This is a question for creationists. I apologize if this has already been talked to death.
This is based on a question I found buried in another post, and I just want to expand on it and make it more explicit.
It is known that all life can be classified in a heirarchical manner - the Linnaean classification system. The trees (in a mathematical sense) can be easily found: here is a simple one, while this one is much more detailed.
These trees are not arbitrary, see for example Douglas Theobold's essay on this. In fact, before evolution was accepted, even creationist scientists found this classification useful.
So, for creationists, what does the classification system mean to you? Is there an explanation why life isn't just a bunch of random species with no clear relationships? Is there a message from the creator in this heirarchical system?
By the way, I present this because, when I was a creationist, it was precisely this evidence that led to the first doubts that would eventually result in my accepting Darwinian evolution. Why don't you think this is good evidence for evolution?
Good point. I have a question too for creationists. If you believe the earth is 6000 or so years old, then how could it accomodate so many of the species that have existed in such a small time? And also, how about when the bible talks about Noah's flood and it says that quote"Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on earth, two by two they went in the ark" (Genesis 7:8,7:9). Can you please tell me why no dinosaur of any kind made it there?
This is not "known". Mayr said that every classification is a "THEORY". The question at issue as it appears to me is given WhATEVER relation of data you like what kind of continuum is it? A set of nested trees assumed ONLY makes doing the interpretation about the origin of species easeier. Of course it WILL be easier if life is found OFF earth. Again continuous motion is possible in discontinuous spaces (Cantor) so it is not necssary that ancestor-descendent realtions of traits MUST be a hierarchy even while the levels of organization binding any such metadata developed may be in this form of data representation.If this kind of discontinuity exists it is scaleble from the size of the DNA strand to populations and may even have been particulate wise anticipated in Boscovich's notion of "lack of compenetration." This does not mean that the presentaton is "random" even as particle physics is (still) probablistic. I believe I recall that Dobshansky said somewhere that polyplodiy makes the "tree" or "bush" notion not absolute. If the position effect has an essential meaning in would seem so but that is beyond what we do know for sure. Surely you can be a little more specific where in the essay is this implication that trees are not arbitrary- I did not see it on a quick glance. citing hennig? terminal taxa issue??? maybe be "not arbitrary you meant that "good work" can be done with them. I have no gripe with that but my alternative still stands- Discontinuity is a possiblity. This seems to be the direction that Gould was moving in as well.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-22-2003]
Thanks, Brad. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the heirarchical classification is can be made, and it doesn't seem to be arbitrary - it seems to reflect some reality that "relates" the species. Evolution explains this by saying that the relationship is a phylogenic relationship, that is, the heirarchical classification is a family tree. I was wondering what the creationists believe to be the relationship expressed in the classification if it's not evolutionary relationship?
Ok, I understand. I guess all I can say is that if, it will likely not be Kant's idea about where life may be found in the solar system. Track empirics seem to be giving TWO different categories of science schools but more on this later. Meanwhile see also Principia Botanica, Croizat 1961 p1462 footnote where Leon said, "A concept does not become fictitious by the simple fact of its being synthetic. Concepts of species, genus, nd other taxa are ultimately grounded in degrees of differential morphology and physiology, which are of course neither arbitrary nor illusory but observable facts of nature. However, concepts of the kind seem to be, and indeed are, less than concrete when disfigured by man's own invention. To explain...whenever the question is being discussed whether the species is a particular creation of God, a deed of peculiar parallelsim, and the like. The former CONCEPT OF SPECIES is genuine; the latter spurious; both are of course synthetic...because to both is essential...without which more than one "species" could never arise. NOW THINK this ONE IS a "baramin". That is all. Just do it. Please?
He has said this in the understanding that a LACK OF THE CREATION REVIVAL which was to soon raise its flooding colors that the WHOLE controversy of creation and evolution was ONLY about speciation but that THIS was being easily overdone. Croizat DID NOT MAKE THE POINT ACUTALLY against creationism even if one reads THEN that way, only that cytogenticits needed to be put in their place. After the revival of creationism it was these people, cytogeneticists that put up such a lamp to brush off the creationists INSTEAD of sticking to the SCIENCE this footnote even references GOD with. The more recent understanding of ICR science (See the Modern Creation Trilolgy BOOK 2 last two chapers not page by page) RENEWS precisely this idol of Croizat or paricular notion of seperte creation where all change is induced to ONE AGE- AND THIS CREATIONIST position is ALSO NOT in contradiction to Croizat for Croizat ONLY wanted in the application of panbiogeographic "uniformitarinism" for the biologist to have a vision or trajectory in mind which was an advance from the Manual of Phytogeograhy connection of locations by involving CYTOGENTETICS as well ( that work was done by rejecting some German symbology only not the basis that is currently used to argue AGAINST current creationism). Croizat- Creationsim and Evolutionism all fit into a tight network of thought that seperates out into two "schools" as it is currently written. There is no doubt in my mind that post-Linnean classification by fiting toghther the SAME FLESH could have more than this but first people must not stop short of recognizing this "circuit". It is ALL way too clear to me that even if I die someone else will understand on their own.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-23-2003]
Baraminology of the part of the footnote I did not included, in particular - "The CONCEPT OF SPECIES which seperates, for instance, EUPORBIA BUPLEURIFOLIA from E.SAPINI is rather not the CONCEPT OF SPEICES which plays whenever the question is being discussed whether the species is a particular creation of G"OD...
It is quite telling that a web search of cladistics included a bibligography of the topic including the major 1964 but DID NOT include Principia Botanica and this work as a part of a cladistics reference. Croizat's writings ARE OF A PIECE. They can not be "seperated".
Baraminology GOES BEYOND this historical anti-creationist argument of cytogeneticists by calling them to task on geographic viariism never only taxonomic vicariism which Barminiology as a classification science suffers the same as evolutionary sloting.
Thanks for your reply. Are you trying to say that the "CREATOR" did not create every living animal? Please explain in more laymans terms, for I am only 17, and not educated yet as you are in vocabulary. lol
What I actually said was that I agree with a position tht looks at forms or types (OF Species"") in the GEOLOGICAL COLumn may be only "of an age" and that modern Creationism presents this position on time.
If you need some explanation of this we can all help out here. Many others here will disagree with this as it does leave open the issue of special creation but I am working on the details of this change in the topic thread "Distinguishing Baramins".
I tried to set out the historical events that justify this view in response to the upside down Bat.
This is probably still a little too advanced:
Since or during the whole c/e flap the domain or programming of Cladistics was created. Many non-creationists insist on this kind of analysis of species. I looked on the web for writings out of the book "Principia Botanica" which I quoted but I *could* find a link to a Bibliography that lISTED many of the author of this books' works but not $this& one that I was using to INTEPRET the field of speciation with (again I raise in detail this subject on the Distinguishing Baraminology Thread) (others here DO disagree with me). This book was missing. In this book the author EXPANDS his method of biogeography to included questions of polyplodiy and cytogenetics and more or less used a creationist position to be critical of cytogeneticists.
Later in this DECADE, THE 60's Morris and Whitcomb published THE GENESIS FLOOD which without splitting hairs is often citing as the book that restarted interest in Creationism especially here in USA...
A Conell genetist published a book within this time frame that attempted to disvalidate the work of Creationism by citing the genetical continuity of small parts of cell division patternings (the chromosomes and the correlation of Sturtevants LINEAR 'map' to this material BUT THESE SCIENTISTS HAVE NOT ANSWERED CROIZAT.
It appears that Leon was using two different kinds of plants of the Genus Euphorbia to indicate which kind was more easily or likely to be read and understood if as a special creation of God in the process of DOING his method. There is a lot of thinking that goes into doing Croizat's stuff so that is a little bit much for this thread as even professionals DID NOT have even a take home lesson on this work in the 80s when I was at Cornell. I made up a class to figure this out. The reason that the lesson is STILL not taught is because creationism is more or less required to get beyond the best understanding of Crozat's work. We , as scientists need not do it, if one is satisifed with the status quo but in the context of creation and evolution resolving it's debate this IS ONE logical way out of the dillema or conundrum I tenetatively referred to as "two" shools of thought. I hope this helps.