|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 49 (9221 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,792 Year: 1,114/6,935 Month: 395/719 Week: 37/146 Day: 10/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5320 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
Hi Bob, thanks for having the courage to reply, seems the other creationists don't want to have a bar of defining kind.
Question - just to satisfy the intent of this thread - is baraminology your definition of kind? Also I'd like to comment on this
"BobTH" writes: The origin of life comes immediately to mind (and I've mentioned this in several previous posts on this thread). The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.
You seem like an educated person, so you must have heard of the Urey-Miller experiment. Can you explain how this experiment failed to provide even the slightest evidence for abiogenesis? Or to put it more bluntly (and I'm not trying to be nasty here), If you conclude that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why is it that when scientists recreate an environment predicted by science that would closely support abiogenesis, that a black tea pot isn't created instead of amino acids (the very molecule that is critical for life as we know it)? And this:
"BobTHC" writes:
Note here the critical flaw in the "new" (past 150 years) naturalistic approach to science (which I have also pointed out in previous posts). If you rule out the supernatural prior to drawing your conclusions you will never be able to understand a process with a supernatural origin. Now, you can certainly argue that there are no such supernatural processes - and maybe you would be correct - but there is no way to be certain...and therefore you blind yourself to an entire realm of possible explanations.
Do you think advancements in astronomy would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of astrology? Do you think advancements in medicine would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of ancient demon possession?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18064 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I will add to what bluegenes has said. If "kind" was taken as a taxonomic term for distinct groups under some classification system, and if evolution were incapable of bridging the gaps between these groups then we would conclude that "kinds" had separate origins, and were not related to by common descent. Creationists simply assume that there are such limits to evolution. In fact, if creationism WERE true this would be a very good way to handle it - and one consistent with defining "macroevolution" as "evolution between kinds".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5325 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Order - order is an attribute of the Creator. Sorry for the confusing language.
quote: Sounds fantastic - though off topic. I started a new thread for the discussion here.
quote: No, I did not argue for nested heirarchy. I said creatures could be divided into general classes or groupings - but there are even some exceptions to this.
quote: The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists - see this article from June 2009 - and here's Dr. Wile's commentary on the article, which I believe I linked before. YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem?
quote: Yes and no. Yes, darwin's model of common ancestry could (theoretically) work in any situation where life exists. No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course. Therefore the origin of life must be assumed.
quote: In an effort to not veer too far off-topic I'm not going to research a response to this section. I would like to come back and revisit this topic at a later time, but one new thread spawned from this post is more than enough for the limits of my spare time.
quote: Again here...
quote: No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation - one that will never be found by "conventional" naturalistic science, because the supernatural is ruled out as a possible conclusion. Examples:1. Creation of life 2. "Noah's" Global flood 3. scattering of the races (tower of babel) quote: I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry. Perhaps there are others - I don't know. I'm certainly open to them. An actual baraminologist could likely provide a more reasoned list of tests.
quote: I readily admit to a limited knowledge of baraminology. What's been discussed here so far is the full extent of my knowledge on the subject. To help answer you question I googled baraminology predictions and found this. It appears to be a few as-yet-untested predictions regarding the creationist hypothesis on ERVs we were discussing earlier. I'll be curious to see how these predictions hold up to the evidence.
quote: I find this to be entirely offensive. While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs (a fact I have not tried to hide) I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is. While I'm confident that the data supports a YEC model, I won't shy away from the data that does not or try and sweep it under the rug. If there is not a reasonable YEC interpretation of the data I'll happily admit it. I am more than capable of reasoning for myself - and for you to suggest otherwise is insulting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Bob,
Order - order is an attribute of the Creator. What about deceit? Is that one of the creator's attributes? Because he sure seems to have worked hard at making the planet look old and life look evolved. A desire for order alone is not enough to explain the pattern of nested hierarchy. After all, any kind of order could have been imposed. Organisms could show similarity based only on size, habitat or location. In actual fact, whatever level you examine life at, it looks as though it evolved. A simple desire for order is not enough to explain things like ERVs in our genome, shared genes between humans and chimps, biogeography, fossil stratigraphy, etc. because all of these things, had they been designed, were clearly designed to look as evolved as possible.
The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists - see this article from June 2009 - and here's Dr. Wile's commentary on the article, which I believe I linked before. Yes, you have indeed linked to Dr Wile many times before. Despite the fact that he is an ignoramus. Wile's claim that there are "NO FEATHER IMPRESSIONS preserved" is flat wrong for example. He is either unfamiliar with the relevant evidence or he has chosen to ignore it. It also seems odd that you should use the opinions of evolutionist researchers to bolster your claims. Feduccia and Ruben are not creationists. They believe that dinosaurs evolved, albeit from different reptile ancestors to those favoured by most researchers. Do you believe that birds evolved from reptiles? If not, why cite Feduccia or Ruben? If your only intent was to show that there are minority opinions in biology, you are making a non-point; there are always minority opinions in science, that's how science works. The fact remains that a dinosaur origin for birds is by far the most widespread theory for bird origin amongst biologists. Those suggesting other reptile origins have had their work heavily criticised and rightly so; there are major problems with their ideas.
YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem? It's a problem because one could use that argument to justify anything. Feathered mammals? That's because God wanted it that way. No feathered mammals? That's because God didn't want them. Literally anything could be justified using this kind of post hoc excuse. An answer that can be equally applied to everything is no kind of answer at all.
Yes, darwin's model of common ancestry could (theoretically) work in any situation where life exists. No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course. Therefore the origin of life must be assumed. As has been pointed out many times already, the Theory of Evolution isn't supposed to tell us how life arose. It would be equally true whatever the actual origins of life. Further, I see no problem with assuming that life began somehow. We know this. Life exists after all, it must have begun somehow, at some point. All that remains to be seen is how life arose, a question that would be better settled by sober analysis of the evidence, not by asserting supernatural causes.
No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation - one that will never be found by "conventional" naturalistic science, because the supernatural is ruled out as a possible conclusion. Examples: 1. Creation of life 2. "Noah's" Global flood 3. scattering of the races (tower of babel) But even if these events had a supernatural cause, they would still have left detectable evidence for their occurrence. Just because the cause is supernatural, doesn't mean that it would not leave evidence of the actual event itself. The flood for instance would have left vast swathes of evidence of its passing. The Babel event would be detectable in the archaeological record. Neither can be found. If life has a supernatural origin then, sadly, science will be forever unable to address it and the fledgling field of abiogenesis is doomed to permanent frustration. However, I think it's a little early to give up and resort to God-of-the-gaps explanations yet.
I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry. You have already been shown such evidence and you have hand-waved it away. The problem here is that with most animal species, the definition of baramin is loose enough to allow a little wiggle room. Bird/dinosaur fossils can be explained away by simply decreeing one to be a bird, one a dinosaur. Fish/amphibian fossils can be hand-waved away with "That's just a fish" or, if preferred, "That's just an amphibian". The only reason creationists can't play this game with humans and chimps is because you are unable to accept this particular example of common ancestry no matter what. Of course, if all baramins were as tightly defined as the human one, we would have no trouble falsifying them. Their vagueness is the only thing that allows the idea to persist; what is never defined can never be falsified. Convenient eh? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5345 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Hi Bob, the probability calculations I've seen used against abiogenesis are always wrong, and in very basic ways. The two biggest errors are :- assuming that there are no intermediate steps between raw chemicals in solution and something extremely complex, such as a cell. assuming that there is only one way to get life - the way we happen to have it If you make these assumptions you can indeed get astrononical numbers, but scientists don't do that. Creationists do.
quote: As others have said, that's not the case. Beyond the now ancient Miller-Urey studies, much more sophisticated work is going on to explore the intermediate steps. See for example the work of Jack Szostak and Brian Paegel. This is still at a relatively early stage of development, but they have already some interesting findings. But even if there were no experimental evidence, a supernatural assumption is not reasonable. This is because not a single phenomenon that has been understood proves to have a supernatural explanation. The track record of naturalistic explanations is superb. The track record for the supernatural is non-existent. The supernatural has been removed from many domains by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Until we have a definition of "kind", other than "separate creations", it doesn't tell us what their limits to microevolution are. Creos insist that the accumulated effects of microevolution are limited. They don't specify the limits they just act on a 'know it when I see it approach'. If that is all we are saying here then we all agree and this has been the most convoluted approach to a very simple point.
But do you see my point? According to 1 and 3, descent with modification cannot create "kinds" if "kinds" are described as direct products of the creator, and evolution is not creation. So 2 can never happen, and all evolution is therefore micro. Yes they do believe all evolution is Micro. Which taken in conjunction with whatever limit there is on the accumulated effects of micro-evolution makes Darwinian common descent impossible. Which necessarily means that the number of originally created kinds be significantly > 1 This may well all be evidential nonsense. But it incorporates both of the definitions PaulK says are contradictory and still remains internally logically consistent. So I still don't see what his point is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2804 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Peepul writes: BobTHJ writes: The origin of life comes immediately to mind (and I've mentioned this in several previous posts on this thread). The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Hi Bob, the probability calculations I've seen used against abiogenesis are always wrong, and in very basic ways. The two biggest errors are :-.... Bob actually says (amusingly) that the probability of abiogenesis is "astronomical". I agree. I mention this because, when we're discussing complex subjects, it's important that we try to be reasonably precise about what we want to say. We all make mistakes, but Bob has managed to say the opposite of what he presumably meant. Still, it's off topic, but if Bob keeps mentioning OOL, maybe he should start a thread on it, so that he can explain why he thinks chemical self replicators and chemical evolution (both observable phenomena) are astronomically improbable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2804 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Straggler writes: Yes they do believe all evolution is Micro. Which taken in conjunction with whatever limit there is on the accumulated effects of micro-evolution makes Darwinian common descent impossible. Which necessarily means that the number of originally created kinds be significantly > 1 This may well all be evidential nonsense. But it incorporates both of the definitions PaulK says are contradictory and still remains internally logically consistent. So I still don't see what his point is. That (4) - below - doesn't make sense in the light of 1,2 and 3. The word "descent" doesn't mean "god directly creating something new". So (4) means that creationists believe that the concept of common descent requires god to manufacture certain descendents. Look at the problem with (2). How can the concept of "macroevolution" be defined as the evolution of a new kind when "kind" is defined as something god created ex-nihilo? If we redifine kind as the taxonomical "genre", then it's consistent. Or, if we redifine "macroevolution" as "the quantity of microevolution that can't happen", or "evolution above the level of genera" it's consistent.
quote: Could become: 1) "kinds" are defined as genera.2) "macroevolution" is defined as the evolution of a new kind 3) evolution is not creation 4) creationists believe that universal common descent requires macroevolution. Or: 1) "kinds" are defined as separate creations2) "macroevolution" is defined as evolution beyond the bounds of possibility. 3) evolution is not creation 4) creationists believe that universal common descent requires macroevolution. Or both changes: 1) "kinds" are defined as genera2) "macroevolution" is defined as evolution beyond the bounds of possibility (or above the level of genera). 3) evolution is not creation 4) creationists believe that universal common descent requires macroevolution. I think any of those three are better. I don't think it's fair to suggest that creationists think that the concept of macroevolution = God creating brand new organisms ex-nihilo. If you think that you, Paul, and I are going on about pretty silly minor points of definition without really disagreeing on anything important about what creationists actually do believe , I'm inclined to agree. But this is EvC, remember, where we argue anything from the existence of pink unicorns to whether or not Adam had a navel. That's what the place is for. Edited by bluegenes, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5325 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Not nested hierarchy - just groupings of similar features. There is some overlap - and still not everything fits nicely into a group.
quote: If you would have read the article in question you would have noted that it is a review of a book by Simon Conway Morris (a theistic evolutionist) that documents hundreds of cases. I thought quoting the review article better than quoting entire chapters from the book - no? Side note for truthful disclosure: I have not read Morris' book, but have added it to my future reading list as I am curious to learn more about various cases of convergent evolution.
quote: Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes?
quote: Yes, the evidence gives us clues as to what occurred - and fairly examining that evidence is indeed important. I'm having to spend most of time here repeating myself about issues like this. Just because I disagree with the conclusions darwinists draw from the data does not mean I'm an incompetent nincompoop that lacks the understanding of the processes involved.
quote: Yes, as stated in a previous post that is exactly what I meant. Sorry for not using clearer language.
quote: I couldn't agree more. Darwinian evolution is a fascinating story, isn't it? Honestly, I find it to be highly interesting - it appeals to me. Too bad it isn't supported by the evidence. Now, can we move on from the baseless accusations?
quote: Yes, yes....ancestral descent is an observable phenomena. The assumption arises when applying ancestral descent to creatures of different species. This is not an observable phenomena. So next you have to look at the evidence of past events to see if the evidence suggests it is a reasonable assumption to make. The scant evidence I've seen would lead me to believe the answer is no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Look at the problem with (2). How can the concept of "macroevolution" be defined as the evolution of a new kind when "kind" is defined as something god created ex-nihilo? So this entire bad tempered tangent is simply wrangling over the pointlessly subtle and practically irrelevant distinction between: A) Kinds were created by God. New kinds would require macroevolution. Macroevolution is unobserved and impossible. Therefore there are no new kinds. and B) Kinds are defined as being created by God. New kinds cannot occur by evolution because then the first definition would be violated. Therefore there are no new kinds. Neither of which actually requires creationists to logically accept that universal common descent occurred at all. Making that side of things just a giant red herring.
If you think that you, Paul, and I are going on about pretty silly minor points of definition without really disagreeing on anything important about what creationists actually do believe , I'm inclined to agree. But this is EvC, remember, where we argue anything from the existence of pink unicorns to whether or not Adam had a navel. That's what the place is for. Now that I can agree with. ![]() Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10388 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Order - order is an attribute of the Creator. Sorry for the confusing language. What does "order" have to do with a nested hierarchy? Stars do not fall into a nested hierarchy, so were they not created by a Creator?
No, I did not argue for nested heirarchy. Are you saying that we would not expect a nested hierarchy for separately created kinds?
The "dinosaurs are bird ancestors" debate certainly isn't closed among darwinists Actually, yes it is. There are still some stubborn holdouts (e.g. Feducia), but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that modern birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Go to this tolweb page. They group birds WITHIN the dinosaur clade.
YEC can easily explain your question of why we don't see mammals with bird feathers: either the Creator chose not to make such creatures or they exist and we have not yet discovered them. I don't see how this is a problem? That's not an explanation. That's a dodge. ""We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."--William of Conches
No, that still doesn't explain how life exists - and life must exist before darwinian evolution can run its course. The germ theory of disease does not explain where the first germ came from. Does this mean we should throw out the idea that germs cause disease? The theory of evolution explains how life has CHANGED over time. You don't need to know where life came from in order to know how it changed over time in the same way that you don't need to know where the first germ came from in order to know that tuberculosis is caused by an infectious bacteria.
No, I believe some things to actually have a supernatural explanation People believe all sorts of crazy things. I'm not interested in beliefs. I am interested in what you can DEMONSTRATE THROUGH EVIDENCE. If you want to claim that something came about through supernatural means then DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH EVIDENCE, not through the lack of evidence.
I'm telling you the only falsification test I can think of at the moment is evidence of a direct chimp/human common ancestry. That's exactly what orthologous ERV's demonstrate: "Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."--Johnson and Coffin, 1999 Humans and chimps share thousands of orthologous ERV's. Consider kinds falsified.
I readily admit to a limited knowledge of baraminology. What's been discussed here so far is the full extent of my knowledge on the subject. To help answer you question I googled baraminology predictions and found this. The first prediction is: "The difference between two species in the same baramin would be mostly due to transposons." How can you determine this without the ability to construct a baramin?
I find this to be entirely offensive. While I certainly hold strong religious beliefs (a fact I have not tried to hide) I make a good effort to evaluate the data for what it is. No, you don't. You dismiss ERV's out of hand without even understanding how they operate, how they insert into the genome, or their impact on the host genome. You dismiss a nested hierarchy out of hand, as if common ancestry would not produce a nested hierarchy. You dismiss intermediate fossils. You misrepresent the scientific consensus on the ancestry of modern birds. You misrepresent what is and is not assumed in the science of radiometric dating. I will stop short of calling you a liar, but you have bought a bad bill of goods and the only reason I can think for why this is is due to your religious beliefs. Or do you really think that millions of highly trained physicists, geologists, and biologists wordwide from every culture and religion are wrong while a handful of religiously motivated creationists are right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2804 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
BobTHJ writes: Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes? Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn the difference between the words "ancestor" and "descendant" before you comment on biology?
Nectocaris pteryx has just been described as a primitive shell-less cephalopod by researchers on the basis of 91 new specimens. It pre-dates the first known true cephalopods by 30 million years.
Nature abstract Why on earth you think that's some kind of problem for evolutionary theory is a mystery. Edited by bluegenes, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18064 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: It would be better described as the difference between: A) There is a genuine disagreement between creationists and evolutionists over whether what the creationists call "macroevolution" actually occurs. or B) The creationist denial of "macroevolution" is a stupid irrelevance because the term refers to nothing. To call it a strawman would be to give it too much credit. And in fact I think that there is an important point here. We must remember that creationist terminology is NOT universally agreed amongst creationists. We cannot assume the meaning intended by any individual creationist when they use these terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23191 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
BobTHJ writes: quote: Not nested hierarchy - just groupings of similar features. There is some overlap - and still not everything fits nicely into a group. Okay, I understand you now. You don't believe the evidence indicates a nested hierarchy.
Side note for truthful disclosure: I have not read Morris' book, but have added it to my future reading list as I am curious to learn more about various cases of convergent evolution. In other words, you pulled the trigger without first loading any ammunition and are unable to answer the question: why do you think convergent evolution is an assumption? After you've got some ammunition why don't you try again.
quote: Or pesky cephalopods found in strata 30 million years older than their evolutionary ancestors - with fully developed advanced evolutionary structures such as camera eyes? Well gee, that's wonderful for you, common ancestry has already been falsified. My previous suggestions stand: stop posting bare links with no discusison and bring your evidence and arguments into the thread (rule 5), and provide evidence *for* ID instead of against evolution.
I'm having to spend most of time here repeating myself about issues like this. Just because I disagree with the conclusions darwinists draw from the data does not mean I'm an incompetent nincompoop that lacks the understanding of the processes involved. I don't think you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the material. I'm just noting that you seem unaware of much of the subject material at this point, and I also find your several expressions of wishing to investigate things for yourself at odds with your unquestioning acceptance of articles by Mr. Wile and ICR. You say you disagree with the conclusions scientists draw from the data while giving no indication of any acquaintance with that data yourself. This is why I likened you to those who prefer a good story over evidence.
Yes, yes....ancestral descent is an observable phenomena. The assumption arises when applying ancestral descent to creatures of different species. This is not an observable phenomena. So next you have to look at the evidence of past events to see if the evidence suggests it is a reasonable assumption to make. The scant evidence I've seen would lead me to believe the answer is no. So in your mind an observable and verified phenomenon is less likely than a phenomenon that has never been observed let alone verified. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5325 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: It should be clear by now that creationists do not draw the conclusion of common ancestry from the data of these fossils. Given a YEC framework this is a very reasonable conclusion. Complain all you want about my 'religious dogma' preventing me from seeing the truth - but that won't advance the conversation. Instead, if you'd like to examine and discuss these fossils on a case by case basis, start a new on-topic thread and I'd be glad to join the discussion (as my time permits).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025