Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 12:43 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,883 Year: 8,919/19,786 Month: 1,341/2,119 Week: 101/576 Day: 2/99 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 46 of 425 (539614)
12-17-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
12-17-2009 4:00 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

Yup. That would mean >10 million species on the ark. My credulity won't stretch that far, and that's off topic besides.

If your statement is off topic then we have nothing to talk about.

Good day.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.


"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 45 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 4:00 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 47 of 425 (539615)
12-17-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
12-17-2009 2:13 PM


List of species that would not all fit on the ark (if there had been one)
ICANT writes:

I still need a list of the species you don't believe will fit on the Ark.

Well you'd have to have quite a lot of room to fit all 5,400 species of mammals some of which grow quite large indeed.

Here's a partial list of some of these bad boys.

Also, I somehow suspect you would have trouble finding room for the 40,000 species of crustaceans.

950,000 species of insects would probably present more of a collection problem than a storage problem.

Shall we go on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 2:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 5:18 PM Briterican has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2596 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 48 of 425 (539617)
12-17-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
12-17-2009 4:00 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote

I find ICANT's request quite reasonable. How can you claim that all the kinds won't fit onto the ark when obviously you have no idea what a kind is? Even if we explain it to you (which has already been done in the thread "What is a Kind?") then does this mean that therefore we can pull out a conclusive number of the different number of kinds that exist/existed? No, mainly because creationists realize that it is not possible to reconstruct a completly accurate picture of the past. We may give estimates based on different assumptions, but this doesn't mean that they are conclusive, and that is ok, because that is the best we can do. Not every scrap of history is preserved and that's just the way it is.

As for the word kind relating to other classification systems, this is not possible. In some cases a kind may be limited to the genus level, or family level, or subfamily level, etc. It just depends. barminologists do try to work out these bounderies, but this doesn't ever mean that their results are conclusive. They can give us a rough idea which can be helpful, but they are also open to revision.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 4:00 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 5:07 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 5:11 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2009 7:53 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 49 of 425 (539620)
12-17-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-17-2009 4:40 PM


Kinds? (the power of a single word)
Arphy writes:

As for the word kind relating to other classification systems, this is not possible. In some cases a kind may be limited to the genus level, or family level, or subfamily level, etc. It just depends.

So basically, it sounds like you're saying "We can't define kinds, you can't either, but because the Bible calls them 'kinds', then THAT is the word we're going to use, and it can mean whatever we want it to."

I'm sure it has been pointed out before that classification systems actually break down when viewed on the macroevolutionary scale. Every living thing is part of a great branching tree, and if we could line up all the intermediaries between, say for example, a chimpanzee and a man, you could pick any creature in that line and say "He looks a lot like the guy to the left, and a lot like the guy to the right, and therefore they must all be the same species." But if you compare the guys at each end, you would say "They are most definitely not the same species."

What an amazing waste of time and energy it is that people place such significance on the tiniest of words from their ancient texts whilst simultaneously disregarding legitimate evidence. If only the guy (who would have been somewhere in that queue I mentioned above) that wrote that particular phrase could have realised the impact that one word would have. Had he been otherwise inclined, we might be talking about "sorts" now rather than kinds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 4:40 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 50 of 425 (539621)
12-17-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-17-2009 4:40 PM


Re: Kinds
As for the word kind relating to other classification systems, this is not possible. In some cases a kind may be limited to the genus level, or family level, or subfamily level, etc. It just depends. barminologists do try to work out these bounderies, but this doesn't ever mean that their results are conclusive. They can give us a rough idea which can be helpful, but they are also open to revision.

Thanks for trying, Arphy.

But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.

"Kinds" is an elastic term used in any manner necessary to make real world data conform to scripture. It can be the same as species, genus, subfamily, family, or beyond -- depending on the data which must be forced to agree with scripture.

That's fine. But lets all agree that this is what is meant by "kinds" and not try to use that term in any manner that might be confused with a scientific term. OK?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 4:40 PM Arphy has not yet responded

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


Message 51 of 425 (539623)
12-17-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Briterican
12-17-2009 4:29 PM


Re: List of species that would not all fit on the ark (if there had been one)
Hi Briterican,

Briterican writes:

Also, I somehow suspect you would have trouble finding room for the 40,000 species of crustaceans.

Why would water creatures present a problem?

Briterican writes:

950,000 species of insects would probably present more of a collection problem than a storage problem.

Why would collection present a problem?
They all showed up at the Ark at loading time.

Briterican writes:

Shall we go on?

You can but I would rather have Coyote's list of kinds=species that can not fit on the Ark. So I can figure out if they can or not.

I have stated that Kind, would equal species as long as that kind/species remained the same kind.

I used Darwin's 15 species of finches as an example. Some cross breed and others do not for various reasons but all 15 species are finches. None of them are classified as a hawk or buzzard.

When they cease to be a finch then they become a different kind.

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 47 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 4:29 PM Briterican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 5:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 52 of 425 (539628)
12-17-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
12-17-2009 5:18 PM


Re: List of species that would not all fit on the ark (if there had been one)
Hi again ICANT

ICANT writes:

Why would water creatures present a problem?

Are you proposing the ark was like the Tardis? Larger on the inside than on the outside? Or are you suggesting that these creatures were towed by a massive net? Or that they all came swimming along behind? All very fanciful notions, which are you suggesting?

Why would collection present a problem?
They all showed up at the Ark at loading time.

How very convenient. So again, do you intend to play a sort of biological tetris with them in order to fit them into a three dimensional area considerably smaller than they alone would constitute if squashed together? Or is your ark like the Tardis from Dr.Who?

You can continue with these fanciful ideas but I should warn you that I find this entire flood/ark issue to be laughable and I sort of feel embarrased for anyone that actually buys it.

Besides, we should really try to stay on topic. Huntard was asking what the definition of "kind" was, and we're still waiting for an answer that rises above the level of "cop-out".

Edited by Briterican, : I should start saying "hi" at the start of my posts - I don't want to come across as rude, except for those times when I want to come across as rude.

Edited by Briterican, : Emphasis on staying on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 5:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 53 of 425 (539637)
12-17-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Arphy
12-17-2009 4:40 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Arphy,

barminologists do try to work out these bounderies, but this doesn't ever mean that their results are conclusive. They can give us a rough idea which can be helpful, but they are also open to revision.

Doesn't this make you in the least bit sceptical? After all, these "baramins" are real biological boundaries. They are not in the least bit arbitrary (as one might argue Linnaean taxonomy to be), they are absolute, impenetrable divisions of life - yet we can't detect them.

That just sounds a bit odd to me. Why are these baramins so elusive? Surely it couldn't be that a flexible baramin is more expedient in producing apologetics? Could it?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 4:40 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2596 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 54 of 425 (539644)
12-17-2009 11:06 PM


Hi Guys

The term "kinds" is not quite as plastic as you try to make out. In the discussion of "what is a Kind?" it was pointed out that there are certain criteria that suggest whether or not two creatures are from the same kind or not. The reason why we can not pin down the exact ancestor is because they no longer exist, and we cannot know what sort of potential for variation these original creatures had. So in some cases our baramins may be too narrow. In some cases we may have mistaken some superficial similarity for true similarity. Baraminology is a field that still needs a lot more research, however the results that are coming from this area are good. In future as more progress is made I hope that the picture of this classification system becomes clearer.
However, to be able to place every creature in a distinct kind is not necessary for creation apologetics. What we don't see is

britanican writes:

Every living thing is part of a great branching tree, and if we could line up all the intermediaries between

In fact this is a far too simple explanation even for most modern evolutionists (plenty of articles around in science magazines about the Tree of Life during the last few years).

Also

coyote writes:

But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.

The word "kind" or "baramin" can be used in scientific endeavours. Just because organisms are labeled in the classification system doesn't mean that this is concrete. As with other classification systems organisms may be renamed and relocated depending on new evidence. This is the same with the kind classification system, it is open to revision. It deals with the past and so it is to be expected that we will not always be 100% accurate in our classification of particular organisms. Does this mean that we should throw out the entire classification system? No, otherwise you would have to throw out the linnean system as well because that is also open to revision. The point is that the "kind" or "Baramin" classification system is workable as explained in the "what is a Kind?" thread. It is open to revision, and this is to be expected when dealing with the past, but the overall structure and aim is secure.

I think it is also important to note that especially the linnean system is used to organise organisms by putting labels on animals based on similarities. It doesn't make any direct claims about ancestry. I think that is where for the evolutionists cladistics comes in.


Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 11:50 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 425 (539645)
12-17-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Arphy
12-17-2009 11:06 PM


Apologetics
coyote writes:

But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.

The word "kind" or "baramin" can be used in scientific endeavours. Just because organisms are labeled in the classification system doesn't mean that this is concrete. As with other classification systems organisms may be renamed and relocated depending on new evidence. This is the same with the kind classification system, it is open to revision. It deals with the past and so it is to be expected that we will not always be 100% accurate in our classification of particular organisms. Does this mean that we should throw out the entire classification system? No, otherwise you would have to throw out the linnean system as well because that is also open to revision. The point is that the "kind" or "Baramin" classification system is workable as explained in the "what is a Kind?" thread. It is open to revision, and this is to be expected when dealing with the past, but the overall structure and aim is secure.

The words "kind" or "baramin" cannot be used in scientific endeavors until they are defined. That is what this thread has been about, and we have only reached the conclusion that these terms are undefined and most likely undefinable in scientific terms.

Here's the problem:

Kinds are mentioned only in the bible, and are defended through religious apologetics; baraminology is a term coined in an attempt to make religious apologetics seem to be science. (It isn't.)

Kinds have to be plastic! If kinds=species there are far too many critters to fit on the ark, so kinds must be a higher order classification. Just where is a subject of much rhetoric, many opinions, and little evidence.

Kinds have to be plastic because on one hand they have to reduce the number of critters on the ark to a manageable level while still classifying critters as required by the bible.

To reduce the number of critters on the ark, kinds should be way up at the family level, requiring hyperevolution for a few centuries after the flood. (There is no evidence for hyperevolution or the flood, but that's another issue.)

But kinds at the family level puts the great apes and modern humans in the same kind, and we can't have that, now, can we? So we have to fudge that lineage, and there goes the whole ballgame. Back to plastic, eh?

That's what happens when you take your directions from scripture, and not from the data itself.

But you mention the baraminology system is open to revision! Great--just revise baramins or kinds so they reflect the real world data! But that would place them in contradiction to scripture, so we can't have that. Guess we're back to kinds=religion, and not science, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 12-17-2009 11:06 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 5:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 56 of 425 (539654)
12-18-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Coyote
12-17-2009 11:50 PM


Sauce for the Goose, etc.
The words "kind" or "baramin" cannot be used in scientific endeavors until they are defined. That is what this thread has been about, and we have only reached the conclusion that these terms are undefined and most likely undefinable in scientific terms.

Since you're making this criticism of the word 'kind', you will doubtless be able to explain how 'species', 'genus', 'family', etc. meet the criteria. A clear, unambiguous definition for each please?

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.

No, the problem with the Kind concept is not that defining it in field-applicable ways* is problematic (and, in fact, Bariminologists are much clearer about how to identify kinds than you suggest) it's that reality doesn't contain Kinds so any methodology for identifying them leads to absurdity. Hence the classic babbling I linked to earlier in this thread.

Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 11:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 12-18-2009 9:15 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Peepul, posted 12-18-2009 9:36 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 7789
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 yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 58 of 425 (539661)
12-18-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Jack
12-18-2009 5:49 AM


Re: Sauce for the Goose, etc.
quote:
Since you're making this criticism of the word 'kind', you will doubtless be able to explain how 'species', 'genus', 'family', etc. meet the criteria. A clear, unambiguous definition for each please?

There is a big difference here. We evolutionists expect terms like these to be messy, ambiguous and to some extent arbitrary because of the continuity of life.

Creationists tell us that there is no crossing a kind boundary. To test this we need either a definition of kind or a complete list of all kinds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 5:49 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 10:08 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 59 of 425 (539664)
12-18-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peepul
12-18-2009 9:36 AM


Re: Sauce for the Goose, etc.
Creationists tell us that there is no crossing a kind boundary. To test this we need either a definition of kind or a complete list of all kinds.

I'm going to drop the term Kind and start using Baramin, since the Creationist notion of Kind is so floppy it's practically equivocation to talk about it meaning anything in particular. Kinds were invented as a simple get out clause and are still used by many Creationists that way; but the Baramin is a more evolved and refined concept.

The Baramin is defined: a baramin consists of all creatures descended from an original created creature (or pair thereof, one presumes). These is a further operational criteria: two creatures are of the same baramin if (but not only if) they can hybridise. Non-hybridisation does not demonstrate that they are different baramins. (So if A hybridises with B and C, C with D, and D with E; A, B, C, D and E are all in the same baramin even though B and E can't hybridise)

This is a mathematically well specified concept which can divide a subset of life (that which reproduces sexually) into one or more distinct sets. The exact way that baramins divide up life can only be determined by empirical observation.

If I say "cats" are a baramin and "dogs" are a baramin and you find a cat and a dog that successfully hybridise you don't prove there aren't baramins you prove that cats and dogs are in the same baramin.

So, attacking the baramin concept either on the grounds that it isn't exactly defined is wrong, and attacking it on the grounds there isn't a complete list is wrong. Where next? Well, the problem for the baramin concept is that it doesn't reflect reality - there are no originally created kinds, there was no flood, all life does share a common ancestor.

I'd suggest a more empirical attack is needed. Fortunately Bariminologists are doing the work for us here. Read a paper or two by these poor souls and look at the conclusions. They're absurd: searching for baramins isn't generating a clean list of sensible baramins it's producing a laughable mess that reverberates with hyperevolution and absurdity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peepul, posted 12-18-2009 9:36 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2009 12:45 PM Dr Jack has responded
 Message 63 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 3:07 PM Dr Jack has responded

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


Message 60 of 425 (539672)
12-18-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Jack
12-18-2009 10:08 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Mr Jack,

Mr Jack writes:

Kinds were invented as a simple get out clause and are still used by many Creationists that way; but the Baramin is a more evolved and refined concept.

Since the Hebrew word מין transliterated miyn is over 3500 years old, when was it invented as a simple get out clause?

What was it invented to get out of?

It was a simple statement of fact.

It was first used in Genesis 1:11:

Moses writes:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

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 59 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 10:08 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 1:33 PM ICANT has responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019