Biological classification vs 'Kind'

And what would that evidence be? You haven't presented any evidence supporting anything Wile says, primarily because Wile himself presents no evidence. If you'd like to present some evidence for kinds or baraminology we'd be more than willing to examine it. And what would that evidence be? If human/chimp shared ancestry has any bearing on kinds or baraminology then it would be very precisely on-topic.--Percy

How many consecutive off-topic posts are you planning to make? Can I get an estimate?--Percy

Gee, what do you know, another rule 5 violation of the Forum Guidelines. You do realize, I hope, that your link is completely refuted by this link. Of course I guess you'll just respond with this other link, and then I'll have to respond with yet another link, and we'll just keep firing the links back and forth and oh what a great discussion we'll have! --Percy

You're having trouble finding evidence because your'e gravitating toward those whose views you agree with instead of those who know what they're talking about. You must seek out scientists who actually uncover and develop evidence. They tend to work at respected research institutions and to publish their work in peer-reviewed technical journals.Does it really make sense to you that Biblical literalists working at Bible colleges or on their own, and who do not do any original research, and who believe eternity is at stake, and who advocate a variety of different views, are giving you an unbiased picture? Or could it be more likely that a community of scientists who are atheists and non-atheists, Christians and Jews, Moslems and Hindus, Americans and Palestinians, Chinese and Frenchmen, conservatives and liberals, and who reach the same conclusions of the evidence concerning evolution, are providing a far more accurate and unbiased perspective.The information you should be seeking about baraminology is the evidence supporting its classification system. DNA studies showing how that system derives from the underlying genetics would be of primary importance.--Percy

What is the evidence that there is any such thing as VIGEs? Where in the genome are these "partially or fully disabled" VIGEs. What is the evidence for "rapid adaptation and speciation" 4500 years ago (in other words, since the flood)? What is the evidence that they operated by "activating and deactivating various genes." How many human/guidea pigs genes were identical "at creation?" You know what it means if too many of their genes were identical, don't you?But the important question concerns evidence. Do you have any evidence that human and guinea pig GULO genes were identical at any time in the past? You've just added to the amazing thigns VIGEs can do. Not only can they "cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes," but they can also make actual changes to genes. What is the evidence that anything like this has ever happened? You have again managed to complete an entire post without providing any evidence. Your story has no more evidence than any other fairy tale.--Percy

What else could it possibly imply? Sure, if you ignore the history of the automobile industry, just like you're ignoring the natural history of life on Earth. When you figure out how innovations like diesels and intermittent windshield wipers can cross between unrelated clades like ships, trucks and cars you let me know. Entire new car companies arise with no automobile background, like Honda which started in lawnmowers - the first Civic had a 2-cycle engine. With automobiles the evidence screams out that there is no common ancestry, no nested hierarchy. Where is there any evidence that most of the world's sedimentary layers were laid down in a short period of time? Where is there any evidence that most of these layers are the result of a single flood? Where is there any evidence that these layers are only about 4500 years old? And how do you explain trilobite (not trilobyte) remains atop Mount Everest? And how do you explain both large and small creatures being found in both early and late layers? Why are clams found above mammals in some places? Where does this 95% figure come from?Congratulations on another evidence-free post!--Percy

Bob, there's no such thing as a baranome in the real world. Prove me wrong.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Remove cheeky paragraph.

Kudos for the concession, but is there at least a little voice in the back of your head telling you that you are reaching too many conclusions in the absence of evidence? Most of the other stuff you're saying is just as wrong as your original claim that new information cannot be created through mutation. Remember how you felt when you made that claim? I bet you made it just as confidently as you did your other statements about the YEC model, baranomes and VIGEs.Could I suggest a strategy of "Inform self first, reach conclusions later." It is your knowledge of biology (and geology, for that matter) that is riddled with holes. What was the original prediction and at what rate do they actually occur? I only ask because I think you're repeating something that someone else made up. If by this you mean that many different genes are experiencing gradual change through generations of time, then this is correct. Reproduction is imperfect and neutral and positive mutation gradually accumulate. Because of imperfect reproduction it isn't a question of how speceis change, but how do they ever stay as much the same as they do. The gradual accumulation of point mutations is the easiest process to describe and understand, but I don't know that anyone within biology would describe it as the "best." Evolution is more a "whatever works" type of process. Could we see the math? I'm curious how you calculated the probability of a process you so poorly understand. You have got to stop just repeating everything you hear. Possibly the only correct sentence in your entire post was about adding information to the genome. When we can actually sequence the DNA of the bacteria both before and after the new ability and know precisely what mutational changes occurred, what is it that you think the evolutionary model doesn't explain about bacterial mutations and evolution? This is great! Finally something that can verified in the here and now. So in these experiments where bacteria rapidly evolve new abilities right there in the lab where we can observe precisely what is going on, you claim that there are VIGEs we could supposedly see that are driving the process. So where is the observational evidence for VIGEs?--Percy

YEC "scientists" did not predict the Neanderthals were not a human ancestor. They simply asserted that humans have no evolutionary ancestors. Baraminology makes the identical claim. If baraminology is science then tell us based on what evidence does it make this claim.Can I presume that if you're willing to accept the findings of science that Neanderthal is not an evolutionary ancestor of humans that you're also willing to accept the findings of science that Homo egaster *is* our evolutionary ancestor?--Percy

Translation: Any time you're ready to present some evidence, Bob, we're here. The nature of science doesn't changed just because one has religious beliefs. Many of us have religious beliefs, but science still means having evidence for what you believe. What you're doing in this thread is religion because you're just stating what you believe. If you were doing science you would be stating the evidence for what you believe.So if you have any evidence supporting kinds or baraminology, this is the thread to do it. We're coming up on 300 messages, don't you think it's time?--Percy

Hi Mod!I didn't forget that earlier post. It was made at a point in time where I believed Bob when he said he was interested in the evidence. As others have also noted, he misrepresented himself.The Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread might be a better venue for these types of issues. Sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one.--Percy

Did Wile close that blog to comments, or did I just forget how to use it?--Percy

I had done a cursory search for the term at Google and Wikipedia and not found it, so am I correct in interpreting you as saying that while VIGE is not as yet a term used within biology, the genetic object it refers to does actually exist? Or is VIGE a real term?Your technical lingo was a bit tough to follow, but it was pretty clear that you're saying that VIGEs have played a "significant role in genome evolution." You provided some references, but I'd probably find them tough to follow, too. If Borger is wrong about what he says about VIGEs, how do we know that?--Percy

Hi Bob,I read ahead in the thread a little bit, and I can see that you understand that Borger's ideas are only hypotheses, but you need to understand that he's only proposed them because they're consistent with his religious beliefs rather than the available evidence. You're holding out hope that if his ideas are ever tested that they'll prove out, but this isn't likely, for two reasons.First, hypotheses not based upon real world evidence could only prove out through sheerest happenstance.Second, and as you've noted but for the wrong reasons, for the most part creationists produce very little research. The creationist technical material is almost exclusively people like Borger misinterpreting mainstream research so as to give the appearance that it supports creationist views like a young Earth and the like.There's no point in discussing untested hypotheses. You prefer to believe that one day they'll replace current theory, and who knows, maybe you're right. But it would be perverse to argue that the currently available evidence supports your favored hypotheses, because it does not. It not only doesn't support them, it doesn't even suggest them. It is only the influence of Genesis that suggests them.One particularly significant difference of Borger's VIGEs from normal evolution is that it is directed. In his view evolution proceeded in a manner directed by prepositioned VIGEs rather than selected for by the environment. This doesn't explain adaptation. If evolution comes from within as directed by VIGEs with no input from the environment, how did adaptation ever occur?It's very strange this creationist view that evolution actually *does* occur, but at a highly inflated rate over just a few thousand years. There's no evidence for this, it's just the influence of the Genesis story on creationist apologetics, but one thing's for sure, it would have produced a nested hierarchy. You have to concede as much because we agree that evolution produced all the species we see today, and evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy. There is such a thing as horizontal gene transfer between branches by various mechanisms, but the genetic contribution of descent completely overwhelms any small horizontal exchanges.So since you accept that evolution is responsible for modern species diversity, we actually disagree on just two things: the time period, and how far back common descent goes. And genetic analysis of diverse animal genomes shows that there has been continuity of descent all the way back to way before Noah's ark and the species he took board.In other words, it makes sense to you that chimps are related to gorillas genetically, because they both had a common ancestor aboard the ark. And it makes sense to you that chimps and gorillas are related genetically to monkeys because monkeys shared the same common ancestor. But the same types of analysis that reveal this genetic relatedness show that the common ancestor was responsible for more than just monkeys. Rodents, and lizards and fish and insects and ultimately bacteria also share a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas and monkeys.Probably others have provided a link to the tree of life derived from genetic analysis, but I'll put the image here, click on it to display at full size: The animal kingdom is in pink, we're near the top. Select a lineage on the perimeter and trace inward toward the center, and this will take you through the branch points where lineages come together. Somewhere in these junctions you'd like to draw a line and say that it goes no further, that before that point the lineages possess no commonality and therefore had distinct origins. But there's no hint of this in the genetic analysis. If a designer is responsible for what you think are the original species, he designed in a nested hierarchy.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity slightly.

We're not talking about geology. Or are you saying that baraminology is not informed by the geological context of fossils? Nice guess. So I'll guess 100%. Prove me wrong. I hope you're not going to pull your old Abbot and Costello "third base" routine again and say "bats/dolphins." --PercyEdited by AdminModulous, : hidden potential thread derailment.