Biological classification vs 'Kind'

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 ?

I get it, but it seems pedantic to me. No level? Very small changes won't hurt a bit. Only extreme changes damage the integrity of the deifinition. I figured that clause is implicit in this being a creationist definition and them not accepting extreme changes from evolution. Yes, but since creationists don't allow for that much change it is pedantic and pointless. Yes, I don't really see the point in PaulK making his point.

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). That is me saying that if the change is so great that it would lead to a new kind then it cannot be within the limits of change that is allowed for a kind. Which supports that kinds cannot emerge through evolution, and jives with them having to be from special creation. 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. What's the difference? To them, it is and should be defined that way But they don't accept that there can be enough change to cause the acceptance of the formation of a new kind.

I'm afraid the whole thread has grown too pedantic to be of much use to anyone other than the participants.I would like to throw some ideas out there, but I won't bother until the thread gets back to normal.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well, two examples would be the Dove and the Raven which are specified as being on the Ark so must be different kinds. And no kind can contain both clean and unclean animals.From Genesis 6-8.

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.

But we do see a continuity with all vertebrates, including humans. YEC and baraminology can not explain this. With YEC there is no reason that we should not see a feathered bat or a bird with three middle ear bones. There is no reason that separate baramins should fall into a nested hierarchy or clade. The only way this makes sense is if common ancestry is true.For the base root of the tree it is convoluted due to horizontal gene transfer and endosymiosis, but for animals there is no such problem and the expected phylogenetic pattern is observed. 1. and 2. are not the assumptions that science makes. Abiogenesis is not assumed, and is in fact an active area of research. All evolution needs is life, and the fossil clearly indicates that life existed so no assumption. The constant decay rate of isotopes is an observation backed by millions of data points and by quantum physics. 2. is assumed. Science does assume that the laws of nature are the same through space and time so when we see a chalk deposit forming today we assume that an identical chalk deposit in the past was formed the same way. What is wrong with that? No. The goal of science is to construct hypotheses that are then tested. How do you test for the supernatural? Specifically, what hypothesis can you form for the existence of baramins, and what evidence if found would falsify the hypothesis? Then you look for other pathways. What you don't do is invent an untestable supernatural realm from whole cloth and claim it is the cause. That is not science. Genetics and morphological data are more than enough to establish common ancestry. We do disagree. The fingerprints of evolution are all over the human genome, and they indicate our shared ancestry with the rest of life on this planet. You claim that there is a different fingerprint, but you are incapable of describing it. What is it?

Nope. Well they say it is. No, I've been consistent.

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.

Why would an all powerful and all knowing deity need to reuse any kind of design or genetic makeup? Isn't it just as likely that every single kind would have it's own genetic systems, or at least it's own codon usage? For an all powerful being reusing designs is just as easy as starting from scratch.Also, why does the reuse of design fall into a nested hierarchy, into a clade? Why do bats have three middle ear bones and fur while birds have a single middle ear bone and feathers? Why should bats share more features with a fox than it does another flying creature? We don't see this pattern of shared characteristics when humans re-use designs. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Even more, humans readily move genes between different species which violates the nested hierarchy. Again, the only explanation for this pattern of shared characteristics is common descent and evolution. That's because humans do not reside outside of time and space and are not all knowing and all powerful. We observe retroviruses inserting themselves into genomes. We observe that they do this randomly. Therefore, when you see two insertions at the same spot in two different genomes the only explanation is that it is from a single insertion in a common ancestor. Also, the divergence of ERV sequences (both overall sequence and LTR divergence) produces the same phylogenetic tree as the placement in the genome. Three different sources of phylogenetic ERV data all point to the same thing, humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor. Your scenario does not explain these phylogenetic signals. For more reading go here. No, it is not speculation. The genetic evidence (such as the ERV evidence in the paper above) clearly indicates shared ancestry. Surely the different genomes contain different information, do they not? That different information is due to different sequences. Mutations produce different sequences, and selection filters out the bad and allows the good to prosper. If you disagree, then please pick two genomes from two different baramins and show us which differences evolution could not produce. Compare the genome of humans and chimps. Those differences are what evolution is capable of producing. It really is that simple.

I don't have a friggin clue what you're trying to convey to me.I give up.

Yes and we both agreed that they don't accept it. That was the agreement. No? "Sufficiently large"? Sufficiently large for what? I think creos deny macro-evolution. Period. I don't think that is an option. I don't think creos believe that new kinds can come about as a product of evolution. I think we can eliminate that one and concentrate on your other point above. The one I don't understand. Creationists believe that god created kinds and that kinds micro-evolved to give us the diversity of life we see on Earth. That is their position. How are you including it?I realise I am frustrating you but I can assure you that I genuinely still just don't see what you are getting at. Ignore anything about new kinds and explain what you mean by the other bit.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Past events create evidence that can be observed in the here and now. This includes fossils and inherited DNA. One can construct hypotheses and use this evidence to test the hypothesis. For example, if common ancestry is true then you should not find a fossil with feather impressions and three middle ear bones.So what hypotheses can one construct using baraminology? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify baramins? What genetic features would one need to observe in order to falsify baramins? This is how you get rid of bias, by making risky predictions. Baraminologists refuse to make these risky predictions. That's false. It was based on the ratio of isotopes in the rocks surrounding the fossil. The age of the fossil is known and is solid. You can go measure the rocks yourself if you think their results are biased. The problem is figuring out how tissue can be preserved for about 65 million years. Why is it more reasonable? Radioisotope dating has been tested through and through, and it is accurate. Like you have already shown, you don't even know what these assumptions are. The assumptions of science (including the biological sciences) are rather mundane. First, there are knowable causes for natural phenomenon. Second, the universe is rational and can be examined by rational beings. Third, knowledge is gained through empirical observations. Fourth, nature behaves the same through space and time (uniformity). If water boils at 100 C today it will boil at 100 C tomorrow if the variables are the same. That's about it. The constant decay of radioisotopes is not assumed, it is observed. Abiogenesis is not an assumption, it is a field of research where nothing is assumed. Common descent is not speculation or an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from hundreds of thousands of tested hypotheses. What you seem to be missing is that evolution is USEFUL. Phylogenetics is a very important tool. In the field of comparative phylogenomics the theory of evolution allows one to use common ancestry and evolution to predict protein function, as one example. No one is using baraminology to do . . . well, anything (unless you count christian apologetics as something).