|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
New to this forum.... Brief bio: Young-earth Creationist, non-scientist (in the degree holding sense of the word) with a hobby interest in all things science.
Since there seems to be some confusion on creationist beliefs, and since it appears no creationist has weighed in on this thread yet I thought I'd jump in. 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. creationists and darwinian evolutionists agree on the processes of evolution: natural selection acting upon mutation to cause adaptation. While some may claim otherwise I don't see how the ability of any two creatures to interbreed or not interbreed harms the creationist model (with the possible exception of human/animal interbreeding). As opposed to what was stated creationists have no problem with ring species. It is logical from a YEC standpoint to assume that God created a base Gull kind, but since creation the two extremes of that baranome have diverged to the point to not allow hybridized offspring. On the flip side, were two separate kinds to adapt to the point where interbreeding were possible I don't see how this would pose a problem to creationist thinking either (although I do think it unlikely to have occurred or to occur in the future). The issue is not "Does natural selection acting on mutuation cause adaptation?" (we agree on that) but instead "Did the process of evolution begin 4 billion years ago with a single-celled organism or 6-10 thousand years ago when God created distinct kinds of creatures?" The term "macroevolution" seems to have a loose definition among creationists - but I typically take it to mean common descent from a single ancestor. I don't know that creationists spend a lot of time defining it since we don't subscribe to it. I do know there has been an effort made by Answers in Genesis and others to abandon the term and instead use "molecules-to-man evolution" because it better describes the concept. The terminology chance is I believe in an effort to correct a common misconception among darwinists that creationists do not subscribe to the evolutionary processes (mutation, adaptation, speciation, natural selection). Edited by BobTHJ, : Correct misspellings / grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: A base kind for wider classifications (primates, mammals, or even vertebrates)? Theoretically possible in a YEC model but highly unlikely given the timeframe (7-10k years) for such adaptation to occur. While creationists generally believe adaptation and speciation to occur much more rapidly than darwinian evolutionists (as evidence by observable modern examples within a handful of generations) there would still not be adequate time for such divergence to occur. As BlueJay pointed out earlier how life is classified into kinds is far from an exact science - and there is some disagreement on the issue (just as there is in the classification of life under a darwinian model). But that doesn't make the definition of "kind" any less valid, it only means the implementation hasn't been fully fleshed out yet. 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.
quote: not sure how this is relevant to the topic of discussion - but if it's necessary to clarify: all science requires certain assumptions to be made. Darwinian evolutionists tend to rule out any assumptions of a supernatural origin as non-science (perhaps because they are afraid of what that might mean?) and instead accept far more fanatical assumptions that fit a naturalistic model. I on the other hand prefer to make the most reasonable assumptions to fit the data - even if those assumptions may be supernatural in origin. That the most reasonable assumption also happens to fit my religious beliefs is merely circumstantial confirmation of those beliefs. I'm happy to discuss this further - but it seems off-topic for this thread.
quote: As I said, there seems to be a lot of confusion over the term - hence the effort by some leading creationists to use a term that better describes the concept of common ancestry from a single organism.
quote: Agreed....can you think of a better term? It'd sure be nice to have a phrase that clearly explained the issue - I for one grow weary of constantly having to give lengthy explanations to darwinists who don't understand the basic principles of YEC science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Thanks! I'm glad to be here
quote: Quite true that not all creationists agree on this issue....I don't claim to speak for all creationists. I know that some creationists have problems with certain-levels of speciation - I don't. My point was that speciation that creates new non-interbreeding species or the convergence of species from two separate kinds to allow interbreeding does not (by itself) invalidate the YEC model (with the possible exception of humans in the second example). Neither example conflicts with the Biblical account of creation or the progression of life. I don't believe a "kind"-test exists at this point - but it is possible one may be discovered. As I said, I'm just a hobbyist so I don't know the level of quality available for baraminological testing at this point. As to why use the word "kind" instead of "clade" I also should probably defer to someone with more knowledge than myself - I honestly don't know. Perhaps they could be used interchangeably? My guess is that creation scientists use "kind" in an effort to convey the idea of it starting with one or more created creatures (finite beginning) - whereas "clade" can be assigned to any whole grouping anywhere along a phylogenetic tree, right?
quote: I haven't seen any data yet that would indicate an ability for the evolutionary process to add any significant data to the genome - only to remove or rearrange. So my answer is no - given 4-5 billion years I don't think life could evolve from single-cells to complex organisms. However, if such data were to become available clearly demonstrating how the evolutionary process could add information to a genome this wouldn't invalidate young earth creation science - in the light of that data it would be quite reasonable for a YEC to assume that the ability for genomes to gain information is a byproduct of their incredible design. By the way, where in Colorado do you hail from? I'm in Parachute - near GJ on the western slope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Old Earth Creations subscribe to darwinian evolution....the only difference you have with them is on the issue of abiogenesis.
quote: It makes quite a lot of sense for baraminology to look similar to the phylogenetic tree at the ends (furthest branches). YEC doesn't dispute the divergence of species since creation/flood. However your claim that the base of the phylogentic tree has continuity is quite false. This article gives an overview of some of the problems.
quote: You're all mixed up here. Any science requires assumptions. Here's some of the common ones darwinian evolutionists make:1. abiogenesis 2. uniformation in the geological record 3. a constant decay rate for radio-isotopes The goal with science is to examine the data and then make the most reasonable assumptions/predictions about that data. My point is that assuming the supernatural is far more reasonable in some circumstances than assuming a naturalistic solution - such as in the generation of life. Of course, as new data becomes available then it becomes necessary to re-evaluate all assumptions to ensure they are still reasonable - but you cripple you ability to think scientifically if you rule out all assumptions of a supernatural nature prior to examining the data.
quote: If the data strongly opposes all known naturalistic assumptions? (abiogenesis anyone?)
quote: Again, sorry....I'm not qualified to answer comprehensively at this point. Obviously comparison of genomes or mophological features are relevant indicators - but certainly not deciding factors (just as in a darwinian model).
quote: LOL - It's not AiG that's slopping together abiogensis and evolution! As I've said several times now - we agree about evolution (in the natural selection/mutation/speciation/adaptation sense). The two key points of disagreement are over time (young or old earth) and origin (supernatural or natural). It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution in their quest to find a naturalistic explanation to everything - regardless of how unreasonable that explanation may be!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes, I agree with your distinction between clade and kind. That's what I speculated immediately after my question.
quote: Those are all non-problems from a YEC standpoint - it would make sense that creatures with a similar morphological appearance would have similar genetic makeup. The Designer re-using common elements of design is only logical. Think of a computer programmer - they don't code each program from scratch. They re-use common libraries that share function. As to the ERVs there is a reasonable explanation as well (though here I hesitate as I've only briefly reviewed the theories and research on this subject). The theory suggests that retroviruses are not the cause of the ERV genetic match - it's the other way around. Retroviruses are spawned by 'adaptation code' placed in the initial genomes by the designer - ERVs are really this adaptation code that we were created with. Thus it is likely that they would be found in similar locations of the genome for similar creatures. I'm probably not doing this explanation justice so I'll just link the article and let you read it for yourself.
quote: Yes, I agree that comparing the DNA for two species will demonstrate the differences between those species. However, jumping from there to common ancestry of those two species is pure speculation - and I'm not quite sure what that has to do with demonstrating the capability of the evolutionary process to add information to the genome.
quote: Now you're way off....the only variation that we know evolution can produce is that which we have observed - anything else is pure speculation. I know of no change that evolution is incapable of producing. I also however know of no change that evolution is capable of making that adds information to the genome. Plus, as I noted earlier - one kind adapting to the point of interbreeding with another kind (though improbable) does not invalidate YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Yes - please understand the difference here. I was discussing what would or would not fit within a YEC model. Interbreeding between kinds (if shown to exist) would still fit within a YEC model (it does not invalidate the model because it does not conflict with the Biblical text). That being the case - there is no data suggesting it may exist - therefore the ability to interbreed MAY indeed be an indicator of like-kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Please - don't betray your ignorance to this issue. Five minutes and a google search would have been adequate research to learn about the topic. Old earth creationists ARE darwinists - a subset of them anyway. They DO believe in the darwinian "molecules-to-man" common ancestry evolution. The only issue on which the OEC and athiestic darwinists disagree is the generation of life. OECs say God created the first single celled organism and athiestic darwinists claim it occurred through abiogenesis.
quote: Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance on the subject. None of the assumptions I've listed have even come close to being proven. Abiogenesis is so speculative that darwinists don't even have a clear consensus theory on how it could have occurred. On the contrary, there is fairly convincing data suggesting they are false.
quote: No doubt many religious folk who have never bothered with science do indeed need an explanation of the two concepts (as do many non-religious folk) - anyone from AiG does not. But we are not talking about confusing concepts. We're talking about separating them. Unless you want to join intelligent design or the OEC camp then darwinism and abiogensis are inseparable. The one does not work without the other. Then again, maybe you have some other naturalistic theory as to the origin of life that I've never heard of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: This is simply more ignorance to the issue. There is STRONG consensus among young-earth creation scientists as to the basic principles of the YEC model. Just as among darwinist scientists there is certainly debate over some specific issues - but such is to be expected. Also please note that I did not claim to speak for creationists as a whole except on matters of widespread consensus. In areas where there is not I prefaced my comments with a disclaimer. Feel free to take a moment and re-read my posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Thanks for making my point. Let's take a closer look at this: A abiogenesis. B, C, and D are examples of intelligent design, E is that unspecified other means that is supposedly more reasonable than a supernatural origin. Note again what I said: "unless you want to join the ID or OEC camps...". So, unless you want to subscribe to an intelligent design theory (B, C, or D) you have no choice but to accept A, because (as of yet anyway) there is no E.
quote: There is only one other viable option put forward at this point: intelligent design (which your B, C, and D are examples of). But since the new-athiest Darwinists are vehemantly opposed to anything ID, they are forced to either accept abiogenesis (A) or admit they have no freakin' clue (E).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
quote: You are correct and I am wrong. I overstepped and oversimplified. Certainly not all OECs accept molecules-to-man evolution (gap theory for instance does not). I responded too quickly. My apologies for saying you were ignorant to the issue when it was myself who was mistaken. I'll revise: many OECs are darwinian evolutionists.
quote: Care to give some evidence for any one of them?
quote: I stand by this point - and I indicated in my response to Coyote. All origin of life theories (that I've heard anyway) fall into one of two categories:* abiogenesis (or the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic material) * intelligent design Note that I say (paraphrase) "unless you want to accept ID you have to accept abiogenesis." I wasn't trying to say that darwinian evolution and ID are exclusive. Only that the prevailing neo-atheists who champion darwinism are unwilling to accept it and thus are forced to accept abiogenesis by default. I could have been more clear - my apologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined:
|
quote: Thank you, glad to be part of the discussion.
quote: I certainly try to - and I appreciate your analysis, though it seems you may not have understood my positions.
quote: It was not my intent to imply all darwinists are atheists. If you will look back at my previous posts you will see that this was my first use of the two words together. I was attempting to refer to a specific subset of darwinists with this comment - those who are atheists. I apologize if this was not more clear - as I said above I should have chosen better wording.
quote: Of course...and I agree with you completely. Again, if you look at my previous posts you will see that I understand the distinction between the two. I wasn't trying to state that abiogenesis and the darwinian evolution are one in the same.
quote: My point was that since most darwinists who are atheists reject ID than abiogensis is their only remaining option.
quote: Yes, these are all examples of intelligent design. However, that was not my question. I asked if there was another naturalistic theory....supernatural theories such as these creation stories do not fit that definition.
quote: Of course....there was one example above where I should not have used the term - and indeed showed myself to be hypocritical on the issue. Please understand I'm not an angry simple-minded name-caller. I don't troll internet forums looking to start flame-wars. I'm more than happy to step up and admit it when I'm wrong. I addressed Dr Adequate's comments as ignorant because they were. I certainly don't believe Dr Adequate to be an ignorant person - his* post-count testifies otherwise. It'd be hard to accumulate that many posts of mindless nonsense without receiving a chorus of groans whenever you contributed the conversation. Since that didn't occur I knew Dr Adequate had to be at least somewhat educated. Which is why I was so surprised by his responses - denying my arguments without a hint of logical rebuttal. I thusly characterized those responses as ignorant - and hoped by doing so to draw out a more reasoned reply from him. * Dr Adequate: If you are female then please accept my apologies for using the wrong pronouns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Of course they all could - we agree with that. Any of those is a possible solution to the origin of life in a darwinian framework. You'll notice that I didn't say abiogenesis was the only option. My point was: apart from ID theories - only abiogenesis remains (unless you want to count your 'heck if I know' option E).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Which is exactly what I said - apart from ID (of which OEC is a part) there is no option but abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Agree....it wouldn't be lightly thrown out. But if it were YEC would still survive as a reasonable theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: I suppose not - I think what I'm looking for here is theistic evolutionists - I'm mixing terms. My apologies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024