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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(3)
Message 98 of 385 (563064)
06-03-2010 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:56 PM


Getting down to details
I'm happy to add my own welcoming reply, BobTHJ. Your posts so far have been quite refreshing. I'd like to get down to some topical details, but first, I'll indulge in a few snarky knee-jerk reactions that, alas, tend to be all too common in a forum like this one.
BobTHJ writes:
As BlueJay pointed out earlier how life is classified into kinds is far from an exact science -
Indeed. Many who are familiar with the study of "baraminology" have concluded that its distance from "an exact science" is so great that it turns out not to be any kind of science at all. A major factor in this conclusion is the admission made by all baraminologists that they start from a "foundational truth" based on a particular interpretation of scripture, and their goal is to figure out how to get physical evidence to be consistent with that "truth". This simply is not science.
and there is some disagreement on the issue (just as there is in the classification of life under a darwinian model).
It would be worthwhile to look at some particular cases of disagreement among baraminologists about how things group into "baramins", and compare these with contemporary cases of disagreement among evolutionary biologists and taxonomists about how things group into clades and lines of descent. On identifying a few representative disagreements within each field, it would also be instructive to see how disputes are debated, and how (or whether) they get resolved.
But here I have to admit that, like you, I'm not a credentialed scientist (nor a baraminologist), and it would be a stretch for me to try pursuing this in detail -- too much information to find, and too many other things I have to do instead. But you have already provided a useful reference, for which I am sincerely grateful. (More on that below.)
But that doesn't make the definition of "kind" any less valid, it only means the implementation hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.
I think it's fair to draw analogies here, like: discovering general relativity didn't make Newtonian physics any less valid; or: discovering that planetary orbits were elliptical didn't make the Copernican theory of perfectly circular orbits any less valid; or: discovering that the Earth's circumference around the poles is not really a circle didn't make the concept of a spherical Earth any less valid. In each case the latter (supplanted) notion simply "hasn't been fully fleshed out" -- actually, it is less accurate, which means more error-prone -- when compared to the notion that supplanted it.
Now the question becomes: where will our time and effort be better spent? Going back to flesh out those supplanted notions, or coming to grips with, understanding, and building on the notions that replaced them? Bear in mind that in trying to make those older notions more accurate, it's a safe bet that you'll be retracing the steps that led to our current notions on these matters (which still have some margin of error, but this has been measurably reduced).
So it is with baraminology (based on scripture) vs. cladistics (based on physical evidence). The vast majority of people who have pursued advanced degrees in biology, archaeology, zoology and geology over the last 150 years or so have made this transition, if they ever gave any credence to the scriptural account in the first place.
But now to the interesting part (finally):
Humans are of course a different animal entirely (no pun intended). The YEC model only works if humans are a distinct kind from other life. Though recent research by creation scientists seems to support this.
The second sentence there takes us to the crux of the matter. I think you have misstated it, but I can see how you arrived at this misstatement. I would paraphrase: The only purpose for having a YEC model is to have humans be a distinct kind from other life.
The essential and driving motive for YEC is the need to consider humans to be the result of a special, divine creation. It's the astonishing hubris, common to all religions but emphasized in Judaism and amplified in Christianity and Islam, that some supernatural entity created the entire universe just to be the home for mankind, and that God's particular and special interest in us is the whole reason for everything else in existence.
If you disagree with that, I'll be interested in your counter-argument. Now as for the cited reference, to a paper by Todd C. Wood: it begins by briefly reviewing a range of incompatible divisions of the fossil record, according to "baramin-oriented" creationists, into "human" vs. "non-human", and then employs a variety of statistical techniques to collections of data extracted from various descriptions of hominid and ape-like fossils, coming up with yet another distinct division of the fossils into the obligatory pair of immutable groups (with one fossil category in particular being perniciously ambiguous -- some would say "intermediate" -- as to its affiliation).
You might want to look at a review of Wood's paper by a biologist (at the Panda's Thumb web site). The main point is: if you abandon the dogmatic notion of having to divide these fossils into just two distinct groups, and instead allow a taxonomy that reflects a series of gradual transitions, it becomes a lot easier to make sense of the physical evidence.
It's a lot like giving up the idea of perfect circles in astronomy.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (broke up an over-long paragraph, and added emphasis)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:56 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 1:21 PM Otto Tellick has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 168 of 385 (563463)
06-05-2010 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Getting down to details
Hi Bob. Thanks for the detailed response. Lots to cover there... Let's start with this:
BobTHJ writes:
Wood's classification algorithm separated homonids into groupings of humans and apes. Au. africanus didn't fit neatly into either group. Wood's conclusion from the data is that Au. africanus is in a third group by itself. Matzke's conclusions from the data is that Au. africanus is a transitional form between the groups. This seems to me to be a clear case of both scientists acting upon their bias - which in this case makes a lot of sense as it appears neither conclusion is more reasonable than the other (unless considered with bias). In the end the data is not conclusive enough to show either interpretation to be correct.
To say that "both sides are showing bias" is to do serious violence to the meaning of "bias". Actually, this term tends to be used in so many ways with so many nuances that we should drop it completely when comparing scientists and YECs. Consider: I can honestly say that people who engage in rational, objective research are biased against unfounded assertions and vague generalizations, and I doubt that any of the people I'm referring to (the scientists) would dispute my statement. (They might express a preference for saying it in a different and more direct way, like "we do not accept unfounded assertions...") I can also say honestly that religious apologists are biased against any factual findings that contradict or diminish their articles of faith, and there's no shortage of evidence to support this claim. I am therefore able to agree with your statement that both sides are "biased", while disagreeing completely with your intent. This word doesn't help the discussion.
But the important thing here is to clarify the contrast between Wood and Matzke -- that is, between the two approaches that they represent. Wood begins with a hypothesis that the fossils of interest should fall into two clearly distinct groups: human and non-human. It turns out that the evidence does not fully support this hypothesis. There is one group that is clearly "human" and another group that is not, but then a third set of fossils turns out to share characteristics of both of those other groups, and doesn't fall clearly into one or the other.
If you say "well then, this is a third distinct group", you are (a) admitting that the initial hypothesis was wrong, and (b) misinterpreting the results rather badly, because this "third group" doesn't actually have any traits unique unto itself that make it different -- it simply has a distinct combination of the traits found in the other two groups. (That was the basis for Wood's "experiment": grouping fossils based on differentially shared traits.)
Please note that nothing in what I've explained so far has anything to do with "bias"; this is a simple, clear-cut, evidence-based progression from hypothesis to conclusion, and Wood is to be commended for being very clear about the evidence he used. The conclusion is simply that the hypothesis fails because it doesn't account for all the evidence. (No apologies or apologetics needed; this can happen to anybody.)
Now, Matzke's review of Wood didn't actually lay out the details of the evolutionary account for this same set of fossils -- that information is available elsewhere: several good urls are provided under the "Paleoanthropology" heading on the Panda's Thumb links page (NB: this heading is about two-thirds down from the top of a very long page full of many fascinating things). For example this one (chronology view) and this one (line-of-descent view). I'm sure there are even better ones to be found (I've seen them cited and quoted here at EvC over the last couple years).
Additional resources are easy enough to google, but beware: sources like AiG, Inst. for Creationist Whatever, and your good buddy Jay Wile are likely to show up using the same terms, but do not present the evolutionary account with any degree of accuracy or coherence. Whether deliberately or by plain incompetence, they get it wrong.
As for the large number of sites that present the information accurately, please don't waste time asserting that this is a "conspiracy". The facts and explanations arise from detailed debates and critical reviews about data collection methods, analytic procedures, and the logical consistency of conclusions. Researchers don't just make this stuff up, and presenters and publishers don't just buy it wholesale.
But getting back to the evolutionary explanation for those fossils, there's one more crucial point: this approach takes into consideration the temporal and geographical relationships among the various fossils -- something that is entirely missing from Wood's analysis. Naturally, this cuts to another core issue in the YEC "controversy": the reliability of dating methods. As I hope you know by now, there is a whole forum at EvC devoted to dating methods, and I highly recommend RAZD's detailed but quite approachable discussions about how independent results from a wide variety of distinct methods are found converge on consistent findings across time scales that far exceed YEC boundaries. (The Panda's Thumb link page cited above, and the older TalkOrigins web site also have lots of useful information about why YEC objections to dating methods fall flat, and why the YEC time scale is utterly, pathetically untenable.)
Not only does the evolutionary explanation provide a consistent account for all the gradations of features displayed by all the fossil evidence, but its account is also consistent with the temporal relations among the fossils, which have been established and confirmed by multiple independent measurements of both the fossils themselves and the materials in which they were embedded when they were uncovered. Again, there's nothing here having to do with bias -- just straight observation.
There's more stuff in your post that merits further response -- you raised the issues of "soft tissue" found in T-Rex fossils (not really a problem for evolutionary theory or dating methods) and a seemingly goofy fMRI "experiment" (not really an experiment, but a demonstration, for educational purposes, to highlight why users of fMRI must be scrupulous about how they analyze and interpret its output) -- but we can cover the bunch by noting that you got them all from Jay Wile.
Dr. Wile advertises himself as having a "PhD in Nuclear Chemistry", mainly to help sell his set of "science" text books that are tailored to the Christian home-schooling market. (His arguments against radiometric dating make it clear that he either forgot or never learned some very important stuff from his college and graduate courses.)
There's no denying that Wile puts religious apologetics first in his priorities (one of his home-schooling titles is "Exploring Creation with Chemistry"). His blog is rampant with quote mining and distortions, citing articles in popular science magazines in order to draw conclusions that really aren't warranted by those articles, let alone by the original research that the magazines are summarizing.
It's clear that he has an economic incentive for promoting creationism, so he can sell more books. And it's pretty easy to spot details in his blog posts that show how "promoting creationism" includes being dishonest, so apart from falling short of being a competent scientist, he isn't even a good Christian. I'd avoid him like the plague.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (it's "lots", not "lot's")

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 1:21 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 3:01 PM Otto Tellick has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 256 of 385 (564348)
06-10-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 3:01 PM


Re: Getting down to details
I wanted to recap Modulous's very instructive example about the mutations affecting the production of vitamin C in humans, chimps and Guinea pigs, but since things are already pretty busy in this thread, I'll just mention that you haven't responded to the specific evidence he provided. I have to wonder... what in particular (if anything) is holding you back from a response along the lines of this statement of yours, addressed to Modulous:
BobTHJ writes:
While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs ... I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is. I won't shy away from the data that does not [support YEC] or try and sweep it under the rug. If there is not a reasonable YEC interpretation of the data I'll happily admit it.
Since the relevant part of the YEC model (for this thread) is the assertion that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestor, the evidence from gene mutations affecting vitamin C production clearly does not support that model.
If you don't admit this, and you also don't present and explain evidence that does support the YEC model, then you and your cited references are stuck in the same old rut that has been at the core of this model since James Ussher published the original YEC chronology: you are presenting mistaken interpretations of data (and, most Jews and Christians would agree, mistaken interpretations of scripture as well); you are stating "conclusions" that you decided on before looking at the evidence, and that are unsupported by the evidence.
In other words, the contrast between your statement quoted above and your actual behavior is indicative of the dishonesty shared by every active proponent of the YEC model I've ever seen. A propos of that...
BobTHJ writes:
You discredit Dr. Wile because he does not subscribe to a mainstream view on radiometric dating - a dissenting viewpoint does not indicate ineptitude.
In science, a dissenting viewpoint only qualifies for consideration when it is accompanied by solid, unambiguous evidence. Dr. Wile's ineptitude is not due to the fact that he disagrees with the "mainstream view" (a view that follows logically and unambiguously from carefully gathered evidence). It's due to the fact that:
  • he ignores evidence that refutes his position
  • he misinterprets evidence when trying to refute the "mainstream view"
  • he misrepresents the statements of people who do the research (or who try, often with limited accuracy, to explain the research to non-scientists)
  • he makes up claims with no evidence at all to support them
And now I see, despite frequent advice not to do this, you are quoting another (all too familiar) creationist site:
BobTHJ writes:
For example, take a look at this recent article outlining some of the internal conflicts between darwinists over the Ardi fossil.
Fine, let's look at that: ICR article 5489, "Evolutionist Tosses Out 'Ardi' As Human Ancestor" by Brian Thomas, M.S.
The "Evolutionist" he is referring to is Esteban Sarmiento, and Thomas is citing Sarmiento's recent article in Science (no web link -- apparently a subscription, or a good library, is needed to access this article), which disputes Ardi researcher Tim White regarding the placement of Ardi in the primate line of descent.
Three other articles are cited by Thomas, all web-accessible. Two of them are other ICR postings. The third is an Associated Press article by Malcom Ritter (Thomas's link takes us to the May 27, 2010 issue of the Stamford, CT "Advocate", but perhaps other news outlets also carry this story): "Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor".
So now we have Thomas's title ("... tosses out 'ardi' as human ancestor"), and his "quotation" from Sarmiento's paper:
quote:
Sarmiento refuted the critical aspect that had placed Ardi among hominids, those imaginary ape-like possible ancestors of man that could supposedly walk upright. He wrote, "Sufficient support for this claimis lacking."
And we have AP science writer Ritter reporting this about Sarmiento's paper:
quote:
Esteban Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation in East Brunswick, N.J., wrote in the new analysis that he's not convinced Ardi belongs on the evolutionary tree branch leading to modern humans.
Instead, he said in an interview, he thinks it came along earlier, before that human branch split off from the ancestors of chimps and gorillas.
The specific anatomical features of teeth, the skull and elsewhere that the researchers cited just don't make a convincing case for membership on the human branch, he argued. Some, like certain features in the wrist and where the lower jaw connects to the skull, indicate instead that Ardi arose before humans split off from African apes, he said.
Can you work out what the difference is between these two views of Sarmiento's paper? Thomas, the ICR religious apologist with an a priori conclusion and an ax to grind against all things "darwinist", presents Sarmiento's position as though it completely refutes any assertion of an ancestral link between Ardi and modern humans.
Meanwhile the AP reporter, who spoke directly to Sarmiento about the paper, says the dispute is about whether Ardi is ancestral only to humans (Tim White's position), rather than being ancestral to humans, chimps and gorillas (Sarmiento's position).
Is Mr. Thomas of the ICR actually incapable of understanding an article in Science, or is he being deliberately dishonest? It's beyond all shadow of doubt that he has made a mistake here, and attributes to Sarmiento an assertion that is diametrically opposite to what the scientist actually said. It's risky business to guess at someone's true intent, but I am inclined to think that Mr. Thomas's stupidity is not so extreme as to qualify this as an "honest" mistake.
What I find so appalling about this example of blatant distortion by quote mining is that it is such an old, worn out strategy among the proponentists of creationism -- they've been caught at it so many times by so many people -- and yet they're still doing it. Ridiculous.
Now seriously, Bob, is this the sort of group you want to count on for any kind of guidance? Do you accept and adopt their dishonesty as a foundational part of your worldview? Is that the sort of Christian you are, lying for Jesus?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 3:01 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Dr Jack, posted 06-10-2010 5:24 AM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 258 by Peepul, posted 06-10-2010 7:17 AM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 300 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 5:27 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 264 of 385 (564704)
06-11-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


BobTHJ writes:
As I've tried to demonstrate - I am not willing to ignore any evidence.
Well, it seems you are failing, repeatedly, in this attempt. With each new reply of yours in this thread, where you provide more links to old and new creationist propagandists instead of directly addressing the evidence that others have been presenting to you, you are showing a persistent willingness to ignore the evidence.
It's starting to look like all your statements about being open-minded, being interested in learning the truth, being willing to accept clear evidence against the YEC "model" and so on, are all just a smoke-screen, and you are in fact no more honest about this than your favorite web references are honest about scientific research.
If you really were not willing to ignore evidence, you would be responding to the evidence that has been presented and discussed here. Instead, you tend to move on to some different attempt to vaguely discredit evolution or vaguely support YEC, and you give us more links that lead to more PRATTs. You've done it again just now:
There are many who scientists who believe in Biblical creation - for reference here's a list and here's another (neither are comprehensive, though there may be some overlap).
Yup, there's overlap, for sure. But that's not the only problem with those lists (which, like so many of the references you've been providing, are all too familiar and easily debunked).
Here's a very informative video regarding lists of scientists who support creationism (or dispute evolution or believe in a young earth or think vaccination causes autism or deny global warming or firmly recommend homeopathic remedies or ...)
Face it Bob, your "progression" in this thread has been in the direction of becoming recognizable as a troll -- someone who's skill is focused on and limited to the ability to sustain an antagonistic dialog. Admittedly, as trolls go, you are admirably benign and civil; your apparent good manners evoke good manners from others; many of us, in trying to teach you something, have learned useful things ourselves (well, I have, anyway). Because of all that, I am sincerely grateful to you for your participation here. Thank you.
But saying that you're eager to learn and then demonstrating an apparent inability to learn... well, what should we conclude from that?
---
That last question brings to mind those Christian revival meetings -- I've been to a few, in the distant past -- where attendants are invited, implored, all but coerced to stand up, step to the front, declare their sins, accept Jesus, start speaking in tongues, grovel on the floor or whatever. Bob, did you ever go to meetings like that? Have you ever gone to the front? This sort of thing doesn't really happen at science meetings, but what if... right here, now, at EvC, Bob. Science is trying to reach you. Trying to save you. Science wants you to find the truth, wants you to accept the truth that will set you free. Free yourself now, Bob! Renounce your YEC sins! Come on up front! Prove to yourself, for yourself, that you can do this!
OK, sorry, that was a cheap shot. No offense intended.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (changed a silly phrase about scientists having patients)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar fix
Edited by Otto Tellick, : yet another grammar fix -- my, such carelessness...
Edited by Otto Tellick, : which is worse: careless grammar, or the compulsion to fix it after posting?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 12:09 AM Otto Tellick 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