|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I would have appreciated more explicit agreement, but I suppose agreeing twice ought to be enough. Anyway, since you have agreed that all evolution, no matter how extreme is - by definition - microevolution - it follows that universal common descent requires no macroevolution at all. Or to go back to Message 100 from these definitions we have:
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible."
Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I would have appreciated more explicit agreement, but I suppose agreeing twice ought to be enough. I agree unequivocally with everything we have agreed up to now in our tit for tat 1 question at a time exchange. But here is where we part company on what it is creos are saying:
Anyway, since you have agreed that all evolution, no matter how extreme is - by definition - microevolution - it follows that universal common descent requires no macroevolution at all. Whoah. Hold on there. With my creo hat on - The fact that we agreed that all the variation observed (no matter how extreme) must necessarily be the result of micro-evolution does not mean that I agreed that there are no limits on micro-evolution at all. You are extrapolating things way beyond that which we mutually agreed. All observed variation is variation within kind. There are many kinds. Micro-evolution is therefore all that is required to explain the diversity of life as observed. That is what I (thought) we agreed to being the creo position. That is and remains the creo position as I understand it.
2) "If common descent is true it only requires microevolution, which we accept as possible." Didn't you say that creationists disagreed with that? They do disagree with that. Vehemently. And whilst they are evidentially wrong I don't think they are being logically inconsistent in the way you are insisting upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: But we DIDN'T agree on that. What you agreed to, twice was that ALL evolution no matter how extreme is microevolution by consequence of the definitions. I specifically asked you to confirm your understanding to be sure that you agreed. There is no mention of observation there. Nor does my point require you to agree that universal common descent IS true, only if it were true that all the evolution involved would be microevolution. And since - as you twice agreed all evolution no mater how extreme is microevolution you have accepted that. It is quite simple: A) By the definition of "kind", common descent does NOT produce new "kinds". No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind. B) By the definition of "macroevolution" ONLY the creation of a new "kind" qualifies. If there is no new "kind" it's microevolution. Put them together and you get that universal common descent involves NO macroevolution at all.
quote: Then, either they use a different definition of "kind" or a different definition of "macroevolution". And don't forget that THAT is my point - that those that use this definition of "macroevolution" probably use a different definition of "kind".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind. This is the source of the disagreement... The difference cannot be so extreme that they look like different kinds, otherwise it'd be macroevolution and they cannot allow that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Since I think we all agree on that, I don't think that that is the source of the disagreement. It seems more likely to me that Straggler and Bluejay are having trouble seeing that the two definitions taken together contradict that. "Looking like different kinds" is not enough - the must BE different kinds. But different kinds can only be formed by creation, not evolution so that isn't an option either. So we get back to the point that using the two definitions together doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Since I think we all agree on that, I don't think that that is the source of the disagreement. It seems more likely to me that Straggler and Bluejay are having trouble seeing that the two definitions taken together contradict that. "Looking like different kinds" is not enough - the must BE different kinds. But different kinds can only be formed by creation, not evolution so that isn't an option either. So we get back to the point that using the two definitions together doesn't work. The disagreement is that you're calling any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind. There is a bit of an error in the wording of the definition of kind with regard to decent, that bluejay has now noticed and mentioned. It seems you're taking a slight overlap that could be squeezed into the definition, and then saying that we must squeeze it in and drag it all the way to the most extreme possibilities and therefore the definitions must be contradictory. Its almost just a semantic quibble at that point and I don't think we have to be that pedantic. I think we can allow that "all the decendants" would not include those that would be so different that they would be thought of as a new kind that came about through macroevolution, even though technically there could be a decendent that microevolved so much that it would be too different to be considered within the same kind. Especially since we know that creationists won't accept that that amount of evolution is capable of happening. Its not that you're wrong, it just that your point seems, well... pointless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I'm not. Bluejay did that by defining kinds as separate creations. If that isn't true, then Bluejay is wrong.
quote: A bit of an error ? You're saying that "kinds" need not be separate creations, that they can evolve. That is a pretty significant "error".
quote: I have no idea how you could possibly get an impression that is so at odds with reality.I'm simply pointing out the logical implications of using the two definitions together. I don't see why other people should have such problems seeing it. quote: Again you are saying that a kind need not be a separate creation, contradicting Bluejay's definition. The 'all the descendants" follows from that part of the definition - it isn't a gratuitous addition as you seem to think. So really you're agreeing with me even more than you think. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Paul.
First, I'm sorry: it wasn't my intention to start another fight; but I seem completely incapable of not starting fights on EvC recently. Maybe it's just about time for me to take another break. At any rate, I’m ending the bickering over our respective explanatory skills now. Clearly, we have some communication problems between us, but that wasn't an excuse for me to take a cheap shot at you.
PaulK writes: I can't believe that a creationist would resort to claiming that parent and offspring were unrelated. If you gave birth to a turtle, would you consider it to be your descendant? Or, would you think something had suddenly gone extremely screwy with the universe? This is what creationists who use your definition of macroevolution think we are proposing: that it takes more than just changes in characteristics to make something into a new kind. It's either that, or they believe that "macroevolution" doesn't refer to anything. Either way, they believe something that you and I both have a hard time believing they believe. The simple observation is that they demonstrably do define kinds by descent (and I still haven’t found or been shown any creationists who don’t), and they (some of them) demonstrably do define macroevolution as evolution between kinds. Thus, they must implicitly be considering macroevolution as something other than descent. Maybe it’s more of a no true descent, but this is clearly the implication of their using both of these definitions simultaneously (as they demonstrably do). Although it’s somewhat weird, it’s clearly superior to your argument, because the evidence supports it: we know that they are using my definition of kind simultaneously with your definition of macroevolution. Edited by Bluejay, : Addition. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Fiver.
Fiver writes: If we are to define "kind" as you suggest, then we clearly can't use this definition to support the Creationist claims... 1. The 'kinds' are immutable.2. There have been no new 'kinds' since the Creation. 3. Humans and other primates are in separate "kinds". 4. The animals alive today are descended from the original "kinds". But, all of these things would have to be true if my definition of "kinds" is true. Except, of course, for #3, which is just a practical matter of deciding which organisms group into which "kinds": a problem that I don't disagree---and have never disagreed---that creationists have. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:I'm not. Bluejay did that by defining kinds as separate creations. If that isn't true, then Bluejay is wrong. Having 2 referential 'thats' in one line is ambiguous as I don't know exactly what they're referring to... But of course kinds are separate creations, that is the whole point. Now, how does defining it that way necessitate that "any amount of evolution, no matter how much difference it causes, as still microevolution within a kind even when it'd be so much that any creationist would call it macroevolution of a new kind". I'm not seeing it. If its too much evolution then its not within the kind.
quote: A bit of an error ? You're saying that "kinds" need not be separate creations, that they can evolve. That is a pretty significant "error". Nowhere have I said that kinds do not need to be seperate creations, of course they do... that is the whole point of it. The amount of evolution that is allowed never provides enough change for it to be a different kind.
quote: I have no idea how you could possibly get an impression that is so at odds with reality. You're hard to understand.
I'm simply pointing out the logical implications of using the two definitions together. But you have to go to such an extreme to reach that implication that you're no longer within anything that anyone accepts anymore. You have to have so much change from evolution for a new kind to emerge that wasn't created that the creationist no longer accepts that that much evolution is possible.
I don't see why other people should have such problems seeing it. At first it was obscure, but now I'm seeing it and it seems fairly pointless.
quote: Again you are saying that a kind need not be a separate creation, contradicting Bluejay's definition.
How am I saying that? I'm not seeing it. A kind needs to be a seperate creation because they don't think its possible for there to be enough evolution to result in a new kind.
The 'all the descendants" follows from that part of the definition - it isn't a gratuitous addition as you seem to think. So really you're agreeing with me even more than you think. Huh? Is that some kind of explanation or something? This is difficult to understand what you are getting at and it leaves your point obscure. This is why people have difficulty understanding you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Thanks....I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to make a reasoned reply to my arguments.
quote: As I mentioned previously, all scientists begin with a bias - a set of assumptions or preconceived notions. I pointed out some of the common assumptions that darwinist scientists make. I'll relist them here in an effort to be comprehensive:1. abiogenesis 2. uniformation in the geological record 3. a fixed decay rate across time for all radio-isotopes In the same fashion YEC scientists begin with a bias toward the scriptural account of creation in Genesis. Now, certainly in some of the simple observational sciences where results can be observed and repeated in a labratory bias plays a minimal factor. But not so with origin sciences. Ancient history (whatever form it may take) can not be repeated and observed. Therefore - like it or not - bias plays a major role in any such science. Just because bias plays a role however does not mean the science is invalid. The data remains the same regardless of the problem the scientist is attempting to solve. Bias tends to show itself most in the conclusions drawn form the data - take the example of the semi-recent discoveries of preserved soft-tissues in the fossil record. The darwinist's conclusion from the data was that some as yet unknown chemical process preserved the tissue for millions of years. This was based on their preconceived bias or "foundational truth" of molecules-to-man evolution. Creation scientists on the other hand made the much more reasonable conclusion that the fossil was merely thousands of years of age. Never once did I hear any darwinist say "Hey, wait a minute....this doesn't make sense. Perhaps this fossil isn't really millions of years old!" - why? Because it would conflict with their prior assumptions about the fossil record and the age of the earth. Now, I understand that darwinists consider these assumptions to already be proven - but it is exactly this unwillingness to question the assumptions that leads to bad science. The trick to drawing good conclusions from the data is to leave you bias at the door - a difficult task for both sides of the aisle.
quote: I agree a comprehensive evaluation is beyond both my level of skill as well as the limits of my free time. Here's an article however (which I may have linked earlier, I don't recall) on some serious issues with the comparisons between the morphological and genetic trees of ancestry.
quote: I don't think this is a reasoned comparison. You are assuming that cladistics has supplanted baraminology as a more refined method of classifying organisms. This is only the case if you are willing to accept the "foundational truths" of darwinian evolution - which are shaky assumptions at best. And yes, while the mainstream scientific consensus at this point accepts those assumptions this does not mean Baraminology is a waste of time or effort. If the history of science has taught us anything it is that those willing to buck the common assumptions of the day were the ones to make the most significant breakthroughs. If anything science dissenting from the mainstream is beneficial to scientific thought as a whole - because it continues to challenge the underlying assumptions upon which modern science is based. Take for example the recent evidence disproving certain assumptions used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
quote: This is a mis-characterization. YECs are not bible-thumping mongrels out to prove how special we humans are. Yes - there is no doubt that humans must be a distinct kind for the YEC model to be consistent - but it is only one of many facets of YEC science.
quote: I may be in error here as I don't fully speak the scientific lingo - but to simplify my understanding of both Wood's paper and Matzke's review: Wood's classification algorithm separated homonids into groupings of humans and apes. Au. africanus didn't fit neatly into either group. Wood's conclusion from the data is that Au. africanus is in a third group by itself. Matzke's conclusions from the data is that Au. africanus is a transitional form between the groups. This seems to me to be a clear case of both scientists acting upon their bias - which in this case makes a lot of sense as it appears neither conclusion is more reasonable than the other (unless considered with bias). In the end the data is not conclusive enough to show either interpretation to be correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
PaulK writes: But we DIDN'T agree on that. Well then this is the root of our miscommunication. Because I thought we had.
PaulK writes: What you agreed to, twice was that ALL evolution no matter how extreme is microevolution by consequence of the definitions. What I thought I had agreed to was that all evolution that creos accept to have practically occured no matter how extreme must be the result of micro-evolution within kind. I didn't realise you were going to extrapolate that to include all evolution imaginable and would not have agreed to that as the creo position. Because it blatantly isn't their position. It is the very opposite of what they believe.
PaulK writes: And since - as you twice agreed all evolution no mater how extreme is microevolution you have accepted that. Only within kinds. Only within limits.
PaulK writes: I want to be really clear on this one. Do you understand that the definitions entail that all evolution is microevolution ? That there is no evolutionary change so extreme that it can be labelled macroevolution on that count - or at all? Straggler writes: Yes. No new kinds. No macro-evolution. The only evolution that is possible is micro-evolution within the existing created kinds. That is my understanding. Now the miscommunication becomes clear.
PaulK writes: A) By the definition of "kind", common descent does NOT produce new "kinds". No matter how extreme the differences between ancestor and descendant they are all the same kind. Yes - But creos believe that this limits the degree of differential extremity. This is what I am implicitly assuming as obvious whilst you seem to be ignoring as irrelevant. But it is the crux of their position is it not?
PaulK writes: B) By the definition of "macroevolution" ONLY the creation of a new "kind" qualifies. If there is no new "kind" it's microevolution. Yes. So again it needs to be pointed out that creos limit the degree of change that is possible by micro-evolution alone. I assumed that we both accepted that as their position.
PaulK writes: Put them together and you get that universal common descent involves NO macroevolution at all. Only if you ignore the rather fundamental fact that creos place limits on what change can be achieved by micro-evolution. How can you just ignore this fulcrum point of their (admittedly ill conceived and evidentially unjustifiable) position?
PaulK writes: Then, either they use a different definition of "kind" or a different definition of "macroevolution". And don't forget that THAT is my point - that those that use this definition of "macroevolution" probably use a different definition of "kind". No. They just impose limits on what micro-evolution can achieve without ever actually specifying what those limits are or why these limits should exist. Are they wrong? Sure. But you cannot just sweep their key criteria under the carpet to make your point. Instead you need to tackle the silly notion that there are these limits on what micro-evolution can do given enough time. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes: I think we can allow that "all the decendants" would not include those that would be so different that they would be thought of as a new kind that came about through macroevolution, even though technically there could be a decendent that microevolved so much that it would be too different to be considered within the same kind. Actually, I'm on the same page with Paul on this one. Since I defined "kinds" to include descent, then no level of change can make a new organism be thought of as a new kind while still maintaining the integrity of the definition. You have to insert a clause that grants special circumstances when organisms change a lot. Paul argues that allowing some level of descent-based change to result in a new "kind" shows that creationists are not strictly using the definition that I provided, which would, at that point, prove that my initial assertion (that you will not find any creationists who disagree with my definition) is false. My answer, at this point, is that there is another option that allows creationists to weasel out of the contradictions that Paul demonstrated. It involves a twist on the only other major terminology involved in the definitional soup we’ve been batting around---i.e., the word descent. It’s my position that we have abundant evidence that creationists do use my definition of kind simultaneously with Paul’s definition of macroevolution, and, since the precedent Paul set is that contradictions in terminology are taken to mean implicit modifications to the usage of some other terminology, I propose that creationists who use these definitions simultaneously must be implicitly proposing that macroevolution violates the descent part of their definition of kind. And, this, to me, seems fully consistent with the knee-jerk reactions of creationists to birds hatching from dinosaur eggs or apes giving birth to humans. In fact, I think it rather elucidates the creationist mindset in some way: now, if only we could discuss it with a creationist to find out whether I’m on to something, or just on something. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
But remember, kinds are not just defined by descent. The Bible also explicitly lists some species as being of different kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Mr Jack.
Mr Jack writes: But remember, kinds are not just defined by descent. The Bible also explicitly lists some species as being of different kinds. Can you provide a reference? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024