|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems of a different "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 definitionThe Biblical Kinds Defined (Ted Plaisted, U. of N. Carolina) quote: 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: Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
quote: http://horsecare.stablemade.com/articles2/horse_origins.htm
quote: http://extension.missouri.edu/...r/agguides/ansci/g02740.htm
quote: 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 definitionTurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal Lust Jason Browning, Dr. Gerald Lenner, Mark Rajock quote: 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: 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: 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: 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) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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: |
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 ...
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. 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: |
An AiG paper specifically states
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis quote: 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: 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: 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. 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: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: Wow, holy hypermacroevolution Batman! http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...
quote: But there are two kinds of bats? Seems pretty arbitrary and subjective eh? http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/showmammals.php?kindNumb...
quote: That contradicts Gish. Not a big surprise.
or even one cat kind.'' (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/271/) It also gives us the "breeding" definition:
quote: And we see the problem with that in Message 1 and the second definition. Thanks. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm | Family Fun in Bristol
quote: Looks like it's over the pond, but they don't list "research" under facilities http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/.../facilities-refreshments
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6029 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6029 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6029 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6029 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
i don't go to church but nice try.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024