Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 196 of 385 (563825)
06-06-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


Hi Bob, thanks for having the courage to reply, seems the other creationists don't want to have a bar of defining kind.
Question - just to satisfy the intent of this thread - is baraminology your definition of kind?
Also I'd like to comment on this
"BobTH" 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. 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.
You seem like an educated person, so you must have heard of the Urey-Miller experiment. Can you explain how this experiment failed to provide even the slightest evidence for abiogenesis?
Or to put it more bluntly (and I'm not trying to be nasty here), If you conclude that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why is it that when scientists recreate an environment predicted by science that would closely support abiogenesis, that a black tea pot isn't created instead of amino acids (the very molecule that is critical for life as we know it)?
And this:
"BobTHC" writes:
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.
Do you think advancements in astronomy would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of astrology?
Do you think advancements in medicine would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of ancient demon possession?

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 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM killinghurts has not replied

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


Message 197 of 385 (563849)
06-07-2010 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:46 PM


Re: QED
quote:
So explain to me how this incorporates their base assumption that microevolution is limited in the degree of change that it can result in?
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:46 PM Straggler has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 198 of 385 (563853)
06-07-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Taq
06-04-2010 9:51 AM


quote:
Since when is a nested hierarchy an attribute of the Creator?
Order - order is an attribute of the Creator. Sorry for the confusing language.
quote:
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.
Sounds fantastic - though off topic. I started a new thread for the discussion here.
quote:
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.
No, I did not argue for nested heirarchy. I said creatures could be divided into general classes or groupings - but there are even some exceptions to this.
quote:
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.
The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists - see this article from June 2009 - and here's Dr. Wile's commentary on the article, which I believe I linked before.
YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem?
quote:
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.
Yes and no. Yes, darwin's model of common ancestry could (theoretically) work in any situation where life exists. No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course. Therefore the origin of life must be assumed.
quote:
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
In an effort to not veer too far off-topic I'm not going to research a response to this section. I would like to come back and revisit this topic at a later time, but one new thread spawned from this post is more than enough for the limits of my spare time.
quote:
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.
Again here...
quote:
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?
No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation - one that will never be found by "conventional" naturalistic science, because the supernatural is ruled out as a possible conclusion. Examples:
1. Creation of life
2. "Noah's" Global flood
3. scattering of the races (tower of babel)
quote:
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?
I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry. Perhaps there are others - I don't know. I'm certainly open to them. An actual baraminologist could likely provide a more reasoned list of tests.
quote:
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?
I readily admit to a limited knowledge of baraminology. What's been discussed here so far is the full extent of my knowledge on the subject. To help answer you question I googled baraminology predictions and found this. It appears to be a few as-yet-untested predictions regarding the creationist hypothesis on ERVs we were discussing earlier. I'll be curious to see how these predictions hold up to the evidence.
quote:
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.
I find this to be entirely offensive. While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs (a fact I have not tried to hide) I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is. While I'm confident that the data supports a YEC model, I won't shy away from the data that does not or try and sweep it under the rug. If there is not a reasonable YEC interpretation of the data I'll happily admit it. I am more than capable of reasoning for myself - and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Taq, posted 06-04-2010 9:51 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Granny Magda, posted 06-07-2010 7:17 AM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 206 by Taq, posted 06-07-2010 2:32 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 199 of 385 (563869)
06-07-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by BobTHJ
06-07-2010 3:26 AM


Hi Bob,
Order - order is an attribute of the Creator.
What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved.
A desire for order alone is not enough to explain the pattern of nested hierarchy. After all, any kind of order could have been imposed. Organisms could show similarity based only on size, habitat or location. In actual fact, whatever level you examine life at, it looks as though it evolved. A simple desire for order is not enough to explain things like ERVs in our genome, shared genes between humans and chimps, biogeography, fossil stratigraphy, etc. because all of these things, had they been designed, were clearly designed to look as evolved as possible.
The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists - see this article from June 2009 - and here's Dr. Wile's commentary on the article, which I believe I linked before.
Yes, you have indeed linked to Dr Wile many times before. Despite the fact that he is an ignoramus. Wile's claim that there are "NO FEATHER IMPRESSIONS preserved" is flat wrong for example. He is either unfamiliar with the relevant evidence or he has chosen to ignore it.
It also seems odd that you should use the opinions of evolutionist researchers to bolster your claims. Feduccia and Ruben are not creationists. They believe that dinosaurs evolved, albeit from different reptile ancestors to those favoured by most researchers. Do you believe that birds evolved from reptiles? If not, why cite Feduccia or Ruben? If your only intent was to show that there are minority opinions in biology, you are making a non-point; there are always minority opinions in science, that's how science works.
The fact remains that a dinosaur origin for birds is by far the most widespread theory for bird origin amongst biologists. Those suggesting other reptile origins have had their work heavily criticised and rightly so; there are major problems with their ideas.
YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem?
It's a problem because one could use that argument to justify anything. Feathered mammals? That's because God wanted it that way. No feathered mammals? That's because God didn't want them. Literally anything could be justified using this kind of post hoc excuse. An answer that can be equally applied to everything is no kind of answer at all.
Yes, darwin's model of common ancestry could (theoretically) work in any situation where life exists. No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course. Therefore the origin of life must be assumed.
As has been pointed out many times already, the Theory of Evolution isn't supposed to tell us how life arose. It would be equally true whatever the actual origins of life. Further, I see no problem with assuming that life began somehow. We know this. Life exists after all, it must have begun somehow, at some point. All that remains to be seen is how life arose, a question that would be better settled by sober analysis of the evidence, not by asserting supernatural causes.
No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation - one that will never be found by "conventional" naturalistic science, because the supernatural is ruled out as a possible conclusion. Examples:
1. Creation of life
2. "Noah's" Global flood
3. scattering of the races (tower of babel)
But even if these events had a supernatural cause, they would still have left detectable evidence for their occurrence. Just because the cause is supernatural, doesn't mean that it would not leave evidence of the actual event itself. The flood for instance would have left vast swathes of evidence of its passing. The Babel event would be detectable in the archaeological record. Neither can be found.
If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.
I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry.
You have already been shown such evidence and you have hand-waved it away. The problem here is that with most animal species, the definition of baramin is loose enough to allow a little wiggle room. Bird/dinosaur fossils can be explained away by simply decreeing one to be a bird, one a dinosaur. Fish/amphibian fossils can be hand-waved away with "That's just a fish" or, if preferred, "That's just an amphibian". The only reason creationists can't play this game with humans and chimps is because you are unable to accept this particular example of common ancestry no matter what.
Of course, if all baramins were as tightly defined as the human one, we would have no trouble falsifying them. Their vagueness is the only thing that allows the idea to persist; what is never defined can never be falsified. Convenient eh?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 3:26 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 4:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 200 of 385 (563890)
06-07-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


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.
Hi Bob,
the probability calculations I've seen used against abiogenesis are always wrong, and in very basic ways. The two biggest errors are :-
assuming that there are no intermediate steps between raw chemicals in solution and something extremely complex, such as a cell.
assuming that there is only one way to get life - the way we happen to have it
If you make these assumptions you can indeed get astrononical numbers, but scientists don't do that. Creationists do.
quote:
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.
As others have said, that's not the case. Beyond the now ancient Miller-Urey studies, much more sophisticated work is going on to explore the intermediate steps. See for example the work of Jack Szostak and Brian Paegel. This is still at a relatively early stage of development, but they have already some interesting findings.
But even if there were no experimental evidence, a supernatural assumption is not reasonable. This is because not a single phenomenon that has been understood proves to have a supernatural explanation. The track record of naturalistic explanations is superb. The track record for the supernatural is non-existent. The supernatural has been removed from many domains by science.

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 202 by bluegenes, posted 06-07-2010 9:12 AM Peepul has not replied
 Message 252 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 5:50 PM Peepul has not replied

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


Message 201 of 385 (563895)
06-07-2010 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by bluegenes
06-06-2010 8:24 PM


Re: "Kinds" needs definition.
Until we have a definition of "kind", other than "separate creations", it doesn't tell us what their limits to microevolution are.
Creos insist that the accumulated effects of microevolution are limited. They don't specify the limits they just act on a 'know it when I see it approach'.
If that is all we are saying here then we all agree and this has been the most convoluted approach to a very simple point.
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.
Yes they do believe all evolution is Micro. Which taken in conjunction with whatever limit there is on the accumulated effects of micro-evolution makes Darwinian common descent impossible. Which necessarily means that the number of originally created kinds be significantly > 1
This may well all be evidential nonsense. But it incorporates both of the definitions PaulK says are contradictory and still remains internally logically consistent.
So I still don't see what his point is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2010 8:24 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 06-07-2010 10:15 AM Straggler has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 202 of 385 (563898)
06-07-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Peepul
06-07-2010 8:26 AM


Peepul writes:
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.
Hi Bob,
the probability calculations I've seen used against abiogenesis are always wrong, and in very basic ways. The two biggest errors are :-....
Bob actually says (amusingly) that the probability of abiogenesis is "astronomical".
I agree.
I mention this because, when we're discussing complex subjects, it's important that we try to be reasonably precise about what we want to say.
We all make mistakes, but Bob has managed to say the opposite of what he presumably meant.
Still, it's off topic, but if Bob keeps mentioning OOL, maybe he should start a thread on it, so that he can explain why he thinks chemical self replicators and chemical evolution (both observable phenomena) are astronomically improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Peepul, posted 06-07-2010 8:26 AM Peepul has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 203 of 385 (563916)
06-07-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Straggler
06-07-2010 8:49 AM


Re: "Kinds" needs definition.
Straggler writes:
Yes they do believe all evolution is Micro. Which taken in conjunction with whatever limit there is on the accumulated effects of micro-evolution makes Darwinian common descent impossible. Which necessarily means that the number of originally created kinds be significantly > 1
This may well all be evidential nonsense. But it incorporates both of the definitions PaulK says are contradictory and still remains internally logically consistent.
So I still don't see what his point is.
That (4) - below - doesn't make sense in the light of 1,2 and 3.
The word "descent" doesn't mean "god directly creating something new". So (4) means that creationists believe that the concept of common descent requires god to manufacture certain descendents.
Look at the problem with (2). How can the concept of "macroevolution" be defined as the evolution of a new kind when "kind" is defined as something god created ex-nihilo?
If we redifine kind as the taxonomical "genre", then it's consistent.
Or, if we redifine "macroevolution" as "the quantity of microevolution that can't happen", or "evolution above the level of genera" it's consistent.
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.
Could become:
1) "kinds" are defined as genera.
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.
Or:
1) "kinds" are defined as separate creations
2) "macroevolution" is defined as evolution beyond the bounds of possibility.
3) evolution is not creation
4) creationists believe that universal common descent requires macroevolution.
Or both changes:
1) "kinds" are defined as genera
2) "macroevolution" is defined as evolution beyond the bounds of possibility (or above the level of genera).
3) evolution is not creation
4) creationists believe that universal common descent requires macroevolution.
I think any of those three are better. I don't think it's fair to suggest that creationists think that the concept of macroevolution = God creating brand new organisms ex-nihilo.
If you think that you, Paul, and I are going on about pretty silly minor points of definition without really disagreeing on anything important about what creationists actually do believe , I'm inclined to agree. But this is EvC, remember, where we argue anything from the existence of pink unicorns to whether or not Adam had a navel. That's what the place is for.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 8:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 1:26 PM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 204 of 385 (563942)
06-07-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
06-04-2010 11:38 AM


quote:
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.
Not nested hierarchy - just groupings of similar features. There is some overlap - and still not everything fits nicely into a group.
quote:
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?
If you would have read the article in question you would have noted that it is a review of a book by Simon Conway Morris (a theistic evolutionist) that documents hundreds of cases. I thought quoting the review article better than quoting entire chapters from the book - no?
Side note for truthful disclosure: I have not read Morris' book, but have added it to my future reading list as I am curious to learn more about various cases of convergent evolution.
quote:
Sure there are tests that falsify common ancestry. As already pointed out, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, for one.
Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes?
quote:
Things that actually happened leave evidence behind. There is no need to rerun history because we have the evidence of past events
Yes, the evidence gives us clues as to what occurred - and fairly examining that evidence is indeed important.
I'm having to spend most of time here repeating myself about issues like this. Just because I disagree with the conclusions darwinists draw from the data does not mean I'm an incompetent nincompoop that lacks the understanding of the processes involved.
quote:
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.
Yes, as stated in a previous post that is exactly what I meant. Sorry for not using clearer language.
quote:
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.
I couldn't agree more. Darwinian evolution is a fascinating story, isn't it? Honestly, I find it to be highly interesting - it appeals to me. Too bad it isn't supported by the evidence.
Now, can we move on from the baseless accusations?
quote:
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.
Yes, yes....ancestral descent is an observable phenomena. The assumption arises when applying ancestral descent to creatures of different species. This is not an observable phenomena. So next you have to look at the evidence of past events to see if the evidence suggests it is a reasonable assumption to make. The scant evidence I've seen would lead me to believe the answer is no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 06-04-2010 11:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 06-07-2010 3:08 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 06-07-2010 5:06 PM BobTHJ has replied

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


Message 205 of 385 (563958)
06-07-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by bluegenes
06-07-2010 10:15 AM


Re: "Kinds" needs definition.
Look at the problem with (2). How can the concept of "macroevolution" be defined as the evolution of a new kind when "kind" is defined as something god created ex-nihilo?
So this entire bad tempered tangent is simply wrangling over the pointlessly subtle and practically irrelevant distinction between:
A) Kinds were created by God. New kinds would require macroevolution. Macroevolution is unobserved and impossible. Therefore there are no new kinds.
and
B) Kinds are defined as being created by God. New kinds cannot occur by evolution because then the first definition would be violated. Therefore there are no new kinds.
Neither of which actually requires creationists to logically accept that universal common descent occurred at all. Making that side of things just a giant red herring.
If you think that you, Paul, and I are going on about pretty silly minor points of definition without really disagreeing on anything important about what creationists actually do believe , I'm inclined to agree. But this is EvC, remember, where we argue anything from the existence of pink unicorns to whether or not Adam had a navel. That's what the place is for.
Now that I can agree with.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 06-07-2010 10:15 AM bluegenes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2010 5:03 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 206 of 385 (563972)
06-07-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by BobTHJ
06-07-2010 3:26 AM


Order - order is an attribute of the Creator. Sorry for the confusing language.
What does "order" have to do with a nested hierarchy? Stars do not fall into a nested hierarchy, so were they not created by a Creator?
No, I did not argue for nested heirarchy.
Are you saying that we would not expect a nested hierarchy for separately created kinds?
The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists
Actually, yes it is. There are still some stubborn holdouts (e.g. Feducia), but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that modern birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Go to this tolweb page. They group birds WITHIN the dinosaur clade.
YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem?
That's not an explanation. That's a dodge.
""We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."--William of Conches
No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course.
The germ theory of disease does not explain where the first germ came from. Does this mean we should throw out the idea that germs cause disease?
The theory of evolution explains how life has CHANGED over time. You don't need to know where life came from in order to know how it changed over time in the same way that you don't need to know where the first germ came from in order to know that tuberculosis is caused by an infectious bacteria.
No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation
People believe all sorts of crazy things. I'm not interested in beliefs. I am interested in what you can DEMONSTRATE THROUGH EVIDENCE. If you want to claim that something came about through supernatural means then DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH EVIDENCE, not through the lack of evidence.
I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry.
That's exactly what orthologous ERV's demonstrate:
"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."--Johnson and Coffin, 1999
Humans and chimps share thousands of orthologous ERV's. Consider kinds falsified.
I readily admit to a limited knowledge of baraminology. What's been discussed here so far is the full extent of my knowledge on the subject. To help answer you question I googled baraminology predictions and found this.
The first prediction is:
"The difference between two species in the same baramin would be mostly due to transposons."
How can you determine this without the ability to construct a baramin?
I find this to be entirely offensive. While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs (a fact I have not tried to hide) I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is.
No, you don't. You dismiss ERV's out of hand without even understanding how they operate, how they insert into the genome, or their impact on the host genome. You dismiss a nested hierarchy out of hand, as if common ancestry would not produce a nested hierarchy. You dismiss intermediate fossils. You misrepresent the scientific consensus on the ancestry of modern birds. You misrepresent what is and is not assumed in the science of radiometric dating. I will stop short of calling you a liar, but you have bought a bad bill of goods and the only reason I can think for why this is is due to your religious beliefs. Or do you really think that millions of highly trained physicists, geologists, and biologists wordwide from every culture and religion are wrong while a handful of religiously motivated creationists are right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 3:26 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM Taq has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 207 of 385 (563980)
06-07-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by BobTHJ
06-07-2010 12:52 PM


BobTHJ writes:
Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes?
Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn the difference between the words "ancestor" and "descendant" before you comment on biology?
Nectocaris pteryx has just been described as a primitive shell-less cephalopod by researchers on the basis of 91 new specimens. It pre-dates the first known true cephalopods by 30 million years.
Nature abstract
Why on earth you think that's some kind of problem for evolutionary theory is a mystery.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 12:52 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2010 5:41 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 265 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 2:22 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 208 of 385 (563990)
06-07-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Straggler
06-07-2010 1:26 PM


Re: "Kinds" needs definition.
quote:
So this entire bad tempered tangent is simply wrangling over the pointlessly subtle and practically irrelevant distinction between:
A) Kinds were created by God. New kinds would require macroevolution. Macroevolution is unobserved and impossible. Therefore there are no new kinds.
and
B) Kinds are defined as being created by God. New kinds cannot occur by evolution because then the first definition would be violated. Therefore there are no new kinds.
It would be better described as the difference between:
A) There is a genuine disagreement between creationists and evolutionists over whether what the creationists call "macroevolution" actually occurs.
or
B) The creationist denial of "macroevolution" is a stupid irrelevance because the term refers to nothing. To call it a strawman would be to give it too much credit.
And in fact I think that there is an important point here. We must remember that creationist terminology is NOT universally agreed amongst creationists. We cannot assume the meaning intended by any individual creationist when they use these terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 1:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 209 of 385 (563991)
06-07-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by BobTHJ
06-07-2010 12:52 PM


Evidence, any time you're ready
BobTHJ writes:
quote:
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.
Not nested hierarchy - just groupings of similar features. There is some overlap - and still not everything fits nicely into a group.
Okay, I understand you now. You don't believe the evidence indicates a nested hierarchy.
Side note for truthful disclosure: I have not read Morris' book, but have added it to my future reading list as I am curious to learn more about various cases of convergent evolution.
In other words, you pulled the trigger without first loading any ammunition and are unable to answer the question: why do you think convergent evolution is an assumption?
After you've got some ammunition why don't you try again.
quote:
Sure there are tests that falsify common ancestry. As already pointed out, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, for one.
Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes?
Well gee, that's wonderful for you, common ancestry has already been falsified. My previous suggestions stand: stop posting bare links with no discusison and bring your evidence and arguments into the thread (rule 5), and provide evidence *for* ID instead of against evolution.
I'm having to spend most of time here repeating myself about issues like this. Just because I disagree with the conclusions darwinists draw from the data does not mean I'm an incompetent nincompoop that lacks the understanding of the processes involved.
I don't think you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the material. I'm just noting that you seem unaware of much of the subject material at this point, and I also find your several expressions of wishing to investigate things for yourself at odds with your unquestioning acceptance of articles by Mr. Wile and ICR. You say you disagree with the conclusions scientists draw from the data while giving no indication of any acquaintance with that data yourself. This is why I likened you to those who prefer a good story over evidence.
Yes, yes....ancestral descent is an observable phenomena. The assumption arises when applying ancestral descent to creatures of different species. This is not an observable phenomena. So next you have to look at the evidence of past events to see if the evidence suggests it is a reasonable assumption to make. The scant evidence I've seen would lead me to believe the answer is no.
So in your mind an observable and verified phenomenon is less likely than a phenomenon that has never been observed let alone verified.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 12:52 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 2:44 AM Percy has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 210 of 385 (563994)
06-07-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Coragyps
06-04-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
You're a couple decades late on this one, Bob. Ardipithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus?
We've got the fossils, Bob.
It should be clear by now that creationists do not draw the conclusion of common ancestry from the data of these fossils. Given a YEC framework this is a very reasonable conclusion. Complain all you want about my 'religious dogma' preventing me from seeing the truth - but that won't advance the conversation. Instead, if you'd like to examine and discuss these fossils on a case by case basis, start a new on-topic thread and I'd be glad to join the discussion (as my time permits).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2010 5:28 PM Coragyps 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