Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three KINDS
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 22 (447991)
01-11-2008 3:55 PM


One of the common assertions by Creationists is that Evolution has never been shown, all that has been shown is "variation within KIND."
I would like to try to work with that concept to see if perhaps rewording what evolution means might help. To start off, I propose we discuss the Three Kinds.
    There is the:

  1. Living Kind.
  2. Kind where we are not quite sure if it is living or not.
  3. Not Living Kind.
When we look at the first two KINDS we can see that the record over time shows that they have changed. We can also see that the first two KINDS seem to be biological in nature while the last does not exhibit biological characteristics. In addition, so far everything we have seen seems to fall into one of those three categories.
So are there any other KINDS?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-11-2008 4:37 PM jar has replied
 Message 5 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 4:49 PM jar has not replied
 Message 15 by Equinox, posted 01-22-2008 9:10 AM jar has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 22 (447994)
01-11-2008 4:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 22 (447996)
01-11-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-11-2008 3:55 PM


Animal Vegetable or Mineral
I have a question. Within the categories of
  • Animal
  • Vegetable
  • Mineral
    we know that all animals are living. I suppose we would know that all vegetables also are or were at one time living.
    Can we say that all minerals are non living ?
    also...what things are we unsure about as regards to being alive or not?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 3:55 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 4:42 PM Phat has not replied
     Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 4:55 PM Phat has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 4 of 22 (447997)
    01-11-2008 4:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
    01-11-2008 4:37 PM


    Animal Vegetable or Mineral doesn't much matter
    All animals and plants are alive.
    Viruses may or may not be alive.
    Minerals are not alive.

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-11-2008 4:37 PM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-11-2008 6:06 PM jar has replied

      
    sinequanon
    Member (Idle past 2864 days)
    Posts: 331
    Joined: 12-17-2007


    Message 5 of 22 (447999)
    01-11-2008 4:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by jar
    01-11-2008 3:55 PM


    Logic test?
    So are there any other KINDS?
    Is this a logic question? A OR NOT A?
    1) and iii) together are supposed to be exhaustive are they not?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 3:55 PM jar has not replied

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 22 (448000)
    01-11-2008 4:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
    01-11-2008 4:37 PM


    Re: Animal Vegetable or Mineral
    Can we say that all minerals are non living ?
    Yes.
    And by definition, minerals are made of inorganic materials.

    ABE:
    Wow, I guess I should check the stuff before I post it. I happened to look up mineral in wiki:
    quote:
    Traditional definitions excluded organically derived material. However, the International Mineralogical Association in 1995 adopted a new definition:
    a mineral is an element or chemical compound that is normally crystalline and that has been formed as a result of geological processes.[2]
    The modern classifications include an organic class - in both the new Dana and the Strunz classification schemes.
    Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-11-2008 4:37 PM Phat has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 7 of 22 (448009)
    01-11-2008 5:11 PM


    Looking at the second KIND
    When we look at the second KIND, those things where we are not quite sure if they are alive or not, we see a whole bunch of different ways to pass on their characteristics. Viruses don't quite have the normal cell we see in the first KIND; they seem to use both RNA and DNA and even there they seem to use a variety of single strand and double strand arrangements, some direct reading, others needing to be transcribed before reading, some forward reading and others reverse reading.

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2008 8:10 PM jar has replied

      
    Taz
    Member (Idle past 3291 days)
    Posts: 5069
    From: Zerus
    Joined: 07-18-2006


    Message 8 of 22 (448020)
    01-11-2008 6:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by jar
    01-11-2008 4:42 PM


    Re: Animal Vegetable or Mineral doesn't much matter
    jar writes:
    Viruses may or may not be alive.
    I'm just curious. What about prions?
    Added by edit.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "kind" here. Are you trying to formulate a scientific definition of kind or are you semi-basing this on biblical reference?
    If biblical, I seem to recall plants not perceived as alive.
    Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 4:42 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 6:18 PM Taz has not replied
     Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 01-11-2008 7:35 PM Taz has not replied
     Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2008 7:52 PM Taz has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 9 of 22 (448022)
    01-11-2008 6:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
    01-11-2008 6:06 PM


    Prions
    I'm just curious. What about prions?
    I don't know.

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-11-2008 6:06 PM Taz has not replied

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 4189 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 10 of 22 (448043)
    01-11-2008 7:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
    01-11-2008 6:06 PM


    Re: Animal Vegetable or Mineral doesn't much matter
    Taz
    I'm just curious. What about prions?
    I would say no, no nucleic acid.
    Also Jar Message 7
    Viruses don't quite have the normal cell we see in the first KIND; they seem to use both RNA and DNA and even there they seem to use a variety of single strand and double strand arrangements, some direct reading, others needing to be transcribed before reading, some forward reading and others reverse reading.
    bacteria and , i believe archeans are not true cells either, no nucleus.

    There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-11-2008 6:06 PM Taz has not replied

      
    Quetzal
    Member (Idle past 5872 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 11 of 22 (448048)
    01-11-2008 7:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
    01-11-2008 6:06 PM


    Re: Animal Vegetable or Mineral doesn't much matter
    I'm just curious. What about prions?
    Tough one. Prions are simply proteins with the unusual ability to force other proteins to conform to their shape, which then gain the ability to do the same to the next protein. I'm not sure we can consider simple replication - and not even self-replication at that - to be the sole consideration of what constitutes "living". Crystals that provide templates for other crystals to grow identical shapes would then be "alive".
    Do we need to go down the "what is life?" road here?
    Edited by Quetzal, : speling

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Taz, posted 01-11-2008 6:06 PM Taz has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 12 of 22 (448058)
    01-11-2008 8:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by jar
    01-11-2008 5:11 PM


    Re: Looking at the second KIND
    mimivirus bigger than some cells and has over 900 genes
    BBC NEWS | Health | 'World's largest virus' found
    Mimivirus - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Mimivirus possesses many characteristics which place it at the boundary of living and non-living. It is as large as several bacterial species, such as Rickettsia conorii and Tropheryma whipplei, possesses a genome of comparable size to several bacteria, including those above, and codes for products previously not thought to be encoded by viruses. In addition, mimivirus possesses genes coding for nucleotide and amino acid synthesis, which even some small obligate intracellular bacteria lack. This means that unlike these bacteria, mimivirus is not dependent on the host cell genome for coding the metabolic pathways for these products. They do however, lack genes for ribosomal proteins, making mimivirus dependent for protein translation and energy metabolism. These factors combined have thrown scientists into debate over whether mimivirus is a distinct form of life, comparable on a domain scale to Eukarya, Archaea and Bacteria. Nevertheless, mimivirus does not exhibit the following characteristics, all of which are part of many conventional definitions of life: homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth in the normal sense of the term (instead replicating via self-assembly of individual components) or undergoing cellular division.
    Gets down to the definition of life again.
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 5:11 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 13 of 22 (448060)
    01-11-2008 8:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
    01-11-2008 8:10 PM


    Re: Looking at the second KIND
    But the Second KIND is stuff that may or may not be alive, so either way it is okay.

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2008 8:10 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2008 9:17 PM jar has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 14 of 22 (448080)
    01-11-2008 9:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by jar
    01-11-2008 8:13 PM


    Re: Looking at the second KIND
    But it may also never be a cut and dried divide ... but a

    -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 00 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10
    ___|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 8:13 PM jar has not replied

      
    Equinox
    Member (Idle past 5142 days)
    Posts: 329
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 08-18-2006


    Message 15 of 22 (450492)
    01-22-2008 9:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by jar
    01-11-2008 3:55 PM


    Exactly 22 Kinds, here they are listed:
    FYI - Ancient Jewish writings stated that there were exactly 22 kinds, and listed them. Back in my "How many kinds are there?" thread (http://EvC Forum: How many Kinds are there? -->EvC Forum: How many Kinds are there?)I wrote:
    I found this in a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, from 4Q216 Col. 4-7 (pg. 321 in Wise & Abegg “The Dead Sea Scrolls”), which has:
    In all there were 22 kinds. He finished all his works on the 6th day, everything that was in the heavens, on the earth, in the seas, in the depths, in the light, and in the darkness, in every place.
    Wow, 22 kinds! Now we know.
    Here is the list, which contains both living and non-living things:
    OK, here is the breakdown given in the Dead Sea Scrolls - if you read Gen 1:1-31, you’ll see that it matches the Genesis account very closely.
    Day # # Kinds made that day List of the Kinds made on given day
    1 7? Several kinds of Heavenly spirits that make rain, snow, etc. ?
    2 1? The Firmament?
    3 4 1. Plants that make seeds, 2. sprouting plants, 3. fruiting plants, 4. forests
    4 3 1. Sun, 2. Moon, and 3. Stars
    5 3 1. Sea monsters, 2. Fish and swarming ocean life?, 3. Birds
    6 4 1. Humans, 2. Land animals?, 3. Things that creep on the land?, 4. Cattle
    Total 22 DSS are clear that the total is 22
    There are several places where the text is unclear or simply missing. I’ve indicated this with question marks.
    My summary of the effects of this list is:
    The reason I asked is because an examination of the kinds can provide evidence as to whether this is of divine origin or of human origin. If it is of human origin, one would expect that the groups to fit a bronze age worldview, with only very general similarities being used, without knowledge of the detailed scientific findings since the Enlightenment. Categories could be expected to overlap because of this lack of knowledge. By this, one would expect the kinds to be very biased toward what a bronze age warrior can see.
    On the other hand, if this is divinely inspired, one could expect that the classification will be far in advance of what a bronze age warrior would otherwise guess. For instance, it might be pointed out that There is more than one kind of worm (entire phyla), while all vertebrates are a single kind (phylum level).
    I hope everyone knows better than to use the “people back then could only understand dumbed down science” approach. People back then had the same brains we do, and were just as smart. They were ignorant, but that’s easy to fix with knowledge. Hindus for instance had already postulated a universe billions of years old, and the intricacies of language show that ancient Jewish people weren’t stupid. Because of this, simply telling them the correct answer would have worked well.
    The upshot is that the list found in the DSS, just like the Genesis account itself which it closely matches, shows all the hallmarks of a bronze age human account, and is filled with scientific errors. For instance, nearly all phyla are hardly mentioned - such as sponges, nematodes, all prokaryotes and archaea, etc. All animal phyla but one (chordates) are lumped into “things that swarm in the water” and “land creepers”. Plants are very crudely classified apparently by reproductive method (except “forests”), with many plants falling into most of the categories simultaneously (many make forests, make fruit, have seeds, and sprouts). Where would all the mosses, ferns and the whole fungi kingdom go? Vertebrates, on the other hand, which bronze age warriors would be most familiar with, are spread over a half-dozen kinds (5.5 of the 7 animal kinds are vertebrates). Lastly, mythical creatures are included, such as sea monsters (or do they mean whales?) and weather spirits - as well as including non-living things, and not knowing that the sun is an ordinary star (just closer).
    All this shows that this creation account (Gen+DSS) has a human origin, and that attributing it to God is simple blasphemy.
    Have a good day everyone-
    Equinox

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 3:55 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by jar, posted 01-22-2008 10:15 AM Equinox has replied
     Message 21 by Tusko, posted 01-23-2008 12:36 PM Equinox has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024