Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kinds are not related
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 80 (520261)
08-20-2009 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by subbie
08-19-2009 8:51 AM


But it is based on facts, as far as I know. I only know the facts, and to me it looks like you get variation, the rest is hypothetics, like cladograms??
What can I do - lie? We are GENUINELY convinced that variation explains the facts, and even explains them parsimoniously. Why? Because we don't need mutations OR punctuated equilibrium, we only need natural selection acting on gene pools stock with information, whereas evolution requires a mechanism to add the information.
Be honest - logically that's neat. I admitt that a theory of creation or bariminology, could not mention God or the bible, but does it really? I don't really need to if all I state is that the information was there.
Afterall, you don't have to deal with origins because abiogenesis is a different theory - so why should I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by subbie, posted 08-19-2009 8:51 AM subbie has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 80 (520262)
08-20-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Wounded King
08-19-2009 9:28 AM


Hi WK, nice to hear from you.
It would take a different perception of DNA. It is not just there for relatedness, if a designer chooses it as one unique means through which you get all life, rather than doing it to a lesser degree.
Why would God, Him being clever, indeed the cleverest, make anything other than that which works? It is not efficient, when He can get everything He wants from one invention.
I beg to differ with you, I say that this is a sign of brilliance to the extreme. One means by which you get many things. I also think that species would be related by kind, but not by genetics, therefore it would be similar to adoption. Does that strike you as theologically relevant at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 08-19-2009 9:28 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 08-20-2009 8:43 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 34 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 8:33 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 80 (520263)
08-20-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coragyps
08-19-2009 10:34 AM


Hi again Coragyps.
There are logical reasons it would help the creationist cause, I have not expounded.
It would throw out evolutionary thinking though. What would a "kind" be now? How is change within a kind now interpreted? If you show an ostrich and a robin and ask, "how can they be the same kind?", Well - now they can be the same kind quite easily, if we speculate that wings, and beaks are shared in design rather than genetics. That would mean that a robin could descend from a robin-type "kind" and an ostrich from an ostrich-type "kind" or "sort".
I'm only re-reading Genesis, and asking myself if we as creationists, have given good enough answers. I don't think we have tried hard enough to explain variation within a kind.
If variation stems from Kind X, then there are problems, because a robin and an ostrich require a hyper-evolution in 4000 odd years. But if we say both are kind X, but sort A and B, then you get a different family tree.
But this is a new way of looking at it, I myself am speculating greatly as this is an idea which is forming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 08-19-2009 10:34 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 80 (520264)
08-20-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by themasterdebator
08-19-2009 4:05 PM


Think of it biblically, even if only for the sake of argument.
God, created kinds, and really they are all different genetically, but they could have been created differently. I think it says cattle and beats according to it's kind. Well - aren't they a kind already? So then what is this "every sort" of animal?
If God asked me to take of every sort, I wouldn't take an eagle, and say, "well, a robin can fly, and an eagle, so I'll just take an eagle."
I think it makes more sense to say that there were already some species at the beginning of time, and that these species were preserved, as it says in the New King James version.
So now, variation is only relevant within a sort of kind, so we could explain major differences in the bird kind, because there would be no relatedness.
I have drawn a picture of variation. I might post it. Variation, don't forget - is fact. Nobody should dispute variation, only how far variation can go.
Thus far creationists have thought simplistically by saying you could take two dogs as the dog kind, male and female, and get all of the dogs we have now. But it may have been that some dogs could never breed with other dogs. Would that NOT explain some of those problems about vastly different species? I think it would because it would mean that you can get two vastly different species of the same kind.
Surely one creationist must have thought of this idea before I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by themasterdebator, posted 08-19-2009 4:05 PM themasterdebator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-21-2009 5:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 80 (520266)
08-20-2009 8:09 AM


STATEMENT
I don't know Faith's arguments much. I am not here to claim omniscience or a great knowledge over anybody else.
You have to accept that creationists aren't out to get you, we are people who GENUINELY are convinced that the bible is God's word.
Some people can see this, and I have been fortunate in this thread, to debate with rational people who are clever enough to not see any of this at all as a personal war.
I cannot state enough how much I do not mean to even offend anyone for their beliefs. If evolution is true, my apologies in advance, that would be something I would feel guilty about for a long, long, time, if there were an eternity.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 80 (520269)
08-20-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
08-20-2009 7:35 AM


Don't be too cynical.
I'm not being cynical - I'm just saying why the two camps argue over kinds in the first place -- because creationists make claims about what is or what is not evolution within a kind without providing a means of determining whether something is a kind or not, nor can they (if they did, and were proven wrong, they could easily move the goalposts since the Bible doesn't give us any real clues). That's all.
If you accept that we can't know what the original kinds were, that there is no way to tell, then you can't argue that any given example of evolution is technically 'within a kind'.
But also, evolutionary thinking is very much prevailent but you would have to look at the facts according to the account in the bible.
If a "kind" is defined by design, then "change within a kind" would not be relevant in the sense that it is only defined by design.
Therefore variation would come from "sorts" of "kinds".
This doesn't contradict evolution though, which says exactly the same kind of thing. It just so happens that when there become enough 'sorts' of 'kinds' that it becomes convenient for us to create new labels. This is the origin of the nested hierarchy of life we observe.
Evolution predicts that all evolution will be 'within a kind'. Creationists say that there are some 'ancestral kind' which did not evolve from a predecessor and that any evidence we find for evolution today that cannot be dismissed easily in other fashions must simply evolution within these set kind definitions. The poor logic should be plain - how can they know if a given example of evolution crosses their 'kind barriers' if they aren't able to tell us what those kind barriers are ahead of time?
But it is based on facts, as far as I know. I only know the facts, and to me it looks like you get variation, the rest is hypothetics, like cladograms??
Your model produces cladograms too. You said as much with your 'sorts' of 'kinds'. You just have X number (however many kinds you end up with) of independent cladograms rather than one unified cladogram that can be zoomed in on for detailed study.
What can I do - lie? We are GENUINELY convinced that variation explains the facts, and even explains them parsimoniously. Why? Because we don't need mutations OR punctuated equilibrium, we only need natural selection acting on gene pools stock with information, whereas evolution requires a mechanism to add the information.
Then how do you explain 'sorts' of 'kinds' without mutations? Your model is exactly the same as evolution and is exactly as parsimonious but it explains less. You propose that these kinds changed into various 'sorts' over time (evolution within kinds?). This is exactly the same as evolution which says they changed into 'sorts' over time time. The only difference is that evolution explains that the ancestral kinds are also 'sorts' of 'kinds' as well. And therefore it explains the kinds. Your model doesn't.
Be honest - logically that's neat. I admitt that a theory of creation or bariminology, could not mention God or the bible, but does it really? I don't really need to if all I state is that the information was there.
All you've done is taken the same natural history that evolutionists have developed, drawn an arbitrary and undisclosed line and said "no more". It's not really that neat I'm afraid - it's exactly what creationists have been doing since they were forced to admit some evolution does happen.
So your outline of a theory of barminology is just a subset of existing natural history as explained by evolution only seriously lacking a good reason to draw a line and say 'no more evolution here folks'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:35 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2009 6:56 AM Modulous has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 22 of 80 (520271)
08-20-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
08-20-2009 7:48 AM


Does that strike you as theologically relevant at all?
No, but it does strike me as biologically incoherent, and these are the science forums after all.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:48 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2009 6:41 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 80 (520275)
08-20-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
08-20-2009 7:35 AM


Obscurantist
If a "kind" is defined by design, then "change within a kind" would not be relevant in the sense that it is only defined by design.
Therefore variation would come from "sorts" of "kinds".
The problem is, Mike, is that no one knows what a "kind" is. We only have vague descriptions, like between birds, reptiles, and "beasts of the field," which presumably are related to bovine. That really isn't a lot to go by.
You further breaking it down to "sorts," which is not biblical, just obscures the topic even more.
What it sounds like you are trying to describe sounds a lot like the known process of evolution.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:35 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2009 7:13 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 80 (520279)
08-20-2009 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
08-20-2009 7:40 AM


I cannot not have any predictive power because the facts are posteriori which means that because "Creation" is complete, we do not expect to find new finds.
But I can say what would follow, but I already have the facts, so it would be dishonest of me to state it.
You see the problem? If I say; "I expect to see variation, caused by NS, but no new organisms."
But we already see this, so I would not be in a scientifically perfect position. Nevertheless, the facts fit perfectly with the hypothetic.
What facts does it fit perfectly? You have not yet provided a single iota of real world facts or links to outside sources. So far, it is entirely hypothetical and useless as a scientific idea. I can see a prediction your theory could make, specifically that when we classify animals we would see distinct large jumps in "kinds", even if we do not know where those jumps would be, those jumps would exist. The problem is we have not yet found any giant jumps. To show you evolutions prediction on the matter:
"If modern species have descended from ancestral ones in this tree-like, branching manner, it should be possible to infer the true historical tree that traces their paths of descent. Phylogenies have been inferred by biologists ever since Darwin first proposed that life was united by common descent over 140 years ago. Rigorous algorithmic methodologies for inferring phylogenetic trees have been in use for over the past 50 years."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Phylogenetics
Your kinds theory should predict jumps in the phylogenic tree where we have a gap between one kind and another. As of yet, no biologist has found these gaps. Now, if you could find these gaps in the phylogenic tree you could go a long way toward disproving evolution. Do allot of research. Find where the gaps in the tree are. Then come back to us with how this prediction turned out. So far, you have not done anything scientific. You have just made baseless assertions without providing any observations that back them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 08-20-2009 7:40 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2009 6:40 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 80 (520353)
08-21-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by themasterdebator
08-20-2009 10:17 AM


The logical error, is to make a tree of hypothetics, then say that my theory should predict jumps in that tree.
It's the same with the Geologic column, the 25 layers, or whatever it is, has to be assumed, because nowhere on earth are all the layers there, so you now say, "break my layer", when logically I have to firstly assume your layer is a layer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by themasterdebator, posted 08-20-2009 10:17 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 80 (520354)
08-21-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Wounded King
08-20-2009 8:43 AM


Biologically incoherent? Expound.
I say that DNA does not have to be a record of relatedness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 08-20-2009 8:43 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 08-21-2009 7:12 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 80 (520356)
08-21-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
08-20-2009 8:25 AM


So your outline of a theory of barminology is just a subset of existing natural history as explained by evolution only seriously lacking a good reason to draw a line and say 'no more evolution here folks'.
Ahaha. Assume evolution Mod?
You haven't fully understood. Perhaps that's partly my own fault.
When we say there are "barriers" you are free to say, "no barriers", but MY POINT is that it is now a vacuous statement, because all of the variation you see would now be answerable by original gene pools, and natural selection.
These "barriers" to stop things evolving, in my idea, don't exist, because I am cleverer than that. What I say is, so what if there aren't barriers, as this does not mean evolution happened anymore that with barriers, because you still have to prove that mutations and NS gave every single organism on the planet, despite their OBVIOUS diversity in design.
The "design" is what makes evolution theory harder to prove. Always people have tried to get around it, but here I am saying - "there is design", now the burden of proof is to disprove the truism in saying that "there is a different design of wing in a bird, than a bat". That is a barrier! "There is a different design in butterfly wings than bird wings." That is a barrier!
Now to draw an imaginery tree of how all creatures are related, with most of that tree being imaginery, is far from proof, when I have powerful facts that confirm that organisms become the same organisms, as with the fossils of bacteria, that don't change, frogs that don't change, crocs, dragon flies, fish......infact just name any species and google it's fossil and you won't find it's ancestor, you'll find it's kind of animal.
You make this "kind" thing into a major distraction IMO, because different designs are different kinds. It would be silly to not discern between a dog and a bird. I believe Coragyps' early post gives this claim some confirmation.
It's silly to pretend there is no difference in designs. What is more silly is to draw a lineage, no matter how sophisticated, and merely assume it's truth.
Then how do you explain 'sorts' of 'kinds' without mutations?
Are you being wilfully obtuse?
There is no need for mutation now, whatsoever, if the design is already present in the Ark. Genesis says, "every bird OF EVERY SORT" was taken aboard the ark. Therefore why would I need mutations, when variation is PROVEN through NS leading to speciation, alone?
You see, all of the information needed to get a variety of species, would be present already. Afterall, you are not your mother or your father nor your brother or sister. You get variety which leads to different species. Different shape, different colour different size. But now there would be no problem with saying, "ahh but where does this bird relate to a dove?" Answer; it doesn't, yet it is still a bird by design.
So you might say, "how does this process of speciation stop?" But that is a misunderstanding! You are not adding information, you are removing it to get speciation. A species is not NEW information, it is UNIQUE information. The actual facts show that there are no mutations producing different designs, but only natural selection favouring certain traits. So it becomes a misunderstanding to define it according to your own theory, you have to define it according to the facts, that show bacteria becoming bacteria, frogs becoming frogs.. where are the fossils of all of the phylogeny of frogs and bacteria, of which is tangible proof of evolution? If the fossils are a history of time rather than a deluge, then there is just no logical leg to stand on if you don't find the transitionals. So I STICK TO THE TANGIBLE FACTS, and have no reason to believe a naturalist-story, however brilliantly sophisticated it is!
You can't steal history from God. This is the science forum, but it's God's world. It's HIM who said according to their kind - not us.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 08-20-2009 8:25 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 7:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 08-21-2009 8:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 28 of 80 (520357)
08-21-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
08-21-2009 6:41 AM


mike the wiz writes:
I say that DNA does not have to be a record of relatedness.
So, the fact that you share most of your DNA with your parents is a complete and utter coincidence, and in fact does not prove they are your parents, you could be from an entirely different couple?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2009 6:41 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2009 7:16 AM Huntard has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 80 (520358)
08-21-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
08-20-2009 9:37 AM


Re: Obscurantist
You further breaking it down to "sorts," which is not biblical, just obscures the topic even more.
But it is biblical, I quoted the NKJV bible!>>??
It's not obscure, it is infact clarity. The bible shows how you get a big variety of birds, where you might think you "need" an evolution, or that a vast variety shows an evolution. It doesn't, it just shows different ancestors.
Think about it. Let's say there was 7 majorly different bird species taken on the Ark. Now if you let those species, with all of those different pieces of information for shape and colour, go out and "ABOUND" on the earth and "multiply" (quoting NKJV), then from one sort alone you would get a whole host of different species, even different from one another, as natural selection would have acted in their various environments, on certain genes.
Some birds would have an advantage in smaller stature, others might prevail with longer beaks, and shapes and so forth.
A good example is the crocodile. You get those crocs with very short narrow snouts, because they live off fish, but with the bigger Australiam ones like the saltwater abomination, you get a much more ferocious example. But where do I "need" a croc from? Mutations? No! As we would already have crocs! (what about fossil crocs? I predict big ones, small ones, but crocs all the same. My proof is google, have at it!)
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-20-2009 9:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2009 8:44 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 08-21-2009 10:17 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2009 11:13 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 80 (520360)
08-21-2009 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Huntard
08-21-2009 7:12 AM


It's a fallacy of composition.
It does not logically follow that because one kind "human", share genes, that all creatures share genes.
You are applying a fact in the smaller scale, with the "whole".
I could say, because your genes are pretty much the same as mine, on a comparison of species level, that you MUST be my brother. But it does not follow.
You have simply conflated the none-importance of "closeness". Our close genes only matter because we are both human. They don't matter because they are similar or almost the same.
The difference with different kinds of animals, is that they are not the "same" animal.
You ---- me ----- human
frog-----ant ------ ?
So it follows that you MUST tautologically, have similar genes, by the fact of us being human, whereas a frog and ant must not.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 08-21-2009 7:12 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Huntard, posted 08-21-2009 7:23 AM mike the wiz 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