Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 106 of 385 (563092)
06-03-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Straggler
06-03-2010 8:31 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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:
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."
Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 8:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 9:04 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 107 of 385 (563095)
06-03-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
06-03-2010 8:38 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
I would have appreciated more explicit agreement, but I suppose agreeing twice ought to be enough.
I agree unequivocally with everything we have agreed up to now in our tit for tat 1 question at a time exchange.
But here is where we part company on what it is creos are saying:
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.
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.
All observed variation is variation within kind. There are many kinds. Micro-evolution is therefore all that is required to explain the diversity of life as observed. That is what I (thought) we agreed to being the creo position.
That is and remains the creo position as I understand it.
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."
Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 8:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 9:23 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 108 of 385 (563098)
06-03-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
06-03-2010 9:04 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 9:04 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 11:26 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 1:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 385 (563118)
06-03-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
06-03-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 9:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 110 of 385 (563121)
06-03-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 12:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 385 (563122)
06-03-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by PaulK
06-03-2010 11:42 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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.
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.
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 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 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, even though technically there could be a decendent that microevolved so much that it would be too different to be considered within the same kind. Especially since we know that creationists won't accept that that amount of evolution is capable of happening.
Its not that you're wrong, it just that your point seems, well... pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 11:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 112 of 385 (563124)
06-03-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2010 12:28 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 1:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 113 of 385 (563125)
06-03-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
06-02-2010 7:23 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
Hi, Paul.
First, I'm sorry: it wasn't my intention to start another fight; but I seem completely incapable of not starting fights on EvC recently. Maybe it's just about time for me to take another break.
At any rate, I’m ending the bickering over our respective explanatory skills now. Clearly, we have some communication problems between us, but that wasn't an excuse for me to take a cheap shot at you.
PaulK writes:
I can't believe that a creationist would resort to claiming that parent and offspring were unrelated.
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?
This is what creationists who use your definition of macroevolution think we are proposing: that it takes more than just changes in characteristics to make something into a new kind.
It's either that, or they believe that "macroevolution" doesn't refer to anything. Either way, they believe something that you and I both have a hard time believing they believe.
The simple observation is that they demonstrably do define kinds by descent (and I still haven’t found or been shown any creationists who don’t), 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. Maybe it’s more of a no true descent, but this is clearly the implication of their using both of these definitions simultaneously (as they demonstrably do).
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.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 7:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dr Jack, posted 06-03-2010 1:42 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 114 of 385 (563127)
06-03-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Fiver
06-02-2010 7:03 PM


Hi, Fiver.
Fiver writes:
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".
But, all of these things would have to be true if my definition of "kinds" is true.
Except, of course, for #3, which is just a practical matter of deciding which organisms group into which "kinds": a problem that I don't disagree---and have never disagreed---that creationists have.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Fiver, posted 06-02-2010 7:03 PM Fiver has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 385 (563128)
06-03-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
06-03-2010 12:47 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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.
Having 2 referential 'thats' in one line is ambiguous as I don't know exactly what they're referring to...
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.
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".
Nowhere have I said that kinds do not need to be seperate creations, of course they do... that is the whole point of it. The amount of evolution that is allowed never provides enough change for it to be a different kind.
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.
You're hard to understand.
I'm simply pointing out the logical implications of using the two definitions together.
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.
I don't see why other people should have such problems seeing it.
At first it was obscure, but now I'm seeing it and it seems fairly pointless.
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.
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.
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.
Huh? Is that some kind of explanation or something? This is difficult to understand what you are getting at and it leaves your point obscure. This is why people have difficulty understanding you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 12:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 116 of 385 (563129)
06-03-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Otto Tellick
06-03-2010 3:49 AM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
I'm happy to add my own welcoming reply, BobTHJ. Your posts so far have been quite refreshing. I'd like to get down to some topical details, but first, I'll indulge in a few snarky knee-jerk reactions that, alas, tend to be all too common in a forum like this one.
Thanks....I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to make a reasoned reply to my arguments.
quote:
Indeed. Many who are familiar with the study of "baraminology" have concluded that its distance from "an exact science" is so great that it turns out not to be any kind of science at all. A major factor in this conclusion is the admission made by all baraminologists that they start from a "foundational truth" based on a particular interpretation of scripture, and their goal is to figure out how to get physical evidence to be consistent with that "truth". This simply is not science.
As I mentioned previously, all scientists begin with a bias - a set of assumptions or preconceived notions. I pointed out some of the common assumptions that darwinist scientists make. I'll relist them here in an effort to be comprehensive:
1. abiogenesis
2. uniformation in the geological record
3. a fixed decay rate across time for all radio-isotopes
In the same fashion YEC scientists begin with a bias toward the scriptural account of creation in Genesis.
Now, certainly in some of the simple observational sciences where results can be observed and repeated in a labratory bias plays a minimal factor. But not so with origin sciences. Ancient history (whatever form it may take) can not be repeated and observed. Therefore - like it or not - bias plays a major role in any such science. Just because bias plays a role however does not mean the science is invalid. The data remains the same regardless of the problem the scientist is attempting to solve.
Bias tends to show itself most in the conclusions drawn form the data - take the example of the semi-recent discoveries of preserved soft-tissues in the fossil record. The darwinist's conclusion from the data was that some as yet unknown chemical process preserved the tissue for millions of years. This was based on their preconceived bias or "foundational truth" of molecules-to-man evolution. Creation scientists on the other hand made the much more reasonable conclusion that the fossil was merely thousands of years of age. Never once did I hear any darwinist say "Hey, wait a minute....this doesn't make sense. Perhaps this fossil isn't really millions of years old!" - why? Because it would conflict with their prior assumptions about the fossil record and the age of the earth.
Now, I understand that darwinists consider these assumptions to already be proven - but it is exactly this unwillingness to question the assumptions that leads to bad science. The trick to drawing good conclusions from the data is to leave you bias at the door - a difficult task for both sides of the aisle.
quote:
It would be worthwhile to look at some particular cases of disagreement among baraminologists about how things group into "baramins", and compare these with contemporary cases of disagreement among evolutionary biologists and taxonomists about how things group into clades and lines of descent. On identifying a few representative disagreements within each field, it would also be instructive to see how disputes are debated, and how (or whether) they get resolved.
But here I have to admit that, like you, I'm not a credentialed scientist (nor a baraminologist), and it would be a stretch for me to try pursuing this in detail -- too much information to find, and too many other things I have to do instead. But you have already provided a useful reference, for which I am sincerely grateful. (More on that below.)
I agree a comprehensive evaluation is beyond both my level of skill as well as the limits of my free time. Here's an article however (which I may have linked earlier, I don't recall) on some serious issues with the comparisons between the morphological and genetic trees of ancestry.
quote:
I think it's fair to draw analogies here, like: discovering general relativity didn't make Newtonian physics any less valid; or: discovering that planetary orbits were elliptical didn't make the Copernican theory of perfectly circular orbits any less valid; or: discovering that the Earth's circumference around the poles is not really a circle didn't make the concept of a spherical Earth any less valid. In each case the latter (supplanted) notion simply "hasn't been fully fleshed out" -- actually, it is less accurate, which means more error-prone -- when compared to the notion that supplanted it.
Now the question becomes: where will our time and effort be better spent? Going back to flesh out those supplanted notions, or coming to grips with, understanding, and building on the notions that replaced them? Bear in mind that in trying to make those older notions more accurate, it's a safe bet that you'll be retracing the steps that led to our current notions on these matters (which still have some margin of error, but this has been measurably reduced).
So it is with baraminology (based on scripture) vs. cladistics (based on physical evidence). The vast majority of people who have pursued advanced degrees in biology, archaeology, zoology and geology over the last 150 years or so have made this transition, if they ever gave any credence to the scriptural account in the first place.
I don't think this is a reasoned comparison. You are assuming that cladistics has supplanted baraminology as a more refined method of classifying organisms. This is only the case if you are willing to accept the "foundational truths" of darwinian evolution - which are shaky assumptions at best.
And yes, while the mainstream scientific consensus at this point accepts those assumptions this does not mean Baraminology is a waste of time or effort. If the history of science has taught us anything it is that those willing to buck the common assumptions of the day were the ones to make the most significant breakthroughs. If anything science dissenting from the mainstream is beneficial to scientific thought as a whole - because it continues to challenge the underlying assumptions upon which modern science is based. Take for example the recent evidence disproving certain assumptions used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
quote:
The second sentence there takes us to the crux of the matter. I think you have misstated it, but I can see how you arrived at this misstatement. I would paraphrase: The only purpose for having a YEC model is to have humans be a distinct kind from other life.
This is a mis-characterization. YECs are not bible-thumping mongrels out to prove how special we humans are. Yes - there is no doubt that humans must be a distinct kind for the YEC model to be consistent - but it is only one of many facets of YEC science.
quote:
You might want to look at a review of Wood's paper by a biologist (at the Panda's Thumb web site). The main point is: if you abandon the dogmatic notion of having to divide these fossils into just two distinct groups, and instead allow a taxonomy that reflects a series of gradual transitions, it becomes a lot easier to make sense of the physical evidence.
I may be in error here as I don't fully speak the scientific lingo - but to simplify my understanding of both Wood's paper and Matzke's review:
Wood's classification algorithm separated homonids into groupings of humans and apes. Au. africanus didn't fit neatly into either group. Wood's conclusion from the data is that Au. africanus is in a third group by itself. Matzke's conclusions from the data is that Au. africanus is a transitional form between the groups. This seems to me to be a clear case of both scientists acting upon their bias - which in this case makes a lot of sense as it appears neither conclusion is more reasonable than the other (unless considered with bias). In the end the data is not conclusive enough to show either interpretation to be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-03-2010 3:49 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 4:20 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 168 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-05-2010 1:46 AM BobTHJ has replied

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


Message 117 of 385 (563130)
06-03-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
06-03-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
PaulK writes:
But we DIDN'T agree on that.
Well then this is the root of our miscommunication. Because I thought we had.
PaulK writes:
What you agreed to, twice was that ALL evolution no matter how extreme is microevolution by consequence of the definitions.
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.
PaulK writes:
And since - as you twice agreed all evolution no mater how extreme is microevolution you have accepted that.
Only within kinds. Only within limits.
PaulK writes:
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?
Straggler writes:
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.
Now the miscommunication becomes clear.
PaulK writes:
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.
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?
PaulK writes:
B) By the definition of "macroevolution" ONLY the creation of a new "kind" qualifies. If there is no new "kind" it's microevolution.
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.
PaulK writes:
Put them together and you get that universal common descent involves NO macroevolution at all.
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?
PaulK writes:
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".
No. They just impose limits on what micro-evolution can achieve without ever actually specifying what those limits are or why these limits should exist.
Are they wrong? Sure. But you cannot just sweep their key criteria under the carpet to make your point. Instead you need to tackle the silly notion that there are these limits on what micro-evolution can do given enough time.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 9:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 2:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 118 of 385 (563131)
06-03-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2010 12:28 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
Hi, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I 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, even though technically there could be a decendent that microevolved so much that it would be too different to be considered within the same kind.
Actually, I'm on the same page with Paul on this one.
Since I defined "kinds" to include descent, then no level of change can make a new organism be thought of as a new kind while still maintaining the integrity of the definition. You have to insert a clause that grants special circumstances when organisms change a lot.
Paul argues that allowing some level of descent-based change to result in a new "kind" shows that creationists are not strictly using the definition that I provided, which would, at that point, prove that my initial assertion (that you will not find any creationists who disagree with my definition) is false.
My answer, at this point, is that there is another option that allows creationists to weasel out of the contradictions that Paul demonstrated. It involves a twist on the only other major terminology involved in the definitional soup we’ve been batting around---i.e., the word descent.
It’s my position that we have abundant evidence that creationists do use my definition of kind simultaneously with Paul’s definition of macroevolution, and, since the precedent Paul set is that contradictions in terminology are taken to mean implicit modifications to the usage of some other terminology, I propose that creationists who use these definitions simultaneously must be implicitly proposing that macroevolution violates the descent part of their definition of kind.
And, this, to me, seems fully consistent with the knee-jerk reactions of creationists to birds hatching from dinosaur eggs or apes giving birth to humans. In fact, I think it rather elucidates the creationist mindset in some way: now, if only we could discuss it with a creationist to find out whether I’m on to something, or just on something.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 2:38 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 119 of 385 (563132)
06-03-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Blue Jay
06-03-2010 12:52 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
But remember, kinds are not just defined by descent. The Bible also explicitly lists some species as being of different kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 12:52 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:45 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 120 of 385 (563135)
06-03-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dr Jack
06-03-2010 1:42 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
Hi, Mr Jack.
Mr Jack writes:
But remember, kinds are not just defined by descent. The Bible also explicitly lists some species as being of different kinds.
Can you provide a reference?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dr Jack, posted 06-03-2010 1:42 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dr Jack, posted 06-03-2010 2:46 PM Blue Jay 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