Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 61 of 385 (562956)
06-02-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 5:23 PM


As to why use the word "kind" instead of "clade" I also should probably defer to someone with more knowledge than myself - I honestly don't know. Perhaps they could be used interchangeably?
If they were used interchangeably then humans would be a part of the ape clade, the primate clade, the mammal clade, the vertebrate clade, and so forth. Clades are rooted by synapomorphies which are shared characteristics. Each branch from the root evolves derived characteristics. Humans share many, many characteristics with other apes, fewer with all primates, fewer still with all mammals, and so forth. The more time that has passed since common ancestry allows for more derived characteristics to evolve. This is exactly what we see in the characteristics of living species, in the fossil record, and the genomes of living species.
"Kinds" makes no sense. It can't explain why derived characteristics appear in the fossil record with time. It can't explain the relationships between pseudogenes and shared physical characteristics. It can't explain why humans share so many ERV's with other apes at the exact same spot in their genomes. "Kinds" explains nothing other than a need to keep humans separate from the rest of life due to religious beliefs. That's it.
I haven't seen any data yet that would indicate an ability for the evolutionary process to add any significant data to the genome - only to remove or rearrange.
The data is the comparison of the genomes between any two species. It clearly shows that the differences in DNA is responsible for the differences in physical characteristics. I would think that even creationists would agree with this. What I have yet to see is a creationist that can show us genetic differences that evolution could not produce, and why.
And to stray back to the topic, it would seem that you may have stumbled on a way to define kinds. Simply show which genetic differences evolution can not produce, and any species with those differences would automatically be in different kinds. So what genetic changes can evolution not produce? I would assume that the genetic differences between humans and chimps would be on the list, so could you give an example of a difference in a human and chimp gene that evolution could not produce?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 6:46 PM Taq has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 385 (562958)
06-02-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:17 PM


quote:
BlueJay hits the nail on the head for the creationist definition of the word "Kind" (at least to the best of my understanding). The distinction of weather one kind can evolve from another kind is rather irrelevant to the topic since this implies problems with interbreeding (which has no relevance to the definition of kind). The ability to interbreed is an entirely separate issue.
Aside from the problem with a common creationist definition of macroevolution which I have already brought up, I am afraid that interbreeding does come into it. Many creationists propose interfertility as a test to see if two species fall within the same kind (although my understanding is that they include artificial situations as well as natural breeding).
Unfortunately they also usually insist that species within a kind need not be interfertile, so the test can only tell us if two species fall within their idea of a kind, but not if they are in different kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:17 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 9:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 63 of 385 (562959)
06-02-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
06-02-2010 5:23 PM


quote:
So then kind is limited to the observed mutation rate and a 10k year old Earth? What about Old Earth Creationists?
Old Earth Creations subscribe to darwinian evolution....the only difference you have with them is on the issue of abiogenesis.
quote:
The inexactness of a cladogram is proportional to amount of phylogenetic data available. However, what is observed again and again is a continuity of the biological classifications, a continuity that doesn't make sense if kinds were created separately. Every primate is also a mammal. How does that happen? Why not a kind of animal that is part monkey and part bird that would prevent it from also being a mammal? It is the fact that we can form clades for large numbers of species that points away from creationism and towards shared ancestry.
It makes quite a lot of sense for baraminology to look similar to the phylogenetic tree at the ends (furthest branches). YEC doesn't dispute the divergence of species since creation/flood. However your claim that the base of the phylogentic tree has continuity is quite false. This article gives an overview of some of the problems.
quote:
Without assuming the existence of the supernatural why would you ever mention it? It is you making the assumption. There is no evidence of the supernatural, so why include it in science? Science assumes that there will be a rational explanation backed by empirical evidence. Why is that such a horrible assumption?
You're all mixed up here. Any science requires assumptions. Here's some of the common ones darwinian evolutionists make:
1. abiogenesis
2. uniformation in the geological record
3. a constant decay rate for radio-isotopes
The goal with science is to examine the data and then make the most reasonable assumptions/predictions about that data. My point is that assuming the supernatural is far more reasonable in some circumstances than assuming a naturalistic solution - such as in the generation of life. Of course, as new data becomes available then it becomes necessary to re-evaluate all assumptions to ensure they are still reasonable - but you cripple you ability to think scientifically if you rule out all assumptions of a supernatural nature prior to examining the data.
quote:
What makes the untestable and unevidenced supernatural a reasonable assumption?
If the data strongly opposes all known naturalistic assumptions? (abiogenesis anyone?)
quote:
What are the scientific experiments one can run to determine if two species do or do not share a common ancestor, according to creationists?
Again, sorry....I'm not qualified to answer comprehensively at this point. Obviously comparison of genomes or mophological features are relevant indicators - but certainly not deciding factors (just as in a darwinian model).
quote:
"Molecules to man" is designed to be derisive. The older term is "goo to you via the zoo". It is meant to muddy the waters by slopping together abiogenesis and evolution, two separate concepts. AiG and others know that they have already lost, so they are playing to the crowd. Think of it as two politicians calling each other names without ever spending time talking about policy or governance. AiG has no definition of kind, or any scientific methodology that would separate species into kinds. All they have is name calling. That should tell you a lot.
LOL - It's not AiG that's slopping together abiogensis and evolution! As I've said several times now - we agree about evolution (in the natural selection/mutation/speciation/adaptation sense). The two key points of disagreement are over time (young or old earth) and origin (supernatural or natural). It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution in their quest to find a naturalistic explanation to everything - regardless of how unreasonable that explanation may be!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 8:32 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 3:14 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 385 (562960)
06-02-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
06-02-2010 1:56 PM


Straggler writes:
But this is exactly what creos do argue. All kinds were created originally. There are no new kinds. Macroevolution would result in new kinds. Nobody has witnessed macro-evolution or the creation of new kinds because this is impossible. QED.
And there you have it. You say "Macroevolution would result in new kinds" but with this definition of "kinds" no form of evolution would produce new kinds - no matter how extreme.
Yes. We agree. But it is my understanding that creationists do indeed argue that there are no new kinds. Only micro-evolved variations of the original creations. Is that not also your understanding?
Is this where we are disagreeing/miscommunicating?
For this statement to be anything other than an empty irrelevance "macroevolution" has to be at least a logical possiiblity.
Only if we assume that creos think new kinds have arisen by a process of evolution. I think their entire argument is based on this not being the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 6:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 385 (562962)
06-02-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 1:40 PM


It's because I used the word "descended" in my definition.
A macroevolved, new "kind" would still have descended from an old "kind." As such, any new "kind" that came about would still fit within the old "kind," as per my definition, which defines "kinds" partly by descent.
That's what Paul's talking about.
Oh.
But that isn't the creationist argument as I understand it. I thought the whole concept of kinds pertained to that which was created and from which all else micro-evolved.
But I am hardly an expert in creationist thinking.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 1:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 66 of 385 (562966)
06-02-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Taq
06-02-2010 5:34 PM


quote:
If they were used interchangeably then humans would be a part of the ape clade, the primate clade, the mammal clade, the vertebrate clade, and so forth. Clades are rooted by synapomorphies which are shared characteristics. Each branch from the root evolves derived characteristics. Humans share many, many characteristics with other apes, fewer with all primates, fewer still with all mammals, and so forth. The more time that has passed since common ancestry allows for more derived characteristics to evolve. This is exactly what we see in the characteristics of living species, in the fossil record, and the genomes of living species.
Yes, I agree with your distinction between clade and kind. That's what I speculated immediately after my question.
quote:
"Kinds" makes no sense. It can't explain why derived characteristics appear in the fossil record with time. It can't explain the relationships between pseudogenes and shared physical characteristics. It can't explain why humans share so many ERV's with other apes at the exact same spot in their genomes. "Kinds" explains nothing other than a need to keep humans separate from the rest of life due to religious beliefs. That's it.
Those are all non-problems from a YEC standpoint - it would make sense that creatures with a similar morphological appearance would have similar genetic makeup. The Designer re-using common elements of design is only logical. Think of a computer programmer - they don't code each program from scratch. They re-use common libraries that share function.
As to the ERVs there is a reasonable explanation as well (though here I hesitate as I've only briefly reviewed the theories and research on this subject). The theory suggests that retroviruses are not the cause of the ERV genetic match - it's the other way around. Retroviruses are spawned by 'adaptation code' placed in the initial genomes by the designer - ERVs are really this adaptation code that we were created with. Thus it is likely that they would be found in similar locations of the genome for similar creatures. I'm probably not doing this explanation justice so I'll just link the article and let you read it for yourself.
quote:
The data is the comparison of the genomes between any two species. It clearly shows that the differences in DNA is responsible for the differences in physical characteristics. I would think that even creationists would agree with this. What I have yet to see is a creationist that can show us genetic differences that evolution could not produce, and why.
Yes, I agree that comparing the DNA for two species will demonstrate the differences between those species. However, jumping from there to common ancestry of those two species is pure speculation - and I'm not quite sure what that has to do with demonstrating the capability of the evolutionary process to add information to the genome.
quote:
And to stray back to the topic, it would seem that you may have stumbled on a way to define kinds. Simply show which genetic differences evolution can not produce, and any species with those differences would automatically be in different kinds. So what genetic changes can evolution not produce? I would assume that the genetic differences between humans and chimps would be on the list, so could you give an example of a difference in a human and chimp gene that evolution could not produce?
Now you're way off....the only variation that we know evolution can produce is that which we have observed - anything else is pure speculation. I know of no change that evolution is incapable of producing. I also however know of no change that evolution is capable of making that adds information to the genome. Plus, as I noted earlier - one kind adapting to the point of interbreeding with another kind (though improbable) does not invalidate YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 3:27 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 67 of 385 (562968)
06-02-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
06-02-2010 6:16 PM


quote:
Yes. We agree. But it is my understanding that creationists do indeed argue that there are no new kinds. Only micro-evolved variations of the original creations. Is that not also your understanding?
Is this where we are disagreeing/miscommunicating?
No, there's no problem there. As I said that definition of macroevolution only requires a definition of "kind" that does not rule out a new kind evolving.
quote:
Only if we assume that creos think new kinds have arisen by a process of evolution.
Then I guess you're not seeing my point at all, because that is completely wrong. My point is that if you define kinds as being separate creations and define macroevolution as evolution between kinds then it's meaningless to talk about macroevolution not being observed, because ANY evolution that occurs cannot be macroevolution. The mere fact that it happened would mean that it wasn't macroevolution at all. If a dog DID give birth to a cat it would still only be microevolution because it happened ! Do you really think that the average creationist would accept a definition of macroevolution that allowed that ?
So that's the problem. sing the two definitions makes statements like yours meaningless and pointless, because the distinction between micro and macro evolution boils down to "did it happen?". If it did it's microevolution. Saying that macroevolution doesn't happen is only saying that evolution that doesn't happen doesn't happen. Arguing that a proposed evolutionary transition is macroevolution and thus cannot have happened becomes circular because the only way to show that it is macroevolution is to show that it DIDN'T happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 6:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 7:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 68 of 385 (562969)
06-02-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
06-02-2010 2:51 PM


It's still a dog!
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
Bluejay writes:
With all due respect, you don’t really go into things, Paul. What you do is more like mentioning things.
With all due respect I think that describes your position here more than mine.
Come on, Paul: you write one or two sentences, and leave me to try to connect the dots for myself in every message. It took you six messages of two-liners, and you still didn't really articulate your argument in a way that anybody understood it: I had to do it for you, and I did it in one message.
And, it’s not like I’m just throwing around random accusations, either. Three other people also jumped in and said that they didn’t understand what you were talking about, and nobody chimed in to say they understood you until after I explained it on your behalf. On the other hand, nobody (not even you) has asked me what I’m talking about yet.
How you concluded from this that I’m the one not explaining myself is beyond me.
-----
PaulK writes:
Bluejay writes:
And, I still disagree with you: creationists don’t define kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into. They try to identify kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into (that’s what baraminology is), but they define them by their relationships to the original, archetypal organisms that God created (or to the organisms on the Ark, which represent a subset of the archetypes created by God).
You see, you haven't even understood my point. I'm not saying that creationists can't use your definition.
My argument wasn’t about whether creationist can use my definition, either. My argument was a statement that they do use my definition.
Show me a creationist who doesn’t. After finally figuring out what your argument is, I agree that there could very well be at least some creationists who will reject my definition. But, I can’t think of any that I’ve either debated with or heard about (other than the drooling, idiot type of creationists who don’t really know what they’re saying, anyway: I’ll let you be right about those with no complaints)
-----
PaulK writes:
Your point about baraminologists doesn't even address my argument unless you can show that they use the definition of macroevolution that I referred to, and explain how they deal with the problem.
Then let me expound a bit more on the concept of descent from a creationist perspective. I admit that this is a bit speculative, but it comes from my assessment of creationists during discussions on this site. To the creationist, information-adding or new-structure-adding mutations break the rules of descent. They allow organisms to give birth to things that are not related to them. Birds and dinosaurs are clearly not related, so arguing that birds evolved from dinosaurs is saying that birds evolved from something they’re not related to, which is clearly (to them) bupkis. That’s why it’s such a big deal for them to say things like, a dinosaur laid an egg from which the first bird hatched or it’s still a bacteria: you haven’t shown it turning into a man yet.
To a creationist, microevolution can happen by descent, but macroevolution cannot. They believe that there has to be some other kind of magic to make macroevolution happen.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 2:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 7:23 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 4964 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


Message 69 of 385 (562971)
06-02-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 10:40 AM


quote:
To make it clear, it is my position that creationists do have a strict definition of kind. All descendants of a specific archetype created by God is at least as clear as all descendants of a common ancestor (clade) or a group of organisms that can interbreed (species).
  —Bluejay
Good catch... I should've specified the need for the definition to be testable or practical. If we are to define "kind" as you suggest, then we clearly can't use this definition to support the Creationist claims...
1. The 'kinds' are immutable.
2. There have been no new 'kinds' since the Creation.
3. Humans and other primates are in separate "kinds".
4. The animals alive today are descended from the original "kinds".
All of these points are ones that do not follow logically from your definition, and yet they are the foundations of Creationism. In fact, according to your definition, it is entirely possible that all life on earth is of the same "kind".
Your comparison between "kind" and "clade" is particularly applicable, because a brief review of what "clade" means makes it obvious that new clades are constantly being created, that an animal can belong to many clades at the same time, and that over time, a population that exemplifies one clade may come to exemplify another.
Would you agree that the same applies to "kind"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 10:40 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:02 PM Fiver has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 385 (562974)
06-02-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
06-02-2010 6:50 PM


Still Not Getting It
Then I guess you're not seeing my point at all, because that is completely wrong.
OK. Seriously - I am trying.
My point is that if you define kinds as being separate creations and define macroevolution as evolution between kinds then it's meaningless to talk about macroevolution not being observed, because ANY evolution that occurs cannot be macroevolution.
"Evolution between kinds" - What does that mean? I didn't think that inter-breeding kinds was creo argument at all.
Is that what you mean?
Arguing that a proposed evolutionary transition is macroevolution and thus cannot have happened becomes circular because the only way to show that it is macroevolution is to show that it DIDN'T happen.
But they are saying macro-evolution didn't happen.
I still think creos are saying that God created all the kinds and that all currently observed species are just (non-inter-breeding) micro-variations (i.e. non-inter-breeding descendents) of those original creations.
Are we still talking at cross purposes here? Can anyone help clear through this fog?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 6:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 7:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 71 of 385 (562976)
06-02-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
06-02-2010 6:19 PM


Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
But that isn't the creationist argument as I understand it. I thought the whole concept of kinds pertained to that which was created and from which all else micro-evolved.
That's my understanding of it, too. But, Paul obviously sees something different.
It is kind of silly for creationists to define "kinds" by descent from unevolved sources, then to make a big deal about having never observed new "kinds" evolving from old ones.
Still, I think this is exactly what they do, and I don't think there is actually a logical inconsistency there, other than a misapprehension that "macroevolution" breaks the rules of descent.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 6:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 7:23 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 385 (562980)
06-02-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 7:00 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
quote:
Come on, Paul: you write one or two sentences, and leave me to try to connect the dots for myself in every message. It took you six messages of two-liners, and you still didn't really articulate your argument in a way that anybody understood it: I had to do it for you, and I did it in one message.
Sorry, but that simply isn't true. So far as I can see the problem is that people just aren't considering what I am saying.
quote:
How you concluded from this that I’m the one not explaining myself is beyond me.
Could it perhaps be because I read Message 42 ? No explanation there, just assertions.
quote:
Show me a creationist who doesn’t. After finally figuring out what your argument is, I agree that there could very well be at least some creationists who will reject my definition.
As I said I've already provided evidence - a definition of "macroevolution" that only makes sense if the definition of "kind" does not rule out a new kind evolving. I think by simple charity you must at least allow the possibility that any creationists who use that definition may have a definition of "kind" that actually works with it.
quote:
Then let me expound a bit more on the concept of descent from a creationist perspective. I admit that this is a bit speculative, but it comes from my assessment of creationists during discussions on this site. To the creationist, information-adding or new-structure-adding mutations break the rules of descent. They allow organisms to give birth to things that are not related to them. Birds and dinosaurs are clearly not related, so arguing that birds evolved from dinosaurs is saying that birds evolved from something they’re not related to, which is clearly (to them) bupkis. That’s why it’s such a big deal for them to say things like, a dinosaur laid an egg from which the first bird hatched or it’s still a bacteria: you haven’t shown it turning into a man yet.
I can't believe that a creationist would resort to claiming that parent and offspring were unrelated. Now the examples you give are a big deal to creationists because they believe that they didn't happen and couldn't happen but I think that the average creationist would insist that they were macroevolution even if they did happen (at least as long as they cling to the belief that they didn't).
But if dinosaur to bird evolution would be macroevolution if it happened then either macroevolution is not defined as the evolution of a new kind or kinds are not defined as separate creations. There's simply no way around that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 12:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 385 (562981)
06-02-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 7:12 PM


Still, I think this is exactly what they do, and I don't think there is actually a logical inconsistency there, other than a misapprehension that "macroevolution" breaks the rules of descent.
Yep - that has always been my understanding.
"No new kinds"
Isn't that ultimately their base assertion with regard to evolution, kinds and all the stuff under discussion here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:12 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 385 (562987)
06-02-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
06-02-2010 7:10 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
"Evolution between kinds" - What does that mean? I didn't think that inter-breeding kinds was creo argument at all.
It means that the descendants are a different "kind" than the ancestors - at least that is how I read it.
quote:
But they are saying macro-evolution didn't happen.
I'll try to explain it differently. The average creationist would, I am sure, take the view that what they call macroevolution would still be macroevolution if it happened (although they might change their minds if they became convinced that it did happen). But that means that they need a definition of macroevolution that doesn't depend on whether it did happen or not.
As I have explained if kinds are defined as separate creations then a new kind cannot be formed by evolution. Therefore if macroevolution is also defined as the evolution of a new kind then any evolution that actually happens is NOT macroevolution. And that is the problem.
quote:
I still think creos are saying that God created all the kinds and that all currently observed species are just (non-inter-breeding) micro-variations (i.e. non-inter-breeding descendents) of those original creations.
So do I. That's not the point.
quote:
Are we still talking at cross purposes here? Can anyone help clear through this fog?
From where I'm sitting it looks like you're just ignoring my point. You certainly didn't address it in this last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 7:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 8:08 PM PaulK has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 385 (562998)
06-02-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
06-02-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
From where I'm sitting it looks like you're just ignoring my point. You certainly didn't address it in this last post.
That honestly is not my intention. Let's try some quick single questions to see where I am going wrong.
Creos assert that there have been no new kinds since the original point of creation. This is key to their position.
Is that how you see their position too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 7:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:16 AM Straggler 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