Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 385 (562922)
06-02-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
06-02-2010 12:28 PM


I am confused by what you are saying too:
It can't define kinds as separate creations.
I thought that is exactly what they did do?
It must allow for "kinds" to share a common ancestor as a logical possibility.
Why? I thought that was the whole point of kinds? Seperate creations by God that are effectively unrelated except for the fact that they were designed and created by the same designer/creator.
If it does not, that definition of "macroevolution" is self-contradictory and ALL evolution is microevolution.
Isn't macro-evolution as the creationists sees it the creation of a new 'kind' from an existing kind? Which they see as impossible and unecessary (because all the kinds were created from the start)
Which is not what the creationist wants at all.
Surely creos want to say that only micro-evolution is possible or necessary because this is just evolution within pre-existing kinds. No?
I suspect this is more miscommunication than disagreement. But I am confused by what you are saying.

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 48 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:08 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 385 (562927)
06-02-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
06-02-2010 1:08 PM


Let me fill in the context that you have obviously missed.
I have read up-thread and I still don't get it.
A definition of "kind" that works with the definition of "macroevolution" as "evolution between kinds" cannot define kinds as separate creations for the reasons I've gone into.
But this is exactly what creos do argue. All kinds were created originally. There are no new kinds. Macroevolution would result in new kinds. Nobody has witnessed macro-evolution or the creation of new kinds because this is impossible. QED.
That is my understanding of creo thinking on this issue anyway. Is that not how you see their position?
Not if it means that evolutionists can turn around and say that any evolution creationists object to is "just microevolution".
Well of course we will say that because it is....
But creos will then turn round and start talking about cats giving birth to dogs and other nonsense or assert that because no-one has witnessed one type of animal transform into another completely new animal over a period of a few generations that the formation of new kinds is unobserved and impossible.
No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 385 (562960)
06-02-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
06-02-2010 1:56 PM


Straggler writes:
But this is exactly what creos do argue. All kinds were created originally. There are no new kinds. Macroevolution would result in new kinds. Nobody has witnessed macro-evolution or the creation of new kinds because this is impossible. QED.
And there you have it. You say "Macroevolution would result in new kinds" but with this definition of "kinds" no form of evolution would produce new kinds - no matter how extreme.
Yes. We agree. But it is my understanding that creationists do indeed argue that there are no new kinds. Only micro-evolved variations of the original creations. Is that not also your understanding?
Is this where we are disagreeing/miscommunicating?
For this statement to be anything other than an empty irrelevance "macroevolution" has to be at least a logical possiiblity.
Only if we assume that creos think new kinds have arisen by a process of evolution. I think their entire argument is based on this not being the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 6:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 385 (562962)
06-02-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 1:40 PM


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's what Paul's talking about.
Oh.
But that isn't the creationist argument as I understand it. I thought the whole concept of kinds pertained to that which was created and from which all else micro-evolved.
But I am hardly an expert in creationist thinking.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 1:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 385 (562974)
06-02-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
06-02-2010 6:50 PM


Still Not Getting It
Then I guess you're not seeing my point at all, because that is completely wrong.
OK. Seriously - I am trying.
My point is that if you define kinds as being separate creations and define macroevolution as evolution between kinds then it's meaningless to talk about macroevolution not being observed, because ANY evolution that occurs cannot be macroevolution.
"Evolution between kinds" - What does that mean? I didn't think that inter-breeding kinds was creo argument at all.
Is that what you mean?
Arguing that a proposed evolutionary transition is macroevolution and thus cannot have happened becomes circular because the only way to show that it is macroevolution is to show that it DIDN'T happen.
But they are saying macro-evolution didn't happen.
I still think creos are saying that God created all the kinds and that all currently observed species are just (non-inter-breeding) micro-variations (i.e. non-inter-breeding descendents) of those original creations.
Are we still talking at cross purposes here? Can anyone help clear through this fog?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 6:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 7:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 385 (562981)
06-02-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 7:12 PM


Still, I think this is exactly what they do, and I don't think there is actually a logical inconsistency there, other than a misapprehension that "macroevolution" breaks the rules of descent.
Yep - that has always been my understanding.
"No new kinds"
Isn't that ultimately their base assertion with regard to evolution, kinds and all the stuff under discussion here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:12 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 75 of 385 (562998)
06-02-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
06-02-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
From where I'm sitting it looks like you're just ignoring my point. You certainly didn't address it in this last post.
That honestly is not my intention. Let's try some quick single questions to see where I am going wrong.
Creos assert that there have been no new kinds since the original point of creation. This is key to their position.
Is that how you see their position too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 7:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:16 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 385 (563071)
06-03-2010 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
06-03-2010 1:16 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
Yes.
Hurrah!
Try this one. Creationists do not believe that macroevolution is defined by whether it happened or not. If universal common descent were true, it WOULD involve macroevolution. Do you agree with that?
Absolutely.
But creos deny common descent exactly because they consider macro-evolution to be un-evidenced and impossible.
Are we still in agreement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 7:22 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 385 (563077)
06-03-2010 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
06-03-2010 7:22 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
Now which makes more sense from a creationist perspective ?
1) "If common descent is true it would require macroevolution - but we have no evidence of macroevolution".
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."
The Creo position as I understand it is 1) all the way.
Kinds is their way of allowing for micro-evolution (i.e. evolution within a kind) whilst denying that any new kinds can arise by means of macro-evolution. Do you still agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 7:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 7:42 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 385 (563084)
06-03-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
06-03-2010 7:42 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
Now do you accept that if "kinds" are defined as separate creations and if all descendants of the original created populations are in the same single kind as their ancestors, ALL evolution is within the same kind, no matter how extreme the change?
Yes - That is indeed my understanding. "NO NEW KINDS" is the creo mantra.
The question then becomes how many kinds there are and how diversely these kinds have evolved. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 7:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 8:21 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 105 of 385 (563090)
06-03-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by PaulK
06-03-2010 8:21 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
I want to be really clear on this one. Do you understand that the definitions entail that all evolution is microevolution ? That there is no evolutionary change so extreme that it can be labelled macroevolution on that count - or at all?
Yes.
No new kinds. No macro-evolution. The only evolution that is possible is micro-evolution within the existing created kinds.
That is my understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 8:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 8:38 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 107 of 385 (563095)
06-03-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
06-03-2010 8:38 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
I would have appreciated more explicit agreement, but I suppose agreeing twice ought to be enough.
I agree unequivocally with everything we have agreed up to now in our tit for tat 1 question at a time exchange.
But here is where we part company on what it is creos are saying:
Anyway, since you have agreed that all evolution, no matter how extreme is - by definition - microevolution - it follows that universal common descent requires no macroevolution at all.
Whoah. Hold on there. With my creo hat on - The fact that we agreed that all the variation observed (no matter how extreme) must necessarily be the result of micro-evolution does not mean that I agreed that there are no limits on micro-evolution at all. You are extrapolating things way beyond that which we mutually agreed.
All observed variation is variation within kind. There are many kinds. Micro-evolution is therefore all that is required to explain the diversity of life as observed. That is what I (thought) we agreed to being the creo position.
That is and remains the creo position as I understand it.
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."
Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that?
They do disagree with that. Vehemently. And whilst they are evidentially wrong I don't think they are being logically inconsistent in the way you are insisting upon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 8:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 9:23 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 117 of 385 (563130)
06-03-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
06-03-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Still Not Getting It
PaulK writes:
But we DIDN'T agree on that.
Well then this is the root of our miscommunication. Because I thought we had.
PaulK writes:
What you agreed to, twice was that ALL evolution no matter how extreme is microevolution by consequence of the definitions.
What I thought I had agreed to was that all evolution that creos accept to have practically occured no matter how extreme must be the result of micro-evolution within kind. I didn't realise you were going to extrapolate that to include all evolution imaginable and would not have agreed to that as the creo position. Because it blatantly isn't their position. It is the very opposite of what they believe.
PaulK writes:
And since - as you twice agreed all evolution no mater how extreme is microevolution you have accepted that.
Only within kinds. Only within limits.
PaulK writes:
I want to be really clear on this one. Do you understand that the definitions entail that all evolution is microevolution ? That there is no evolutionary change so extreme that it can be labelled macroevolution on that count - or at all?
Straggler writes:
Yes. No new kinds. No macro-evolution. The only evolution that is possible is micro-evolution within the existing created kinds. That is my understanding.
Now the miscommunication becomes clear.
PaulK writes:
A) By the definition of "kind", common descent does NOT produce new "kinds". No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind.
Yes - But creos believe that this limits the degree of differential extremity. This is what I am implicitly assuming as obvious whilst you seem to be ignoring as irrelevant. But it is the crux of their position is it not?
PaulK writes:
B) By the definition of "macroevolution" ONLY the creation of a new "kind" qualifies. If there is no new "kind" it's microevolution.
Yes. So again it needs to be pointed out that creos limit the degree of change that is possible by micro-evolution alone. I assumed that we both accepted that as their position.
PaulK writes:
Put them together and you get that universal common descent involves NO macroevolution at all.
Only if you ignore the rather fundamental fact that creos place limits on what change can be achieved by micro-evolution. How can you just ignore this fulcrum point of their (admittedly ill conceived and evidentially unjustifiable) position?
PaulK writes:
Then, either they use a different definition of "kind" or a different definition of "macroevolution". And don't forget that THAT is my point - that those that use this definition of "macroevolution" probably use a different definition of "kind".
No. They just impose limits on what micro-evolution can achieve without ever actually specifying what those limits are or why these limits should exist.
Are they wrong? Sure. But you cannot just sweep their key criteria under the carpet to make your point. Instead you need to tackle the silly notion that there are these limits on what micro-evolution can do given enough time.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 123 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 2:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 134 of 385 (563164)
06-03-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
06-03-2010 2:25 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
PaulK writes:
You agreed with 1) which is clearly talking about evolution that creationists do NOT accept.
Yes and we both agreed that they don't accept it. That was the agreement. No?
Straggler writes:
Yes. So again it needs to be pointed out that creos limit the degree of change that is possible by micro-evolution alone. I assumed that we both accepted that as their position.
Which means that either they must define macroevolution as including sufficiently large changes even if they do NOT create a new "kind"
"Sufficiently large"? Sufficiently large for what? I think creos deny macro-evolution. Period.
PaulK writes:
OR they must define "kinds" such that a sufficiently large change is sufficient for a new "kind" regardless of the fact that it evolved.
I don't think that is an option. I don't think creos believe that new kinds can come about as a product of evolution. I think we can eliminate that one and concentrate on your other point above. The one I don't understand.
PaulK writes:
No, I'm not ignoring it, it's part of my argument ! How many times must I point out that I'm not arguing that creationists do accept both definitions - I'm arguing that they DON'T
Creationists believe that god created kinds and that kinds micro-evolved to give us the diversity of life we see on Earth. That is their position.
Only if you ignore the rather fundamental fact that creos place limits on what change can be achieved by micro-evolution. How can you just ignore this fulcrum point of their (admittedly ill conceived and evidentially unjustifiable) position?
As I said, I don't ignore it, it is part of my argument ! How can you ignore that ?
How are you including it?
I realise I am frustrating you but I can assure you that I genuinely still just don't see what you are getting at. Ignore anything about new kinds and explain what you mean by the other bit.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 4:28 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 137 of 385 (563170)
06-03-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
06-03-2010 4:28 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
Essentially large enough for the creationist to object to it.
OK.
That (at least some) creationists would regard some degree of change as macro-evolution even if it didn't create a new kind?
Can you give an example? I think that would seriously aid understanding here.
Because I am arguing that creationists DON'T accept both definitions. If the two, when used together, contradict creationist beliefs then it is certainly evidence of that
Creationist thinking as I understand it is as follows:
1) God created kinds
2) The same kinds still exist today (minus any extinctions of any entire kinds presumably)
3) Kinds have evolved via micro-evolution to present us with the diversity of life we see before us today but no new kinds have occurred by means of evolution
4) No macro-evolution has been observed because it is impossible
5) Darwinian common descent indisputably requires macro-evolution and is therefore impossible
6) No definition of what a kind is has been provided and no specific limit of what change micro-evolution within a kind can result in has been given. Creos just know it when they see it.
Now we can all agree that this is rubbish. But I still don't see how it is actually contradictory in the way you are insisting.
Where do you see the contradiction exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 4:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 5:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024