|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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: (4) must be incorrect if they stick to 1,2 and 3.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thank you ! I'm glad that someone gets it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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 createdB) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Straggler writes: creationist definitions writes:
1) "kinds" are defined as separate creations2) "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Creationist Definitions writes: 1) "kinds" are defined as separate creations2) "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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5025 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024