|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Exactly.
quote: 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: That (at least some) creationists would regard some degree of change as macro-evolution even if it didn't create a new kind ?
quote: 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Essentially large enough for the creationist to object to it. OK.
That (at least some) creationists would regard some degree of change as macro-evolution even if it didn't create a new kind? Can you give an example? I think that would seriously aid understanding here.
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 Creationist thinking as I understand it is as follows: 1) God created kinds2) The same kinds still exist today (minus any extinctions of any entire kinds presumably) 3) Kinds have evolved via micro-evolution to present us with the diversity of life we see before us today but no new kinds have occurred by means of evolution 4) No macro-evolution has been observed because it is impossible 5) Darwinian common descent indisputably requires macro-evolution and is therefore impossible 6) No definition of what a kind is has been provided and no specific limit of what change micro-evolution within a kind can result in has been given. Creos just know it when they see it. 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. Where do you see the contradiction exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Why ? It's not the point.
quote: 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, CS.
Let me put in another way: since "kind" is defined to include which ancestors one descended from, evolving a new "kind" would imply evolving such that one is no longer descended from one's ancestors. If one does not evolve such that one is no longer descended from one's ancestors, then, by definition, no new "kind" has been created. So, "macroevolution" is north of the North Pole. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why ? It's not the point. Because it might help those of us struggling with your point to work out what it is you actually mean?
That's because I'm not insisting that that is contradictory! I thought your point was that the two definitions are 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 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. Thus the difference in these positions you seem to be focussing on becomes moot. Certainly it is not contradictory.
The very contradictions you said I was ignoring 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Paul
PaulK writes: Since I'm not female, it's highly unlikely that anything I "gave birth to" would be my descendant. -----
PaulK writes: But let's be careful of getting too far into extremes used to make a point. Extreme? I don’t think it’s extreme. Either way we go with this, we’re looking at a creationist saying something really weird. -----
PaulK writes: 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. Agreed. -----
PaulK writes: And they definitely are based on ordinary reproduction so the question of descent is not an issue. Disagreed. 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. So, if macro-evolutionary changes have happened, then, says the creationist, they didn’t happen by normal reproduction. Hence, my violation of descent concept, which I admit was very poorly explained and very poorly worded (ironically so, given the rest of the content of the message in which I introduced the idea). For instance, picture dinosaurs macro-evolving into birds by a process that isn’t normal reproduction. It would seem, to a creationist, like some Frankenstein process of gradually attaching bird parts in place of dinosaur parts, until, eventually, the organism accumulates so many Frankenstein bird parts, its descent would be more appropriately tied to the source of the Frankenstein bird parts than to the dinosaur. Clearly, this would have to constitute some sort of violation of the descent clause. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It's too extreme to be taken seriously in mainstream evolutionary theory.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: For kinds of vertebrates to be grouped into larger classes is not at all an indication of common ancestry. The Bible speaks of larger classes of vertebrates as well. This just demonstrates order - an attribute of the Creator. It would be nice for you if there was the level of continuity to neatly fit every vertebrate into clades - but it's just not there. Consider the hundreds of cases of similarities in supposedly unrelated species conveniently explained away as convergent evolution (what a weak assumption!). Scientists can't even decide if birds evolved from dinosaurs.
quote: Let's look at them one at a time, shall we? 1. As I've stated previously scientists must either accept intelligent design or abiogenesis (or some as yet unknown third method). Since many scientists can't get away from ID fast enough they make the assumption of abiogenesis. Admittedly, not all do - some are wise enough to realize just how foolish abiogensis is: there is no working theory as to how it could take place and a host of evidence against it as a possibility. 2. Uniformation in the geological record is all well and good if the world were static - but it is not. Catastrophic events have been demonstrated to rapidly change geological formations (see creation research published RE: the Mt. Saint Helens eruption of 1980). A global catastrophic event such as Noah's Flood much better explains many elements of the geological record - such as vast sandstone deposits thousands of miles from their origin (was going to provide a link here but can't seem to find it now). 3. You are correct that over the past century science has observed a fairly steady rate of radio-isotope decay. However, assuming that same constant rate of decay for 4+ billion years is a bad assumption. As it turns out radio-isotope half-lives can vary substantially based upon a host of factors. *NOTE: Above are several links to the blog of Dr. Jay Wile. I recently read the full archive of this blog and Dr. Wile covers a broad number of subjects so to the content is fresh in my mind.
quote: You don't, of course. But I'm not referring to the supernatural as a testable hypothesis. I'm referring to it as a prior assumption in cases where no naturalistic assumption is reasonable. For baramins specifically, I know if know test capable of falsifying the hypothesis - just as there is none for common ancestry. The only way to test either hypothesis would be to re-run history which (at present) is impossible. It is not observable science. We can however draw reasonable conclusions based upon the visible evidence.
quote: Can you give me an example of the generation of life that's more reasonable than intelligent design? Abiogenesis isn't anywhere close.
quote: Genetics and morphology are simply indicators and provide no actual proof of common ancestry. If they did we wouldn't have any need for this conversation, would we? The only way to establish proof of common ancestry is to re-run history - still impossible since we last checked two paragraphs above.
quote: Obviously, I meant we agree on the evolutionary process - not on the results of that process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
It is not observable science. We can however draw reasonable conclusions based upon the visible evidence. Observable science is drawing reasonable conclusions based upon observing the evidence (it doesn't have to be visible. X-rays can be observed for example). Evolution is observable science. By your previous criticism you seem to be suggesting that it is not experimental science. As if all science has to be experimental in nature. Here is an astronomer, Charles Bailyn, Thomas E. Donnelley Professor of Astronomy and Physics and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Astronomy at Yale:
quote: Baramins don't give us a story that gives us a deep understanding of what's going on. Common ancestry does, it even leads to nontrivial predictions that have been tested.
Genetics and morphology are simply indicators and provide no actual proof of common ancestry. If they did we wouldn't have any need for this conversation, would we? Unless you were one of the many billions of humans that can sometimes get it wrong even when the proof is staring them in the face. Not all proofs are necessarily persuasive to all human beings. What we see is exactly what we should see if common ancestry were true. Baramins are a rudimentary observation of the same phenomenon by an intelligent group of people with insufficient resources to explore the nature of the 'kinds' any deeper than they did. Why rest on such a concept? These people couldn't build computers, or save themselves from small pox. Why rely on their interpretations of their observations when more precise observations and more powerful interpretations of those observations has been made?
Can you give me an example of the generation of life that's more reasonable than intelligent design? Abiogenesis isn't anywhere close. Processes as yet not fully discovered or understood. If someone has an idea that might help illuminate those processes, they can go and try and gather the evidence to show it. Injecting agency in a time period which predates all known agency seems wildly premature and while I feel the temptation to do so for all sorts of things, I would hardly consider it reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Your post is nothing but PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times). I'll take on one (don't want to spoil the fun for others):
3. You are correct that over the past century science has observed a fairly steady rate of radio-isotope decay. However, assuming that same constant rate of decay for 4+ billion years is a bad assumption. As it turns out radio-isotope half-lives can vary substantially based upon a host of factors. The RATE Group attempted to document the variability of the decay constant, spending over a million dollars of creationists' money. They failed. Here is a good review of their project: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac. A couple of paragraphs from the conclusion: The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as groundbreaking results. This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims. Another review: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? by Greg Moore One of the concluding paragraphs: Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. Summary: there is no good evidence for significant changes in the decay constant, and creationists who spent a lot of time and money researching the issue had to admit that. {This message is getting pretty far from the core topic theme. I have "hidden" the original text and have turned the message into a new topic: Assessing the RATE Project - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You don't, of course. But I'm not referring to the supernatural as a testable hypothesis. I'm referring to it as a prior assumption in cases where no naturalistic assumption is reasonable. Such as? Or if one cannot find a natural solution invoke magic? There is not anything that cannot have a reasonable natural assumption. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
For kinds of vertebrates to be grouped into larger classes is not at all an indication of common ancestry. The Bible speaks of larger classes of vertebrates as well. This just demonstrates order - an attribute of the Creator. Since when is a nested hierarchy an attribute of the Creator?
It would be nice for you if there was the level of continuity to neatly fit every vertebrate into clades - but it's just not there. Consider the hundreds of cases of similarities in supposedly unrelated species conveniently explained away as convergent evolution (what a weak assumption!). Scientists can't even decide if birds evolved from dinosaurs. Pick out a similar feature that is the product of convergent evolution and we will discuss. I promise that you will be very disappointed. Convergent features are only superficially similar. An examination of the specific features demonstrates that they were derived through different means. Also, you first argue that we should see a nested hierarchy if creationism and baramins are true, and now you are arguing that there are clear violations of the nested hierarchy. It would be nice if you were more consistent. As to birds and dinosaurs, birds are now classified as dinosaurs. The Aves clade sits within the theropod dinosaur clade along with such famous dinosaurs as raptors. Given the number of dinosaurs with feathers and the numerous transitionals between non-avian dinosaurs and birds the matter has been settled. Can you explain why there is not a baramin that contains mammals with bird features or birds with mammal features? Evolution can explain it.
1. As I've stated previously scientists must either accept intelligent design or abiogenesis (or some as yet unknown third method). Since many scientists can't get away from ID fast enough they make the assumption of abiogenesis. Admittedly, not all do - some are wise enough to realize just how foolish abiogensis is: there is no working theory as to how it could take place and a host of evidence against it as a possibility. You don't have to assume either one in order to conclude that life has changed over time through the mechanisms of evolution and shares a universal common ancestor. Darwin himself suggested that life was breathed into a single mor many forms by a creator from which all life evolved.
2. Uniformation in the geological record is all well and good if the world were static - but it is not. Catastrophic events have been demonstrated to rapidly change geological formations (see creation research published RE: the Mt. Saint Helens eruption of 1980). You just used uniformitarianism when you compared modern catastrophic events to evidence past catastrophic events. Of course catastrophic events are taken into account because we can observe them creating geologic structures today. These observations allow geologists to determine if a geologic structure was produced by gradual or catastrophic means. A good example is the Channeled Scablands in the northwestern United States which hold strong evidence for catstrophic formation, and geologists interpret it as such. We also have the chalk cliffs at Dover which can only form slowly over long spans of time due to the fact that they are formed from tiny creatures (coccolithophores) settling slowly to the ocean floor in calmer waters. You can't get chalk cliffs hundreds of feet high in a flood. Doesn't work that way.
3. You are correct that over the past century science has observed a fairly steady rate of radio-isotope decay. However, assuming that same constant rate of decay for 4+ billion years is a bad assumption. As it turns out radio-isotope half-lives can vary substantially based upon a host of factors. This has been tested inside and out. The pressures and energies needed to change the half lives of the isotopes used for dating would destroy the rocks. We can also look at distant supernovae that are hundreds of thousands of light years away and observe the same decay rates. On top of that, we can also look at naturally occuring nuclear reacotrs (e.g. Oklo reactors) and observe the results of the same half lives. Read more here. In order to change the decay rates of isotopes in a way that would falsify an old earth would require scientific laws to be turned on their head.
You don't, of course. But I'm not referring to the supernatural as a testable hypothesis. I'm referring to it as a prior assumption in cases where no naturalistic assumption is reasonable. If no naturalistic explanation is reasonable then you keep searching for one. That is how science works. Thousands of years ago there was no reasonable natural explanation for lightning so people ascribed it to the actions of the supernatural. How did that work out for them? What you are describing is a God of the Gaps, a deity who resides in our ignorance. As we learn more about nature your god gets smaller and smaller. Is that really the way you picture your god?
For baramins specifically, I know if know test capable of falsifying the hypothesis - just as there is none for common ancestry. There are many ways to falsify common ancestry. A rabbit in pre-cambrian strata. A bird with three middle ear bones. A bird with teats. A bat with feathers. There are thousands and thousands of potential falsifications for common ancestry. So what evidence, if found, would falsify baramins? Nothing? Are you telling me that no matter what evidence I show you that it will never convince you that baramins are false?
The only way to test either hypothesis would be to re-run history which (at present) is impossible. That is completely wrong. The theory of evolution makes millions of predictions about what one should and should not see in modern species, in fossil species, and in the genomes of modern species if evolution is true. I have listed a few above (e.g. bats with feathers). These predictions have been shown to be true for the last 150 years. Genetics was perhaps the biggest test for evolution in its history, and it passed with flying colors. Can you name a single prediction made by baraminology?
Genetics and morphology are simply indicators and provide no actual proof of common ancestry. If they did we wouldn't have any need for this conversation, would we? The only way to establish proof of common ancestry is to re-run history - still impossible since we last checked two paragraphs above. The reason that we are having this conversation is that religious dogma has blinded you. Nothing more. Genetics and morphology are the evidence for common ancestry, evidence that your religious beliefs have blinded you to. We don't need to re-run history. We have that history. It is found in the fossil record and in the genomes of living species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
BobTHJ writes: For kinds of vertebrates to be grouped into larger classes is not at all an indication of common ancestry. If "grouped into larger classes" is your term for a nested hierarchy, then your conclusion that a nested hierarchy doesn't imply common descent is hard to fathom.
Consider the hundreds of cases of similarities in supposedly unrelated species conveniently explained away as convergent evolution (what a weak assumption!) So I click on the link to find the list of these "hundreds of cases" of convergent evolution so I can get a rough idea of why you think it's a weak assumption and what do I find? Jay Wile in his blog simply declaring that there are hundreds of cases. He doesn't provide even a single example. So since Mr. Wile provides nothing supporting what he says, can I presume that you can't explain why you think convergent evolution is an assumption? Can I also suggest that you not use as your guide someone so long on opinions and so short on supporting evidence?
As I've stated previously scientists must either accept intelligent design or abiogenesis... I think the rest of us believe that scientists should accept that for which there is evidence. You include a bunch of stuff about abiogenesis, geology and radiometric dating, but I won't address these parts since they're off-topic.
For baramins specifically, I know there is no test capable of falsifying the hypothesis - just as there is none for common ancestry. Sure there are tests that falsify common ancestry. As already pointed out, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, for one.
The only way to test either hypothesis would be to re-run history which (at present) is impossible. Things that actually happened leave evidence behind. There is no need to rerun history because we have the evidence of past events.
It is not observable science. We can however draw reasonable conclusions based upon the visible evidence. I hope you really meant something like "apparent evidence" or "detectable evidence," because a great deal of evidence isn't visible. Much evidence requires instrumentation to detect, or is only apparent to one of the other senses.
Genetics and morphology are simply indicators and provide no actual proof of common ancestry. If they did we wouldn't have any need for this conversation, would we? We're having this conversation because evidence isn't how many people decide what to believe. Too often a good story trumps evidence. If this weren't true then homeopathy, chiropractics, ghosts, perpetual motion machines, creation science and ID would not still be with us. It's why many people want to teach a good story in science class instead of evidence-based science. Genetics and morphology represent extremely strong evidence of a nested hierarchy and common descent. Common descent and a nested hierarchy are things that we know for absolute certain are true of ourselves because of what we each know about our own family's history, such as the common ancestor we share with distant cousins three and four times removed. And when our genealogical evidence runs out there is no evidence suggesting that life long ago didn't reproduce precisely the way it does today, which can only produce nested hierarchies. For another example, the Belmont Stakes is this weekend, and many of the horses have known common ancestors going many generations back. Common ancestry is a known phenomenon of the real world. But an intelligent designer creating life in a manner that precisely resembles the nested hierarchy produced by generations of life just going about their business? There are no observed instances of this thus far, and so you are postulating a mechanism that possesses no evidence that it has ever happened in the natural history of the Earth. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Express the family history example more clearly. Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You include a bunch of stuff about abiogenesis, geology and radiometric dating, but I won't address these parts since they're off-topic. I second that motion. There are other threads for those topics. To BobTHJ, let's just focus on common ancestry, nested hierarchy, and baraminology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes: But they also realise that science proposes that it WAS normal reproduction. 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. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024