Kinds are not related

I'm happy to run with that. But when I point to evidence of a population evolving you don't get to say 'but they are of the same kind'.You see, creationists often try to preserve their beliefs by conceding evolution when it is plainly obvious to even an untrained person, and maintaining that it is evolution 'within a kind'. So evolutionists quite rightly, want to have a concrete definition of a kind so they can try to demonstrate evolution across those borders so as to convince creationists of their position. They also want to test whether the example they just showed constitutes 'within a kind' or not - since taking your opponents word for it is not generally regarded as a successful debating strategy (it is not exactly a good method of persuasion after all).However, creationists are very unwilling to do this - possibly because it removes their ability to shift goalposts later on. Yet they are confident that an observed evolutionary event is definitely 'within a kind'. They don't see the problem with this.So - if you want to say that kinds are now unknowable - you don't get to hide behind them when an example of evolution is shown. If you are happy with that, I'm happy with that - getting creationists to drop the bad faith argument that is 'kinds' has been a long standing objective and it's nice to see somebody conceding it.

I'm not being cynical - I'm just saying why the two camps argue over kinds in the first place -- because creationists make claims about what is or what is not evolution within a kind without providing a means of determining whether something is a kind or not, nor can they (if they did, and were proven wrong, they could easily move the goalposts since the Bible doesn't give us any real clues). That's all.If you accept that we can't know what the original kinds were, that there is no way to tell, then you can't argue that any given example of evolution is technically 'within a kind'. This doesn't contradict evolution though, which says exactly the same kind of thing. It just so happens that when there become enough 'sorts' of 'kinds' that it becomes convenient for us to create new labels. This is the origin of the nested hierarchy of life we observe.Evolution predicts that all evolution will be 'within a kind'. Creationists say that there are some 'ancestral kind' which did not evolve from a predecessor and that any evidence we find for evolution today that cannot be dismissed easily in other fashions must simply evolution within these set kind definitions. The poor logic should be plain - how can they know if a given example of evolution crosses their 'kind barriers' if they aren't able to tell us what those kind barriers are ahead of time? Your model produces cladograms too. You said as much with your 'sorts' of 'kinds'. You just have X number (however many kinds you end up with) of independent cladograms rather than one unified cladogram that can be zoomed in on for detailed study. Then how do you explain 'sorts' of 'kinds' without mutations? Your model is exactly the same as evolution and is exactly as parsimonious but it explains less. You propose that these kinds changed into various 'sorts' over time (evolution within kinds?). This is exactly the same as evolution which says they changed into 'sorts' over time time. The only difference is that evolution explains that the ancestral kinds are also 'sorts' of 'kinds' as well. And therefore it explains the kinds. Your model doesn't. All you've done is taken the same natural history that evolutionists have developed, drawn an arbitrary and undisclosed line and said "no more". It's not really that neat I'm afraid - it's exactly what creationists have been doing since they were forced to admit some evolution does happen.So your outline of a theory of barminology is just a subset of existing natural history as explained by evolution only seriously lacking a good reason to draw a line and say 'no more evolution here folks'.

You must still be communicating things badly. It still sounds like you are proposing that the populations change over time due to some kind of mechanism so that you get varieties of 'sorts'. If a group of animals changing over time isn't evolution...erm...then what is it? We can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that every organism so far tested is related to each other. I am perfectly happy to spend a thread going through through that. How that happens is not too relevant in this thread at this juncture, but we do know that mutations and natural selection occur because we've watched it - so it is likely they are involved.But you are still avoiding the problems with your model by trying to distract me with your criticisms of the scientific one. Your model is exactly the same but as you go back in time you at some point say 'stop' and you don't explain any further. So even if we were really charitable as I was in my last post...your model is exactly the same as the scientifically accepted one except it explains less and raises the question 'why did you stop?' I agree - drawing imaginary trees or other imaginary entities, or even imagining a pleasant story to explain life's diversity is very far from proof. If you want to discuss the non-imaginary method of drawing cladograms and so on you are welcome to take this to another thread. Nevertheless - the point I made in the last post remains: You also have cladograms (you admit as much in the quote above)- they are just disjointed. Creationists make the 'kind' thing into a distraction - they say certain things about what can and cannot happen between kinds but don't specify what kinds exactly are.I do discern between a dog and a bird. If you think evolutionary science doesn't you've grotesquely misunderstood something.A bird belongs to the living kind, the animal kind, the backboned kind, and the bird kind.A dog belongs to the living kind, the animal kind, the backboned kind, the mammal kind and the dog kind.so of course they can be separated. Exactly. Are you suggesting the Israelites had a superior methodology than modern science? It seems to me they drew a lineage, somewhat basic, and then lots of people have since assumed it was true. Why do you not think that is silly?Of course, evolutionary biology has picked criteria for drawing out lineages and have confirmed their accuracy using independent sources of evidence. Converging lines of independent evidence confirming that the trees are accurate - the probability of that happening by chance can be calculated (and it is ludicrously small) so either the evidence was deliberately made to look that way or evolution is on to something. No, I'm asking you a question. Why are you assuming the worst of me? Then you are either proposing the old 'front loading' theory or you are proposing that Noah took all 10,000 of the presently living species (as well as all the ones that have since died out) onto the ark in groups of six? I'm willing to bet 'front loading'. Was that so difficult? Why did you have to get so shirty about it? It is a common enough creationist idea and you could have just said it, right?I don't see why you want to deny mutations completely, seems to go against the observed evidence. We have seen that mutations occur with every new offspring, and that these mutations can have either zero, a small, or a large morphological effect. It is inevitable that some or even many of the 'sorts' out there have undergone some kind of mutation event since the ark - and there is empirical evidence that would strongly suggest this. It seems a bit premature, even if you don't require mutations in general, to deny that they could have had some impact. Why would I say this? I don't think speciation has stopped. I mean it stops when a lineage goes extinct, but that's about it. So as I said - evolution explains everything your model does and then some more. I'm not sure why we'd prefer your model with its arbitrary historical cutoff points, its pointless denial of observed phenomena and the lack of supplied evidence for the proposal that all genetic variety is already present not to mention the evidence that exists against this proposal.If you can show some way for blind independent researchers to develop the same cladograms in your model (for example lumping all frogs together and excluding newts) that would be a start. But as you admit in the OP - this cannot be done.If you supply evidence that all the genetic variety necessary to create the entire biodiversity of tens of thousands of sorts of birds was present in six ancestor species without needing mutation events, that might be something.Indeed - if you can supply any confirming evidence at all that might be nice. Otherwise your model is the same as what you are criticising evolution for - nothing more than imagination. Someone trying to figure out a model that is consistent with what they see - but that isn't specific enough to be tested.And I see no reason to be impressed by that method when I have multiple converging lines of independent evidence all pointing to one conclusion: all life is related.To show the arbitrariness: Why can I not counter with 'a single-celled organism at the beginning of the world had all the genetic variety necessary to create the biodiversity of the present earth' or maybe I could argue that there was 1 couple of ancestral animals, 1 couple of ancestral plants, 1 ancestral bacterium, 1 ancestral fungus and these contained all the genetic variety necessary etc etc.That is: can you justify the approximate area where you are making your starting point in any rigorous fashion? As your OP seems to indicate, you can't. So your model is just one of thousands of similar models - all imaginable and none evidenced. Why should we think yours is superior? We haven't even got to completely different concepts such as Lamarck's theory or Darwin's original theory, suitably modified to make it unfalsifiable and unevidencible or some random other theory yet dreamed up. Here is the kind of thing you are competing against - that is a thread which lays out in relatively simple terms, why I am confident that the evolutionary model is the right way forward. Until creationists can construct something of that ilk, I'm unlikely to be swayed. I felt it at least fair to give you a heads up on the daunting task you face in trying to make your model convincing to me.

Of course this is entirely possible. I started my last post in a fashion which indicated that I may still not be understanding your position. Thanks. Forget 'genetic relatednes' let's look at an example.It is my understanding that you think there are ancestral 'kinds' from which the varieties we see today have descended. Let us suppose that 'frog' is one such ancestral kind. You have therefore got a cladogram that includes 5,000 'sorts' of frog. You might not try to argue that some of these 'sorts' are sorts more closely related to other sorts. But some people might suggest that the sorts of Ranidae (typical frogs) that are around are likely closer relatives of each other than the sorts of Dendrobatoidea (poison dart frogs). I understand the front loading idea, Mike. Different creationists have different ideas - some accept mutations and natural selection have played a role in the changing of the kinds - others don't. I was asking you about your position. You asked, rather snarkily, if I was being willfully obtuse in seeking this clarification. If you would do me the courtesy of defining what a 'new' kind of design is (rather than random examples) so that I can do that, I might start a thread up. But I have made no claims about mutations in this thread, nor do I need to. I was just asking about how you handle the empirically observed phenomonen of mutation which is observed to affect morphology. OK, I'm really stupid. I was always told that until you can explain the concept to a child, you probably don't understand it yourself. It's a generally good heuristic. So, if it is not your position that all variety was 'built in' to the ancestral kinds and that no new information has been added to any of the 'sorts' since the ark or ever, then you'll have to talk me through it slowly. After all - I'm not thinking, I don't understand and I may even be being willfully obtuse.
If not for my benefit - then maybe for future and present readers? Yes 'explains' not 'claims'. You are not bound to logically accept the Germ Theory of Disease - but it still explains how humans get diseases. I know what you think my problem is. Otherwise you'd accept evolution, right? But criticising evolution isn't strictly on topic here, nor is defending it. Your model assumes a great deal, and you haven't given any justification for accepting those assumptions. I linked you to my justification for accepting evolution. I am not trying to convince you that mutations or natural selection are responsible. I can certainly provide evidence that these mechanisms are responsible for morphological change in populations over time, as well as some other mechanisms. But that isn't the topic.
The topic is 'kinds' and whether or not they are related. No it isn't made by logic. It is a reaonable request for empirical justification. I can provide the argument, it's just not on topic here. We're talking about kinds, yes?All I am saying is that your version of natural history is exactly the same as standard scientifically accepted natural history 'aka evolution' (not the theory of evolution which is a theory that explains natural history and evolution it isn't natural history and evolution itself), except at some arbitrary point you say 'it ends here'. I am not at this point terribly interested in your mechanisms or explanations in anything but the reason you pick that particular point to cry 'Hold! Enough!' I'm not disputing that there can be a lot of diversity in a handful of species. I am just asking for any evidence that the 10,000 living species of bird can have derived from simple recombination of existing genetic variety of a viable parent 'kind/s'.I am not claiming it is impossible, I am just asking for evidence that it actually is the case. I am not asking for you to show that the ancestral collection of frogs has the variety to seed all birds. I am asking that it had the variety to seed all frogs. No - it explains things, it covers less than evolution - but it does explain things. I'm just asking for evidence that the explanation is accurate and not just, to use your phrasing 'imagination'. I shouldn't think this would be a controversial request. For all your talk of me not understanding - so far you have not given me information that is different than my previous understanding. Either I did understand, and it was you that misunderstand my counter-points or you aren't explaining yourself any better than the first time round.So let's say you have some flies, and you managed to split them apart and the two populations began to diversify away from each other. How would you propose we measure whether this variation was in the parent species or whether something novel has been included? Have creationists carried out these kinds of experiments? Evolutionists have carried out similar experiements, but creationists tend not to like those conclusions and start talking about they are still flies/bacteria/frogs whatever missing the point entirely. I think your logic got a little twisted there. What has YHWH's ability to make correct dimensions for the Ark got to do with the front loaded biodiversity of ancestral kinds?Of course, YHWH - assuming he exists - is more than capable of front loading species in the fashion you describe as long as it is something that is in anyway possible, I'm sure. As are other deities, spirits, djinn, demons, angels, time travelling human scientists from the future and aliens.But imagining entities that could do this is a far cry from providing evidence that they did, right? It's not a question of need Mike, its a question of empirical fact. Mutations exist. They change morphology. It's a bit daft to deny completely their role in the changes that have occurred since your ancestral kinds - even if you don't think they are respsonsible for a lot, they are there. Mike - are you saying the likes of YHWH can't build all those designs into the information of the genome of a single celled life and have various losses of information via speciation cause some of those designs to become realized? This is a debate, Mike. The idea is to try and persuasively defend a position, no idly speculate on hypothetical possibilities. Otherwise we could speculate about alien races seeding the concept of god into the consciousness of humanity (aka Babylon 5) and the like.You are saying:1. I don't know what the fundamental designs are.
2. But I do know that evolutionary processes cannot create them.Which is empty noise, typical of a newbie creationist who hasn't given the concept due thought...which makes me very surprised to see you attempting to make a debate topic about it and then accusing your opponents of not thinking or understanding and the like.Are you sure the attitude problem is mine? Calmer, maybe, but more patronising and insulting.

No, talking won't change any relevant facts, Mike. But pointing facts out might affect the way we view other facts. And yes, I maybe having a bad day - should I say yet again that I concede I may be misunderstanding your position and call upon you to clarify for my poor dense mind if I missed something?Of course, it might be you experiencing the difficulties. Let's lay off the condescension as much as we can to avoid this tit-for-tat off topic nonsense, neh? You certainly gave me an analogy. Do we have the same facts, are we taking the same facts into consideration? I doubt that. I'm not attempting to give creationism a headache - I was just asking for evidence to back up your claims. In retrospect maybe that's the same thing. Erm. Yes...you are quite right. It is not comparable to a singing child either. Are you trying to express that a lot of generations of birds and frogs can occur within 4,500 years? Then yes, about 4,500 generations in fact. So what? Fine by me. That you have balls? Yes, you have stated an idea. I've stated several. I've had a whole cornucopia (sorry for the big word) of supernatural agents from djinn to angels as well as sci-fi ideas like time travelling scientists and aliens. I can't seriously defend any of them so I wouldn't dream of starting a debate topic about them.If you want to debate some time, look me up. I like debating. If you want to float some random idea, and then respond to criticisms with "I don't think you have made any real problems for that idea", then that is less fun. I have a crazy idea - are you able to explain why my objections don't cause problems for your idea? All I am asking for is for you to back up your point that there was enough 'built in' information in the ancestral kinds to create the diversity we see today. Saying it is so is not the same as backing it up. I'm not sure which mutation you are thinking of with the flagellum but I find it difficult that you don't think mutations can alter morphology!Mutations in the Hox gene are the most interesting. Here is a quick article on them:

quote:

---

On closer study of the mutated gene, Mortlock and Innis found that one of its codons for the amino acid tryptophan was replaced by a stop codon. So the HOXA13 protein is incomplete, missing 20 amino acids. This may eliminate or reduce the protein's ability to bind to DNA, presumably altering the transcription of target genes and so somehow altering morphology, says Innis.

---

{emphasis mine}There is quite a lot of information about HOX out there and its impact on morphology. This is a human example, which due to ethical considerations is less studied - you can use a search engine to explore other instances.If you can't be bothered, let me help (click here) Is this an admission that you can't actually back up this idea? I can back up evolution. So if cladograms are nothing more than 'imaginative art' what does that make your idea?abe: I should point out that I don't have even half a lifetime of being a naturalist/empiricist behind me, so maybe your job is easier than you thought? If you can show me a fact which supports your idea I would consider that evidence. I don't want you to give me any weak hypothetical 'evidence' - that would be like you pointing at an ancient book waving your hands and saying "see?". I don't want that. I want actual facts about organisms that exist in the actual world. So let's see some. It doesn't. I never claimed it did. I was just astonished that you dismissed mutations as a possible source of morphological change out of hand for no good reason. I'm happy to debate whether there is a valid science behind cladistics with you in an appropriate thread. I suspect you won't. That being the case I will be forced to mock your attempts at damage control by asserting they are merely nice artwork. Either way is good, I enjoy winning a good debate and I enjoy belly laughing at people that lack the stones to publically debate something they happily publically assert.Excuse me for my transparent needling, hectoring and goading, but you haven't provided any new details in this latest post so things have stalled. Hopefully a little bit of friendly bantering and mickey taking might spur you into either debating a related topic with me, advancing this one or giving up. I never said it was inconceivable, I was just asking for you to show that it happened the way you said it did (ie., all the genetic variance was in the parent population and mutations played little to no role in creating variation). I'm fairly sure you are admitting you cannot. So all you are left with is a hypothetical pile of balls (not even nice artwork!) and a creative story. I have no idea what you are talking about. I said that evolution explains everything your model does and more. You said, '"Explains" being the operative word.' as if merely explaining something is trivial. You also said that you weren't logically bound to accept the claims of a scientific model. I agreed you weren't bound. What's the problem? I am still debating because I enjoy debating. Especially when I am exposing my opponent as being someone who can't back up their ideas. I hadn't realized you were debating - you have put forward a position but you have made some great efforts to avoid supporting it. All you've done is explain your idea in a variety of different ways despite me understanding it from the get-go.However, if you think you are debating, I can't explain why you are still doing it. No - but when my opponent is forced to say that his opponent isn't thinking, but is spouting off lots of facts and figures and using big words, but doesn't understand them because they are being willfully obstinate, and becomes condescending and patronising &c. &c., I point it out. I'm not pointing it out because I'm upset, Mike. I'm pointing it out because it is funny to see it in action.The only reason I'm not openly mocking you is because I happen to like you. Instead, I'll just point out the problems with your ideas and the tactics to which you have stooped to appear to have not come out of this confrontation with a metaphorical busted nose Yes, YHWH forbid you should adopt a position, stick to it and defend it. It shows Personally I take the ideas that come into my head, and test them against real world evidence to see if they are defensible before posting them onto a debate board. Actually you did both. I wasn't insulted, but you did patronise me. My first post was merely me pointing out a consequence with your idea - that you don't get to play the 'that's just evolution within kinds' card if you admit you can't define what is and what is not a kind.I thought this would have been obvious logic. If I said 'here is an example of the evolution of a new family' - you'd expect me to be able to give a supportable definition of 'family', right? That's a pity. I don't care if you remain in the ignorant state you are Mike. However, when I reduce my ignorance and gain knowledge it does change my opinions about facts and hypotheses. It is a shame that you lack epistemic humility to the extent that you really believe this sentiment.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

To clarify, I didn't 'get sensitive' nor did I say you would need mutations. I asked, "how do you explain 'sorts' of 'kinds' without mutations?", which implies that I think you might need them and asks for information as to how you feel sorts can arise without them.I asked because I didn't know the details of your position regarding the matter, but you threw the principle of charity out of the window and decided that I asked because I was being obtuse - I may have implied that I thought mutations are necessary for the amount of change you require, but you implied that you thought I was being wilfully obtuse for that. I've re-read the start of the thread, and I don't see anywhere where you explained that you considered the genome 'front-loaded' with enough variety that recombination would suffice.Your answer to that question was quite clear, and much like Faith's position used to be: The genome is front-loaded and recombination takes care of variation. Randman posited a similar idea once or twice and a few other creationists have also done so. For the record, "Modulous, your knowledge isn't enough." and "you are not thinking enough." are fairly patronising responses. It didn't bother me, as I previously pointed out. I was hoping that if I pointed out that you were doing it, you might realize that I was making some valid points and you were just blowing them off implying I was ignorant or not thinking etc. Instead, you decided to change tactic and say that I was being oversensitive and use that as an exit strategy to the debate. I can understand your 'worldview'. I can assume your premises are true and see where it leads. But, this being a debate, I will forever ask you to explain why you think your position is the case. It isn't a clash of worldviews, it is that your position lacks strength because there is no way to demonstrate it is any more true than any other random idea such as Time Travelling scientists burying the design for all life into single celled life, djinn creating life in such a fashion as to imply front loaded genomes or any other such scenario.The bottom line is that you were unable to support your position, only restate it. I hope you enjoyed the exchange, I did. Maybe I'll see you in the 'confidence in evolution' thread and we can argue about whether evolution is founded on imaginative artwork or not.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It shouldn't. I hope you aren't convinced by "I'm right" either. I'm certainly not. No, Mike doesn't offend me. When you feel like actually addressing why what I said is not relevant, does not follow or is wrong I'll be waiting. II believe I said that ultimately if you make the argument you are making, vis pleading 'ignorance' with regards to the identity of the 'kinds' you don't get to say that any given piece of evidence in favour of an evolution is 'just evolution within kinds'.I just said that until you can actually say anything specific about kinds, all you are saying is that certain organisms evolved through certain mechanisms and that certain 'base' organisms didn't evolve themselves, but I'm not sure what those base organisms are and I have no evidence that any of it is real other than the 'say-so' of a bunch of very dead people.If you accept that, I have no argument with you. I'm willing to be that since you wrote this, a paper was written by someone studying evolution that increased our knowledge. Does baraminology need to rely on the assumption that NOW we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge? That reminds me of The philosophy of ignorance thread. What you judge to be best conclusion is your business, Mike. As long as you accept what logically follows from your position, right?Meanwhile, the 'worse' conclusion is pointing people in the right geographical location to find predicted fossils. Which isn't bad for the worse conclusion. Meanwhile, in your superior conclusion, there is nothing new to learn - presumably we should save our money on attempting to do scientific reseach? Are you sure you aren't interpreting my words to be consistent with what you expected all along? Do you agree with my initial post, that logically if you can't say anything about what is and what is not a 'kind' that means you can't say that any example of evolution is 'evolution within a kind' (since that relies on you knowing something about kinds.Anyway - regardless of whether everything I say is expected or if you reading it to mean what you expected two questions raise their heads:1) Why are you debating if you know what your opponent is going to say?2) If everything that I said is something that you anticipated, why did not actually address it when I raised it, rather than just dismissing it? Why did you not include it and any rebuttal in your OP? Mike - can you please stop with personal comments. I'm prideful, you're blind, I'm arrogant, your ignorant. It doesn't get anywhere. Can you not just address the argument that I raised? If you don't want to, then either just say or stop responding to me.Here is my original point:

quote:

---

So - if you want to say that kinds are now unknowable - you don't get to hide behind them when an example of evolution is shown. If you are happy with that, I'm happy with that - getting creationists to drop the bad faith argument that is 'kinds' has been a long standing objective and it's nice to see somebody conceding it.

---

You responded that I was being cynical. Regardless, do you agree that it is true?Do you have anything to say about any of the sub-topics and my responses?Look - right now I'm not interested in your diagnosis of the meta-debate, and I'm sure most future spectators aren't either. If you want that kind of meta-debate then start a new topic and those who want to get stuck in can do - maybe I'll even join in where it is on topic. Your entire response here has simply been you saying "I am not convinced by you." Which is fine, but this being a debate it kind of requires you to say why you aren't convinced.So why are you convinced that you can hold the position that you don't know what kinds are but you can say what is and what is not 'evolution within kinds'? No doubt, if I showed you some humility now, you would argue that I was doing so to prove you wrong which you would argue is pride. Now - when you realize that you are engaging in a debate you will have to anticipate that people you are debating with are likely to be taking a contrary position to you. Given atheists, in this debate, are likely to be always your opponents - you will find that their position is 'you are wrong, I am right' - just like you come across to your opponents.I am fairly sure that with a bit of time I could find an atheist being humble in conversation to you. Likewise I could find plenty of examples of you being prideful and arrogant. What does any of this have to do with the truth of the positions either of us hold? Nothing whatsoever. So why bring it up? You sound a little paranoid, Mike. Sorry to burst your bubble Mike. My response is that I am interested in hearing your views and rebuttals regarding the topic at hand. I'm not interested in hearing your excuses for not answering, paranoid flights of fancy, psychological/theological analysis of me and others.So what's it going to be? Are you going to try and save face with another post that attempts to lay the fault on my feet and try and have some kind of pride-off with me as we try and make the other look foolish. Or, would you rather discuss the merits, the difficulties and the consequences of your ideas in a debate format?