Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 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'
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 385 (562167)
05-26-2010 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
05-25-2010 9:14 PM


Oh god, not again!
You'll never get a usable answer from creationists. The closest I've seen someone come here is Peg with her "if it can breed it's the same kind" which of course runs into numerous problems, not in the least with ring species.
Anyway, good luck with your quest, my prediction is there will be no answer forthcoming.
Let's see if I'm a prophet, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 05-25-2010 9:14 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 05-26-2010 8:12 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 7 by hotjer, posted 05-26-2010 9:15 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 383 by Carel, posted 07-02-2010 4:32 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 5 of 385 (562171)
05-26-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
05-26-2010 8:12 AM


hooah212002 writes:
There will be answers aplenty. However, they will all be shite.
Ah yes, of course. I should have put the word "usable" in there somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 05-26-2010 8:12 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 05-26-2010 8:31 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 8 of 385 (562178)
05-26-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by hotjer
05-26-2010 9:15 AM


hotjer writes:
I recall an article I read regarding phasmatodea. Scientists did directly observe a "kind" becoming a new "kind" - the new "kind" from the "old kind" could not breed with each other.
Interesting. Keep in mind though that there are some species of stick insects that reproduce by parthenogenesis, so "breeding" is not something they do anyway.
I look forward to the article though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hotjer, posted 05-26-2010 9:15 AM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by hotjer, posted 05-26-2010 9:48 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 15 of 385 (562207)
05-26-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by hotjer
05-26-2010 4:55 PM


hotjer writes:
Wouldn't that be a good way to counter-argue a person like Peg (despite the fact that she will not acknowledge anything that contradicts what she says) or is it not a proper argument because of the way they "breed"?
These stick insects do "breed normally" with one another. Some do it by parthenogenesis, but not all.
So in this case, yes, this would be a case of one kind diverging into two different kinds (when taking Peg's definition), don't hold your hopes up for any acknowledgement on the creationists part though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by hotjer, posted 05-26-2010 4:55 PM hotjer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by caffeine, posted 05-27-2010 4:05 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 17 of 385 (562243)
05-27-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by caffeine
05-27-2010 4:05 AM


But isn't the result of this experiment that they can no longer interbreed even if they are forced together? Or did I misread it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by caffeine, posted 05-27-2010 4:05 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 05-27-2010 10:02 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 385 (562256)
05-27-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
05-27-2010 10:02 AM


Thanks Bluejay.
Ok, so this one doesn't qualify. Better start searching again Hotjer.
Bluejay writes:
*The link still makes a smiley when I write it (even when I cut-n-paste from Modulous's edits in "peek mode"), and I can't figure out how to fix that, so you'll have to go back to Message 10 to get the link.
You could try the "disable smilies" tickbox under the reply box. I'm guessing that should work.
Wait, lemme try:
http://www.plosone.org/article/infooi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001907
Yep, that works

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 05-27-2010 10:02 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 374 of 385 (567340)
06-30-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by CosmicChimp
06-30-2010 4:42 PM


CosmicChimp writes:
To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication. But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.
My problem is that I do not see the difference between poofology which produces incomplete duplication, or ToE which does it equally indistinguishably.
The discovery institute evidently did a good job of expressing that "god did it" because I can't find the seems anywhere. Occam's razor is to me the only way I've been able to discern.
Essentially their argument is common design implies common designer, which is itself an explanation for nested hierarchy. There must be a foolproof rebuttal.
I don't know about foolproof, but I always liked this video by CDK007:
Linky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 5:53 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 384 of 385 (567656)
07-02-2010 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Carel
07-02-2010 4:32 AM


Re: My first message
Carel writes:
Long ago I enterd the EO-forums "And God Created Darwin". I was looking for answers like this. I tried almost everything to get an answer, but no. I'm not sure if Huntard is a prophet, but many things he said were right.
Thank you, Carel. I remember you from there. Welcome to EvC!
This place is a bit different then the EO-forums. Most importantly, it's moderated a lot better then the EO-forums. Which is one of the reasons I left there.
Now I want to debate the 6000 jear old earth. That's even more difficult, because creationists know that with that timescale they throw almost every science through the drain.
Hope I find good topics here
Oh you will. Start with Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, for a comprehensive look at dating methods that disprove a young earth.
Oh, and a free tip. If you use the "peek"button on the bottom right of this post you can see how I did those nice little quoteboxes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Carel, posted 07-02-2010 4:32 AM Carel 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