Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 47 of 425 (539615)
12-17-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
12-17-2009 2:13 PM


List of species that would not all fit on the ark (if there had been one)
ICANT writes:
I still need a list of the species you don't believe will fit on the Ark.
Well you'd have to have quite a lot of room to fit all 5,400 species of mammals some of which grow quite large indeed.
Here's a partial list of some of these bad boys.
Also, I somehow suspect you would have trouble finding room for the 40,000 species of crustaceans.
950,000 species of insects would probably present more of a collection problem than a storage problem.
Shall we go on?

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 51 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 5:18 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 49 of 425 (539620)
12-17-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-17-2009 4:40 PM


Kinds? (the power of a single word)
Arphy writes:
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.
So basically, it sounds like you're saying "We can't define kinds, you can't either, but because the Bible calls them 'kinds', then THAT is the word we're going to use, and it can mean whatever we want it to."
I'm sure it has been pointed out before that classification systems actually break down when viewed on the macroevolutionary scale. Every living thing is part of a great branching tree, and if we could line up all the intermediaries between, say for example, a chimpanzee and a man, you could pick any creature in that line and say "He looks a lot like the guy to the left, and a lot like the guy to the right, and therefore they must all be the same species." But if you compare the guys at each end, you would say "They are most definitely not the same species."
What an amazing waste of time and energy it is that people place such significance on the tiniest of words from their ancient texts whilst simultaneously disregarding legitimate evidence. If only the guy (who would have been somewhere in that queue I mentioned above) that wrote that particular phrase could have realised the impact that one word would have. Had he been otherwise inclined, we might be talking about "sorts" now rather than kinds.

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

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 52 of 425 (539628)
12-17-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
12-17-2009 5:18 PM


Re: List of species that would not all fit on the ark (if there had been one)
Hi again ICANT
ICANT writes:
Why would water creatures present a problem?
Are you proposing the ark was like the Tardis? Larger on the inside than on the outside? Or are you suggesting that these creatures were towed by a massive net? Or that they all came swimming along behind? All very fanciful notions, which are you suggesting?
Why would collection present a problem?
They all showed up at the Ark at loading time.
How very convenient. So again, do you intend to play a sort of biological tetris with them in order to fit them into a three dimensional area considerably smaller than they alone would constitute if squashed together? Or is your ark like the Tardis from Dr.Who?
You can continue with these fanciful ideas but I should warn you that I find this entire flood/ark issue to be laughable and I sort of feel embarrased for anyone that actually buys it.
Besides, we should really try to stay on topic. Huntard was asking what the definition of "kind" was, and we're still waiting for an answer that rises above the level of "cop-out".
Edited by Briterican, : I should start saying "hi" at the start of my posts - I don't want to come across as rude, except for those times when I want to come across as rude.
Edited by Briterican, : Emphasis on staying on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 5:18 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 115 of 425 (539910)
12-20-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
12-20-2009 10:52 AM


Re: Quitting this thread
Coyote writes:
No amount of data, logic, or reason makes a single bit of difference, so why bother.
Frustrating, I agree.
I find it laughable that anyone could, even for one second, entertain the flood/ark myth as even remotely possible. Using any definition of kind given so far (including ICANT's catch-all Dog=dog kind, Lion=Lion kind, etc), and pretty much any other definition you could possibly come up with, there would still simply not be enough physical space on this ark for all these creatures.
These guys (creationists) seem to approach everything from the completely wrong angle. You don't decide your conclusion first and then gather evidence to support it. You gather evidence and let it lead you to a conclusion.
On Wikipedia, under Kinds (and under a further sub-heading The Flood) there is a comment that struck me as very interesting:
Wikipedia on Created Kinds writes:
However, we can not be sure if God created just one species of birds like the "bird of prey", or several different species. Likewise were there many water fowl created or just one? Animals can change so dramatically through time that making such determination is exceedingly difficult. If only Noah had provided modern baraminologists with a complete manifest!
I can only assume this entry was written by a creationist, in that it proceeds on the basis that "God" did in fact create these things. What is noteworthy is that the next to last sentence is more correct than the creationists will ever accept. It is where they draw the line that I can't understand. They seem to accept evolution but only in a very limited form. Why? Why do they ignore the evidence that it goes much much deeper? I can only assume that they ignore such evidence because it reveals their origin stories for what they really are, myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 10:52 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 147 of 425 (540562)
12-26-2009 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
12-25-2009 10:02 AM


Fully formed and fully grown my ass
ICANT writes:
Each was created fully functional and full grown.
Answers in Genesis had this to say:
From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed. This would ensure continuity and stability for the times to come.
Ridiculous. Continuity and stability are ensured by life's ability to adapt. This notion of things appearing "fully functional and full grown" is simply ludicrous, and there has been no evidence presented here or anywhere else to support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 10:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 184 of 425 (540660)
12-27-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Peg
12-27-2009 6:22 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Peg
Very interesting points, and I hope someone more knowledgeable than I will weigh in. In the meantime I would have just this to say:
Peg writes:
If a continual development of life were true, then as life became more complicated, you would expect to see a pattern of increasing chromosomes.
If you compare chimp, gorilla and human chromosomes, chimps and gorillas have 48 chromosomes and humans 46. It appears that two chromosomes joined together in the human to become one. In this context, I think it can be said that the drop in total chromosomes does not represent a corresponding drop in overall complexity.
It also appears that organisms with many chromosomes have relatively small ones and organisms with just a few have larger ones, which implies that all the info is present but is just divided up differently, which again would indicate that the actual number of chromosomes does not correlate to the complexity of the organism.
---disclaimer--- I'm not entirely certain I've got this right and would appreciate confirmation or correction from someone with a clearer understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 6:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 8:16 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 190 of 425 (540704)
12-27-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Peg
12-27-2009 8:16 PM


Chromosomal evidence further supports life's shared history
Hi Peg
Peg writes:
...but i take it further because I think the chromosome structures show that life was created separately and then multiplied "according to their kinds
I'm struggling to find a good example, but I think chromosomal structures are actually further supporting evidence of the connectivity of all life on earth through evolutionary descent. Here is one that will have to suffice for now...
Because of its highly compact genome, the pufferfish has become an important animal model in genome research. Despite the small size of their chromosomes, we have established both classical and molecular cytogenetic techniques in two pufferfish species, Fugu rubripes and Tetraodon nigroviridis (Grtzner et al. 1999b, Brunner et al. 2000). In order to find linkage groups which are conserved between pufferfish and humans, we hybridize pufferfish BACs, which share *orthologous gene sequences with humans (collaboration with H. Roest-Crollius and J. Weissenbach, Genoscope, Evry, France), on pufferfish chromosomes. In a pilot study focusing on genes from human chromosome 9 and X, we found a surprisingly high degree of conserved chromosomal **synteny between pufferfish and humans, which diverged more than 400 million years ago. Evolutionary conservation appears to be an intrinsic chromosomal property and can dramatically differ between chromosomes or chromosome regions. By mapping several hundred of these pufferfish clones with homologs distributed throughout the entire human genome, we will establish a first-generation homology map between pufferfish and humans.
Source: Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics
* orthologous: genes that have evolved directly from an ancestral gene.
** synteny: genes occurring in the same order on chromosomes of different species.
This sort of similarity between dramatically different species is further evidence of shared ancestry.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 12-27-2009 8:16 PM Peg has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 296 of 425 (541294)
01-02-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Peg
01-02-2010 6:01 AM


Re: "Kinds" do exist...
Peg writes:
i just want to say, as i have already a number of times in this discussion, there is no reason to believe that God made only 1 of the dog/wolf kind
I'd take that a step further and say that there is no reason to believe that God made any kinds.
Peg writes:
he may have made several different varieties of this genus of animal...genesis does not limit itself to any number of 'kinds'
If that is the case, it simply causes further ambiguity. It there are "several different varieties of this genus of animal" and these count as different "kinds", then we have moved even further away from any clear cut definition of kinds.
Peg writes:
so why are we assuming there was only ever one dog/wolf kind created???
As pointed out before, I certainly don't make that assumption. But if you wish to presume that god made multiple "dog/wolf" kinds - then it begs the question of why they are separate... what makes them separate? On what basis would you conclude that there was more than 1 dog/wolf kind? And what differentiates one particular "dog/wolf kind" from another "dog/wolf kind"?
To me this whole thing is a non-issue. The Bible doesn't clearly define "kinds" - the word is used in this sense only a handful of times, and yet such great weight is being placed on it. Despite valiant efforts to put any clear definition to the term, there really is no definitive way to say "that's it, that's right, that's what a kind is".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:23 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 392 of 425 (543024)
01-14-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by ICANT
01-13-2010 3:16 PM


Re: Kind
Hi ICANT
ICANT writes:
That means it was done to prove evolution, or at the least to testify to evolution being true.
With specific reference to modified Linnaeus classifications in the light of Darwinian theory, I think Coyote expressed the thought more than adequately when he said "It was done to reflect new knowledge provided by the theory of evolution, not to prove that theory."
You really need to dispense with this notion that scientists are out "to prove evolution". They'd be just as happy if they found evidence that contradicted the ToE. It's just that they don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 414 of 425 (543130)
01-15-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ICANT
01-15-2010 1:52 PM


Re: You still haven't actually defined "kind"
Hi ICANT
ICANT writes:
greyseal writes:
abiogenesis and evolution have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other
But the beginning of life and how it got here has everything to do with kinds.
You can't have kinds unless you have life.
Then again you can not have evolution without life either."
You say you can't have kinds unless you have life. That almost implies that "life" was there before "kinds", otherwise you're just talking in circles, kinds require life, life requires kinds. Where did that life come from? You say God, based on scripture.
As evolution (the ToE specifically) deals with life, then you need life to begin with, yes. Where did that life come from? We admit that we don't know, but there are many promising lines of enquiry into the matter through science, and these do not have the "cop-out" of an intelligent designer who defies explanation.
I believe the day will come when we can demonstrate processes in which "non-living" matter can become "living" given naturally occuring circumstances. The ToE doesn't address abiogenesis, but neither does the big bang theory address where the unverse came from.
Rest assured, scientists have been busily pushing on with these sort of enquiries, giving those of us who live in the last generation or two a glimpse of the first millisecond at the edge of time.
Some of the incredulity expressed by some of the creationists here has to be based in either a disbelief in the age of the universe (in the case of the big bang), or the earth (in the case of the ToE), or a dramatically inadequate appreciation of this vast expanse of time.
As to the topic specifically again... as so many have pointed out, you still haven't given us what we are asking for: a definition for kind.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 9:07 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 425 of 425 (543231)
01-16-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by ICANT
01-15-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Life and Kinds
ICANT writes:
The Bible declares God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being. Genesis 2:7
I can not find a better answer. Do you have one?
Yep. PAH world hypothesis - Wikipedia
It is known that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a likely constituent of the primordial sea. PAH's are not normally very soluble in sea water, but when subject to ionizing radiation such as solar UV light, the outer hydrogen atoms can be stripped off and replaced with a hydroxyl group, rendering the PAH's far more soluble in water.
These modified PAHs are amphiphilic, which means that they have parts that are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. Thus when in solution, like lipids, they tend to self organise themselves in stacks, with the hydrophobic parts protected.
In this self ordering stack, the separation between rings is 0.34 nm. This is the same separation found in RNA and DNA. Smaller molecules will naturally attach themselves to the PAH rings. However PAH rings, while forming, tend to swivel around on one another, which will tend to dislodge attached compounds that would collide with those attached to those above and below. Therefore it encourages preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. These bases are similarly amphiphilic and so also tend to line up in similar stacks. This ends up making an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid backbone to form along the bases.
A small change in acidity would then allow the bases to break off from the original stack of PAHs and so form molecules like RNA.
That's just one of many scenarios that are being investigated. It is significantly more plausible and reasonable than any supreme being "breathing life" into dust, which simply raises more questions than it would answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 9:07 PM ICANT 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