-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 11:49 AM


Re: Cats and?
but larger and smaller dogs being able to reproduce together does not support the evolution theory.
Sure it does. It's evidence that all dogs share a common ancestor. And it certainly disproves your "two kinds of dogs" theory, at least if interfertility is your basis for "kinds", as you seem to suggest.
Besides, the larger and smaller animals still need "help" with their breeding. You can't expect me to believe that, thousands of years ago, a st. bernard ancestor and a terrier ancestor made the first 'batch' of a modern species of dog on their own.
I'm not sure why you state this. It's more accurate to say that both the St. Bernard and the terrier share as an ancestor one domestic "breed" of dog, whose more distant ancestor was also the ancestor of modern wolves, coyotes, and foxes. Given the power that selective breeding has on influencing morphology, I don't find it unreasonable to assume that a "medium"-size, wolflike dog couldn't have given rise to both large and small dogs which we see today.
Also, 'kind' is defined as whether or not they can reproduce. if they can bring forth offspring on their own, without any 'help' then they are the same kind of animal.
Ok, this is a crucial distinction - can reproduce, or do reproduce? For instance, tigers and lions do not, as a general rule, mate with each other in the wild, because due to behavioral and chemical differences they just don't recognize each other as mates. But if forced to mate, they do produce viable offspring.
The point is that reproductive isolation happens for a number of reasons beyond geographical separation and genetic incompatability. Sometimes isolation is as simple as behavioral differences that cause the organisms to not recognize potential mates. Or coleration differences with the same effect. Or even pheremone differences. Sometimes it's structural isolation - the first organism's Tab A won't fit into a potential mate's Slot B.
If you're going to draw the "kinds" line at genetic interfertility, then you admit there's still some 80,000,000 "kinds" or so. (This has a reprcussion to Ark arguments, but since you haven't raised that argument, we won't go there.) And you have to be aware that we've observed populations of species diverge to the point where they were totally, genetically incompatible with a species that they used to be interfertile with. By your definition, new "kinds" are appearing all over the place. This would appear to contradict your "original, created kinds" argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 11:49 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 69 (37629)
04-22-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Brad McFall
04-21-2003 12:44 PM


Yet more randomly generated noise from the Internet's most clueless poster. If you ever have anything else to say, *don't*. And once again I specifically request of you that you either directly address the topics posted or CEASE POSTING IN THIS THREAD.
If you want to generate reams of useless, pointless, clueless, mindless babble, do it elsewhere.
And do please let me know if there is any way I can make this oft repeated request any simpler such that even the most addled adolescent brain can comprehend it?
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 04-21-2003 12:44 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Admin, posted 04-23-2003 4:30 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 69 (37630)
04-22-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:21 AM


If you ask an evolutionist for a simple definition of species, the chances are you will get (at least for sexual species) something along these lines: if two groups of organisms do not normally breed in nature then they are separate species.
Clearly there is more to it than that, but why is it that not a single creationist can offer something along those lines for their "kind"?
The problem with your response is that the creationists specifically do *not* look into these things. They do little or no research, and, ironically, they "create" nothing!
Virtually every one of them has a different idea as to what "kind" is, but not a one of them (as this thread and endless other requests have pretty much conclusively proven), can offer a simple definition of what "kind" is. Much less can they articulate any sort of mechanism, even in theory, which would prevent one of these (undefined!) "kinds" from eventually transforming into another "kind".
That's all this thread was designed to evoke, and once again the creationists have been found wanting. All they can offer, as is to be expected in any thread offering them a serious challenge, is the thread clown, a role willingly assumed in this particular thread by Brad McFall, causing some of us to wonder if he might be considering changing his name shortly to Brad McDownfall.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:21 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 69 (37632)
04-22-2003 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 11:49 AM


So your definition of "kind" equates to the scientific definition of species.
If this truly is what "kind" is supposed to be (and other creationists would vehemently disagree with you), then creationism fails. Speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. This destroys the myth of the immutability of "kinds" using your deinfition. Therefore you either have to accept that evolution has occurred, or you have to come up with some means of accommodating the millions of species that have ever lived, on that tiny ark.
Plus you have still not identified any sort of mechanism which would prevent one "kind" from transforming into another "kind".
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 11:49 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 69 (37633)
04-22-2003 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Brad McFall
04-22-2003 12:36 PM


Brad McFail said; "... but I already have said most of what I can and wanted at this time to say..."
This is indeed good news, but the bare fact remains that when we blow off all the chaff, you actually haven't said anything....
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2003 12:36 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 04-23-2003 4:30 AM Budikka has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 56 of 69 (37649)
04-23-2003 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Budikka
04-22-2003 9:32 PM


Hey Budikka,
You are beginning to sound a lot like J P Holding (Turkelman) LOL.
I think your replies to Brad are really uncalled for and simply make you look like the villian of the piece.
Just to let you know that you are losing a lot of respect by responding to sincere members of this forum in that manner.
Best Wishes.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Budikka, posted 04-22-2003 9:32 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2003 11:46 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 69 (37678)
04-23-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Brian
04-23-2003 4:30 AM


Brad McFall
Thanks Brian,...
Budikka,
I am done with this thread, yes indeed, short of re-writing my entire reading for the only thing left to say IS NOT relevant to any kind of kind defintion but has to do with a reductionist approach within the reading I presented I have done and involves the progress of using Russels progressions and regressions in terms of flame spectra explaining the vertical extent of the light and the bearing such use in Quantum Mechanics bears/to have bore on any bonds in the chemistry a particular taxogeny with or without baramins results form and was in etc. You are free to continue without me as source of independent notions on the subject. I said my peace. Peace IN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 04-23-2003 4:30 AM Brian has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 69 (37717)
04-23-2003 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Budikka
04-22-2003 9:13 PM


Budikka's Posting Privileges Suspended
Hi Budikka,
Your posting privileges are suspended until further notice. They can be restored by persuading me via email to Admin that in the future you will follow the forum guidelines.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator
[Fixed spelling. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Budikka, posted 04-22-2003 9:13 PM Budikka has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 69 (37921)
04-24-2003 6:17 PM


Creationist efforts to distinguish baramins will, I suspect, be endless will-o'-the-wisp exercises, something like the old controversy among preformationists between spermists and ovists. Preformationism is the theory that a complete organism exists in a gamete, an organism that has to grow. Of course, the next question is which gamete -- a sperm cell or an egg cell?
Here is a collection of assignments of hominid fossils to human and ape baramins. Notice creationists' serious differences in opinion -- and the difficulty of drawing the human/ape boundary line.
By comparison, consider this proposal to sequence several plant species' chloroplasts. Several of the species were selected to help resolve a contentious issue: how are the major groups of seed plants related?
Cycads
Conifers
Ginkgo
Gnetales (Gnetum, Ephedra, and Welwitschia)
Angiosperms (flowering plants)
The proposal mentioned no less that 15 proposed phylogenies, including one that states that Gnetales are derived conifers, the "gne-pine" hypothesis. And it argues that sequencing chloroplasts will provide a big bulk of genetic data, which will help determine which of the possibilities, if any, are right.
Finally, creationists like to use imprecise, informal terminology, without relating that terminology to mainstream-biology taxonomic terminology. Thus, when they talk about the "dog kind", are they referring to:
Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog)
Canis lupus (with gray wolf)
Canis sp. (with coyote, jackals)
Canidae (with foxes and other canids)
?

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 04-28-2003 12:06 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 60 of 69 (38209)
04-28-2003 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lpetrich
04-24-2003 6:17 PM


I would agree with the nettle of this wisp of wind interpretation as long as nothing "economically" for creationism changes but I have done a 180^o with respect to Phillip Johnson's suggestion that this century will see some kind of material change in naturalism. I now DO agree with the prescription but NOT for reasons of the addition of intelligent design to the "mix". I am not even very far from asserting that LAMMERTS was compelely correct about the materiality of current understanding of biology being inadequate to transfer "information" among generations able to even cobble together in Jacob's junk yard an organ no matter how much more all tissues does histogenically surface.
But unfortunately I do revert to your interpretation as I only have the symptom of Gould and Lewontin begging off any all new every mole biology and less even the actual correalation no matter the cause but this is not because I did not try. I do think that nano-technology will "force" us to recognize to the specific notion of Newton's "black body" (OUT of ALCHEMY?)the extent of APPLICATION atomically of forces to bio-change but if one can harness for food and energy the CONSTANCY of specific taxogenies remains an open question that can be fullfilled baramincally if evolutionists continue to refuse to engage this wisp-o-wasp of thought. no I am not a wrapper or a rapper nor...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lpetrich, posted 04-24-2003 6:17 PM lpetrich 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