Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 177 of 385 (563549)
06-05-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
06-05-2010 4:42 PM


Percy writes:
If you choose to reject all the evidence for common ancestry.....
I just thought I'd mention that, according to a recent analysis "harnessing powerful computational tools and applying Bayesian statistics", universal common ancestry of all life in all three domains appears millions of times more likely than any theory of multiple ancestry.
Nature abstract HERE and brief article HERE.
This applies even taking into account the possibility of lots of early horizontal gene transfer, and possible symbiosis events.
I'm sure it won't do anything to convince creationist Bob, who says (untruthfully) that he is constantly in search of data that might "invalide" the YEC model, but it's of interest to the realists amongst us.
There is only one kind!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 06-05-2010 4:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 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 2467 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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 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 2467 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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 214 of 385 (564016)
06-07-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Minnemooseus
06-07-2010 5:41 PM


The cephalopod kind examined.
Moose writes:
While Bob's "bigger picture" reasonings may be wrong, I do think his use of "ancestor" is correct. The situation is proposed as being something found outside of the expected evolutionary sequence.
So, you consider yourself to be an ancestor of your grandfather?
My point was that, if you read the paper (or just the abstract), what has been described was a primitive ancestor of cephalopods thirty million years older than cephalopods.
That is not analogous to rabbits in the pre-cambrian, it is analogous to finding a species that is ancestral to rabbits 30 million years before the first known rabbits, or to finding out, surprise surprise, that your grandfather was born before you were.
I know it was proposed as being like rabbits in the pre-cambrian, but in order to make that mistake, someone would have to not know the difference between ancestors and descendants.
Once again
But this, as I see it, is off-topic.
I know it's sort of off-topic, but then large parts of Bob's posts are, and we are talking about taxonomy, which covers a lot of ground. That's why my original answer was brief, with a link to the relevant (and interesting) paper.
But we can bring it more on topic by asking Bob and other creationists whether this tiny soft bodied proto-cephalopod is of the same "kind" as a modern octopus, which would mean that they've descended from a common ancestral organism, and diverged from each other during the last 6,300 years, or, maybe, this little primitive was the original God-created prototype (or protokind).
Let's have some baraminology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-07-2010 5:41 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 298 of 385 (565068)
06-14-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Percy
06-13-2010 3:25 PM


Shooting himself in the foot.
Percy writes:
Did Wile close that blog to comments, or did I just forget how to use it?
From his point of view, he'd be well advised to close the whole blog down, not just comments. He puts up stuff that's fit for FSTD
Check out this post in which he explains to the world how dendrochronology is one of his 5 main reasons for believing that the earth is younger than 10,000 years.
Wile on trees (and presumably strong hallucinogens)
It's jaw-dropping stuff!
Edited by bluegenes, : fixed link
Edited by bluegenes, : and again!
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 3:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 367 of 385 (566113)
06-23-2010 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by articulett
06-21-2010 8:26 AM


Fossil marsupials
articulett writes:
Why are there no fossils of marsupials in the middle east?
There could well be. They could be anywhere.
Oldest marsupial fossil.
Perhaps you meant to say "fossils of kangaroos in the middle east."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by articulett, posted 06-21-2010 8:26 AM articulett 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