|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems of a different "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How many assumptions would you have to make to come up with a hypothesis of how tall the candle was and when it was lit? None. It's sufficient to investigate the volume of the room, the construction of the walls, and the difference in air temperature between this room and the adjoining one to determine how much heat the candle has produced, and thus, compared to its current heat of combustion, how long the candle has been burning. (And therefore how tall it originally was.) Just because you and Kent Hovind aren't sufficiently creative to solve a problem doesn't mean the rest of us are equally dim. It may come as a shock to you but you need to understand that just because you don't know something, doesn't mean nobody else does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 59 you said:
I did give a definition to a kind. You refused to acknowledge it. I have reviewed this entire thread and see no definition for "kind" that can be used. The closest you get to addressing the issue is this:
I think the question is where is the line between what variated from what and what the definition of biblical kinds are. It is obvious creationists have no clue. *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer. At this time I am unaware of any scientific research for finding the limits of the variations in a biblical time frame. If you gave a definition on another thread, then please reference it. From the above quote one can conclude that you would take the current tree of life back to 6000 years ago and that whatever was alive then was divided into kinds from which modern life has evolved. Unfortunately this ignores 99.9% of all the life known to have existed (including non-avian dinosaurs), so there is a distinct problem with that usage in classifying all known life into "kinds" as most would be left out. Thus this too is not a usable definition. Note: saying you did something you have not done is typical of self delusion. Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Add my request to those of RAZD and molbiogirl.
I would like to see that definition of 'kind', too. It is the topic. Your definition of 'kind', Vashgun, is... what, exactly? ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Kind Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
it is the fundamental construct of the variations we see today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3938 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
The one thing you are missing in the requests for definition of kind is that what is needed is a USEFUL definition of a kind.
By useful I mean a definition for which you could derive a procedure to unambiguously tell if two different living things are of the same kind or not. That is the big problem you see because it is quite difficult for creationists to give such a definition, that has any practical use, which would put the varieties of horses all in the same kind yet exclude humans and chimps from being the same kind. It is not a trivial task, yet the burden is upon the creationist who is making the very BOLD claim that there is a real phenomenon as "vertical kinds" and provide a way for everyone to identify them. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Seconding Jazzns.
For 'kinds' to work as a scientific term--which is necessary if you want this concept to be taught in public school science classes--it first has to be given a scientific definition. You assert: Living things only evolve within the limits of their 'kind.' The statement has a logical corollary: Living things do not evolve outside the limits of their 'kind.' Practically, the definition of 'kind' becomes 'that range outside of which living things cannot evolve.' We now need to test this idea through observation and experiment. Here's the catch: in all research to date, no intrinsic barriers to evolution have been found. What we find is that genetic variation can go and go and go. Over time the accumulated variations can add up to some spectacular changes. It is thus up to those who think intrinsic barriers on evolution exist (at the boundary of 'kinds') to state where the barriers are. Scientists may then begin testing. ___
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Which one? 1b? 4a? 4b? They have different connotations that would affect their application. Looking at "type" (synonym) makes it even more confusing:
(Note in particular "type specimen" (1c) "a specimen or series of specimens on which a taxonomic species or subspecies is actually based" as this is referred to later.) We need to be able to use the definition to sort "kind" from "not-kind" in an unambiguous and objective manner devoid of religious inference (as you so eloquently put it for defining evolution).
it is the fundamental construct of the variations we see today. If we use definition 1b, Kind = family, lineage: First we need to establish if we are talking taxon level family: http://www.msu.edu/%7Enixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html
quote:Major Taxonomic Levels The taxon level of family has been suggested before and found inadequate by creationists, for instance humans and apes are in the same family, Hominidae. If we are not talking about the taxon level, then we are talking lineage and grouping by descent (from a "type" specimen - see type above), and this essentially is what clades are:
In this usage each taxon level above can also be a clade with each level having a "type" specimen - the common ancestor - that would define that level of clade, thus this definition for "kind" would require knowing what the "type" specimen was of each different "kind" ... and this would entail a list of specimens. This too has run into problems with application by creationists as there is no agreement on what is on the list and what isn't. No two lists are similar. If we use definition 4a, Kind = a group united by common traits or interests : CATEGORY We end up with the clade type classification already discussed and which requires a list of "type specimens" to be used. If we use definition 4b, Kind = a specific or recognized variety We also end up with the clade type classification already discussed and which requires a list of "type specimens" to be used. Thus to be able to use this definition we need a list of "type specimens" ... and the problem of the list is that it is subjective. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
By useful I mean a definition for which you could derive a procedure to unambiguously tell if two different living things are of the same kind or not. On the flip side evolution suggests common ancestry of apes and humans from gross homologous traits which are suspect.I believe this article sums up most of the speculations on common ancestry. There They Go Again! Another Missing Link | The Institute for Creation Research I don't mind grouping anything together, however suggesting common ancestry through this grouping system is baseless and unscientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic of this thread is the definition of "kind". While the grouping of specific species may be an example of what kinds are what we don't want to go down a side path which will lose sight of what the topic is supposed to be.
Your concerns about human evolution could be taken to a new thread if you are interested. You will be asked to give your reasons (not ICRs) for rejecting it. You will be asked to give reasons discussing ALL the evidence not just the gross homologous traits. The ICR article you linked to will be of limited support for you if you actually try to deal with this issue but we would be happy to have you bring it all up in a new thread. Meanwhile, we need a definition of kind. There is a term called "operational definition". For many things this is the only useful definition. (Operational definition - Wikipedia) What this means in the discussion here is that instead of giving many many examples of "kinds" and then having others not able to tell if a specific pair of species are the same kind or not without asking you we need an operational definition so that anyone can apply the rules and determine if a sheep and goat are the same kind or not. For a (silly example), this might be an operational definition of kind.Kind is determined by counting the "normal" (needs another definition) of legs a species has. If two animals have the same number of legs they are the same kind. That may be a silly example but it is unambiguous. Anyone here can use it and all arrive at the same answer. E.g., sheep and goats are the same kind. Or, using the Bible, a kind might be:Kind is any group of animals which normally interbreed and produce viable offspring. (which is, it seems to me about what the Bible is saying but then they aren't giving an operational definition, just lists of examples) or, using the Bible again but focusing on a specific example:Kind is any group of animals which get around by the same means Thus everything which swims is the fish kind and everything that flies is a bird kind. This also seems to be in the minds of the Biblical authors. It is just such an unambiguous definition that is needed before we can have a clue what is being talked about when "kind" is used. Without that definition there is nothing to discuss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I propose that the definition for kinds is one that must be stacked or at least long enough to encompass the many schools of thought. I don't see why kinds would be limited to a specific gene pool. Perhaps even apes and humans could interbreed under the right circumstances. The genetic symmetry is apparent and thus should be adapted to encompass all possibilities. The limits are unknown. The assumption arises through lack of what is said in Genesis and not what is said.
Genesis 1. The Holy Bible: King James Version Species - Wikipedia The species definition allows a distinction but, IMO, doesn't encompass the scope of originally created kinds. As the original kinds could transcend through the scientific classification scale. Creationist Kinds: Organisms that interbreed yet not limited to specific evolution. Edited by Vashgun, : missing link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Creationist Kinds: Organisms that interbreed yet not limited to specific evolution. "Organisms that interbreed" is fairly straightforward. Do you me by behavior, or do you allow can be artificially bred (as mules are)? "...yet not limited to specific evolution" means nothing to me -- can you explain this further? Do you mean that variation in descendants is not limited to genetic change?
I don't see why kinds would be limited to a specific gene pool. Perhaps even apes and humans could interbreed under the right circumstances. One thought that has occurred to me is that the usage of kind is really the same as is given in the usual definition:
With this twist: dogs can be members of the "dog kind" AND members of the "canine kind" AND the "mammal kind" -- you can have nested hierarchies of each different kind. Each kind would still breed according to it's kind etc etc. It is a generic term rather than a specific one. This doesn't solve the "problem" of which "kinds" were on the ark, but ... as you say:
The limits are unknown. The assumption arises through lack of what is said in Genesis and not what is said. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
"...yet not limited to specific evolution" means nothing to me -- can you explain this further? Do you mean that variation in descendants is not limited to genetic change? One thing I see in creationist dogma is constraint given to the evolution process. I really think it would be awesome if we could breed cats and dogs. Hilarious really. I don't see how originally created kinds couldn't have become something that looks almost entirely different. I am not afraid of evolution, I think it is pretty cool. I don't believe in billions of years so I don't think common ancestry is plausible. But that's for another thread I suppose. Specific evolution would be a creationist way of eluding to variation within the original kinds. And yes, we should have no limitations on evolution however much I believe there are in fact limits.
With this twist: dogs can be members of the "dog kind" AND members of the "canine kind" AND the "mammal kind" -- you can have nested hierarchies of each different kind. Each kind would still breed according to it's kind etc etc. It is a generic term rather than a specific one. This doesn't solve the "problem" of which "kinds" were on the ark, but ... as you say: Sure, it is extremely generic but that could be through semantics rather than objective reality. I must point out that a Creator could very well have a different class system than the science specific one. The beauty of the kinds is in the simplistic nature of relating complex information. Not to say that God couldn't have known what he was specifically making. Also, the kinds in genesis seem to be somewhat related to their environment. I believe someone else said something about this. Conclusion, I really don't see a problem with linnean classification system. Speciation has its limits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
One thing I see in creationist dogma is constraint given to the evolution process. I really think it would be awesome if we could breed cats and dogs. Um, we do breed cats and dogs -- that's where "domestic" varieties all came from (and cow, horses, sheep etc etc), so I have to conclude that is not what you meant. As far as constraint goes, I don't see it for anything evolving from what exists today: how would it be constrained? Evolution develops new alleles through mutation and copy errors, mutations spread through the populations by reproduction generation to generation. Is there something that prevents certain mutations from occurring?
Specific evolution would be a creationist way of eluding to variation within the original kinds. All evolution is from parent populations to descendant populations. The only quibble is what the hypothetical original populations were composed of.
Conclusion, I really don't see a problem with linnean classification system. Speciation has its limits. Speciation is just enough difference that population do not interbreed. Once speciation has occurred however each daughter population is free to evolve on it's own path and diverge further. This is where additional change comes from - continued evolution within each now independent daughter population.
Sure, it is extremely generic but that could be through semantics rather than objective reality. I must point out that a Creator could very well have a different class system than the science specific one. The beauty of the kinds is in the simplistic nature of relating complex information. Not to say that God couldn't have known what he was specifically making. Also, the kinds in genesis seem to be somewhat related to their environment. I believe someone else said something about this. But the usage within genesis is consistent with a generic terminology for any group of organisms based on their similarities yes? compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6057 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
As far as constraint goes, I don't see it for anything evolving from what exists today: how would it be constrained? Evolution develops new alleles through mutation and copy errors, mutations spread through the populations by reproduction generation to generation. Is there something that prevents certain mutations from occurring? By constraint, I meant linguistically. I don't think the limits are yet known how far a species can go. If you have any links or information on this I would love to read it.
But the usage within genesis is consistent with a generic terminology for any group of organisms based on their similarities yes? Genesis 1 Verse 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. If we really look at this I think there are some interesting things to note. "...beast of the earth after his kind,..." and then "...cattle after their kind,..." notice how the beasts are after his kind and the cattle after their kind. I don't think this is a classification system nor was it meant to be. to be continued...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
. I don't think this is a classification system nor was it meant to be. I'd agree with that.
to be continued... Cool. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024