Biological classification vs 'Kind'

quote:

---

Yes and we both agreed that they don't accept it. That was the agreement. No?

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

"Sufficiently large"? Sufficiently large for what? I think creos deny macro-evolution. Period.

---

Essentially large enough for the creationist to object to it. The point is that some degree of change IS sufficient to be classed as macro-evolution, not where the creationist happens to put the boundaries.

quote:

---

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.

---

That (at least some) creationists would regard some degree of change as macro-evolution even if it didn't create a new kind ?

quote:

---

How are you including it?

---

Because I am arguing that creationists DON'T accept both definitions. If the two, when used together, contradict creationist beliefs then it is certainly evidence of that !

quote:

---

Can you give an example? I think that would seriously aid understanding here.

---

Why ? It's not the point.

quote:

---

Now we can all agree that this is rubbish. But I still don't see how it is actually contradictory in the way you are insisting.

---

That's because I'm not insisting that that is contradictory !I am arguing that since some creationists define macroevolution as the evolution of a new "kind" we must not assume that they also define kinds as separate creations - because if you do that you end up contradicting creationist beliefs. The very contradictions you said I was ignoring !

quote:

---

Extreme? I don’t think it’s extreme. Either way we go with this, we’re looking at a creationist saying something really weird.

---

It's too extreme to be taken seriously in mainstream evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Okay, well, I don’t disagree personally, but it’s obvious that creationists don’t think normal reproduction can result in all the evolutionary changes that science proposes. That’s pretty much the basis of all their arguments against evolution.

---

But they also realise that science proposes that it WAS normal reproduction. And it's the aggregate of the changes that they object to. If we knew all the individual changes from birds to dinosaurs (and we don't and can't) I think that it would be very difficult for them to raise sensible objections to any one of them.

quote:

---

Clearly, this would have to constitute some sort of violation of the descent clause.

---

I'd say that it is even less clear than in the case of saltation, and I don't find that clear at all.
Especially as some, at least, must know that it is a strawman.

quote:

---

Because it might help those of us struggling with your point to work out what it is you actually mean?

---

It wouldn't because exactly where creationists draw the boundary doesn't matter.

quote:

---

I thought your point was that the two definitions are contradictory?

---

No, only that taken together they lead to a position at odds with creationist thought.

quote:

---

Well if they believe that new kinds cannot be produced by evolution then they must also believe that all kinds have been created as seperate creations.

---

Believing it is not the same as making it a definition. The argument is about definitions, not beliefs.
urse, I repeat that you were wrong that I was to say

quote:

---

I didn't say you were ignoring any contradictions. I said you were ignoring the limit on change that creos believe micro-evolution is capable of. Where is their contradiction in that?

---

The contradiction is between the meaning of the two definitions taken together and those creationist beliefs.And for clarity I will repeat that I didn't ignore it at all - I used it in my argument.

quote:

---

I was under the impression that we were debating the internal consistency of the creationist position, not talking about how their arguments relate to evolutionary arguments.

---

Not really, unless you are alleging an inconsistency (my argument assumes that they ARE consistent).And since we are talking about creationist views of evolution it is hard to see how we can ignore the content of evolutionary theory unless we assume that creationists are ignorant of even the basics.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If I have understood...

​

PaulK's position seems to be that there is a contradiction between defining kinds as both that which were created and that which can evolve.

---

You have not understood.The issue yet again is that the two definitions taken in combination define "macroevolution" to exclude ALL evolution (in fact the term - as an oxymoron - cannot refer to anything at all).This means that all evolution is microevolution.This contradicts creationist beliefs.

quote:

---

But, it's even harder to see how we can assume that creationists accept everything we accept about evolutionary theory.

---

I'm not proposing that creationists BELIEVE evolutionary theory, simply that they understand the basics. It is belief in the theory, not knowledge of the theory that is the issue to creationiists.

quote:

---

To me, it seems pretty obvious that what they think is different is that "macroevolution" (however they choose to define it) does not happen the same way "microevolution" happens. They think that macro breaks the rules somehow: otherwise, they wouldn’t be arguing that it can’t happen*.

---

But that is not enough for your argument. Your argument requires that they assume that the larger changes that they call "macroevolution" should be considered to be a separate creation. I'd say that that is obviously false.

quote:

---

This sounds like you're talking about the internal consistency of the creationist position.

​

But, you just told me that you're not talking about the internal consistency of the creationist position.

​

Now, I'm very confused.

---

Yes, you are confused because you didn't read what I wrote.I said that we weren't debating the consistency of the creationist position - because I understood that both of us were assuming consistency. And I explicitly stated that I WAS assuming consistency. Message 154
The post you refer to assumes consistency in the creationist position. So the posts you refer to agree exactly.I suspected that the problem was that people weren't reading my posts with adequate care, and this confirms it.

quote:

---

Oh, is that the game we’re going to play?

​

I’m not impressed with your ability to retrospectively diagnose a subtle semantic discrepancy as your own clever sleight of hand.

---

There's nothing retrospective or subtle about. No sleight of hand and no game. I simply pointed out the bleedimng obvious.

quote:

---

Contradiction = inconsistency.

---

And a consistent creationist would avoid that inconsistency would they not ? A consistent creationist would NOT use those two definitions together. JUST AS I HAVE BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG.

quote:

---

You told Bluejay that you are arguing that the creationist position is internally consisten

---

Correct.

quote:

---

You told Straggler you are arguing that the creationist position is internally inconsistent.

---

Utterly false. I said no such thing.

quote:

---

Bluejay’s brain imploded (cf. Chewbacca defense).
You said Bluejay wasn't reading carefully enough.

---

And you have just provided further evidence of that.

quote:

---

Perhaps you thought, when I wrote the creationist position, I was referring to the harmony between the definitions of macroevolution and kinds?

---

In fact I simply assumed that you meant what you said - that we were arguing over the consistency of creationism. I had no idea what you thought you were referring to.

quote:

---

It confused me that you kept bringing up how creationist viewpoints violate various elements of evolutionary theory, and your persistence on that issue led me to suspect that your entire argument might be stemming from a different angle than what I thought it was.

---

I think the fact that you seemed to be inventing a new creationist strawman for them was a large part of that. You have to admit that your idea that a creationist would think that "macroevolution" would somehow violate common descent is not something commonly seen in creationist writings (and you've provided no evidence that any creationist believes it) - and I think that even a reasonably informed creationist would not think of whatever you are proposing as an alternative is not evolution.

quote:

---

You make no attempts to clarify anything: you simply make interpretive assumptions, ignore context, and respond with a series of terse half-statements, then say my inability to understand what you’re saying is my fault because I am not reading carefully enough.

---

If you need clarification ask for it. However since you managed to understand two posts that were in perfect agreement as contradictory I have to say that the problem appears to be at your end. Especially as you have accused me of playing games for simply reiterating my understanding of one of your posts which turns out to be far from clear - and that I would describe as thoroughly misleading.

quote:

---

So, unless you miraculously acknowledge that changing your behavior is also a viable solution to our miscommunication, I've lost my interest in beating my head against this wall.

---

So far as I can see the problem is largely yours. For instance, I have NO idea how you could possible believe that my reply to Straggler argued that creationists WERE being inconsistent. So how can I change my behaviour to avoid that problem ? I believe that YOU could, at the least by asking for clarification if you failed to understand. I cannot agree to do something when there is not the slightest indication of what it is I am meant to do !

I guess that I'llhave to repeat myself again.1) "kinds" are defined as seperate creations2) "macroevolution" is defined as the evolution of a new kind3) evolution is not creation4) creationists believe that universal common descent requires macroevolution.4) therefore anything produced by evolution is NOT a new kind (1,3)5) therefore no evolution is macroevolution (2,4)6) therefore all evolution is microevolution7) therefore universal common descent requires only microevolution1) and 2) are the definitions in question3) and 4) are statements of creationist belief5) 6) 7) are logical deductions from 1), 2) and 3)7) contradicts 4)QED.

quote:

---

No. Anything that HAS actually been produced by evolution is not a new kind. This is the point where you extrapolate too far and include all imaginable evolution.

---

I think that you are confused here. The point only refers to things ACTUALLY produced by evolution (in reality - whether creationists agree or not). And that is all that it needs to do in the argument.
There is NO extrapolation at all.

quote:

---

No. They are saying that no evolution that HAS ACTUALLY occurred is macroevolution. This is not the same as believing that all conceivable evolution (i.e. what those evil atheist evolutionists believe) requires no macroevolution.

---

This point is NOT a statement of creationist belief. It is a statement that logically follows from what has gone before. Only the first 4 points are premises and you agreed with all of them. To successfully dispute it, then. you have to show a flaw in the logic.

quote:

---

Only if you ignore what they actually believe and instead apply your reasoning to a brand of conceptual evolution that they deny as impossible at the very outset.

---

Of course you are incorrect here. Whether creationists in fact believe that this degree of evolution is possible or not does not have any affect on the argument. The question is whether it would produce a new kind if it WAS possible - however the definition of "kind" says NO,Let me remind you that you agreed that kinds are DEFINED as separate creations - so only something that is IN FACT a separate creation is a new kind. And evolution is not creation, as you also agreed.Therefore anything that is IN FACT produced by evolution (whet her a creationist would agree or not) is not a separate creation. And if it is NOT a seperate creation it is NOT a new "kind", by definition.Therefore no evolution can be "macroevolution" as defined here. Even if it goes beyond the boundaries that creationists believe in.
The logic of the argument demands it. The only way of escape is to reject one of the first 3 premises.

Thank you ! I'm glad that someone gets it.

quote:

---

The standard creationist position does include the combination of definitions under discussion. BUT it also includes the base assertion that microevolution is limited in the amount of change it can achieve. Thus we have the following:

​

A) All kinds were created
B) For new kinds to occur by means of evolution rather than creation would require macro-evolution
C) Macroevolution is unobserved and impossible
D) Micrevolution alone cannot account for the diversity of life on Earth alone because it is limited in the change it can achieve
D) Thus there are no uncreated kinds and the diversity of life on Earth is the result of microevolution from a number of kinds significantly > 1

---

But this is NOT consistent with the definitions.B) directly contradicts the definition of "kinds" because "kinds" are defined as separate creations, which means that anything which is NOT a separate creation is NOT a "kind". Under the two definitions, universal common descent does not require the meaningless "macroevolution" - instead it insists that there is ONLY ONE KIND.C) is pointless because "macroevolution" is self-contradictoryThe conclusion is also kind of silly because "kinds" are created by definition so the term "uncreated kind" is also self-contradictory.

quote:

---

This is their position. If you agree with that then we are simply arguing over semantics. If you disagree with the above then we apparently do genuinely disagree but your reasons for disagreeing remain as much of a mystery to me as they did at the beginning of this conversation.

---

Obviously you know that I don't regard it as consistent because I've been arguing otherwise all along. And since I consider it wrong to attribute an inconsistency to an opponent without evidence I'm going to need evidence that creationists really do accept both definitions simultaneously before I accept that you have correctly described their position.

quote:

---

No. Instead it insists that Darwinian common descent is impossible because microevolution alone is unable to account for the observed diversity of life on Earth.

---

There is no "instead" here. THAT statement is compatible with the idea that universal common descent requires that there is only one kind. Unfortunately for you the definition of a "kind" as a seperate creation logically entails that universal common descent involves only a single "kind", which involves only "microevolution" according to the definitions discussed here.

quote:

---

Which is exactly why they consider macroevolution to be theoretically impossible as well as practically unevidenced.

---

Because they are idiots who don't understand that their "macroevolution" is a complete irrelevance ? Please show some charity.

quote:

---

Yes. It is.

---

I've provided proof. Assertions are hardly an adequate rebuttal.

quote:

---

Faith writes:

​

quote:

---

"Kinds are the grouping of many genetic variations on their theme, descended from an original that contained all the genetic information needed for every variation since. So their classification is basically genetic, not morphological and they ARE the top of the tree genetically speaking". Message 159

​

"THAT is the boundary between micro-and macro-evolution, and the path to that point is the definition of the Kind" Message 1

---

---

In the first quote Faith asserts that kinds are separate creations. However as I have already pointed out there is a distinction between BELIEF and DEFINITION. This assertion only establishes belief. It is entirely possible that her definition of kind is in the assumed genetic limits ("variations on a theme") - which would prove Bluejay wrong.For the second quote, let me restore the context: Let us note that this rules out the possibility that Faith accepts both definitions. Faith defines microevolution as simply the loss of variation and thus defines macroevolution as the gaining of variationSo Faith's definition of macroevolution is not an oxymoron, and refers to something that does happen. Therefore she does NOT accept both definitions.

quote:

---

So explain to me how this incorporates their base assumption that microevolution is limited in the degree of change that it can result in?

---

I will add to what bluegenes has said.If "kind" was taken as a taxonomic term for distinct groups under some classification system, and if evolution were incapable of bridging the gaps between these groups then we would conclude that "kinds" had separate origins, and were not related to by common descent. Creationists simply assume that there are such limits to evolution.In fact, if creationism WERE true this would be a very good way to handle it - and one consistent with defining "macroevolution" as "evolution between kinds".