|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Progressive Creationists aren't evolutionists either. Can you provide evidence that any Old Earth Creationists aren't creationists, as you claim ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Good.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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:
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."
Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I'm not. Bluejay did that by defining kinds as separate creations. If that isn't true, then Bluejay is wrong.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If we define a "kind" as a separate creation then only separate creations can be "kinds". That's how definitions work.
quote: So you didn't say:
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.
?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then I think that you need to be more careful about what you agree to.
quote: 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:
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."
You agreed with 1) which is clearly talking about evolution that creationists do NOT accept.
quote: 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: 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: As I said, I don't ignore it, it is part of my argument ! How can you ignore that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: Only in consistently contradicting yourself on this issue.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024