Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 46 of 143 (531082)
10-16-2009 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-15-2009 11:24 PM


Because, from a creationist point of view, if we would let 30millions years go by, there would be no mega-changes in the species you would end up with. Maybe bigger cows, smaller cows, fatter cows, etc. Wooly cows maybe. But I would not expect a winged cow, or an underwater breathing cow etc.
But this is not true. As I pointed out in my earlier post you brushed off, Creationist "researchers" working on Bariminology believe that major biochemical and anatomical change can occur within a kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 11:24 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 47 of 143 (531083)
10-16-2009 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by slevesque
10-15-2009 11:09 PM


Lineage is biology; biology is lineage.
This is kinda odd, it seems as though clade focuses only on lineage and not really biology.
The two are inseperable. You cannot understand the biology of an organism without understanding its lineage and relationships to other organisms. This fundamental understanding has driven a vast expansion of our knowledge. Figuring out how hox genes function in fruit flies has illuminated the role and function hox genes in humans. Understanding limb differentiation in sharks and chickens has explained limb formation in humans. Picking apart the DNA transcription and translation systems of Archaea has shed fresh light on the systems of Eukaryotes which are, in turn, studied in yeast which because of their deep shared history with us helps us understand our own systems. Mitochondria don't make sense until you understand that they were once free living bacteria captured by endosymbiosis in an ancient Eukaryotic cell.
The list goes on, and on, and on.
When Dobzhiansky (a Christian who believed that God created the universe) said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" he was entirely right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by slevesque, posted 10-15-2009 11:09 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:45 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 59 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 1:21 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 48 of 143 (531159)
10-16-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Meldinoor
10-15-2009 5:36 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
Yes. This is true by definition. My grandmother and all of her descendants constitute a kind of clade that includes me. Now, if my family was a different species from yours, such that my descendants could not interbreed with yours, it is impossible for any of my descendants to join your family, to cross the clade boundary.
Are there any humans that can not interbreed and produce offspring?
After my number 4 there was a question you did not answer.
Rephrased: How can we have all the life forms on earth we do today when we started with one life form as a common ancestor, without those boundaries being crossed?
Meldinoor writes:
I think the above quote from Peg will do as an example.
Only if horses and ass's are the same kind.
If God created an ass kind and He created a horse kind a mule proves evolution can not take place.
Meldinoor writes:
Do you understand what I mean when I say that equines will always be equines,
I understand what you are saying which is what evolution teaches.
But since I believe God created all the different kinds of animals and He did not have an equine kind that horses, ass's, and zebras belonged too, your statement is meaningless.
Meldinoor writes:
Could you define macroevolution please?
A ten pound lead bar becoming a 13 1/3 pound bar of pure gold.
Your example from Message 1 in which you say:
Meldinoor writes:
So, hypothetically, if the descendants of cattle should one day grow wings, large brains with telepathic abilities, and develop a spacefaring culture that ruled the galaxy, despite looking completely different, they would be of the same "kind" and will have gained their amazing adaptations entirely through microevolution.
If the front legs of the cattle were to grow into wings with feathers, their body grow streamline for flight with feathers, their hind legs grow to the point they would support their body weight with feet that could perch on a tree limb, all their insides change to those of a bird necessary for flight, them stop carrying their young inside, and laying eggs to produce their offspring you would have macro evolution.
You would have one critter (a cow) become a totally different critter (a bird).
To come from a single cell life form to all the extinct life forms and the living life forms we have today that is what had to happen millions of times if evolution occurred.
Meldinoor writes:
Do you believe bacteria constitute a single kind? (If they are, then cladistically you might as well make humans and mushrooms the same kind)
Well God made kinds. Clades are made by man. So a bacteria, humans, mushrooms, cattle, horses, dogs, lions, tigers, elephants, rinos, fish, whales, apes, and monkeys are not the same kind.
How many different kinds of life forms did God create? He did not tell us. He only told us He created them which includes all of them. Be it 50 million, 100 million or even in the billions.
God did not create one or a few life forms as Darwin stated and then all life forms evolve from those few into what we have today.
God created all life forms we have today, as well as all those which are extinct.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Meldinoor, posted 10-15-2009 5:36 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:12 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 65 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 5:01 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 10-19-2009 4:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 143 (531164)
10-16-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ICANT
10-16-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Nested clades
How can we have all the life forms on earth we do today when we started with one life form as a common ancestor, without those boundaries being crossed?
Because the boundaries didn't exist to be crossed. The boundaries, themselves, emerged as complexity increased and the clades formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 10:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 50 of 143 (531172)
10-16-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Meldinoor
10-16-2009 12:15 AM


Re: Non Agreement
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes:
1. Kinds can be defined as clades on some level
There can be no agreement by a Bible believing litteralist that Biblical kinds can be defined as clades according to the way clades have been described in this thread.
Meldinoor writes:
2. Neither creationists nor evolutionists expect clade boundaries to be crossed. Both agree that equines will remain equines, dogs will remain dogs, and primates will remain primates.
Evolutionist can believe anything they desire to believe.
No Bible believing litteralist believes that one kind can become another kind.
Meldinoor writes:
3. Therefore, the common creationist argument that the fact that animals never leave their clades (dogs will be dogs, equines will be equines, etc) is somehow supposed to disprove evolution is a strawman, and should never again be used by anyone. Creationists who use this argument, like Kent Hovind, are either being intentionally misleading or are ignorant of how evolution and cladistics works.
Most evolutionist believe all life forms evolved from one life form that existed. No real clue as to how it began to exist just faith that it did because we are here.
This Bible believing litteralist believes that God created all the different kinds of life forms that are now extinct and all that are living today. God created them in His eternity.
So the strawman exists because man has made up his form of order of life forms. Which does not match God's.
In other words evolutionist are ignorant of how God created the different kinds. I would put a lot of religionist in this catagory also.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 12:15 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 1:16 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 66 by Meldinoor, posted 10-16-2009 5:09 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 51 of 143 (531174)
10-16-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Jack
10-16-2009 4:50 AM


Re: Lineage is biology; biology is lineage.
Hi Jack,
Mr Jack writes:
The two are inseperable. You cannot understand the biology of an organism without understanding its lineage and relationships to other organisms.
If that statement is true, how can any evolutionist understand anything about any creature as he does not know how life began to exist?
If you do not know how something began to exist, how can you know the linage of it?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 4:50 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:52 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 12:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 143 (531176)
10-16-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
10-16-2009 11:45 AM


Re: Lineage is biology; biology is lineage.
If that statement is true, how can any evolutionist understand anything about any creature as he does not know how life began to exist?
If you do not know how something began to exist, how can you know the linage of it?
By using what you do know. If we have some lineage:
A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F
Where A is where it began to exist and F is today, you could know all sorts of stuff about:
B --> C --> D --> E --> F
While knowing nothing about A
You could easily follow the stories in the Bible, like say the lineage of the Exodus, without knowing anything about Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:45 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 53 of 143 (531177)
10-16-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
10-16-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Nested clades
Hi CS,
Christian Scientist writes:
Because the boundaries didn't exist to be crossed. The boundaries, themselves, emerged as complexity increased and the clades formed.
The first life form formed a clade.
The boundry existed.
That life form could never cease to be that kind of life form.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 12:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 143 (531179)
10-16-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
10-16-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Nested clades
The first life form formed a clade.
call "Life".
The boundry existed.
That life form could never cease to be that kind of life form.
You're right... all life is still life.
But more specifc clads didn't emerge until enough difference evolved for the boundary to be drawn. While those differences were accumulating, no boundaries were being crossed, and once the boundaries had emerged, they were no longer crossed. Newer, more specific, boundaries countinued to emerge though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:53 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 55 of 143 (531181)
10-16-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
10-16-2009 11:45 AM


Re: Lineage is biology; biology is lineage.
If that statement is true, how can any evolutionist understand anything about any creature as he does not know how life began to exist?
Ah, but I didn't say understand anything about, I said understand. There's lots you can do before you understand the reasons why, you could know the earth goes round the sun without knowing about gravity, you can know that matches burn without understanding combustion and oxidation, etc., etc.
There's a lot my don't understand about life precisely because we don't know what it evolved from. We don't know why ATP is used as the universal energy transfer molecule and we don't know why the particular bases used in DNA are used, or why DNA uses thymine but RNA uracil just for example and the reason we don't know a fair portion of these things is that we don't know what they evolved from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:45 AM ICANT has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 143 (531191)
10-16-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
10-16-2009 2:44 AM


Re: Bird Odds
Ok, I'm starting to understand.
So in this case then, clades cannot be equated with kinds, since if the descendants of cows where to be biologically similar to birds, it would be inappropriate to call them cows.
But, as you said, in the clades system, they would still have to be called cows. So there is a non-negligeable difference between the two terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2009 2:44 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2009 1:12 PM slevesque has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 143 (531194)
10-16-2009 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by slevesque
10-16-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Bird Odds
Ok, I'm starting to understand.
So in this case then, clades cannot be equated with kinds, since if the descendants of cows where to be biologically similar to birds, it would be inappropriate to call them cows.
But, as you said, in the clades system, they would still have to be called cows. So there is a non-negligeable difference between the two terms.
Since I have no useful definition of "kinds" I can't tell what the difference between clades and kinds are.
Note that we have a real world example (well, sort of, we can't push this too far) of your flying cows.
The marsupials have converged on very similar body plans to many of the placental mammals. We have "dogs", "cats", "mice" etc. However, this is only a very superficial similarity. A taxonomist would never group them with the placentals.
The same would be true of the crow-sized flying cow. It may look strikingly like a bird (because you can't fly if you are the size of a cow and don't have some kind of wing) but is it enormously unlikely (zero near enough) that it would be internally like a bird. A taxonomist would recognize the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 1:00 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by slevesque, posted 10-16-2009 1:24 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 143 (531195)
10-16-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
10-16-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Non Agreement
There can be no agreement by a Bible believing litteralist that..
No Bible believing litteralist believes...
This Bible believing litteralist believes...
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
(See also tagline.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2009 11:36 AM ICANT has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 59 of 143 (531196)
10-16-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Jack
10-16-2009 4:50 AM


Re: Lineage is biology; biology is lineage.
Hey, I can bring out quotes of my own to :
From 'anti-creationist' Larry Witham:
While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas, the editor wrote. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one. The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word evolution in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolutionas it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.
Besides, it would be this great and beautiful idea that, without a thoeyr of evolution, biology would be but this unexplainable things. How great would that be. But I don't think this is the case. Biology was well started before 1859, and wasn't at all late in development because it's own Galileo hadn't come along. In fact, two of the very best in this area were christians: Pasteur and Mendel.
And of course, there is also the fact that there are many skeptics of evolution that do just well in biology, even in at the start of the 21th century. Yes I know I know, this seems unbelievable. Outright lie! You might say, but this is the truth, it's a fact. It doesn't stop you from doing MRI scannings, or researching on cures for cancer. I myself have a friend here who is completing here PhD in biology, and she does not think the ToE is true.
Even I did some classes of university level biology, and yet in a full years of it, we talked about evolution only once. I could perfectly understand what the teacher was saying, he never had to always refer to how it came to be in order to explain to us how it is.
Now I know, just saying this will be considered blasphemy. And I'm sure this will generate a couple of replies, and of how evolution explains this, and explains that, etc. etc. And I not willing to say that the theory of evolution cannot be useful to explain sme aspects (the mitochondria comes to mind), but to go from a series of particular examples, and then affirm a general statement, is fallacious I believe, since that that good biology can be done without belief in evolution is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Jack, posted 10-16-2009 4:50 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 60 of 143 (531198)
10-16-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NosyNed
10-16-2009 1:12 PM


Re: Bird Odds
Of course, but we are doing a theoretical mind game here. Because, in theory, it could be possible tht the descendants of a cow would be just like birds. And when I say just like birds, I mean externally and internally, and the only differences that would be present would be on the same scale as birds have between one another.
Would it still have to be called a cow ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2009 1:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 2:00 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2009 4:01 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2009 12:51 PM slevesque 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