Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 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'
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 29 of 385 (562781)
06-01-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
06-01-2010 1:34 PM


quote:
I doubt you’ll ever find a creationist who disagrees that the term kind is defined as an organism that God made, and all its descendants.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 1:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 4:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 31 of 385 (562824)
06-02-2010 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
06-01-2010 4:45 PM


quote:
I'm not sure I understand what your objection is exactly.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 4:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 10:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 38 of 385 (562894)
06-02-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 10:24 AM


quote:
I don’t see how this relates. It, in fact, looks like affirming the consequent to me: you went from defining microevolution in terms of kinds to defining kinds in terms of microevolution.
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:
The definition I gave---which I feel accurately represents the creationists’ position (an organism* that God made, and all its descendants)---centers on the origin of a lineage, not on the changes within the lineage over time, as the defining characteristic.
Exactly my point. By that definition a kind CANNOT originate by evolution. The definition rules it out.
quote:
But, if God created only 1 archetypal organism, then there is only 1 kind. In this case, it does get a bit silly to talk about this as a distinct concept from mainstream evolutionary natural history, but, so what? That doesn’t change the clarity or unambiguity of the term kind: it just makes it usless in practice, not unclearly or ambiguously defined.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 10:24 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 11:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 40 of 385 (562906)
06-02-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
06-02-2010 11:58 AM


quote:
Can you expound on what's wrong with that definition of kind?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 11:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 12:09 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 42 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 12:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 43 of 385 (562911)
06-02-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 12:10 PM


quote:
This can't be true. The common creationist definition of macroevolution that you presented in Message 29 is evolution between kinds.
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:
In this usage, "macroevolution" cannot specify a definition of kind: it simply uses whatever definition of kind is inserted there.
So, it should work equally well, regardless of which definition of kind is used.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 12:10 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 44 of 385 (562914)
06-02-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
06-02-2010 12:09 PM


quote:
How so? What's different about it?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 12:36 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 12:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 46 of 385 (562921)
06-02-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
06-02-2010 12:36 PM


quote:
I thought that's exactly what they want.
Macroevolution, to them, is impossible. One kind cannot become another.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 1:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 48 of 385 (562926)
06-02-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
06-02-2010 12:55 PM


quote:
I thought that is exactly what they did do?
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:
Surely creos want to say that only micro-evolution is possible or necessary because this is just evolution within pre-existing kinds. No?
Not if it means that evolutionists can turn around and say that any evolution creationists object to is "just microevolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 1:17 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 52 of 385 (562936)
06-02-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
06-02-2010 1:17 PM


quote:
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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 1:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 6:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 54 of 385 (562943)
06-02-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 2:22 PM


quote:
With all due respect, you don’t really go into things, Paul. What you do is more like mentioning things.
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:
And, I still disagree with you: creationists don’t define kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into. They try to identify kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into (that’s what baraminology is), but they define them by their relationships to the original, archetypal organisms that God created (or to the organisms on the Ark, which represent a subset of the archetypes created by God).
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 2:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 62 of 385 (562958)
06-02-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:17 PM


quote:
BlueJay hits the nail on the head for the creationist definition of the word "Kind" (at least to the best of my understanding). The distinction of weather one kind can evolve from another kind is rather irrelevant to the topic since this implies problems with interbreeding (which has no relevance to the definition of kind). The ability to interbreed is an entirely separate issue.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:17 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 9:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 67 of 385 (562968)
06-02-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
06-02-2010 6:16 PM


quote:
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?
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:
Only if we assume that creos think new kinds have arisen by a process of evolution.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 6:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 7:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 72 of 385 (562980)
06-02-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 7:00 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
quote:
Come on, Paul: you write one or two sentences, and leave me to try to connect the dots for myself in every message. It took you six messages of two-liners, and you still didn't really articulate your argument in a way that anybody understood it: I had to do it for you, and I did it in one message.
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:
How you concluded from this that I’m the one not explaining myself is beyond me.
Could it perhaps be because I read Message 42 ? No explanation there, just assertions.
quote:
Show me a creationist who doesn’t. After finally figuring out what your argument is, I agree that there could very well be at least some creationists who will reject my definition.
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:
Then let me expound a bit more on the concept of descent from a creationist perspective. I admit that this is a bit speculative, but it comes from my assessment of creationists during discussions on this site. To the creationist, information-adding or new-structure-adding mutations break the rules of descent. They allow organisms to give birth to things that are not related to them. Birds and dinosaurs are clearly not related, so arguing that birds evolved from dinosaurs is saying that birds evolved from something they’re not related to, which is clearly (to them) bupkis. That’s why it’s such a big deal for them to say things like, a dinosaur laid an egg from which the first bird hatched or it’s still a bacteria: you haven’t shown it turning into a man yet.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 12:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 74 of 385 (562987)
06-02-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
06-02-2010 7:10 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
"Evolution between kinds" - What does that mean? I didn't think that inter-breeding kinds was creo argument at all.
It means that the descendants are a different "kind" than the ancestors - at least that is how I read it.
quote:
But they are saying macro-evolution didn't happen.
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:
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.
So do I. That's not the point.
quote:
Are we still talking at cross purposes here? Can anyone help clear through this fog?
From where I'm sitting it looks like you're just ignoring my point. You certainly didn't address it in this last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 7:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 8:08 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 90 of 385 (563048)
06-03-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Straggler
06-02-2010 8:08 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
quote:
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?
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 8:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 7:00 AM PaulK 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