Biological classification vs 'Kind'

quote:

---

Yes - please understand the difference here. I was discussing what would or would not fit within a YEC model. Interbreeding between kinds (if shown to exist) would still fit within a YEC model (it does not invalidate the model because it does not conflict with the Biblical text).

---

The creationist idea of "kinds" has little support in the Biblical text, so "not conflicting with the Biblical text" is not a good criterion. Interbreeding IS proposed as a reliable test to see if two species belong within a "kind" by many creationists. I don't think that it would be lightly thrown out.

quote:

---

You are correct and I am wrong. I overstepped and oversimplified. Certainly not all OECs accept molecules-to-man evolution (gap theory for instance does not). I responded too quickly. My apologies for saying you were ignorant to the issue when it was myself who was mistaken.

​

I'll revise: many OECs are darwinian evolutionists.

---

Progressive Creationists aren't evolutionists either. Can you provide evidence that any Old Earth Creationists aren't creationists, as you claim ?

quote:

---

Agree....it wouldn't be lightly thrown out. But if it were YEC would still survive as a reasonable theory.

---

In scientific terms YEC is neither reasonable nor a theory. And losing the only commonly accepted biological test for determining if two species are definitely in the same kind would be a further step backwards.

quote:

---

Absolutely.

​

But creos deny common descent exactly because they consider macro-evolution to be un-evidenced and impossible.

​

Are we still in agreement?

---

Yes.Now which makes more sense from a creationist perspective ?1) "If common descent is true it would require macroevolution - but we have no evidence of macroevolution".2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."

quote:

---

The Creo position as I understand it is 1) all the way.

---

Good.

quote:

---

Kinds is their way of allowing for micro-evolution (i.e. evolution within a kind) whilst denying that any new kinds can arise by means of macro-evolution. Do you still agree?

---

Yes.Now do you accept that if "kinds" are defined as separate creations and if all descendants of the original created populations are in the same single kind as their ancestors, ALL evolution is within the same kind, no matter how extreme the change ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes - That is indeed my understanding. "NO NEW KINDS" is the creo mantra.

---

I want to be really clear on this one. Do you understand that the definitions entail that all evolution is microevolution ? That there is no evolutionary change so extreme that it can be labelled macroevolution on that count - or at all ?

quote:

---

Yes.

​

No new kinds. No macro-evolution. The only evolution that is possible is micro-evolution within the existing created kinds.

​

That is my understanding.

---

I would have appreciated more explicit agreement, but I suppose agreeing twice ought to be enough.Anyway, since you have agreed that all evolution, no matter how extreme is - by definition - microevolution - it follows that universal common descent requires no macroevolution at all.Or to go back to Message 100 from these definitions we have: Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that ?

quote:

---

Whoah. Hold on there. With my creo hat on - The fact that we agreed that all the variation observed (no matter how extreme) must necessarily be the result of micro-evolution does not mean that I agreed that there are no limits on micro-evolution at all. You are extrapolating things way beyond that which we mutually agreed.

---

But we DIDN'T agree on that. What you agreed to, twice was that ALL evolution no matter how extreme is microevolution by consequence of the definitions. I specifically asked you to confirm your understanding to be sure that you agreed. There is no mention of observation there.Nor does my point require you to agree that universal common descent IS true, only if it were true that all the evolution involved would be microevolution. And since - as you twice agreed all evolution no mater how extreme is microevolution you have accepted that.It is quite simple:A) By the definition of "kind", common descent does NOT produce new "kinds". No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind.B) By the definition of "macroevolution" ONLY the creation of a new "kind" qualifies. If there is no new "kind" it's microevolution.Put them together and you get that universal common descent involves NO macroevolution at all.

quote:

---

They do disagree with that. Vehemently. And whilst they are evidentially wrong I don't think they are being logically inconsistent in the way you are insisting upon.

---

Then, either they use a different definition of "kind" or a different definition of "macroevolution". And don't forget that THAT is my point - that those that use this definition of "macroevolution" probably use a different definition of "kind".

quote:

---

This is the source of the disagreement...

​

The difference cannot be so extreme that they look like different kinds, otherwise it'd be macroevolution and they cannot allow that.

---

Since I think we all agree on that, I don't think that that is the source of the disagreement.It seems more likely to me that Straggler and Bluejay are having trouble seeing that the two definitions taken together contradict that. "Looking like different kinds" is not enough - the must BE different kinds. But different kinds can only be formed by creation, not evolution so that isn't an option either. So we get back to the point that using the two definitions together doesn't work.

quote:

---

The disagreement is that you're calling any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind.

---

I'm not. Bluejay did that by defining kinds as separate creations. If that isn't true, then Bluejay is wrong.

quote:

---

There is a bit of an error in the wording of the definition of kind with regard to decent, that bluejay has now noticed and mentioned. It

---

A bit of an error ? You're saying that "kinds" need not be separate creations, that they can evolve. That is a pretty significant "error".

quote:

---

It seems you're taking a slight overlap that could be squeezed into the definition, and then saying that we must squeeze it in and drag it all the way to the most extreme possibilities and therefore the definitions must be contradictory. Its almost just a semantic quibble at that point and I don't think we have to be that pedantic.

---

I have no idea how you could possibly get an impression that is so at odds with reality.
I'm simply pointing out the logical implications of using the two definitions together.
I don't see why other people should have such problems seeing it.

quote:

---

think we can allow that "all the decendants" would not include those that would be so different that they would be thought of as a new kind that came about through macroevolution...

---

Again you are saying that a kind need not be a separate creation, contradicting Bluejay's definition. The 'all the descendants" follows from that part of the definition - it isn't a gratuitous addition as you seem to think. So really you're agreeing with me even more than you think.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If you gave birth to a turtle, would you consider it to be your descendant? Or, would you think something had suddenly gone extremely screwy with the universe?

---

Since I'm not female, it's highly unlikely that anything I "gave birth to" would be my descendant. But aside from that while something would have to go very screwy with the universe, the question of descent isn't obvious. Given the usual creationist strawman this is presumed to be a natural event involving no external tinkering, just "ordinary" reproduction. And in that case I would have to say that these sort of saltational changes should be classified as descent - if they occurred.But let's be careful of getting too far into extremes used to make a point. I'm sure that you understand that the average creationist wouldn't accept that all the evolutionary changes that science really does propose are all microevolution. And they definitely are based on ordinary reproduction so the question of descent is not an issue.

quote:

---

The simple observation is that they demonstrably do define kinds by descent...

---

But is it a definition, or simply something they believe to be true ? I'll willingly grant that they believe it to be the case, but is it true by definition ? Catholic Scientist appears to disagree with you there.

quote:

---

...and they (some of them) demonstrably do define macroevolution as evolution between kinds. Thus, they must implicitly be considering macroevolution as something other than descent.

---

Or they don't define "kind" by descent. This creationist shows no sign of defining "kinds" by descent - he seems to have Biblical classifications more in mind. Which would actually work.

quote:

---

Although it’s somewhat weird, it’s clearly superior to your argument, because the evidence supports it: we know that they are using my definition of kind simultaneously with your definition of macroevolution.

---

In fact we DON'T know that because we've no example of one person using both definitions simultaneously ! Creationists often aren't explicit about their definitions so we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. Someone is confusing what they believe to be true with a proper definition - and it's either you or them.

quote:

---

But of course kinds are separate creations, that is the whole point. Now, how does defining it that way necessitate that "any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind". I'm not seeing it. If its too much evolution then its not within the kind.

---

If we define a "kind" as a separate creation then only separate creations can be "kinds". That's how definitions work.

quote:

---

Nowhere have I said that kinds do not need to be seperate creations, of course they do...

---

So you didn't say: ?

quote:

---

But you have to go to such an extreme to reach that implication that you're no longer within anything that anyone accepts anymore. You have to have so much change from evolution for a new kind to emerge that wasn't created that the creationist no longer accepts that that much evolution is possible.

---

That is hardly "extreme" - creationists reject a lot of evolution that actually happened! In fact that's the point. Creationists don't want to accept evolution that they reject as microevolution...

quote:

---

How am I saying that? I'm not seeing it. A kind needs to be a seperate creation because they don't think its possible for there to be enough evolution to result in a new kind.

---

Which simply argues that in fact a kind is a separate creation, not that a kind should be defined as a separate creation. As soon as you say that there are degrees of change that should be accepted as forming a new "kind" if they occurred, then you rule out the idea of defining a "kind" as a separate creation.

quote:

---

Well then this is the root of our miscommunication. Because I thought we had.

---

Then I think that you need to be more careful about what you agree to.

quote:

---

What I thought I had agreed to was that all evolution that creos accept to have practically occured no matter how extreme must be the result of micro-evolution within kind. I didn't realise you were going to extrapolate that to include all evolution imaginable and would not have agreed to that as the creo position. Because it blatantly isn't their position. It is the very opposite of what they believe.

---

I didn't say anything about evolution which creationists accept. In fact I pretty clearly included examples that creationists did not accept e.g. Message 100: You agreed with 1) which is clearly talking about evolution that creationists do NOT accept.

quote:

---

Yes. So again it needs to be pointed out that creos limit the degree of change that is possible by micro-evolution alone. I assumed that we both accepted that as their position.

---

Which means that either they must define macroevolution as including sufficiently large changes even if they do NOT create a new "kind" OR they must define "kinds" such that a sufficiently large change is sufficient for a new "kind" regardless of the fact that it evolved.

quote:

---

Yes - But creos believe that this limits the degree of differential extremity. This is what I am implicitly assuming as obvious whilst you seem to be ignoring as irrelevant. But it is the crux of their position is it not?

---

No, I'm not ignoring it, it's part of my argument ! How many times must I point out that I'm not arguing that creationists do accept both definitions - I'm arguing that they DON'T. THey may accept one or the other, but - with the exception of those who don't think and only accept what they're told - they can't accept both simultaneously without implicitly accepting things that they don't believe.

quote:

---

Only if you ignore the rather fundamental fact that creos place limits on what change can be achieved by micro-evolution. How can you just ignore this fulcrum point of their (admittedly ill conceived and evidentially unjustifiable) position?

---

As I said, I don't ignore it, it is part of my argument ! How can you ignore that ?

quote:

---

That's what I'm saying. But I'm allowing for some changes to occur within those seperate creations, as long as the change isn't great enough that it would be resulting in what would be a different kind (because a kind can only come about by special creation).

---

So you are saying that separate creation is not part of the definition of "kind", creationists just believe that nothing other than creation could produce a new kind.

quote:

---

Micro? Or Macro? They accept micro, because it falls within the allowable change for a kind. For it to be enough to be a different kind is the amount of evolution they're rejecting as macro. I'm calling that an extreme amount of evolution.

---

But it isn't so extreme that there ought to be the slightest problem with invoking it. In fact we can't discuss the issue without dealing with it. Because that is what creationists regard as "macroevolution".

quote:

---

What's the difference? To them, it is and should be defined that way

---

You're contradicting yourself here. You argue for rejecting the definition and then argue that the definition should be accepted. You can't argue both ways.

quote:

---

Nope.

---

As I keep explaining, if "kinds" are defined as separate creations then NO amount of change can be sufficient to "result in a new kind". So yes, you did say it, and I quoted you saying it.

quote:

---

Well they say it is

---

So you are seriously suggesting that when discussing creationist ideas of "macroevolution" we shouldn't use examples that creationists would consider "macroevolution" - just because they think that it's "extreme".

quote:

---

No, I've been consistent.

---

Only in consistently contradicting yourself on this issue.