|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems of a different "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
i don't go to church but nice try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
For the third time. Take. It. To. The. Appropriate. Thread. What are you dense? Or is that the red tape I have to jump through? I thought this was a debate forum not a p.c. whine fest. Moreover, are you a mod or admin? If not stfu befo' you get smacked-tfu, bish!
Are you going to address my questions re: your definition of kind? You know, fish, bird, animal? Or have you conceded the point? yeah, well you quoted me earlier and then commented how funny you thought that it was. I thought that was my definition, but I'll humor you and the rest of the gang. If it looks like a bird, its a bird. If looks like an cat, its a cat. If it looks like an ape, its not an black guy. Do you see where I'm going with this? To me, because I see design, I don't need to go into depth with this one has yellow hair and that has pink hair so that fucked that and out plopped that...etc.
And what of the great apes' common ancestor? What about the shit I took this morning? Who cares? They're apes not black people. And also isn't this off topic? Edited by Vashgun, : i left out a good point
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
You can disagree with the model of stratigraphy all you want to, but your disagreement won't alter reality or affect it one iota. Back at you. How about a link to your "evidence"? I disagree, I don't think that you can know this. Period.I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class. Imagine a candle in a room. Your a scientist, so you want to know how long the candle has been burning and also how tall or large the candle was. So the empirical evidence suggests that the candle is x number of inches and the rate of burning has been x number of centimeters per one hour of observation. How many assumptions would you have to make to come up with a hypothesis of how tall the candle was and when it was lit? Basically, I disagree with this idea of uniformitarianism. There was a flood around 4400 years ago, and before that it was paradise. So, again I disagree until you can show me empirical evidence for billions of years.
Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago? Short answer: No. Nor does your article do so (it doesn't even really address horse evolution at all). Really? Perhaps you should have put on your glasses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Vashgun writes: How about a link to your "evidence"? Here are 101 reasons right here on evc Message 1 (Thread 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood in Forum Links and Information) There are others on the web. I was talking about uniformitarianism. Just like an evolutionist to raise a straw man.
Hovind is a cheat and fraud (sorry there is no other way of putting it)
I see Hovind as extremely well informed. Also, when he doesn't understand something about his theory he admits it, instead of lying. Cheat and Fraud? I'll wager against that.
Another simple falsification of a young flooded earth are tree rings that exceed the supposed date of the flood. Read this thread for some good information. I've read on both sides, and I don't think it's an exact enough "science" to be dogmatically preaching it as truth. This also falls into the ice ring dating methods as well. How can you know, empirically?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Well you'd loose. Hovind is doing time right now cause he's a convicted tax cheat. You obviously don't know squat! Oh how good that feels!How about you become a real citizen, and study your laws. http://www.freedomclubusa.com/ucc_strawman Forbidden Hovind was set up, hook, line and sinker. He didn't do anything wrong or break any laws. I can't speak for him, but I know his position on this topic. He spent along time researching the banking swindle and he is now a product of injustice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Since Dr. Jones is from Edmonton, I believe he is a real citizen, of Canada. As to how much Dr. Jones has studied Canadian law, I don't really know, however, Hovind was convicted of tax fraud under the laws of the United States, which is a different nation with somewhat different laws and a different government. Therefore this sentence appears not only meaningless but also geographically incompetent. I apologize to Jones. However, Canadian law is roughly identical when it comes to the income tax and the straw man accounts. And again Hovind was convicted of tax fraud but it wasn't constitutional nor was it justifiable under any law in the united States but rather in the District of Columbia. It still stands, you both should become "real" citizens. Check the first link above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Kind Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
it is the fundamental construct of the variations we see today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
By useful I mean a definition for which you could derive a procedure to unambiguously tell if two different living things are of the same kind or not. On the flip side evolution suggests common ancestry of apes and humans from gross homologous traits which are suspect.I believe this article sums up most of the speculations on common ancestry. There They Go Again! Another Missing Link | The Institute for Creation Research I don't mind grouping anything together, however suggesting common ancestry through this grouping system is baseless and unscientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I propose that the definition for kinds is one that must be stacked or at least long enough to encompass the many schools of thought. I don't see why kinds would be limited to a specific gene pool. Perhaps even apes and humans could interbreed under the right circumstances. The genetic symmetry is apparent and thus should be adapted to encompass all possibilities. The limits are unknown. The assumption arises through lack of what is said in Genesis and not what is said.
Genesis 1. The Holy Bible: King James Version Species - Wikipedia The species definition allows a distinction but, IMO, doesn't encompass the scope of originally created kinds. As the original kinds could transcend through the scientific classification scale. Creationist Kinds: Organisms that interbreed yet not limited to specific evolution. Edited by Vashgun, : missing link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
"...yet not limited to specific evolution" means nothing to me -- can you explain this further? Do you mean that variation in descendants is not limited to genetic change? One thing I see in creationist dogma is constraint given to the evolution process. I really think it would be awesome if we could breed cats and dogs. Hilarious really. I don't see how originally created kinds couldn't have become something that looks almost entirely different. I am not afraid of evolution, I think it is pretty cool. I don't believe in billions of years so I don't think common ancestry is plausible. But that's for another thread I suppose. Specific evolution would be a creationist way of eluding to variation within the original kinds. And yes, we should have no limitations on evolution however much I believe there are in fact limits.
With this twist: dogs can be members of the "dog kind" AND members of the "canine kind" AND the "mammal kind" -- you can have nested hierarchies of each different kind. Each kind would still breed according to it's kind etc etc. It is a generic term rather than a specific one. This doesn't solve the "problem" of which "kinds" were on the ark, but ... as you say: Sure, it is extremely generic but that could be through semantics rather than objective reality. I must point out that a Creator could very well have a different class system than the science specific one. The beauty of the kinds is in the simplistic nature of relating complex information. Not to say that God couldn't have known what he was specifically making. Also, the kinds in genesis seem to be somewhat related to their environment. I believe someone else said something about this. Conclusion, I really don't see a problem with linnean classification system. Speciation has its limits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
As far as constraint goes, I don't see it for anything evolving from what exists today: how would it be constrained? Evolution develops new alleles through mutation and copy errors, mutations spread through the populations by reproduction generation to generation. Is there something that prevents certain mutations from occurring? By constraint, I meant linguistically. I don't think the limits are yet known how far a species can go. If you have any links or information on this I would love to read it.
But the usage within genesis is consistent with a generic terminology for any group of organisms based on their similarities yes? Genesis 1 Verse 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. If we really look at this I think there are some interesting things to note. "...beast of the earth after his kind,..." and then "...cattle after their kind,..." notice how the beasts are after his kind and the cattle after their kind. I don't think this is a classification system nor was it meant to be. to be continued...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Razd, I have given much thought to the biblical kinds. Here is what I got:
A kind infers barriers. common descent infers no barriers. Since it can only be observed that some genetics (which apply) and homologous traits are similar and can be suggested to evolve from one another, this does not rule out an equal theory for creation kinds. Also, it is not fully accepted that macro-evolution (for lack of a better term) has taken place. So it can still be theorized that there are barriers and one shouldn't toss this suggestion aside even if they subscribe to ToE. It is possible that there were original kinds which have evolved into what we see now. Also, what I would like to bring up is the possibility that macro evolution doesn't contradict a creation view. One could look at a chihuahua and a wolf and pretty much conclude macro evolution. The age of the earth or the age of existence would be the only barrier to the allowance of evolution. Variation within a kind suggests rigidity of life. The bible, as far as I know, doesn't state or suggest that there are limits to life through variation. In fact, I believe that change would be a fundamental in True Christianity. Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024