Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems of a different "Kind"
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 92 (411845)
07-22-2007 7:47 PM


For the {Is it Science} forum:
We have often asked for some definition of what the creationist concept of "kind" involves. Doing a google on "biblical kind" I found the following information:


the first definition


The Biblical Kinds Defined
(Ted Plaisted, U. of N. Carolina)
quote:
The Biblical Kinds Defined
Creationists are often asked for a precise definition of the Biblical kinds, namely, which groups of organisms have descendend from a single organism present at the Creation. This question is not necessarily easy (or possible) to answer, but I now believe that an answer may be possible. Based on assumed evolutionary time scales and rates of mutation of mitochondrial DNA, which may not be correct, scientists estimate that the human race is about 200,000 years old. (Actually, the assumed rate of mutation is not directly observed, but is inferred based on assumed evolutionary time scales, and may be far from the true value. Many different rates of mutation are given by different biologists. From a literal reading of Scripture, we know that the true age of the human race is much less than 200,000 years. However, it is useful to speak in terms of time scales as assumed by scientists in order to obtain a usable criterion.) In a recent study, scientists conclude that wolves and dogs separated between 60,000 and more than 100,000 years ago, based on their mitochondrial DNA. Thus, one would place wolves and dogs in the same kind, because scientists estimate their separation at less than 200,000 years ago. So a general definition would be that if scientists estimate a separation of two organisms within the past 200,000 years, based on their mitochondrial DNA, then they are in the same Biblical kind. If scientists estimate a separation significantly earlier than this, under conventional evolutionary assumptions, then the two species are in different Biblical kinds. If the estimated separation date is slightly longer than 200,000 years, then the case is doubtful. Under creationist assumptions, one would expect the estimated separation time to be either about 200,000 years or less, or much larger than this. (Of course, from the Scripture, the true ages are much less.) This kind of investigation might also shed some light on the human-ape connection.
This of course means that all the current Equus genus species (horses, donkeys, zebras, ass, onager, etc) are of a different kind than Hyracotherium from which it evolved.
quote:
It had a primitive short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between the front teeth and the cheek teeth).
Although it has low-crowned teeth, we see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars.
Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
quote:
Hyracotherium was a dog-sized perissodactyl ungulate that lived in the Northern Hemisphere, with species ranging throughout Asia, Europe, and North America during the Early to Mid Eocene, about 60 to 45 million years ago. [2]
http://horsecare.stablemade.com/articles2/horse_origins.htm
quote:
The evolutionary stages of the Equidae family serve as a classical illustration of the zoological evolution, because it is possible to observe a step by step change in the shapes of the body, the build of the limbs, the structure of the teeth etc. In accordance with the changes in the environment, development continued from a five-toed mammal the size of a fox, to the present size of a horse.
At the "door-step" of this evolutionary line, it becomes very difficult to recognize the ancestors of horses from the ancestors of tapir and the rhinoceros. Both of them have obviously similar origins, and similarities in the structure of teeth, odd-toed limbs, obvious mobility of the upper lip and other similarities according to which they join the evolutionary line of odd-toed hoofed mammals, the Perissodactyls. The tapirs and rhinoceroses remained “faithful” to their original style of life and also kept their original forms suitable for life in the tropical forests, however the evolutionary line of horses led to life on dryer land in much harsher climatic conditions of the steppes.
The first predecessors of horses needed to walk on several spread-out toes to accommodate for living in the primeval forests, walking mostly on soft and moist ground.
http://extension.missouri.edu/...r/agguides/ansci/g02740.htm
quote:
A horse's hoof is composed of the wall, sole and frog. The wall is simply that part of the hoof that is visible when the horse is standing. It covers the front and sides of the third phalanx, or coffin bone. The wall is made up of the toe (front), quarters (sides) and heel.
The digital cushion is a mass of flexible material that contributes to the formation of the heels (Figure 3). This structure is one of the primary shock absorbers of the foot.
When the foot is placed on the ground, blood is forced from the foot to the leg by the increase in pressure and by the change in shape of the digital cushion and the frog. The pressure and the change in shape compress the veins in the foot. When the foot is lifted, the compression is relieved and blood flows into the veins again. In this way, the movement of these structures in the hoof acts as a pump.
Changes in the skull, in the jaw, in the teeth, in the posture, and in the feet, including the addition of a new feature not in the original "Hyracotherium Kind" over 45 million plus years -- a period vastly in excess of 200,000 years (and thus a different kind by the above definition).
Note that the differences between human and chimpanzee include changes in the skull, in the jaw, in the teeth, in the posture, and in the feet, without the addition of any distinct feature similar to the Equus foot pump.


the second definition


TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal Lust
Jason Browning, Dr. Gerald Lenner, Mark Rajock
quote:
SPECIES AND THE BIBLICAL "KIND":
The Old Testament of the Bible employs the Hebrew word min 21 times to speak of the "kinds" of animals. In Genesis the created min were said to reproduce each after its own kind thus suggesting strict reproductive limits. It is not clear exactly where in our present system of classification we would draw the line for a min. All birds (the class Aves) are clearly not one min, because in the 14th chapter of Deuteronomy we find min applied respectively to the raven, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, the little owl, the great owl, the water hen, the pelican, the vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron. On the other hand, the species classification as used today is perhaps generally more limited than the Old Testament min. It would seem appropriate to include all dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and dingos as a single kind or min, for example, though this group includes several different species. In like manner, all true cattle of the genus Bos would represent one kind since they can interbreed. This would combine seven species of cattle: B. taurus (Texas longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns), B. indicus (the zebu), B. grunniens (the yak and grunting ox), B. Gaurus (the gaur), B. frontalis (the gayal), B. banteng (the banteng) and B. sauveli (the kouprey) as all are known to hybridize. B. taurus and B. indicus, for example, have been crossed to produce the breed Santa Gertrudis, but is this a new species or an example of evolution in action? Even the African buffalo Syncerus caffer, the American bison (Bison bison) and the European bison (Bison bonasus) can be crossed with one another, and with true cattle, suggesting that all of these animals, though representing different genus and species, could be considered to be of the cattle kind or min. All varieties of horses, asses and zebras can cross breed and in like manner could be considered a horse kind.
Here we essentially have "kind" defined by the ability to breed hybrids (even if they are all sterile), and we could even extend this to include all those genetic experiments where the "breeding" was done in a lab -- Lions/Tigers, Whales/Dolphins, Zebras/Donkeys, Camels/Llamas and Cattle/Buffalo -- by application of the "strict reproductive limits" criteria above.
While it would be interesting to do some lab breeding of the birds listed above, we can also look at the amount of genetic differences involved in the breeding experiments already listed: whales and dolphins have greater genetic differences than humans and chimpanzees, and we also see the same kind of difference in chromosomes between horses and donkeys that we see between humans and chimps. This of course leads to problems for creationists that insist that chimpanzees are not part of the "human kind" ... do we need to do lab experiments to determine this?
We also know that sheep and goats were known to the ancient Hebrews (as were horses and donkeys), and they can produce hybrids as well:
Sheep—goat hybrid - Wikipedia
quote:
A sheep-goat hybrid is the hybrid offspring of a sheep and a goat. Although sheep and goats seem similar and can be mated together, they belong to different genera. Goats belong to the genus Capra and have 60 chromosomes, while sheep belong to the genus Ovis and have 54 chromosomes. This mismatch of chromosomes means any offspring of a sheep-goat pairing is generally stillborn.
This would mean that all sheep and goats would be the same "kind" ...
But there are problems here with how far we can go with this:
Chimera - Wikipedia(genetics)
quote:
Hybridomas are not true chimeras as described above because they do not result from the mixture of two cell types but result from fusion of two species' cells into a single cell and artificial propagation of this cell in the laboratory. Hybridomas have been very important tools in biomedical research for decades.
In August 2003, researchers at the Shanghai Second Medical University in China reported that they had successfully fused human skin cells and dead rabbit eggs to create the first human chimeric embryos.
In 2007, scientists at the University of Nevada's School of Medicine created a sheep that has 15% human cells and 85% animal cells. [5]
That would mean that humans and rabbits are of the same "kind" ... and sheep ... and we can go even further:
Worm (web serial) - Wikipedia
quote:
A parahuman is a human-animal hybrid. Technically such hybrids already exist; for example, faulty human heart valves are routinely replaced with ones taken from cows and pigs. This surgery effectively makes the recipient a human-animal chimera, though there is no visible effect. Scientists have also done extensive research into the combination of genes from different species, e.g. adding human (and other animal) genes to bacteria and farm animals to mass-produce insulin and spider silk proteins. Note that individual genes can be transplanted between species without the transplantation of whole cells.
This would extend the "kind" to include humans and bacteria -- by application of the "strict reproductive limits" criteria above. There does not appear to be any reproductive barrier when such combinations are made. The logical conclusion is that "Life" is the biblical "kind".

Conclusion

Either new kinds have already evolved (first kind above) or all life is of one "kind" (second kind above).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : human chimp differences in (1)

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 10:49 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 50 by Vacate, posted 09-19-2007 3:08 PM RAZD has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 92 (411846)
07-22-2007 8:00 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 92 (411871)
07-22-2007 10:30 PM


"kind" of ... lost in translation?
The third problem with definitions of "biblical kind" arises from the statements that all modern species are derived from the ancestral "kind" stock through mutation and loss of information.
If we consider this to be fact, then we should be able to reconstruct the ancestral "kind" by selective breeding of the derived species. The result should be a viable robust animal capable of breeding with each derived species to produce viable offspring.
Thus we should be able to take a mule\hinny and breed it with a zeedonk, breed a zorse with a zony and then breed that offspring with the offspring of the mule\hinny and zeedonk mating ...
... except that these hybrids are generally sterile rather than the robust breeders that are predicted. The same thing happens with other interspecies hybrids. In no documented cases are we able to derive a robust breeding ancestral type from derived species.
The only logical conclusion is that the genetics of the original kind(s) have been lost, and that what we have left has evolved into new kinds.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : other hybrids too.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 92 (412021)
07-23-2007 3:31 PM


A Problem with all those "Common" Ancestors
An AiG paper specifically states
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
quote:
For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we:
1. Avoid the use of the term ”microevolution’.
2. Rethink our use of the whole concept of ”variation within kind’.
3. Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic.
...It is no wonder that evolutionists are keen to press us for an exact definition of the created kind, since only then does our claim of ”variation is only within the kind’ become non-tautologous and scientifically falsifiable.
The Scriptures imply that this originally created information was not in the form of one ”super species’ from which all of today’s populations have split off by this ”thinning out’ process, but was created as a number of distinct gene pools. Each group of sexually reproducing organisms had at least two members. Thus,
1. Each original group began with a built-in amount of genetic information which is the raw material for virtually all subsequent useful variation.
2. Each original group was presumably genetically and reproductively isolated from other such groups, yet was able to interbreed within its own group. Hence the original kinds would truly have earned the modern biological definition of ”species’.4
...What then do we say to an evolutionist who understandably presses us for a definition of a created kind or identification of same today? I suggest the following for consideration:
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
...Rather, the question is”which of today’s populations are related to each other by this form of common descent, and are thus of the same created kind? Notice that this is vastly removed from the evolutionist’s notion of common descent. As the creationist looks back in time along a line of descent, he sees an expansion of the gene pool. As the evolutionist does likewise, he sees a contraction.
Note that this is just exactly like the evolutionary concept of descent from common ancestor population -- the "expansion" or "contraction" issue is a red herring -- except that the creationist original pool could be smaller.
The issue of the original (not one but several) 'super species' for each "distinct gene pool" has been dealt with in Message 3.
This leaves us free to contemplate the issue of common ancestors:
Cladistics - Wikipedia
quote:
Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity, in the words of Luria et al. (1981).
This of course is the modern basis for the evolutionary tree of life: those common ancestor populations keep popping up in ever more ancient fossils.
Taking just the human branch of mammals:
Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia
quote:
Humans are great apes; they are one of the species in the family Hominidae along with only a few other species: the two species of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus), the two species of gorillas (Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei) and the two species of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and P. abelii).
Apes in turn belong to the Primates order (>375 species). Data from both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA indicates that primates belong to the group of Euarchontoglires, together with Rodentia, Lagomorpha, Dermoptera, and Scandentia.[1] This is further supported by Alu-like SINEs which have been found only in members of the Euarchontoglires.[2]
The separation of humans from their closest relatives, the African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) has been studied for more than a century and the amount of scientific publications on that subject is huge. Four major questions have been addressed:
  • Which apes are our closest ancestors?
  • When did the separations occur?
  • What was the effective population size of the common ancestor before the split?
  • Are there traces of population structure (subpopulations) proceeding the speciation or partial admixture succeeding it?
    The genomes of humans and chimpanzees differ by about 35 million single nucleotide substitutions. Additionally about 3% of the complete genomes differ by deletions, insertions and duplications.[5]
    Roughly one half of the changes occurred in the humans lineage. Only a very tiny fraction of those fixed differences gave rise to the different phenotypes of humans and chimpanzees and finding those is a great challenge. The vast majority of the differences is certainty neutral.
  • By this analysis humans and chimps "have descended from the same ancestral gene pool" and thus are of the same "kind" by the above definition. And this extends back further to join with gorillas and then with orangutans, etcetera.
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

      
    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 5 of 92 (412071)
    07-23-2007 5:26 PM


    From the SkepticWiki:
    Genera as kinds
    ''Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.'' (Gish, 1978, p 35.)
    Families as kinds
    ''Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind.'' (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271/)
    Suborders as kinds
    this website does what creationists very rarely do, and provides a list of "kinds". The general rule seems to be that a kind is the next taxonomic level up from family, i.e. a suborder or infraorder, although this is not completely systematic (mammal-like reptiles --- therapsids --- are lumped into one "kind", although they consistute an order). The same creationist excludes humans from the Catarrhini while lumping together oppossums, numbats, bandicoots, and the marsuipial tiger. (http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...)
    Orders as kinds
    ''Some organisms seem to have more available diversity in their baramins than do others. Orchids and beetles each have thousands of named species''. (Creationism and Baraminology Research News: Stasis of the Baramin, Purpose, and Inheritance Mechanisms)
    Superorders as kinds
    ''Among the reptiles the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds.'' (Duane Gish: ''Evolution: The Fossils Say No!'')
    Phyla as kinds
    ''There are over seven thousand species of segmented worms, the worm kind.'' (http://www.creationmoments.org/radio/transcript.php?t=850)

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2007 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 6 of 92 (412094)
    07-23-2007 6:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
    07-23-2007 5:26 PM


    Definition by listing
    These are basically definition by listing rather than by setting characteristics that can be tested.
    this website does what creationists very rarely do, and provides a list of "kinds".
    http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/...on/animal-classification
    quote:
    On the basis of our current research at Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm we suggest that around 60 mammal pairs, 11 reptile pairs and 3 amphibian pairs gave rise to the vastly greater number of mammal, reptile and amphibian species living today.
    Wow, holy hypermacroevolution Batman!
    http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...
    quote:
    Kind Number 74 : Cattle
    Bovidae - (No Translation) Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Antelopes 154 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Oligocene
    But there are two kinds of bats? Seems pretty arbitrary and subjective eh?
    http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...
    quote:
    Kind Number 58 : Old World Monkeys
    Propliopithecidae - (No Translation) Propliopithecids
    Cercopithecidae - (Tail ape) Old World Monkeys 60 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Miocene
    Hylobatidae - (Forest walker) Gibbons 7 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Miocene
    Pongidae - (Forest man) Chimps, Orang-utangs, Gorillas 6 species, First in Fossil Record: Tertiary / Miocene
    Oligopthecidae - (No Translation) Oligopithecids
    Proconsulidae - (No Translation) Proconsulids
    That contradicts Gish. Not a big surprise.
    It also gives us the "breeding" definition:
    quote:
    From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds.
    And we see the problem with that in Message 1 and the second definition.
    Thanks.

    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2007 5:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by sidelined, posted 07-23-2007 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

      
    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 5908 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 7 of 92 (412113)
    07-23-2007 8:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
    07-23-2007 6:25 PM


    Re: Definition by listing
    RAZD
    On the basis of our current research at Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm we suggest that around 60 mammal pairs, 11 reptile pairs and 3 amphibian pairs gave rise to the vastly greater number of mammal, reptile and amphibian species living today.
    One must wonder at where the research can be found and examined.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2007 6:25 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2007 9:16 PM sidelined has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 8 of 92 (412131)
    07-23-2007 9:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by sidelined
    07-23-2007 8:05 PM


    Visiting to zoofarm (OT)
    Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm | Family Fun in Bristol
    quote:
    Noah's Ark is a spectacular hands-on zoo with huge indoor adventure playgrounds and the world's longest hedge maze, all on a genuine working farm!
    Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Clevedon Road, Wraxall, Bristol, BS48 1PG
    Looks like it's over the pond, but they don't list "research" under facilities
    http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/.../facilities-refreshments

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by sidelined, posted 07-23-2007 8:05 PM sidelined has not replied

      
    Ihategod
    Member (Idle past 6029 days)
    Posts: 235
    Joined: 08-15-2007


    Message 9 of 92 (416688)
    08-17-2007 10:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
    07-22-2007 7:47 PM


    ......
    This of course means that all the current Equus genus species (horses, donkeys, zebras, ass, onager, etc) are of a different kind than Hyracotherium from which it evolved.
    How do you know the Hyracotherium evolved first?
    The first predecessors of horses needed to walk on several spread-out toes to accommodate for living in the primeval forests, walking mostly on soft and moist ground.
    Did you conclude that by the scientific method?
    Hyracotherium doesn't look like a horse at all, maybe a deformed dwarf horse, or maybe not a horse at all. How many of these have they found?
    If we consider this to be fact, then we should be able to reconstruct the ancestral "kind" by selective breeding of the derived species. The result should be a viable robust animal capable of breeding with each derived species to produce viable offspring.
    Maybe you should explain this better. How could you reconstruct anything with the information that isn't there? And furthermore expect it to be robust?
    The whole argument seems circular.
    Either new kinds have already evolved (first kind above) or all life is of one "kind" (second kind above).
    Because of other animals interbreeding I don't think this reconciles the case for common descent on a timeline larger than 6k years. Darwin saw how fast finches could be changed through breeding, I don't see how all the variations couldn't have been relatively recent.
    I think the question is where is the line between what variated from what and what the definition of biblical kinds are.
    It is obvious creationists have no clue. *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer. At this time I am unaware of any scientific research for finding the limits of the variations in a biblical time frame.
    I would go so far as to classify apes with humans, however I think anyone can see the vast differences in the two. For the sake of arguing a model of similarities the ape and human would need to be classified together for the obvious reasons. This wouldn't preclude that they share a common ancestor or that some type of living ape variety is the ancestor.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2007 7:47 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2007 11:23 AM Ihategod has replied
     Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2007 11:55 AM Ihategod has replied
     Message 32 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2007 8:58 AM Ihategod has not replied

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 2641 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 10 of 92 (416692)
    08-17-2007 11:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Ihategod
    08-17-2007 10:49 AM


    I think you ought to define "kind" for us, vash.
    Once we've got that nailed down, you can offer proof of your position.
    I rather like your definition ...
    birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land
    Care to stick with that?
    How does your definition square with the other creo definitions mentioned in messages 4 and 5?
    And as for ...
    This wouldn't preclude that they share a common ancestor or that some type of living ape variety is the ancestor.
    This is stunning. You concede a common ancestor for the great apes?
    And finally ...
    Because of other animals interbreeding I don't think this reconciles the case for common descent on a timeline larger than 6k years. Darwin saw how fast finches could be changed through breeding, I don't see how all the variations couldn't have been relatively recent ... *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer. At this time I am unaware of any scientific research for finding the limits of the variations in a biblical time frame.
    If you would like to discuss the age of the earth, I have already pointed you toward the relevant threads. It is off topic here.
    If you would like to discuss the "speed" of evolution, that too has its own thread (Question on Evolutionary Rates).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 10:49 AM Ihategod has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 11:55 AM molbiogirl has not replied

      
    Ihategod
    Member (Idle past 6029 days)
    Posts: 235
    Joined: 08-15-2007


    Message 11 of 92 (416703)
    08-17-2007 11:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by molbiogirl
    08-17-2007 11:23 AM


    I think you ought to define "kind" for us, vash.
    I did woman, learn to speak less and listen more.
    btw, by speak I mean type and by listen I mean stfu. jk.
    I'll stick with it, until it doesn't suit my argument. Then I'll use something else. Satisfied?
    This is stunning. You concede a common ancestor for the great apes?
    Why wouldn't I? I wouldn't put humans in that category, if your trying to trap me with your viperious tongue.
    If you would like to discuss the age of the earth, I have already pointed you toward the relevant threads. It is off topic here.
    If you would like to discuss the "speed" of evolution, that too has its own thread (Question on Evolutionary Rates).
    fact is, if you don't have millions or billions or octillions of years you can't have banana to man type evolution. Thus it would relevant for this to be brought up in any and all threads that pertain to utilize the theory of millions of years. The labeling of kinds is only contradictory to biblical scripture when it goes beyond the 6k year mark.
    So labeling kinds for phylogeny purposes only promotes an idea of this time frame so how you think it isn't relevant to explain my view of your religion astounds me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2007 11:23 AM molbiogirl has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 12 of 92 (416704)
    08-17-2007 11:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Ihategod
    08-17-2007 10:49 AM


    Re: ......
    How do you know the Hyracotherium evolved first?
    Several ways. Stratigraphy is one way to date relative age of fossils (see Message 1 for some explanation), and this was used initially (the finds predate radiometric dating methods), and these relative dates have been confirmed by many different radiometric dates. In every case there is a progression in time from Hyracotherium to Equus.
    Another way is morphological - to look at the slow change from one form to another, and arranging the fossils by these morphological relationships gives you the same progression from Hyracotherium to Equus.
    Did you conclude that by the scientific method?
    Yes. The skeletons were studied with attention to where the weight bearing surfaces were distributed on the bones, and this results in a foot with splayed toes and a pad like a dog's foot.
    Hyracotherium doesn't look like a horse at all, maybe a deformed dwarf horse, or maybe not a horse at all. How many of these have they found?
    Hundreds if not thousands. They are very common. There are also no equus fossils in the layers with the Hyracotherium fossils, or even remotely close in time or space, thus ruling out "deformed dwarf" horse. You'd be better thinking of a horse as a deformed giant Hyracotherium, as it has deformed (evolved) and grown (giant-sized) from one to the other.
    Maybe you should explain this better. How could you reconstruct anything with the information that isn't there? And furthermore expect it to be robust?
    The whole argument seems circular.
    Longhorn cattle were reconstructed by back breeding. It's very simple: the various bits of original DNA would be spread out in all the descendant species, with each one having different bits and pieces. The specific genes should be dominant, so just back breeding should recover the original. We see this when we interbreed two purebred varieties in all types of species (including horses). It is known as "hybrid vigor". We don't see this with mules and "ligers" and whatever - instead we see sterility 99% of the time and the few that are capable of breeding are not dominant in taking over the breeding stock.
    It's not circular, it's making a prediction of what you should be able to do if the concept was a valid theory, and then testing that prediction.
    Because of other animals interbreeding I don't think this reconciles the case for common descent on a timeline larger than 6k years. Darwin saw how fast finches could be changed through breeding, I don't see how all the variations couldn't have been relatively recent.
    This doesn't address the material quoted (whether this results in new kinds or not), but if you want to discuss the age available for evolution to operate over then I suggest you look at Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) (although you may want to wait to settle down here first)
    I think the question is where is the line between what variated from what and what the definition of biblical kinds are.
    It is obvious creationists have no clue. *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer.
    Creationists have had over 150 years since Darwin first published to come up with those answers. So far I would have to agree that "creationists have no clue" what makes a "kind."
    enjoy.

    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 10:49 AM Ihategod has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:33 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Ihategod
    Member (Idle past 6029 days)
    Posts: 235
    Joined: 08-15-2007


    Message 13 of 92 (416708)
    08-17-2007 12:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
    08-17-2007 11:55 AM


    Re: ......
    Thanks dad, I appreciate the reply.
    I had no idea I was so stupid. This is gonna be fun.
    I have to disagree with the uniformitarianism model of stratigraphy. I think the layer could have more easily happened by a flood through particle placement of water swells.
    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htm
    Fossils prove only that something died. Can't tell if they had any kids. Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?
    http://www.bible.ca/...k-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#fraud
    I was unaware of heterosis, I will look into this. Thanks for the info dad.
    Creationists have had over 150 years since Darwin first published to come up with those answers. So far I would have to agree that "creationists have no clue" what makes a "kind."
    It should be noted that no one has done it yet, and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't another way to classify organisms in a creation model. Commonality speaks of design not of random chance.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2007 11:55 AM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2007 12:44 PM Ihategod has replied
     Message 16 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2007 1:09 PM Ihategod has replied
     Message 17 by AdminNosy, posted 08-17-2007 1:27 PM Ihategod has not replied
     Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2007 2:13 PM Ihategod has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 92 (416713)
    08-17-2007 12:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Ihategod
    08-17-2007 12:33 PM


    Re: ......
    I had no idea I was so stupid.
    Church-going seems to do that to people.

    I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:33 PM Ihategod has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:05 PM Chiroptera has not replied

      
    Ihategod
    Member (Idle past 6029 days)
    Posts: 235
    Joined: 08-15-2007


    Message 15 of 92 (416716)
    08-17-2007 1:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
    08-17-2007 12:44 PM


    Re: ......
    i don't go to church but nice try.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2007 12:44 PM Chiroptera 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