Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 425 (539581)
12-17-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Huntard
12-17-2009 10:50 AM


Baraminology etc.
Yes, according to them. According to Peg however, kinds need to be interfertile. This poses a rather interesting problem here, doesn't it?
In real science, when you have such a disagreement, you go back to the data--or seek additional data.
In the "science" of baraminology what do you do?
(And that's the difference between creation "science" and real science!)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 10:50 AM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 35 of 425 (539586)
12-17-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
12-17-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Kinds
The definition of 'kinds" is often made with reference to what would fit on the ark, so this is on topic.
If kinds=species, there is no way to fit everything, so kinds must be defined as a higher order grouping to get around that problem.
But that results in many more problems. Any suitable definition of kinds that sufficiently narrows down the number of critters on the ark also places humans and apes in the same kind--and we all know that's unacceptable.
The gyrations that some folks go through to define kinds so as to avoid this problem are very amusing, as well as further evidence that baraminology is religious apologetics rather than science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 11:53 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 12:47 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 37 of 425 (539592)
12-17-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
12-17-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Kinds
If this is indeed deemed on topic in this thread please present the list of kinds you don't think will fit into the Ark and I will pull out my Chief Architech program and see if I can design a Ark that they will fit in.
The list would need to have every kind that is living on earth today as well as those that have become extinct since the flood took place.
According to the Bible the only creatures on the Ark was those that God caused to come to the Ark and get on it. Noah gathered no creatures.
The definition of "kinds" is the topic. I presented you with a problem which affects the definition, that of living space on the ark.
If you read my post, in order to get everything on the ark, the definition of kinds cannot equal species (of which there are an estimated 13-14 million).
So present us with a definition of "kinds" that gets around this problem without grouping modern humans with the other great apes. That is the question for the religious apologists who practice baraminology.
And that is a part of why there is no precise definition of "kinds" -- the definition has to accomplish two mutually exclusive goals, and baraminology can't come up with a definition using the methods of science because their definition has to accommodate biblical lore.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 12:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 1:32 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 40 of 425 (539598)
12-17-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
12-17-2009 1:32 PM


Re: Kinds
I read your post and you said all kinds would not fit on the Ark.
I ask you for a list of all kinds that you don't think will fit on the Ark.
What I wrote in message 35 is:
quote:
The definition of 'kinds" is often made with reference to what would fit on the ark, so this is on topic.
If kinds=species, there is no way to fit everything, so kinds must be defined as a higher order grouping to get around that problem.
Now quit wasting time and get back to the question, which is a definition for "kinds."
Do you contend that kinds equal species? If so, you have to fit >10 million species on the ark.
Does kinds equal a higher order grouping? If so, then what is your definition of that grouping? Genus? Family? Something else? And under a uniform definition, do modern humans and the other higher apes fall into the same kind? If no, why not?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 1:32 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 2:13 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 42 of 425 (539602)
12-17-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
12-17-2009 2:13 PM


Re: Kinds
I would say at the point a finch ceases to be a finch would be the line I would draw and say a kind can not cross that line.
If species is that line then so be it.
So you have no clue as to a definition for "kinds" then, do you?
I still need a list of the species you don't believe will fit on the Ark.
You are adamant they won't fit so you must know what they are.
Again, you're dodging the question, which is what is a good workable definition for "kinds." If you can define "kinds" then we can begin to determine what goes on the mythical ark and what doesn't.
You don't have a good workable definition, do you?
Don't feel bad; none of the baraminologists do either. Their definitions are usually 1) unworkable, 2) internally inconsistent, and 3) often mutually exclusive.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 2:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 3:12 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 45 of 425 (539611)
12-17-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
12-17-2009 3:12 PM


Re: Kinds
What difference does it make of what I define a kind as.
That's the topic of the thread, a definition of kinds and whether or not that can be equated to species.
You have declared that if kinds = species they won't fit on the Ark.
Yup. That would mean >10 million species on the ark. My credulity won't stretch that far, and that's off topic besides.
I will allow for any number of variations in a species. But as long as it remains of that species it is the same kind.
So what is a species? Are you willing to accept the scientific definition or are you trying to say that "species" or "kinds" as you use the terms can be defined by common terms such as "finch?" See, there's the problem. There are many dozen finch species within more than one genus. Are they all the same "kind" or "species" using your "finch" definition, or what?
That is what I am trying to pin you down to, but like the baraminologists you can't come up with a workable definition without running into the problems I mentioned in an earlier post. And you prove my point: kinds is a religious term that does not fit with real world data.
Now if you can give me the list of your "kinds=species" that won't fit on the Ark I will spend the time to see if they will fit.
Off topic. Quit wasting our time and deal with the issue.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 3:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 4:27 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 4:40 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 50 of 425 (539621)
12-17-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-17-2009 4:40 PM


Re: Kinds
As for the word kind relating to other classification systems, this is not possible. In some cases a kind may be limited to the genus level, or family level, or subfamily level, etc. It just depends. barminologists do try to work out these bounderies, but this doesn't ever mean that their results are conclusive. They can give us a rough idea which can be helpful, but they are also open to revision.
Thanks for trying, Arphy.
But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.
"Kinds" is an elastic term used in any manner necessary to make real world data conform to scripture. It can be the same as species, genus, subfamily, family, or beyond -- depending on the data which must be forced to agree with scripture.
That's fine. But lets all agree that this is what is meant by "kinds" and not try to use that term in any manner that might be confused with a scientific term. OK?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 4:40 PM Arphy has not replied

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


Message 55 of 425 (539645)
12-17-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Arphy
12-17-2009 11:06 PM


Apologetics
coyote writes:
But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.
The word "kind" or "baramin" can be used in scientific endeavours. Just because organisms are labeled in the classification system doesn't mean that this is concrete. As with other classification systems organisms may be renamed and relocated depending on new evidence. This is the same with the kind classification system, it is open to revision. It deals with the past and so it is to be expected that we will not always be 100% accurate in our classification of particular organisms. Does this mean that we should throw out the entire classification system? No, otherwise you would have to throw out the linnean system as well because that is also open to revision. The point is that the "kind" or "Baramin" classification system is workable as explained in the "what is a Kind?" thread. It is open to revision, and this is to be expected when dealing with the past, but the overall structure and aim is secure.
The words "kind" or "baramin" cannot be used in scientific endeavors until they are defined. That is what this thread has been about, and we have only reached the conclusion that these terms are undefined and most likely undefinable in scientific terms.
Here's the problem:
Kinds are mentioned only in the bible, and are defended through religious apologetics; baraminology is a term coined in an attempt to make religious apologetics seem to be science. (It isn't.)
Kinds have to be plastic! If kinds=species there are far too many critters to fit on the ark, so kinds must be a higher order classification. Just where is a subject of much rhetoric, many opinions, and little evidence.
Kinds have to be plastic because on one hand they have to reduce the number of critters on the ark to a manageable level while still classifying critters as required by the bible.
To reduce the number of critters on the ark, kinds should be way up at the family level, requiring hyperevolution for a few centuries after the flood. (There is no evidence for hyperevolution or the flood, but that's another issue.)
But kinds at the family level puts the great apes and modern humans in the same kind, and we can't have that, now, can we? So we have to fudge that lineage, and there goes the whole ballgame. Back to plastic, eh?
That's what happens when you take your directions from scripture, and not from the data itself.
But you mention the baraminology system is open to revision! Great--just revise baramins or kinds so they reflect the real world data! But that would place them in contradiction to scripture, so we can't have that. Guess we're back to kinds=religion, and not science, eh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 11:06 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 5:49 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 77 of 425 (539778)
12-19-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
12-19-2009 4:25 PM


Re: Kind
I have asked before but I will ask you. Where can I find all these fossils showing all this transition?
RAZD has posted a fine sequence on any number of occasions.
I'm sure you must have seen it.
So, are you: 1) ignoring the evidence, or 2) denying the evidence?
Because that's what it comes down to. The evidence you are asking for has been posted at least a dozen times that I can remember.
And just because you ignore or deny the evidence doesn't make it go away.
It is all still there whether you say yea or nay.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 12-19-2009 4:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 10:21 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:03 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 80 of 425 (539781)
12-19-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Nuggin
12-19-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Kind
It seems that Icant is short for "I cant see the evidence you present".
I have come to realize that, as Sagan noted,
quote:
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
Now, I don't know about the "need to believe" part, but the "not based on evidence" part is certainly something that I have seen in debating with creationists.
Some of them are absolutely unwilling, or unable, to accept any evidence--no matter how solid--if it contradicts their religious beliefs.
That would not ordinarily be a problem. I believe in "Live and let live." They can believe whatever they want. They can rub blue mud in their navals on alternate Wednesdays for all I care.
But when creationists try to get their beliefs taught as science, in public schools, that is another matter entirely. And when they claim that certain of their beliefs are supported by science, when they actually are contradicted by science, that too is another matter. (See tagline.)
And there are not a few creationists out there who are trying to destroy science because it produces explanations contrary to their religious beliefs. That I will not let go unanswered. (The Enlightenment will not be reversed!)
But this is getting off topic.
The topic is "kinds" and the definition thereof. And after many posts we are no closer to a definition than when we started.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 10:21 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 12-19-2009 11:43 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 89 of 425 (539794)
12-20-2009 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
12-20-2009 12:32 AM


Mitochondrial Eve
The facts are that there is most definately one man and one woman to whom we are all related....just as the genesis account shows.
Peg, you don't seem to understand what is meant by mitochondrial Eve.
I really suggest you study this a bit more before you sound off. You have it completely wrong.
we 'creationist scumbags' seem to be more interested in facts then the evolutionsists who are coming up with all sorts of ideas to discredit the genesis account. Why is that?
Perhaps we are just coming up with corrections to your erroneous posts. Ever consider that?
When you make such blatant errors in basic science, what else do you expect us to do?
And you will never convince anyone that your particular beliefs are accurate if you continue to post such erroneous statements. Why should we believe anything you say if you are so error-prone?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:32 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 90 of 425 (539795)
12-20-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peg
12-20-2009 12:53 AM


Another mistake about science
Is it honest of evolutionary scientists to weave their ToE into the data collected by other scientists and use that data to back up their theory???
Yes. That's the way all science works.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:53 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 110 of 425 (539861)
12-20-2009 10:52 AM


Quitting this thread
I'm going to quit this thread. Peg and ICan are too much for me.
I have never seen two individuals who could ignore reality to such a degree.
Discussing these topics with them resembles bashing one's head against a brick wall. No amount of data, logic, or reason makes a single bit of difference, so why bother.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 2:55 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 116 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 3:04 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 157 of 425 (540618)
12-26-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Peg
12-26-2009 9:07 PM


Dating
You tell me what the accuracy rate of dating is?
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating.
The accuracy is generally within about 3% when all of the calibrations that we use are applied. It is often a lot closer.
Good enough?
But this has nothing to do with species/kinds. Back to the topic!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 9:07 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 167 of 425 (540630)
12-26-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Peg
12-26-2009 11:18 PM


On doing science
Evolutionists may correct themselves, but they continually repeat the same mistakes because they are hell bent on proving their theory that humans came from apes.
Peg, give it up. You have no grasp of what science is or what science does.
You've committed to a religious belief, and you are willing to do anything, and say anything, to make that belief true, or TRVE if you will.
But you have essentially no education in the actual sciences you are dismissing. You are taking the word of some creationist websites, and we all have found that they routinely lie about science.
Now I studied this subject in graduate school up to the Ph.D. level and could point out a dozen or two places where your post is incorrect.
But is it worth the effort?
No, because the facts wouldn't matter one bit to you. You have shown that you don't care about facts, just your a priori beliefs.
If you ever want to know some of the real facts, let me know.
In the meantime take my advice and proclaim that what you are posting is religion, and don't pretend that it is science. We'll all be happier.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 11:18 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 11:59 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024