Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
38 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (7 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,441 Year: 18,477/19,786 Month: 897/1,705 Week: 149/518 Day: 23/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
mark24
Member (Idle past 3479 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 406 of 416 (528148)
10-04-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Calypsis4
10-04-2009 3:04 PM


Summation
Calypsis' argument has failed because it is logically fallacious. It commits the strawman fallacy, specifically it assumes evolutionary theory states morphological change must happen, then attacks that false proposition.

A logically fallacious argument is moot.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Calypsis4, posted 10-04-2009 3:04 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2009 8:10 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 407 of 416 (528151)
10-04-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by mark24
10-04-2009 7:34 PM


Re: Summation
Calypsis' argument has failed because it is logically fallacious. It commits the strawman fallacy, specifically it assumes evolutionary theory states morphological change must happen, then attacks that false proposition.

His argument fails also because it is wrong.

It attempts to take a biblical concept with no scientific accuracy (created kinds) and force that concept onto scientific findings. Areas where it doesn't fit are ignored.

The examples of living fossils given in the OP and afterward attempted to force the concept of "kinds" into several contrary directions. First, kinds were equated with the family level, then when it was shown that bats, for example, include many families, kinds was equated to the generic term "bats"--which for scientific purposes is useless. This was done for a number of different creatures.

But when it comes to the human "kind" the family definition was way too broad, as Family Hominidae includes the apes as well as numerous extinct species of Homo. In this one case the definition of kinds must be extremely narrow, contradicting the other definitions for this term. But in the established tradition of creation "science," internal consistency is not required. The only thing that matters is coming to conclusions that agree with one's interpretation of scripture and revelation.

In summary, trying to force the biblical concept of kinds onto scientific data fails because 1) kinds is never well defined; 2) the concept of kinds does not fit the data if either tightly or loosely defined, and 3) any definition of kinds which separates modern humans from all other hominids makes the problems of Noah and his ark even more insurmountable than they would be with a loose definition. In other words, with "kinds" you can't get there from here.

Those of us who were debating this issue using empirical evidence and the scientific method were doomed to fail because "kinds" is a religious belief, and not something that was derived from scientific data. As such, no amount of evidence against that concept will make any difference to those who believe in it. In the minds of many creationists, religious belief trumps scientific data when the two come into conflict.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by mark24, posted 10-04-2009 7:34 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 981 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 408 of 416 (528154)
10-04-2009 8:27 PM


Kinds
I share the frustration of most others on this thread in trying to explain the point to Calypsis4. Let me add a simple summation here.

Calypsis claimed that I can't produce evidence of any change from organism to organism. I told him that I have seen many changes along genealogical lines, and showed him that greater changes between larger groups of organisms fit a hereditary, genealogical explanation.

Here was the response:

Calypsis4 writes:

Hmm. Were you humans during that change? Are you still human?

This has been the level of his and Archangel's contribution on this and other threads since their separate arrivals. Even if I could argue that I am somehow a different type of organism from my parents, he could still make his argument by simply sliding his criteria back a notch.

But, there is a disconcerting level of subjectivity involved, as well. It seems, the more distantly related an organism is to humans, the broader the “kinds” get. We have heard, on this one thread, arguments that humans (an individual species) are a distinct “kind,” that equids (a Linnaean family) are a distinct “kind,” that dragonflies (a Linnaean order) are a distinct “kind,” and that birds (a Linnaean class) are a distinct “kind.” I think there was even a Linnaean genus in there somewhere.

It seems that any artificial grouping of organisms can be a “kind,” no matter the diversity within the group. Calypsis has no problem referring to a “bat” kind, a “scorpionfly” kind or a “clubtail dragonfly” kind, even though these groups comprise hundreds of distinct species that a semi-professional taxonomist or entomologist can recognize! It's nothing more than shear ignorance that makes a creationist say two bats or two dragonflies are identical when anyone who's had a general entomology course in college can see that they are not.

One can draw distinctions at whatever level one wants, based on whatever features or reasoning one cares to use. And, Calypsis has shown us that one can draw distinctions at literally every possible level simultaneously for pretty much no reason at all. What does this mean? It means that creationists accept evolution between species of equids, families of bats and orders of birds, doesn’t it?

So, why do some kinds allow greater amounts of evolution than others?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


Arphy
Member (Idle past 2716 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 409 of 416 (528168)
10-05-2009 2:12 AM


Well I am kind of annoyed. have a look at basically every one of the summations. Most of them all have a bit about that it wasn't shown that there was a conflict between stasis and evolution. I saw that this was a major point that was not being addressed to the evos liking and so I decided to address it. Unfortunatly I was suspended for doing so (humph ). Oh and btw sorry abouut forgetting to post my source, the source for the quote was http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_48-51.pdf

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 410 of 416 (528187)
10-05-2009 5:00 AM


Summation
Calypsis has drawn our attention to the fact that some modern genera or families look similar (though not identical) to earlier genera or families. Which we knew, and which is one of the most obvious predictions of the theory of evolution.

His posts are like someone posting example after example of people who have spent ten years living in the same city (though not at the same address) and then claiming that this proves that no-one ever moves house.


dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2899 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 411 of 416 (528212)
10-05-2009 8:02 AM


Could not even agree on what evolution is.
I share the opinions and frustrations expressed by other members (save Arphy)

We couldn't even get a definition of evolution. Instead, we must infer the definition from a vague Huxley quote and pictures of cat-bats and man-bats....but surprisingly none of man-bear-pig.

I also want to draw attention to Message 379 that possibly shows the sad state of our science education system here in the U.S.

Thanks,
Joe


  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 412 of 416 (528218)
10-05-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Admin
10-04-2009 5:22 PM


Re: Summation Time; Calypsis4 Suspended 24 Hours
I don't think I can improve on what others here have already said. This thread is a good example of cognitive dissonance in action, and as such, it's been interesting to watch the degrees to which Calyps has taken denial. This is someone who is not ready to take on board any facts that challenge his a priori beliefs.

I think we've been handicapped in a way by not being able to discuss transitional forms in any depth here, because this is a topic in itself. I wonder if anyone would like to start such a thread, or resurrect an old one (my guess is there must be several in the archives).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Admin, posted 10-04-2009 5:22 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Admin, posted 10-05-2009 8:32 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 413 of 416 (528221)
10-05-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Kitsune
10-05-2009 8:26 AM


Successor Threads
Anyone should feel free to propose successor threads over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Kitsune, posted 10-05-2009 8:26 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2009 10:31 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 414 of 416 (528237)
10-05-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by Admin
10-05-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Successor Threads
Anyone should feel free to propose successor threads over at Proposed New Topics.

I have done so.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Admin, posted 10-05-2009 8:32 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 415 of 416 (528493)
10-06-2009 9:59 AM


Closing Soon - Last Chance For Summations
I'll close this thread tomorrow, only one more day to get your summation in. Only one summation per person, and no replies to any summations, so if you've already posted a summation then you should not post any more messages to this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 416 of 416 (528839)
10-07-2009 8:17 AM


Closing Time
Closing time, folks. Thanks for participating.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019