Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 2:41 PM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, edge, JonF, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,833 Year: 4,870/19,786 Month: 992/873 Week: 348/376 Day: 25/116 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Is There Any Genetic Or Morphological Criterion For "Kind"?
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 31 of 40 (643818)
12-12-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2006 5:32 AM


Be careful of what you wish for
FSTDT.

Does that include Stephen Jay Gould's Darwinian Fundies?

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2006 5:32 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Pressie, posted 12-12-2011 7:20 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 32 of 40 (643819)
12-12-2011 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 5:30 AM


Re: Bin a long time
What a long word salad to try and hand wave the fact that there's no definition of "kind" away.
The following sentence shows that the term "kind", along with all other sciency-sounding terms used in the pseudoscience of creationism is always pseudoscience.

quote:
"kinds", on the other hand, suggest that biological diversity had a much more complex starting point;….
The empirical evidence indicate the opposite.

We've got empirical evidence that the first cellular life forms (as we know it) were prokaryotic cells. We've got them in the form of fossils in the lowest and oldest rocks containing cellular fossils, indicating that the most complex form of life existed as prokaryotic unicellular organisms at that stage. No evidence of more complex life then.

What empirical evidence do you have that "biological diversity had a more complex starting point"? Just a whole variety of holy books and wishful thinking?

Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 5:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 33 of 40 (643823)
12-12-2011 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Be careful of what you wish for
quote:
Does that include Stephen Jay Gould's Darwinian Fundies
Are you referring to the same Stephen Jay Gould who was, according to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
quote:
A passionate advocate of evolutionary theory, Gould wrote prolifically on the subject, trying to communicate his understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology to a wide audience.
and also
quote:
...devoted considerable time to fighting against creationism (and the related constructs Creation science and Intelligent design). Most notably, Gould provided expert testimony against the equal-time creationism law in McLean v. Arkansas.
?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 6:00 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 34 of 40 (643825)
12-12-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 5:30 AM


Re: Bin a long time
For me the solution is simple. I would place creatures of obvious phenotypic similarity into the same Kind ...

But there are lots of obvious phenotypic similarities. Mammals, for example, all have obvious phenotypic similarities, that's what makes us group them together as mammals. At what point would you like to start ignoring the similarities (and, apart from being a creationist, why)?

This would allow for the diversity created by simple speciation, without requiring the problematic increase in genetic complexity which, as we all know, has never been observed or documented.

Polymer-metabolising microbes not withstanding, of course.

If you wish to be wrong about this, start a new thread or revive an old one where it's on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 5:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
dan4reason
Junior Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-03-2010


Message 35 of 40 (643918)
12-13-2011 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
09-25-2006 3:28 PM


I haven't heard the term 'kind' clearly defined.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2006 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 12-13-2011 12:23 AM dan4reason has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 40 (643920)
12-13-2011 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by dan4reason
12-13-2011 12:16 AM


Kinds
I haven't heard the term 'kind' clearly defined.

Frair states that

For decades creationists have been using the word "kind," “type,” or “group” for their envisioned categories of genetically unrelated organisms, including all those formed by the Creator during the Creation Week.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

The definition is not a lot of use to science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by dan4reason, posted 12-13-2011 12:16 AM dan4reason has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1105 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 37 of 40 (643921)
12-13-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kaichos Man
12-12-2011 5:30 AM


Re: Bin a long time
Kaichos Man writes:

I agree with many other people that "family" is the taxonomic level that best approximates "kind".


That's a huge problem for flood believers. Let's look at a simple case, the Equidae: there are 37 recognized genera, all but one are extinct. The genus Equus includes 22 recognized species of which 7 are extant.

The Felidae include 43 genera, of which 15 are extant. In those 15 genera there are 41 species.

The canidae includes around 290 species. These overlap extinct species in extant genera. There are 13 extant genera with 36 extant species.

So, are all of the extinct species pre-flood? Where did they all come from? Were they all created kinds? Or did they hyper-evolve from created kinds in the few years between the creation and the flood? Which were the "kinds" that Noah took aboard the ark and how did the extant species evolve at such hyper-evolutionary rates from a single pair in only a few years? I'm an evolutionary biologist and the thought of evolution at such rates makes my head spin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-12-2011 5:30 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 12-13-2011 10:37 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 211 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 40 (643949)
12-13-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by pandion
12-13-2011 1:11 AM


Re: Bin a long time
I'm an evolutionary biologist and the thought of evolution at such rates makes my head spin.

You think that's bad? Creationist John Woodmorappe writes:

The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man–all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

So creationists think the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. This change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pandion, posted 12-13-2011 1:11 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
ggghg7
Junior Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-08-2011


Message 39 of 40 (644086)
12-14-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
12-09-2011 9:37 PM


Re: Baraminology
Science can't validate supernatural causes that apologetics refer to. I think the point of the thread in establishing the fact that there is no religious criterion for a "kind" is clear.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 12-09-2011 9:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 196
From: Honduras
Joined: 02-11-2013


Message 40 of 40 (692970)
03-08-2013 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 6:33 AM


Re: Define Kind?
that sounds like subjective classification to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 6:33 AM Minority Report has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019