Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
articulett
Member (Idle past 3362 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 359 of 385 (565547)
06-17-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
quote:
Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God. It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.
Do you think that the theory of gravity LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain god's means of keeping the planets in orbit or "why things fal"l --without invoking god? What about germ theory? Atomic theory? Heliocentrism? The notion that the earth is an oblate spheroid rather than flat? (Remember, scientific theories are the best explanations for the observed facts.)
It seems like the only scientific theories that you have problems with are the ones that conflict with your indoctrination. When you say that appearances are deceiving, do you think the devil makes the earth look flat? Do you think the devil is responsible for my perception that the earth is not spinning even though science shows that it's spinning at 1000 m.p.h.? How do you suggest we remedy these deceiving appearances? The truth is not laid out in your holy book. So far, it seems that science is the only method for separating deceiving appearances from what is actually going on. For example, it appears the sun moves across the sky each day; science shows us this is an illusion due to the fact that we are on a planet that rotates towards the sun each morning and away each night.
To a scientist, "kind" is a vague term that allows believers to change the meaning as need be to fit whatever it is they feel saved for believing in. To understand more, we use more specific terms. "Kind" is used by people who want to remain purposefully ignorant of the facts so that they can continue to believe in the story they feel "saved" for "believing in". It's not a term used by those seeking to understand the actual origin of the species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 3362 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 361 of 385 (565559)
06-17-2010 9:55 PM


The fact that some humans contain Neanderthal DNA does not mean that humans descended from Neanderthal. It only means that there was some mating going on after the two lineages had split.
Horses and Zebras share a horse-like ancestor and can still produce offspring. (So can donkeys and zebra). But one did not descend from the other. We consider them separate species because their hybrid offspring are generally infertile and they do not mate in the wild.
Dogs, however, did descend from wolves and are considered a subspecies of wolf since they can still mate with and produce viable offspring with wolves. Even though the various breeds of dog look like separate species from each other, they are the same species. There are many species that look identical to other species (especially in plants and insects), but genetics shows that they are, in fact, different species.
"Kind" tends to be a term creationists play fast a loose with in order to make facts fit their predetermined conclusion. I have a Masters in Genetics, and I don't know any scientist that uses that term, nor have I ever heard of the "baramin hypothesis".

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by ramoss, posted 06-19-2010 2:52 PM articulett has replied

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 3362 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 363 of 385 (565716)
06-19-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ramoss
06-19-2010 2:52 PM


quote:
How about camels and llamas then? They are separated by continents and millions of years, yet, the hybrids of them are viable.
Nor can they mate on their own, the size differential is too great.
They are in the process of speciating. What happens when animals specieate is that you tend to get reduced fertility over time until the two can't produce hybrid offspring at all. You can google "Ligers" for a similar story.
I don't know how biblical literalists make sense of the obvious similarities between such animals and their nonspecific word "kind".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ramoss, posted 06-19-2010 2:52 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2010 9:05 PM articulett has replied

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 3362 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 365 of 385 (565814)
06-21-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by ramoss
06-20-2010 9:05 PM


I'm hoping for goats.
I always wonder how biblical literalists interpret article like discoveries of Frozen Woolly Mammoths or unearthed skeletons of such.
We might asked how are Woolly Mammoths and elephants related? When did they last share a common ancestor? Are elephants descended from Woolly mammoths or a sister species? When did Woolly Mammoths walk the earth? What did they eat? Did humans hunt them? Did Neanderthals? etc.
And we have tools for figuring out these answers. But YEC's don't. They just have to try to fit the facts into their ancient ark story and make up how the ancestors of these animals got from Mount Ararat to all the places they appear to be native to today.
Clearly a creationist must be able to see that goat and sheep are more related than goats and dogs. And the DNA proves this as does the fact that they can create offspring with sheep but not dogs.
How does a biblical literalist explain this. Did god take some sheepish goatish ancestor on board and do super fast evolution to make these two different species or did he just poof out two separate but similar-enough-to-breed species and have them board the ark in pairs? These appear to be separate "kind" to people writing the bible since they have separate names for sheep and goats. And what about Kangaroos and wallabies which they didn't even seem to know about? And how did they get to Australia from Mount Ararat? Why are there no fossils of marsupials in the middle east?
I doubt that bible literalists agree on the answers to these questions.
I suspect you have to kill your curiosity to be a YEC (or be satisfied with farfetched explanations that aren't supported by any evidence.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2010 9:05 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by DrJones*, posted 06-21-2010 1:40 PM articulett has not replied
 Message 367 by bluegenes, posted 06-23-2010 4:20 AM articulett 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