Duck dicks

[jillery]

The following is a link to another Aron Ra video. It's not a lecture
but an interview, and sans head-banger music intro.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwF_WjIXiQ>

The interviewee calls himself PhilosoShy, who claims he raises various
poultry on a farm. According to him, domestic poultry completely
destroy the YEC interpretation of Biblical kinds. Specifically:

Muscovy ducks and Mallard ducks are incapable of successfully
interbreeding. Instead, as with horses and donkeys, the cross results
in infertile offspring.

OTOH, according to PhilosoShy, all[1] ducks, geese and swans are among
the very few birds whose males have penises. And not just
run-of-the-mill penises, but oddly-shaped and exceptionally large
penises. For example, the Argentine Lake duck, with 14-inch body
size, has a 17-inch penis, the longest of all vertebrates in
proportion to its body size. Take that, Long Dong Silver.

OTGH, excepting ratites, all other birds do without penises. Instead,
both sexes make do with an all-purpose vent called a cloaca. When they
want to make babies, they rub their cloacae together. In polite
company, this is called a "cloacal kiss". Being a farmer, PhilosoShy
calls it "bumping uglies". Aron Ra being Aron Ra, opined it's like a
Mormon version of Safe Dating.

So, either Creationists can stick with defining "kind" as equivalent
to biological species, which makes Muscovys and Mallards different
"kinds", or Creationists have to bump "kind" to a higher taxonomic
level, which makes penis-wielding and cloaca-wielding birds the same
"kind".

[1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
online sources agree with PhilosoShy.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[John Harshman]

On 1/8/22 1:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> The following is a link to another Aron Ra video. It's not a lecture
> but an interview, and sans head-banger music intro.
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwF_WjIXiQ>
>
> The interviewee calls himself PhilosoShy, who claims he raises various
> poultry on a farm. According to him, domestic poultry completely
> destroy the YEC interpretation of Biblical kinds. Specifically:
>
> Muscovy ducks and Mallard ducks are incapable of successfully
> interbreeding. Instead, as with horses and donkeys, the cross results
> in infertile offspring.
>
> OTOH, according to PhilosoShy, all[1] ducks, geese and swans are among
> the very few birds whose males have penises. And not just
> run-of-the-mill penises, but oddly-shaped and exceptionally large
> penises. For example, the Argentine Lake duck, with 14-inch body
> size, has a 17-inch penis, the longest of all vertebrates in
> proportion to its body size. Take that, Long Dong Silver.

That part is true. But I don't know what it has to do with "kinds".

McCracken K.G. The 20-cm spiny penis of the Argentine Lake Duck (Oxyura
vittata). Auk 2000; 117:820-825.

> OTGH, excepting ratites, all other birds do without penises.

Almost true. All paleognaths have them, not just ratites. Also,
galliforms have rudimentary penises.

> Instead,
> both sexes make do with an all-purpose vent called a cloaca. When they
> want to make babies, they rub their cloacae together. In polite
> company, this is called a "cloacal kiss". Being a farmer, PhilosoShy
> calls it "bumping uglies". Aron Ra being Aron Ra, opined it's like a
> Mormon version of Safe Dating.
>
> So, either Creationists can stick with defining "kind" as equivalent
> to biological species, which makes Muscovys and Mallards different
> "kinds", or Creationists have to bump "kind" to a higher taxonomic
> level, which makes penis-wielding and cloaca-wielding birds the same
> "kind".

Not true. There's an intermediate possibility. For example, anseriforms
could be one kind. So no need to mix penisy and non-penisy birds. The
point doesn't seem to be there.

> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.

The other sources are correct.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 21:30:52 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 1/8/22 1:33 PM, jillery wrote:
>> The following is a link to another Aron Ra video. It's not a lecture
>> but an interview, and sans head-banger music intro.
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwF_WjIXiQ>
>>
>> The interviewee calls himself PhilosoShy, who claims he raises various
>> poultry on a farm. According to him, domestic poultry completely
>> destroy the YEC interpretation of Biblical kinds. Specifically:
>>
>> Muscovy ducks and Mallard ducks are incapable of successfully
>> interbreeding. Instead, as with horses and donkeys, the cross results
>> in infertile offspring.
>>
>> OTOH, according to PhilosoShy, all[1] ducks, geese and swans are among
>> the very few birds whose males have penises. And not just
>> run-of-the-mill penises, but oddly-shaped and exceptionally large
>> penises. For example, the Argentine Lake duck, with 14-inch body
>> size, has a 17-inch penis, the longest of all vertebrates in
>> proportion to its body size. Take that, Long Dong Silver.
>
>That part is true. But I don't know what it has to do with "kinds".
>
>McCracken K.G. The 20-cm spiny penis of the Argentine Lake Duck (Oxyura
>vittata). Auk 2000; 117:820-825.
>
>> OTGH, excepting ratites, all other birds do without penises.
>
>Almost true. All paleognaths have them, not just ratites. Also,
>galliforms have rudimentary penises.

IIUC with the arguable exception of tinamous, paleognaths are ratites
and vice versa. As for galliformes, just how rudimentary are their
penises, mating-wise?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeognathae>

>> Instead,
>> both sexes make do with an all-purpose vent called a cloaca. When they
>> want to make babies, they rub their cloacae together. In polite
>> company, this is called a "cloacal kiss". Being a farmer, PhilosoShy
>> calls it "bumping uglies". Aron Ra being Aron Ra, opined it's like a
>> Mormon version of Safe Dating.
>>
>> So, either Creationists can stick with defining "kind" as equivalent
>> to biological species, which makes Muscovys and Mallards different
>> "kinds", or Creationists have to bump "kind" to a higher taxonomic
>> level, which makes penis-wielding and cloaca-wielding birds the same
>> "kind".
>
>Not true. There's an intermediate possibility. For example, anseriforms
>could be one kind. So no need to mix penisy and non-penisy birds. The
>point doesn't seem to be there.

IIUC anseriformes is an Order which consists of only three Families,
one of which is Anhimidae, which consists of three non-penisy screamer
species. If so, your specific suggestion still has a problem.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anseriformes>

Also, if you allow Biblical kind=taxonomic Order, the Biblical concept
of "after their kind" goes out the window. IIUC there is no taxonomic
Order whose member species are capable of reproducing with all other
member species, either directly or indirectly.

>> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
>> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.
>
>The other sources are correct.

Clearly my "understand" in IIUC is based on Wikipedia, whose
ornithological veracity appears to be lacking.

The larger question is whether its reasonable to consider the idea of
Biblical kinds as similar to taxonomic ranks higher than species. Ken
Ham is a vocal proponent of this idea, explicitly saying Biblical kind
is similar to taxonomic Family:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_IKwj3K9o>

The above shows Ken Ham makes this suggestion in order to make less
implausible his literal interpretation of the Biblical Flood and
Noah's Ark, along with his claim that adaptations within kinds isn't
evolution. Ham argues Noah needed only 1000-1400 different animal
kinds on the Ark.

Put aside for the moment the problem of how all those animals got to
the Ark. Or got back from the Ark. Instead, consider how those 1400
Family representatives somehow hyper-adapted in just a few thousand
years since the Flood, into not only the millions of extant species,
but also the 20k extant Families that Ham says can't have adapted *or*
evolved. And how that necessary hyper-adaptation suddenly stopped in
the last 100 years.

If you watch the video above, you will see one of the word games Ham
uses to fool his choir. He repeatedly conflates different dog breeds,
which everybody acknowledges, with different Families, which Ham
asserts must have been Created.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 1/8/22 1:33 PM, jillery wrote:
> > The following is a link to another Aron Ra video. It's not a lecture
> > but an interview, and sans head-banger music intro.
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwF_WjIXiQ>
> >
> > The interviewee calls himself PhilosoShy, who claims he raises various
> > poultry on a farm. According to him, domestic poultry completely
> > destroy the YEC interpretation of Biblical kinds. Specifically:
> >
> > Muscovy ducks and Mallard ducks are incapable of successfully
> > interbreeding. Instead, as with horses and donkeys, the cross results
> > in infertile offspring.
> >
> > OTOH, according to PhilosoShy, all[1] ducks, geese and swans are among
> > the very few birds whose males have penises. And not just
> > run-of-the-mill penises, but oddly-shaped and exceptionally large
> > penises. For example, the Argentine Lake duck, with 14-inch body
> > size, has a 17-inch penis, the longest of all vertebrates in
> > proportion to its body size. Take that, Long Dong Silver.
> That part is true. But I don't know what it has to do with "kinds".

This is my problem with this sort of "anti-creationist" argument.

Apparently, the form is that feature X can be found in this clade.
I guess X in this case is birds where males have penises. And in some
way this is supposed to mean that creationist "Kind theory" must then
assert that all those with feature X must be the same Kind.

I don't get it. There isn't enough coherence in this whole business of
separately created according to their kind for me to usefully extrapolate
what people do or should mean by it.

I get that we sometimes see certain individuals trying to connect "species"
to "kinds" using the biological species definition of inter-fertile populations
(whatever phrasing I should be using, be 'kind'). Others try to compensate
for various hybridization cases, Tigons and Ligors, not-always sterile
hybrids, ring species, etc. to alter "Kinds" to be broader like Cat kind and
Dog kind.

But there are no clear rules. So looking at some feature X and making claims
about what Creationists must be thinking is rather stupid. Facts not in evidence.

And of course, why feature X? What about feature Y or feature Z which provide
different criteria for inclusion/exclusion? Not that I want to denigrate the significance
of penises but elevating them to use against creationists just isn't my thing.

[John Harshman]

Not rudimentary at all, to my knowledge. It's the galliforms that have
rudimentary ones. And yes, all extant paleognaths are ratites, with the
exception of tinamous. Of course, there are more species of tinamous
than there are of ratites.

>>> Instead,
>>> both sexes make do with an all-purpose vent called a cloaca. When they
>>> want to make babies, they rub their cloacae together. In polite
>>> company, this is called a "cloacal kiss". Being a farmer, PhilosoShy
>>> calls it "bumping uglies". Aron Ra being Aron Ra, opined it's like a
>>> Mormon version of Safe Dating.
>>>
>>> So, either Creationists can stick with defining "kind" as equivalent
>>> to biological species, which makes Muscovys and Mallards different
>>> "kinds", or Creationists have to bump "kind" to a higher taxonomic
>>> level, which makes penis-wielding and cloaca-wielding birds the same
>>> "kind".
>>
>> Not true. There's an intermediate possibility. For example, anseriforms
>> could be one kind. So no need to mix penisy and non-penisy birds. The
>> point doesn't seem to be there.
>
>
> IIUC anseriformes is an Order which consists of only three Families,
> one of which is Anhimidae, which consists of three non-penisy screamer
> species. If so, your specific suggestion still has a problem.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anseriformes>

Didn't know that, but still no problem. Just make Anatidae a kind. This
is still not a problem for creationists. Mind you, they have other problems.

> Also, if you allow Biblical kind=taxonomic Order, the Biblical concept
> of "after their kind" goes out the window. IIUC there is no taxonomic
> Order whose member species are capable of reproducing with all other
> member species, either directly or indirectly.

I don't know of any creationist who makes that a requirement for kinds,
though some make it an indicator, but only a positive one.

>>> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
>>> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.
>>
>> The other sources are correct.
>
> Clearly my "understand" in IIUC is based on Wikipedia, whose
> ornithological veracity appears to be lacking.
>
> The larger question is whether its reasonable to consider the idea of
> Biblical kinds as similar to taxonomic ranks higher than species. Ken
> Ham is a vocal proponent of this idea, explicitly saying Biblical kind
> is similar to taxonomic Family:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_IKwj3K9o>

Many creationists put the kind at family or even sub-order, but all that
is merely approximate, and you can't hold them to it for particular
cases. They all claim either Homo or Homo sapiens as a kind, even though
it's only part of Hominidae.

> The above shows Ken Ham makes this suggestion in order to make less
> implausible his literal interpretation of the Biblical Flood and
> Noah's Ark, along with his claim that adaptations within kinds isn't
> evolution. Ham argues Noah needed only 1000-1400 different animal
> kinds on the Ark.
>
> Put aside for the moment the problem of how all those animals got to
> the Ark. Or got back from the Ark. Instead, consider how those 1400
> Family representatives somehow hyper-adapted in just a few thousand
> years since the Flood, into not only the millions of extant species,
> but also the 20k extant Families that Ham says can't have adapted *or*
> evolved. And how that necessary hyper-adaptation suddenly stopped in
> the last 100 years.

Last 3 or 4 thousand years, more likely. It supposedly ended around the
time writing was invented.

> If you watch the video above, you will see one of the word games Ham
> uses to fool his choir. He repeatedly conflates different dog breeds,
> which everybody acknowledges, with different Families, which Ham
> asserts must have been Created.

I won't be watching any Ken Ham videos; thank you all the same.

[John Harshman]

On 1/9/22 1:13 PM, jillery wrote:

On the question of screamer dongs: I find that they do have them.
Wikipedia is wrong about this too. According to Montgomerie R. and
Briskie J. Anatomy and evolution of copulatory structures. In: Jamieson
B.G.M. editor. Reproductive biology and phylogeny of birds. Enfield, NH,
Science Publishers, Inc., 2007. p. 1-35. It doesn't say much, in fact
this is all it says, but it's enough: "The phallus of screamers has
never been studied but looks superficially like that of the Mallard (R.
M. unpublished data)."

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 17:23:55 -0800, John Harshman

That's what I asked... "As for galliformes..." Pay attention.

>And yes, all extant paleognaths are ratites, with the
>exception of tinamous. Of course, there are more species of tinamous
>than there are of ratites.
>
>>>> Instead,
>>>> both sexes make do with an all-purpose vent called a cloaca. When they
>>>> want to make babies, they rub their cloacae together. In polite
>>>> company, this is called a "cloacal kiss". Being a farmer, PhilosoShy
>>>> calls it "bumping uglies". Aron Ra being Aron Ra, opined it's like a
>>>> Mormon version of Safe Dating.
>>>>
>>>> So, either Creationists can stick with defining "kind" as equivalent
>>>> to biological species, which makes Muscovys and Mallards different
>>>> "kinds", or Creationists have to bump "kind" to a higher taxonomic
>>>> level, which makes penis-wielding and cloaca-wielding birds the same
>>>> "kind".
>>>
>>> Not true. There's an intermediate possibility. For example, anseriforms
>>> could be one kind. So no need to mix penisy and non-penisy birds. The
>>> point doesn't seem to be there.
>>
>>
>> IIUC anseriformes is an Order which consists of only three Families,
>> one of which is Anhimidae, which consists of three non-penisy screamer
>> species. If so, your specific suggestion still has a problem.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anseriformes>
>
>Didn't know that, but still no problem. Just make Anatidae a kind. This
>is still not a problem for creationists. Mind you, they have other problems.

As I noted below, making such a diverse Family as Anatidae a kind
would throw out the entire concept of "after their kind".

>> Also, if you allow Biblical kind=taxonomic Order, the Biblical concept
>> of "after their kind" goes out the window. IIUC there is no taxonomic
>> Order whose member species are capable of reproducing with all other
>> member species, either directly or indirectly.
>
>I don't know of any creationist who makes that a requirement for kinds,
>though some make it an indicator, but only a positive one.

Ken Ham says that explicitly in the video I cited, which is one reason
why I cited it. As do all the Creationists I know and know of. The
phrase itself is from the Bible. It's the basis of their claim that
kinds can only beget more of their kind.

>>>> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
>>>> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.
>>>
>>> The other sources are correct.
>>
>> Clearly my "understand" in IIUC is based on Wikipedia, whose
>> ornithological veracity appears to be lacking.
>>
>> The larger question is whether its reasonable to consider the idea of
>> Biblical kinds as similar to taxonomic ranks higher than species. Ken
>> Ham is a vocal proponent of this idea, explicitly saying Biblical kind
>> is similar to taxonomic Family:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_IKwj3K9o>
>
>Many creationists put the kind at family or even sub-order, but all that
>is merely approximate, and you can't hold them to it for particular
>cases. They all claim either Homo or Homo sapiens as a kind, even though
>it's only part of Hominidae.

The point here is *not* that Creationists classify all animals the
same as scientists. Clearly they don't. Instead, the point *is* that
Creationists who make that claim are playing word games, using
"kind=Family" when they speak about Noah's Ark, and "kind=Species"
when they speak about humans.

>> The above shows Ken Ham makes this suggestion in order to make less
>> implausible his literal interpretation of the Biblical Flood and
>> Noah's Ark, along with his claim that adaptations within kinds isn't
>> evolution. Ham argues Noah needed only 1000-1400 different animal
>> kinds on the Ark.
>>
>> Put aside for the moment the problem of how all those animals got to
>> the Ark. Or got back from the Ark. Instead, consider how those 1400
>> Family representatives somehow hyper-adapted in just a few thousand
>> years since the Flood, into not only the millions of extant species,
>> but also the 20k extant Families that Ham says can't have adapted *or*
>> evolved. And how that necessary hyper-adaptation suddenly stopped in
>> the last 100 years.
>
>Last 3 or 4 thousand years, more likely. It supposedly ended around the
>time writing was invented.

The last 3 or 4 thousand years would include almost all the time since
the Flood, which is supposed to have happened around 2348 BC, which is
*after* writing was invented. It's been only in the last 100 years or
so that we documented the tremendous diversity of life on Earth.

>> If you watch the video above, you will see one of the word games Ham
>> uses to fool his choir. He repeatedly conflates different dog breeds,
>> which everybody acknowledges, with different Families, which Ham
>> asserts must have been Created.
>
>I won't be watching any Ken Ham videos; thank you all the same.

So where do you get your knowledge of these "many creationists" you
keep mentioning? Feel free to cite anything which supports your
understanding and/or refutes mine.

[jillery]

What you describe above is a strawman. It's the Creationists who
claim they recognize kinds on sight. As Kent Hovind likes to say,
"even a first-grader can tell the difference between a dog and a cat."

That "kind theory" is incoherent is because the people who invoke it
change what they mean by "kind" as it suits their narrative.

>I don't get it. There isn't enough coherence in this whole business of
>separately created according to their kind for me to usefully extrapolate
>what people do or should mean by it.
>
>I get that we sometimes see certain individuals trying to connect "species"
>to "kinds" using the biological species definition of inter-fertile populations
>(whatever phrasing I should be using, be 'kind'). Others try to compensate
>for various hybridization cases, Tigons and Ligors, not-always sterile
>hybrids, ring species, etc. to alter "Kinds" to be broader like Cat kind and
>Dog kind.
>
>But there are no clear rules. So looking at some feature X and making claims
>about what Creationists must be thinking is rather stupid. Facts not in evidence.
>
>And of course, why feature X? What about feature Y or feature Z which provide
>different criteria for inclusion/exclusion? Not that I want to denigrate the significance
>of penises but elevating them to use against creationists just isn't my thing.

Are you on speaking terms with any Creationists who assume Created
kinds? If so, ask them how they know which species belongs to what
kind. Based on my experience, if they answer you at all, they will
identify some characteristic feature(s) of that kind.

The larger point that you might consider is, instead of playing word
games with "kinds", Creationists could just as easily recognize that
all life on Earth represents variations of the original Created kind,
the first cell.

[Lawyer Daggett]

The question is, whose strawman? I see the strawman being built as
claiming that creations must think ABC based on your (or Aaron Ra's, or ...)
consideration of feature X (bird phalluses). You're not citing an argument
Ken Ham made about bird phalluses and Kinds, you're claiming to know
what his argument must be. Who is erecting the strawman?

I'm not claiming that creationist claims about Kinds make any sense.
I'm saying that they make so little sense that you can't really justify creating
these strawmen because the rules just aren't clear.

[John Harshman]

Oh. As far as I know, they're not functional.

That certainly depends on what "after their kind" means, which is by no
means clear. To most creationists it just means that there's no
evolution of new "kinds". So if Anatidae is a kind, it means that no
duck every turns into a non-duck. Or to put it another way, it means
nothing at all.

>>> Also, if you allow Biblical kind=taxonomic Order, the Biblical concept
>>> of "after their kind" goes out the window. IIUC there is no taxonomic
>>> Order whose member species are capable of reproducing with all other
>>> member species, either directly or indirectly.
>>
>> I don't know of any creationist who makes that a requirement for kinds,
>> though some make it an indicator, but only a positive one.
>
> Ken Ham says that explicitly in the video I cited, which is one reason
> why I cited it. As do all the Creationists I know and know of. The
> phrase itself is from the Bible. It's the basis of their claim that
> kinds can only beget more of their kind.

He says what explicitly, exactly? Does he say that kinds must be freely
interbreeding, or does he say that interbreeding is evidence of the same
kind? Those are different.

>>>>> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
>>>>> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.
>>>>
>>>> The other sources are correct.
>>>
>>> Clearly my "understand" in IIUC is based on Wikipedia, whose
>>> ornithological veracity appears to be lacking.
>>>
>>> The larger question is whether its reasonable to consider the idea of
>>> Biblical kinds as similar to taxonomic ranks higher than species. Ken
>>> Ham is a vocal proponent of this idea, explicitly saying Biblical kind
>>> is similar to taxonomic Family:
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_IKwj3K9o>
>>
>> Many creationists put the kind at family or even sub-order, but all that
>> is merely approximate, and you can't hold them to it for particular
>> cases. They all claim either Homo or Homo sapiens as a kind, even though
>> it's only part of Hominidae.
>
> The point here is *not* that Creationists classify all animals the
> same as scientists. Clearly they don't. Instead, the point *is* that
> Creationists who make that claim are playing word games, using
> "kind=Family" when they speak about Noah's Ark, and "kind=Species"
> when they speak about humans.

That's not a word game, exactly. Since "kind" has no operational
definition, they are free to make them whatever they like. Consistency
is not a requirement.

>>> The above shows Ken Ham makes this suggestion in order to make less
>>> implausible his literal interpretation of the Biblical Flood and
>>> Noah's Ark, along with his claim that adaptations within kinds isn't
>>> evolution. Ham argues Noah needed only 1000-1400 different animal
>>> kinds on the Ark.
>>>
>>> Put aside for the moment the problem of how all those animals got to
>>> the Ark. Or got back from the Ark. Instead, consider how those 1400
>>> Family representatives somehow hyper-adapted in just a few thousand
>>> years since the Flood, into not only the millions of extant species,
>>> but also the 20k extant Families that Ham says can't have adapted *or*
>>> evolved. And how that necessary hyper-adaptation suddenly stopped in
>>> the last 100 years.
>>
>> Last 3 or 4 thousand years, more likely. It supposedly ended around the
>> time writing was invented.
>
> The last 3 or 4 thousand years would include almost all the time since
> the Flood, which is supposed to have happened around 2348 BC, which is
> *after* writing was invented. It's been only in the last 100 years or
> so that we documented the tremendous diversity of life on Earth.

You should check out other models of the flood, like that of Kurt Wise.
They make it fit by having the K/T boundary being the end of the flood,
with the Paleocene about 10 years long, and other epochs being
progressively longer until the Pleistocene is a few hundred years.
Evolution (well, they don't call it that) progressively slows down until
it stops entirely around the time of Abraham, when the time scale also
settles down.

>>> If you watch the video above, you will see one of the word games Ham
>>> uses to fool his choir. He repeatedly conflates different dog breeds,
>>> which everybody acknowledges, with different Families, which Ham
>>> asserts must have been Created.
>>
>> I won't be watching any Ken Ham videos; thank you all the same.
>
> So where do you get your knowledge of these "many creationists" you
> keep mentioning? Feel free to cite anything which supports your
> understanding and/or refutes mine.

It isn't quite clear what your understanding is. But for one
perspective, try this:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/

[jillery]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 06:15:26 -0800, John Harshman

Thank you. So galliformes functionally do without penises.

Not nothing. An irony here is that it also means common descent
within kinds. So the fundamental difference between Kind Creationists
and evolutionists is only with the number of Created Kinds. This is a
point I mentioned previously

>>>> Also, if you allow Biblical kind=taxonomic Order, the Biblical concept
>>>> of "after their kind" goes out the window. IIUC there is no taxonomic
>>>> Order whose member species are capable of reproducing with all other
>>>> member species, either directly or indirectly.
>>>
>>> I don't know of any creationist who makes that a requirement for kinds,
>>> though some make it an indicator, but only a positive one.
>>
>> Ken Ham says that explicitly in the video I cited, which is one reason
>> why I cited it. As do all the Creationists I know and know of. The
>> phrase itself is from the Bible. It's the basis of their claim that
>> kinds can only beget more of their kind.
>
>He says what explicitly, exactly? Does he say that kinds must be freely
>interbreeding, or does he say that interbreeding is evidence of the same
>kind? Those are different.

You would know if you listened to the cited video.

>>>>>> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
>>>>>> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other sources are correct.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly my "understand" in IIUC is based on Wikipedia, whose
>>>> ornithological veracity appears to be lacking.
>>>>
>>>> The larger question is whether its reasonable to consider the idea of
>>>> Biblical kinds as similar to taxonomic ranks higher than species. Ken
>>>> Ham is a vocal proponent of this idea, explicitly saying Biblical kind
>>>> is similar to taxonomic Family:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_IKwj3K9o>
>>>
>>> Many creationists put the kind at family or even sub-order, but all that
>>> is merely approximate, and you can't hold them to it for particular
>>> cases. They all claim either Homo or Homo sapiens as a kind, even though
>>> it's only part of Hominidae.
>>
>> The point here is *not* that Creationists classify all animals the
>> same as scientists. Clearly they don't. Instead, the point *is* that
>> Creationists who make that claim are playing word games, using
>> "kind=Family" when they speak about Noah's Ark, and "kind=Species"
>> when they speak about humans.
>
>That's not a word game, exactly. Since "kind" has no operational
>definition, they are free to make them whatever they like. Consistency
>is not a requirement.

Humpty-Dumptyesque definitions are word games IMO and YMMV.

Not sure how compressing all geologic history into 6000 years helps
your point.

>>>> If you watch the video above, you will see one of the word games Ham
>>>> uses to fool his choir. He repeatedly conflates different dog breeds,
>>>> which everybody acknowledges, with different Families, which Ham
>>>> asserts must have been Created.
>>>
>>> I won't be watching any Ken Ham videos; thank you all the same.
>>
>> So where do you get your knowledge of these "many creationists" you
>> keep mentioning? Feel free to cite anything which supports your
>> understanding and/or refutes mine.
>
>It isn't quite clear what your understanding is.

Back atcha. And yet you object to my understanding anyway.

>But for one perspective, try this:
>
>http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/

Ok, I read it. Feel free to quote what you think supports your claim

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 23:36:57 -0800 (PST), Lawyer Daggett

And I'm not claiming you're claiming... I'm saying those Creationists
who invoke Created kinds are willfully incoherent. The argument above
against kinds illustrates how those Creationists break their own
"rules", and so is *not* a strawman.

Once again, the particular feature is *not* the point. If PhilosoShy
had raised ostrich, he might have mentioned their lack of a keeled
sternum. Instead, the point *is* that Creationists explicitly
identify kinds similar to how taxonomists identify species, by
identifying particular inherited feature(s). The difference is,
Creationists do this selectively as it suits them.

As analogy, those same Creationists claim the surviving family of Noah
could have repopulated the Earth, because exponential growth. The
trouble is, applying exponential growth to their own timeline
necessarily means there was at most a few dozen people in the world
for Nimrod to build his Tower of Babel, and at most a few hundred
people in the world for Pharaoh to enslave to build his pyramids.
Creationists don't say this, or even admit this, but it's still a
consequence of their asserted "rule". Pointing out how Creationists
fail to follow their own lines of reasoning is a logical
counterargument.

>> >I don't get it. There isn't enough coherence in this whole business of
>> >separately created according to their kind for me to usefully extrapolate
>> >what people do or should mean by it.
>> >
>> >I get that we sometimes see certain individuals trying to connect "species"
>> >to "kinds" using the biological species definition of inter-fertile populations
>> >(whatever phrasing I should be using, be 'kind'). Others try to compensate
>> >for various hybridization cases, Tigons and Ligors, not-always sterile
>> >hybrids, ring species, etc. to alter "Kinds" to be broader like Cat kind and
>> >Dog kind.
>> >
>> >But there are no clear rules. So looking at some feature X and making claims
>> >about what Creationists must be thinking is rather stupid. Facts not in evidence.
>> >
>> >And of course, why feature X? What about feature Y or feature Z which provide
>> >different criteria for inclusion/exclusion? Not that I want to denigrate the significance
>> >of penises but elevating them to use against creationists just isn't my thing.
>> Are you on speaking terms with any Creationists who assume Created
>> kinds? If so, ask them how they know which species belongs to what
>> kind. Based on my experience, if they answer you at all, they will
>> identify some characteristic feature(s) of that kind.

You didn't respond directly to the above. To show that what I say is
factually correct, the following link is to an essay which lists a
variety of kinds, all of which the author identifies by what she says
are characteristic features of each kind:

<https://answersresearchjournal.org/mammalian-ark-kinds/>

My understanding is those features are cherrypicked, in that some
specified features are shared by species outside that kind, while
other features not specified are shared by species within that kind.
For example, Opossums are a separate kind from all other marsupials,
and impala and hartebeest are separate kinds from all other antelopes.

[John Harshman]

Most creationists freely admit this.

>>>>> Also, if you allow Biblical kind=taxonomic Order, the Biblical concept
>>>>> of "after their kind" goes out the window. IIUC there is no taxonomic
>>>>> Order whose member species are capable of reproducing with all other
>>>>> member species, either directly or indirectly.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know of any creationist who makes that a requirement for kinds,
>>>> though some make it an indicator, but only a positive one.
>>>
>>> Ken Ham says that explicitly in the video I cited, which is one reason
>>> why I cited it. As do all the Creationists I know and know of. The
>>> phrase itself is from the Bible. It's the basis of their claim that
>>> kinds can only beget more of their kind.
>>
>> He says what explicitly, exactly? Does he say that kinds must be freely
>> interbreeding, or does he say that interbreeding is evidence of the same
>> kind? Those are different.
>
>
> You would know if you listened to the cited video.

Or if you told me, which might be less unpleasant, certainly for me.

>>>>>>> [1] Wikipedia says only some ducks and swans have penises, but other
>>>>>>> online sources agree with PhilosoShy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other sources are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly my "understand" in IIUC is based on Wikipedia, whose
>>>>> ornithological veracity appears to be lacking.
>>>>>
>>>>> The larger question is whether its reasonable to consider the idea of
>>>>> Biblical kinds as similar to taxonomic ranks higher than species. Ken
>>>>> Ham is a vocal proponent of this idea, explicitly saying Biblical kind
>>>>> is similar to taxonomic Family:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw_IKwj3K9o>
>>>>
>>>> Many creationists put the kind at family or even sub-order, but all that
>>>> is merely approximate, and you can't hold them to it for particular
>>>> cases. They all claim either Homo or Homo sapiens as a kind, even though
>>>> it's only part of Hominidae.
>>>
>>> The point here is *not* that Creationists classify all animals the
>>> same as scientists. Clearly they don't. Instead, the point *is* that
>>> Creationists who make that claim are playing word games, using
>>> "kind=Family" when they speak about Noah's Ark, and "kind=Species"
>>> when they speak about humans.
>>
>> That's not a word game, exactly. Since "kind" has no operational
>> definition, they are free to make them whatever they like. Consistency
>> is not a requirement.
>
> Humpty-Dumptyesque definitions are word games IMO and YMMV.

But the definition of "kind" is quite clear. It's the criteria for
recognizing them that are problematic.

It's a digression.

>>>>> If you watch the video above, you will see one of the word games Ham
>>>>> uses to fool his choir. He repeatedly conflates different dog breeds,
>>>>> which everybody acknowledges, with different Families, which Ham
>>>>> asserts must have been Created.
>>>>
>>>> I won't be watching any Ken Ham videos; thank you all the same.
>>>
>>> So where do you get your knowledge of these "many creationists" you
>>> keep mentioning? Feel free to cite anything which supports your
>>> understanding and/or refutes mine.
>>
>> It isn't quite clear what your understanding is.
>
> Back atcha. And yet you object to my understanding anyway.
>
>
>> But for one perspective, try this:
>>
>> http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/baraminology-of-the-flood/
>
>
> Ok, I read it. Feel free to quote what you think supports your claim
> and/or refutes mine.

That's an example of the "many creationists" I keep mentioning. It's not
just Kurt Wise but a fairly extensive community of "baraminologists".
You're becoming increasingly testy, and maybe you could dial it back.

[jillery]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:11:23 -0800, John Harshman

And that's your signal, to blame me for your failure to discuss a
topic reasonably or intelligently. Not sure why you even bother.

[John Harshman]

Perhaps dial it back a little more.

[jillery]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:46:44 -0800, John Harshman

You first.