Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:10 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
242526
27
2829Next
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 391 of 425 (543001)
01-14-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by ICANT
01-13-2010 4:24 PM


Re: Kind
Let me guess, This:

is a duck billed platypus kind?

yet dogs and wolves are the same kind.....


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 4:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2056 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 392 of 425 (543024)
01-14-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by ICANT
01-13-2010 3:16 PM


Re: Kind
Hi ICANT

ICANT writes:

That means it was done to prove evolution, or at the least to testify to evolution being true.

With specific reference to modified Linnaeus classifications in the light of Darwinian theory, I think Coyote expressed the thought more than adequately when he said "It was done to reflect new knowledge provided by the theory of evolution, not to prove that theory."

You really need to dispense with this notion that scientists are out "to prove evolution". They'd be just as happy if they found evidence that contradicted the ToE. It's just that they don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2002 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 393 of 425 (543061)
01-15-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by ICANT
01-13-2010 1:50 PM


crown of creation
Thanks! This helps clarify things for me. I thought we were arguing about Jonah whereas now I see I was stepping on a different part of your study.

Could you please elaborate on the special late creation of modern men and whale kin? I know you have covered this before, but please reiterate why you believe this and what your evidence is.

I think this is an important point for you in our discussion of "kinds" because it puts the Bible in the position of knowing thousands of years ago that there was something special about humans and sea-beasts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 1:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 394 of 425 (543062)
01-15-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by ICANT
01-13-2010 2:16 PM


Re: Kind
Hi ICANT,

ICANT writes:

Why does Biblical kinds have to be broken down like science wants to catalog everything?

God created every individual kind that existed prior to Genesis 1:2. From those kinds He called into existence things after their kind in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

I cannot speak directly for others but I want to see if there is a way "to break down these creatures and catalog them" because there needs to be some way we can put your idea of kinds to the test, if they cannot be put to the test then it isn't science.

The Theory of Evolution says that dogs and whales for example have a common ancestor, while creation according to you suggests that they could not possibly be related because they are derived by two different kinds that are completely separate. If we take belief out of the question, how do we measure, study or even find such evidence to back up your assertion that animals of two 'kinds' cannot possibly be related?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:00 PM Chippo has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 395 of 425 (543091)
01-15-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by hooah212002
01-13-2010 4:45 PM


Re: Kind
Hi, Hooah.

It may be beneficial for me to point out that you're actually talking to ICANT, not Buzsaw. There actually is a difference.

hooah212002 writes:

if you take a stroll in a jungle and see an animal, how do you know what "kind" it is? How do you know if the animal next to it is the same "kind"? I am really at my wits end with this backwards talk, and moreover, your grammar is atrocious to boot.

There actually is a pretty solid definition for "baramin," which is the "kind" of the modern, trendy Intelligent Designist. It uses a concept called "Potentiality Regions," which simply delimits the amount of gross evolutionary change that is possible for a single species or lineage to undergo.

There is nothing conceptually wrong with this definition. There are three problems with baraminology:

  1. There is no agreement about how large a potentiality region can be.
  2. There is no evidence that the amount of potential evolutionary change is rigidly restricted, and no mechanism that has been shown to restrict it.
  3. They try to fit the entire thing within a < 10,000-year window for religious purposes.

The first has been hammered to death in this thread. However, in all honesty, it is no different in principle from the lack of agreement among mainstream scientists about how to properly delimit "species," and both Peg and ICANT are justified in their complaints about this.

The second is the most severe problem. Baraminologists should be focusing their efforts on discovering any mechanisms that might restrict the amount of evolutionary change, yet I have not really heard anything serious proposed, other than some vague assertions about genetic entropy and deterioration (sometimes they like to throw in telomere shortening, but I'm not sure why).

The third is the most ideologically problematic. There could very well be something to the "potentiality region" concept, but to try to cram it within the mythology of any particular religion is entirely too narrow-minded and, more importantly, unevidenced.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 4:45 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 11:09 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 396 of 425 (543099)
01-15-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by Blue Jay
01-15-2010 10:12 AM


Re: Kind
There actually is a pretty solid definition for "baramin," which is the "kind" of the modern, trendy Intelligent Designist. It uses a concept called "Potentiality Regions," which simply delimits the amount of gross evolutionary change that is possible for a single species or lineage to undergo.

However, in all honesty, it is no different in principle from the lack of agreement among mainstream scientists about how to properly delimit "species," and both Peg and ICANT are justified in their complaints about this.

Except that science is a hell of alot more concise so as not to confuse a wolf for a dog. There may not be a specific designation for species, but general science will never confuse two obviously different species. Furthermore, an argument FOR a definition of "kind" should NOT include an argument against evolution (as is one of my largest quams with ID/creationism).

The first has been hammered to death in this thread. However, in all honesty, it is no different in principle from the lack of agreement among mainstream scientists about how to properly delimit "species," and both Peg and ICANT are justified in their complaints about this.

Hammered to death? Well, they still can't agree on wolves and dogs.

The third is the most ideologically problematic. There could very well be something to the "potentiality region" concept, but to try to cram it within the mythology of any particular religion is entirely too narrow-minded and, more importantly, unevidenced.

I have to actually thank you for this post. I am, however, disappointed it had to come from you and not a touted IDist. All ICANT recites is biblical kind this biblical kind that.

I just read a portion of a "paper" about baraminology (couldn't read the whole thing: I'm at work) and I read enough of it to see that basically, if it can mate, it's in the same baramin(kind), and supposedly, even if the embryo cannot/does not survive. We know through actual research that this poses quite a problem, which has been pointed out numerous times.

{ABE}here is the "paper". It is the only thing remotely close to a study I could find (even though the first good chunk is critiquing someone elses work and not, seemingly, critiquing his own study). It almost sounds like a book report.

Edited by hooah212002, : added link


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 01-15-2010 10:12 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 11:39 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 425 (543101)
01-15-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by hooah212002
01-15-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Kind
Except that science is a hell of alot more concise so as not to confuse a wolf for a dog. There may not be a specific designation for species, but general science will never confuse two obviously different species.

But dogs and wolves are the same species... Canis lupus.

They are different subspecies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_Lupus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 11:09 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 11:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 398 of 425 (543102)
01-15-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Kind
Thanks. I stand corrected. I am indeed having trouble keeping track here since we have no track to run on. I suppose it would be easier (and require less, if any, actual thought) if I just said a kind is a kind, and left it at that. However, I can't do that.


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:01 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 399 of 425 (543104)
01-15-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Chippo
01-15-2010 3:31 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Chippo,

Chippo writes:

I cannot speak directly for others but I want to see if there is a way "to break down these creatures and catalog them" because there needs to be some way we can put your idea of kinds to the test,

My kinds are already broken down into all the kinds that exist on the earth today. So how are you going to break them down any further.

Your aim is to trace everything back to a single cell life form. Which is impossible. If you think it is possible start with humans and go back step by step as far as you can go. Remember you would be doing science so there could be no missing information where you would have to make guesses or draw conclusions but you would have verifiable reproducable evidence. Lots of luck on than one.

Chippo writes:

if they cannot be put to the test then it isn't science.

I never said Biblical kinds was science. It is theology as it is taken from the Bible not a science book.

Chippo writes:

The Theory of Evolution says that dogs and whales for example have a common ancestor,

The Theory of Evolution does not say anything. Man interpets the ToE to say all kinds of things.

Science has so far in all experiments preformed to date proved that life produces life. In 150 year of experiments with the best equiptment and best scientist available no life has been created out of non life.

Now the Bible claims all life forms came from the same life form.

If all life forms came from one life form then they would all have the same ancestor.

So how about that the Bible says dogs and whales have a common ancestor. Does that mean they are the same kind or that they received life from the same life form?

Chippo writes:

while creation according to you suggests that they could not possibly be related because they are derived by two different kinds that are completely separate.

But I do believe they are related as they got their life from the same life form. I also believe they are different kinds even though the dog can swim.

Chippo writes:

how do we measure, study or even find such evidence to back up your assertion that animals of two 'kinds' cannot possibly be related?

But there was only one life giving life form which gave life to all the different kinds and since I have never asserted two kinds cannot possibly be related there could be no evidence for you to find to disprove your strawman, or something like that.

Conclusion:

It has been proven thus far by science that "non life" can not produce life.

It has been proven by science that "Life produces life".

All life forms on earth had to be produced by one life form, since science tells us every living thing has a common ancestor.

God is the only life form that has ever been presented that would be able to produce that life.

That life form gave us a record of how that was accomplished.

Science is still working on theirs.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Chippo, posted 01-15-2010 3:31 AM Chippo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by greyseal, posted 01-15-2010 1:28 PM ICANT has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 400 of 425 (543105)
01-15-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by hooah212002
01-15-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Kind
I suppose it would be easier (and require less, if any, actual thought) if I just said a kind is a kind, and left it at that. However, I can't do that.

Why not?

Why does it matter what the extremely specific definition of 'kind' is?

The Bible doesn't provide one. Why can't it remain a general term? A 'kind' would be a grouping of animals that brings forth the same thing as itself.

If you take it down to the speicies level, then there's too many of them to fit on an ark. If you bring up to, say, the family or genus level, then there'd be too much "hyper-evolution" to get the diversity we see now today.

I suppose the most bestest definition could be found, though. Say we have a sliding scale between the number of kinds we would have, where on one end it would be if we used 'species' and on the other end if we used 'family'. If slid too far to the left, they don't fit on an ark, if slid too far to the right, there's too much diversity today. We'd have to find the optimal place to put the slider so that they could all fit on an ark, but we don't have too much diversity today.

I think that that definition of kind would not fit nicely with our current classification system, whereas sometimes kind would fit with a whole family, sometimes it would fit with a genus, and sometimes it would fit with a species.

And at the end of the day, what would we really have accomplished?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 11:45 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 401 of 425 (543106)
01-15-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Coyote
01-13-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

It was done to reflect new knowledge provided by the theory of evolution, not to prove that theory.

So Linnaeus classifications was changed to say the same thing that the Theory of Evolution said.

That means the classifications of Linnaeus ceased to be the Linnaeus classifications.

They then became the classification of the ToE. Which just happen to agree with the Toe.

I get it now.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2010 5:18 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2010 12:31 PM ICANT has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 402 of 425 (543108)
01-15-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Kind
Why not?

You answered "why not" yourself.

The Bible doesn't provide one.

If you take it down to the speicies level, then there's too many of them to fit on an ark. If you bring up to, say, the family or genus level, then there'd be too much "hyper-evolution" to get the diversity we see now today.

in a general discussion, the term kind is fine. but this isn't a general discussion, now is it? Creo's use the term to validate a global flood, they use it to validate a young earth, they use it to validate genesis. Guess what? When you use the same term as your proof, yet keep it's meaning so flexible: your proof is shit.

I give 2 shits if you, me, or joe blow says " I saw me a kind of possum th' other day". But when you say "the biblical flood is TRUE" and go on and use this ONE term as evidence....you kinda need to stick to some sort of specifics. "Kind" may as well mean moon rocks then.

{ABE}

If I were to say to you: I have a kind of dog for sale, 900 bucks. Are you going to buy it without some more specifics?

If your wife tells you to pick up some lettuce, and you ask which kind, does she say "duh, the lettuce kind!"?

If you get bitten by a snake, is it wise to tell the doctor "i got me a bite from the snake kind"?

hopefully you see where this is going....

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:31 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 425 (543109)
01-15-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by hooah212002
01-15-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Kind
in a general discussion, the term kind is fine. but this isn't a general discussion, now is it? Creo's use the term to validate a global flood, they use it to validate a young earth, they use it to validate genesis. Guess what? When you use the same term as your proof, yet keep it's meaning so flexible: your proof is shit.

I give 2 shits if you, me, or joe blow says " I saw me a kind of possum th' other day". But when you say "the biblical flood is TRUE" and go on and use this ONE term as evidence....you kinda need to stick to some sort of specifics. "Kind" may as well mean moon rocks then.

Good luck. I hope you at least enjoy yourself while trying to move the immovable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 12:24 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 404 of 425 (543110)
01-15-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ICANT
01-15-2010 12:11 PM


Re: Kind
So Linnaeus classifications was changed to say the same thing that the Theory of Evolution said.

That means the classifications of Linnaeus ceased to be the Linnaeus classifications.

They then became the classification of the ToE. Which just happen to agree with the Toe.

I get it now.


No, I doubt that you do, or that you ever will.

You seem to have some kind of a mental block when it comes to science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 409 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:19 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 405 of 425 (543113)
01-15-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Coyote
01-15-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Kind
You seem to have some kind of a mental block when it comes to science.

Oh come on. You know its intentional.

He's just being obtuse.

The same thing happens when I debate my grampa. He expects you to pay well attention to his points and when it comes around to listenting to yours, its all equivocation or pedantry. The seriousness flies right out the window.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2010 12:31 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
242526
27
2829Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019