|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If I have understood...
PaulK's position seems to be that there is a contradiction between defining kinds as both that which were created and that which can evolve. But if creos assert that all kinds were created and that no new kinds have evolved (or are able to evolve) then there is no contradiction. So I think his contradiction is practically non-existent and theoretically superfluous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Just as easy perhaps - and certainly within the grasp of the God of the Bible. However, a collection of creatures - each completely unique from any other species - would be quite chaotic, and would fail to demonstrate order. The Bible clearly demonstrates that God acts according to his nature - of which order is a part.
quote: Why do bats and dolphins share the same protiens/enzymes for use in echolocation? There is no real nested heirarchy - it looks good at the big-picture level, but dig a little deeper and you'll see the details don't fit. I'd love to dive deeper into this topic, but perhaps we should start a new thread for the discussion?
quote: I demonstrated already that its not the ONLY explanation. Perhaps the more reasonable one given the assumption of common ancestry, but not when given the assumption of Biblical creation. Where you start leads to your interpretation of the data.
quote: You keep stating this without providing any backing evidence, and without addressing the opposing evidence I previously posted. Maybe you meant to post a link above - I didn't see one (if I missed it I apologize). I'd be happy to examine the basis for your claims, but simply telling me I'm wrong without providing supporting data does nothing to further the discussion.
quote: I'm not sure I'm following here. Are you trying to say "different genomes contain different information, therefore we have proof that evolution can add information to the genome"? because that's circular logic - it begins with the assumption of common ancestry. I thought I had already made my position clear. I do not believe the evolutionary process capable of adding any information to any genome - there is no evidence to suggest it (unless you assume common ancestry). Even in experiments with rapid-mutating bacteria the only development of new capability comes as a result of decay - breakdown of already existing enzymes - not the creation of new ones. Now, if evidence came to light clearly demonstrating the evolutionary process adding information to a genome then I would revise my position - but I would not revise my belief in YEC, as it would still be the model that most consistently fits the data.
quote: Again, this assumes common ancestry - an assumption I'm not willing to make because the data I've seen doesn't support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It wouldn't because exactly where creationists draw the boundary doesn't matter.
quote: No, only that taken together they lead to a position at odds with creationist thought.
quote: Believing it is not the same as making it a definition. The argument is about definitions, not beliefs.urse, I repeat that you were wrong that I was to say quote: The contradiction is between the meaning of the two definitions taken together and those creationist beliefs. And for clarity I will repeat that I didn't ignore it at all - I used it in my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Not really, unless you are alleging an inconsistency (my argument assumes that they ARE consistent). And since we are talking about creationist views of evolution it is hard to see how we can ignore the content of evolutionary theory unless we assume that creationists are ignorant of even the basics. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You have not understood. The issue yet again is that the two definitions taken in combination define "macroevolution" to exclude ALL evolution (in fact the term - as an oxymoron - cannot refer to anything at all). This means that all evolution is microevolution. This contradicts creationist beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: agree.
quote: No fossil in and of itself would falsify Baraminology - because baramins are based on the work of an omnipotent Creator, who could (theoretically) make anything he desired. It could be falsified if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive.
quote: The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques. You prove my point here that darwinists were unable to come to the reasonable conclusion (a young fossil) since they were unwilling to question their base-assumption of the accuracy of radio-isotope dating methods.
quote: You successfully list SOME assumptions - and I agree that these assumptions are made in most all cases, these are the common assumptions. Any conclusions based on evidence are assumptions as well. If new data or a more logical interpretation of the data comes to light then those conclusions can be shown to be false. I'm surprised you are having trouble seeing this.
quote: Phylogenetics is a useful tool ONLY if the assumption of common ancestry is correct. If the YEC model assumption is correct then Baraminology is a useful tool and phylogenetics is not. Baraminology (and other creation sciences) can be used to make predictions as well - such as "transitional forms between distinct known kinds will not be found in the fossil record" or more specifically "transitional forms demonstrating common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees will not be found".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques. Oh dear, does poor Jay Wile find the constancy of decay rates unreasonable? I find his part in the intellectual abuse of children rather more than unreasonable. It is blatently obvious that he has zero knowledge of Oklo, observational astrophysics, zircons (apart from the bullshit perpetuated by idiots such as Humphreys, et al), and yet claims there is no evidence. Oh well, just another Idiot for Christ. And you are wallowing in his ignorance and naivity. Well, good for you. But please excuse us as we laugh ourselves sick over your claims of "irresponsible".
{People, topic theme focus please. A radiometric dating topic spun off this topic can be found at Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive. It's a conclusive as evidence gets in science. It's as sure as the notion that the planets in our solar system travel in ellipses around the barycenter of the whole mess, down close to the Sun. OT for this thread, perhaps? Shall I start a new one? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"transitional forms demonstrating common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees will not be found". You're a couple decades late on this one, Bob. Ardipithecus? Orrorin? Sahelanthropus? We've got the fossils, Bob.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Of course....this is what I meant. Using the word "visible" was a poor choice on my part.
quote: According to your quote you are correct - it seems I mixed the terms. My apologies.
quote: Your first sentence is speculative opinion. Mine is the opposite. I would be interested in reviewing successful predictions made by common ancestry - as I am constantly in search of data that might invalide the YEC model (I have yet to find any - but I'm keeping an open mind).
quote: Quite true. Psalm 19:1 - The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
quote: Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to imply that baraminology is an ancient science only? Modern baraminologists would disagree with you.
quote: So when exactly would it cease to be premature? What would be required for you and other darwinists to accept a supernatural cause for a natural phenomena? Your use of the word premature is humorous, considering the mythology of most every ancient culture on earth contains a creation story (in many cases bearing striking similarity to each other). Humans have accepted a supernatural creation of life for as far back in history as we can determine - the concept of a naturalistic origin is both recent and laughable considering there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
Sorry everyone - I didn't have time yet to respond to each post which warranted a response. I do intend to do so, but will be away for the weekend. I'll try and get back to this on Monday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
No fossil in and of itself would falsify Baraminology - because baramins are based on the work of an omnipotent Creator, who could (theoretically) make anything he desired. This would include feathered bats, would it not?
It could be falsified if clear evidence were shown for common ancestry between chimps and humans - but the evidence for this (at present) is far from conclusive. What evidence would you accept for human/chimp common ancestry, outside of time travel? Any? The fossil evidence clearly shows transitional fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. The genomes of both humans and chimps carry irrefutable markers that point to common ancestry (e.g. shared pseudogenes, ERV's). What more do you want?
The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques. We don't even need radiometric dating to show evidence for evolution. Just the relative depth in the geologic column is enough, as is the mixture of characteristics in each fossil. We see the intermediate fossils that the theory of evolution says we should find (e.g. mammal-like reptiles, feathered dinosaurs, hominid transitionals) and none of the intermediates that we should not see (e.g. half mammal/half birds, half monkeys/half dogs). You yourself admit that a creator could create all types of intermediates, including those evolution says we should not find. How does this not indicate common ancestry and evolution?
You successfully list SOME assumptions - and I agree that these assumptions are made in most all cases, these are the common assumptions. Any conclusions based on evidence are assumptions as well. If new data or a more logical interpretation of the data comes to light then those conclusions can be shown to be false. I'm surprised you are having trouble seeing this. Nope, those are the assumptions. I find it strange that you accuse me of not seeing these other assumptions and then fail to describe them yourself.
Phylogenetics is a useful tool ONLY if the assumption of common ancestry is correct. Flatly wrong. It is useful period. Using an algorithm based on evolution scientists are capable of predicting the function of proteins with 96% accuracy.
quote: Using the theory of evolution is more useful than just straight homology algorithms for predicting protein function. Can you show us anyone who is using an algorithm based on baraminology to predict protein function? No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes: And since we are talking about creationist views of evolution it is hard to see how we can ignore the content of evolutionary theory unless we assume that creationists are ignorant of even the basics. But, it's even harder to see how we can assume that creationists accept everything we accept about evolutionary theory. We can't just bring up all the tenets of evolutionary theory and expect that creationists will put them all into their model of the universe: something has to be different, otherwise, how are they not evolutionists? To me, it seems pretty obvious that what they think is different is that "macroevolution" (however they choose to define it) does not happen the same way "microevolution" happens. They think that macro breaks the rules somehow: otherwise, they wouldn’t be arguing that it can’t happen*.
*This, of course, assumes that creationism is a logic-based enterprise, rather than the faith-based apologetics that it generally is, but I’m willing to grant them this for the sake of argument. All indications are that they think "microevolution" happens through normal, hereditary descent; and "macroevolution" (however they define it) happens through magic. Furthermore, given that Christian theological history includes a god being born to a human, I don’t think the idea that their position includes my "breaking the rules of descent" concept is really that far-fetched. Edited by Bluejay, : Reworded last sentence. -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, Paul.
PaulK writes: The issue yet again is that the two definitions taken in combination define "macroevolution" to exclude ALL evolution (in fact the term - as an oxymoron - cannot refer to anything at all). This means that all evolution is microevolution. This contradicts creationist beliefs. This sounds like you're talking about the internal consistency of the creationist position. But, you just told me that you're not talking about the internal consistency of the creationist position. Now, I'm very confused. -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, Bob.
Welcome to EvC!
BobTHJ writes: Your use of the word premature is humorous, considering the mythology of most every ancient culture on earth contains a creation story (in many cases bearing striking similarity to each other). Humans have accepted a supernatural creation of life for as far back in history as we can determine - the concept of a naturalistic origin is both recent and laughable considering there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. With this comment, I think you're just asking somebody to throw out a list of "recent" things that have been shown to outperform things that humans have accepted and used for as far back in history as we can determine. For instance, guns, cars and calculators easily outperform spears, chariots and abacuses, respectively. Why is it that, even when faced with hordes of evidence of modern things outperforming ancient things, and very little, if any, evidence of the opposite, creationists and IDists still insist on rejecting the notion that modern theories can outperform ancient theories?
You don't really have to respond to this: I realize that you're swamped with opponents already. -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