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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 121 of 148 (106101)
05-06-2004 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jt
05-06-2004 9:14 PM


Re: Transitional
JT writes:
The skeletal structure of those dogs is extremely similar.
Whoa....
You're going to tell me that the skeletal structure of a saluki is "more similar" to a pomeranian than a chimp is to a human? I don't know how to quantify that similarity, but there sure look less similar. We share an identical inventory of 206 bones with chimps and gorillas, as I remember it - only the shapes are different. We even share a fused-togethet mess of a should-have-been tail we call a coccyx - there are dogs where the whole breed lacks a tail altogether!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 9:14 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Asgara, posted 05-06-2004 10:27 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 123 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 11:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 122 of 148 (106103)
05-06-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Coragyps
05-06-2004 10:20 PM


Re: Transitional
Yes Coragyps, the corgi is often born without a tail.
Corgis also show a mutation that has become fixed in the breed. They are not just short little cuties, they are achondroplasic. It would have been a birth defect originally. Breeders would have seen the possible benefits to a shorter herding dog and bred it into the breed.
{edited to add the "a" at the beginning of achondroplasic.}
This message has been edited by Asgara, 05-06-2004 09:28 PM

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2004 10:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 123 of 148 (106117)
05-06-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Coragyps
05-06-2004 10:20 PM


Re: Transitional
I don't know how to quantify that similarity, but there sure look less similar...there are dogs where the whole breed lacks a tail altogether!
You need to back up your claims. What breed of dog is born without a tail (Asgara got this one for you, but next time you need to do it on your own)? A species losing part of its skeleton is not a major structural difference. It is a difference, but the rest of the dog is the same.
Corgis also show a mutation that has become fixed in the breed.
An organism losing an entire part of its skeleton is not good evidence for evolution. There was nothing gained; there was a loss of genetic information.
About the achondroplasty, I'll get to that later (tommorrow morning?) because I have to leave right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 05-06-2004 10:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 05-07-2004 12:03 AM jt has not replied

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


Message 124 of 148 (106122)
05-07-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by jt
05-06-2004 11:50 PM


Re: Transitional
Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with adding or subtracting pieces parts. It does not even have anything to do with increasing in complexity. Evolution is simply a statemnet of what DID happen. If the evolution is losing a part (for example, in thesome of the primates the devolution of the tail into a coccyx) then fine. But it is simply a statement of what happened.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 11:50 PM jt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 125 of 148 (106124)
05-07-2004 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by jt
05-06-2004 8:00 PM


Can you back this up?
Yes. If there's even one gene that has more than 4 alleles, then we know that there's more alleles than can fit into two dogs. Right?
There's a well-known gene locus in dogs called the "agouti" locus. The same gene actually has been indentified in a number of species; it's a key component of fur coloration and was first uncovered in the rodent from which the gene takes its name.
In dogs the gene has 5 alleles:
quote:
The probable alleles at the Agouti locus, in order of decreasing dominance, are: a^y (sable), a^w (wolf), a^s (saddle), a^t (tan points) and a (recessive black).
(From No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.kelpies.caviesrule.com/about.html)
So, that's a gene with more alleles than can possibly fit into two dogs.
Oh, and I should point out one more thing:
Common ancestory is an evolutionist supposition.
It's not a supposition, it's an inference from data. Much as a conclusion of paternity is an inference from a paternity test - the genetic reasoning is the same in both cases.
Evolutionists constructing clades is exactly the same type of behavior as creationists organizing kinds.
The problem is that creationists haven't organized any kinds. They just say that there are kinds.
To expand the conversation, the reason we're beating you about the head and shoulders with this stuff is because creationists like to say "evolution predicts new kinds, but there aren't ever any".
Firstly, you've defined "kinds" in such a way that there never could be a new one - all organisms have ancestors, so a purported "new kind" will always be related to an old one (meaning that it will have a common ancestor with an old kind, making it part of that kind.) Secondly, if your model can't ascertain if two organisms aren't in the same kind, then there's no way to know if an organism represents a new kind or not.
So, essentially, creationists are asking for something that can't exist, and even if it could, wouldn't be able to be detected. That's a strawman, and that's why "kinds" is worthless as a classification. Evolution - micro or macro - doesn't predict new kinds. It predicts that each "kind" - each taxonomic category - will expand to represent more and more species over time. And that's exactly what we observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 8:00 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 12:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 148 (106139)
05-07-2004 12:48 AM


...
What ive always wanted to know is if Evolution has been doing its thing for over billions of yrs. Shouldnt there be hundreds or thousands or at least 1 undisputed proof of ape-human connection?. Surely if the missing link is still missing then somethings wrong. To this day every missing link reported has been discarded or is disputed among Evolutionists themselves. Could it be that the missing link just does not exist and all humans & apes have are similarites of a common designer?

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by coffee_addict, posted 05-07-2004 1:17 AM almeyda has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 127 of 148 (106152)
05-07-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by almeyda
05-07-2004 12:48 AM


Re: ...
What ive always wanted to know is if Evolution has been doing its thing for over billions of yrs. Shouldnt there be hundreds or thousands or at least 1 undisputed proof of ape-human connection?.
The earliest known homonids were the australophithecines, specifically the A. ramidus. The oldest fossil we have of them is 4.4 million years old. So, no. Homonids haven't been around for billions of years.
Shouldnt there be hundreds or thousands or at least 1 undisputed proof of ape-human connection?.
There are. Homo habilis and homo erectus are 2 known connections. I'm tempted to include homo neandertalensis, but people are still debating whether they were just a side branch of an evolutionary dead end or not.
Surely if the missing link is still missing then somethings wrong.
Even if we discard the evidence that we already have, it just means that we don't know everything yet. Can't jump to conclusion because of ignorance of something.
To this day every missing link reported has been discarded or is disputed among Evolutionists themselves.
Besides the fact that this is quite an amusing assertion with no support, pointing out debates between scientists ain't going to prove anything. Just like every human thought in this world, there are debates about minor details among scientists. Nothing new!
Could it be that the missing link just does not exist and all humans & apes have are similarites of a common designer?
You should look up the meaning of the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 12:18 AM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 12:48 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 1:30 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 148 (106158)
05-07-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by coffee_addict
05-07-2004 1:17 AM


Re: ...
What kind of a dating method could prove the exact age of those bones to exactly 4.4 million yrs? Besides an interpretation of the bones to fit an evolutionary framework?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by coffee_addict, posted 05-07-2004 1:17 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by coffee_addict, posted 05-07-2004 1:48 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 130 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 2:31 AM almeyda has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 129 of 148 (106163)
05-07-2004 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by almeyda
05-07-2004 1:30 AM


Re: ...
almeyda writes:
What kind of a dating method could prove the exact age of those bones to exactly 4.4 million yrs? Besides an interpretation of the bones to fit an evolutionary framework?
The technicality of dating fossils is not one of my strong areas. Perhaps someone else could answer this question for you.
This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 12:49 AM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 1:30 AM almeyda has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 130 of 148 (106177)
05-07-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by almeyda
05-07-2004 1:30 AM


Dating
What kind of a dating method could prove the exact age of those bones to exactly 4.4 million yrs? Besides an interpretation of the bones to fit an evolutionary framework?
"exact", "exactly" - lol. when a number is shown as 4.4 you can presume at least +/- 0.1 on that which is 100,000 years. Exact is a funny term for that. I don't know the particular case here but the ranges are always published in the literature.
There is no evolutionary framework applied. Pure physics is used. The bones are found in a layer of rock. The nearest dateable layers under and over are taken and dated. If the lower one is at 4.5 million years and the upper is 4.3 then a good date of around 4.4 may be obtained. This is obtained without reference to what is in the layer between.
The exact dating methods aren't the subject of this thread.
In fact as far as the relationship between all fossils the absolute dates aren't what is of initial interest and were not to those who initiailly went from believing firmly in the Biblical creation story to realizing that it wasn't corret. They only had relative dates and a very, very rough idea of what kind of time frames they might be dealing with. Even that was enough to falsify the literalist interpretation that was the framework that they were working with.
(added by edit)
from:http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm
quote:
Hominid and associated fossil faunas, including wood, seed and vertebrate specimens, were found entirely within a single interval overlying the basal Gaala Tuff complex, and beneath the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (these volcanic strata have produced dates of 4.389 and 4.388 million years, respectively) [Renne, et al, 1999]. This definitively places all Ardipithecine specimens just shy of 4.4 million years ago.
It seems that the date is to more decimal places than the 4.4 Myr indicates. It appears the date is rather "exact" with a range of around 1,000 years. However, this does not give the details of the dating of the tuffs themselves. We would need the error bars on those measurements to know just how exact we were dealing with.
As noted the details of the dating of those tuffs are not part of this discussion. If you request it I will propose a topic in dates and dating for that.
However, the methods will be one and probably more than one of those already discussed in topics of dates and dating. The methods have been cross checked such that you may be assured of their accuracy. You will also note that there are no serious literalist refutations of the major points raised in those threads. You may go to AIG and ICR and find that they don't touch the correlation issue for one. They don't even touch all of the dating methods just those that are considered by the geologists and geophysicists to be weakest.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-07-2004 01:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 1:30 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 131 of 148 (106293)
05-07-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
05-07-2004 12:07 AM


Crashfrog says:
the reason we're beating you about the head and shoulders with this stuff is because creationists like to say "evolution predicts new kinds, but there aren't ever any".
Several things come to mind in response to that:
1. Creationists actually say that?!
2. I have not, nor will I ever, claim that the concept of "kinds" has anything to do with invalidating evolution. I agree that doing so would be a worthless strawman.
Arrrgh, is that what we were debating about? I was wondering why you guys were trying so hard to "beat me about the head and shoulders with it". I guess that explains it.
I have homework to do, so I'll finish the other posts later. Thanks Crashfrog and Asgara for providing some specifics I can work with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2004 12:07 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Loudmouth, posted 05-07-2004 4:47 PM jt has replied
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2004 5:44 PM jt has not replied
 Message 139 by Brad McFall, posted 05-08-2004 12:53 PM jt has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 148 (106369)
05-07-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jt
05-07-2004 12:34 PM


quote:
I have not, nor will I ever, claim that the concept of "kinds" has anything to do with invalidating evolution. I agree that doing so would be a worthless strawman.
The Kind argument is just that, an attempt to invalidate evolution. Evolution states that there is one common ancestor for all life on earth, while those supporting kinds are stating that evolution is wrong and that there were multiple common ancestors who were created in recent times. What we evo's want to know is the objective theories that have been constructed to tell us what those multiple common ancestors were. This theory must also be able to explain transitional forms found in the geologic column that seem to be between the newly constructed kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 12:34 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 6:25 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 148 (106396)
05-07-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jt
05-07-2004 12:34 PM


Creationists actually say that?!
Constantly.
I have not, nor will I ever, claim that the concept of "kinds" has anything to do with invalidating evolution. I agree that doing so would be a worthless strawman.
I'm actually impressed. That shows a considerable open mind on your part. Well done!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 12:34 PM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 134 of 148 (106414)
05-07-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Loudmouth
05-07-2004 4:47 PM


Loudmouth says:
The Kind argument is just that, an attempt to invalidate evolution.
No, "kinds" are part of the YEC model. I believe there are kinds, because I do not believe the evolutionary model. The possibility of the existence of "kinds" was being attacked, and I was defending it.
I am not trying to disprove evolution on the basis of the existence of kinds; I am defending the plausibility of this particular aspect of the YEC model. I can see how you could have misunderstand my attempts, especially if creationists had tried that argument on you before.
This theory must also be able to explain transitional forms found in the geologic column that seem to be between the newly constructed kinds.
I maintain that the transitionals are not a problem for the "kinds" idea, but if you have some transitionals you think are especially nasty for the kind model to deal with, I'd be happy to be stumped by them (kidding, of course ).
Thanks Crashfrog, I do try to have an open mind.
I'm just taking a break from homework, I'll be back later to answer some of the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Loudmouth, posted 05-07-2004 4:47 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 6:51 PM jt has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 135 of 148 (106425)
05-07-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jt
05-07-2004 6:25 PM


a problem?
I maintain that the transitionals are not a problem for the "kinds" idea, but if you have some transitionals you think are especially nasty for the kind model to deal with, I'd be happy to be stumped by them (kidding, of course ).
There aren't any transitionals that are a problem for the kind model.
There isn't any defined model to test. If we knew what a kind was then we might have a clue about what transitionals would be a problem. We'd also need a definition of what an inter-kind transitional would have to look like but I've not seen any clarity on that either.
Care to tell us what would be a nasty problem? This is what scientist do when propounding an hypothosis. Darwin devoted a fair portion of the origin to just such things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 6:25 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 8:10 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024