PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Kinds and Macroevolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought I might come up with a little game to hopefully expose the shambles of the "kinds" system.

The idea is to come up with pairs of closely related creatures that a Creationist would have trouble claiming were different kinds. For example:

Domestic Dog -> Gray Wolf
Gray Wolf -> Red Wolf

The basic idea is that by presenting many such pairs of similar species and getting the ok nod from Creationists, you can form chains:

Domestic Dog -> Gray Wolf -> Red Wolf -> Coyote -> Fox

The point of this is that Creationists are forced to accept that all species in this chain are in the same kind. The plan is that if the chain got long enough, the end species would be so different that no Creationist could actually accept they were in the same kind. This would quite neatly expose the sham of the "kinds" system and demonstrate there are no definite groupings in nature.

I am hoping in this thread that people will have a go at putting some chains of species together which will prove very challenging for creationists to answer.

(Edited by Void 5/4/2004 at 6:45 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 6:43 PM on May 4, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the "kinds" system, exactly?  I've never heard it referred to before.

Also, are only non-extinct animals allowed in the chains?  Is the fossil record fair game?  As far as I can tell, both sides of the argument say that fossils were once living things, so they ought to be permissible, yes?
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:09 PM on May 4, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dont think there is a "kinds" system as such, the term "kinds" itself has never even been properly defined. It is still used in arguments however, i.e "macroevolution is evolution from one kind to another and is impossible"

I guess fossils should be used, but most Creationists are suspicious of fossils anyway. But fossils would make it easier to plug the space between families.

Here is an example of a partial chain:

Domestic Dog
Grey Wolf
Red Wolf
Coyote
Swift Fox
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Kit Fox
Fennec
Marten (jump to different family..too far?)

I could probably get more extreme ends going from rodents to rabbits

(Edited by Void 5/4/2004 at 7:18 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:13 PM on May 4, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's the trouble.  "Kinds" has never been defined.  All you can get out of creationists is that it's somewhere above the species level.  I like the idea void, run with it.  The only problem is, we only have one creationist on the board, and he'll argue black is white


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 10:23 PM on May 4, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TQ at 10:23 PM on May 4, 2004 :
That's the trouble.  "Kinds" has never been defined.  All you can get out of creationists is that it's somewhere above the species level.  I like the idea


JM: Actually it has been defined 'sort of'.  The term used by creationists these days is 'baramin' which IIRC is Hebrew for 'created kind'.  Baraminology is exceedingly vague and separates along the taxonomic level of family (also IIRC).  Do a search on baramin or baraminology using google and you'll see that 'baramin' is just a fancy way of hiding the lack of a good definition for kind.

Cheers

Joe Meert



 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:48 AM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

---

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

---

Gen 1:25 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.

---

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:13 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And this defines kind how?  According to this, anything that flies is one kind.  Anything in the ocean is one kind.  Anything on land is one kind.  Any green growing thing is one kind.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:52 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Called speciation, e.g. an original dog/wolf kind on Noah’s Ark giving rise to wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc. Contrary to the repeated and misleading attacks on creation ministries by ‘progressive creationist’ Hugh Ross, this is not related to ameba-to-man ideas, since it requires no new genetic information. The ancestral species is more generalised, having more information than each (more specialised) daughter population, thus reaching an eventual limit.
From AiG - Darwin's Finches

Also I found this - it correlates more with the evolutionary paradigm so it may help some of you guys understand the meaning of 'Kinds'.  

Creationists are often asked for a precise definition of the Biblical kinds, namely, which groups of organisms have descendend from a single organism present at the Creation. This question is not necessarily easy (or possible) to answer, but I now believe that an answer may be possible. Based on assumed evolutionary time scales and rates of mutation of mitochondrial DNA, which may not be correct, scientists estimate that the human race is about 200,000 years old. (Actually, the assumed rate of mutation is not directly observed, but is inferred based on assumed evolutionary time scales, and may be far from the true value. Many different rates of mutation are given by different biologists. From a literal reading of Scripture, we know that the true age of the human race is much less than 200,000 years. However, it is useful to speak in terms of time scales as assumed by scientists in order to obtain a usable criterion.) In a recent study, scientists conclude that wolves and dogs separated between 60,000 and more than 100,000 years ago, based on their mitochondrial DNA. Thus, one would place wolves and dogs in the same kind, because scientists estimate their separation at less than 200,000 years ago. So a general definition would be that if scientists estimate a separation of two organisms within the past 200,000 years, based on their mitochondrial DNA, then they are in the same Biblical kind. If scientists estimate a separation significantly earlier than this, under conventional evolutionary assumptions, then the two species are in different Biblical kinds. If the estimated separation date is slightly longer than 200,000 years, then the case is doubtful. Under creationist assumptions, one would expect the estimated separation time to be either about 200,000 years or less, or much larger than this. (Of course, from the Scripture, the true ages are much less.) This kind of investigation might also shed some light on the human-ape connection.
From:  Biblical Kinds Defined
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:35 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I found Wood, et.al's paper (http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf) to be quite telling.  It starts with a literature search, and finds that baramin is most often defined thusly: "Two organisms are members of a kind if their germ cells will join in true fertilization"  (the footnotes in the paper are a bit sketchy, so I'm not sure exactly where this is quoted from)  This seems like a very practical definition, since a simple experiment can be used to see if two creatures are of the same kind.  Wood dismisses this definition, calling it vauge.  I suspect his actual objection is that this definition can give rise to this scenario:
A can mate with B.  B can mate with C.  So A and B are of a kind, and B and C are of a kind. However, A can't mate with C, and so aren't of a kind.  Awkward, to say the least.

Wood defines a baramin as "the actualization of a potentiality region at any point or period in history", where a potentiality region is "any discreet region of biological character space with which organismal form is possible.  Any point that does not lie within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist."  A biological character space "represents a theoretical, multi-dimensional space in which all possible characteristics comprise individual dimensions."

In other words, imagine an n-dimensional map of all possible characteristics.  Draw a border around any set of contiguous, mutually possible characteristics.  Any creatures within that border define a kind.  

This is like alot of creationist definitions.  Because there's no way of showing if a particular set of characteristics is "possilbe" or not, there's no way of pinning down the borders of a "kind", and so it's impossible to actually sit down and sort everything according to kind.  The definition allows you to make all sorts of broad generalizations, but because it doesn't allow you to make specific, quantifiable claims, it can't be directly refuted.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:31 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a question here:  what exactly would the original dog "kind" look like?  What about the original whale "kind"?  What features would they have?  What size were they?  How did the original whale "kind" give rise to both baleen whales and carnivorous whales?  How long did such adaptions take?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:40 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the idea is supposed to be that God said "Now I'm going to make a bunch of things that look kinda like fish, but are big and warm blooded" and created all the whales, which are all of one kind.  Some drift of characteristics may or may not be allowed within a kind, depending on who you ask, but you never get to cross the border over to another kind.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:50 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you have to admit there's a big difference between, say a killer whale and a blue whale


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:58 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not really.  One has sharp things for teeth, one has brushes, otherwise they're about the same.

This, of course, illustrates the problem with "kind".  I think minor dental differences are unimportant, you may not.  Since there really are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes kind, all we can do is sort of wave our hands and say "Well, I think..."
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:19 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's the thing though: they aren't minor dental differences.
baleen
orca teeth

That's more than a minor dental difference


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:17 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wasn't try to say that the difference between their teeth was minor.  What I meant was that when you compare the similarities between the two types of whales, the fact that their teeth are very different is of relatively minor import.

But again, the fact that we're debating this point just further illustrates the weakness in the "kind" system.  For creationists who support this system, whether or not two things are of a kind is of critical import, but there's no framework that will allow us to definitevly say whether orcas and blue whales are of the same kind or not.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:30 PM on May 5, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Just a question here:  what exactly would the original dog "kind" look like?  What about the original whale "kind"?  What features would they have?  What size were they?  How did the original whale "kind" give rise to both baleen whales and carnivorous whales?  How long did such adaptions take?


The ancestral species is more generalised, having more information than each (more specialised) daughter population.  The parent would probably look very much like a variety that exists today.  The difference would be that genetically it would have the information for all the variety we see today.  Speciation is the process whereby we go from the more generalized parent kind to the more specific, less information containing, species.  

Natural Selection and Mutation play major roles in determining the path of speciation within a kind.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:23 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you don't know then?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:25 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am sorry... I should have been more clear.  I may have relied too heavily on the implications of the statment "The parent would probably look very much like a variety that exists today."

The ancestral parent of a german shepheard would probably look like - a german shepheard.  But it may have looked like a Timberwolf as well.  It probably had siblings in the same litter that looked like another k9 type - a laborador maybe.  

Here is a logical excercise - go back through the K9 species and find the varieties that exibit the most information - and the most adaptability.  The variety that is configured for the most different environments - hot or cold, wet or dry, light or dark... and you probably are getting pretty close to the the look of the original ancestral 'kind'.  

The answers to your whale specific questions can be answered by the link about Darwin's Finches.  That answers all those questions for finches - logically it provides a mechanism for speciation that can be applied in a general mannor to other kinds.    Darwins Finches
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:27 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, you're saying that there was an "uberdog" who had the genes for all dog "kinds".  hen, this dog gave birth to litters of puppies.  These puppies included a lab, a wolf, a fox, etc?  Either that, or you are advocating speciation on a level that would blow a biologist's mind.  Either way, you're talking about extremely fast evolution, and all without any physical evidence.

Just to make this interesting, what "kind" did arcaheopteryx belong to?   What about ambulocetus, or any of the other cetacean ancestors?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:30 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have a tendency to have an extremist personality.  

Let me elaborate a little more so that you don't get the wrong impression.

I am not trying to say that an ancestral kind had a litter with some dog, some wolf, some fox.  I am saying that a dog had a litter... that litter had variety.  That various litter had litters of it's own - so on and so forth.  

Through mutation and Natural selection, genetic information is eventually lost.  The possible variety of an isolated group decreases as pressure is applied (through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection).  As variety decreases, specifity increases.  Eventually, you have, through isolated selection, a defineable species of (in this case) dog, or wolf, or fox.  

What kind did [Archaeopteryx] belong to?

Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says:

‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that.’

Regarding, ambulocetus - see the following article from TrueOrigin.org



(Edited by Gup20 5/6/2004 at 5:37 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:35 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, so you support super fast evolution.  Got it.

Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur.


From Talk origins:
Alan Feduccia who opposes the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs and instead argues that birds are descended from non-dinosaur archosaurs (a taxon that includes dinosaurs) is often quoted by evolution deniers. Feduccia is a qualified scientist and should not be just dismissed, but his views are in an extreme minority within the scientific community. It is simply bad reasoning for the evolution deniers to use Feduccia's writing disagreeing with conventional ideas of bird evolution while ignoring the many experts that disagree with him.
"Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?"1 quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:

Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

Notice the author is citing Feduccia's conclusion, and not his evidence. There is no mention that that his opinion is a minority opinion. Feduccia's peers in the field of bird evolution are "authorities" too. In short this creationist is saying that Feduccia is an authority and that he says that birds are not descended from dinosaurs, therefore birds are not descended from dinosaurs. It is a classic "argument from authority." It is also very inconsistent. Feduccia also says that evolution occurs, so if this argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, this creationist must accept the evolution of birds from non-birds! One could also cite many more authorities that say birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. This is why one should not pick and choose authorities. If Feduccia does turn out to be correct and his views become established within the scientific community, then the evolution deniers will probably become fond of quoting what Kevin Padian and other proponents of birds being descended from dinosaurs had to say about Feduccia's views.


So why are YEC's so divided on this then?  Why do most claim it is a fraud with feathers painted on a fossil dinosaur, and others that it is only a bird?  And if it is just a bird, explain the transitional features found.

From your article:

Even scientists who support the theory criticize the magazine for the blind propaganda it carries.  According Dr. Storrs Olson, the Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.”[1]


The rest is basically "I don't believe whales evovled from terrestial mammals, so they're wrong".




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:22 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Right, so you support super fast evolution.  Got it.

The only problem I would have with that statement is the directional change of speciation.  In Darwinistic evolution, you go from single cell - evolution happens - you end up with complex cell.

What I am talking about is going from a very complex cell with high information and low entropy to a less complex cell with low information and high entropy.  

It has to do with the direction of the change.  Truely, I would have no problem calling that evolution as long as it was understood that it was a loss of infomation with a direction change from more information to less information and more specifity.  The ancestors were more robust than the offspring.

TQ: So why are YEC's so divided on this then?  Why do most claim it is a fraud with feathers painted on a fossil dinosaur, and others that it is only a bird?  And if it is just a bird, explain the transitional features found.

All the latest YEC information I can find says most agree it is a true bird.  There was speculation early on it may be a fake as Archaeoraptor was, however from what I can see most agree it is a bird now.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a very complex cell with high information and low entropy to a less complex cell with low information and high entropy.

Entropy has nothing to do with evolution.

Truely, I would have no problem calling that evolution as long as it was understood that it was a loss of infomation with a direction change from more information to less information and more specifity.

You have yet to even begin to prove that information gain is not probable.  I notice you haven't adressed void's posts yet regarding this.

V

Funny, Young Earth Toad seemed to think it was a reptile.  And Hoyle, who you've looked to for support, thinks the same thing:
archy fake
So, how could a creature be argued over so strenuously unless it actually was intermediate between the two?  And you have yet to adress my question: how do you explain all the reptilian features?



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:43 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dictionary.com -  ENTROPY -

1  Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2  A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3  A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4  The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5  Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

TQ:  Entropy has nothing to do with evolution.

Well said and true.  In fact, entropy has to do with reality, of which evolution is not.  That is the point of a 'kinds' system.  You take the originally created Kind and entropy (through natural selection and mutation) specieates a generalized isolated set into a specific species.  

TQ:  You have yet to even begin to prove that information gain is not probable.

I have shown you before that information gain is not possible/probable.  The Kinds system is based on that principle.  

TQ: I notice you haven't adressed void's posts yet regarding this.

To which are you referring?

TQ: Funny, Young Earth Toad seemed to think it was a reptile.  And Hoyle, who you've looked to for support, thinks the same thing:
archy fake


The Hoyle statement is from 1985.  It is now 2004.  In the light of observational evidence, things get changed/revised.  This shows only how 'out of date' TalkOrigins is (or that they choose to present only a view that conflicts with present day thought - which would be a more malicous endevour).  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:19 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2  A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

Life is not a closed system

3  A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.

I assume you think this is applicable because of reproduction.  Void quite aptly blew you out of the water on this one on another thread, which you suddenly dropped.

4  The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

Note it does not say "on planet earth"
The Hoyle statement is from 1985.

Right, so why have you used quotes from him from around the same time in an attempt to support your statements before?

And you still haven't adressed my question: how do you explain the numerous transitional features present?




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:50 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Void quite aptly blew you out of the water on this one on another thread, which you suddenly dropped.

For him to 'blow me out of the water' he would have needed to provide some irrefutable evidence.  That didn't happen.  In fact my viewpoint withstood the attack quite nicely.  

TQ: Right, so why have you used quotes from him from around the same time in an attempt to support your statements before?

I don't remember the specific instance you are are referring to - perhaps you can refresh my memory and then I will expalin it.  

TQ:  And you still haven't adressed my question: how do you explain the numerous transitional features present?

That is an issue of time - let me give you an answer now.  

First of all - there are no true transitional features.  There are features one would expect from a creature designed for multimple environments.  Modern species classification, you must remember, is primarily based on expressed trait qualities rather than DNA or information.  The only reason something might appear to be a transitional feature is because it is similar in appearance to something else designed for the same environment.  

I assume that in the original creation, organisms were created for a variety of different environments. Since there is a continuum of environments, we should also expect to see a continuum of organisms. However, since there were only a finite number of different 'Kinds' of organisms at the creation, this continuum should be composed of a finite set of discrete organisms.

So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians. Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms.

In addition, since these organisms were all created at about the same time, and did not evolve from one another, we should not expect to find any clear ancestor-descendent relationship between different organisms in the fossil record. In fact, it should be very difficult to construct reasonable and convincing phylogenies of organisms. Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship, in most respects, since they were created for a continuum of environments.

Now, since the basic organisms were created recently, we should expect all of the descendents of a created kind to be very similar. They should generally have the same number of chromosomes, and the same genes at the same locations on corresponding chromosomes. They also should often be able to interbreed, which should make tracing their evolutionary relationships fairly complex. In addition, their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA should be fairly similar. However, between different created kinds, we should generally expect to find greater differences in the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

In fact, we should be able to quantify how much genetic diversity there is within a species. The genetic diversity measures the probability that a corresponding base pair of DNA will differ between two randomly chosen individuals. If the genetic diversity is 1/100, this means that two randomly chosen individuals will differ in about 1/100 of their DNA. We predict that the amount of genetic diversity should be consistent with the theory of neutral evolution and an origin about 6,000 years ago. We choose the theory of neutral evolution because one would expect created beings to be optimal in some sense, so that very few mutations would be beneficial. Thus the great majority of mutations should be neutral or slightly harmful.

Thus if we know the rate r of mutation per generation, which is the percent change in DNA per generation, and the generation time g in years, then the genetic (nucleotide) diversity should be about 2(6000/g)r, since there will be 6000/g generations since the creation and each one will tend to contribute 2r to the genetic diversity. Or it could be less, for species originating more recently. This means that for organisms with similar rates of mutation, we should expect the genetic diversity to be inversely proportional to the generation time. It is reasonable to assume, for example, that most of the mammals have similar rates of mutation, since many of the mammals are very similar genetically. This implies that the genetic diversity of mammal species should generally be inversely proportional to their generation times. Similar comments apply to the amount of genetic difference between species that have diverged from a created kind since the creation.

The hypervariable parts of the mitochondrial DNA control regions appear to mutate at a rate of about one percent every 200 to 300 generations in humans, and this seems to be a reasonable figure for any organism having about the same number of cell divisions in the female germ line (24) as man. So for this part of the mitochondrial DNA, we can let r be about 1/20,000, and our above formula gives a genetic diversity of 2(6000/g)(1/20,000) or 0.6/g. Thus with a generation time of 20 years for humans we should expect a diversity of 0.6/20 or 0.03 in the hypervariable regions of the mitochondrial DNA. For organisms with a one year generation time, and about 20 cell divisions in the female germ line, we should expect a diversity of about 60 percent. Of course, as one approaches the limit of 75 percent, these estimates of genetic diversity have to be reduced to some extent, because there will be many repeated mutations at the same base pair.

A similar calculation can be done on the nuclear DNA, assuming that most of it is non-functional. However, this calculation should be based on mutation rates that are directly observed as differences in DNA sequences from one generation to the next, and not based on evolutionary assumptions.  
Written by David Plaisted


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:51 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians. Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms.


This is all very well but he doesn't mention one key point: the age of each fossil form.

If the sequence A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H was in chronological order in the fossil record this would be heavily supportive of change over time, ie evolution.
Only a random out of order scattering would support young earth creationism.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:44 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void:  the age of each fossil form.

Surely we can logically predict that as we go backwards in the fossil record we would see more variety, higher information - less specificity.  As we come closer to the present we see less information, and more specificity.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:51 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are keeping us busy, a fe responses to Mr. Plaidstead's article:

Quote from Gup20:
First of all - there are no true transitional features.  There are features one would expect from a creature designed for multimple environments.


Sorry, that is a totally uniformed comment. There is a multiude of transitional features present throughout the fossil record. Look at the thread and links on Acanthostega for a few examples on a single species.

Transitional features- where do you want me to start?

-Transistional jaw structures and dentition in Pelycosaurs and Therapsid mammal like reptiles?

-Primitive jaws formed from gill arches in Late Silurian fish?

-Hip girdles in primitive Archosaurs?

-Early tetrapod limbs leading to true pentadactyl limbs?

Are a few examples of the top of my head. All of these are forms in fossil vertebrates that are transistional in nature; ie they lead to established structures/structural arrangements that persisted for long periods of time in the fossil record.

Modern species classification, you must remember, is primarily based on expressed trait qualities rather than DNA or information.  The only reason something might appear to be a transitional feature is because it is similar in appearance to something else designed for the same environment.


In a modern context, it is somewhat harder to define what is transistional or not... without the passage of a great deal of time.

I assume that in the original creation, organisms were created for a variety of different environments. Since there is a continuum of environments, we should also expect to see a continuum of organisms. However, since there were only a finite number of different 'Kinds' of organisms at the creation, this continuum should be composed of a finite set of discrete organisms.


So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians.


We do find such organisms... but only as fossil preservations from hundreds of millions of years ago when the amphibian-reptiles transition occured. Why are there none today? because they became extinct or pseudoextinct, as they were outcompleted by better adapted descendants of evolved into those descendants themselves. I also ask what Mr. Plaisted considers to be a transitional environment for a reptile/amphibian. I think he is misunderstanding the very nature of these two types of vertebrate group.

Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like.


He has this perception the wrong way round. He means amphibians that become increasingly reptile like. And we do find such sequences (yep, you guessed it) in the fossil record.

However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms.


Incorrect, an examination of the structure of each group (modern or fossil) will show a variety of characteristics, A may have it well developed, B may be primitive and C may be transitional.

In addition, since these organisms were all created at about the same time, and did not evolve from one another, we should not expect to find any clear ancestor-descendent relationship between different organisms in the fossil record.


The fossil record provides us with examples as I have previously stated, so this premise is false, or at the very least to ignore evidence we have.

In fact, it should be very difficult to construct reasonable and convincing phylogenies of organisms. Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship, in most respects, since they were created for a continuum of environments.


It can be difficult to construct phylogenies as any taxonomist or person who has made a cladistic analysis will tell you. Does not mean it cannot be done As to hierarchical relationships, these have been defined.




(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/9/2004 at 10:53 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:28 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR: Sorry, that is a totally uniformed comment.

It is actually an informed comment with reason.  I just didn't reveal the reasoning in this thread.  

OR: Are a few examples of the top of my head. All of these are forms in fossil vertebrates that are transistional in nature; ie they lead to established structures/structural arrangements that persisted for long periods of time in the fossil record.

These are examples of discreet creatures along a continuum created for a continum of natural environments.  Not transitional.  

True transition would involve (exactly as evolutonists claim) gradual mutation keeping existing genes while building novel function.  We can conclusively determine your examples to be discreet as we do not see any gradual A to B transitions.  We see A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H from reptile to amphibian in the continuum of discreetly created animals.  For example - you would see Pelycosaurs as a full reptile, then see gradual (as mutation is a long drawn out process) changes from system to system.  But we do no see this.   We see Pelycosaurs standing alone.  No more reptilish versions... no more mamalian versions.  Just the discreet version of Pelycosaurs.  If it's genes are duplicating, and the duplicate copy is mutating (as evolutionists claim) then we would see identifialbe Pelycosaurs in various stages of transition.  What we do see is a discreet Pelycosaurs created at one end of a continuum of discreet animals.  

OR: He has this perception the wrong way round. He means amphibians that become increasingly reptile like. And we do find such sequences (yep, you guessed it) in the fossil record.

Well that is a curious claim.  Please show me the mutative progression of some specific animals - a half dozen should suffice.  Of course I gest, because there is no such progression.  If a creature keeps a copy of it's genes during duplication and mutation, it should look exactly similar except for the novel funciton.  So - where is such a fossil?  The truth is, we don't have any such fossils.  

OR: The fossil record provides us with examples as I have previously stated, so this premise is false, or at the very least to ignore evidence we have.  

Ah, but as I have domonstrated, these are not transitional - they are discreet.  The onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.  

OR: It can be difficult to construct phylogenies as any taxonomist or person who has made a cladistic analysis will tell you. Does not mean it cannot be done As to hierarchical relationships, these have been defined.

But we have millions of years of fossils to look at, don't we?  If this is indeed true, we would have billions upon billions of transitional fossils between A and B.  There are none.  We see Pelycosaurs and Archaeopteryx discreetly without any transitional basis or records.  In a million years you would have billions of fossils of Archaeopteryx, for example.  You would see how it started as more reptilian and worked it's way toward being the full bird the Archaeopteryx fossils we have show.  We could see how it kept it's orignal genes while it gained information through dupication and mutation.  But we don't see this.  We just see a few spoty Archaeopteryx fossils here and there all of the same discreet creature.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:58 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20

It is actually an informed comment with reason.  I just didn't reveal the reasoning in this thread.

These are examples of discreet creatures along a continuum created for a continum of natural environments.  Not transitional.


If you take that view, you are unaware of what you are refering to, and don't understand (or are not prepared to) look at the paleontological analysis of these fossils.

As I said in my response in the other thread, read this article on vertebrate transitions:

Transitional vertebrates

True transition would involve (exactly as evolutonists claim) gradual mutation keeping existing genes while building novel function.  We can conclusively determine your examples to be discreet as we do not see any gradual A to B transitions.  We see A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H from reptile to amphibian in the continuum of discreetly created animals.  For example - you would see Pelycosaurs as a full reptile, then see gradual (as mutation is a long drawn out process) changes from system to system.  But we do no see this.   We see Pelycosaurs standing alone.  No more reptilish versions... no more mamalian versions.  Just the discreet version of Pelycosaurs.  If it's genes are duplicating, and the duplicate copy is mutating (as evolutionists claim) then we would see identifialbe Pelycosaurs in various stages of transition.  What we do see is a discreet Pelycosaurs created at one end of a continuum of discreet animals.


Sadly Gup, you are looking to closely. You can only understand the reptile- mammal transition if you examine the whole series of animals, of which the Pelycosaurs are but one.

You should read up more on Pelycosaurs as they are a very interesting group. While you are at it do the therapsids and then you may be getting somewhere. Oh, and don't forget fossil preservation mechansims. If you do that, you might start to get an appreciation for the lack of understanding your comment displayed.

Well that is a curious claim.  Please show me the mutative progression of some specific animals - a half dozen should suffice
Of course I gest, because there is no such progression.  If a creature keeps a copy of it's genes during duplication and mutation, it should look exactly similar except for the novel funciton.  So - where is such a fossil?  The truth is, we don't have any such fossils.


See linked article. I hope you take the time to read the whole thing.

Ah, but as I have domonstrated, these are not transitional - they are discreet.  The onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.


No Gup, you have not demonstated they are discrete. As to onus- read the article I have linked you.

But we have millions of years of fossils to look at, don't we?  If this is indeed true, we would have billions upon billions of transitional fossils between A and B.  There are none.  We see Pelycosaurs and Archaeopteryx discreetly without any transitional basis or records.  In a million years you would have billions of fossils of Archaeopteryx, for example.  You would see how it started as more reptilian and worked it's way toward being the full bird the Archaeopteryx fossils we have show.  We could see how it kept it's orignal genes while it gained information through dupication and mutation.  But we don't see this.  We just see a few spoty Archaeopteryx fossils here and there all of the same discreet creature.  


Read the article.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/9/2004 at 6:46 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:45 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My spider sense is telling me I should read the article.  Just little tingle I get from reading your reply.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:20 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I imagine your spider sense comes in very useful, Gup.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:32 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Summery -
Ok - I read the WHOLE thing, as you requested.  It was a lot of assumption, a lot of linking with no evidence and gaps.  The better the documentation got, the more it looked like the Biblical Kinds model.

Meat and Potatoes -
First off, I found the whole thing to be extremely skewed to the evolutionary paradigm - there was a distinct lack of scientific objectivity.  The author frequently spoke ill of creationism.  Also, the author attempts to make some 'creationist predictions', many of which are inconsistent with the creationist viewpoint, which only demonstrates her lack of understanding of the creationist viewpoint.  

For example, she states that Kinds are either A- dependant on species, or B-dependent on Genus.  Kinds are neither A nor B.  Kind system is different.  It may sometimes touch on A or B, but often lies somewhere in between.  Because modern day classification is based on appearance rather than genetics, it gets a little wishy-washy if you try to pigeon hole it either way.   Also, she states that creationists would predict there are no species to species transitions - this is false.  Often animals within the same biblical kind are classified as different species.  We note that there are no distinct 'lineage' type transitions between Kinds.  For example - a fish does not become a dog.  That is not to say Dogs and wolves were not the same kind - indeed we think they are.  Speciation is acceptable within kinds.  Mutation and diversion is also acceptable - large changes are acceptable - but within kind.  She also makes the claim that (under the creationist model) there should be no temporal progression or that you should not be able to link to older animals from more modern animals under the Biblical kinds.  This again, is false.  

One thing I did find interesting was as you got closer and closer to the modern day creature, you got more and more documentation and information about the transitions.  They went from mainly the 'species to species' transitions early on (during the kind-to-kind transitions) to 'general lineage' transitions as we get closer to the evolutionary 'present' (transitions within kinds).  

This seems to fit the Biblical Kinds model.  You have a continuum of discreet created kinds which speciate and mutate into the variety we see today.  Never do we see a 'general lineage' type transition from fish to mammal, but we do see 'general lineage' type transitions from old mammals to present mammals.  However - if evolution were true - we SHOULD see the exact opposite.  We should see the greatest ammount of 'general lineage' type fossils during the periods of greatest change.  Changing from a small horse to a larger horse is nothing compared to changing from a fish to an amphibian, or changing from a reptile to a mammal.  It is during these periods of greatest change that we have the greatest ammount of gaps.  It is also during these periods of greatest change that we have the fewest 'general lineage' type changes.  It SHOULD be the other way around.  

This only supports the idea that there were a continuum of discreet creatures that reproduce, mutate, and get naturally selected within a kind.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:10 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know I said I wasn't going to get drawn in to any more Gup debates, but the forum is slow, and this needs to be asked.

Via the science of evolution, scientists have constructed a phylogenic tree, saying how things are related.  You can find this tree in any bio book, and many sites on the web.  You, personally, may not agree with it, but the data is there for you to look at.  The scientists are saying "Here's what we think."

Can you point me to anything, anywhere, which tells me what "kind" all the animals are?  It's all well and good for you to say that dogs and wolves are the same kind, and can mutate from one to the other, but what about dogs and cats, sharks and fish, whales and dolphins?  If you can't tell me that animals A and B are or aren't of the same kind, than your system is useless.  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:29 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question as well Gup.  You say what researchers call transitional fossils are merely distinct created creatures, all created together to fit various environments.  For example, animals A-H (a being an amphibian and H being a reptile) are not transitional but are distinct species created at the same time.  If this is so, then why do we find them in the stratigraphic record in the order that would suggest transition?  Why do we never find C before B, or H in the same strata as A?  After all, they were all created at the same time, they all lived at the same time, and they all died at the same time.  So how did the bones sort themselves out so that they would fossilize in the order that suggests (very strongly) that they are transitional forms from A to H?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:34 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 3:10 PM on May 11, 2004 :
Summery -
Ok - I read the WHOLE thing, as you requested.


Good on you- there is an awful lot of detail there.

Meat and Potatoes -
First off, I found the whole thing to be extremely skewed to the evolutionary paradigm - there was a distinct lack of scientific objectivity.


As to the former comment, well, yes it is, but I cannot cite you a list that doesn't. As to the latter, that depends on how we are defining scientific objectivity.

The author frequently spoke ill of creationism.  Also, the author attempts to make some 'creationist predictions', many of which are inconsistent with the creationist viewpoint, which only demonstrates her lack of understanding of the creationist viewpoint.


Maybe so, in which case it highlights the risks associated with making comment on that with which you are unfamiliar.

For example, she states that Kinds are either A- dependant on species, or B-dependent on Genus.  Kinds are neither A nor B.  Kind system is different.  It may sometimes touch on A or B, but often lies somewhere in between.  Because modern day classification is based on appearance rather than genetics,


That is not the only way modern species are defined, but thats an aside...

it gets a little wishy-washy if you try to pigeon hole it either way.   Also, she states that creationists would predict there are no species to species transitions - this is false.  Often animals within the same biblical kind are classified as different species.  We note that there are no distinct 'lineage' type transitions between Kinds.


Now you have me confused, just what sort of transitions do you (the Creationists) see?

For example - a fish does not become a dog.


I'm glad... Evolution does not describe that change either. As a matter of fact, only a very small number of fishes are seen as being ancestral to stem tetrapods, themselves precursors to true ampihibians.

That is not to say Dogs and wolves were not the same kind - indeed we think they are.  Speciation is acceptable within kinds.  Mutation and diversion is also acceptable - large changes are acceptable - but within kind.  She also makes the claim that (under the creationist model) there should be no temporal progression or that you should not be able to link to older animals from more modern animals under the Biblical kinds.  This again, is false.


Okay I get the gist of kinds better now.... any roughly similiar animals that are clearly related, and defined as such already in the modern animal/plant etc kingdom.

One thing I did find interesting was as you got closer and closer to the modern day creature, you got more and more documentation and information about the transitions.  They went from mainly the 'species to species' transitions early on (during the kind-to-kind transitions) to 'general lineage' transitions as we get closer to the evolutionary 'present' (transitions within kinds).
 

I'm glad you found that interesting as it is one of the fundemental issues that must be understood when viewing the fossil record.

In general, the further back you go in record the fewer fossil specimens exist. Why? there are fewer localites in the world where rocks from such time exist. The more time that passes means the more time a rock can be metamorphosed, subducted into the mantle, eroded or deformed, processes which are all very unfriendly to fossils preserved in such rock.

This seems to fit the Biblical Kinds model.


Well, fossils certainly fit the Evolutionary one.

You have a continuum of discreet created kinds which speciate and mutate into the variety we see today.  Never do we see a 'general lineage' type transition from fish to mammal,


Off course we don't, but then again no Evolutionists' are saying that is what happened. Fish- amphibian, reptile-mammal is what evolution describes.

but we do see 'general lineage' type transitions from old mammals to present mammals.  However - if evolution were true - we SHOULD see the exact opposite.  We should see the greatest ammount of 'general lineage' type fossils during the periods of greatest change.


Why?

No seriously, as this a fundemental misunderstanding you are having. No where does Evolution say that periods of transition produce prodious quantities of fossils. That is an a factor dependent on the then environmental conditions (ie. was it one favourable to fossil preservation and formation) and the population of animal/plant- ie a animal with a high population (ie. sea lillie) produces more potential examples to be fossilised than a small population (ie. an apex predator, like a Tyrannosaur). These factors are not fundementally related to phases of transition, for example fish- amphibian and so on. In addition, transitional fossils are notorious for having poor stratigraphic continuity or, to you and me, they rapidly become extinct.

So Evolution actually predicts few transitional forms will have ever existed, and coupled with the slim chances of fossilisation, even fewer are still here today.

Changing from a small horse to a larger horse is nothing compared to changing from a fish to an amphibian, or changing from a reptile to a mammal.


Is it? or is that only a distinctly human view of the change?

It is during these periods of greatest change that we have the greatest ammount of gaps.


Is that true? As I recall, both the transitions from fish-amphibian and reptile-mammal are better represented in the fossil record than the transition from reptile to bird, despite the fact they were either entirely or largely complete by the time the bird transition even began. As to the Cenozoic mammal record, quite simply there are far more fossil bearing rocks that survive from this period than say, 100 million years previous. This was explicitly mentioned in the Talk.origins article.

It is also during these periods of greatest change that we have the fewest 'general lineage' type changes.  It SHOULD be the other way around.


Even if 100% of creatures from each transition were preserved it would not be the case. As I mentioned earlier, transitional forms tend to die out quickly.

This only supports the idea that there were a continuum of discreet creatures that reproduce, mutate, and get naturally selected within a kind.  


Well, as I have tried to show above, it does not.

A final note on the fossil record and the gaps therein. New fossils continue to be found and a fuller picture of life history continues to emerge. Just because we currently lack a definitive transitional dinosaur/reptile-bird form is not proof that none ever existed. It limits what conclusions can currently be constrained, but does not mean the whole concept is flawed.


That aside, I have a question to ask you Gup: if Evolution is an entire falsehood with no bearing to the reality of life on this planet at all, why do we find so much evidence from so many different sources that lead us to such a conclusion?

Interesting to hear your response as always, as well as to the points Kronus and TQ raised.

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/11/2004 at 9:21 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:06 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well there goes the neighborhood.  Demonstrated proof that Kronus has no integrity.  He can't even keep his own promises, or committments.  

But I forgive you Kronus.  

Kronus:  Can you point me to anything, anywhere, which tells me what "kind" all the animals are?  It's all well and good for you to say that dogs and wolves are the same kind, and can mutate from one to the other, but what about dogs and cats, sharks and fish, whales and dolphins?  If you can't tell me that animals A and B are or aren't of the same kind, than your system is useless.

Sure.  

Visit the AiG article 'Naming the Animals'.
Also check out Ligers and wholphins? What next?

You can also see Biblical Kinds Contrasted with Species.

TQ: I have a question as well Gup.

Oh the 'other' guy who claimed he was never speaking to me again - yes TQ, how can I enlighten you?

TQ: (parahphrasing) why don't we find fossils out of order

Well, there are a couple of reasons.  Firstly, and formostly, there think about the interpretation system used to indentify the fossils and strata.  These are interpreted under the evolutionary paradigm.  By definition this is exclusionary to the creation paradigm.  Let me explain -

Evolution is, by definition, exclusionary to the supernatural.  It says that there must be a naturalistic answer to every situation.  Evolution and the ToE is meant as a description of life, how it began and how it continues.  However, it is circular and unreasonable to claim evolution and it's 'so called evidences' as an argument against creationism or the Bible.  Why?  Because by it's very nature it is exclusive to the supernatural - therefore it cannot objectively judge between a naturalistic view or a supernaturalistic view.  

In the same way, evidence that is interpreted under the evolutionary paradigm may not have a chance for proper interpretation because of the lense through which the finders are interpreting it.  

Now what does this all mean?  Well let me give you a clear example.  Often times, strata is given a date based on the fossils in the strata.  This is a clear example of the evolutionary paradigm influencing an actual observation.  

See Fossil Flip Flop by Tas Walker.  

Also, the concept that fossils are not found out of order is false.  See Fish Scales in the Cambrian

Also see This article on the geologic column.  


OR: As to the latter, that depends on how we are defining scientific objectivity.

Objectiveity would state both sides accurately and avoid drawing conclusions.  This article does neither.

OR: Maybe so, in which case it highlights the risks associated with making comment on that with which you are unfamiliar.

I can agree with that.  I don't mind opinions, or editorials as long as they are labeled as such, instead of being labeled as fact.  

OR: Now you have me confused, just what sort of transitions do you (the Creationists) see?

Using very general terms, micro-evolution, but not macro evolution.  We see morphology within a kind - but never accross kinds.  For example... we see changes and fluctuations within sea creatures (so long as they are not information gaining) but we dont' see sea creatures turn into mammals.  

"the Bible, states that God created various kinds, and that these kinds reproduced after their own kinds. The specific kinds mentioned are grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, and beasts. Then, as a final, separate act, God created man. Notice, except for the creation of man, these categories are very broad and general. The Bible states that each kind brings forth seed and fruit in accordance with its own kind. Thus, grasses do not become trees, sea creatures do not become birds, and man is the result of original creation.

Notice, though, that the Bible does NOT prohibit grasses from varying somewhat throughout their generations so long as they still remain grasses. Likewise, birds could vary tremendously, but will still be birds.

There is nothing in the Bible which would preclude God from having made one or more master cat-kinds which were ancestor to all or some of our modern cats--lions, tigers, house cats, leopards, etc. Such master-kinds could have had tremendous variability for many different features. As the master cat- kinds spread to different environments, the principle of genetic specialization we looked at in the previous chapter would lead to the development of specialists. "

From Here

OR:  I have a question to ask you Gup: if Evolution is an entire falsehood with no bearing to the reality of life on this planet at all, why do we find so much evidence from so many different sources that lead us to such a conclusion?

I have already touched on that.  You start with a false premise that excludes the truth by definition.  Therefore, in the abcense of the truth, evolution is the only remaining possible solution.  

Think about it - if in fact the Bible is ultimate truth (which creationists believe it to be - along with many christians) and Genesis is true, then the ToE has, by definition (it is exclusionary to the supernatural), excluded truth.  Any answer in a system that excludes truth will be wrong - no matter how logical it is... no matter how much evidence is interpreted to support it.  In the case of evolution, it's definition and concepts exclude the possibility of the supernatural - therefore it's conclusions must also.  Is that objective science?  Nope.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:45 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why did I bother?

TQ: (parahphrasing) why don't we find fossils out of order

Let's ignore the first couple paragraphs of gup's response, as it has absolutely no bearing on my question, which he got wrong anyways!

What I was asking was: if, as you state, all the transitional forms are discreet kinds, all created at the same time, all living at the same time, all dying at the same time, why do we find them in the stratigraphinc order which clearly indicates evolution?  If A is an amphibian, and H is a reptile, why do we find A in the lowest (oldest) layer, then B in the layer above (second oldest, then C in the layer above that (third oldest), etc until we get to H?  Why does this occur if the were all created at the same time,alive at the same time, and dying at the same time, as you state occured?  Why would the fossils be sorted with the most amphibious at the bottom strata and the most reptile like at the top strata?

Often times, strata is given a date based on the fossils in the strata.  This is a clear example of the evolutionary paradigm influencing an actual observation.  

Whatever gup, has nothing to do with my question.

You then follow up with links that are misleading, and/or have no evidence to back them up.  If I provided a personal anecdote as evidence, would you accept it?  No, as you already proved with OR.  As well, your "fish fossil" article has already been adressed.

Now, can I get an actual answer to my question, or would you rather avoid and lie some more?  In case you missed it, here it is again:

if, as you state, all the transitional forms are discreet kinds, all created at the same time, all living at the same time, all dying at the same time, why do we find them in the stratigraphinc order which clearly indicates evolution?  If A is an amphibian, and H is a reptile, why do we find A in the lowest (oldest) layer, then B in the layer above (second oldest, then C in the layer above that (third oldest), etc until we get to H?  Why does this occur if the were all created at the same time,alive at the same time, and dying at the same time, as you state occured?  Why would the fossils be sorted with the most amphibious at the bottom strata and the most reptile like at the top strata?


(Edited by TQ 5/12/2004 at 12:36 AM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 11:04 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you ever find out TQ, please let me know

Gup20 wrote: Objectiveity would state both sides accurately and avoid drawing conclusions.  This article does neither.


Objectivity with regard to the fossil record Gup.

I can agree with that.  I don't mind opinions, or editorials as long as they are labeled as such, instead of being labeled as fact.


I see you missed the large flashing metaphorical warning signs on display with my comment.

Perhaps you could take your reply and show it to some of the guys at AiG and ICR as they are the worst offenders for commenting without knowing what they are talking about.

I have already touched on that.  You start with a false premise that excludes the truth by definition.  Therefore, in the abcense of the truth, evolution is the only remaining possible solution.


How so?

Think about it - if in fact the Bible is ultimate truth (which creationists believe it to be - along with many christians) and Genesis is true, then the ToE has, by definition (it is exclusionary to the supernatural), excluded truth.  Any answer in a system that excludes truth will be wrong - no matter how logical it is... no matter how much evidence is interpreted to support it.  In the case of evolution, it's definition and concepts exclude the possibility of the supernatural - therefore it's conclusions must also.  Is that objective science?  Nope.


I guess all those other Christians who accept Evolution as fact are wrong as well. What are you going to do about them?


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 11:44 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess all those other Christians who accept Evolution as fact are wrong as well.

Ah, but they're not real christians, remember?  They are part of the humanistic conspiracy to erode the morals of the world.  All part of Satan's plan


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:38 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Ah, but they're not real christians, remember?  They are part of the humanistic conspiracy to erode the morals of the world.  All part of Satan's plan


Blimey... how can I explain this to my wife?

Shall I call her a satanist to begin with, or should I get the conspiracy bit out of the way first?



(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/12/2004 at 12:57 AM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:55 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd explain to her first that she's brainwashed, then maybe hint at the conspiracy, then nail her with the satanist bit.

Before you do that though, you may want to reserve a hotel room for a week or two. ;)


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 01:23 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 10:45 PM on May 11, 2004 :




Visit the AiG article 'Naming the Animals'.
Also check out Ligers and wholphins? What next?

You can also see Biblical Kinds Contrasted with Species.



If those are the best you can come up with, then I have to say the kind concept is useless.  Let me try this again.

You can name any two animals, and I can find a phylogenic tree showing how they're releated.  I know you wouldn't agree with what it says, but at least I can come up with an definite answer for you to disagree with.

If those web sites are the best you can find, then you can't really say anything.  Here's the question I'm asking.  For any animal FOO, what is its kind?  For any two animals FOO and BAR, are they of the same kind?  If you can't answer that, then your system has no value.  How do I justify that statement?  Because the whole mentality behind the "kind" system is to say that minor changes can change something within a kind, but it's impossible to shift from one kind to another.  And that distinction is pointless if you can't say what the kinds are.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:46 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kronus:  Because the whole mentality behind the "kind" system is to say that minor changes can change something within a kind, but it's impossible to shift from one kind to another.  And that distinction is pointless if you can't say what the kinds are.

The Bible makes this clear:  The specific kinds mentioned are grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, and beasts. Then, as a final, separate act, God created man.

While we don't know 'yet' what all the other kinds are, we can guarenty that those kinds won't change into each other.  So sea creatures didn't turn into land animals and apes didn't turn into people - of that we are sure.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:25 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you mean you don't know "yet" what the other kinds are?  Are you basing this on the Bible or not?  If the Bible list 9 kinds, including man, then you can't just create new ones later on.  If that's the system you've chosen to follow, based on the eternal word of God, you can't just amend it later on when it's conveinient.  You've said over and over that the Bible, and particularly Genesis, is literally true.  Now stick to your guns and except the consequences of that.

It's obvious why you want to leave yourself some wiggle room, though, because the 9 kinds you've listed are woefully inadequate.  Sea creatures are all one kind?  So I can micro-evolve a clam into a tuna into a whale?  Beasts?  So with selective breeding, I could turn an iguana into a squirrel?  Clearly the 9 "kinds" you've listed have no basis on actuall biology.  Could it be that, gasp, you've misinterpreted something in the Bible?
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 2:58 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If I said 'cats reproduce within their kind, such as lions, tigers, and chetahs' would this mean that the ONLY cats are lions, tigers, and chetahs?  

No.  By God listing some of the highest level of kinds does that mean the list of 'kinds' is exclusive to the given examples?  No - it just means 'here are some examples'.  

We can see, however, from this list that sea creatures did not mutate into land animals because they were created separately.  Therefore we know enough about it to put what we observe in proper context.  

Note that God brought the animals to adam to name.  So we are not obsolved of our stewardship responsibilities simply because God gives us the proper context in with which to start.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:12 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If that's the case, then I have to reiterate my assertation that your system is pointless, not to mention self serving.  

I can take a wolf and, through selective breeding, turn it into something which, to all appearences, would be a dog.  And you'ld say "sure, they're the same kind after all."  But what if I tried to breed rats into squirrels?  You'ld sit there until I either succeeded, at which point you'ld say "same kind", or I failed, at which point you'ld say "different kind."  There's nothing out there to say before the fact if I should be able to do it or not.

By refusing to define kind except at the highest possible level, you've set up a system that has no predicitive power, and is practically untestable.  I could start with lungfish and try to breed them into frogs, and eventually my decendants might succeed, but that's about it.  And even then you, or your descendents, could just say that lungfish counted as crawling things, or frogs are really sea creatures.  

By refusing to take a list of all the sea creatures (for example) and break them down, saying that this group is kind A, this group is kind B, etc. etc. the "scientific" creationist movement is just showing that they're unwilling to commit to a testable position.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:47 PM on May 16, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.