Question For Ray and Eddie

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
creation?

(Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
perhaps you missed it.)

[Steady Eddie]

Fair question, and I'm glad to address it from the viewpoint of the Biblical God.

In an important sense, it appears God does use evolution as part of His strategy to help organisms survive.
As we learned from Mendel, life forms come equipped with different alleles for many important traits.
This allows for a wide range of variation in phenotype within any created kind, perhaps even to the extent
that modern biologists categorize different members of a kind as different species.

This range of variation within genotypes allows for adaptation of a kind to its environment by an automatic,
apparently random process, which is one important definition of "evolution".

As for the probable intended meaning of "evolution" in your question:
Darwinian evolution, what many biologists refer to as simply "Darwinism", posits that, supposing God created the first life form, this organism was subject to random mutations, and any "end product" (such as
humans) was not intended, but completely contingent.

This theory is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the brief account of creation given in the Bible.
The Bible seems clear that God specifically created the basic kinds of plant and animal life, rather than
allowing them to develop randomly.
Mind you, He could have done this over a long period of time, and it appears form the Bible narrative that
this was done in different stages, or creative "days", each of which may have been an indefinite period of
time. So, in theory, this may have been, by definition, an "evolutionary" process; God could have used
common core-elements across wide ranges of organisms, and this process could conceivably have been
so finely-graded that one could assume at first estimate that one type "turned into" another.

Whatever actual process God used to create the diversity in the biome, however, it appears to have been
purposeful and deliberate, with God progressively moulding the biome for habitation by complex
life forms and, finally, humans. This does not qualifying as Darwinian (random) evolution, because it is directed by an intelligent designer with an overall goal.

At the very least, the Bible specifically states that God created humans separately, directly from the
elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This precludes humans developing from any other life form.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:25:29 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

>Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>creation?

Abiogenesis, actually, WRT creation; evolution would just be
*really* good planning and a superhuman ability to "think
things through". As a post by Louann (Brady, IIRC) quoted
back in 2000, and I thought worth keeping:

"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being." - Lee DeRaud

A bit irreverent, but... ;-)

>(Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>perhaps you missed it.)

He's *never* answered it (and you're far from the only
person who's asked it), nor has he ever replied to the
corollary admonition, "Ray, stop telling God what he can
do."
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-07-29 17:59:16 +0000, Bob Casanova said:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:25:29 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> creation?
>
> Abiogenesis, actually, WRT creation; evolution would just be
> *really* good planning and a superhuman ability to "think
> things through". As a post by Louann (Brady, IIRC) quoted
> back in 2000, and I thought worth keeping:
>
> "Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working
> universe complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey,
> if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a
> god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles
> and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant
> twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to
> Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for
> when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being." - Lee DeRaud
>
> A bit irreverent, but... ;-)

*
Not quite as irreverent as George Carlin's version:

"But I want you to know, I want you to know something, this is
sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god -- I
really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that
there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and
likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I
really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you
live, the more you look around, the more you realize -- something
is FUCKED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death,
destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and
the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good
work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results
like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is
the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad
attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run
universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful ass a
long time ago."

--George Carlin

earle
*

[Oxyaena]

Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 29 July 2016 10:27:45 UTC-6, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> creation?
>>
>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>> perhaps you missed it.)
>
> Fair question, and I'm glad to address it from the viewpoint of the Biblical God.
>
> In an important sense, it appears God does use evolution as part of His strategy to help organisms survive.
> As we learned from Mendel, life forms come equipped with different alleles for many important traits.
> This allows for a wide range of variation in phenotype within any created kind, perhaps even to the extent
> that modern biologists categorize different members of a kind as different species.

"Kind" isn't a viable biological category, because each "kind"
ultimately goes into higher taxa, such as the "dog" and "cat" kinds all
ultimately being members of the "carnivore" kind, and the "carnivore"
kind being members of the "mammal" kind and so on and so forth. Is there
a point where something stops being a "kind"? There's no clear
distinctions between "kinds", sponges and mammals share certain
characteristics that show they are part of the "animal" kind, such as a
lack of cell walls, a reliance on organic substances to derive nutrients
from (heterotrophy), the presence of organelles only present in animals
such as centrioles and lysosomes, as well as cell-to-cell junctions. So
are they part of the same "kind" or two different "kinds" that happen to
share common characteristics indicative of common ancestry?

This is only one problem among many with the concepts of a "kind", no
wonder no creationist has ever tried to answer such a question as basic
as "defining kinds".

>
> This range of variation within genotypes allows for adaptation of a kind to its environment by an automatic,
> apparently random process, which is one important definition of "evolution".
>
> As for the probable intended meaning of "evolution" in your question:
> Darwinian evolution, what many biologists refer to as simply "Darwinism", posits that, supposing God created the first life form, this organism was subject to random mutations, and any "end product" (such as
> humans) was not intended, but completely contingent.
>
> This theory is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the brief account of creation given in the Bible.
> The Bible seems clear that God specifically created the basic kinds of plant and animal life, rather than
> allowing them to develop randomly.
> Mind you, He could have done this over a long period of time, and it appears form the Bible narrative that
> this was done in different stages, or creative "days", each of which may have been an indefinite period of
> time. So, in theory, this may have been, by definition, an "evolutionary" process; God could have used
> common core-elements across wide ranges of organisms, and this process could conceivably have been
> so finely-graded that one could assume at first estimate that one type "turned into" another.

This is surprisingly rational coming from a Bible-thumping theist, I
disagree with your reliance on Bronze age superstitions, but at least
you take into account the myriad of evidence supporting evolution,
correct me if I`m wrong, you accept evolution but believe that it was
orchestrated by God and humans are not a product of evolution, but
everything else is? The Bible also said let the Earth bring forth the
kinds, so God may have used evolution to bring into existence the
diversity of life we see on this planet today. I`m speaking
hypothetically, I`m not a creationist, after all. But this is impressive
coming from you, willing to admit evolution does exist, because no
honest person can't just look at the evidence and say it didn't happen.

As for evolution being random, mutations are random, but natural
selection isn't, natural selection acts on beneficial mutations and
weeds out negative traits in the population.

>
> Whatever actual process God used to create the diversity in the biome, however, it appears to have been
> purposeful and deliberate, with God progressively moulding the biome for habitation by complex
> life forms and, finally, humans. This does not qualifying as Darwinian (random) evolution, because it is directed by an intelligent designer with an overall goal.
>
> At the very least, the Bible specifically states that God created humans separately, directly from the
> elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This precludes humans developing from any other life form.
>

So you believe in evolution, but discount Darwinian evolution? Theistic
evolution, I believe. The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but
believes humans were created separately, and that only animals and other
organisms evolve.

Fair enough, you still have many misconceptions regarding evolution, but
I am willing to say that this is at least an improvement.

--
"I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
me." - Cao Cao

http://oxyaena.org/

also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/

oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org

[Steady Eddie]

Yes, the Bible's coverage of the topic is scant, yet there are some indicators that give an idea of
at least the high limit of the taxonomical level that "kind" refers to.
For example, at Genesis 1:21, it says that God created "every winged flying creature according to
its kind", so it seems that birds were divided up into kinds. This helps us estimate that kinds were
at least as specific as Families, if I have my taxonomy right.

[Oxyaena]

You seem to be tacitly admitting that the authors of Genesis knew dick
about biology, if you've given at least a lower limit to what "kinds"
could be (families), if we go by your limit then that's the bare
minimum, dogs and cats could be part of the same "kind", so as I said
before, where's the point where one "kind" is separated from another
"kind", dogs and cats share carnassials, which are the first lower molar
and the fourth upper premolar, which all carnivores, including cats and
dogs, share.

I`m trying to be civil here, so correct me if I`m wrong that by your
account dogs and cats could be of the same "kind".

[Steady Eddie]

Read my statement from above:
"...there are some indicators that give an idea of at least the HIGH LIMIT of the taxonomical level that "kind" refers to."

Now read your statement in reply:
"...if you've given at least a LOWER LIMIT to what "kinds" could be (families), if we go by your limit then
that's the BARE MINIMUM..."

You seem to have gotten my statement completely reversed. What gives?

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Theory of Evolution is described in Genesis 1. Pretty much nailed it.

[Rolf]

<passer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d5725c8-ecb5-4df2...@googlegroups.com...

> The Theory of Evolution is described in Genesis 1. Pretty much nailed it.
>

I thumbed through it but couldn't find it.

Chapter and verse, please.

[Oxyaena]

Well, the usage of "family" as an upper limit does not suffice, because
dogs and cats (whom by your definition do not belong to the same kind)
share several anatomical features apart from them being mammals, such as
the presence of carnassials, which are the first lower molar and fourth
upper premolar. So clearly you should revise your upper limit on a
"kind", at least to an order. Remember, I`m not a creationist, and am
speaking hypothetically, if kinds even exist, which as you admit, the
Bible doesn't do a good job of explaining what a "kind" is and flies
straight into the face of all the evidence we have available.

[Note: the usage of the term "carnivore" only applies to the members of
the order Carnivora in this context, I'd thought I should've pointed
that out.]

[Steady Eddie]

Well, are dogs and cats members of the same Family?

[Oxyaena]

Not exactly, but you're missing the point, there's no limit to kind, if
you want an upper limit (no matter how futile it is) with the case of
dogs and cats you should move it up to at least an order, but even that
isn't foolproof, perhaps you should move it up to domain, as even
organisms as far apart as plants and humans share a nucleus,
mitochondria, and several other cellular features that are
characteristic of the domain Eukaryota.

What I`m trying to say is that trying to place a limit on "kind" is
arbitrary and pointless, since ultimately the evidence does not fit with
the notion of "kind", your futile efforts at defining kinds is cute, but
unsatisfactory. Humans are primates, since we share several features
with other members of the order Primata, such as nails instead of claws,
opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a large brain relative to
body size.

Features that show we are in a cohort with monkeys include a dry nose,
instead of being wet, the absence of whiskers (or "vissibrae"), above
average intelligence, and several other features. So by creationist
logic humans belong to the "monkey" kind, except there is no such thing,
old world monkeys are more closely related to us than new world monkeys
are, so would we be part of the "Primate" kind, or better yet, the "ape"
kind? Of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, creationists
love to grab at straws and claim we are not primates, and we are above
nature, even creationist Carolus Linnaeus recognized that we were
primates, something that other people detested, but you have to look at
the facts, to do otherwise is dishonesty and willful ignorance.

You have shown that you are willing to be willfully ignorant in face of
the evidence, I was merely testing how far you'd go before you crack and
have to make a flippant remark to avoid owning up to your mistake, that
there is no such thing as a "kind", and even if there was it would have
no biological viability. You only do slightly better than Ray, who
refuses to even concede that "microevolution" exists, that is, evolution
within a species, even though from a scientific viewpoint such a thing
doesn't exist, because it's just evolution, we've even seen speciation
in action.

Humans aren't necessarily unique when it comes to sentience, elephants
and dolphins are just as intelligent as humans, yet are restricted by
their anatomies and environments, one can't get much done with only a
trunk, and being in water isn't a good conductor for developing
civilization, especially since dolphins don't even have the nimble,
flexible trunk an elephant has. Dolphins have more ridges and folds in
their grey matter than humans do, and thus by that category are more
intelligent, they are even the only other species to use unique calls
for each other, equivalent to "naming".

Humans are only unique in our development of civilization and
agriculture, we were only capable of doing so because we aren't limited
by our anatomy and environment, another good creature that could've
developed civilization is the raccoon, yet is nowhere near as
intelligent as the animals I just mentioned, who are all equally
intelligent as humans yet constrained by their anatomies and
environments, elephants even use medicines from trees and can paint
self-portraits, they even mourn their dead and display a curiosity
towards the dead, if they had opposable thumbs and weren't quadrupeds,
they may have bested us in our own game, the same goes for dolphins, who
are even more advanced than elephants, yet you claim that man has
dominion over nature and is unique in all regards, when in reality we
are nothing more than mere apes with our crude language and tools.

Yet despite the march of science, there are still people who'd rather
stay in the dark ages than face enlightenment, those same people would
also like to keep the rest of us in the dark ages; the mere existence of
apologetics is an argument against the existence of a deity.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's right after the Big Bang part.

[Rolf]

"Oxyaena" <oxy...@is.a.prick> wrote in message
news:nnlloo$jkv$1...@news.albasani.net...

Well done, I just wonder how thick it has to be stacked before a cretinist
gets the message.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:06:48 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@is.a.prick>
wrote:

[...]

>Humans aren't necessarily unique when it comes to sentience, elephants
>and dolphins are just as intelligent as humans

On what basis are you measuring/comparing intelligence?

[...]

[Oxyaena]

Well, there are many ways to measure intelligence, one way is to examine
how many folds and lumps there are in a brain, the more there are they
more likely a species is going to be intelligent, dolphins have more
folds and lumps in their brains than we humans do, that's one way to
measure it.

Another way is to examine behaviors and actions, including
self-awareness, empathy, a theory of mind, tool use, innovative
practices, deception, communication, emotions and the like, elephants
have demonstrated a self-awareness, they can even paint self-portraits,
and they also are aware of the general concept of death, if elephants
toying with corpses and skeletons and mourning their dead ones is
anything to go bye, as well as their usage of medicinal herbs from
select trees.

Dolphins demonstrate dialects, even names for individual dolphins, as
well as unique cultures, such as dolphins "mudding" by going underneath
fish shoals and driving them into compact groups by muddying the water,
which suffocates the fish and gives the dolphins an easy meal, in
Florida, whilst off the coast of Australia they use sponges to act as
something of an "abrasion deflector" while they rummage through the sea
bed looking for flounders and other bottom-dwellers.

Dolphins and elephants aren't the only species to demonstrate sapience,
but I singled them out for obvious reasons, other species include the
Caledonian crow, where in an experiment a crow tried getting to a morsel
of food that was out of reach, something of an "Ah-Ha!" moment occurred
to the crow and the crow twisted the end of the wire into a hook and
hooked (no pun intended) the food out of the area it was in. Other
species include the Scrub jay, whom has demonstrated a theory of mind
when hiding its food, if it has seen other jays in the area, it moves
the food from its cache to another cache.

Chimpanzees are the paragon on non-human primates in a way,
demonstrating understanding of language, deception, even prostitution,
they have a proto-religious system as demonstrated in a previous post of
mine (they were seen making "offerings" to a tree in a forest in the
Ivory Coast, with the "offerings" specially handled in a way, even
including nests for the "offerings", they also seem to have a reverence
for fire, since they were seen moving around in a slow circle around a
wild-fire, these findings could help us understand the evolution of
religion, IMHO), they demonstrate ingenuity in their ever-constant
search for food, such as using modified sticks to "spear" bush-babies
out of their holes in trees, or using rocks to open nuts, Kanzi, a
bonobo, even began developing Oldowan-style tools with her own method,
crashing rocks against the concrete and developing it from their, even
after being taught the percussion-flake method.

Dogs demonstrate a theory of mind when one dog was looking for its toy,
another dog had stolen it and hid it until the original owner left the
room, utilizing deception, dogs also are capable of understanding human
emotions, they even have emotions such as suspicion and lust, they also
demonstrate an understanding of human language, the sound-processing
center in their brains are almost identical to those of humans, they
even demonstrate self-awareness using a modified version of the mirror
test with smell instead of vision, since dogs rely more on smell than
vision, it'd make sense to use smell instead of vision, and it worked!

That's why I`m against animal testing, especially for cosmetics, I`m not
totally against animal testing, I just think it should be regulated
more, with the animals well being in mind, not to mention the fact that
humans are different from other animals, since we're our own species
with unique adaptations, animal testing is bound to falter somewhat.
--
"Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda

http://oxyaena.org/

or

http://thrinaxodon.org/

[Steady Eddie]

Actually, you're missing the point.
If kinds are approximated to a family, and dogs and cats are of different families, then you have no basis
for claiming that they are of the same kind.

As you disclose below, you had no intention of getting a rational answer to what defines a kind, and you cannot recognize such answer when given.

Another fine specimen of Darwinian fanaticism.

[Oxyaena]

There is no such thing as a "kind", you ignored the entire post because
you knew you have no rational response. How pathetic. You have no
evidence that a "kind" is a family, I stand by my point, you're so
willfully ignorant to consider the evidence.

You should at least try raising the upper limit to "order", but even
that's arbitrary. Own up, you've been beaten, you're only beating a dead
horse by prolonging the argument.

>
> [snip mindless drivel]


>
> Another fine specimen of Creationist fanaticism.

Fixed it for you.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yeah, it's all pure fantasy. The only term that used to have meaning is species, meaning they could have viable children. But even that had gone down the toilet, the term species has no meaning now, it has nothing to do with whether they can have viable children, it means whatever one wants it to mean.

[Steady Eddie]

U MAD BRO?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:24:18 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

So elephants and dolphins being *just as intelligent as human
beings* is some weird notion of your own, nothing to do with actual
science.

[Oxyaena]

No, dolphins have more folds and morphs in their brains than humans do,
so if you want to go by actual science dolphins are more intelligent
than we are, elephants are just as intelligent as we are.

[Oxyaena]

Wow, you know you've been beaten, and you're only kicking a dead horse
by trolling.

ARE U MAD BRO?

[Robert Camp]

There is much more to intelligence than brain folds.

Unless you're going to radically broaden the definition of intelligence
so as to include parameters of which we (humans) are not, and perhaps
*can not* be aware, you're just wrong. Dolphins are not more intelligent
than we are. Sure, dolphins may have a different kind of intelligence,
but we simply don't know enough about their cognition to make the type
of comparison, much less so declarative a statement about it, that
you've offered.

I recall a conference I once attended in which an odontocete researcher
gave a talk about dolphin communication. His summation was essentially
that from what they could tell, while dolphins are clearly among the
cleverest of mammals, most of their vocalizations amounted to little
more than shouting, "I'm me...I'm me...I'm me!" wherever they went.

They're fascinating and spectacular creatures. No need to romanticize
them into something magical.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
You challenged the definition of a kind, fully expecting to get no reasonable answer and crow triumphantly.
When you got the answer you asked for, you didn't know how to deal with it, and imploded into a tantrum.

You just can't handle that creationists aren't as clueless as your cartoon version of them.

You hatred spills out in your posts. You're not fooling anyone, except maybe the clueless Darwinists here.

Another specimen of Darwinian religious fanaticism.

LOL!

[RSNorman]

I agree entirely with Robert on all points.

FIrst, brain folding is a terrible way to try to estimate intelligence
and has long been discounted. The folding is a way to increase the
volume of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. Yes, cetacea brains are
highly folded and more so than human brains. But cetacea brains do
not compare with human brains in size. One measure is brain volume to
body mass ratio. A much better way is "encephalization quotient"
which takes allometric factors into account: many things do not scale
directly proportional to total body size or mass. See Wikipedia's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
On this measure, humans exceed other species including cetaceans,
chimps, and elephants. (Note, for those who tend to deride using
Wikipedia entries, there is a large number of published papers about
this. Wikipedia is quite reliable for most scientific subjects.)

So, Oxy, to go by actual science you are rathe far off base.

Second, a lot of different kinds of behaviors are called
"injtelligent" including safety features in automobiles far lesser
than actual autonomous driving. Self-driving cars and many other
engineed systems are called "intelligent". But complex behavior and
even demonstrating aspects of we think of as emotional responses are
completely different from what we call "high level" abstract reasoning
that humans demonstrate.

Interestingly, a closely related point -- the origin of human
languagte -- was rasied recently in the current (Aug 18, 2016) issue
of New York Review of Books . Here Ian Tattersall reviews "Why Only
Us: Language and Evolution" by Robert C. Berwick and Noam Chomsky.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/noam-chomsky-robert-berwick-birth-of-language/
Only the start of that review is available free, unfortunately.
However the point of the book, one which Tattersall fully agrees with,
is that humans underwent a very special change in relatively recent
times, only 100K to 200K years ago that resulted in our language
ability. This ability is something completely distinct from that of
other species who do use various relatively complex forms of auditory
signalling. I believe that human intelligence, the abstract
cognitive, conscious ability that gives us enormous abilities, is
similarly unique. Probably abstract reasoning is closely allied to
language, the ability to express abstract ideas in words and
communicate those ideas to others. That, to me, truly represents
"human intelligence" and I believe us to be unique in the animal world
in that regard.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:00:26 -0700, Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

It's just the type of baloney that the IDers and Creationists thrive
on.

[Oxyaena]

You are speaking as if I didn't know this, EQ isn't all there is to
measuring intelligence, read this conveniently found page a donor to the
Thrinaxodon foundation gave me:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int4.html

I know all about EQ, brain volume to body mass, by that rate the sperm
whale would out-do us. You agreeing entirely with Robert is more of a
sign of confirmation bias than actually doing the research, which I have
done.

You are so pea-brained as to not realize that what you're doing is only
confirmation bias, not actual science. And yes, I am aware that we
cannot know if anything is truly sentient other than ourselves, yet we
are certain that other humans are sentient, and given the evidence, why
not extend that to animals?

Remember, I post all sorts of shit, often with greater knowledge at hand
than what I am posting, I spend most of my waking hours doing research,
I get off Usenet for months at a time, do you think that all I do is
post on Usenet and not educate myself? I have a life, Dick, but given
your profession, I presume you don't, how do I know you're not a
philosophical zombie?

Philosophy is a thing of the past, as Bacon once said, a group of
scholars can argue all day about how much teeth a horse has, yet none of
them would dare to get their hands dirty. Are you truly conscious, Dick,
or are all of your actions come without being fully aware? If I poke you
with a needle, and you say "Ow!", are you truly aware you are saying
"Ow"? Or are you just programmed to respond with "Ow!"?

You see, your analogy with machines is false equivocation, I'd expect
much more from someone who specializes in philosophy, and yet, you're
nothing more than a microscopic being on a speck of dust in a minor part
of a galaxy in a minor galaxy, in a minor galaxy cluster, in a major
supercluster, in the grand scheme of things, you're nothing more than
atoms on a speck of dust.

All the wars, all the blood spilled, all the rulers and pretenders vying
for supremacy for control of a mere fraction of a speck of dust in an
ordinary star system, in an ordinary galaxy, in an ordinary galaxy
cluster and so on and so forth, all the scientists, artists, soldiers,
workers, criminals, politicians and more, all their work is nothing when
compared with the vastness of this universe, all the portraits, all the
books and novels, all the Usenet posts from idiots, trolls, and losers,
all the crimes committed, all the acts of genocide, murder, thievery,
fraud, abuse, rape, molestation, war, looting, and more, all the natural
disasters, all the acts of revenge in the name of family honor, all the
bank heists, all the feuds, all the crops grown, all the animals
slaughtered, all the tears of joy, all the singing of birds and swinging
of claws by cats at said birds, all of it amounts to nothing, as
Shakespear put it (although "Nothing" or "Noting" was 16th century slang
for lady parts), "Much Ado about Nothing".

>
> Second, a lot of different kinds of behaviors are called
> "injtelligent" including safety features in automobiles far lesser
> than actual autonomous driving. Self-driving cars and many other
> engineed systems are called "intelligent". But complex behavior and
> even demonstrating aspects of we think of as emotional responses are
> completely different from what we call "high level" abstract reasoning
> that humans demonstrate.

Show me any evidence for this besides philosophical mumbo-jumbo, you
have yet to demonstrate that "high level abstract reason" is any
different from the abilities animals have shown. Besides, those are
programmed machines, not living beings with a brain, machines, not
living beings. Your antipathy to the evidence shows that you are no
better than creationists in this regard.

>
> Interestingly, a closely related point -- the origin of human
> languagte -- was rasied recently in the current (Aug 18, 2016) issue
> of New York Review of Books . Here Ian Tattersall reviews "Why Only
> Us: Language and Evolution" by Robert C. Berwick and Noam Chomsky.
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/noam-chomsky-robert-berwick-birth-of-language/
> Only the start of that review is available free, unfortunately.
> However the point of the book, one which Tattersall fully agrees with,
> is that humans underwent a very special change in relatively recent
> times, only 100K to 200K years ago that resulted in our language
> ability. This ability is something completely distinct from that of
> other species who do use various relatively complex forms of auditory
> signalling. I believe that human intelligence, the abstract
> cognitive, conscious ability that gives us enormous abilities, is
> similarly unique. Probably abstract reasoning is closely allied to
> language, the ability to express abstract ideas in words and
> communicate those ideas to others. That, to me, truly represents
> "human intelligence" and I believe us to be unique in the animal world
> in that regard.
>

You don't think I`m not aware of this, "brain folding" would be called
phrenology, is it not? But, I'd suggest both you idiots that you should
read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/31/science/q-a-brain-folds.html

Your anthropocentrism is duly noted, an almost religious need to raise
humans above what they really are.

Your speculation about "abstract reasoning related to language" is cute,
but not grounded in reality, Kanzi's sister, for example, was never
taught the word "yogurt", or the logograph for it at least, yet Kanzi
did, when she was asked she pointed to the logograph for "yogurt".

You idiots are barely a notch above creationists, it appears.

[georg....@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
> creation?
>
> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
> perhaps you missed it.)

I know that there is a species problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem), but what is the "kind" problem? BTW this is my first post.

[John Harshman]

On 8/2/16 4:35 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> creation?
>>
>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>> perhaps you missed it.)
>

> I know there is a problem with species, in fact there is a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
>
> What is the problem with biblical kinds? BTW this is my first post.
>
They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem. There are
others: nobody can say what they are, or how to tell where they start
and end, or how fossils (remnants of the flood?) relate to them.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I can give you a definition from commentary on the bible:
*** it-2 p. 152 Kind ***
The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary
between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

So if a pair of animals could reproduce, then they were a kind.

The fossils? I don't understand why it is a problem if when animals die under the right circumstances that they sometimes fossilize. Obviously they descended from their ancestors.

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:41:26 -0400, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

You don't even properly read your own citations. Your Bryn Mawr
serendip site goes on to explain just what I told you that simple
brain volume to body mass is completely inappropriate:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html
It goes on to explain why encephalization quotient is a better
measure, just what I wrote. And humans are at the top of that
listing.

>You are so pea-brained as to not realize that what you're doing is only
>confirmation bias, not actual science. And yes, I am aware that we
>cannot know if anything is truly sentient other than ourselves, yet we
>are certain that other humans are sentient, and given the evidence, why
>not extend that to animals?
>
>Remember, I post all sorts of shit, often with greater knowledge at hand
>than what I am posting, I spend most of my waking hours doing research,
>I get off Usenet for months at a time, do you think that all I do is
>post on Usenet and not educate myself? I have a life, Dick, but given
>your profession, I presume you don't, how do I know you're not a
>philosophical zombie?

I am very well aware that you post all sorts of shit. This is just
another example of how you fail to separate your "oxyaena" persona
that can sometimes write sensible things from your "thrinaxodon" one
which produces some absolutely ghastly stuff.

>Philosophy is a thing of the past, as Bacon once said, a group of
>scholars can argue all day about how much teeth a horse has, yet none of
>them would dare to get their hands dirty. Are you truly conscious, Dick,
>or are all of your actions come without being fully aware? If I poke you
>with a needle, and you say "Ow!", are you truly aware you are saying
>"Ow"? Or are you just programmed to respond with "Ow!"?
>
>You see, your analogy with machines is false equivocation, I'd expect
>much more from someone who specializes in philosophy, and yet, you're
>nothing more than a microscopic being on a speck of dust in a minor part
>of a galaxy in a minor galaxy, in a minor galaxy cluster, in a major
>supercluster, in the grand scheme of things, you're nothing more than
>atoms on a speck of dust.

Do you actually believe I am a philosopher? Actually I am an animal
physiologist having specialized in comparative neurobiology
(crustacea, to be precise) and actually know something about comparing
brains of different organisms.

>All the wars, all the blood spilled, all the rulers and pretenders vying
>for supremacy for control of a mere fraction of a speck of dust in an
>ordinary star system, in an ordinary galaxy, in an ordinary galaxy
>cluster and so on and so forth, all the scientists, artists, soldiers,
>workers, criminals, politicians and more, all their work is nothing when
>compared with the vastness of this universe, all the portraits, all the
>books and novels, all the Usenet posts from idiots, trolls, and losers,
>all the crimes committed, all the acts of genocide, murder, thievery,
>fraud, abuse, rape, molestation, war, looting, and more, all the natural
>disasters, all the acts of revenge in the name of family honor, all the
>bank heists, all the feuds, all the crops grown, all the animals
>slaughtered, all the tears of joy, all the singing of birds and swinging
>of claws by cats at said birds, all of it amounts to nothing, as
>Shakespear put it (although "Nothing" or "Noting" was 16th century slang
>for lady parts), "Much Ado about Nothing".
>

I think you had better adjust your meds.

At least we idiots are above creationists. I wonder where you fall in
that spectrum.

[John Harshman]

On 8/2/16 5:26 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:07:32 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/2/16 4:35 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>>> creation?
>>>>
>>>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>>>> perhaps you missed it.)
>>>
>>> I know there is a problem with species, in fact there is a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
>>>
>>> What is the problem with biblical kinds? BTW this is my first post.
>>>
>> They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem. There are
>> others: nobody can say what they are, or how to tell where they start
>> and end, or how fossils (remnants of the flood?) relate to them.
>
> I can give you a definition from commentary on the bible:
> *** it-2 p. 152 Kind ***
> The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary
> between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
>
> So if a pair of animals could reproduce, then they were a kind.

Do you understand that fertilization and reproduction are not the same
thing? And why should we take the bible as a guide to reality? Even if
there were created kinds (which there clearly are not) there is no
objective reason to suppose that they can be diagnosed by hybridization.
And even if we took Genesis as authority, "after their kind" is hardly
unambiguous.

> The fossils? I don't understand why it is a problem if when animals die under the right circumstances that they sometimes fossilize. Obviously they descended from their ancestors.

Depending on where in the stratigraphic record you put the flood, lots
of living species are found in flood deposits, which creates problems
for the ark. Also, we get many more kinds and lots of intermediates
between what creationists claim are kinds.

But really, the main problem is that there's no such thing.

[georg....@gmail.com]

Thank you for your opinions. If you would like to prove that the definition of "kind" that I provided is wrong, I am all ears.

[John Harshman]

What do you mean "wrong"? How can any definition of an imaginary entity
be wrong? It might not be the most used one, or it might have problems
of internal consistency, but it can't be wrong because it doesn't match
what it's trying to describe, there being no such thing.

Then again, your definition actually does have probems of internal
consistency. You need to clarify what you mean by "fertilization" and
"reproduction", and which you prefer. Because there are plenty of
species pairs in which fertilization (one-celled zygote) can happen but
that never end up in adult organisms. And what about when you do get an
organism but it's sterile? What about cases in which hybrid males are
sterile but hybrid females are not? It's more complicated than "after
their kind".

[georg....@gmail.com]

I said:
if a pair of animals could reproduce, then they were a kind.

Why would hybrid sterility be a problem with that statement?

[jillery]

Since your test is based on fertilization, how do you determine what
the fossil organism was fertile with? After all, it's extinct.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I did not make any arguments regarding fossils. Also, I don't see any statements regarding fossils that prove my statement incorrect.

Perhaps you had a discussion with someone else about fossils and got me confused with them?

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:23:18 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 8:17:32 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:26:21 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:07:32 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> On 8/2/16 4:35 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> >> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> >> >> creation?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>> >> >> perhaps you missed it.)
>> >> >
>> >> > I know there is a problem with species, in fact there is a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
>> >> >
>> >> > What is the problem with biblical kinds? BTW this is my first post.
>> >> >
>> >> They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem. There are
>> >> others: nobody can say what they are, or how to tell where they start
>> >> and end, or how fossils (remnants of the flood?) relate to them.
>> >
>> >I can give you a definition from commentary on the bible:
>> >*** it-2 p. 152 Kind ***
>> >The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary
>> >between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
>> >
>> >So if a pair of animals could reproduce, then they were a kind.
>> >
>> >The fossils? I don't understand why it is a problem if when animals die under the right circumstances that they sometimes fossilize. Obviously they descended from their ancestors.
>>
>>
>> Since your test is based on fertilization, how do you determine what
>> the fossil organism was fertile with? After all, it's extinct.
>

>I did not make any arguments regarding fossils. Also, I don't see any statements regarding fossils that prove my statement incorrect.
>
>Perhaps you had a discussion with someone else about fossils and got me confused with them?

John Harshman asked you how fossils relate to biblical kinds, just a
few hours ago, and still preserved in the quoted text. Remember now?

Do you believe that fossils are the remains of once-living organisms?
If so, wouldn't biblical kinds apply to them as well?

[georg....@gmail.com]

John said that "kinds" don't exist and so I gave him a definition so that he could prove his point. I don't see what fossils have to do with this, but I am willing to listen to a well thought out argument. But please dispense with the Socratic method and get to the proof :)

[jillery]

>John said that "kinds" don't exist

John said lots of things, including mentioning fossils, as part of his
answer to your original question from your original post,
specifically:

"What is the problem with biblical kinds?"

You even noted it, your response also preserved in the quoted text.

>and so I gave him a definition so that he could prove his point.

Definitions don't prove anything but their own existence. For
example, you can find definitions for "unicorn". And even though
unicorns are also mentioned in the Bible, it's almost certain they
never existed.

>I don't see what fossils have to do with this,

As I pointed out, fossils are the remains of extinct organisms, but
are incapable of being tested for "kind" by your methodology, of
testing if a pair of them could reproduce. This makes your
suggestion, and by extension your definition, no better than
"species", and so is a relevant reply to your original question.

>but I am willing to listen to a well thought out argument. But please dispense with the Socratic method and get to the proof :)

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just asked you a simple question
based on your own reply, which you are now working overly hard to
pretend you never wrote.

Even if you don't remember what you wrote, which given the short
period of time is unlikely, you should be able to remind yourself by
reading the quoted text. Even as a first-time poster, you're being
overly obtuse.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:26:21 -0700 (PDT), georg....@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:07:32 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/2/16 4:35 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:27:45 AM UTC-7, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> >> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> >> creation?
>> >>
>> >> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>> >> perhaps you missed it.)
>> >
>> > I know there is a problem with species, in fact there is a species problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
>> >
>> > What is the problem with biblical kinds? BTW this is my first post.
>> >
>> They don't exist, perhaps? That would be the biggest problem. There are
>> others: nobody can say what they are, or how to tell where they start
>> and end, or how fossils (remnants of the flood?) relate to them.
>
>I can give you a definition from commentary on the bible:
>*** it-2 p. 152 Kind ***
>The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary
>between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
>
>So if a pair of animals could reproduce, then they were a kind.

Are horses and donkeys the same kind? What about thier offspring mules
which cannot reproduce among themselves, are they the same kind or no
kind at all?

[Bill Rogers]

The definition you gave him is fine, pretty close to the biological species concept. Definitions cannot be wrong, anyway; as long as you tell people what you mean by a word and stick to that meaning, no problem. There are multiple definitions and uses of the word "species," too, and that's also fine.

One of the common problems (but only for biblical literalists) with defining a kind in the way you do, as essentially equivalent to the biological species definition or "able to produce fertile offspring", is that there are then far too many kinds of animals to fit on the ark. So, to avoid that overcrowding problem, some fans of the Flood story try to define "kinds" as equivalent to some higher taxonomic rank than species - that way there's room on the ark for all the kinds, and then they allow the differentiation of species with a kind to have occurred by acceptable "microevolution" after the Flood.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I don't see the need to correlate biblical kinds with species. Evolutionary Biologists don't agree on what is a species -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Even as late as 2001: The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)

Thanks for your reply.

[Oxyaena]

I don't need to, all it requires is a simple Wikipedia check to look for
any possible sites that look like they conform to my biases, aka the
confirmation bias.

>
>> You are so pea-brained as to not realize that what you're doing is only
>> confirmation bias, not actual science. And yes, I am aware that we
>> cannot know if anything is truly sentient other than ourselves, yet we
>> are certain that other humans are sentient, and given the evidence, why
>> not extend that to animals?
>>
>> Remember, I post all sorts of shit, often with greater knowledge at hand
>> than what I am posting, I spend most of my waking hours doing research,
>> I get off Usenet for months at a time, do you think that all I do is
>> post on Usenet and not educate myself? I have a life, Dick, but given
>> your profession, I presume you don't, how do I know you're not a
>> philosophical zombie?
>
> I am very well aware that you post all sorts of shit. This is just
> another example of how you fail to separate your "oxyaena" persona
> that can sometimes write sensible things from your "thrinaxodon" one
> which produces some absolutely ghastly stuff.

Perhaps you need a reminder from G-d:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Matthew 7:12

>
>> Philosophy is a thing of the past, as Bacon once said, a group of
>> scholars can argue all day about how much teeth a horse has, yet none of
>> them would dare to get their hands dirty. Are you truly conscious, Dick,
>> or are all of your actions come without being fully aware? If I poke you
>> with a needle, and you say "Ow!", are you truly aware you are saying
>> "Ow"? Or are you just programmed to respond with "Ow!"?
>>
>> You see, your analogy with machines is false equivocation, I'd expect
>> much more from someone who specializes in philosophy, and yet, you're
>> nothing more than a microscopic being on a speck of dust in a minor part
>> of a galaxy in a minor galaxy, in a minor galaxy cluster, in a major
>> supercluster, in the grand scheme of things, you're nothing more than
>> atoms on a speck of dust.
>
> Do you actually believe I am a philosopher? Actually I am an animal
> physiologist having specialized in comparative neurobiology
> (crustacea, to be precise) and actually know something about comparing
> brains of different organisms.

I stand corrected, you're even lower than a philosopher...

>
>> All the wars, all the blood spilled, all the rulers and pretenders vying
>> for supremacy for control of a mere fraction of a speck of dust in an
>> ordinary star system, in an ordinary galaxy, in an ordinary galaxy
>> cluster and so on and so forth, all the scientists, artists, soldiers,
>> workers, criminals, politicians and more, all their work is nothing when
>> compared with the vastness of this universe, all the portraits, all the
>> books and novels, all the Usenet posts from idiots, trolls, and losers,
>> all the crimes committed, all the acts of genocide, murder, thievery,
>> fraud, abuse, rape, molestation, war, looting, and more, all the natural
>> disasters, all the acts of revenge in the name of family honor, all the
>> bank heists, all the feuds, all the crops grown, all the animals
>> slaughtered, all the tears of joy, all the singing of birds and swinging
>> of claws by cats at said birds, all of it amounts to nothing, as
>> Shakespear put it (although "Nothing" or "Noting" was 16th century slang
>> for lady parts), "Much Ado about Nothing".
>>
>
> I think you had better adjust your meds.

That idea is from Carl Sagan, twat.

Ha ha! You fell for it! This whole conundrum of bullshit and angry
responses was just so I can get a laugh. Do you honestly believe that I
think dolphins are smarter than humans? I may have given off that vibe,
but I mean to do that...

Where I fall at that spectrum? I have a Sentience Quotient (which is
different) of <50, the highest one can get on the SQ spectrum, far above
you puny Usenet losers. The average human has a sentience quotient of
13, mine is 50, try to realize who you're dealing with.

[georg....@gmail.com]

Here is my logical statement which will answer your question, and to facilitate understanding I will add another, #2.I will call it Kaplan's Theorem of Kind.

Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
1) If life-forms are cross-fertile, then they are of the same kind.
2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.

So, yes horses and donkeys are of the same kind.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I will allow John to explain what he meant by fossils. One thing you should know about me, is that I don't permit others to supply me with the wording or arguments that I uses. Generally others who don't share the same opinion tend to try to force some sort of straw-man argument. That is what this "fossil" side-tracking appears to be.

Based on a reasonable question from another poster, I have added a second statement to my theorem. If you would like to engage it, here it is:

[georg....@gmail.com]

You seem to be interested in fossils. Do you think that they prove something with regards to evolution? I don't see that they prove anything with regards to "kinds."

[John Harshman]

So you are claiming that reproduction, even of sterile offspring, shows
that two organisms are the same kind. And what happened to fertilization
as a criterion? Are you abandoning that? More importantly, what is your
basis for these assertions beyond your personal interpretation of one
phrase from Genesis?

[John Harshman]

On 8/2/16 5:32 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 5:07:32 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

> Here is a definition from a bible commentary, Insight on the Scriptures:

>
> *** it-2 p. 152 Kind ***
> The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.
>

> So if a pair of animals could reproduce, then they are of the same kind.

I will note that this is not a definition of "kind"; it's an attempt at
diagnosis. They are two different things. The proper definition of
"kind" is an originally created population (one lacking any ancestors)
and all its descendants. (Again, there is no such thing.) You will have
to explain how you know that your diagnostic criterion correctly
diagnoses kinds.

> I don't understand the problem with fossils. When animals die they
> sometimes make fossils. They would be ancestors of the original
> animals that were created.

I think you meant to say "descendants" there. Correct?

[John Harshman]

Again, you need to define "cross-fertile" more exactly. You have
previously given two criteria, fertilization and reproduction, which I
have pointed out are two different things, and which you in turn have
ignored.

So what if life-forms aren't cross-fertile. Are they then different
kinds? How do you tell if two species are different kinds?

> So, yes horses and donkeys are of the same kind.

What if crosses between male X and female Y produce offspring but
crosses between female X and male Y do not. Same kind?

[Oxyaena]

Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 09:32:34 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Monday, 1 August 2016 12:17:36 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 31 July 2016 14:07:39 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 31 July 2016 08:47:41 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 July 2016 17:57:41 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 July 2016 11:57:43 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steady Eddie wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 29 July 2016 10:27:45 UTC-6, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps you missed it.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fair question, and I'm glad to address it from the viewpoint of the Biblical God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In an important sense, it appears God does use evolution as part of His strategy to help organisms survive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we learned from Mendel, life forms come equipped with different alleles for many important traits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This allows for a wide range of variation in phenotype within any created kind, perhaps even to the extent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that modern biologists categorize different members of a kind as different species.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Kind" isn't a viable biological category, because each "kind"
>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately goes into higher taxa, such as the "dog" and "cat" kinds all
>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately being members of the "carnivore" kind, and the "carnivore"
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind being members of the "mammal" kind and so on and so forth. Is there
>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where something stops being a "kind"? There's no clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> distinctions between "kinds", sponges and mammals share certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics that show they are part of the "animal" kind, such as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of cell walls, a reliance on organic substances to derive nutrients
>>>>>>>>>>>> from (heterotrophy), the presence of organelles only present in animals
>>>>>>>>>>>> such as centrioles and lysosomes, as well as cell-to-cell junctions. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> are they part of the same "kind" or two different "kinds" that happen to
>>>>>>>>>>>> share common characteristics indicative of common ancestry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only one problem among many with the concepts of a "kind", no
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder no creationist has ever tried to answer such a question as basic
>>>>>>>>>>>> as "defining kinds".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the Bible's coverage of the topic is scant, yet there are some indicators that give an idea of
>>>>>>>>>>> at least the high limit of the taxonomical level that "kind" refers to.
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, at Genesis 1:21, it says that God created "every winged flying creature according to
>>>>>>>>>>> its kind", so it seems that birds were divided up into kinds. This helps us estimate that kinds were
>>>>>>>>>>> at least as specific as Families, if I have my taxonomy right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be tacitly admitting that the authors of Genesis knew dick
>>>>>>>>>> about biology, if you've given at least a lower limit to what "kinds"
>>>>>>>>>> could be (families), if we go by your limit then that's the bare
>>>>>>>>>> minimum, dogs and cats could be part of the same "kind", so as I said
>>>>>>>>>> before, where's the point where one "kind" is separated from another
>>>>>>>>>> "kind", dogs and cats share carnassials, which are the first lower molar
>>>>>>>>>> and the fourth upper premolar, which all carnivores, including cats and
>>>>>>>>>> dogs, share.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read my statement from above:
>>>>>>>>> "...there are some indicators that give an idea of at least the HIGH LIMIT of the taxonomical level that "kind" refers to."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now read your statement in reply:
>>>>>>>>> "...if you've given at least a LOWER LIMIT to what "kinds" could be (families), if we go by your limit then
>>>>>>>>> that's the BARE MINIMUM..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to have gotten my statement completely reversed. What gives?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, the usage of "family" as an upper limit does not suffice, because
>>>>>>>> dogs and cats (whom by your definition do not belong to the same kind)
>>>>>>>> share several anatomical features apart from them being mammals, such as
>>>>>>>> the presence of carnassials, which are the first lower molar and fourth
>>>>>>>> upper premolar. So clearly you should revise your upper limit on a
>>>>>>>> "kind", at least to an order. Remember, I`m not a creationist, and am
>>>>>>>> speaking hypothetically, if kinds even exist, which as you admit, the
>>>>>>>> Bible doesn't do a good job of explaining what a "kind" is and flies
>>>>>>>> straight into the face of all the evidence we have available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Note: the usage of the term "carnivore" only applies to the members of
>>>>>>>> the order Carnivora in this context, I'd thought I should've pointed
>>>>>>>> that out.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, are dogs and cats members of the same Family?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I`m trying to be civil here, so correct me if I`m wrong that by your
>>>>>>>>>> account dogs and cats could be of the same "kind".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This range of variation within genotypes allows for adaptation of a kind to its environment by an automatic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently random process, which is one important definition of "evolution".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the probable intended meaning of "evolution" in your question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Darwinian evolution, what many biologists refer to as simply "Darwinism", posits that, supposing God created the first life form, this organism was subject to random mutations, and any "end product" (such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans) was not intended, but completely contingent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This theory is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the brief account of creation given in the Bible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Bible seems clear that God specifically created the basic kinds of plant and animal life, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing them to develop randomly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind you, He could have done this over a long period of time, and it appears form the Bible narrative that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was done in different stages, or creative "days", each of which may have been an indefinite period of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. So, in theory, this may have been, by definition, an "evolutionary" process; God could have used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common core-elements across wide ranges of organisms, and this process could conceivably have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so finely-graded that one could assume at first estimate that one type "turned into" another.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is surprisingly rational coming from a Bible-thumping theist, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with your reliance on Bronze age superstitions, but at least
>>>>>>>>>>>> you take into account the myriad of evidence supporting evolution,
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct me if I`m wrong, you accept evolution but believe that it was
>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrated by God and humans are not a product of evolution, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else is? The Bible also said let the Earth bring forth the
>>>>>>>>>>>> kinds, so God may have used evolution to bring into existence the
>>>>>>>>>>>> diversity of life we see on this planet today. I`m speaking
>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetically, I`m not a creationist, after all. But this is impressive
>>>>>>>>>>>> coming from you, willing to admit evolution does exist, because no
>>>>>>>>>>>> honest person can't just look at the evidence and say it didn't happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for evolution being random, mutations are random, but natural
>>>>>>>>>>>> selection isn't, natural selection acts on beneficial mutations and
>>>>>>>>>>>> weeds out negative traits in the population.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever actual process God used to create the diversity in the biome, however, it appears to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposeful and deliberate, with God progressively moulding the biome for habitation by complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life forms and, finally, humans. This does not qualifying as Darwinian (random) evolution, because it is directed by an intelligent designer with an overall goal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the very least, the Bible specifically states that God created humans separately, directly from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This precludes humans developing from any other life form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you believe in evolution, but discount Darwinian evolution? Theistic
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution, I believe. The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> believes humans were created separately, and that only animals and other
>>>>>>>>>>>> organisms evolve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, you still have many misconceptions regarding evolution, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am willing to say that this is at least an improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
>>>>>>>>>>>> me." - Cao Cao
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oxyaena.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> "I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
>>>>>>>>>> me." - Cao Cao
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://oxyaena.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> "I would rather betray the whole world than let the whole world betray
>>>>>>>> me." - Cao Cao
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://oxyaena.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> also see: http://thrinaxodon.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oxyaena (at) oxyaena.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly, but you're missing the point, there's no limit to kind,
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you're missing the point.
>>>>> If kinds are approximated to a family, and dogs and cats are of different families, then you have no basis
>>>>> for claiming that they are of the same kind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a "kind", you ignored the entire post because
>>>> you knew you have no rational response. How pathetic. You have no
>>>> evidence that a "kind" is a family, I stand by my point, you're so
>>>> willfully ignorant to consider the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> You should at least try raising the upper limit to "order", but even
>>>> that's arbitrary. Own up, you've been beaten, you're only beating a dead
>>>> horse by prolonging the argument.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip mindless drivel]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another fine specimen of Creationist fanaticism.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed it for you.
>>>
>>> U MAD BRO?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> you want an upper limit (no matter how futile it is) with the case of
>>>>>> dogs and cats you should move it up to at least an order, but even that
>>>>>> isn't foolproof, perhaps you should move it up to domain, as even
>>>>>> organisms as far apart as plants and humans share a nucleus,
>>>>>> mitochondria, and several other cellular features that are
>>>>>> characteristic of the domain Eukaryota.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I`m trying to say is that trying to place a limit on "kind" is
>>>>>> arbitrary and pointless, since ultimately the evidence does not fit with
>>>>>> the notion of "kind", your futile efforts at defining kinds is cute, but
>>>>>> unsatisfactory. Humans are primates, since we share several features
>>>>>> with other members of the order Primata, such as nails instead of claws,
>>>>>> opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a large brain relative to
>>>>>> body size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Features that show we are in a cohort with monkeys include a dry nose,
>>>>>> instead of being wet, the absence of whiskers (or "vissibrae"), above
>>>>>> average intelligence, and several other features. So by creationist
>>>>>> logic humans belong to the "monkey" kind, except there is no such thing,
>>>>>> old world monkeys are more closely related to us than new world monkeys
>>>>>> are, so would we be part of the "Primate" kind, or better yet, the "ape"
>>>>>> kind? Of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, creationists
>>>>>> love to grab at straws and claim we are not primates, and we are above
>>>>>> nature, even creationist Carolus Linnaeus recognized that we were
>>>>>> primates, something that other people detested, but you have to look at
>>>>>> the facts, to do otherwise is dishonesty and willful ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown that you are willing to be willfully ignorant in face of
>>>>>> the evidence, I was merely testing how far you'd go before you crack and
>>>>>> have to make a flippant remark to avoid owning up to your mistake, that
>>>>>> there is no such thing as a "kind", and even if there was it would have
>>>>>> no biological viability. You only do slightly better than Ray, who
>>>>>> refuses to even concede that "microevolution" exists, that is, evolution
>>>>>> within a species, even though from a scientific viewpoint such a thing
>>>>>> doesn't exist, because it's just evolution, we've even seen speciation
>>>>>> in action.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Humans aren't necessarily unique when it comes to sentience, elephants

>>>>>> and dolphins are just as intelligent as humans, yet are restricted by
>>>>>> their anatomies and environments, one can't get much done with only a
>>>>>> trunk, and being in water isn't a good conductor for developing
>>>>>> civilization, especially since dolphins don't even have the nimble,
>>>>>> flexible trunk an elephant has. Dolphins have more ridges and folds in
>>>>>> their grey matter than humans do, and thus by that category are more
>>>>>> intelligent, they are even the only other species to use unique calls
>>>>>> for each other, equivalent to "naming".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Humans are only unique in our development of civilization and
>>>>>> agriculture, we were only capable of doing so because we aren't limited
>>>>>> by our anatomy and environment, another good creature that could've
>>>>>> developed civilization is the raccoon, yet is nowhere near as
>>>>>> intelligent as the animals I just mentioned, who are all equally
>>>>>> intelligent as humans yet constrained by their anatomies and
>>>>>> environments, elephants even use medicines from trees and can paint
>>>>>> self-portraits, they even mourn their dead and display a curiosity
>>>>>> towards the dead, if they had opposable thumbs and weren't quadrupeds,
>>>>>> they may have bested us in our own game, the same goes for dolphins, who
>>>>>> are even more advanced than elephants, yet you claim that man has
>>>>>> dominion over nature and is unique in all regards, when in reality we
>>>>>> are nothing more than mere apes with our crude language and tools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet despite the march of science, there are still people who'd rather
>>>>>> stay in the dark ages than face enlightenment, those same people would
>>>>>> also like to keep the rest of us in the dark ages; the mere existence of
>>>>>> apologetics is an argument against the existence of a deity.

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda
>>>>
>>>> http://oxyaena.org/
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> http://thrinaxodon.org/
>>>

>> Wow, you know you've been beaten, and you're only kicking a dead horse
>> by trolling.
>>
>> ARE U MAD BRO?
>
> LOL!
> You challenged the definition of a kind, fully expecting to get no reasonable answer and crow triumphantly.

I got no answer, you have not refuted any of the points I made in my OP
and you still haven't provided a reasonable definition of "kind".


> When you got the answer you asked for, you didn't know how to deal with it, and imploded into a tantrum.

I got no answer, "family" isn't an answer, it's riddled with holes for
one, and even if it was anything close to an answer it's surely not a
good one. You have yet to refute my original point, that "kind" is
undefinable and isn't a viable biological taxon.

>
> You just can't handle that creationists aren't as clueless as your cartoon version of them.

Except they are, you are merely perpetrating the stereotype of ignorant,
bible-thumping creationists.

>
> You hatred spills out in your posts. You're not fooling anyone, except maybe the clueless Darwinists here.

You're not fooling anyone, your vile stupidity spills out in your posts,
you're not fooling anyone, except maybe the clueless creationists here.


>
> Another specimen of Creationist religious fanaticism.
>

Fixed it for you, you brain dead cretin.

> LOL!
>
Hold on, just how old are you? Maybe you're around the age of ten, give
or take, which isn't surprising, but even a ten year old is more
intelligent than you, so maybe you're just as intelligent as a sack of
coal, no offense, coal.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I had said:
###

Here is my logical statement which will answer your question, and to facilitate understanding I will add another, #2.I will call it Kaplan's Theorem of Kind.

Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
1) If life-forms are cross-fertile, then they are of the same kind.
2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.

So, yes horses and donkeys are of the same kind.
###

Which of these two statements do you claim is incorrect based on fertility?

I did not give you a personal interpretation. What I quoted is from an official publication of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is the official interpretation for millions of people world-wide.

As for further evidence, if one observes animals reproducing today, one can easily confirm points 1 and 2 from my theorem. That is the scientific method, to state a theory and then test it from observation.

My neighbor had a dog that was pregnant. It had puppies. Another neighbor had a cat that was pregnant. It had kittens.

What have you observed?

[georg....@gmail.com]

I have clearly marked my theorem as a work in progress. That being said, the term I am using is the same term from the commentary cross-fertility. Do you not understand what that means?

As for your latest question, the combination of #1 and #2 answer it for you. Is there some reason why you suspect that your examples violate either? If so, please clearly state so and show me why.

I don't see a problem.

[Bill Rogers]

I agree. No need to correlate biblical kinds with species. I only point out that your definition of kinds is pretty much the biological species concept definition of species.

>
> Even as late as 2001: The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)

I don't see it as a problem that there are multiple definitions of species. It's just a word. Words are used differently in different contexts. As long as you know what the definition in use in a given conversation having multiple definitions is not a problem at all. Things are not changed by the names we call them.

>
> Thanks for your reply.

[John Harshman]

Fertility and fertilization are two different things. I'm giving you a
chance to clarify. Which you are not taking.

> I did not give you a personal interpretation. What I quoted is from
> an official publication of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is the official
> interpretation for millions of people world-wide.

Why should anyone care what's the JW official interpretation or how many
people it's official for?

> As for further evidence, if one observes animals reproducing today,
> one can easily confirm points 1 and 2 from my theorem. That is the
> scientific method, to state a theory and then test it from
> observation.

It's a vacuous theory.

> My neighbor had a dog that was pregnant. It had puppies. Another
> neighbor had a cat that was pregnant. It had kittens.

> What have you observed?

I have observed that you are presenting the ridiculous strawman of
evolution, that we expect dogs to give birth to cats. Speciation is a
gradual process, not a one-generation leap. I have observed that dogs
and cats share a common ancestor, based on their physical
characteristics, their DNA sequences, and the fossil record. I have
observed that reproductive isolation can arise between two populations
of the same species (that's what speciation is). I have observed that
while one generation of a species is not a different species from its
parents, it is at least different, and that generational differences,
continued long enough, can result in quite large changes to the population.

Finally, I have observed that you tend not to answer direct questions,
for example all the questions in the just preceding post that you quoted
above.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I had said:
Here is my logical statement which will answer your question, and to facilitate understanding I will add another, #2. I

will call it Kaplan's Theorem of Kind.

Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
1) If life-forms are cross-fertile, then they are of the same kind.
2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.

###

To which you reply:

Fertility and fertilization are two different things. I'm giving you a
chance to clarify. Which you are not taking.

GK:
Since I used the word cross-fertile in my latest revision of my theorum, that has no bearing on your ability to attempt to

dismantle it, does it?

> I did not give you a personal interpretation. What I quoted is from
> an official publication of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is the official
> interpretation for millions of people world-wide.


Why should anyone care what's the JW official interpretation or how many
people it's official for?

GK:
I am merely correctly your misconception that it is my own personal interpretation.

> As for further evidence, if one observes animals reproducing today,
> one can easily confirm points 1 and 2 from my theorem. That is the
> scientific method, to state a theory and then test it from
> observation.


It's a vacuous theory.

GK:
That is your opinion, and when you decide to tackle it directly, I will be glad to consider any well-reasoned and

thoughtful observations.

> My neighbor had a dog that was pregnant. It had puppies. Another
> neighbor had a cat that was pregnant. It had kittens.

> What have you observed?


I have observed that you are presenting the ridiculous strawman of
evolution, that we expect dogs to give birth to cats. Speciation is a
gradual process, not a one-generation leap. I have observed that dogs
and cats share a common ancestor, based on their physical
characteristics, their DNA sequences, and the fossil record. I have
observed that reproductive isolation can arise between two populations
of the same species (that's what speciation is). I have observed that
while one generation of a species is not a different species from its
parents, it is at least different, and that generational differences,
continued long enough, can result in quite large changes to the population.

GK:
I have not discussed Evolution or Speciation. I offer my observation as proof that my theorem is verified from direct observation. So at this point, my theory on "kinds" is confirmed.

You said:
Finally, I have observed that you tend not to answer direct questions, for example all the questions in the just preceding post that you quoted above.

We can discuss evolution later if you like. How long did it take you to personally observe a new species coming into existence? What species is this?

GK:
I am not the bible answer man. I am not here to answer any and all questions. I have answered your assertion that there is no such thing as biblical kinds. So far I have proved this is incorrect. My theorem is very much intact.

[Glenn]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2p0npbtn9turp5pdj...@4ax.com...

> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
> creation?
>

Define evolution.

[Glenn]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:11777bcb-3381-4d5c...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 9:32:31 AM UTC-4, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
>

snip

>>
>> Even as late as 2001: The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)
>
> I don't see it as a problem that there are multiple definitions of species. It's just a word.

So is grumph.

>Words are used differently in different contexts. As long as you know what the definition in use in a given conversation having multiple >definitions is not a problem at all. Things are not changed by the names we call them.
>

Things?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

[Kalkidas]

On 7/29/2016 9:25 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
> creation?
>

> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
> perhaps you missed it.)
>

How do you "use" a process that is inherently useless?

[georg....@gmail.com]

Evolutionary Biology is a soft science that does not study the origin of life.

[Oxyaena]

How does one "have" a brain that is inherently useless?

[jillery]

My hypothesis is Kaplin is Steadly under a different nym.

[jillery]

>You seem to be interested in fossils.

I mention fossils here because they are relevant to a comparison of
"species" and "kinds".

>Do you think that they prove something with regards to evolution?

You said elsewhere you aren't talking about evolution in this thread.
And I didn't mention evolution. So why do you mention evolution here
and now?

>I don't see that they prove anything with regards to "kinds."

That's the problem. So there's no sense repeating myself a third
time. I'll try a different approach.

You keep posting a cite to a Wikipedia article about the species
problem. What does your definition of "kinds" have to do with that
article?

[jillery]

>I will allow John to explain what he meant by fossils. One thing you should know about me, is that I don't permit others to supply me with the wording or arguments that I uses. Generally others who don't share the same opinion tend to try to force some sort of straw-man argument. That is what this "fossil" side-tracking appears to be.
>
>Based on a reasonable question from another poster, I have added a second statement to my theorem. If you would like to engage it, here it is:
>
>
>Kaplan's Theorem of Kind (a work in progress)
>1) If life-forms are cross-fertile, then they are of the same kind.
>2) If members of a kind reproduce, they will always produce the same kind.

From Leviticus 11:13-19New International Version (NIV)

13 These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat
because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black
vulture,
14 the red kite, any kind of black kite,
15 any kind of raven,
16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,
18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

Some people interpret the above as examples of biblical bird "kinds".
Which of these do you think would pass your test?

[Kalkidas]

On 8/3/2016 10:36 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 9:25 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>> creation?
>>>
>>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>>> perhaps you missed it.)
>>>
>>
>> How do you "use" a process that is inherently useless?
>>
> How does one "have" a brain that is inherently useless?

If you had bothered to think about the question, or asked me to
elaborate, you might not have reacted with such venom.

But that may be asking too much...

[John Harshman]

Depends. Are you retracting the "fertilization" claim?

>> I did not give you a personal interpretation. What I quoted is from
>> an official publication of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is the official
>> interpretation for millions of people world-wide.
>
> Why should anyone care what's the JW official interpretation or how many
> people it's official for?
>
> GK:
> I am merely correctly your misconception that it is my own personal interpretation.

OK. Now defend it.

>> As for further evidence, if one observes animals reproducing today,
>> one can easily confirm points 1 and 2 from my theorem. That is the
>> scientific method, to state a theory and then test it from
>> observation.
>
> It's a vacuous theory.
>
> GK:
> That is your opinion, and when you decide to tackle it directly, I will be glad to consider any well-reasoned and
> thoughtful observations.

I have already tackled it directly.

>> My neighbor had a dog that was pregnant. It had puppies. Another
>> neighbor had a cat that was pregnant. It had kittens.
>
>> What have you observed?
>
> I have observed that you are presenting the ridiculous strawman of
> evolution, that we expect dogs to give birth to cats. Speciation is a
> gradual process, not a one-generation leap. I have observed that dogs
> and cats share a common ancestor, based on their physical
> characteristics, their DNA sequences, and the fossil record. I have
> observed that reproductive isolation can arise between two populations
> of the same species (that's what speciation is). I have observed that
> while one generation of a species is not a different species from its
> parents, it is at least different, and that generational differences,
> continued long enough, can result in quite large changes to the population.
>
> GK:
> I have not discussed Evolution or Speciation. I offer my observation
> as proof that my theorem is verified from direct observation. So at
> this point, my theory on "kinds" is confirmed.

It isn't a theory on kinds until you confront the objections to it being
a theory on kinds. If speciation can happen within kinds, then your
cross-fertilization claim is not relevant to kinds. If you can present
no reason why hybridization between kinds should be impossible, then
your cross-fertilization claim is not relevant to kinds.

> You said: Finally, I have observed that you tend not to answer direct
> questions, for example all the questions in the just preceding post
> that you quoted above.

> We can discuss evolution later if you like. How long did it take
> you to personally observe a new species coming into existence? What
> species is this?

New species come into existence whether I personally observe them or
not. Most often speciation takes thousands of years. Occasionally it has
happened within human experience, usually by allopolyploidy. It never
involves dogs giving birth to cats.

> GK: I am not the bible answer man. I am not here to answer any and
> all questions. I have answered your assertion that there is no such
> thing as biblical kinds. So far I have proved this is incorrect.
> My theorem is very much intact.

You have proven nothing. Your theorem isn't a theorem, and I don't think
you know what the word means. You seem incapable of rational discussion.
I have explained why your ideas are not relevant to the existence of
kinds and why there are no kinds. Even if you won't answer questions,
try addressing that.

[Oxyaena]

There's nothing to think about the question, evolution has been observed
in action, and that's it. To say that it's useless is way off the mark,
evolution has been used in algorithms, medicine, agriculture, pesticides
etc.

Asking you to stop being an illiterate, know-nothing-know-it-all may be
too hard to ask...

[John Harshman]

Always possible.

[John Harshman]

I understand what some people might mean by it. I don't yet understand
what you mean by it, since you won't answer questions.

> As for your latest question, the combination of #1 and #2 answer it
> for you. Is there some reason why you suspect that your examples
> violate either? If so, please clearly state so and show me why.

> I don't see a problem.

You don't see a lot of things. So species with asymmetrical
hybridization fit your criterion. Fine. What about species in which
hybridization is very unlikely, say one in a thousand attempts? One in a
million? And must the embryo develop to adulthood?

Most important, what is your justification for your statement that
cross-fertile = same kind? Do you even have one?

[georg....@gmail.com]

No, I would not. Evidently neither did the translators of the Septuagint. It is true that in Genesis 1:11 in Hebrew the word MIN is generally rendered "kind" in our English versions (Greek GENOS). In Leviticus the same Hebrew word is rendered in the Greek LXX TA hOMOIA AUTWi (literally those like it).

Therefore the sense was not seen as the same by those who translated the Hebrew into the Greek. In English also there are different ways to view the word "kind" as well.


Good question.

[Glenn]

<georg....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ba71861e-50fa-4da0...@googlegroups.com...

> Evolutionary Biology is a soft science that does not study the origin of life.
>

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/06/28/is-the-origin-of-life-differen/
"The origin of life is part of evolutionary biology."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01
"within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest"

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Evolutionary_Biology/Early_History_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth#Chemical_Origins_of_Life
"The study of evolution is incomplete without first a consideration for the origin of life itself. Any theory of biology would be incomplete without a finite and irreducible origin."

[georg....@gmail.com]

Thanks, I just started researching the subject a few months ago and the evolutionists on carm said it did not. Perhaps they don't want to defend it.

[georg....@gmail.com]

No never heard of him, sorry.

[georg....@gmail.com]

You ask a lot of questions that are answered in my theorem. Are you ready to commit to an argument against my proposition?

[georg....@gmail.com]

You have a succinct position statement from me in two parts. Questions do not constitute a counter argument. When you make one, I will address it. This will be good practice for when you get into high school.

[John Harshman]

On 8/3/16 1:28 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:
> You ask a lot of questions that are answered in my theorem. Are you ready to commit to an argument against my proposition?
>

It isn't a theorem. It doesn't answer my questions. I have made several
arguments against your proposition, all ignored.

In brief:

There are no kinds. If you tell me something you think is a kind, I'm
willing to present evidence that it's related by common descent to
something you think is a different kind.

Your test for kinds (cross-fertility) is unsupported by any argument.
Therefore there is no reason to believe that it's what you say it is,
i.e. that if kinds existed, cross-fertility between them would not
happen or lack of cross-fertility within them would not happen.

You claim that dogs give birth to dogs, not cats, can't be shown to be a
consequence of kinds existing. If kinds existed, dogs and cats might be
the same kind, and might have the bizarre mutations you postulate. You
have given no reason why not. On the other hand, if kinds don't exist,
i.e. according to mainstream biology, dogs would still give birth to
dogs, not cats.

Please name some kinds, so we have something to argue about. I refer to
a group all of whose members are related by common descent, and
unrelated to anything else. What are some groups of this sort?

[John Harshman]

On 8/3/16 1:37 PM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:

Questions are not counter-arguments. Questions are questions. Your
position statement was too succinct to be clear. I asked for
clarification. I'm limiting myself to very short sentences now. I hope
you will read them. I hope you will understand them. I hope you will
answer my questions. I don't expect any of those things to happen.

[Kalkidas]

On 8/3/2016 1:02 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 8/3/2016 10:36 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/2016 9:25 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>>>> creation?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>>>>> perhaps you missed it.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you "use" a process that is inherently useless?
>>>>
>>> How does one "have" a brain that is inherently useless?
>>
>> If you had bothered to think about the question, or asked me to
>> elaborate, you might not have reacted with such venom.
>>
>> But that may be asking too much...
>>
> There's nothing to think about the question, evolution has been observed
> in action, and that's it. To say that it's useless is way off the mark,

> evolution has been used in ahave much personal experiencelgorithms, medicine, agriculture, pesticides

> etc.
>
> Asking you to stop being an illiterate, know-nothing-know-it-all may be
> too hard to ask...

Missed the point again. How sad.

[Kalkidas]

On 7/29/2016 9:25 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
> creation?
>
> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
> perhaps you missed it.)
>

That's like asking why we can't use temperature to pound nails.

Evolution is not something that can be "used" to create anything.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/3/16 8:05 AM, georg....@gmail.com wrote:

> [re definition of "kind"]

> As for further evidence, if one observes animals reproducing today, one can easily confirm points 1 and 2 from my theorem. That is the scientific method, to state a theory and then test it from observation.
>

> My neighbor had a dog that was pregnant. It had puppies.
> Another neighbor had a cat that was pregnant. It had kittens.
>
> What have you observed?

I observed confirmation bias.

Look at the cases where X has offspring which do *not* fit within the
reproductive population of X, and get back to us.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Mark Isaak]

How, then, do you explain the fact that it has been used to create things?

[jillery]

That some committee of Greek-speaking Egyptian Hebrews translated the
same word from different parts of the Pentateuch in different ways is
a very weak argument.

I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject, but my
impression is, other than the Vulgate and its derivatives, most modern
Bible translations don't use the Septuagint as a final authority, but
instead rely on the original Hebrew where possible.

>Therefore the sense was not seen as the same by those who translated the Hebrew into the Greek. In English also there are different ways to view the word "kind" as well.

It's true that many words have different meanings, but that isn't a
relevant point here. Instead, the question is what do *you* mean by
biblical kinds?


>Good question.


Too bad you didn't answer the question I asked.

I'll try yet another question. How many different Biblical kinds are
there? Will you identify a list of them?

[georg....@gmail.com]

I do read Greek and can work my way laboriously through Hebrew. The translators of the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) was done by those who knew Hebrew natively. This is not a matter of a textual variant. One can use the LXX as a Hebrew/Greek Lexicon of sorts. It shows how the native Hebrew speakers interpreted those passages.

One thing about the LXX is that is that the translators evidently had some very old manuscripts of the Hebrew that are no longer extant. So one cannot dismiss the LXX out of hand. One must look at the textual variants.

As a result, the passages in Leviticus are not using the Hebrew MIN in the same way as did the Genesis account where the context was specifically a "kind" in the process of filling the earth with their descendants.

[jillery]

Apparently not. Is it your intent to avoid questions?

>I do read Greek and can work my way laboriously through Hebrew. The translators of the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint (LXX) was done by those who knew Hebrew natively. This is not a matter of a textual variant. One can use the LXX as a Hebrew/Greek Lexicon of sorts. It shows how the native Hebrew speakers interpreted those passages.
>
>One thing about the LXX is that is that the translators evidently had some very old manuscripts of the Hebrew that are no longer extant. So one cannot dismiss the LXX out of hand. One must look at the textual variants.
>
>As a result, the passages in Leviticus are not using the Hebrew MIN in the same way as did the Genesis account where the context was specifically a "kind" in the process of filling the earth with their descendants.

I respect your academic accomplishments. I question your application
of them.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:49:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2p0npbtn9turp5pdj...@4ax.com...

>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> creation?
>>

>Define evolution.

I'm sure you have been given the definition of evolution many times
but anyway, as defined in talk origins, it is a process that results
in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

A more precise definition is "any change in the frequency of alleles
within a gene pool from one generation to the next." [Helena Curtis
and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974]

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 29 July 2016 10:27:45 UTC-6, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>> creation?
>>

>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>> perhaps you missed it.)
>

>Fair question, and I'm glad to address it from the viewpoint of the Biblical God.

Thank you for that.

>
>In an important sense, it appears God does use evolution as part of His strategy to help organisms survive.
>As we learned from Mendel, life forms come equipped with different alleles for many important traits.
>This allows for a wide range of variation in phenotype within any created kind, perhaps even to the extent
>that modern biologists categorize different members of a kind as different species.
>
>This range of variation within genotypes allows for adaptation of a kind to its environment by an automatic,
>apparently random process, which is one important definition of "evolution".

Sounds fine up to that point.

>
>As for the probable intended meaning of "evolution" in your question:
>Darwinian evolution, what many biologists refer to as simply "Darwinism", posits that, supposing God created the first life form, this organism was subject to random mutations, and any "end product" (such as
>humans) was not intended, but completely contingent.

That is not entirely correct, science has no view on whether
revolution is guided or not, all that science says is that evolution
does not *require* any external guidance or interference, that the
combination of natural selection and random mutations provide an
adequate explanation.

The fact that something is not *required* however, does not rule out
its existence. You might for example find it useful to consider the
ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his Omega Point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

I don't expect you to completely agree with that but it is one example
of an explanation that embraces both religion and the Theory of
Evolution, that offers a way in which evolution could be working
towards a particular end without the need forany direct interference
along the way by an intelligent designer.


>
>This theory is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the brief account of creation given in the Bible.
>The Bible seems clear that God specifically created the basic kinds of plant and animal life, rather than
>allowing them to develop randomly.

That assumes a literal reading of the Bible which, as I understand it,
is not the stance taken by either you or the Jehovah's Witnesses in
general, as indicated in the next part of your post:


>Mind you, He could have done this over a long period of time, and it appears form the Bible narrative that
>this was done in different stages, or creative "days", each of which may have been an indefinite period of
>time.

So why do you think that the direct creation of "kinds" should be
taken literally but the six days of creation do not have to be taken
literally?

>So, in theory, this may have been, by definition, an "evolutionary" process; God could have used
>common core-elements across wide ranges of organisms, and this process could conceivably have been
>so finely-graded that one could assume at first estimate that one type "turned into" another.
>
>Whatever actual process God used to create the diversity in the biome, however, it appears to have been
>purposeful and deliberate, with God progressively moulding the biome for habitation by complex
>life forms and, finally, humans. This does not qualifying as Darwinian (random) evolution, because it is directed by an intelligent designer with an overall goal.
>
>At the very least, the Bible specifically states that God created humans separately, directly from the
>elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This precludes humans developing from any other life form.

Why do you discount, for example, the view taken by the Catholic
Church that man's*body* may be a result of evolution but his*soul*
comes directly from God?

[Kalkidas]

On 8/3/2016 7:20 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/3/16 2:25 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 9:25 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>> creation?
>>>
>>> (Ray, I asked you this back in March and you never answered it,
>>> perhaps you missed it.)
>>>
>>
>> That's like asking why we can't use temperature to pound nails.
>>
>> Evolution is not something that can be "used" to create anything.
>
> How, then, do you explain the fact that it has been used to create things?

It's like saying Art creates paintings, celestial mechanics creates
solar systems, or gambling creates wealth.

[Steady Eddie]

If you want an explanation of the Bible, ask Jehovah's Witnessess.

> >So, in theory, this may have been, by definition, an "evolutionary" process; God could have used
> >common core-elements across wide ranges of organisms, and this process could conceivably have been
> >so finely-graded that one could assume at first estimate that one type "turned into" another.
> >
> >Whatever actual process God used to create the diversity in the biome, however, it appears to have been
> >purposeful and deliberate, with God progressively moulding the biome for habitation by complex
> >life forms and, finally, humans. This does not qualifying as Darwinian (random) evolution, because it is directed by an intelligent designer with an overall goal.
> >
> >At the very least, the Bible specifically states that God created humans separately, directly from the
> >elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This precludes humans developing from any other life form.
>
> Why do you discount, for example, the view taken by the Catholic
> Church that man's*body* may be a result of evolution but his*soul*
> comes directly from God?

If you want an explanation of Catholicism, ask the Catholic church.

[georg....@gmail.com]

The Hebrew word for 'day' is YOM and in Genesis as in other parts of the bible it refers to a period of time, and not always a 24 hour period. That must come from context.

It is not a matter of being literal or metaphorical. The word is literally used in contexts where 24 days are not in view. In addition in each of the creative 'days' (ie time periods) there is a beginning and an end to the day, that is, except for the last one. Later in the New Testament there is reference to that day not yet having ended. So this is additional proof that the days are not 24 hour days.

[georg....@gmail.com]

I believe that definition is in flux. Some, now that epigenetics is being researched, are proposing that it is a change in the frequency of variations.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

That seems to be a roundabout way of admitting that the Bible is open
to interpretation. I don't have any objection to that but it means you
have to accept that insisting that God directly created a set of
"kinds" is based on a particular interpretation which in turn is
subject to the accuracy of translation.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

I'm not looking for an explanation of the Bible, I'm asking why do
*you* think that the direct creation of "kinds" should be taken

literally but the six days of creation do not have to be taken
literally?

>

>> >So, in theory, this may have been, by definition, an "evolutionary" process; God could have used
>> >common core-elements across wide ranges of organisms, and this process could conceivably have been
>> >so finely-graded that one could assume at first estimate that one type "turned into" another.
>> >
>> >Whatever actual process God used to create the diversity in the biome, however, it appears to have been
>> >purposeful and deliberate, with God progressively moulding the biome for habitation by complex
>> >life forms and, finally, humans. This does not qualifying as Darwinian (random) evolution, because it is directed by an intelligent designer with an overall goal.
>> >
>> >At the very least, the Bible specifically states that God created humans separately, directly from the
>> >elements of the earth (Genesis 2:7). This precludes humans developing from any other life form.
>>
>> Why do you discount, for example, the view taken by the Catholic
>> Church that man's*body* may be a result of evolution but his*soul*
>> comes directly from God?
>
>If you want an explanation of Catholicism, ask the Catholic church.

I'm not asking for an explanation of Catholicism, I'm asking what
*you* see wrong with their separation of the origin of the body and
the origin of the soul.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 06:34:44 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

No, it's not. Evolution is a process, and a process can be
used to effect change in the material processed. Art and
celestial mechanics are descriptive, and are not processes.
Gambling is indeed a process, but it doesn't "create
wealth"; it simply redistributes it.

HTH.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ji56qb9ij3klbro9s...@4ax.com...

That is the fact of evolution. The "process" involves the mechanism(s); the theories of evolution are also referred to as evolution.
Since you referred to evolution as a "method of creation", your use of evolution was ambiguous. Now it appears, besides
continuing to be rude, you are confused about or ignorant of what "evolution" can mean in different contexts, or want it both ways.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
"Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind."

The processes are (not "a" process), among other mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection.

I don't care to answer your silly question, but perhaps you would like to answer to how God could have used random mutation and natural selection as part of His method of creation?

If you need help with the definitions of those or other processes, let me know.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:40:47 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ji56qb9ij3klbro9s...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:49:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2p0npbtn9turp5pdj...@4ax.com...
>>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>>> creation?
>>>>
>>>Define evolution.
>>
>> I'm sure you have been given the definition of evolution many times
>> but anyway, as defined in talk origins, it is a process that results
>> in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
>>
>> A more precise definition is "any change in the frequency of alleles
>> within a gene pool from one generation to the next." [Helena Curtis
>> and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974]
>>
>That is the fact of evolution. The "process" involves the mechanism(s); the theories of evolution are also referred to as evolution.

You asked for the definition of evolution and you got it. If you
wanted a definition of the *process* of evolution, you should have
asked for that. Mind you, as you seem to already know the definition
of the specific aspect of evolution you were thinking about, one
wonders why you [posed the question at all.

>Since you referred to evolution as a "method of creation", your use of evolution was ambiguous.

Nothing ambiguous about it, I was seeking clarity on a basic
principle; the specific method that God might have used only comes
into play if you agree in principle that He could have used *some*
method of evolution.

> Now it appears, besides
>continuing to be rude, you are confused about or ignorant of what "evolution" can mean in different contexts, or want it both ways.
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>"Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind."
>
>The processes are (not "a" process), among other mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection.
>
>I don't care to answer your silly question,

Then why butt into the thread?

> but perhaps you would like to answer to how God could have used random mutation and natural selection as part of His method of creation?

As I believe God to be all powerful, I believe He could have used it
in any way He chose. Do you think God's powers are limited in some
way?

>
>If you need help with the definitions of those or other processes, let me know.

Nope, no help at all needed here, thank you anyway.

[Glenn]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4e67qbllr158gcr9e...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:40:47 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ji56qb9ij3klbro9s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:49:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2p0npbtn9turp5pdj...@4ax.com...
>>>>> Why could God not have used evolution as part of His method of
>>>>> creation?
>>>>>
>>>>Define evolution.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have been given the definition of evolution many times
>>> but anyway, as defined in talk origins, it is a process that results
>>> in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
>>>
>>> A more precise definition is "any change in the frequency of alleles
>>> within a gene pool from one generation to the next." [Helena Curtis
>>> and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974]
>>>
>>That is the fact of evolution. The "process" involves the mechanism(s); the theories of evolution are also referred to as evolution.
>
> You asked for the definition of evolution and you got it. If you
> wanted a definition of the *process* of evolution, you should have
> asked for that. Mind you, as you seem to already know the definition
> of the specific aspect of evolution you were thinking about, one
> wonders why you [posed the question at all.

No, even one that pretends to ignore my stated reason wouldn't wonder.

>
>
>>Since you referred to evolution as a "method of creation", your use of evolution was ambiguous.
>
> Nothing ambiguous about it, I was seeking clarity on a basic
> principle; the specific method that God might have used only comes
> into play if you agree in principle that He could have used *some*
> method of evolution.

Your "basic principle" is dependent upon your definition of terms. You're trying to jump out of hot water.

>
>> Now it appears, besides
>>continuing to be rude, you are confused about or ignorant of what "evolution" can mean in different contexts, or want it both ways.
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>>"Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind."
>>
>>The processes are (not "a" process), among other mechanisms, random mutation and natural selection.
>>
>>I don't care to answer your silly question,
>
> Then why butt into the thread?

"Butt in"? I simply asked you to define a term you used.

>
>> but perhaps you would like to answer to how God could have used random mutation and natural selection as part of His method of creation?
>
> As I believe God to be all powerful, I believe He could have used it
> in any way He chose. Do you think God's powers are limited in some
> way?
>

LOL!

>>
>>If you need help with the definitions of those or other processes, let me know.
>
> Nope, no help at all needed here, thank you anyway.
>

I agree, you need no help to worsen your image.