Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 385 (562190)
05-26-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
05-26-2010 11:03 AM


You need to fix that link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 05-26-2010 11:03 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 385 (562204)
05-26-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by hotjer
05-26-2010 4:55 PM


I have very little knowledge about insects in general
Well then just pick up your Bible...
Insects are: flying creeping things with four feet, with legs above their feet that they use to leap withal upon the earth.
Lev 11:21-23
/sacrasm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by hotjer, posted 05-26-2010 4:55 PM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hotjer, posted 05-26-2010 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 385 (562905)
06-02-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
06-02-2010 10:52 AM


I'm not following your argument, PaulK...
Can you expound on what's wrong with that definition of kind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 10:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 385 (562907)
06-02-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
06-02-2010 12:02 PM


What I am saying is that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" (defined in terms of kinds) implicitly uses a different definition of "kind".
How so? What's different about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 385 (562917)
06-02-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
06-02-2010 12:28 PM


It can't define kinds as separate creations. It must allow for "kinds" to share a common ancestor as a logical possibility. If it does not, that definition of "macroevolution" is self-contradictory and ALL evolution is microevolution. Which is not what the creationist wants at all.
I thought that's exactly what they want.
Macroevolution, to them, is impossible. One kind cannot become another.
I'm still not seeing the problem here...
A kind is the whole group of organisms that have microevolved from the earlier, smaller, less diverse group that god created. Macroevolution is the impossibility of the group microevolving enough to become, or yield, a different kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 385 (562934)
06-02-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
06-02-2010 12:53 PM


I'm not convinced that I disagree with you, but I just can't for the life of me understand what you are getting at.
Oh well though, I think Bluejay cleared it up in Message 50:
quote:
It's because I used the word "descended" in my definition.
A macroevolved, new "kind" would still have descended from an old "kind." As such, any new "kind" that came about would still fit within the old "kind," as per my definition, which defines "kinds" partly by descent.
That what Paul's talking about.
That makes sense, so... its all good!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:53 PM PaulK has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 385 (563118)
06-03-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
06-03-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind.
This is the source of the disagreement...
The difference cannot be so extreme that they look like different kinds, otherwise it'd be macroevolution and they cannot allow that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 9:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 385 (563122)
06-03-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by PaulK
06-03-2010 11:42 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
This is the source of the disagreement...
The difference cannot be so extreme that they look like different kinds, otherwise it'd be macroevolution and they cannot allow that.
Since I think we all agree on that, I don't think that that is the source of the disagreement.
It seems more likely to me that Straggler and Bluejay are having trouble seeing that the two definitions taken together contradict that. "Looking like different kinds" is not enough - the must BE different kinds. But different kinds can only be formed by creation, not evolution so that isn't an option either. So we get back to the point that using the two definitions together doesn't work.
The disagreement is that you're calling any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind.
There is a bit of an error in the wording of the definition of kind with regard to decent, that bluejay has now noticed and mentioned. It seems you're taking a slight overlap that could be squeezed into the definition, and then saying that we must squeeze it in and drag it all the way to the most extreme possibilities and therefore the definitions must be contradictory. Its almost just a semantic quibble at that point and I don't think we have to be that pedantic.
I think we can allow that "all the decendants" would not include those that would be so different that they would be thought of as a new kind that came about through macroevolution, even though technically there could be a decendent that microevolved so much that it would be too different to be considered within the same kind. Especially since we know that creationists won't accept that that amount of evolution is capable of happening.
Its not that you're wrong, it just that your point seems, well... pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 11:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 385 (563128)
06-03-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
06-03-2010 12:47 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
The disagreement is that you're calling any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind.
I'm not. Bluejay did that by defining kinds as separate creations. If that isn't true, then Bluejay is wrong.
Having 2 referential 'thats' in one line is ambiguous as I don't know exactly what they're referring to...
But of course kinds are separate creations, that is the whole point. Now, how does defining it that way necessitate that "any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind". I'm not seeing it. If its too much evolution then its not within the kind.
quote:
There is a bit of an error in the wording of the definition of kind with regard to decent, that bluejay has now noticed and mentioned. It
A bit of an error ? You're saying that "kinds" need not be separate creations, that they can evolve. That is a pretty significant "error".
Nowhere have I said that kinds do not need to be seperate creations, of course they do... that is the whole point of it. The amount of evolution that is allowed never provides enough change for it to be a different kind.
quote:
It seems you're taking a slight overlap that could be squeezed into the definition, and then saying that we must squeeze it in and drag it all the way to the most extreme possibilities and therefore the definitions must be contradictory. Its almost just a semantic quibble at that point and I don't think we have to be that pedantic.
I have no idea how you could possibly get an impression that is so at odds with reality.
You're hard to understand.
I'm simply pointing out the logical implications of using the two definitions together.
But you have to go to such an extreme to reach that implication that you're no longer within anything that anyone accepts anymore. You have to have so much change from evolution for a new kind to emerge that wasn't created that the creationist no longer accepts that that much evolution is possible.
I don't see why other people should have such problems seeing it.
At first it was obscure, but now I'm seeing it and it seems fairly pointless.
quote:
think we can allow that "all the decendants" would not include those that would be so different that they would be thought of as a new kind that came about through macroevolution...
Again you are saying that a kind need not be a separate creation, contradicting Bluejay's definition.
How am I saying that? I'm not seeing it. A kind needs to be a seperate creation because they don't think its possible for there to be enough evolution to result in a new kind.
The 'all the descendants" follows from that part of the definition - it isn't a gratuitous addition as you seem to think. So really you're agreeing with me even more than you think.
Huh? Is that some kind of explanation or something? This is difficult to understand what you are getting at and it leaves your point obscure. This is why people have difficulty understanding you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 12:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 385 (563143)
06-03-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Blue Jay
06-03-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
Actually, I'm on the same page with Paul on this one.
I get it, but it seems pedantic to me.
Since I defined "kinds" to include descent, then no level of change can make a new organism be thought of as a new kind while still maintaining the integrity of the definition. You have to insert a clause that grants special circumstances when organisms change a lot.
No level? Very small changes won't hurt a bit. Only extreme changes damage the integrity of the deifinition. I figured that clause is implicit in this being a creationist definition and them not accepting extreme changes from evolution.
Paul argues that allowing some level of descent-based change to result in a new "kind" shows that creationists are not strictly using the definition that I provided, which would, at that point, prove that my initial assertion (that you will not find any creationists who disagree with my definition) is false.
Yes, but since creationists don't allow for that much change it is pedantic and pointless.
My answer, at this point, is that there is another option that allows creationists to weasel out of the contradictions that Paul demonstrated. It involves a twist on the only other major terminology involved in the definitional soup we’ve been batting around---i.e., the word descent.
It’s my position that we have abundant evidence that creationists do use my definition of kind simultaneously with Paul’s definition of macroevolution, and, since the precedent Paul set is that contradictions in terminology are taken to mean implicit modifications to the usage of some other terminology, I propose that creationists who use these definitions simultaneously must be implicitly proposing that macroevolution violates the descent part of their definition of kind.
And, this, to me, seems fully consistent with the knee-jerk reactions of creationists to birds hatching from dinosaur eggs or apes giving birth to humans. In fact, I think it rather elucidates the creationist mindset in some way: now, if only we could discuss it with a creationist to find out whether I’m on to something, or just on something.
Yes, I don't really see the point in PaulK making his point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:38 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2010 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 385 (563144)
06-03-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
06-03-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
But of course kinds are separate creations, that is the whole point. Now, how does defining it that way necessitate that "any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind". I'm not seeing it. If its too much evolution then its not within the kind.
If we define a "kind" as a separate creation then only separate creations can be "kinds".
That's what I'm saying. But I'm allowing for some changes to occur within those seperate creations, as long as the change isn't great enough that it would be resulting in what would be a different kind (because a kind can only come about by special creation).
quote:
Nowhere have I said that kinds do not need to be seperate creations, of course they do...
So you didn't say:
The disagreement is that you're calling any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind.
?
That is me saying that if the change is so great that it would lead to a new kind then it cannot be within the limits of change that is allowed for a kind. Which supports that kinds cannot emerge through evolution, and jives with them having to be from special creation.
quote:
But you have to go to such an extreme to reach that implication that you're no longer within anything that anyone accepts anymore. You have to have so much change from evolution for a new kind to emerge that wasn't created that the creationist no longer accepts that that much evolution is possible.
That is hardly "extreme" - creationists reject a lot of evolution that actually happened! In fact that's the point. Creationists don't want to accept evolution that they reject as microevolution...
Micro? Or Macro? They accept micro, because it falls within the allowable change for a kind. For it to be enough to be a different kind is the amount of evolution they're rejecting as macro. I'm calling that an extreme amount of evolution.
quote:
How am I saying that? I'm not seeing it. A kind needs to be a seperate creation because they don't think its possible for there to be enough evolution to result in a new kind.
Which simply argues that in fact a kind is a separate creation, not that a kind should be defined as a separate creation.
What's the difference? To them, it is and should be defined that way
As soon as you say that there are degrees of change that should be accepted as forming a new "kind" if they occurred, then you rule out the idea of defining a "kind" as a separate creation.
But they don't accept that there can be enough change to cause the acceptance of the formation of a new kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 2:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 385 (563153)
06-03-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by PaulK
06-03-2010 3:06 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
That's what I'm saying. But I'm allowing for some changes to occur within those seperate creations, as long as the change isn't great enough that it would be resulting in what would be a different kind (because a kind can only come about by special creation).
So you are saying that separate creation is not part of the definition of "kind", creationists just believe that nothing other than creation could produce a new kind.
Nope.
quote:
Micro? Or Macro? They accept micro, because it falls within the allowable change for a kind. For it to be enough to be a different kind is the amount of evolution they're rejecting as macro. I'm calling that an extreme amount of evolution.
But it isn't so extreme that there ought to be the slightest problem with invoking it. In fact we can't discuss the issue without dealing with it. Because that is what creationists regard as "macroevolution".
Well they say it is.
quote:
What's the difference? To them, it is and should be defined that way
You're contradicting yourself here. You argue for rejecting the definition and then argue that the definition should be accepted. You can't argue both ways.
No, I've been consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 3:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 3:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 385 (563161)
06-03-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
06-03-2010 3:25 PM


never gonna get it
I don't have a friggin clue what you're trying to convey to me.
I give up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 3:25 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 5:14 PM New Cat's Eye 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