Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


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 136 of 385 (563168)
06-03-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Straggler
06-03-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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 !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 4:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 137 of 385 (563170)
06-03-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
06-03-2010 4:28 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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 kinds
2) 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 4:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 5:06 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 138 of 385 (563172)
06-03-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
06-03-2010 4:48 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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 !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 4:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 139 of 385 (563174)
06-03-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2010 3:53 PM


Re: never gonna get it
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 140 of 385 (563175)
06-03-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by PaulK
06-03-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 5:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2010 4:50 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 141 of 385 (563176)
06-03-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
06-03-2010 1:48 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 6:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

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


Message 142 of 385 (563184)
06-03-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Blue Jay
06-03-2010 5:31 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 5:31 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 1:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 143 of 385 (563191)
06-03-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taq
06-03-2010 3:14 PM


quote:
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 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:
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?
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:
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?
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:
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.
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 morphological data are more than enough to establish common ancestry.
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:
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?
Obviously, I meant we agree on the evolutionary process - not on the results of that process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 3:14 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2010 8:40 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 145 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2010 8:54 PM BobTHJ has seen this message but not replied
 Message 146 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2010 1:41 AM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 147 by Taq, posted 06-04-2010 9:51 AM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-04-2010 11:38 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 144 of 385 (563203)
06-03-2010 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


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:
And now, I want to step back and remind you of how science works. Remember the scientific method? They probably taught you something about this when you were, like, eleven or twelve years old. And you'll remember how this works. So, scientific method--so, you have a hypothesis, which is a fancy word for a guess. Maybe you have competing hypotheses. And on the basis of this hypothesis you formulate some kind of experiment. Good experiments are sometimes called "controlled" experiments. And on the basis of the results of the experiment, you determine how much you believe the hypothesis, or which hypothesis you believe. And then, you know, you may modify your hypothesis or change it all together, and then do more experiments. And by iterating this procedure, you develop an understanding of whatever it is you're trying to think about. Okay.
No. Not really, certainly not in astronomy. Astronomy doesn't work this way at all. Think about what an experiment would be in astronomy. Okay, so here's a ball of gas the size of the Sun made out of pure hydrogen. Here's another ball of gas the size of the Sun made out of pure helium. We stick them in the sky and watch them evolve for ten billion years, okay. No, you can't do experiments in astronomy. It doesn't work that way at all. So, there has to be some other way of approaching it. And the reason for this is, is that astronomy is not an experimental science, it's an observational science. This is true of many other sciences. A lot of biology, particularly environmental, or ecological aspects of biology, work this way. All of the social sciences. You can't do controlled experiments in child development, that's just ugly. And so, these are observational sciences, and this has a different methodology. And it starts, as its name would suggest, with observations. And you go out and you find a bunch of things, whether they're butterflies, or planets, or whatever they are. And what do you do when you've found a whole bunch of things? What's the next step?
The next step is classification. You put them into categories. And it's important to get this right. If you're dealing with, for example, animals, and you classify them as things that live in the ocean and things that live on land, then you're going to have fish and whales in the same category. And you're going to have lizards and frogs and snakes in the same category with people and bears, and things like that. And this isn't going to lead you to a deep understanding, because you haven't got the categories right. And so the classification is very important. And what it leads to when you get it right is a useful interpretation of what is going on. This is--interpretation, it's just a fancy word for a good story. These are the kinds of things we write down in textbooks. The astronomers sometimes dignify this with the fancy word "scenario." But it's basically a story. And on the basis of this story, you say, well, we better check out, let's see whether this story holds up. Let's do more observations, and--all of these connections work in all directions. And so, this is actually a better description of how an observational science is done than this kind of thing up here.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:28 PM Modulous has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 145 of 385 (563205)
06-03-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


PRATTS again
{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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 146 of 385 (563230)
06-04-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 147 of 385 (563304)
06-04-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 3:26 AM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 148 of 385 (563337)
06-04-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 06-04-2010 12:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 204 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 12:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 149 of 385 (563339)
06-04-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
06-04-2010 11:38 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-04-2010 11:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 150 of 385 (563354)
06-04-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by PaulK
06-03-2010 6:17 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 6:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2010 3:55 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2010 4:55 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024