|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: I wouldn't be so sure of that. The typical creationist definition of macroevolution is evolution between kinds. And for that to be meaningful the definition of kind cannot rule out evolutionary relationships. It's no use a creationist insisting that macroevolution doesn't happen if any evolution that actually does happen - even if it is "molecules to man" - is all microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: By the definition of "kind" you referred to, any two life forms related by common descent must be in the same "kind". Therefore if all evolution within a "kind" is microevolution ALL evolution is microevolution. That makes the definition pointless - and the argument that macroevolution doesn't happen worthless. So, anyone who wants to use the most common creationist definition of "macroevolution" is implicitly using a definition of "kind" which allows creatures related by common descent to be in different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: No, I did not define kinds in terms of microevolution, I simply applied your definition. By your definition all descendants of a common ancestor must be in the same kind.
quote: Exactly my point. By that definition a kind CANNOT originate by evolution. The definition rules it out.
quote: You're missing the point. The point is that IF we use your definition of "kind" the common creationist definition of macroevolution is vacuous - and utterly useless. Therefore all those that use that definition are implicitly using another definition of "kind", one which is NOT based on the "kind" originating by divine creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the definition of "kind". What I am saying is that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" (defined in terms of kinds) implicitly uses a different definition of "kind". Therefore we cannot say that all creationists use the definition offered by Bluejay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: But it is obviously true. The definitions do not work together. Using your definition of "kind" this definition of "macroevolution" is an oxymoron. It can't refer to anything. That is pretty obviously not the intent.
quote: No, it only has to work with the definition of "kind" that the user has in mind. And it doesn't work with your definition of "kind".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: No. They want to say is that macroevolution is not observed and have it be meaningful. Which it isn't if the definition of "macroevolution" is vacuous through self-contradiction. They want to have a meaningful distinction between "macro" and "micro" which they don't have if "macroevolution" is an oxymoron. They claim to accept microevolution so they certainly don't want to have to accept that "microevolution" includes evolution that they don't accept. Which means that they need a definition of "kind" which is logically consistent with an evolutionary relationship between kinds. Then all those problems go away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Let me fill in the context that you have obviously missed.. 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. That's what you need to address.
quote: Not if it means that evolutionists can turn around and say that any evolution creationists object to is "just microevolution".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: 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. Even the most nonsensical creationist strawmen would be mere microevolution.For this statement to be anything other than an empty irrelevance "macroevolution" has to be at least a logical possiiblity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: With all due respect I think that describes your position here more than mine. I'm the one who has argued the point, and gone into the problems. Do you really think that a creationist would be happy with a definition of "macroevolution" that left a cat giving birth to a dog as "microevolution" ?
quote: You see, you haven't even understood my point. I'm not saying that creationists can't use your definition. I am saying that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" is incompatible with your definition of "kind" and therefore creationists can't use the two definitions together. Your point about baraminologists doesn't even address my argument unless you can show that they use the definition of macroevolution that I referred to, and explain how they deal with the problem. There's a prime example of "mentioning" without "going into".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Aside from the problem with a common creationist definition of macroevolution which I have already brought up, I am afraid that interbreeding does come into it. Many creationists propose interfertility as a test to see if two species fall within the same kind (although my understanding is that they include artificial situations as well as natural breeding). Unfortunately they also usually insist that species within a kind need not be interfertile, so the test can only tell us if two species fall within their idea of a kind, but not if they are in different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: No, there's no problem there. As I said that definition of macroevolution only requires a definition of "kind" that does not rule out a new kind evolving.
quote: Then I guess you're not seeing my point at all, because that is completely wrong. 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. The mere fact that it happened would mean that it wasn't macroevolution at all. If a dog DID give birth to a cat it would still only be microevolution because it happened ! Do you really think that the average creationist would accept a definition of macroevolution that allowed that ? So that's the problem. sing the two definitions makes statements like yours meaningless and pointless, because the distinction between micro and macro evolution boils down to "did it happen?". If it did it's microevolution. Saying that macroevolution doesn't happen is only saying that evolution that doesn't happen doesn't happen. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Sorry, but that simply isn't true. So far as I can see the problem is that people just aren't considering what I am saying.
quote: Could it perhaps be because I read Message 42 ? No explanation there, just assertions.
quote: As I said I've already provided evidence - a definition of "macroevolution" that only makes sense if the definition of "kind" does not rule out a new kind evolving. I think by simple charity you must at least allow the possibility that any creationists who use that definition may have a definition of "kind" that actually works with it.
quote: I can't believe that a creationist would resort to claiming that parent and offspring were unrelated. Now the examples you give are a big deal to creationists because they believe that they didn't happen and couldn't happen but I think that the average creationist would insist that they were macroevolution even if they did happen (at least as long as they cling to the belief that they didn't). But if dinosaur to bird evolution would be macroevolution if it happened then either macroevolution is not defined as the evolution of a new kind or kinds are not defined as separate creations. There's simply no way around that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: It means that the descendants are a different "kind" than the ancestors - at least that is how I read it.
quote: I'll try to explain it differently. The average creationist would, I am sure, take the view that what they call macroevolution would still be macroevolution if it happened (although they might change their minds if they became convinced that it did happen). But that means that they need a definition of macroevolution that doesn't depend on whether it did happen or not. As I have explained if kinds are defined as separate creations then a new kind cannot be formed by evolution. Therefore if macroevolution is also defined as the evolution of a new kind then any evolution that actually happens is NOT macroevolution. And that is the problem.
quote: So do I. That's not the point.
quote: From where I'm sitting it looks like you're just ignoring my point. You certainly didn't address it in this last post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Yes. 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 ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024