Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 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: 2.3


Message 181 of 385 (563664)
06-06-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:00 AM


Re: 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 3:42 PM PaulK has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 182 of 385 (563683)
06-06-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:00 AM


Re: QED
Perhaps if I put it slightly differently, you'll see what Paul's saying.
For a creationist, evolution can only make changes within a kind (microevolution, to them).
Universal common descent, by definition, would mean all life has descended from one organism, the UCA. Therefore, by creationist definitions, the concept of universal common descent would involve only microevolution (changes within a kind).
Thus Paul's (7):
7) therefore universal common descent requires only microevolution
By definition, this must be so, because universal common descent has to be evolution within a kind.
It would, therefore, make no sense for a creationist to say "there is no macroevolution, therefore universal common descent is impossible".
No new kinds are created in the course of universal common descent therefore Paul's (2) has not happened.
PaulK writes:
2)"macroevolution" is defined as the evolution of a new kind".
So, with 1 through 4:
quote:
1) "kinds" are defined as separate 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) must be incorrect if they stick to 1,2 and 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:00 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2010 2:25 PM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 3:25 PM bluegenes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 183 of 385 (563689)
06-06-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by bluegenes
06-06-2010 1:54 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 1:54 PM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 184 of 385 (563707)
06-06-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by bluegenes
06-06-2010 1:54 PM


Re: QED
1) "kinds" are defined as separate 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.
To which we can add:
5) Creationists consider macroevolution to be unevidenced, micro-evolution from a single common ancestor to require new kinds by means of evolution and thus Darwinian common descent to be an evolutionist fantasy borne of atheistic desire.
All of which I entirely agree as being their position. It is the part where PaulK says that creationists cannot hold to both definitions in 1) and 2) above whilst remaining logically consistent in their opposition to common descent by micro-evolution alone that I fail to see. If they place limits on the change that microevolution can achieve then it all seems internally consistent even if evidentially wrong.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 1:54 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 6:07 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 185 of 385 (563712)
06-06-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
06-06-2010 11:56 AM


Re: QED
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 from a single common ancestor 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
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.
if you agree I have no interest in the semantical argument. If you disagree I think I will follow CS's example and just bow out confused and unable to grasp your point.
Either way I'll leave it at that. But I am interested enough to ask you if you agree with A) - E) or not?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2010 11:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2010 4:20 PM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 186 of 385 (563728)
06-06-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Straggler
06-06-2010 3:42 PM


Re: QED
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-contradictory
The 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 4:48 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 187 of 385 (563736)
06-06-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
06-06-2010 4:20 PM


Re: QED
This is my last post on this:
Under the two definitions, universal common descent does not require the meaningless "macroevolution" - instead it insists that there is ONLY ONE KIND.
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.
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".
Which is exactly why they consider macroevolution to be theoretically impossible as well as practically unevidenced.
But this is NOT consistent with the definitions.
Yes. It is.
I'm going to need evidence that creationists really do accept both definitions simultaneously before I accept that you have correctly described their position.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2010 4:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2010 6:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 188 of 385 (563749)
06-06-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Straggler
06-06-2010 3:25 PM


Re: QED
Straggler writes:
creationist definitions writes:
1) "kinds" are defined as separate 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.
To which we can add:
5) Creationists consider macroevolution to be unevidenced, micro-evolution from a single common ancestor to require new kinds by means of evolution and thus Darwinian common descent to be an evolutionist fantasy borne of atheistic desire.
No, we can't really, with those definitions. Look at the definition of "kind" (1).
New kinds cannot come about by any evolutionary process by that definition combined with (3) "evolution is not creation".
We do not know what a kind is, other than that it is created by the creator and has no ancestor organisms.
It's not to do with what they believe, it's merely that, whoever thought up 1, 2, and 3 is putting creationists in the position that the concept of universal common descent is what happens within one kind, and therefore microevolution.
Speciation through evolution cannot produce a new "separate creation", can it? Kinds are things defined by 1 and 3 as being directly created by the creator, and only the original one is required for universal common descent according to 1,2 and 3.
So, macroevolution, as defined by 2, (the evolution of a new kind), is not only logically impossible (according to 1 and 3), but unecessary (according to 1 and 3) for the concept of universal common descent (regardless of whether creationists think UCD can happen or not).
Now look at 4. It says, literally "creationists believe that universal common descent requires [separate non-evolutionary creations without ancestors]
They don't believe that, merely that it (UCD) can't or didn't happen because...err...well....because.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 3:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:46 PM bluegenes has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 189 of 385 (563752)
06-06-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
06-06-2010 4:48 PM


Re: QED
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:
..,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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 4:48 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 190 of 385 (563758)
06-06-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by bluegenes
06-06-2010 6:07 PM


Re: QED
Creationist Definitions writes:
1) "kinds" are defined as separate creations
2) "macroevolution" is defined as the evolution of a new kind
3) evolution is not creation
It's not to do with what they believe, it's merely that, whoever thought up 1, 2, and 3 is putting creationists in the position that the concept of universal common descent is what happens within one kind, and therefore microevolution.
So explain to me how this incorporates their base assumption that microevolution is limited in the degree of change that it can result in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 6:07 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 8:24 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2010 2:58 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 191 of 385 (563774)
06-06-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by bluescat48
06-04-2010 1:41 AM


quote:
Such as? Or if one cannot find a natural solution invoke magic? There is not anything that cannot have a reasonable natural assumption.
The origin of life comes immediately to mind (and I've mentioned this in several previous posts on this thread). The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.
Note here the critical flaw in the "new" (past 150 years) naturalistic approach to science (which I have also pointed out in previous posts). If you rule out the supernatural prior to drawing your conclusions you will never be able to understand a process with a supernatural origin. Now, you can certainly argue that there are no such supernatural processes - and maybe you would be correct - but there is no way to be certain...and therefore you blind yourself to an entire realm of possible explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2010 1:41 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 06-06-2010 7:56 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 194 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 8:43 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 195 by bluescat48, posted 06-06-2010 9:22 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 196 by killinghurts, posted 06-06-2010 11:10 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 200 by Peepul, posted 06-07-2010 8:26 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 385 (563784)
06-06-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


Hi Bob,
No one's ruling out the supernatural a priori. What we're ruling out is the incorporation of ideas into our thinking that are not supported by evidence. If evidence for the supernatural somehow enters into your thinking on kinds then we'd like to hear about your evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:35 PM Percy has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 193 of 385 (563789)
06-06-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:46 PM


"Kinds" needs definition.
Straggler writes:
So explain to me how this incorporates their base assumption that microevolution is limited in the degree of change that it can result in?
Until we have a definition of "kind", other than "separate creations", it doesn't tell us what their limits to microevolution are.
The universal common ancestor could be the only kind ever created, or kind could approximate to domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species.
That's their problem. Having accepted some degree of evolution, they have no way to decide on a limit to it.
But do you see my point? According to 1 and 3, descent with modification cannot create "kinds" if "kinds" are described as direct products of the creator, and evolution is not creation. So 2 can never happen, and all evolution is therefore micro. But, we can ask, how many changes on a genome is micro?
But defining "kinds" as created groups of organisms is a bit like us saying that "species" are groups of organisms that have evolved. True to our beliefs, but useless, because my family and yours could be two separate species, or all mammals could be the same one.
There's no reason to expect creationists to know exactly what the original kinds were, but it's a useless term unless they come out with something like "approximately the genera level of biologists".
The trouble is, they have no way of agreeing on this. Which is another way of saying that they have no way of deciding how much evolution can happen.
Life's easier as an evolutionist, as we don't have to bother with what is micro or macro, which would be a bit like having endless debates on what constitutes a walk and when it becomes a hike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 8:49 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 194 of 385 (563793)
06-06-2010 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


astronomical probability
BobTHJ writes:
The origin of life comes immediately to mind (and I've mentioned this in several previous posts on this thread). The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical.
That's an unusual view for a creationist. But true, of course, as chemical reactions are the usual cause of chemical phenomena.
Welcome to EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM BobTHJ has not replied

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


Message 195 of 385 (563801)
06-06-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.
Except the creationist view is still abiogenesis, except they start with nothing and invoke magic, at least the scientific hypothesis starts with material ie simple chemical substances and uses natural catalysts, ie: radioactivity, lightning & ultraviolet radiation. as opposed to some sky daddy invoking magic.

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 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024