Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 425 (539659)
12-18-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Jack
12-18-2009 5:49 AM


Re: Sauce for the Goose, etc.
But, of course, as we well know there is no clear, unambiguous definition of any of these taxonomic concepts just as there is no clear definition of life. Attacking the Kind concept on the grounds that it lacks a single clear definition is hypocritical at best.
Not hypocritical. The Creationists make statements of fact about what happens in the world. They say that evolution only happens within a kind. Whenever evolution is shown to them, they say it is 'within a kind'. Without predefining what a kind is, they have an eternal intellectual hidey hole.
So the point is to show that 'evolution only happens within a kind' is a statement that asserts a fact that requires a certain level of knowledge about 'kinds' if it is to have any relevance to the debate. Clearly they lack the knowledge needed to make the statement so it is a valid criticism.
Whenever I have seen biologists talking about 'species', 'genus', 'family', etc., I tend to see different language in use. If a biologist were to make a statement about what can and cannot occur within a 'species' then we'd be right to criticise that biologist if they didn't specify what they meant by 'species', given its acknowledged ambiguity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 5:49 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 425 (539736)
12-19-2009 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Arphy
12-18-2009 3:07 PM


hyper divergence from ancestral kinds
For some reason, creation.com neglected to point out this comment from the source they used for the guppies:
quote:
Evolutionary rates from the fossil record are necessarily lowered because they average periods of rapid change with periods of slow change or stasis. So, it is not meaningful to compare these rates with the flash-in-the-pan 11 years of guppy changes
I think hyperevolution is far better documented than slow and gradual darwinian evolution
Creationists seem to think many many present species have undergone hyperevolution since the flood but that this has basically stopped now ("we don't see it happening!"). However there is little evidence that this is the case. There are a small number of documented cases of populations undergoing rapid change, often when their environment suddenly changes which is what evolutionary biologists have been suggesting for some time.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 3:07 PM Arphy 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