Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 385 (562921)
06-02-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
06-02-2010 12:36 PM


quote:
I thought that's exactly what they want.
Macroevolution, to them, is impossible. One kind cannot become another.
No. They want to say is that macroevolution is not observed and have it be meaningful. Which it isn't if the definition of "macroevolution" is vacuous through self-contradiction. They want to have a meaningful distinction between "macro" and "micro" which they don't have if "macroevolution" is an oxymoron. They claim to accept microevolution so they certainly don't want to have to accept that "microevolution" includes evolution that they don't accept.
Which means that they need a definition of "kind" which is logically consistent with an evolutionary relationship between kinds. Then all those problems go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-02-2010 1:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 385 (562922)
06-02-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
06-02-2010 12:28 PM


I am confused by what you are saying too:
It can't define kinds as separate creations.
I thought that is exactly what they did do?
It must allow for "kinds" to share a common ancestor as a logical possibility.
Why? I thought that was the whole point of kinds? Seperate creations by God that are effectively unrelated except for the fact that they were designed and created by the same designer/creator.
If it does not, that definition of "macroevolution" is self-contradictory and ALL evolution is microevolution.
Isn't macro-evolution as the creationists sees it the creation of a new 'kind' from an existing kind? Which they see as impossible and unecessary (because all the kinds were created from the start)
Which is not what the creationist wants at all.
Surely creos want to say that only micro-evolution is possible or necessary because this is just evolution within pre-existing kinds. No?
I suspect this is more miscommunication than disagreement. But I am confused by what you are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:08 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 48 of 385 (562926)
06-02-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
06-02-2010 12:55 PM


quote:
I thought that is exactly what they did do?
Let me fill in the context that you have obviously missed.. A definition of "kind" that works with the definition of "macroevolution" as "evolution between kinds" cannot define kinds as separate creations for the reasons I've gone into. That's what you need to address.
quote:
Surely creos want to say that only micro-evolution is possible or necessary because this is just evolution within pre-existing kinds. No?
Not if it means that evolutionists can turn around and say that any evolution creationists object to is "just microevolution".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 1:17 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 385 (562927)
06-02-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
06-02-2010 1:08 PM


Let me fill in the context that you have obviously missed.
I have read up-thread and I still don't get it.
A definition of "kind" that works with the definition of "macroevolution" as "evolution between kinds" cannot define kinds as separate creations for the reasons I've gone into.
But this is exactly what creos do argue. All kinds were created originally. There are no new kinds. Macroevolution would result in new kinds. Nobody has witnessed macro-evolution or the creation of new kinds because this is impossible. QED.
That is my understanding of creo thinking on this issue anyway. Is that not how you see their position?
Not if it means that evolutionists can turn around and say that any evolution creationists object to is "just microevolution".
Well of course we will say that because it is....
But creos will then turn round and start talking about cats giving birth to dogs and other nonsense or assert that because no-one has witnessed one type of animal transform into another completely new animal over a period of a few generations that the formation of new kinds is unobserved and impossible.
No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 50 of 385 (562930)
06-02-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
06-02-2010 12:55 PM


Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Surely creos want to say that only micro-evolution is possible or necessary because this is just evolution within pre-existing kinds. No?
It's because I used the word "descended" in my definition.
A macroevolved, new "kind" would still have descended from an old "kind." As such, any new "kind" that came about would still fit within the old "kind," as per my definition, which defines "kinds" partly by descent.
That's what Paul's talking about.
Edited by Bluejay, : apostrophe-S

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 6:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 385 (562934)
06-02-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
06-02-2010 12:53 PM


I'm not convinced that I disagree with you, but I just can't for the life of me understand what you are getting at.
Oh well though, I think Bluejay cleared it up in Message 50:
quote:
It's because I used the word "descended" in my definition.
A macroevolved, new "kind" would still have descended from an old "kind." As such, any new "kind" that came about would still fit within the old "kind," as per my definition, which defines "kinds" partly by descent.
That what Paul's talking about.
That makes sense, so... its all good!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 12:53 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 52 of 385 (562936)
06-02-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
06-02-2010 1:17 PM


quote:
But this is exactly what creos do argue. All kinds were created originally. There are no new kinds. Macroevolution would result in new kinds. Nobody has witnessed macro-evolution or the creation of new kinds because this is impossible. QED.
And there you have it. You say "Macroevolution would result in new kinds" but with this definition of "kinds" no form of evolution would produce new kinds - no matter how extreme. Even the most nonsensical creationist strawmen would be mere microevolution.
For this statement to be anything other than an empty irrelevance "macroevolution" has to be at least a logical possiiblity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 1:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 6:16 PM PaulK has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 385 (562942)
06-02-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
06-02-2010 1:08 PM


Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
A definition of "kind" that works with the definition of "macroevolution" as "evolution between kinds" cannot define kinds as separate creations for the reasons I've gone into.
With all due respect, you don’t really go into things, Paul. What you do is more like mentioning things.
And, I still disagree with you: creationists don’t define kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into. They try to identify kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into (that’s what baraminology is), but they define them by their relationships to the original, archetypal organisms that God created (or to the organisms on the Ark, which represent a subset of the archetypes created by God).
That these kinds allegedly exist within potentiality regions which prevent transmutation between them is a different issue entirely. Potentiality is just a characteristic of life that happens to be diagnostically useful.
Likewise, the position of sensory hairs on the legs or the shape of the genitalia are characteristics that are useful for identifying spiders; but, "species" is still defined by (presumed) reproductive incompatibility and such.
-----
I suppose, though, that it would be appropriate of me to admit that there may be creationists out there who do define "kinds" by their characteristics, rather than by descent. But, I don't know of any off the top of my head.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 1:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 2:51 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 385 (562943)
06-02-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
06-02-2010 2:22 PM


quote:
With all due respect, you don’t really go into things, Paul. What you do is more like mentioning things.
With all due respect I think that describes your position here more than mine. I'm the one who has argued the point, and gone into the problems. Do you really think that a creationist would be happy with a definition of "macroevolution" that left a cat giving birth to a dog as "microevolution" ?
quote:
And, I still disagree with you: creationists don’t define kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into. They try to identify kinds by what they can and can’t evolve into (that’s what baraminology is), but they define them by their relationships to the original, archetypal organisms that God created (or to the organisms on the Ark, which represent a subset of the archetypes created by God).
You see, you haven't even understood my point. I'm not saying that creationists can't use your definition. I am saying that a common creationist definition of "macroevolution" is incompatible with your definition of "kind" and therefore creationists can't use the two definitions together. Your point about baraminologists doesn't even address my argument unless you can show that they use the definition of macroevolution that I referred to, and explain how they deal with the problem. There's a prime example of "mentioning" without "going into".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 2:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2010 7:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 55 of 385 (562947)
06-02-2010 4:17 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 4:26 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 57 by Meldinoor, posted 06-02-2010 4:31 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 5:51 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 56 of 385 (562948)
06-02-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:17 PM


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.
So why not have a base Ape kind from which humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have diverged from? Why not a base Primate kind, a base Mammal kind, or a base Vertebrate kind? Where is the dividing line, and what objective criteria are you using to draw this line? What genetic characteristics should not be shared by separate kinds? What physical characteristics should not be shared by separate kinds?
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?"
Is this issue based on religious beliefs or science?
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.
If creationists don't know what macroevolution is then how can they claim it doesn't happen?
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.
It doesn't come close to describing the concept that humans share a common ancestor with other apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:17 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 57 of 385 (562949)
06-02-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:17 PM


Welcome to EvC, BobTHJ.
I think you'll find that Creationists differ enormously as to what extent evolution is responsible for the diversification of species. You appear to have no quarrel with speciation, or natural selection/evolution. But neither do you provide a clear definition of the term "kind". Do you believe that there is a test for kinds, some method by which it would be possible to determine whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not? If no such test exists, is the term "kind" even useful to a scientist? Why not simply stick to the use of clades, which is an objectively defined grouping of species, whether you believe in universal common descent or not.
Just to get a clearer picture of what you believe: Assuming the earth was 4-5 billion years old, do you believe that evolution from single-celled organisms to the diverse and complex life-forms we have today would be possible? Or are you of the "no information/complexity can be gained through naturalistic processes" stripe?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:17 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 5:23 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 58 of 385 (562951)
06-02-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
06-02-2010 4:26 PM


quote:
So why not have a base Ape kind from which humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have diverged from? Why not a base Primate kind, a base Mammal kind, or a base Vertebrate kind? Where is the dividing line, and what objective criteria are you using to draw this line? What genetic characteristics should not be shared by separate kinds? What physical characteristics should not be shared by separate kinds?
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:
Is this issue based on religious beliefs or science?
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:
If creationists don't know what macroevolution is then how can they claim it doesn't happen?
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:
It doesn't come close to describing the concept that humans share a common ancestor with other apes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 4:26 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 8:52 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 98 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-03-2010 3:49 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4997 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 59 of 385 (562954)
06-02-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Meldinoor
06-02-2010 4:31 PM


quote:
Welcome to EvC, BobTHJ.
Thanks! I'm glad to be here
quote:
I think you'll find that Creationists differ enormously as to what extent evolution is responsible for the diversification of species. You appear to have no quarrel with speciation, or natural selection/evolution. But neither do you provide a clear definition of the term "kind". Do you believe that there is a test for kinds, some method by which it would be possible to determine whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not? If no such test exists, is the term "kind" even useful to a scientist? Why not simply stick to the use of clades, which is an objectively defined grouping of species, whether you believe in universal common descent or not.
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:
Just to get a clearer picture of what you believe: Assuming the earth was 4-5 billion years old, do you believe that evolution from single-celled organisms to the diverse and complex life-forms we have today would be possible? Or are you of the "no information/complexity can be gained through naturalistic processes" stripe?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Meldinoor, posted 06-02-2010 4:31 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:34 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 60 of 385 (562955)
06-02-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:56 PM


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.
So then kind is limited to the observed mutation rate and a 10k year old Earth? What about Old Earth Creationists?
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).
The inexactness of a cladogram is proportional to amount of phylogenetic data available. However, what is observed again and again is a continuity of the biological classifications, a continuity that doesn't make sense if kinds were created separately. Every primate is also a mammal. How does that happen? Why not a kind of animal that is part monkey and part bird that would prevent it from also being a mammal? It is the fact that we can form clades for large numbers of species that points away from creationism and towards shared ancestry.
Humans are of course a different animal entirely (no pun intended).
Every species is different, including species you would place in the same kind.
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.
I guarantee that the assumptions you are thinking of are not the assumptions that science makes.
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.
Without assuming the existence of the supernatural why would you ever mention it? It is you making the assumption. There is no evidence of the supernatural, so why include it in science? Science assumes that there will be a rational explanation backed by empirical evidence. Why is that such a horrible assumption?
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.
What makes the untestable and unevidenced supernatural a reasonable assumption?
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.
What are the scientific experiments one can run to determine if two species do or do not share a common ancestor, according to creationists?
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.
"Molecules to man" is designed to be derisive. The older term is "goo to you via the zoo". It is meant to muddy the waters by slopping together abiogenesis and evolution, two separate concepts. AiG and others know that they have already lost, so they are playing to the crowd. Think of it as two politicians calling each other names without ever spending time talking about policy or governance. AiG has no definition of kind, or any scientific methodology that would separate species into kinds. All they have is name calling. That should tell you a lot.

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 63 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 6:09 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024