Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 6:26 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (5 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 31 of 425 (539578)
12-17-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
12-17-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Thought of another problem
According to Creationism's finest Barimimologists, they'd all be one species. I linked to some classic papers by these fine academics in a previous post

Go on, have giggle or a cry (not sure which).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 9:59 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 10:50 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 425 (539579)
12-17-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Jack
12-17-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Thought of another problem
Mr Jack writes:

According to Creationism's finest Barimimologists, they'd all be one species. I linked to some classic papers by these fine academics in a previous post
Go on, have giggle or a cry (not sure which).


Yes, according to them. According to Peg however, kinds need to be interfertile. This poses a rather interesting problem here, doesn't it?

Oh, and it's most likely laughing (very hard).


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2009 10:36 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 11:36 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 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 yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 34 of 425 (539584)
12-17-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Huntard
12-17-2009 3:04 AM


Re: Kinds
Hi Huntard,

Huntard writes:

So, how many kinds did Noah take on the Ark then? One for every species? That'll never fit.

In Message 1 you stated:

Huntard writes:

What I'd like to focus on here is how kinds are defined

Now do you want to discuss how many kinds you can get on the Ark or what a kind is?

I think I explained what a kind is as my junior class (10-12) year olds have no problem with understanding what a kind is.

Now if you want to discuss how many kinds were on the Ark all you have to do is list the different kinds of creatures on earth today and those that have become extinct in the last 4000 years. If I had that list then I could take my ark that I have 18 acres of floor space in and see if they would fit or if I would need to redesign it for more floor space which room is available for.

But wouldn't that be totally off topic in this thread?

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 20 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 3:04 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 12:15 PM ICANT has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 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 responded

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 36 of 425 (539590)
12-17-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
12-17-2009 12:15 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

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.

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.

I await your list.

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 35 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 12:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 1:02 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 39 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-17-2009 1:33 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 1:02 AM ICANT has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 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 responded

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 38 of 425 (539596)
12-17-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
12-17-2009 1:02 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

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).

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.

You give me an extimate of the number.

How am I supposed to determine the amount of space for each of these creatures if you do not give me a name of the creature so I can figure out how much space is reuired for that creature. This is rocket science so to speak.

You said the kinds won't fit in the Ark.

So give me your list of kinds that won't fit in the Ark.

Don't expect me to do that leg work I will have plenty to do finding their sizes and then preparing their accomodations.

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 37 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 1:02 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 1:45 PM ICANT has responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 39 of 425 (539597)
12-17-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
12-17-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Kinds
ICANT writes:

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.

Please provide a working definition of "kind" by which such a list may be compiled.

If you're tying the concept of "kind" to interfertility, then is a "kind" the same thing as a species?

quote:
Estimates of the number of species currently living on Earth range widely, largely because most living species are microorganisms and tiny invertebrates, but most estimates fall between 5 million and 30 million species. Roughly 1.75 million species have been formally described and given official names. Insects comprise over half of the described species, and ~3/4 of known animal species. The number of undescribed species is undoubtedly much higher, however. (from the Encyclopedia of the Earth)

I'll presume that you'll discount all evidence that living species only make up 0.1% of all species that have ever existed on earth. 5 to 30 million is still a lot of critters to fit on a boat.

The question still goes round and round. Is there a useful definition of "kind" or not?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 3:32 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 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 responded

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 41 of 425 (539599)
12-17-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Coyote
12-17-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

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.

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.

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.

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 40 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 1:45 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 2:30 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 47 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 4:29 PM ICANT has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 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 responded

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 43 of 425 (539604)
12-17-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
12-17-2009 2:30 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

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.

What difference does it make of what I define a kind as.

You have declared that if kinds = species they won't fit on the Ark.

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.

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.

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 Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 2:30 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 4:00 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 44 of 425 (539607)
12-17-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ZenMonkey
12-17-2009 1:33 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi ZenMonkey,

ZenMonkey writes:

Please provide a working definition of "kind" by which such a list may be compiled.

I was simply referring to the statement made by Coyote in Message 35 which states:

Coyote writes:

If kinds=species, there is no way to fit everything,

When a finch ceases to be a finch then it has become another kind.
I don't care if they choose not to breed for some reason or can not breed for some reason as long as it is a finch it is the same kind just a variation in the kind.

But that really does not matter to me. All I want is a list of the kinds=species that Coyote says won't fit on the Ark. If I have that list then I can determine if they will fit or not.

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 39 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-17-2009 1:33 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 217 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 responded

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

  
Prev12
3
456
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019