|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It wouldn't because exactly where creationists draw the boundary doesn't matter.
quote: No, only that taken together they lead to a position at odds with creationist thought.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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
Not really, unless you are alleging an inconsistency (my argument assumes that they ARE consistent).
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: There's nothing retrospective or subtle about. No sleight of hand and no game. I simply pointed out the bleedimng obvious.
quote: 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: Correct.
quote: Utterly false. I said no such thing.
quote: And you have just provided further evidence of that.
quote: 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: 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: 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 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 !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I guess that I'llhave to repeat myself again.
1) "kinds" are defined as seperate creations 2) "macroevolution" is defined as the evolution of a new kind 3) evolution is not creation 4) 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 microevolution 7) therefore universal common descent requires only microevolution 1) and 2) are the definitions in question 3) and 4) are statements of creationist belief 5) 6) 7) are logical deductions from 1), 2) and 3) 7) contradicts 4) QED.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thank you ! I'm glad that someone gets it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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-contradictory The conclusion is also kind of silly because "kinds" are created by definition so the term "uncreated kind" is also self-contradictory.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: Because they are idiots who don't understand that their "macroevolution" is a complete irrelevance ? Please show some charity.
quote: I've provided proof. Assertions are hardly an adequate rebuttal.
quote: 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:
..,The only way the walking analogy would work at all, and then not really, is if you modify it to say that micro-walking is like a steep uphill hike in which baggage is periodically jettisoned from the backpack to make it easier, until you arrive at the foot of a sheer vertical cliff without any of the gear that would be needed to scale it (macro-walk it), because it has been jettisoned along the way. THAT is the boundary between micro-and macro-evolution, and the path to that point is the definition of the Kind.
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 variation So Faith's definition of macroevolution is not an oxymoron, and refers to something that does happen. Therefore she does NOT accept both definitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024