Kinds are not related

How can you type that without having your head explode?

So you boast about being willingly ignorant?Give me your definiton of facts:.Now give me your definition of evidence. riiiight. Because no actual work or study went into creating them. I think you've successfully diagnosed yourself. Now please, immediately seek a library. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. You would be surprised at what real knowledge will do for you. You might learn what actual facts are, not what hovind tells you are facts.

No, talking won't change any relevant facts, Mike. But pointing facts out might affect the way we view other facts. And yes, I maybe having a bad day - should I say yet again that I concede I may be misunderstanding your position and call upon you to clarify for my poor dense mind if I missed something?Of course, it might be you experiencing the difficulties. Let's lay off the condescension as much as we can to avoid this tit-for-tat off topic nonsense, neh? You certainly gave me an analogy. Do we have the same facts, are we taking the same facts into consideration? I doubt that. I'm not attempting to give creationism a headache - I was just asking for evidence to back up your claims. In retrospect maybe that's the same thing. Erm. Yes...you are quite right. It is not comparable to a singing child either. Are you trying to express that a lot of generations of birds and frogs can occur within 4,500 years? Then yes, about 4,500 generations in fact. So what? Fine by me. That you have balls? Yes, you have stated an idea. I've stated several. I've had a whole cornucopia (sorry for the big word) of supernatural agents from djinn to angels as well as sci-fi ideas like time travelling scientists and aliens. I can't seriously defend any of them so I wouldn't dream of starting a debate topic about them.If you want to debate some time, look me up. I like debating. If you want to float some random idea, and then respond to criticisms with "I don't think you have made any real problems for that idea", then that is less fun. I have a crazy idea - are you able to explain why my objections don't cause problems for your idea? All I am asking for is for you to back up your point that there was enough 'built in' information in the ancestral kinds to create the diversity we see today. Saying it is so is not the same as backing it up. I'm not sure which mutation you are thinking of with the flagellum but I find it difficult that you don't think mutations can alter morphology!Mutations in the Hox gene are the most interesting. Here is a quick article on them:

quote:

---

On closer study of the mutated gene, Mortlock and Innis found that one of its codons for the amino acid tryptophan was replaced by a stop codon. So the HOXA13 protein is incomplete, missing 20 amino acids. This may eliminate or reduce the protein's ability to bind to DNA, presumably altering the transcription of target genes and so somehow altering morphology, says Innis.

---

{emphasis mine}There is quite a lot of information about HOX out there and its impact on morphology. This is a human example, which due to ethical considerations is less studied - you can use a search engine to explore other instances.If you can't be bothered, let me help (click here) Is this an admission that you can't actually back up this idea? I can back up evolution. So if cladograms are nothing more than 'imaginative art' what does that make your idea?abe: I should point out that I don't have even half a lifetime of being a naturalist/empiricist behind me, so maybe your job is easier than you thought? If you can show me a fact which supports your idea I would consider that evidence. I don't want you to give me any weak hypothetical 'evidence' - that would be like you pointing at an ancient book waving your hands and saying "see?". I don't want that. I want actual facts about organisms that exist in the actual world. So let's see some. It doesn't. I never claimed it did. I was just astonished that you dismissed mutations as a possible source of morphological change out of hand for no good reason. I'm happy to debate whether there is a valid science behind cladistics with you in an appropriate thread. I suspect you won't. That being the case I will be forced to mock your attempts at damage control by asserting they are merely nice artwork. Either way is good, I enjoy winning a good debate and I enjoy belly laughing at people that lack the stones to publically debate something they happily publically assert.Excuse me for my transparent needling, hectoring and goading, but you haven't provided any new details in this latest post so things have stalled. Hopefully a little bit of friendly bantering and mickey taking might spur you into either debating a related topic with me, advancing this one or giving up. I never said it was inconceivable, I was just asking for you to show that it happened the way you said it did (ie., all the genetic variance was in the parent population and mutations played little to no role in creating variation). I'm fairly sure you are admitting you cannot. So all you are left with is a hypothetical pile of balls (not even nice artwork!) and a creative story. I have no idea what you are talking about. I said that evolution explains everything your model does and more. You said, '"Explains" being the operative word.' as if merely explaining something is trivial. You also said that you weren't logically bound to accept the claims of a scientific model. I agreed you weren't bound. What's the problem? I am still debating because I enjoy debating. Especially when I am exposing my opponent as being someone who can't back up their ideas. I hadn't realized you were debating - you have put forward a position but you have made some great efforts to avoid supporting it. All you've done is explain your idea in a variety of different ways despite me understanding it from the get-go.However, if you think you are debating, I can't explain why you are still doing it. No - but when my opponent is forced to say that his opponent isn't thinking, but is spouting off lots of facts and figures and using big words, but doesn't understand them because they are being willfully obstinate, and becomes condescending and patronising &c. &c., I point it out. I'm not pointing it out because I'm upset, Mike. I'm pointing it out because it is funny to see it in action.The only reason I'm not openly mocking you is because I happen to like you. Instead, I'll just point out the problems with your ideas and the tactics to which you have stooped to appear to have not come out of this confrontation with a metaphorical busted nose Yes, YHWH forbid you should adopt a position, stick to it and defend it. It shows Personally I take the ideas that come into my head, and test them against real world evidence to see if they are defensible before posting them onto a debate board. Actually you did both. I wasn't insulted, but you did patronise me. My first post was merely me pointing out a consequence with your idea - that you don't get to play the 'that's just evolution within kinds' card if you admit you can't define what is and what is not a kind.I thought this would have been obvious logic. If I said 'here is an example of the evolution of a new family' - you'd expect me to be able to give a supportable definition of 'family', right? That's a pity. I don't care if you remain in the ignorant state you are Mike. However, when I reduce my ignorance and gain knowledge it does change my opinions about facts and hypotheses. It is a shame that you lack epistemic humility to the extent that you really believe this sentiment.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Continuing your logic, Mike, the "kinds" would have "sorts" which would have "types" which would have "groups" which would have "subgroups" which would have..... One creationist did have this idea before you: his name was Carolus Linnaeus. He did, however, use a different nomenclature that yours, but, like you, he based his classification on morphology. Oh yes, one more difference between the two of you: he made a life long effort to study his subject so that he actually had some idea of what he was talking about. When Darwin wrote on the Origin of Species, it was Linnaeus' species he was referring to.

Mike, if you are going to disparage cladistics you should make some effort (maybe start with wikipedia) to understand what that is. Let's say Ford has a factory that makes sedans. In 2002 they add some tooling so that they can also make pickup trucks. A couple of years later, due to a change in the environment (the demands of the buying public in this case) they also start making four door pickup trucks.We can make a diagram to show this history by drawing a time line that starts when the factory started making sedans. At the 2002 point, a second line splits off indicating the start of pickup production (the original line continues since sedans are also still made). At the 2004 point a third line splits off from the second one to indicate the start of four door pickup production. This is a cladogram. It is no more or less than a convenient way to show a temporal sequence of changes. It is not hypothetical or conjectural or meant to be a pretty picture. It is just a simplified way of stating facts that presents the pertinent issues in a way that can be taken in all at once.Note that in my example, the various vehicles may share over 90% of their parts and that there will be year to year variations in many parts that are not indicated in our little cladogram. So why is cladistics sometimes controversial in the systematics community? The Ford factory might have also been making major changes in engine design, interior decor, or even just paint colors. So, which items should be put in the cladogram? What are the really important issues in the evolution of the Ford models? Some biologists find the cladograms are occasionally too simplistic, sometimes overlooking subtle changes that could later evolve into major components or missing the really pertinent changes.But the cladograms and the techniques of cladistics themselves are just a system for expressing facts, an ultra-convenient pictographic language. To me, they are very much like Feynmann diagrams (but you probably think Feynmann diagrams are just nice artwork that have no bearing on reality). What's most amusing about your disdain for cladistics is that it would be the best way for you to describe and exemplify your theory (or wharever you call it) in a meaningful and understandable context.

I like you too Mod', that's why I think we should agree to disagree.I think you originally became sensitive because I asked if you were being wilfully obtuse, but if you go back to where I said it you'll find that I only mentioned it because you said I would need mutations, even though I put all of the different designs at the ark.I didn't say you were stupid, or at any time attempt to patronise you.I'm not a lumper or a splitter or a parvolutionist, or anything else. Infact, logic tells us that any reference to me cannot be involved in a debate, neither me, nor a very similar argument or a very similar "known" position of creationism. This is for reasons that relate to the ad logicam, "fallacy, fallacy", which states that exact premisses lead to subtley different declarations and inferences.Bye for now, we'll leave it there because it will degenerate, as we cannot relate our worldviews.

when it gets to "what mike does and doesn't know" then mike knows his work is done.I know lots of things you don't know and you know lots of things I don't know. People of your type seem to think that this proves a great deal.Perhaps I am trying to communicate, rather than make a big show so I can get a POTM.

As I suspected, Moses didn't mean it under a biological definition, even though I was only guessing in a logical manner.You see, I say things based on a rational and logical guesswork. I knew that the Hebrew word would not mean a biological family, even though I was ignorant, but I have now found this link for you; HERE IS A BATNow that you know that I don't proceed simply for my argument, but to know the truth. Afterall, I want to know what the bible actually means, because I believe it.This does not give me faith in atheists, but confirms my feeling that they pounce on a verse to favour their argument, rather than concentrating on what the verse might be telling us.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PARTICIPATIONThanks to Mod and others, especially to Mod, as his posts are still sophisticated, and lack any "spin", even if we do disagree. I still stand by what I previously have said about the high standard of your posts, as I know when I see your name, I am going to enjoy reading.I acknowledge the sophistication of science, and the level of knowledge in all fields, but I don't believe in origin theories. I have good reasons for this.My "model" wasn't really a big, big attempt to disprove all and every variable, but more an attempt to FOCUS on the possibility of more than one male and female in a kind.If there are 4000 species of bird today, it might seem inconceivable, but if there were 7 sorts, then you would get 571.4 species from one male and female. An interesting and perhaps useless hypothetic, but relevant if there is truth to it. I never said this wasn't conjectural!

To clarify, I didn't 'get sensitive' nor did I say you would need mutations. I asked, "how do you explain 'sorts' of 'kinds' without mutations?", which implies that I think you might need them and asks for information as to how you feel sorts can arise without them.I asked because I didn't know the details of your position regarding the matter, but you threw the principle of charity out of the window and decided that I asked because I was being obtuse - I may have implied that I thought mutations are necessary for the amount of change you require, but you implied that you thought I was being wilfully obtuse for that. I've re-read the start of the thread, and I don't see anywhere where you explained that you considered the genome 'front-loaded' with enough variety that recombination would suffice.Your answer to that question was quite clear, and much like Faith's position used to be: The genome is front-loaded and recombination takes care of variation. Randman posited a similar idea once or twice and a few other creationists have also done so. For the record, "Modulous, your knowledge isn't enough." and "you are not thinking enough." are fairly patronising responses. It didn't bother me, as I previously pointed out. I was hoping that if I pointed out that you were doing it, you might realize that I was making some valid points and you were just blowing them off implying I was ignorant or not thinking etc. Instead, you decided to change tactic and say that I was being oversensitive and use that as an exit strategy to the debate. I can understand your 'worldview'. I can assume your premises are true and see where it leads. But, this being a debate, I will forever ask you to explain why you think your position is the case. It isn't a clash of worldviews, it is that your position lacks strength because there is no way to demonstrate it is any more true than any other random idea such as Time Travelling scientists burying the design for all life into single celled life, djinn creating life in such a fashion as to imply front loaded genomes or any other such scenario.The bottom line is that you were unable to support your position, only restate it. I hope you enjoyed the exchange, I did. Maybe I'll see you in the 'confidence in evolution' thread and we can argue about whether evolution is founded on imaginative artwork or not.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Then it's simply so vague so as to not be of any use. It is extremely vague and has no explanatory power from a scientific perspective at all. Can you quote the verse(s)? Which either way is descriptive of an evolutionary process. What exactly is your point? Mike, this in no way proves or even suggests that animals were taken on board an "Ark" or that the evolutionary process is somehow false. I'm not saying that special creation is out of the question, I'm just saying that what you are presenting as a refutation of evolution and "proof" of special creation is not so.The only reason a creationist would care about the theory of evolution is that it contradicts the Genesis account, which, I'm sure you'd admit, was never intended to be a scientific textbook but rather a BRIEF synopsis on the legend of how the world began. Only a fraction of a single chapter of the book of genesis is dedicated to explaining, briefly, what Yahweh allegedly did to create animal and mankind.

---

"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

Mike, the problem is that your explanation still requires evolution to take place on a fairly large and extremely rapid scale. For instance, the koala would not have been able to exist on the boat or directly after the boat landed. It requires an extremely specific diet only found in Australia. This would leave about 5000 years(An extremely short period of time for evolution, absolutely miniscule) for their descendents to hyperdrive evolve into modern day koalas.

Its worse than that.Many creationists try to explain various species of fossil man (Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis) as racial variants of modern man most likely arising after the flood and the tower of Babel incident.This requires that evolution proceed much as evolutionists have determined, but several hundred times faster and in reverse!That's creation "science" for you.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What they do is smuggle in evolution through the backdoor and then obscure it by claiming it is microevolution. But it's still evolution. And while I would agree that the fossil record is incomplete in showing every evolutionary step, that's simply due to the nature of fossilization itself. Fossilization is a very special and rare event. That there are any fossil remains at all is remarkable in and of itself, as most organic remains simply decay. But what we can ascertain and discern from the fossil evidence is that it far better explains variation than one guy somehow bringing all the animals of the world on a big, wooden boat.

---

"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

Ahahahahaha. How convenient. Just like macro is convenient, just like time is convenient. Don't you see? If you say, "x theory requires major examples of A, B and C," Then if A,B and C do not follow, "nothing" logically becomes your evidence.So intellectually, you want me to believe in evolution because of "NO" clear transitionals, "NO" new mutation-designs, and a fossil record, which despite being a record of evolution and eons of time, mostly consists of known organisms?If you can't see how these are problems then I can't show you.As for hyper-evolution, the point is that you can give specific examples all you want, such as a specific bear, but logically, if I already have a bear, and perhaps many of them, then the construction of a bear is pretty much "done" even if I allow for slight internal changes.If a specific bear requires very different physical morphology, please show the difference in that morphology. Otherwise you are equivocating with what you term "hyper-evolution".Like most evolutionists, you seem to disregard the rather large fact that your theory states that all and every physical design came about through variation whereas we are stating that physical design is already there.Logically there is a difference between starting out with an unknown simple form of life, and getting a specific species of bear (your claim) and already having a bear fully constructed and designed (our claim), therefore diet-problems are not hyper-evolution at all. The changes would be so insignificant as to be irrelevant.The neanderthal man is such an example. He is a human, with a deformed skull, or slightly different shape perhaps by selection we will say, for arguments' sake. Yet what evolution is required of him, if he is........well...............a man already?Taking species and putting them in a homogeny, does not mean that is what happened any more than if I related boomerangs to bananas because of shape similarity.What is needed is logical proof that they certainly are transitionals rather than simply unknown species, and small percentages of them at that, given their deterioration.(I should note that physical differences are expected to a degree, given variation.....so if you start out with a kawoala bear, it might in itself not be a "bear" at all, but what you are stating is that God is dumb, and would not have a contingency for the survival of that "bear" even if he knew where that family would end up. I don't grant a dumb God when i have indicated that I believe he is intelligent, as with the crocodile example of large powerful snout and small thin, fishing snouts.)So if I go to big croc to small croc, this is hyper-evolution?If I go to a man with a bit of a ridge on his forehead, to a man, this is hyper-evolution,because logically, if you are going to state that it is hyper evolution, then you have to be fair and give all of the examples.) The crocs in the fossil record are very big but basically the same morphologically. Is it hyper evolution that they don't grow as big, as they die earlier in worse conditions?Let's not pretend creationists need to construct a croc, when they were already there. Boy this is a croc!Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.