John Harshman's question -- again.
zoe_althrop
John, you repeated the following question:
>"Once again: what's a kind to you?
A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
its own kind.
>Are they separately created or not?"
prototypes were created separately, with the inherent ability to vary
to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred. But
this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
chromosome number from one kind of life form to another. These
chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
interbreed. (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
on the rule.)
Why would chromosomal equality be evidence for separate creation?
Because the only way for chromosome counts to be the same for all
members within a kind is for such counts to be arbitrarily put in
place. Why? Because random combinations rule out consistency, and
chromosomal equality in interbreeding life forms is a consistency.
Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
plants), the result is infertility or death. The chances of one set
of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
today give rise to the following observations:
-bacterial life forms.
-fungal life forms.
-Plant life forms.
-Water life forms.
-Winged life forms.
-land life forms.
-human life forms.
There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
groups of life forms.
If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
further input than just the above observation?
----
zoe
Pithecanthropus erectus
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ee79631...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> Trying to get back on course.
>
> John, you repeated the following question:
>
> >"Once again: what's a kind to you?
>
> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
> its own kind.
>
> >Are they separately created or not?"
>
> prototypes were created separately, with the inherent ability to vary
> to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred. But
> this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
> chromosome number from one kind of life form to another. These
> chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
> since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
> interbreed. (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
> to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
> on the rule.)
An exception doesn't build a theory, instead it is a falsification if
properly understood.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/03
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
> Trying to get back on course.
>
> John, you repeated the following question:
>
>>"Once again: what's a kind to you?
>
> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
descended from a common ancestor, separately created from the common
ancestors of other groups. But this definition is quite different. Why?
> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
> its own kind.
Why should this be the case, since you have previously agreed that
reproductive isolation can evolve? Therefore either your "kinds" don't
have to be separately created, or ability to interbreed is not required
for two populations to be of the same kind. I should also point out that
a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
form them.
Are you also claiming that members of separate kinds can't interbreed?
If so, what do you mean by interbreeding? Ability to have fertile
offspring? Live offspring? Formation of a one-celled zygote?
>>Are they separately created or not?"
>
> prototypes were created separately, with the inherent ability to vary
> to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred. But
> this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
> chromosome number from one kind of life form to another.
Are you claiming that all members of the same kind must have the same
chromosome number, and that all reasonably similar organisms with the
same chromosome number must belong to the same kind?
> These
> chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
> since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
> interbreed.
Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
having the previous condition is not affected.
> (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
> to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
> on the rule.)
If the exceptions are as widespread as they are, you should at least be
nervous. And shouldn't such a clearcut system as having separate
creations be without exceptions anyway? I certainly wouldn't expect
earth organisms to be able to interbreed with any organism from another
planet, and from your point of view different kinds amount to the same
sort of thing.
> Why would chromosomal equality be evidence for separate creation?
> Because the only way for chromosome counts to be the same for all
> members within a kind is for such counts to be arbitrarily put in
> place. Why? Because random combinations rule out consistency, and
> chromosomal equality in interbreeding life forms is a consistency.
This makes no sense at all. Chromosome counts change over time, but
slowly. We expect members of the same species to usually have the same
chromosome number for just that reason, and nothing more. You will have
to present a reason why this is a unique expectation of separate creation.
> Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
> non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
> plants), the result is infertility or death.
Hardly anything here is true. There are many polyploid animals.
Translocation does not change chromosome count, though it can prevent
interbreeding. Non-disjunction is one possible cause of polyploidy, not
a separate class of event.
> The chances of one set
> of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
> another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
> organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
> offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
> upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
chromosomal mutations coming into contact. But many chromosomal
mutations do not prevent interbreeding, and anyway this has absolutely
nothing to do with allelic mutations.
> And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
> sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
> Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
> alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
The alternative you have not considered is that you have no idea what
you are talking about. Which turns out to be the correct alternative in
this case.
> Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
>
> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
> today give rise to the following observations:
>
> -bacterial life forms.
> -fungal life forms.
> -Plant life forms.
> -Water life forms.
> -Winged life forms.
> -land life forms.
> -human life forms.
Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
do with kinds?
> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
> groups of life forms.
>
> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
> above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
> them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
> further input than just the above observation?
If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
all, so the point is moot.
zoe_althrop
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>zoe_althrop wrote:
snip>
>> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
>> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
>> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
>
>
>You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
>descended from a common ancestor,
what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
that group?
>separately created from the common
>ancestors of other groups.
the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
Did you see it?
> But this definition is quite different. Why?
it is NOT different. Just phrased differently. Do try to be
flexible, John.
>> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
>> its own kind.
>
>
>Why should this be the case, since you have previously agreed that
>reproductive isolation can evolve?
when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
point to common descent. Geographical isolation allows local
environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
artificial barriers between same-kinds -- barriers that would melt
away if geographic isolation were removed.
>Therefore either your "kinds" don't
>have to be separately created, or ability to interbreed is not required
>for two populations to be of the same kind.
it's not so cut and dried. All variables have to be taken into
account before the conclusion can be drawn that ability to interbreed
is not required for two populations to be of the same kind.
> I should also point out that
>a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
>form them.
I am not talking about asexual species at the moment.
>Are you also claiming that members of separate kinds can't interbreed?
they may be able to interbreed, but are not fertile.
>If so, what do you mean by interbreeding? Ability to have fertile
>offspring?
yes. How else would life be carried on?
> Live offspring?
yes.
> Formation of a one-celled zygote?
explain.
>
>>>Are they separately created or not?"
>>
>> prototypes were created separately, with the inherent ability to vary
>> to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred. But
>> this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
>> chromosome number from one kind of life form to another.
>
>
>Are you claiming that all members of the same kind must have the same
>chromosome number, and that all reasonably similar organisms with the
>same chromosome number must belong to the same kind?
as a general rule, yes. The exceptions will actually prove the rule.
>> These
>> chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
>> since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
>> interbreed.
>
>
>Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
>able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
>splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
>chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
>having the previous condition is not affected.
examples?
>
>> (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
>> to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
>> on the rule.)
>
>
>If the exceptions are as widespread as they are, you should at least be
>nervous.
a few plants being the exception is not widespread, imo.
>And shouldn't such a clearcut system as having separate
>creations be without exceptions anyway?
only from a dull mind that has no ability to be creative. A master
artist might paint all his trees varying shades of green, so that it
becomes a rule that trees are known to be green, but out of pure
whimsy or desire for change, a tree might be painted with red leaves
or lilac tones. Do these exceptions refute independent creation?
>I certainly wouldn't expect
>earth organisms to be able to interbreed with any organism from another
>planet, and from your point of view different kinds amount to the same
>sort of thing.
only because you're not understanding me.
>> Why would chromosomal equality be evidence for separate creation?
>> Because the only way for chromosome counts to be the same for all
>> members within a kind is for such counts to be arbitrarily put in
>> place. Why? Because random combinations rule out consistency, and
>> chromosomal equality in interbreeding life forms is a consistency.
>
>
>This makes no sense at all. Chromosome counts change over time, but
>slowly. We expect members of the same species to usually have the same
>chromosome number for just that reason, and nothing more. You will have
>to present a reason why this is a unique expectation of separate creation.
I already did.
>> Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
>> non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
>> plants), the result is infertility or death.
>
>
>Hardly anything here is true. There are many polyploid animals.
>Translocation does not change chromosome count, though it can prevent
>interbreeding. Non-disjunction is one possible cause of polyploidy, not
>a separate class of event.
thanks for the correction, but this does not change my point, which is
that chromosomal change leads to death or infertility, as a rule.
>> The chances of one set
>> of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
>> another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
>> organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
>> offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
>> upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
>
>
>None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
>chromosomal mutations coming into contact.
if at least this is true, it blows evolutionary theory out of the
water.
>But many chromosomal
>mutations do not prevent interbreeding, and anyway this has absolutely
>nothing to do with allelic mutations.
chromosomal COUNTS prevent interbreeding, for the most part. I'm
talking COUNTS that change due to mutations and whatever other causes
are there.
>> And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
>> sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
>> Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
>> alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
>
>
>The alternative you have not considered is that you have no idea what
>you are talking about. Which turns out to be the correct alternative in
>this case.
funeee. Then I guess our discussion is over?
>> Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
>>
>> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>> today give rise to the following observations:
>>
>> -bacterial life forms.
>> -fungal life forms.
>> -Plant life forms.
>> -Water life forms.
>> -Winged life forms.
>> -land life forms.
>> -human life forms.
>
>
>Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
>do with kinds?
these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
free of preconceptions.
>> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
>> groups of life forms.
>>
>> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
>> above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
>> them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
>> further input than just the above observation?
>
>
>If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
>all, so the point is moot.
poor answer. Oh, well...
----
zoe
AC
zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why should this be the case, since you have previously agreed that
>>reproductive isolation can evolve?
>
> when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
> point to common descent. Geographical isolation allows local
> environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
> artificial barriers between same-kinds -- barriers that would melt
> away if geographic isolation were removed.
This approaches sheer unadulterated nonsense. How can you write this and
even take yourself seriously? Is your worldview so weak and insubstantial
that it requires word candy of this degree?
--
Aaron Clausen
Frank Reichenbacher
>
> John, you repeated the following question:
>
> >"Once again: what's a kind to you?
>
> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
> its own kind.
This is a species.
Either Noah carried tens of thousands of "kinds/species" on his ark, or
kinds/species have evolved since the Flood. Which is it?
Frank
<snippage>
Frank Reichenbacher
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:fOacncxMmuB...@speakeasy.net...
Ummm, maybe you were the creationist nutcase that didn't literally interpret
the Noachian flood?
I forget.
Whatever.
In any event, either God individually created all species existing today, or
there were fewer species originally that evolved into myriad new species.
Which is it?
Frank
>
> Frank
>
>
> <snippage>
>
>
Esa Riihonen
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
[snip]
>>> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>>> today give rise to the following observations:
>>>
>>> -bacterial life forms.
>>> -fungal life forms.
>>> -Plant life forms.
>>> -Water life forms.
>>> -Winged life forms.
>>> -land life forms.
>>> -human life forms.
>>
>>
>>Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
>>do with kinds?
>
> these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
> free of preconceptions.
Free of preconceptions - really. I just want to know why your
classification is better than the one presented below? Or perhaps they
will eventually converge?
From (e.g.):
http://www.alamut.com/notebooks/c/classifying.html
- start quote -*
Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge
Borges attributes in his essay The Analytical Language of John Wilkins
(from 'Other Inquisitions: 1937-1952') the following taxonomy to an
ancient Chinese encyclopedia, the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent
Knowledge:
"On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into:
a. those that belong to the Emperor
b. embalmed ones
c. those that are trained
d. suckling pigs
e. mermaids
f. fabulous ones
g. stray dogs
h. those that are included in this classification
i. those that tremble as if they were mad
j. innumerable ones
k. those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush
l. others
m. those that have just broken a flower vase
n. those that resemble flies from a distance"
- end quote -
There is also some interesting things about 'Dyirbal Classification'.
Cheers,
EsaR
* inside the 'quoted quote' :) spelling of 'Emperor' corrected
Bjoern Feuerbacher
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in message news:<3ee7ddd5...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
> >> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
> >> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
> >
> >
> >You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
> >descended from a common ancestor,
>
> what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
> characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
> that group?
Well, that depends on what you mean exactly by "group" (a
reproductively isolated kind or what?) and what exactly you mean by
"the same characteristics". Surely you admit that offspring are
usually a bit different from their parents, so their characteristics
are not *exactly* the same. How much variation is allowed so that you
still say that they have the "same" characteristics?
> >separately created from the common
> >ancestors of other groups.
>
> the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
> Did you see it?
Yes. It made no sense.
> > But this definition is quite different. Why?
>
> it is NOT different. Just phrased differently. Do try to be
> flexible, John.
Zoe, how often do we need to tell you that in science, one needs to be
precise?
> >> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
> >> its own kind.
> >
> >
> >Why should this be the case, since you have previously agreed that
> >reproductive isolation can evolve?
>
> when all variables are considered,
What variables?
> reproductive isolation will not
> point to common descent.
No one claimed that reproductive isolation points to common descent,
so what on earth are you talking about?
> Geographical isolation allows local
> environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore,
How does this work?
And what about the evidence against this? For example, the famous
experiment that showed that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a
random mutation and not a reaction to the environment?
> creating
> artificial barriers between same-kinds
Why do you call these barriers "artificial"?
And do you now claim that even within a kind, not all members are
necessarily interfertile?
> -- barriers that would melt
> away if geographic isolation were removed.
Any evidence for this?
Zoe, you know that this is contradicted by ring species?
> >Therefore either your "kinds" don't
> >have to be separately created, or ability to interbreed is not required
> >for two populations to be of the same kind.
>
> it's not so cut and dried.
Why not?
> All variables have to be taken into account
What are these variables?
> before the conclusion can be drawn that ability to interbreed
> is not required for two populations to be of the same kind.
So, how does one determine if two populations belong to the same kind
or not?
> > I should also point out that
> >a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
> >form them.
>
> I am not talking about asexual species at the moment.
Why not? You were asked to give a general definition of "kind", not
one which only applies to sexual species.
[snip]
> >Are you claiming that all members of the same kind must have the same
> >chromosome number, and that all reasonably similar organisms with the
> >same chromosome number must belong to the same kind?
>
> as a general rule, yes. The exceptions will actually prove the rule.
Why?
> >> These
> >> chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
> >> since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
> >> interbreed.
> >
> >
> >Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
> >able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
> >splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
> >chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
> >having the previous condition is not affected.
>
> examples?
Try opening a text book on genetics someday.
> >> (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
> >> to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
> >> on the rule.)
> >
> >
> >If the exceptions are as widespread as they are, you should at least be
> >nervous.
>
> a few plants being the exception is not widespread, imo.
Zoe, there are not only a "few" plants. This is quite common.
> >And shouldn't such a clearcut system as having separate
> >creations be without exceptions anyway?
>
> only from a dull mind that has no ability to be creative. A master
> artist might paint all his trees varying shades of green, so that it
> becomes a rule that trees are known to be green, but out of pure
> whimsy or desire for change, a tree might be painted with red leaves
> or lilac tones. Do these exceptions refute independent creation?
What *would* refute independent creation?
> >I certainly wouldn't expect
> >earth organisms to be able to interbreed with any organism from another
> >planet, and from your point of view different kinds amount to the same
> >sort of thing.
>
> only because you're not understanding me.
No, only because you, like all creationists, refuse to set up a theory
of creation which would make definite predictions.
> >> Why would chromosomal equality be evidence for separate creation?
> >> Because the only way for chromosome counts to be the same for all
> >> members within a kind is for such counts to be arbitrarily put in
> >> place. Why? Because random combinations rule out consistency, and
> >> chromosomal equality in interbreeding life forms is a consistency.
> >
> >
> >This makes no sense at all. Chromosome counts change over time, but
> >slowly. We expect members of the same species to usually have the same
> >chromosome number for just that reason, and nothing more. You will have
> >to present a reason why this is a unique expectation of separate creation.
>
> I already did.
You "explained" why you think this is an expecation of creation - but
you didn't explain why this is a *unique* expectation of seperate
creation. John explained here why this is expected in evolution, too.
> >> Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
> >> non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
> >> plants), the result is infertility or death.
> >
> >
> >Hardly anything here is true. There are many polyploid animals.
> >Translocation does not change chromosome count, though it can prevent
> >interbreeding. Non-disjunction is one possible cause of polyploidy, not
> >a separate class of event.
>
> thanks for the correction, but this does not change my point, which is
> that chromosomal change leads to death or infertility, as a rule.
It often leads to death, but not always. So what's your point?
> >> The chances of one set
> >> of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
> >> another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
> >> organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
> >> offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
> >> upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
> >
> >
> >None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
> >chromosomal mutations coming into contact.
>
> if at least this is true, it blows evolutionary theory out of the
> water.
Why????? Zoe, are you sure that you understood what John said here?
> >But many chromosomal
> >mutations do not prevent interbreeding, and anyway this has absolutely
> >nothing to do with allelic mutations.
>
> chromosomal COUNTS prevent interbreeding, for the most part.
Right, for the *most* part. Not always. So what's your point again?
> I'm
> talking COUNTS that change due to mutations and whatever other causes
> are there.
And what's your problem with them?
> >> And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
> >> sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
> >> Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
> >> alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
> >
> >
> >The alternative you have not considered is that you have no idea what
> >you are talking about. Which turns out to be the correct alternative in
> >this case.
>
> funeee. Then I guess our discussion is over?
As always in discussions with you: why don't you go to the library and
try to learn at least the *basics* of the things you talk about?
> >> Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
> >>
> >> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
> >> today give rise to the following observations:
> >>
> >> -bacterial life forms.
> >> -fungal life forms.
> >> -Plant life forms.
> >> -Water life forms.
> >> -Winged life forms.
> >> -land life forms.
> >> -human life forms.
> >
> >
> >Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
> >do with kinds?
>
> these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
> free of preconceptions.
Zoe, a mind free of preconceptions wouldn't make an extra group for
humans.
Humans are obviously land life forms. Why don't you put them there?
Yes, humans have characteristics which are unique, which don't appear
in any other life form - but this is true for *any* other land life
form, too!!!
> >> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
> >> groups of life forms.
> >>
> >> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
> >> above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
> >> them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
> >> further input than just the above observation?
> >
> >
> >If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
> >all, so the point is moot.
>
> poor answer. Oh, well...
The answer makes perfect sense.
Bye,
Bjoern
Dave Oldridge
server.cfl.rr.com:
> Trying to get back on course.
>
> John, you repeated the following question:
>
>>"Once again: what's a kind to you?
>
> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
> its own kind.
Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the same, or
different, kinds?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Seppo Pietikainen
LOL!
I think the classification you presented beats Zoe's hands down :)
Seppo P.
mel turner
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>> A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
>>> characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
>>> those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
That doesn't require that the kinds be separate from other kinds, or
be separately created. Your definition would seem to let "different
kinds" evolve from common ancestors, with the origin of any new
"identifying characteristics". This isn't what creationists mean by
"created kinds".
>>You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
>>descended from a common ancestor,
>
>what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
>characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
>that group?
You err in addressing just the first half of the sentence, when
the critical bit is below.
>>separately created from the common
>>ancestors of other groups.
>
>the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>Did you see it?
Maybe it's not a reason. Where is it? Why should anyone conclude
separate creations for anything at all? That seems to be the
critical question here. [I looked and I don't see your reason
either. What is it?]
>> But this definition is quite different. Why?
>
>it is NOT different. Just phrased differently. Do try to be
>flexible, John.
Your definition above didn't contain the essential part about
"separately created from other kinds". Was that flexible?
>>> A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
>>> its own kind.
>>
>>Why should this be the case, since you have previously agreed that
>>reproductive isolation can evolve?
>
>when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
>point to common descent.
Non sequitur.
His valid point remains that the existence of reproductive isolation
now does not indicate separate creation and isn't evidence for lack
of common descent.
Geographical isolation allows local
>environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
>artificial barriers between same-kinds
Sorry, this is garbled nonsense.
>-- barriers that would melt
>away if geographic isolation were removed.
Wrong. We know that reproductive isolation can and does arise and
persists between sympatric populations.
>>Therefore either your "kinds" don't
>>have to be separately created, or ability to interbreed is not required
>>for two populations to be of the same kind.
>
>it's not so cut and dried. All variables have to be taken into
>account before the conclusion can be drawn that ability to interbreed
>is not required for two populations to be of the same kind.
What "variables"? That looks like doubletalk. The point remains, if
theinability to interbreed can and does arise during evolution, then
organisms that are now unable to interbreed can still be descendants
of a common ancestor. In other words, be in the same "kind" according
to the usual creationist definition.
>> I should also point out that
>>a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
>>form them.
>
>I am not talking about asexual species at the moment.
Don't they have "kinds" and "categories" as well?
>>Are you also claiming that members of separate kinds can't interbreed?
>
>they may be able to interbreed, but are not fertile.
Why not? By "are not fertile", do you mean that they produce viable
but sterile offspring, like [most] mules? What about the real-world
cases where fertility/infertility of offspring isn't a black-or-white
thing, but are a whole range of in-between situations? Cases where the
male hybrid offspring are sterile but the female hybrids can be
backcrossed to one of the parent species, for example? Cases where the
hybrid offspring are nearly always completely sterile, but the
occasional fertile ones have been known to occur [like in mules]?
Cases where the diploid hybrid is completely sterile, but chromosome
doubling produces a fully fertile allotetraploid [as in many plants]?
>>If so, what do you mean by interbreeding? Ability to have fertile
>>offspring?
>
>yes. How else would life be carried on?
The question is, what are the criteria for same-kindhood? If donkeys
and horses breed to form very healthy and strong, but sterile mules,
are they "interbreeding", or are they two separately created "kinds"?
If the latter, why? Since the ability to interbreed can be lost during
evolution from a common ancestor, the fact that any two species don't
interbreed won't be evidence against their common ancestry.
>> Live offspring?
>
>yes.
>
>> Formation of a one-celled zygote?
>
>explain.
He means, is it enough that the sperm fertilizes the egg cell, whether
or not it develops any further? Does that count as "interbreeding" and
does that make them the same kind?
>>>>Are they separately created or not?"
>>>
>>> prototypes were created separately,
Why think this?
with the inherent ability to vary
>>> to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred.
Why not real speciation?
But
>>> this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
>>> chromosome number from one kind of life form to another.
Nonsense. Why think there are any boundaries? Why should chromosome
number differences have anything to do with it?
>>Are you claiming that all members of the same kind must have the same
>>chromosome number, and that all reasonably similar organisms with the
>>same chromosome number must belong to the same kind?
>
>as a general rule, yes. The exceptions will actually prove the rule.
"The exception proves the rule" is using an old sense of "prove" to
mean "test". There are plenty of clear exceptions that do indeed test
your thinking and thye prove you incorrect. Chromosome numbers do vary
widely within single "interbreeding" species. Some species have a
whole range of different chromosome numbers among their populations.
We know that chromosome numbers can and do change during evolution.
You're simply wrong.
>>> These
>>> chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
>>> since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
>>> interbreed.
Nope. Not true. And anyway, we understand how new changes in
chromosome numbers can arise, so even if it were true that they
prevent all interbreeding, the different numbers wouldn't mean that
two types of organisms didn't descend from a common ancestor.
>>Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
>>able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
>>splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
>>chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
>>having the previous condition is not affected.
>
>examples?
Many, in many different groups of organisms.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an9hf9%24qp2%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9blegp%24ng6%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d903d1b1j.fsf%40s3i.com
etc.
>>> (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
>>> to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
>>> on the rule.)
Not just plants. Animals, including mammals.
>>If the exceptions are as widespread as they are, you should at least be
>>nervous.
>
>a few plants being the exception is not widespread, imo.
Your opinion is based on ignorance of the facts. It's not
a "few plants", but many, many plants and many animals.
>>And shouldn't such a clearcut system as having separate
>>creations be without exceptions anyway?
>
>only from a dull mind that has no ability to be creative.
The point is, if any separately-created "kinds" exist at
all, why aren't they clear-cut? Why all the shades of gray
in-between "able to interbreed freely, with fully fertile
offspring" and "completely unable to hybridize" that do exist in the
real biological world?
A master
>artist might paint all his trees varying shades of green, so that it
>becomes a rule that trees are known to be green, but out of pure
>whimsy or desire for change, a tree might be painted with red leaves
>or lilac tones.
Huh?
>Do these exceptions refute independent creation?
So far, there's nothing to refute. There's no indication of
any "independent creations". Got any evidence for some?
>>I certainly wouldn't expect
>>earth organisms to be able to interbreed with any organism from another
>>planet, and from your point of view different kinds amount to the same
>>sort of thing.
>
>only because you're not understanding me.
If he isn't, can't you explain yourself better?
>>> Why would chromosomal equality be evidence for separate creation?
>>> Because the only way for chromosome counts to be the same for all
>>> members within a kind is for such counts to be arbitrarily put in
>>> place. Why? Because random combinations rule out consistency, and
>>> chromosomal equality in interbreeding life forms is a consistency.
>>
>>This makes no sense at all. Chromosome counts change over time, but
>>slowly. We expect members of the same species to usually have the same
>>chromosome number for just that reason, and nothing more. You will have
>>to present a reason why this is a unique expectation of separate creation.
>
>I already did.
And he's right. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Chromosome
numbers do change, and do vary within many single species. And on the
other hand, many pairs of reproductively-isolated related species [no
interbreeding] may still share a common chromosome number. Therefore,
differences in chromosome numbers tell you nothing about whether two
organisms are of a single "kind", or whether any separate "kinds" even
exist.
>>> Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
>>> non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
>>> plants), the result is infertility or death.
>>Hardly anything here is true. There are many polyploid animals.
>>Translocation does not change chromosome count,
Well, Robertsonian translocations can.
>though it can prevent
>>interbreeding. Non-disjunction is one possible cause of polyploidy, not
>>a separate class of event.
>
>thanks for the correction, but this does not change my point, which is
>that chromosomal change leads to death or infertility, as a rule.
And your point is still simply wrong. Chromosomal changes needn't
"lead to death or infertility, as a rule"
>>> The chances of one set
>>> of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
>>> another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
>>> organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
>>> offspring,
Why would you think that an individual with a chromosomal
difference has to find an identically changed mate to breed?
are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
>>> upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
>>None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
>>chromosomal mutations coming into contact.
>
>if at least this is true, it blows evolutionary theory out of the
>water.
It's not true, and it doesn't.
>>But many chromosomal
>>mutations do not prevent interbreeding, and anyway this has absolutely
>>nothing to do with allelic mutations.
>
>chromosomal COUNTS prevent interbreeding, for the most part.
Not so. Individuals with different chromosome numbers can and
do "interbreed", with fertile offspring.
I'm
>talking COUNTS that change due to mutations and whatever other causes
>are there.
Sorry, but you're just blathering about stuff you basically
don't understand.
>>> And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
>>> sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
>>> Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
>>> alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
>>
>>
>>The alternative you have not considered is that you have no idea what
>>you are talking about. Which turns out to be the correct alternative in
>>this case.
>
>funeee. Then I guess our discussion is over?
Funny, but accurate.
>>> Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
>>>
>>> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>>> today give rise to the following observations:
>>>
>>> -bacterial life forms.
>>> -fungal life forms.
>>> -Plant life forms.
>>> -Water life forms.
>>> -Winged life forms.
>>> -land life forms.
>>> -human life forms.
underground life forms
centipede life forms
kelp life forms
hairy-nosed wombat life forms
>>Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
>>do with kinds?
And are these really separate categories, or can one species belong
to two or to several of them? Some plants are "water life forms".
Penguins are "water life forms" with wings. Toads live both on land
and in water. Humans live on land. Bacteria abound in water and in
soil.
>these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation,
Nonsense. Why are these "obvious", any more than "red life forms"
and "round life forms" vs. "green life forms" and "long, skinny
life forms"?
>with a mind free of preconceptions.
That's a nice way of saying "utterly ignorant of biology"?
>>> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
>>> groups of life forms.
>>>
>>> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
>>> above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
>>> them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
>>> further input than just the above observation?
>>If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
>>all, so the point is moot.
>
>poor answer. Oh, well...
Why is it "poor"?
Do you really think an alien biologist would come up with the same
arbitrary "obvious" groups as yours, and not something completely
"hairy life forms", "edible life forms", "big & tall life forms" and
"multi-legged, compound-eyed life forms like me"...?
cheers
Geoff
news:Xns939869B10F63...@142.77.1.194...
> muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3ee79631.80409552@news-
> server.cfl.rr.com:
>
> > Trying to get back on course.
> >
> > John, you repeated the following question:
> >
> >>"Once again: what's a kind to you?
> >
> > A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
> > characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
> > those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
> > A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
> > its own kind.
>
> Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the same, or
> different, kinds?
Prediction: no.
Cyde Weys
Zoe, you never answered my question the first time. Here it is again:
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ee23f50....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> I've read the various comments made in the thread in which I am trying
> to have a discussion with John Harshman, so I will incorporate some of
> the suggestions from other posters while responding to John's post.
>
> My reply to John:
>
> "Here are the main categories under which "kinds" of life forms
> fall:
>
> 1. Plants
> 2. Water life forms.
> 3. Winged life forms.
> 4. Land animals
> 5. Humans."
It's obvious to any scientist that #5 belongs in the #4 category. There are
some animals that fit into multiple "kinds". What about a frog, or any other
amphibian, that spend equal amounts of time in water and on land? Do they
belong in #4 and in #2? What about a penguin, ostrich, emu, or kiwi? They have
wings but they can't fly, so they certainly belong in land animals ... so are
they in "kinds" #3 and #4? What about penguins - they live in the water too, so
shouldn't they be in "kinds" #'s 2-4? Your whole "kind" classification system
is arbitrary, rudimentary, confusing, and of no use to anyone but religious
zealots. Just stick to the normal scientific method of classification - you
know, Domain, Kingdom, Order, Class, Phylum, Family, Genus, Species, etc. (not
in order).
Laurie Rose
> "zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3ee79631...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> fall:
>>
>> 1. Plants
>> 2. Water life forms.
>> 3. Winged life forms.
>> 4. Land animals
>> 5. Humans."
>
confusing, and of no use to anyone but religious zealots.
Oh I don't know - it's a reasonable basis for a recipe book:
1) Salads
2) Seafood
3) Poultry
4) Meat
5) Long pig
--
Laurie R spam...@elessar.org.uk
Richard McBane
John Harshman wrote:
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
> >
> > The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
> > today give rise to the following observations:
> > -bacterial life forms.
> > -fungal life forms.
> > -Plant life forms.
> > -Water life forms.
> > -Winged life forms.
> > -land life forms.
> > -human life forms.
>
> Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
> do with kinds?
>
> > There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
> > groups of life forms.
> >
> > If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
> > above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
> > them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
> > further input than just the above observation?
>
> If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
> all, so the point is moot.
Is anyone really be surprised that Zoe started with this
classification? It's right out of Genesis.
Her original classification only included five forms. She added
bacterial and fungal forms only after people asked where bacteria and
fungi fit.
This is where Zoe got her water forms and winged forms. - "Gen 1, [20]
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven.
[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
And this is where she got her land form. - "[24] And God said, Let the
earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
Then there is her human form and why it is different than her land form.
- [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
And of course her plant form and why plants don't need to be devided
into land plant forms and water plant forms. - [29] And God said,
Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face
of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
So now we know what Zoe is using for her biology text book, let the
discussion go on.
--
Richard McBane
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>
> snip>
>
>>>A kind is any life form that reproduces its own identifying
>>>characteristics in its offspring, so that the offspring can reproduce
>>>those same characteristics in its own offspring on a repeating basis.
>>>
>>
>>You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
>>descended from a common ancestor,
>>
>
> what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
> characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
> that group?
It refers to heredity as far as I can tell. Heredity and common ancestry
are distinct and independent concepts.
>>separately created from the common
>>ancestors of other groups.
>
> the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
> Did you see it?
Probably. It's hard to tell with you. But reasons and definitions are
two quite different things.
>>But this definition is quite different. Why?
>
> it is NOT different. Just phrased differently. Do try to be
> flexible, John.
Do try to be sensible, Zoe. Precise language helps understanding. Waving
a word roughly in the direction you want doesn't.
>>>A kind is also recognized by its ability to interbreed with others of
>>>its own kind.
>>
>>Why should this be the case, since you have previously agreed that
>>reproductive isolation can evolve?
>
> when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
> point to common descent. Geographical isolation allows local
> environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
> artificial barriers between same-kinds -- barriers that would melt
> away if geographic isolation were removed.
I don't find any meaning here. There are plenty of similar species that
occupy the same area, and the reproductive isolation that has evolved in
the lab doesn't depend on geographic isolation for its effects. My point
remains: how can you use reproductive isolation as your criterion for
separate kinds, when it is known to evolve?
>>Therefore either your "kinds" don't
>>have to be separately created, or ability to interbreed is not required
>>for two populations to be of the same kind.
>
> it's not so cut and dried. All variables have to be taken into
> account before the conclusion can be drawn that ability to interbreed
> is not required for two populations to be of the same kind.
?
>>I should also point out that
>>a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
>>form them.
>
> I am not talking about asexual species at the moment.
My point is that you have to, because a fairly large proportion of all
kinds must be asexual. (Uncertainty because you haven't defined what
your kinds are.)
>>Are you also claiming that members of separate kinds can't interbreed?
>
> they may be able to interbreed, but are not fertile.
It's not clear what you mean by "fertile" here. But let's explore.
Ability to interbreed is not a sharp division but a continuum, with full
interfertility at one end and inability even to attempt mating at the
other end. My purpose in the questions below was to figure out where in
this continuum you wanted to put the artificial dividing line. Let's try
this again.
If two species can produce offspring but the offspring are sterile, are
they the same kind? What if the offspring are fertile but with reduced
viability? What if the offspring are healthy but are not attractive to
the opposite sex of either species, and thus are unlikely to find mates?
If two species can mate, and the sperm and egg combine to form a zygote,
but the embryo dies before maturity, are they the same kind?
If two species can produce offspring by artificial insemination, but in
the wild they never mate, even though they live in the same area and
encounter each other frequently, are they the same kind?
[snip previous attempt]
>>>>Are they separately created or not?"
>>>>
>>>prototypes were created separately, with the inherent ability to vary
>>>to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred. But
>>>this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
>>>chromosome number from one kind of life form to another.
>>
>>Are you claiming that all members of the same kind must have the same
>>chromosome number, and that all reasonably similar organisms with the
>>same chromosome number must belong to the same kind?
>
> as a general rule, yes. The exceptions will actually prove the rule.
How would exceptions prove a rule?
>>>These
>>>chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
>>>since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
>>>interbreed.
>>
>>Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
>>able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
>>splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
>>chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
>>having the previous condition is not affected.
>
> examples?
They are easy to find. Here's a very nice one I found with a quick
Google search: http://meiosis.bionet.nsc.ru/Chrgeo.htm
Here's a plant:
http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=118905
And even a prokaryote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9466259&dopt=Abstract
>>> (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
>>>to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
>>>on the rule.)
>>
>>If the exceptions are as widespread as they are, you should at least be
>>nervous.
>
> a few plants being the exception is not widespread, imo.
The common estimates of the number of plant species that are polyploid
run from 30 to 70%. Hardly a few. And of course the older the polyploidy
event, the harder it is to recognize polyploidy, since the paired
chromosomes diverge to the point where they are not recognizably the same.
>>And shouldn't such a clearcut system as having separate
>>creations be without exceptions anyway?
>
> only from a dull mind that has no ability to be creative. A master
> artist might paint all his trees varying shades of green, so that it
> becomes a rule that trees are known to be green, but out of pure
> whimsy or desire for change, a tree might be painted with red leaves
> or lilac tones. Do these exceptions refute independent creation?
What would refute independent creation?
>>I certainly wouldn't expect
>>earth organisms to be able to interbreed with any organism from another
>>planet, and from your point of view different kinds amount to the same
>>sort of thing.
>
> only because you're not understanding me.
Help me understand.
>>>Why would chromosomal equality be evidence for separate creation?
>>>Because the only way for chromosome counts to be the same for all
>>>members within a kind is for such counts to be arbitrarily put in
>>>place. Why? Because random combinations rule out consistency, and
>>>chromosomal equality in interbreeding life forms is a consistency.
>>
>>This makes no sense at all. Chromosome counts change over time, but
>>slowly. We expect members of the same species to usually have the same
>>chromosome number for just that reason, and nothing more. You will have
>>to present a reason why this is a unique expectation of separate creation.
>
> I already did.
No, you presented what appears to be a reason why you might expect this
from creation (although the reason makes no sense to me), but you have
not explained why you would fail to expect this from evolution.
>>>Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
>>>non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
>>>plants), the result is infertility or death.
>>
>>Hardly anything here is true. There are many polyploid animals.
>>Translocation does not change chromosome count, though it can prevent
>>interbreeding. Non-disjunction is one possible cause of polyploidy, not
>>a separate class of event.
>
> thanks for the correction, but this does not change my point, which is
> that chromosomal change leads to death or infertility, as a rule.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the nature of the
change. But it's not "as a rule". Your point does not exist.
>>> The chances of one set
>>>of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
>>>another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
>>>organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
>>>offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
>>>upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
>>
>>None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
>>chromosomal mutations coming into contact.
>
> if at least this is true, it blows evolutionary theory out of the
> water.
Why?
>>But many chromosomal
>>mutations do not prevent interbreeding, and anyway this has absolutely
>>nothing to do with allelic mutations.
>
> chromosomal COUNTS prevent interbreeding, for the most part. I'm
> talking COUNTS that change due to mutations and whatever other causes
> are there.
Different chromosome counts either prevent or do not prevent
interbreeding depending on their nature. For example, humans and chimps
differ by a metacentric fusion, which is a type of difference that
doesn't prevent interbreeding. See my first URL above. (However, we
don't know whether humans or chimps can interbreed. The experiment has
never been performed, and many other things besides difference in
chromosome number can prevent interbreeding.)
>>>And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
>>>sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
>>>Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
>>>alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
>>
>>The alternative you have not considered is that you have no idea what
>>you are talking about. Which turns out to be the correct alternative in
>>this case.
>
> funeee. Then I guess our discussion is over?
Up to you. As far as I can tell, not knowing what you are talking about
has never stopped you before. Witness the interminable is*chr*n threads.
>>>Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
>>>
>>>The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>>>today give rise to the following observations:
>>>
>>>-bacterial life forms.
>>>-fungal life forms.
>>>-Plant life forms.
>>>-Water life forms.
>>>-Winged life forms.
>>>-land life forms.
>>>-human life forms.
>>>
>>
>>Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
>>do with kinds?
>
> these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
> free of preconceptions.
Why those groupings rather than any other obvious groupings? Why not
this one:
Life forms with no legs. (including plants, snakes, "worms", protists, etc.)
Life forms with fins. (including fish, chaetognaths, whales, etc.)
Life forms with 2 legs. (including birds, humans, tyrannosars, etc.)
Life forms with 4 legs. (including cows, frogs, lizards, etc.)
Life forms with 5 legs. (many echinoderms)
Life forms with 6 legs. (insects)
Life forms with 8 legs. (arachnids)
Life forms with more than 8 legs. (various other arthropods)
Or any other logical division. I think you picked yours for one reason
only, that it matches a description of what was created on which day in
Genesis 1.
And what does this have to do with kinds?
>>>There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
>>>groups of life forms.
>>>
>>>If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
>>>above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
>>>them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
>>>further input than just the above observation?
>>
>>If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
>>all, so the point is moot.
>
> poor answer. Oh, well...
If it's a poor answer, you will be able to explain my misconception, and
also why an alien would notice your particular categories rather than
any other ones. Especially why an alien would immediately put humans
into a separate category from chimpanzees.
John Harshman
Richard McBane wrote:
I think most of us knew that already, but your quote has raised
interesting differences between Zoe and Genesis which I hadn't
previously noticed. Genesis divides the "beasts of the earth" from
"every thing that creepeth upon the earth", and also herbs from trees,
and also specifically mentions that these yield seed. So shouldn't
mammals be a separate category from other land animals? Shouldn't herbs
be separate from trees? And what about plants that don't have seeds?
They seem to be left out too.
Andy Groves
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
<snip>
> >> Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
> >>
> >> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
> >> today give rise to the following observations:
> >>
> >> -bacterial life forms.
> >> -fungal life forms.
> >> -Plant life forms.
> >> -Water life forms.
> >> -Winged life forms.
> >> -land life forms.
> >> -human life forms.
> >
> >
> >Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
> >do with kinds?
>
> these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
> free of preconceptions.
You are putting human life forms in a separate group from land life
forms, and this is "free of preconceptions"??? Don't make me laugh.
Andy
Florian
So, when the Bible talks about "serving God", does that mean-- oh, wait.
Thought I had a joke there for a moment, but they beat me to the
punchline.
--
odoratusque est Dominus odorem suavitatis
C. Thompson
> Trying to get back on course.
>
>
> Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
>
> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
> today give rise to the following observations:
>
> -bacterial life forms.
> -fungal life forms.
> -Plant life forms.
> -Water life forms.
> -Winged life forms.
> -land life forms.
> -human life forms.
>
> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
> groups of life forms.
>
> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
> above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
> them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
> further input than just the above observation?
>
> ----
> zoe
Hello Zoe,
We haven't conversed much, but I wanted to ask a couple questions about your
taxonomic system.
What is the difference between the fungal forms (fungal life form- is that
the cute lab assistant who DOES drink?) and the plant life forms, and why
aren't they a subcategory of the land life form?
Where does seaweed fit in? The plant life form, the bacterial life form, or
the water life form?
Are ostriches in the winged life form group, or the land life form group?
Ditto penguins, vis. the water life form group.
If there is a water life form group and a land life form group, why isn't
there an air life form group? Or is that the winged life forms? Why did you
alter your naming convention? You could have called it the "finned life
forms" etc.
Thanks!
Chris
Andrew Arensburger
> Oh I don't know - it's a reasonable basis for a recipe book:
> 1) Salads
> 2) Seafood
> 3) Poultry
> 4) Meat
> 5) Long pig
You'lll be wanting this, then:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880448823
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure.
Harlequin
news:bcan7l$7jn$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
> Laurie Rose <spam...@elessar.org.uk> wrote:
>> Oh I don't know - it's a reasonable basis for a recipe book:
>> 1) Salads
>> 2) Seafood
>> 3) Poultry
>> 4) Meat
>> 5) Long pig
>
> You'lll be wanting this, then:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880448823
Anyone want the recipe for Sweet & Sour Creten? ;-)
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Richard McBane
see Zoe claiming "these are obvious groupings, just from casual
observation, with a mind free of preconceptions."
> but your quote has raised
> interesting differences between Zoe and Genesis which I hadn't
> previously noticed. Genesis divides the "beasts of the earth" from
> "every thing that creepeth upon the earth", and also herbs from trees,
> and also specifically mentions that these yield seed. So shouldn't
> mammals be a separate category from other land animals? Shouldn't herbs
> be separate from trees? And what about plants that don't have seeds?
> They seem to be left out too.
Zoe said that this grouping was just the start. Perhaps next she will
divide land life forms into creepy ones and the beastly ones.
--
Richard McBane
John Drayton
Apparently you are allowed to have one preconception:
biblical creationism.
Funny also how the groupings that are "obvious ... just
from casual observation" have changed as soon as they were
subjected to even cursory scrutiny.
--
John Drayton
Cubist
[big ol' snip]
> these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
> free of preconceptions.
I believe you misspelled "with a mind that has always been 100%
locked in to a specific interpretation of the Bible, right from the
very beginning, and is not *not* *N*O*T* *E*V*E*R* going to budge from
its a priori position, not even by a tenth of a millimicron". If you
think I am in error, perhaps you could point out to me any post of
yours -- *any* post *whatsoever* -- in which, when faced with an
apparent conflict between [a] science and [b] whatever your specific
interpretation of the Bible says, you *didn't* cleave unto your
specific Biblical intepretation with an adhesive force like unto that
of a barnacle cleaving unto the hull of a ship?
Ketil Malde
> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
> today give rise to the following observations:
> -bacterial life forms.
> -fungal life forms.
> -Plant life forms.
> -Water life forms.
> -Winged life forms.
> -land life forms.
> -human life forms.
> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
> groups of life forms.
> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
> above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
> them?
Why are certain organisms from different groups so similar? E.g.
- bats are obviously winged life forms, but is more similar to certain
land life forms (no feathers, no eggs, lactate, etc)
- otoh, land life forms, like ostrich and kiwi, seem to be more similar to
winged life forms.
- we find six-legged exoskeletal life forms with lots of commonality in
both winged, water and land classes
Why are some organisms so hard to classify? E.g.
- penguins - are they land or water life forms?
- insects that at the larval stage is a water life form, and as an adult
is winged? (And is the pupae a land life form?)
> What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
> further input than just the above observation?
That the classification suggested is not a very good one?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
<snip>
>>> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>>> today give rise to the following observations:
>>>
>>> -bacterial life forms.
>>> -fungal life forms.
>>> -Plant life forms.
>>> -Water life forms.
>>> -Winged life forms.
>>> -land life forms.
>>> -human life forms.
>>
>>
>>Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
>>do with kinds?
>
>these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
>free of preconceptions.
ROFLMAO!
These are groupings that could _ONLY_ be generated by a mind obsessed
with one over-riding preconception.
<snip>
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote in
> news:bcan7l$7jn$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880448823
> Anyone want the recipe for Sweet & Sour Creten? ;-)
My favorite is the recipe for haggis, which suggests that you
use the piper. Or, if you're Scottish (and who else would eat
haggis?), you can use the philistine (there's one in every group) who
doesn't appreciate the sweet music o' the pipes.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Today's telepathic message is . Thank You.
zoe_althrop
<riih...@utu.fi.SPAMLOCK> wrote:
snip>
really, now, do you think if you had just landed on Planet Earth, you
would have categorized life in this fashion? I sincerely hope not,
for your sake.
Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
theory are about as "bright" as the above.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
snip>
>>>You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
>>>descended from a common ancestor,
>>
>>what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
>>characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
>>that group?
>
>You err in addressing just the first half of the sentence, when
>the critical bit is below.
>
>>>separately created from the common
>>>ancestors of other groups.
>>
>>the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>>Did you see it?
>
>Maybe it's not a reason. Where is it? Why should anyone conclude
>separate creations for anything at all? That seems to be the
>critical question here. [I looked and I don't see your reason
>either. What is it?]
the rule is that same chromosome counts are necessary for
interbreeding. As a RULE. Building a theory on the exceptions to a
rule is unscientific, to say the least.
Same chromosome counts do not occur consistently in random fashion.
This should be sufficient reason to consider separate creation.
<snip rest because I am pausing for lunch. Besides which, I really
should be responding to John Harshman, since this is supposed to be a
conversation between us.>
----
zoe
David Jensen
<3eeb5dc0....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
>
>snip>
>
>>>>You claimed to be using the same definition I do, to whit a group
>>>>descended from a common ancestor,
>>>
>>>what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
>>>characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
>>>that group?
>>
>>You err in addressing just the first half of the sentence, when
>>the critical bit is below.
>>
>>>>separately created from the common
>>>>ancestors of other groups.
>>>
>>>the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>>>Did you see it?
>>
>>Maybe it's not a reason. Where is it? Why should anyone conclude
>>separate creations for anything at all? That seems to be the
>>critical question here. [I looked and I don't see your reason
>>either. What is it?]
>
>the rule is that same chromosome counts are necessary for
>interbreeding.
That is not the rule, though it is generally the case.
>As a RULE. Building a theory on the exceptions to a
>rule is unscientific, to say the least.
But you try.
>Same chromosome counts do not occur consistently in random fashion.
>This should be sufficient reason to consider separate creation.
I've nominated this separately for a chez watt.
><snip rest because I am pausing for lunch. Besides which, I really
>should be responding to John Harshman, since this is supposed to be a
>conversation between us.>
Why not pause to understand science?
David Jensen
>Same chromosome counts do not occur consistently in random fashion.
Chez watt? I've tried to parse it. I really have.
Richard Uhrich
<*sigh*> Second.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
An unfortunate corollary of having a small minority knowing more and
more about less and less is a large majority knowing less and less about
more and more. --- Mike Gazzaniga, "The Mind's Past"
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
> Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
> theory are about as "bright" as the above.
Can you back that up with anything?
zoe_althrop
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
>> characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
>> that group?
>
>
>It refers to heredity as far as I can tell. Heredity and common ancestry
>are distinct and independent concepts.
you cannot have common ancestry without heredity. You're
compartmentalizing again.
>>>separately created from the common
>>>ancestors of other groups.
>>
>> the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>> Did you see it?
>
>
>Probably. It's hard to tell with you. But reasons and definitions are
>two quite different things.
the reason for concluding separate creation is because of the fact
that equality in chromosome counts for a species do not consistently
occur, certainly not in random fashion. Consistency and randomness are
exclusive terms. Go ahead, you can nominate this as a chezwatt, too
(thanks, David), but I mean exactly that.
Evolutionary theory floats (since there's no foundation) on a theory
of random allelic mutations being selected or deselected for through
natural selection to produce new species. In order for a newly
developed chromosone count to be passed on, the life form with this
new chromosome count would have to breed with a life form with a
similar new chromosome count. Random mutations cannot be counted on
to provide just such a mate.
There are far too many species that interbreed with equal chromosome
counts to attribute their development to chance random meetings.
Therefore, if not by chance, then by design, the life forms were
separately created sometime in the past.
snip>
>> when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
>> point to common descent. Geographical isolation allows local
>> environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
>> artificial barriers between same-kinds -- barriers that would melt
>> away if geographic isolation were removed.
>
>I don't find any meaning here. There are plenty of similar species that
>occupy the same area, and the reproductive isolation that has evolved in
>the lab doesn't depend on geographic isolation for its effects. My point
>remains: how can you use reproductive isolation as your criterion for
>separate kinds, when it is known to evolve?
what new species did reproductive isolation in the lab evolve? If you
are considering the fact that members of the same species no longer
interbreed, as evidence of speciation, then call me an evolutionist.
But I am betting that your reproductively isolated species remain
basically the same kind of life form. The reproductive isolation did
not cause one set of members of the species to be, say, fruitflies,
and another set of members of the species to be recognized now as
bats.
snip>
>>>I should also point out that
>>>a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
>>>form them.
>>
>> I am not talking about asexual species at the moment.
>
>
>My point is that you have to, because a fairly large proportion of all
>kinds must be asexual. (Uncertainty because you haven't defined what
>your kinds are.)
a "kind" is any life form that reproduces its own characteristics in
its offspring and is able to interbreed with life forms of its own
type or "kind."
What don't you understand about that definition?
>>>Are you also claiming that members of separate kinds can't interbreed?
>>
>> they may be able to interbreed, but are not fertile.
>
>
>It's not clear what you mean by "fertile" here. But let's explore.
>Ability to interbreed is not a sharp division but a continuum, with full
>interfertility at one end and inability even to attempt mating at the
>other end. My purpose in the questions below was to figure out where in
>this continuum you wanted to put the artificial dividing line. Let's try
>this again.
>
>If two species can produce offspring but the offspring are sterile, are
>they the same kind?
no.
> What if the offspring are fertile but with reduced
>viability?
not the same kind. They are being forced.
>What if the offspring are healthy but are not attractive to
>the opposite sex of either species, and thus are unlikely to find mates?
examples?
>If two species can mate, and the sperm and egg combine to form a zygote,
>but the embryo dies before maturity, are they the same kind?
depends on the reason for dying. Is it because of environmental
influences? Or is it because the species are of two different kinds
and therefore the zygote will not live?
>If two species can produce offspring by artificial insemination, but in
>the wild they never mate, even though they live in the same area and
>encounter each other frequently, are they the same kind?
not the same kind.
>[snip previous attempt]
>
>
>>>>>Are they separately created or not?"
>>>>>
>>>>prototypes were created separately, with the inherent ability to vary
>>>>to such a degree that what looks like "speciation" has occurred. But
>>>>this "speciation" has boundaries, as evidenced in the differences in
>>>>chromosome number from one kind of life form to another.
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that all members of the same kind must have the same
>>>chromosome number, and that all reasonably similar organisms with the
>>>same chromosome number must belong to the same kind?
>>
>> as a general rule, yes. The exceptions will actually prove the rule.
>
>
>How would exceptions prove a rule?
the meaning of "exception" is that there is a rule or a normal state
of affairs. What does "exception" mean to you? If there is use of
the word "exceptions," that means that it is understood that there is
a rule involved, otherwise there would be nothing to have exceptions
to.
>>>>These
>>>>chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
>>>>since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
>>>>interbreed.
>>>
>>>Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
>>>able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
>>>splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
>>>chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
>>>having the previous condition is not affected.
>>
>> examples?
>
>
>They are easy to find. Here's a very nice one I found with a quick
>Google search: http://meiosis.bionet.nsc.ru/Chrgeo.htm
>
>Here's a plant:
>http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=118905
I've said already that plants are the exception. So why are you
bringing up these exceptions?
>And even a prokaryote:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9466259&dopt=Abstract
you're really reaching, aren't you. Can we study the "rule" first?
Give me an example of some number of eukaryotes that interbreed with a
mate of a different chromosome count. Not exceptions, please.
>>>> (The plant kingdom, for some reason, contains exceptions
>>>>to this rule. But a theory should not be built on the exceptions but
>>>>on the rule.)
>>>
>>>If the exceptions are as widespread as they are, you should at least be
>>>nervous.
>>
>> a few plants being the exception is not widespread, imo.
>
>
>The common estimates of the number of plant species that are polyploid
>run from 30 to 70%. Hardly a few. And of course the older the polyploidy
>event, the harder it is to recognize polyploidy, since the paired
>chromosomes diverge to the point where they are not recognizably the same.
I see you are basing your position on plants. How do you explain the
fact that sexual life forms are not polyploid?
>>>And shouldn't such a clearcut system as having separate
>>>creations be without exceptions anyway?
>>
>> only from a dull mind that has no ability to be creative. A master
>> artist might paint all his trees varying shades of green, so that it
>> becomes a rule that trees are known to be green, but out of pure
>> whimsy or desire for change, a tree might be painted with red leaves
>> or lilac tones. Do these exceptions refute independent creation?
>
>
>What would refute independent creation?
life forms that had no consistency to their reproductive abilities. A
mish-mash of unrelated life forms, with new and unexpected
characteristics appearing with each new birth of offspring. Actually,
I would expect a lot more death than presently, a lot more unviable
life forms.
snip>
>>>>Also, if a chromosome count changes due to translocation,
>>>>non-disjunction, or polyploidy (rare for life forms other than
>>>>plants), the result is infertility or death.
>>>
>>>Hardly anything here is true. There are many polyploid animals.
>>>Translocation does not change chromosome count, though it can prevent
>>>interbreeding. Non-disjunction is one possible cause of polyploidy, not
>>>a separate class of event.
>>
>> thanks for the correction, but this does not change my point, which is
>> that chromosomal change leads to death or infertility, as a rule.
>
>Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the nature of the
>change. But it's not "as a rule". Your point does not exist.
you might want to support that. As a rule, chromosomal inequality
will prevent reproduction. Here are some chromosome counts that I
would expect you to refute if you are going to demonstrate that it is
not a rule for these life forms to interbreed with life forms of same
chromosome counts:
http://www.seps.org/oracle/oracle.archive/Life_Science.Genetics/1999.08/000934474627
human - 46
rhesus monkey - 42
mouse - 40
rat - 42
frog - 26
drosophila - 8
nematode - 11 (male)
yeast - 36
garden pea - 14
The rule is that the above examples, for instance, cannot interbreed
because their chromosome counts are different. What exceptions can
you offer on this?
>>>> The chances of one set
>>>>of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
>>>>another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
>>>>organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
>>>>offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
>>>>upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
>>>
>>>None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
>>>chromosomal mutations coming into contact.
>>
>> if at least this is true, it blows evolutionary theory out of the
>> water.
>
>
>Why?
you seemed to say that none of what I said was true except for the
part about the chance of two identical chromosomal mutations coming
into contact. Well, that part concluded that the chances of such a
thing happening are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable
foundation for building a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
When you said, "none of this is true...except for the chance of two
identical chromosomal mutations coming into contact," I took that to
mean that you were agreeing with at least that much. If we can agree
that at least this much is true, then this acknowledgement should blow
evolutionary theory out of the water.
I can't believe I have to explain this via so much repetition.
>>>But many chromosomal
>>>mutations do not prevent interbreeding, and anyway this has absolutely
>>>nothing to do with allelic mutations.
>>
>> chromosomal COUNTS prevent interbreeding, for the most part. I'm
>> talking COUNTS that change due to mutations and whatever other causes
>> are there.
>
>Different chromosome counts either prevent or do not prevent
>interbreeding depending on their nature. For example, humans and chimps
>differ by a metacentric fusion, which is a type of difference that
>doesn't prevent interbreeding.
are you saying that humans and chimps can interbreed?
>See my first URL above. (However, we
>don't know whether humans or chimps can interbreed. The experiment has
>never been performed, and many other things besides difference in
>chromosome number can prevent interbreeding.)
then how can you make such concrete statements as "humans and chimps
differ...which is a type of difference that DOESN'T prevent
interbreeding"?
But then, again, this is no surprise, considering that all of
evolutionary theory seems to make these bold, unfounded statements.
And poor wide-eyed students get brainwashed by such bold statements.
Outrageous.
>>>>And if a rare instance can be cited, such a rarity would not be
>>>>sufficient upon which to build a theory of random evolution.
>>>>Therefore, if random evolution is not a possibility, then the
>>>>alternative -- purposeful planning -- remains a viable consideration.
>>>
>>>The alternative you have not considered is that you have no idea what
>>>you are talking about. Which turns out to be the correct alternative in
>>>this case.
>>
>> funeee. Then I guess our discussion is over?
>
>
>Up to you. As far as I can tell, not knowing what you are talking about
>has never stopped you before. Witness the interminable is*chr*n threads.
which you never have been able to refute or even contribute to
usefully.
>>>>Okay. Getting back to laying my foundation.
>>>>
>>>>The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>>>>today give rise to the following observations:
>>>>
>>>>-bacterial life forms.
>>>>-fungal life forms.
>>>>-Plant life forms.
>>>>-Water life forms.
>>>>-Winged life forms.
>>>>-land life forms.
>>>>-human life forms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why? Why these groups and not others? What if anything does this have to
>>>do with kinds?
>>
>> these are obvious groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind
>> free of preconceptions.
>
>
>Why those groupings rather than any other obvious groupings? Why not
>this one:
>
>Life forms with no legs. (including plants, snakes, "worms", protists, etc.)
>Life forms with fins. (including fish, chaetognaths, whales, etc.)
>Life forms with 2 legs. (including birds, humans, tyrannosars, etc.)
>Life forms with 4 legs. (including cows, frogs, lizards, etc.)
>Life forms with 5 legs. (many echinoderms)
>Life forms with 6 legs. (insects)
>Life forms with 8 legs. (arachnids)
>Life forms with more than 8 legs. (various other arthropods)
you could group life forms in this manner, but remember I am starting
with the broadest, most general categories. What you have described
is narrower than my broad, general categories.
>Or any other logical division. I think you picked yours for one reason
>only, that it matches a description of what was created on which day in
>Genesis 1.
you're right. I expect the Biblical perspective to be a correct,
though general one. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it
points in the right direction if you're going to start building
foundations.
The seven-day week (still with us) would be evidence of the first
literal week of created time, arbitrarily cut out from the fabric of
eternity. This would be a foundation upon which to build further
research.
Likewise, the general groupings of life forms would be evidence of the
general groups created in that first week. This would be a foundation
upon which to build further research.
>And what does this have to do with kinds?
the groups of life forms I've described in a general sense, are groups
of types of life forms, or "kinds."
>>>>There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
>>>>groups of life forms.
>>>>
>>>>If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
>>>>above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
>>>>them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
>>>>further input than just the above observation?
>>>
>>>If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
>>>all, so the point is moot.
>>
>> poor answer. Oh, well...
>
>
>If it's a poor answer, you will be able to explain my misconception, and
>also why an alien would notice your particular categories rather than
>any other ones.
a broad categorization would put the life forms into the categories I
gave. There is no reason to categorize them in any other way. And
remember, right now I am talking only of broad overarching categories.
I have not yet begun to investigate further within those categories.
Surely, you must agree that these broad categories are reality.
> Especially why an alien would immediately put humans
>into a separate category from chimpanzees.
it would be a very stupid alien who would look at humans and chimps
and decide that they belong to the same category. Keep in mind that
this alien would not have yet read Darwin's notions, nor investigated
genetics, or the fossil record, so there would be no reason for him to
look at chimps swinging through the trees, chattering the same
syllables repeatedly, scratching themselves idly for days on end, and
think that they are in the same category as humans sitting at their
computers, building rockets and the like, writing and reading books,
and doing all the things that only the human life form does. If such
an alien (or you) were to come to the conclusion that chimps and
humans belonged to the same category, that alien would be judged as
extremely stupid, if not insane.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
snip>
>ROFLMAO!
Hi, Jon, I'm not done with you. But I'm taking a break here.
I do appreciate these kinds of responses, btw. They tell me that you
are unable to refute my statements. Why? Because I have come to
understand you scientific types. If you have ANY good answer at all,
you're not about to forego a chance to display it. Therefore, your
lack of an answer tells me that you have no good refutation to my
statements. Thanks. :-)
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
snip>
>Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the same, or
>different, kinds?
I thought that was made clear by my statements. Okay, just for you,
Dave: Chimps and humans are NOT the same kind. They are different
kinds.
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>In order for a newly
>developed chromosone count to be passed on, the life form with this
>new chromosome count would have to breed with a life form with a
>similar new chromosome count. Random mutations cannot be counted on
>to provide just such a mate.
I've been wondering where Zoe's most fundamental misunderstanding is,
and I think I've found it.
It's evident from this that Zoe thinks "chromosome count" means
something other than "the number of chromosomes"; however, I can't
think of any possible meaning of "chromosome count" than "the number
of chromosomes".
Of course, mutations never (or maybe essentially never, this isn't my
area of expertise) change the number of chromosomes; events which
change the number of chromosomes are not mutations, and are much rarer
than mutations.
She also seems to think that a mutated organism must mate with a
similarly mutated organism to produce offspring, a quaint and
ludicrous theory that nobody takes seriously.
zoe_althrop
<rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>snip>
>Hello Zoe,
>
>We haven't conversed much, but I wanted to ask a couple questions about your
>taxonomic system.
>
>What is the difference between the fungal forms (fungal life form- is that
>the cute lab assistant who DOES drink?) and the plant life forms, and why
>aren't they a subcategory of the land life form?
just off the cuff, I would say that if photosynthesis is used as the
criteria for identifying plants, then fungal life forms would not
qualify as plants.
>Where does seaweed fit in? The plant life form, the bacterial life form, or
>the water life form?
since seaweeds use photosynthesis, they should be classified as plant
life forms. Once they have been categorized as plants, their being
found in water does not turn them into a water life form, per se.
They are still plants.
>Are ostriches in the winged life form group, or the land life form group?
>Ditto penguins, vis. the water life form group.
I'm not sure where to place these exceptions. It would seem that
wherever is their most regular habitat would qualify them for that
group. If penguins spend more time in water than on land, then they
could be categorized as water life forms. If ostriches spend more
time on the ground than in the air, then even though they have
rudimentary wings, they could be categorized as land life forms.
>If there is a water life form group and a land life form group, why isn't
>there an air life form group? Or is that the winged life forms?
right. That would be the air life form group, I guess.
>Why did you
>alter your naming convention?
because some winged life forms really don't spend much time in the
air. That might answer my hesitation as to where to place ostriches,
emus and the like.
>You could have called it the "finned life
>forms" etc.
true, but there are more life forms under water than just finned life
forms, and since I was starting with the broadest, most general
categories, I left it at water life forms.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
now here speaks a real scientist with reasonable observations instead
of the half-cracked classifications of those TO technicians (on this
thread) who have an agenda.
However, I haven't gotten as far as you have yet, kzm. I'm still
painting the broadest, most general categories of life forms, at a
sweeping glance. Is there any reason to say my broad categories do
not represent reality?
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:38:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Fleming
><jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>ROFLMAO!
>
>Hi, Jon, I'm not done with you. But I'm taking a break here.
>
>I do appreciate these kinds of responses, btw. They tell me that you
>are unable to refute my statements.
I did refute your statement.
David Jensen
Why?
Are other species that are so closely related also different kinds?
Dave Oldridge
server.cfl.rr.com:
Ok, yet they have inherited from their ancestors the remains of identical
genetic accidents, not once but many, many times. What do you suppose the
chances are of that happening to two different ancestral lines?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
AC
AC
I find this typical of Zoe's posts. At the very core is a mind that is
profoundly ignorant of the theories it attempts to overthrow.
--
Aaron Clausen
Eric Rowley
> >muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) writes: >
> >> The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in
> >>nature today give rise to the following observations: >
> >> -bacterial life forms.
> >> -fungal life forms.
> >> -Plant life forms.
> >> -Water life forms.
> >> -Winged life forms.
> >> -land life forms.
> >> -human life forms.
> >> There are some foundational questions that can be asked of these
> >> groups of life forms.
> >> If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to
> >> observe the above groups, what questions would you find yourself
> >> asking about them?
<snip>
> >> What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
> >> further input than just the above observation?
> >That the classification suggested is not a very good one?
> now here speaks a real scientist with reasonable observations
Zoe, you really ought to put more effort into trying to
understand what people have written,
or did you _really_ want to say that it's a reasonable
observation that your classification scheme isn't very good?
> instead of the half-cracked classifications of those TO
> technicians (on this thread) who have an agenda.
> However, I haven't gotten as far as you have yet, kzm. I'm still
> painting the broadest, most general categories of life forms, at
> a sweeping glance.
Except for arbitrarily seperating humans from the other land
organisms.
And picking categories that say almost nothing about the organisms
themselves and there differances and simularities with orginisms in
other categories.
> Is there any reason to say my broad categories
> do not represent reality?
No, no they represent reality,
they just don't seem to do so in a very useful way.
Do you really think that whales are more similar to lobsters then
they are to cows? And do scorpions have more in common with cows
then with lobsters?
If you want broad categories that actually group organisms according
to there simularities you'd be better off starting with splitting
them into unicellular and multicellular organisms.
Though actually that would be a more superficial split then dividing
them by type of cell, eucariotes
Eric Rowley
it was supposedd to end with:
Zoe:> Is there any reason to say my broad categories
Zoe:> do not represent reality?
No, no they represent reality,
they just don't seem to do so in a very useful way.
Do you really think that whales are more similar to lobsters then
they are to cows? And do scorpions have more in common with cows
then with lobsters?
If you want broad categories that actually group organisms according
to their simularities you'd be better off starting with splitting
them into unicellular and multicellular organisms.
Though actually that would be a more superficial split then dividing
them by type of cell, eucaryotic, procaryiotic and whatever.
And then divide the multicellular organisms by whether they have
spinal cords or not and work your way down to finer and finer
distinctions.
Of course that would defeat your purpose because then there would
be no way to make the human/chimpanzee split seem any more special
then the differance between any other pair of closely related
organisms.
But that reflects reality, by any nonsuperficial comparison we are
more similar to chimps then they are to any other organisms.
Eric
John Harshman
Jon Fleming wrote:
Well, no you didn't. You contradicted it. I'm not sure how you would go
about refuting it. Invite an alien to have a go at classification? There
are a couple of studies showing that folk taxonomies of people who have
reason to look closely do match those of scientists (one by Ernst Mayr),
but those were of narrow groups that Zoe might not think relevant. One
can only present examples and see if Zoe is convinced that other
classifications make more sense (mammals, etc.) or as little sense
(sorting by color, etc.) as hers does. And one could also point out the
coincidence that she has presented the same groupings used in one bit of
Genesis (though not others), but she will probably consider that as
evidence for their correctness, not her preconceptions. It's doubtful
whether anything will work on Zoe.
John Harshman
Jon Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:22:41 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In order for a newly
>>developed chromosone count to be passed on, the life form with this
>>new chromosome count would have to breed with a life form with a
>>similar new chromosome count. Random mutations cannot be counted on
>>to provide just such a mate.
>>
>
> I've been wondering where Zoe's most fundamental misunderstanding is,
> and I think I've found it.
>
> It's evident from this that Zoe thinks "chromosome count" means
> something other than "the number of chromosomes"; however, I can't
> think of any possible meaning of "chromosome count" than "the number
> of chromosomes".
>
> Of course, mutations never (or maybe essentially never, this isn't my
> area of expertise) change the number of chromosomes; events which
> change the number of chromosomes are not mutations, and are much rarer
> than mutations.
No, they are mutations. (Or at least, some of them are mutations;
polyploidy and such things are not considered mutations.) They are
called chromosomal mutations. Not all chromosomal mutations change the
count, but some do. Fusion and breaking of chromosomes are mutations.
That is, we choose to call them mutations.
> She also seems to think that a mutated organism must mate with a
> similarly mutated organism to produce offspring, a quaint and
> ludicrous theory that nobody takes seriously.
That's her central problem.
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
How can you ask him that question when that was the entire point of his
post?
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:12:21 +0000 (UTC), "C. Thompson"
> <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>snip>
>>
>
>>Hello Zoe,
>>
>>We haven't conversed much, but I wanted to ask a couple questions about your
>>taxonomic system.
>>
>>What is the difference between the fungal forms (fungal life form- is that
>>the cute lab assistant who DOES drink?) and the plant life forms, and why
>>aren't they a subcategory of the land life form?
>>
>
> just off the cuff, I would say that if photosynthesis is used as the
> criteria for identifying plants, then fungal life forms would not
> qualify as plants.
That's your problem. All of this is off the cuff, and consequently makes
little sense. There are many plants (parasites of other plants) -- or at
least we usually call them plants -- that don't use photosynthesis. Are
they plants under your classification?
>>Where does seaweed fit in? The plant life form, the bacterial life form, or
>>the water life form?
>
> since seaweeds use photosynthesis, they should be classified as plant
> life forms.
But lots of bacteria use photosynthesis, and in fact some bacteria --
the so-called "blue-green algae" are among the things called "seaweed".
Are some bacteria plants? Interestingly, the chloroplasts that are
inside all the traditional plants are genetically related to these
blue-green algae. Are chloroplasts plants? One could argue that only
chloroplasts are plants by your definition, because they're the only
entity inside a plant that does photosynthesis; the rest of the plant is
not involved.
> Once they have been categorized as plants, their being
> found in water does not turn them into a water life form, per se.
> They are still plants.
Why? Why does being a plant take precedence over being a water life form?
>>Are ostriches in the winged life form group, or the land life form group?
>>Ditto penguins, vis. the water life form group.
>
> I'm not sure where to place these exceptions. It would seem that
> wherever is their most regular habitat would qualify them for that
> group. If penguins spend more time in water than on land, then they
> could be categorized as water life forms. If ostriches spend more
> time on the ground than in the air, then even though they have
> rudimentary wings, they could be categorized as land life forms.
Ostriches spend zero time in the air. So they must be land life forms.
Now here's another question. Is the Guam rail a land life form? It can't
fly, so it must be. Yet other rails are winged life forms, since they
can fly. So your classification splits very similar-looking members of
the same family. But I can do better than that. There are three or four
species of steamer ducks (genus Tachyeres). All but one of them can fly.
So you would say that most steamer ducks are in the "winged life form"
category, but the aptly named flightless steamer duck is in the "land
life form" or perhaps "water life form" category. Right? But it's
actually worse than that. In one species of steamer duck, smaller
individuals can fly but larger ones can't. How many categories in that
species?
>>If there is a water life form group and a land life form group, why isn't
>>there an air life form group? Or is that the winged life forms?
>
> right. That would be the air life form group, I guess.
>
>
>>Why did you
>>alter your naming convention?
>
> because some winged life forms really don't spend much time in the
> air. That might answer my hesitation as to where to place ostriches,
> emus and the like.
The fact that you have no idea where to put flightless birds suggests
that your categories may not be so good as you first imagined.
>>You could have called it the "finned life
>>forms" etc.
>
> true, but there are more life forms under water than just finned life
> forms, and since I was starting with the broadest, most general
> categories, I left it at water life forms.
I think we can now see that these broad, general categories make no
sense. They put whales with corals instead of with other mammals, and
some stick insects with pigeons while others go with ostriches. They
split up all sorts of natural groups for no other reason than to fit
your reading of some little bit of Genesis.
Howard Hershey
muz...@aol.com wrote on 6/14/03 5:36 PM:
So you are actually saying that *your* classification system that places
penguins in the same category as fish and whales and starfish makes more
fundamental sense related to the form of the organisms (we are talking about
categorization based on the form of the organisms, are we not?) than one
that considers penguins to be birds more closely related to (more similar
to) hawks and sparrows than they are to trout and porpoises and starfish?
That would really, really, really, indicate a level of ignorance about
biological structure that is astounding, even for you.
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
mel turner
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:36:05 +0000 (UTC),
>mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) wrote:
>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 01:43:36 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
>>>the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>>>Did you see it?
>>
>>Maybe it's not a reason. Where is it? Why should anyone conclude
>>separate creations for anything at all? That seems to be the
>>critical question here. [I looked and I don't see your reason
>>either. What is it?]
>
>the rule is that same chromosome counts are necessary for
>interbreeding.
No, not really. Lots of species are polymorphic in chromosome
numbers, and individuals with different numbers can remain
interfertile.
>As a RULE. Building a theory on the exceptions to a
>rule is unscientific, to say the least.
There's no such rule that prevents chromosome number changes. We know
that chromosome numbers can and do change in evolving lineages, and we
know a lot about how it occurs. Therefore, observed differences in
chromosome numbers among organisms are not any kind of reason for
inferring separate creations.
>Same chromosome counts do not occur consistently in random fashion.
Huh? Can you phrase that again, so that it makes sense? I
really can't even guess what you're trying to say here.
>This should be sufficient reason to consider separate creation.
No. Nothing you have said here is any reason to consider separate
creations for anything. If you had presented a valid argument why
reproductive isolation can't possibly arise between different
descendants of a common ancestor, or had an argument why chromosome
numbers can't possibly change, [or had any reason why any other
differences observed among 'related' species can't have arisen by
evolution] you might have something, but so far it seems you don't.
><snip rest because I am pausing for lunch. Besides which, I really
>should be responding to John Harshman, since this is supposed to be a
>conversation between us.>
Fine, but of course the rest of us remain free to comment on the
dialogue.
cheers
Howard Hershey
muz...@aol.com wrote on 6/14/03 8:47 PM:
Why, zoe, did you organize a classification of organisms that wasn't based
on the inherent properties of the organisms (except for plants), but on the
environments in which the organisms are found? Why do you think that this
would tell us anything useful about the relationships between animals?
Howard Hershey
muz...@aol.com wrote on 6/14/03 8:22 PM:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:13:37 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
>>> what do you think the phrase, "offspring can reproduce the same
>>> characteristics" means, if not that there is a common ancestor for
>>> that group?
>>
>>
>> It refers to heredity as far as I can tell. Heredity and common ancestry
>> are distinct and independent concepts.
>
> you cannot have common ancestry without heredity. You're
> compartmentalizing again.
Rather, if you have common ancestry you will have certain types of patterns
in the genetic material of organisms. But your categorizations are not
based on heredity or *anything* related to the organism. It is based
(except for all plants) on where the organisms are found rather than on any
property of the organisms themselves. How does your categorization
groupings match with or relate to the above description of "kind"?
>
>>>> separately created from the common
>>>> ancestors of other groups.
>>>
>>> the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>>> Did you see it?
>>
>>
>> Probably. It's hard to tell with you. But reasons and definitions are
>> two quite different things.
>
> the reason for concluding separate creation is because of the fact
> that equality in chromosome counts for a species do not consistently
> occur, certainly not in random fashion. Consistency and randomness are
> exclusive terms. Go ahead, you can nominate this as a chezwatt, too
> (thanks, David), but I mean exactly that.
The above is too incoherent to be nominated for anything *but* a Chez Watt.
>
> Evolutionary theory floats (since there's no foundation) on a theory
> of random allelic mutations being selected or deselected for through
> natural selection to produce new species. In order for a newly
> developed chromosone count to be passed on, the life form with this
> new chromosome count would have to breed with a life form with a
> similar new chromosome count.
Not true, as any geneticist can tell you. And I am any geneticist.
> Random mutations cannot be counted on
> to provide just such a mate.
You deserve the Jeffrey Schwartz award for misunderstanding genes in
populations in addition to the lifetime Dunning-Kreuger award.
>
> There are far too many species that interbreed with equal chromosome
> counts to attribute their development to chance random meetings.
> Therefore, if not by chance, then by design, the life forms were
> separately created sometime in the past.
>
> snip>
>
>>> when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
>>> point to common descent. Geographical isolation allows local
>>> environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
>>> artificial barriers between same-kinds -- barriers that would melt
>>> away if geographic isolation were removed.
>>
>> I don't find any meaning here. There are plenty of similar species that
>> occupy the same area, and the reproductive isolation that has evolved in
>> the lab doesn't depend on geographic isolation for its effects. My point
>> remains: how can you use reproductive isolation as your criterion for
>> separate kinds, when it is known to evolve?
>
> what new species did reproductive isolation in the lab evolve? If you
> are considering the fact that members of the same species no longer
> interbreed, as evidence of speciation, then call me an evolutionist.
> But I am betting that your reproductively isolated species remain
> basically the same kind of life form.
Sure. Evolution does not go in saltational leaps in the short term. Any
two species that have *recently* diverged into two different species by the
definition of reproductive isolation will necessarily look like basically
the same kind of life form. What did you think evolution claims happens --
that a dog gave birth to a cat?
> The reproductive isolation did
> not cause one set of members of the species to be, say, fruitflies,
> and another set of members of the species to be recognized now as
> bats.
Absolutely true. But if you accept the definition of species that says that
groups of organisms that are reproductively isolated from each other in
nature are different species, you would have two species of fruitflies where
once you had one. Just as you can have the separation of two species of
hominid into H. sapiens and H. erectus without either being radically
different from the other. But if you repeat that a few dozen times in two
different lineages over longer periods of time, you have the difference
between a chimp and H. sapiens.
>
[snip]
>> My point is that you have to, because a fairly large proportion of all
>> kinds must be asexual. (Uncertainty because you haven't defined what
>> your kinds are.)
>
> a "kind" is any life form that reproduces its own characteristics in
> its offspring and is able to interbreed with life forms of its own
> type or "kind."
>
> What don't you understand about that definition?
That is one of the definitions of species. Why give it a different name?
How does it relate to the much broader categories you presented? It seems
that you are using quite different criteria (the nature of the organism
versus where the organisms live, for the most part -- with some
inconsistencies that make it a real hodge-podge of meaninglessness).
>
[snip]
>
> I see you are basing your position on plants. How do you explain the
> fact that sexual life forms are not polyploid?
Some are. For example the cryptospecies of Hyla (tree frogs) are polyploids
of each other.
>
[snip]
>>
>>
>> What would refute independent creation?
>
> life forms that had no consistency to their reproductive abilities. A
> mish-mash of unrelated life forms, with new and unexpected
> characteristics appearing with each new birth of offspring. Actually,
> I would expect a lot more death than presently, a lot more unviable
> life forms.
Is there any reasoning behind this? I fail to perceive it.
>
[snip]
>
> you might want to support that. As a rule, chromosomal inequality
> will prevent reproduction.
No, it doesn't. It reduces fertility, at most.
> Here are some chromosome counts that I
> would expect you to refute if you are going to demonstrate that it is
> not a rule for these life forms to interbreed with life forms of same
> chromosome counts:
>
> http://www.seps.org/oracle/oracle.archive/Life_Science.Genetics/1999.08/000934
> 474627
>
> human - 46
> rhesus monkey - 42
> mouse - 40
> rat - 42
> frog - 26
> drosophila - 8
> nematode - 11 (male)
> yeast - 36
> garden pea - 14
>
> The rule is that the above examples, for instance, cannot interbreed
> because their chromosome counts are different. What exceptions can
> you offer on this?
Is it your claim that organisms with the same chromosome number should be
able to mate and produce fertile offspring? If so, the rhesus monkey and
rat should make a nice couple.
>
[snip]
>
> you seemed to say that none of what I said was true except for the
> part about the chance of two identical chromosomal mutations coming
> into contact. Well, that part concluded that the chances of such a
> thing happening are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable
> foundation for building a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
> When you said, "none of this is true...except for the chance of two
> identical chromosomal mutations coming into contact," I took that to
> mean that you were agreeing with at least that much. If we can agree
> that at least this much is true, then this acknowledgement should blow
> evolutionary theory out of the water.
That part isn't true either.
>
> I can't believe I have to explain this via so much repetition.
I can't believe the depths of your knowledge. It is like the Everglades --
miles wide and inches deep.
>
[snip]
>
> are you saying that humans and chimps can interbreed?
I have no idea, since, AFIK, the experiment has not been done. But the
likelihood of a zygote (if the sperm can penetrate the egg) developing
normally and surviving is probably quite low. For reasons having to do with
developmental dysgenesis.
>
>> See my first URL above. (However, we
>> don't know whether humans or chimps can interbreed. The experiment has
>> never been performed, and many other things besides difference in
>> chromosome number can prevent interbreeding.)
>
> then how can you make such concrete statements as "humans and chimps
> differ...which is a type of difference that DOESN'T prevent
> interbreeding"?
Because the particular differences you noted (chromosomal number count) can
be observed not to affect interbreeding within humans (some humans have
Robertsonian translocations) and within many other species. There are a
number of reasons why different species cannot produce fertile hybrids, and
*multiple* difference in chomosomes can contribute to infertility between
species, but a simple number count is not a clear-cut or consistent
mechanism for determining interfertility. That means that the only way to
determine the absence of interfertility is to actually test it in the two
species in question. That has not, AFAIK, been done for humans and chimps.
It has been done for other species, and the results are quite mixed and
variable. And unrelated to simplistic chromosome counts.
>
> But then, again, this is no surprise, considering that all of
> evolutionary theory seems to make these bold, unfounded statements.
> And poor wide-eyed students get brainwashed by such bold statements.
> Outrageous.
>
[snip]
Except that three of the categories (including two you were forced to add
_ad hoc_ afterwards) are based, rather loosely, on the inherent properties
of the organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria). The next three categories are
not based on inherent properties of the organisms, but instead are
environments in which organisms live. And the last category is simply a
species (based on inherent property of the organism, of course) of a species
for which all the other species are classified by environment. In short,
the categories are incoherent and inconsistent even when examined as a group
in isolation.
>
>> Or any other logical division. I think you picked yours for one reason
>> only, that it matches a description of what was created on which day in
>> Genesis 1.
>
> you're right. I expect the Biblical perspective to be a correct,
> though general one. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it
> points in the right direction if you're going to start building
> foundations.
As I pointed out, the categories are inconsistent and incoherent even when
examined in isolation.
>
> The seven-day week (still with us) would be evidence of the first
> literal week of created time, arbitrarily cut out from the fabric of
> eternity. This would be a foundation upon which to build further
> research.
>
> Likewise, the general groupings of life forms would be evidence of the
> general groups created in that first week. This would be a foundation
> upon which to build further research.
>
>> And what does this have to do with kinds?
>
> the groups of life forms I've described in a general sense, are groups
> of types of life forms, or "kinds."
So penguins and trout are a single "kind", which you have also defined as an
interbreeding group of organisms with the same chromosome count. Are both
true for penguins and trout?
>
[snip]
>> If it's a poor answer, you will be able to explain my misconception, and
>> also why an alien would notice your particular categories rather than
>> any other ones.
>
> a broad categorization would put the life forms into the categories I
> gave. There is no reason to categorize them in any other way. And
> remember, right now I am talking only of broad overarching categories.
> I have not yet begun to investigate further within those categories.
>
> Surely, you must agree that these broad categories are reality.
No. The categories are a mixture of groupings based on very general
organismal morphology (plants, fungi, bacteria), groupings based on
environments (air, water, land), and a single grouping based on the least
general and most specific form of organismal morphology, namely species
(humans). In short, the categories themselves make no sense whatsoever.
Which, of course, is par for the course.
>
>> Especially why an alien would immediately put humans
>> into a separate category from chimpanzees.
>
> it would be a very stupid alien who would look at humans and chimps
> and decide that they belong to the same category.
An alien would recognize that they are probably different species. But it
would be an even more stupid alien who would look at a chimp and ostrich and
snake and pillbug and say that all these are more closely related to each
other than any is to humans.
> Keep in mind that
> this alien would not have yet read Darwin's notions, nor investigated
> genetics, or the fossil record, so there would be no reason for him to
> look at chimps swinging through the trees, chattering the same
> syllables repeatedly, scratching themselves idly for days on end, and
> think that they are in the same category as humans sitting at their
> computers, building rockets and the like, writing and reading books,
> and doing all the things that only the human life form does. If such
> an alien (or you) were to come to the conclusion that chimps and
> humans belonged to the same category, that alien would be judged as
> extremely stupid, if not insane.
The alien, unless he or she or it or they were exceedingly stupid, would
clearly be able to recognize the closer affinity of chimps and humans from
the affinity of [chimps, humans] from emus and centipedes.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Jon Fleming
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>Jon Fleming wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:26:28 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:38:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Fleming
>>><jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip>
>>>
>>>>ROFLMAO!
>>>>
>>>Hi, Jon, I'm not done with you. But I'm taking a break here.
>>>
>>>I do appreciate these kinds of responses, btw. They tell me that you
>>>are unable to refute my statements.
>>>
>>
>> I did refute your statement.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
>Well, no you didn't. You contradicted it.
Yeah, you're right.
>I'm not sure how you would go
>about refuting it. Invite an alien to have a go at classification?
IMHO it's been refuted already. She claimed that "these are obvious
groupings, just from casual observation, with a mind free of
preconceptions.". Since it's been pointed out that the groupings
correspond extremely closely (though not exactly) with the groups
mentioned in Genesis, it is reasonable to presume that the grouping
arose for a Genesis preconception and her claim is false.
>There
>are a couple of studies showing that folk taxonomies of people who have
>reason to look closely do match those of scientists (one by Ernst Mayr),
>but those were of narrow groups that Zoe might not think relevant. One
>can only present examples and see if Zoe is convinced that other
>classifications make more sense (mammals, etc.) or as little sense
>(sorting by color, etc.) as hers does. And one could also point out the
>coincidence that she has presented the same groupings used in one bit of
>Genesis (though not others), but she will probably consider that as
>evidence for their correctness, not her preconceptions. It's doubtful
>whether anything will work on Zoe.
I definitely agree with that last statement!
mel turner
[snip]
>>> the reason for concluding separate creation is given further down.
>>> Did you see it?
>>
>>
>>Probably. It's hard to tell with you. But reasons and definitions are
>>two quite different things.
>
>the reason for concluding separate creation is because of the fact
>that equality in chromosome counts for a species do not consistently
>occur, certainly not in random fashion.
You must think that this means something since you've also
said it elsewhere, but it's very hard to see any point here.
Can you explain? What does any of the above mean?
Consistency and randomness are
>exclusive terms. Go ahead, you can nominate this as a chezwatt, too
"Say what" does indeed seem appropriate, since your language
is so confusing. What are you trying to say?
>(thanks, David), but I mean exactly that.
Mean what? [What does what you mean mean?]
>Evolutionary theory floats (since there's no foundation) on a theory
>of random allelic mutations being selected or deselected for through
>natural selection to produce new species.
No, it actually doesn't.
In order for a newly
>developed chromosone count to be passed on, the life form with this
>new chromosome count would have to breed with a life form with a
>similar new chromosome count.
Wrong. Why would it have to? It wouldn't.
[Is this another "so, who did the first French speaker talk to?"
type error?].
Random mutations cannot be counted on
>to provide just such a mate.
Unnecessary. A difference in chromosome number doesn't
preclude fertile matings and fertile offspring.
>There are far too many species that interbreed with equal chromosome
>counts to attribute their development to chance random meetings.
Huh? There it is again. What are you trying to say? You think
that the uniformity of chromosome numbers [in species that do
have uniform chromosome numbers] is attributed to "random chance"?
No, it's due to belonging to a line in which a particular
chromosome number became fixed.
>Therefore, if not by chance, then by design, the life forms were
>separately created sometime in the past.
Strawman, and false dilemma. [And it doesn't make sense].
>snip>
>>> when all variables are considered, reproductive isolation will not
>>> point to common descent. Geographical isolation allows local
>>> environmental influences to bring certain genes to the fore, creating
>>> artificial barriers between same-kinds -- barriers that would melt
>>> away if geographic isolation were removed.
>>
>>I don't find any meaning here. There are plenty of similar species that
>>occupy the same area, and the reproductive isolation that has evolved in
>>the lab doesn't depend on geographic isolation for its effects. My point
>>remains: how can you use reproductive isolation as your criterion for
>>separate kinds, when it is known to evolve?
>
>what new species did reproductive isolation in the lab evolve? If you
>are considering the fact that members of the same species no longer
>interbreed, as evidence of speciation,
That's what speciation is all about.
>then call me an evolutionist.
Fine. You're an evolutionist. Just a somewhat confused one.
>But I am betting that your reproductively isolated species remain
>basically the same kind of life form.
What does "basically the same kind of life form" mean? Of course
they're going to be "basically the same kind of life form", just
as humans and other apes are "basically the same kind of life form".
The reproductive isolation did
>not cause one set of members of the species to be, say, fruitflies,
>and another set of members of the species to be recognized now as
>bats.
Well, duh. Do you really want to pretend that evolution is
supposed to require fruitflies giving birth to bats, or
vice-versa?
All that is required here is that an ancestral
species of fruitfly gives rise to reproductively isolated
descendant species of fruitflies. That's speciation. That's "macroevolution".
>snip>
>
>>>>I should also point out that
>>>>a great many species are asexual, and thus interbreeding has no bearing
>>>>form them.
>>>
>>> I am not talking about asexual species at the moment.
>>
>>
>>My point is that you have to, because a fairly large proportion of all
>>kinds must be asexual. (Uncertainty because you haven't defined what
>>your kinds are.)
>
>a "kind" is any life form that reproduces its own characteristics in
>its offspring
Asexual life forms do this. So do local minor variants within a
species. Chihuahuas can reproduce to produce little chihuahuas,
so are they a "kind"?
>and is able to interbreed with life forms of its own
>type or "kind."
[Your definition of "kind" uses "of its own kind" as part of the
definition? Confusing.]
So, what of organisms that don't breed at all with other individuals?
Exclusively self-fertilizing types and all the many asexual ones?
Again, I'll note that your definition of "kind" as worded above doesn't
seem to require a separately created origin, nor does it seem to
require it being separate from other "kinds" [you didn't say "able to
interbreed _only_ with life forms of its own type" or "reproduce to
only have offspring that share its own characteristics"].
>What don't you understand about that definition?
What does it have to do with the separately-created "kinds" of
creationists? Your definition doesn't rule out many different
"kinds" descending from a common ancestral "kind".
[snip]
>>>>>chromosome counts form a barrier to interbreeding between species
>>>>>since, as a rule, only species with the same chromosome number can
>>>>>interbreed.
>>>>
>>>>Not actually true, even for animals. What's required is that regions be
>>>>able to line up with homologous regions during meiosis. If a chromosome
>>>>splits in half, or if two chromosomes fuse, they can still line up. The
>>>>chromosome number changes but ability to interbreed with individuals
>>>>having the previous condition is not affected.
>>>
>>> examples?
>>They are easy to find. Here's a very nice one I found with a quick
>>Google search: http://meiosis.bionet.nsc.ru/Chrgeo.htm
>>
>>Here's a plant:
>>http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=118905
>
>I've said already that plants are the exception. So why are you
>bringing up these exceptions?
Do you know what "exception" means? There are hundreds of thousands
of species of plants.
Anyway, there are lots of animal examples too.
>>And even a prokaryote:
>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uid
s=
>9466259&dopt=Abstract
>
>you're really reaching, aren't you. Can we study the "rule" first?
There is no such "rule".
>Give me an example of some number of eukaryotes
Do you even know what "eukaryotes" are? Plants are eukaryotes, too.
that interbreed with a
>mate of a different chromosome count. Not exceptions, please.
Domestic horse crossed with Przewalski's horse. Chromosomally
polymorphic species of mice and rats and shrews. Owl monkeys
[Aotus]. Many, many others. You're simply wrong. Chromosome number
differences do not necessarily prevent fertile matings and fertile
offspring.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an9hf9%24qp2%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9blegp%24ng6%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d903d1b1j.fsf%40s3i.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1fghyyw.ys5bul1el0d19N%25wilkins%40wehi.ed
u.au
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=376FF85C.6C0E%40wxXs.nl
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6r1nju%24ht2%241%40nntp6.u.washington.edu
[snip]
>>The common estimates of the number of plant species that are polyploid
>>run from 30 to 70%. Hardly a few. And of course the older the polyploidy
>>event, the harder it is to recognize polyploidy, since the paired
>>chromosomes diverge to the point where they are not recognizably the same.
>
>I see you are basing your position on plants. How do you explain the
>fact that sexual life forms are not polyploid?
There's nothing to explain, since that's not a fact at all.
Lots and lots of polyploid species are sexual life forms.
[snip]
>>> thanks for the correction, but this does not change my point, which is
>>> that chromosomal change leads to death or infertility, as a rule.
>>
>>Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on the nature of the
>>change. But it's not "as a rule". Your point does not exist.
>
>you might want to support that.
He's right. You're wrong. Chromosomal number changes are common
without causing death or infertility. See refs in earlier links.
As a rule, chromosomal inequality
>will prevent reproduction.
You might want to support that. There is no such rule.
>Here are some chromosome counts that I
>would expect you to refute
You're not making sense. Why should chromosome counts be
"refuted" to show that chromosome number changes are possible?
if you are going to demonstrate that it is
>not a rule for these life forms to interbreed with life forms of same
>chromosome counts:
You're still not making sense. Yes, many species have uniform
chromosome numbers. No, many others are not uniform.
>http://www.seps.org/oracle/oracle.archive/Life_Science.Genetics/1999.08/000934
47
>4627
>
>human - 46
>rhesus monkey - 42
>mouse - 40
Actually, no. Wild populations of house mice apparently range
from chromosome numbers of 2n= 22 to 2n= 40.
>rat - 42
What species? There are lots of rodents called "rats", some of which
do have multiple chromosome numbers.
>frog - 26
What species? There are many families of "frogs". Do you think
they are all one "kind"?
>drosophila - 8
All species?
>nematode - 11 (male)
What species? There are many families.
>yeast - 36
>garden pea - 14
>
>The rule is that the above examples, for instance, cannot interbreed
>because their chromosome counts are different.
No, they cannot interbreed because they aren't closely related to
one another. Their last common ancestors lived far too long ago,
and they've changed too much genetically and develomentally. The
number has very little to do with it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=an9hf9%24qp2%241%40news.duke.edu
lists a number of other species all with 46 chromosomes just as in
humans [deer, rodents, fish, plants] Do you really think that the
similar chromosome number means they should all be interfertile with
humans?
What exceptions can
>you offer on this?
Plenty. Look up "Robertsonian polymorphism". You're simply wrong.
>>>>> The chances of one set
>>>>>of abnormal chromosome counts in an organism coming in contact with
>>>>>another identical set of abnormal chromosome counts in another
>>>>>organism, in order to successfully breed and produce a new type of
>>>>>offspring, are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable foundation
>>>>>upon which to build a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
>>>>
>>>>None of this is true either, except for the chance of two identical
>>>>chromosomal mutations coming into contact.
>>>
>>> if at least this is true, it blows evolutionary theory out of the
>>> water.
>>Why?
>
>you seemed to say that none of what I said was true except for the
>part about the chance of two identical chromosomal mutations coming
>into contact. Well, that part concluded that the chances of such a
>thing happening are so small as to be ruled out as a reasonable
>foundation for building a theory of evolution via allelic mutations.
"Allelic"? Chromosome number changes aren't "allelic".
Anyway, no. He said that none of it is true, except the part about
two identical new chromosomal mutations being unlikely to meet. Your
assumption that any such meeting is required for evolutionary
chromosomal changes to occur is part of the "none of it is true".
>When you said, "none of this is true...except for the chance of two
>identical chromosomal mutations coming into contact," I took that to
>mean that you were agreeing with at least that much. If we can agree
>that at least this much is true, then this acknowledgement should blow
>evolutionary theory out of the water.
Wrong, because of your false assumption that such a "coming into
contact" would be required.
>I can't believe I have to explain this via so much repetition.
Believe it or not, it's still wrong. Chromosome number changes
do occur. Lots of species contain a whole range of different
numbers, both among different populations and within single
populations.
[snip]
>>Different chromosome counts either prevent or do not prevent
>>interbreeding depending on their nature. For example, humans and chimps
>>differ by a metacentric fusion, which is a type of difference that
>>doesn't prevent interbreeding.
>
>are you saying that humans and chimps can interbreed?
It may well be possible. Nobody knows.
>>See my first URL above. (However, we
>>don't know whether humans or chimps can interbreed. The experiment has
>>never been performed, and many other things besides difference in
>>chromosome number can prevent interbreeding.)
>
>then how can you make such concrete statements as "humans and chimps
>differ...which is a type of difference that DOESN'T prevent
>interbreeding"?
Because of the type of chromosomal difference. Other species differing
bythe very same type of chromosomal change are fertile.
>But then, again, this is no surprise, considering that all of
>evolutionary theory seems to make these bold, unfounded statements.
That might seem a silly thing for you to say, considering....
>And poor wide-eyed students get brainwashed by such bold statements.
>Outrageous.
What's outrageous is your outrage.
[snip]
What makes your categories "broader"? What makes them real
at all?
What you have described
>is narrower than my broad, general categories.
Really? You think "Winged life forms" is broader than "Life forms
with no legs"?
>>Or any other logical division. I think you picked yours for one reason
>>only, that it matches a description of what was created on which day in
>>Genesis 1.
>
>you're right. I expect the Biblical perspective to be a correct,
>though general one.
Why expect that?
The Bible is not a science textbook, but it
>points in the right direction if you're going to start building
>foundations.
How can you tell if it points in the right direction?
>The seven-day week (still with us) would be evidence of the first
>literal week of created time, arbitrarily cut out from the fabric of
>eternity. This would be a foundation upon which to build further
>research.
Huh? You're kidding, right?
>Likewise, the general groupings of life forms would be evidence of the
>general groups created in that first week.
How would your bible-based groupings be used as 'evidence' without
being completely circular?
This would be a foundation
>upon which to build further research.
What sort of further research? How would you test these groupings?
>>And what does this have to do with kinds?
>
>the groups of life forms I've described in a general sense, are groups
>of types of life forms, or "kinds."
What do they have to do with the separately-created "kinds" of
creationists?
[snip]
>>>>>If you were an alien just landed on earth, and you were to observe the
>>>>>above groups, what questions would you find yourself asking about
>>>>>them? What tentative conclusions would you begin to draw, absent any
>>>>>further input than just the above observation?
>>>>
>>>>If you were an alien landing on earth you wouldn't form those groups at
>>>>all, so the point is moot.
>>>
>>> poor answer. Oh, well...
>>If it's a poor answer, you will be able to explain my misconception, and
>>also why an alien would notice your particular categories rather than
>>any other ones.
>
>a broad categorization would put the life forms into the categories I
>gave.
You sure? Why?
>There is no reason to categorize them in any other way.
Sure there is. The evidence from biology.
And
>remember, right now I am talking only of broad overarching categories.
>I have not yet begun to investigate further within those categories.
How would you begin to investigate further? What would you look at
and why? How would you test these categories?
>Surely, you must agree that these broad categories are reality.
They're about as real as "round life" and "green life" and "life with
fins" and "life with no legs". Artificial and arbitrary.
>> Especially why an alien would immediately put humans
>>into a separate category from chimpanzees.
>
>it would be a very stupid alien who would look at humans and chimps
>and decide that they belong to the same category.
No, it would be a very sensible alien to put such close relatives
together where they belong.
[snip]
cheers
zoe_althrop
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip>
>Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
>observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
an unbiased observer, without any earthly education, would observe
that there are life forms that dwell in the water, others that dwell
on land, yet others that belong to the air, plants that look like none
of these and therefore have their own category, AND humans that behave
and act like none of the other life forms. This is what an unbiased
observer would see. He is free of any agenda to establish
relationships, and therefore he tells it as he sees it.
And remember, I am talking about someone who has not yet had a closer
look at the life forms within these obvious categories, or had a
chance to observe the differences in the life forms within those
categories. But when such an observer looks closer, he is bound to
draw some conclusions that are contrary to evolutionary notions.
Someone asked about the usefulness of such general categories, and
I'll tell you what the main use is: To ask questions about WHY, on
closer inspection, there is such a cross section of ALL life forms
across the board. You don't find just plantae underwater or on land.
They are in both environments. You don't find fungi just underwater
or on land. They are everywhere. You don't find bacteria only
underwater or on land or in the air. They cross all boundaries. And
you don't find vertebrates only in water, land, or air. They are
found across the board. What could this mean?
This kind of intermingling across the board flies in the face of an
evolutionary theory that says that life forms evolved from a single
bacterium, moving out of the oceans, onto land, and into the air over
a period of billions of years. If this were the case, you should not
find this mixture of life forms across the board.
Creation theory, however, predicts exactly this kind of intermingling.
>> Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
>> theory are about as "bright" as the above.
>
>
>Can you back that up with anything?
check the efforts of taxonomists to classify life forms. Their
classifications change constantly, and when they try to fit them into
relationships, you get groupings that include, for instance, sharks,
frogs, snakes, pheasants, kangaroos and humans, all in the category of
chordata. Of what earthly use is this kind of categorization other
than to say that there is a broad cross-section of life forms that
fall into the category of vertebrates?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
snip>
>So you are actually saying that *your* classification system
it's not meant to be a classification system. The broad categories
serve only to raise certain questions about what the life forms within
these categories reflect about how they came into existence.
>that places
>penguins in the same category as fish and whales and starfish makes more
>fundamental sense related to the form of the organisms (we are talking about
>categorization based on the form of the organisms, are we not?)
no. I am saying that separate creation defies categorization beyond
the broadest levels.
>than one
>that considers penguins to be birds more closely related to (more similar
>to) hawks and sparrows than they are to trout and porpoises and starfish?
that's your problem.
I am not trying to establish relationships between species that would
prove common descent. You are
>That would really, really, really, indicate a level of ignorance about
>biological structure that is astounding, even for you.
as if correlating biological structures to force fit them into
relationships is the answer to the mysteries of life. It won't work.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
snip>
>She also seems to think that a mutated organism must mate with a
>similarly mutated organism to produce offspring, a quaint and
>ludicrous theory that nobody takes seriously.
oh, do stop with the ridicule, Jon. It won't work. Some people cave
in because they fear mockery. Not me. So save it.
Now please tell me about this new form of reproduction where organisms
with different chromosome counts, as a rule, are able to reproduce
offspring. Examples, please. And don't give me plants. I want
reproduction over many generations where the species survive.
Different chromosome counts, interbreeding.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip>
>> She also seems to think that a mutated organism must mate with a
>> similarly mutated organism to produce offspring, a quaint and
>> ludicrous theory that nobody takes seriously.
>
>
>That's her central problem.
if you think this is my central problem, John, then please explain to
me how reproduction of the species normally occurs. Does it matter if
the chromosome counts of two life froms differ? Can they interbreed
and reproduce viable offspring over many generations when they both
have different chromosome counts? Examples, please.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3eeb855d.338244810@news-
>server.cfl.rr.com:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:22:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
>> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>>>Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the same, or
>>>different, kinds?
>>
>> I thought that was made clear by my statements. Okay, just for you,
>> Dave: Chimps and humans are NOT the same kind. They are different
>> kinds.
>
>Ok, yet they have inherited from their ancestors the remains of identical
>genetic accidents, not once but many, many times. What do you suppose the
>chances are of that happening to two different ancestral lines?
you are deep into your assumption, an assumption that has not been
justified. That assumption is that certain genetic similarities are
accidents, and that such similarities arose from a single common
ancestor. You need to justify that assumption independently before
you apply it to the data.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
they cannot and do not interbreed.
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:47:52 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>> She also seems to think that a mutated organism must mate with a
>>> similarly mutated organism to produce offspring, a quaint and
>>> ludicrous theory that nobody takes seriously.
>>
>>
>>That's her central problem.
>
>if you think this is my central problem, John, then please explain to
>me how reproduction of the species normally occurs. Does it matter if
>the chromosome counts of two life froms differ?
Not a lot. Other things are far more important.
>Can they interbreed
>and reproduce viable offspring over many generations when they both
>have different chromosome counts?
In many cases, yes.
> Examples, please.
Many examples, plants and animals and birds, have already been posted
by others in this thread.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:41:05 +0000 (UTC), Jon Fleming
Already provided by several others in this thread.
And what's wrong with plant examples?
zoe_althrop
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>zoe_althrop wrote:
snip>
>>
>> just off the cuff, I would say that if photosynthesis is used as the
>> criteria for identifying plants, then fungal life forms would not
>> qualify as plants.
>
>
>That's your problem. All of this is off the cuff, and consequently makes
>little sense. There are many plants (parasites of other plants) -- or at
>least we usually call them plants -- that don't use photosynthesis. Are
>they plants under your classification?
not if plants are identified by their ability to photosynthesize.
>>>Where does seaweed fit in? The plant life form, the bacterial life form, or
>>>the water life form?
>>
>> since seaweeds use photosynthesis, they should be classified as plant
>> life forms.
>
>
>But lots of bacteria use photosynthesis,
bacteria have other characteristics that plants do not, so
photosynthesis alone will not pull them into that category.
>and in fact some bacteria --
>the so-called "blue-green algae" are among the things called "seaweed".
if blue-green algae is recognized as seaweed, then it cannot be
bacteria, can it?
>Are some bacteria plants?
not according to the characteristics of plants, photosynthesis being
just one of those characteristics.
>Interestingly, the chloroplasts that are
>inside all the traditional plants are genetically related to these
>blue-green algae.
I would expect genetic similarities between all life forms since the
genetic code is the common mechanism used to create all varieties of
life forms.
> Are chloroplasts plants? One could argue that only
>chloroplasts are plants by your definition, because they're the only
>entity inside a plant that does photosynthesis; the rest of the plant is
>not involved.
chloroplasts are part of the plant cell. Why have you picked the
plant apart?
>> Once they have been categorized as plants, their being
>> found in water does not turn them into a water life form, per se.
>> They are still plants.
>
>
>Why? Why does being a plant take precedence over being a water life form?
it doesn't take precedence. It is separated out by virtue of its
characteristics. If the life form falls into the category of
characteristics that describe a plant, then it is first a plant and
secondly described by its location -- water or land.
>>>Are ostriches in the winged life form group, or the land life form group?
>>>Ditto penguins, vis. the water life form group.
>>
>> I'm not sure where to place these exceptions. It would seem that
>> wherever is their most regular habitat would qualify them for that
>> group. If penguins spend more time in water than on land, then they
>> could be categorized as water life forms. If ostriches spend more
>> time on the ground than in the air, then even though they have
>> rudimentary wings, they could be categorized as land life forms.
>
>
>Ostriches spend zero time in the air. So they must be land life forms.
>Now here's another question. Is the Guam rail a land life form? It can't
>fly, so it must be. Yet other rails are winged life forms, since they
>can fly. So your classification splits very similar-looking members of
>the same family.
this is exactly what would be predicted by creation theory -- that
life forms are created over a broad spectrum. Evolution would predict
that life forms gained the ability to fly over millions of years, and
the Guam rail, I suppose, could be used to show a link between birds
that are ground nesters and birds that truly fly. Yet there is no
evidence of such a linkage. Instead, the Guam rail is more reasonably
evidence of separate creation simply because there is no link between
the rail, the emu, or the birds that can fly.
> But I can do better than that. There are three or four
>species of steamer ducks (genus Tachyeres). All but one of them can fly.
>So you would say that most steamer ducks are in the "winged life form"
>category, but the aptly named flightless steamer duck is in the "land
>life form" or perhaps "water life form" category. Right? But it's
>actually worse than that.
this is good. "Worse than that" is exactly what creation theory would
expect as opposed to evolutionary theory. Creation theory says that
you CAN'T categorize these myriads of life forms. They defy
classification except in the broadest terms. So your examples that
claim that things are "worse than that" play right into my worldview.
Thank you.
>In one species of steamer duck, smaller
>individuals can fly but larger ones can't. How many categories in that
>species?
I would expect the vast cross section of varieties to defy the
supposed progression of evolution from water life to land life to air
life. This would be further evidence of separate creation.
>>>If there is a water life form group and a land life form group, why isn't
>>>there an air life form group? Or is that the winged life forms?
>>
>> right. That would be the air life form group, I guess.
>>
>>
>>>Why did you
>>>alter your naming convention?
>>
>> because some winged life forms really don't spend much time in the
>> air. That might answer my hesitation as to where to place ostriches,
>> emus and the like.
>
>
>The fact that you have no idea where to put flightless birds suggests
>that your categories may not be so good as you first imagined.
my categories were not given to show how good they were. They were
given to show that classification cannot be done except on the
broadest level. And at this level, questions arise, such as: How did
the plant life forms evolve into chordates, if evolution is to be
believed? Or why is there such a spread of similar types of life
forms throughout all categories?
Maybe, for starters, you might want to answer that first question:
How did plant life forms evolve into chordates, since you are bent on
establishing common descent relationships?
>>>You could have called it the "finned life
>>>forms" etc.
>>
>> true, but there are more life forms under water than just finned life
>> forms, and since I was starting with the broadest, most general
>> categories, I left it at water life forms.
>
>
>I think we can now see that these broad, general categories make no
>sense.
they were not meant to make relational sense, other than to trigger
some questions about origins.
> They put whales with corals instead of with other mammals, and
>some stick insects with pigeons while others go with ostriches. They
>split up all sorts of natural groups for no other reason than to fit
>your reading of some little bit of Genesis.
the inability of taxonomists to properly and consistently classify all
life forms -- pigeonhole them, if you will -- is evidence that these
life forms were separately created. They do not answer to the
evolutionary progression, especially the supposed progression of the
fossil record.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
snip>
>Why, zoe, did you organize a classification of organisms that wasn't based
>on the inherent properties of the organisms (except for plants), but on the
>environments in which the organisms are found? Why do you think that this
>would tell us anything useful about the relationships between animals?
First, I am not organizing to classify. Nor am I trying to establish
relationships between types of life forms. I am simply organizing an
observation of environments and the kinds of life forms contained
within those environments.
The usefulness of this observation is that it provides a foundation
for reasonable questions about the origins of life forms. The question
about relationships and common descent gets answered in the negative.
----
zoe
AC
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:02:18 +0000 (UTC), AC
><maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:27:49 +0000 (UTC),
>>zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:22:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
>>><doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip>
>>>
>>>>Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the same, or
>>>>different, kinds?
>>>
>>> I thought that was made clear by my statements. Okay, just for you,
>>> Dave: Chimps and humans are NOT the same kind. They are different
>>> kinds.
>>
>>Why?
>
> they cannot and do not interbreed.
So kinds are species?
--
Aaron Clausen
zoe_althrop
Rowley) wrote:
snip>
>Zoe, you really ought to put more effort into trying to
>understand what people have written,
>or did you _really_ want to say that it's a reasonable
>observation that your classification scheme isn't very good?
I heard what he said. And I clarified to him that he was trying to
classify life forms at a narrower level than I was.
>> instead of the half-cracked classifications of those TO
>> technicians (on this thread) who have an agenda.
>
>> However, I haven't gotten as far as you have yet, kzm. I'm still
>> painting the broadest, most general categories of life forms, at
>> a sweeping glance.
>
>Except for arbitrarily seperating humans from the other land
>organisms.
if you think that humans, either genetically or morphologically or
intellectually, behave like any other life form, then something's
wrong with your ability to discern.
>And picking categories that say almost nothing about the organisms
>themselves and there differances and simularities with orginisms in
>other categories.
those categories demonstrate that no kind of life form can be truly
categorized as belonging only to one category and one category only.
>> Is there any reason to say my broad categories
>> do not represent reality?
>
>No, no they represent reality,
>they just don't seem to do so in a very useful way.
of what use is YOUR painstaking and constantly changing classification
of life forms? Other than to fulfil your agenda of common descent?
>Do you really think that whales are more similar to lobsters then
>they are to cows?
they are not related to either through common descent. If I paint
several canvases -- some landscapes, some portraits, and some abstract
art -- the fact that oil paints are the medium in all canvases, or
that a similar style is used for all canvases does not mean that the
landscapes are related to the portraits to the abstract art by common
descent. This is what evolutionists are doing. They look at
similarities in dissimilar life forms and conclude that these
similarities (or differences) mean common descent. That is an
unwarranted and unjustified assumption.
>And do scorpions have more in common with cows
>then with lobsters?
nothing in common other than their genetic codes and certain
superficial similarities that get misinterpreted.
>If you want broad categories that actually group organisms according
>to there simularities you'd be better off starting with splitting
>them into unicellular and multicellular organisms.
on casual observation, an alien would not first see unicellular and
multicellular. What would be seen would be the categories that I have
described.
>Though actually that would be a more superficial split then dividing
>them by type of cell, eucariotes
I guess it's time to look up the spelling of eukaryotes?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
Rowley) wrote:
snip>
>Though actually that would be a more superficial split then dividing
>them by type of cell, eucaryotic, procaryiotic and whatever.
>
>And then divide the multicellular organisms by whether they have
>spinal cords or not and work your way down to finer and finer
>distinctions.
>
>Of course that would defeat your purpose
do you know what my purpose is? I have none to speak of, really.
Certainly, it is NOT to engage in the impossible task of classifying
life forms that weren't meant to be classified beyond the broadest
categories. It is to accept nature as I see it -- WYSIWYG.
>because then there would
>be no way to make the human/chimpanzee split seem any more special
>then the differance between any other pair of closely related
>organisms.
>
>But that reflects reality, by any nonsuperficial comparison we are
>more similar to chimps then they are to any other organisms.
don't forget the mouse while you're trying to find relatives beyond
the human field.
----
zoe
John Wilkins
There are numerous species that are comprised of chromosomal races. Just
restricting ourselves to mammals:
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Spalax_Chromosomal_Races.htm
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v403/n67
66/full/403158a0_r.html
http://www.intas.be/catalog/93-1463.htm
http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/~putz/diplomarbeit/pppppppppppp.h
tml
but there are reptilian and plant versions aplenty, eg
http://www.cybertesis.cl/www-tesis/Tesis/MVasquez/these_front.html
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e38/38c.htm
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
Frank Reichenbacher
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3eed0f76....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
> >observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
>
> an unbiased observer, without any earthly education, would observe
> that there are life forms that dwell in the water, others that dwell
> on land, yet others that belong to the air, plants that look like none
> of these and therefore have their own category, AND humans that behave
> and act like none of the other life forms. This is what an unbiased
> observer would see.
You mean an unbiased observer who knows Genesis I & II backwards, forwards,
and upside down? Are you really that looney that you think we don't realize
that's where you got your laughable classification of kinds?
He is free of any agenda to establish
> relationships, and therefore he tells it as he sees it.
He being Him, right?
>
> And remember, I am talking about someone who has not yet had a closer
> look at the life forms within these obvious categories,
They aren't obvious. Some lifeforms have backbones and some don't. This is a
fundamental difference between kinds of organisms that anyone could observe,
yet it does not appear in your "kinds".
or had a
> chance to observe the differences in the life forms within those
> categories. But when such an observer looks closer, he is bound to
> draw some conclusions that are contrary to evolutionary notions.
Anyone can set up any classification he wants depending on his purpose. Most
of today's systematics in biology is expected to reflect the phylogeny of
lifeforms. It wasn't that way in the past and some taxonomists today still
publish taxonomies that they really do not expect to reflect phylogeny. Much
of taxonomy in the last fifty years or so has revolved around the conversion
of a non-phylogenetic classifications into phylogenetic classifications.
You established your little classification of "kinds" in order to forward
your Biblical agenda, period.
>
> Someone asked about the usefulness of such general categories, and
> I'll tell you what the main use is: To ask questions about WHY, on
> closer inspection, there is such a cross section of ALL life forms
> across the board. You don't find just plantae underwater or on land.
> They are in both environments. You don't find fungi just underwater
> or on land. They are everywhere. You don't find bacteria only
> underwater or on land or in the air. They cross all boundaries. And
> you don't find vertebrates only in water, land, or air. They are
> found across the board. What could this mean?
>
> This kind of intermingling across the board flies in the face of an
> evolutionary theory that says that life forms evolved from a single
> bacterium, moving out of the oceans, onto land, and into the air over
> a period of billions of years. If this were the case, you should not
> find this mixture of life forms across the board.
Oh my God, what a maroon. Please, pray tell, why would you think this?
>
> Creation theory, however, predicts exactly this kind of intermingling.
Why do all forms of life use DNA to transmit hereditable characters?
>
> >> Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
> >> theory are about as "bright" as the above.
> >
> >
> >Can you back that up with anything?
>
> check the efforts of taxonomists to classify life forms. Their
> classifications change constantly, and when they try to fit them into
> relationships,
When more data are available. Not just whenever.
you get groupings that include, for instance, sharks,
> frogs, snakes, pheasants, kangaroos and humans, all in the category of
> chordata. Of what earthly use is this kind of categorization other
> than to say that there is a broad cross-section of life forms that
> fall into the category of vertebrates?
Umm, they all share a common ancestor? That is the purpose of the
classification? To reflect those relationships?
You're welcome.
Frank
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:44:44 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >So you are actually saying that *your* classification system
>
> it's not meant to be a classification system. The broad categories
> serve only to raise certain questions about what the life forms within
> these categories reflect about how they came into existence.
>
> >that places
> >penguins in the same category as fish and whales and starfish makes more
> >fundamental sense related to the form of the organisms (we are talking
about
> >categorization based on the form of the organisms, are we not?)
>
> no. I am saying that separate creation defies categorization beyond
> the broadest levels.
Isn't this convenient...
>
> >than one
> >that considers penguins to be birds more closely related to (more similar
> >to) hawks and sparrows than they are to trout and porpoises and starfish?
>
> that's your problem.
No, it's your problem. You have a lot of exp[laining to do.
>
> I am not trying to establish relationships between species that would
> prove common descent.
You're not? Really?
> You are
That's right. The fact that current systematics is based on real data and is
consistent and provides testable predictions that have been verified time
and time again are the reason why science makes sense to people who do not
have a separate agenda, unlike yourself.
> >That would really, really, really, indicate a level of ignorance about
> >biological structure that is astounding, even for you.
>
> as if correlating biological structures to force fit them into
> relationships is the answer to the mysteries of life. It won't work.
It is part of the answer. The answer to where we came from and how we got to
where we are. Those are questions which modern systematics, in some small
part, sets out to answer.
Frank
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:48:56 +0000 (UTC), e...@rixtele.com (Eric
> Rowley) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Though actually that would be a more superficial split then dividing
> >them by type of cell, eucaryotic, procaryiotic and whatever.
> >
> >And then divide the multicellular organisms by whether they have
> >spinal cords or not and work your way down to finer and finer
> >distinctions.
> >
> >Of course that would defeat your purpose
>
> do you know what my purpose is? I have none to speak of, really.
> Certainly, it is NOT to engage in the impossible task of classifying
> life forms that weren't meant to be classified beyond the broadest
> categories.
And your basis for the latter conclusion is what?
> It is to accept nature as I see it -- WYSIWYG.
>
You mean as Genesis I & II see it.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:03:38 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Why, zoe, did you organize a classification of organisms that wasn't
based
> >on the inherent properties of the organisms (except for plants), but on
the
> >environments in which the organisms are found? Why do you think that
this
> >would tell us anything useful about the relationships between animals?
>
> First, I am not organizing to classify. Nor am I trying to establish
> relationships between types of life forms. I am simply organizing an
> observation of environments and the kinds of life forms contained
> within those environments.
Except plants. Why don't you answer his question?
Why didn't you base your classification on any of the following:
1. Some organisms do not use oxygen in metabolism and some do.
2. Some organisms that use oxygen get it from water and some get it from
air. Some organisms are bilaterally symmetrical, some are multilaterally
symmetrical, and some are not morphologically symmetrical at all.
3. Some organisms carry internal metabolites by means of a vascular
system and some by means of cellular diffusion.
4. Some organisms have two legs, some have four legs, some have six, some
have eight, some have many, some have many many, and some have no legs at
all.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
That is the purpose of modern systematics. No one would deny that.
>
> >Do you really think that whales are more similar to lobsters then
> >they are to cows?
>
> they are not related to either through common descent. If I paint
> several canvases -- some landscapes, some portraits, and some abstract
> art -- the fact that oil paints are the medium in all canvases, or
> that a similar style is used for all canvases does not mean that the
> landscapes are related to the portraits to the abstract art by common
> descent. This is what evolutionists are doing. They look at
> similarities in dissimilar life forms and conclude that these
> similarities (or differences) mean common descent. That is an
> unwarranted and unjustified assumption.
>
> >And do scorpions have more in common with cows
> >then with lobsters?
>
> nothing in common other than their genetic codes
Oh that's it, right? Just their genetics. Only the DNA that makes them
precisely what they are and preserves evidence of where they came from.
That's all, huh?
and certain
> superficial similarities that get misinterpreted.
You right. What kind of idiot would look at the segmented chitinous tails of
scorpions and lobsters and not realize that they were totally unrelated?
Obviously the scorpion's tail is derived from the cow's bony tail. Or was it
the other way around, I forget?
>
> >If you want broad categories that actually group organisms according
> >to there simularities you'd be better off starting with splitting
> >them into unicellular and multicellular organisms.
>
> on casual observation, an alien would not first see unicellular and
> multicellular. What would be seen would be the categories that I have
> described.
I described a bunch more that they could also have seen in another post and
other's have posted many more. I suppose it was pure coincidence that you
chose a classification based entirely on Genesis I & II.
Richard McBane
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
>>observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
>
>
> an unbiased observer, without any earthly education, would observe
> that there are life forms that dwell in the water, others that dwell
> on land, yet others that belong to the air, plants that look like none
> of these and therefore have their own category, AND humans that behave
> and act like none of the other life forms. This is what an unbiased
> observer would see. He is free of any agenda to establish
> relationships, and therefore he tells it as he sees it.
It's just as likely that this unbiased observer, without any earthly
education, would observe that the dogs and cats have successfully tamed
a hairless ape to provide for all their needs. It would be obvious that
dogs and cats live a life of ease and luxury while the hairless apes,
even those not honored to live with a dog or cat, slave to provide all
the necessary infrastructure to support the lifestyles of dogs and cats.
Consequently, the unbiased observer would spend all their time
learning to communicate with dogs and cats to learn which is really boss.
Richard McBane
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
>>observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
>
> an unbiased observer, without any earthly education, would observe
> that there are life forms that dwell in the water, others that dwell
> on land, yet others that belong to the air, plants that look like none
> of these and therefore have their own category, AND humans that behave
> and act like none of the other life forms. This is what an unbiased
> observer would see. He is free of any agenda to establish
> relationships, and therefore he tells it as he sees it.
Funny things Zoe that the basics classifications predate the birth
of Darwin.
> And remember, I am talking about someone who has not yet had a closer
> look at the life forms within these obvious categories, or had a
> chance to observe the differences in the life forms within those
> categories. But when such an observer looks closer, he is bound to
> draw some conclusions that are contrary to evolutionary notions.
>
> Someone asked about the usefulness of such general categories, and
> I'll tell you what the main use is: To ask questions about WHY, on
> closer inspection, there is such a cross section of ALL life forms
> across the board. You don't find just plantae underwater or on land.
> They are in both environments. You don't find fungi just underwater
> or on land. They are everywhere. You don't find bacteria only
> underwater or on land or in the air. They cross all boundaries. And
> you don't find vertebrates only in water, land, or air. They are
> found across the board. What could this mean?
It means that your scheme is shown to be wrong.
> This kind of intermingling across the board flies in the face of an
> evolutionary theory that says that life forms evolved from a single
> bacterium, moving out of the oceans, onto land, and into the air over
> a period of billions of years. If this were the case, you should not
> find this mixture of life forms across the board.
Bull. You don't know the first thing about evolutionary theory. Your ideas
of how evolution is supposed to work appear to be pure mysticism.
1) Evolution predicts a common ancestor. This ancestor can be a population
as opposed to a single individual. Indeed if Carl Woese's ideas are
correct then the genetic systems appeared before cell membranes.
2) Far more imporantly, what you say clearly shows that you have an
false idea that evolution is linear. It is branching. Once a
taxon has split into two or more taxa there is no reason for them
to share the same enviroment forever. This is especially true if
an ecological niche is empty.
For once could you not be intellectually lazy and actually read up
about what you are criticizing before you criticize it.
> Creation theory, however, predicts exactly this kind of intermingling.
And you have yet to explain why. God could have created whatever
he wanted. He could have made your categories with nothing
violating the boundaries. God could have done it either way.
God could have also created things like transitions between
two different groups say birds and mammals. This is something
that evolution absolutely forbids.
>>> Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
>>> theory are about as "bright" as the above.
>>
>>
>>Can you back that up with anything?
>
> check the efforts of taxonomists to classify life forms. Their
> classifications change constantly,
The fine details are changing. However much of the basics have stayed
the same for centuries. Humans have never been classified as anything
other than primates. Primates have never been classified as anything
besides mammals. No one has ever called a mammal an invertebrate.
> and when they try to fit them into
> relationships, you get groupings that include, for instance, sharks,
> frogs, snakes, pheasants, kangaroos and humans, all in the category of
> chordata. Of what earthly use is this kind of categorization other
> than to say that there is a broad cross-section of life forms that
> fall into the category of vertebrates?
The vertebrates are a _very_ obvious group. The chordates which
include a few nonvertebrates unfamiliar to most people and might
not be obvious to those who have not studied their structure.
But then again, should not one actually study organisms in detail
when trying to classify them?
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
Ever heard of horses?
Przewalski horse and the domestic horse have different chromosome counts
and yet when mated produce young that themselves can mate.
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
That they do not interbreed is a fact. You simply do not know that they
cannot interbreed since that experiment has not been done. While I suspect
that is the case that they can't interbreed it is reckless to claim
so without evidence.
Also no interbreeding is not a suffient definition of kind because
speciation is known from observation to occur. Gee most evolution
denies have long figured that one out. For example Siegfried Scherer
will put two taxa into the same kind if a mating can generate
an embryo that survives long enough to express both maternal and
paternal genes.
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
[snip]
> do you know what my purpose is? I have none to speak of, really.
> Certainly, it is NOT to engage in the impossible task of classifying
> life forms that weren't meant to be classified beyond the broadest
> categories. It is to accept nature as I see it -- WYSIWYG.
[snip]
Zoe, one of the great pre-Darwinian _discoveries_ was that life on
Earth does form very natural groupings. This _discovery_ was made
by creationists. Now eventually Darwin came alone and pointed
out in his most famous work that evolution easily explained this.
mel turner
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 06:48:56 +0000 (UTC), e...@rixtele.com (Eric
>Rowley) wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>Though actually that would be a more superficial split then dividing
>>them by type of cell, eucaryotic, procaryiotic and whatever.
>>
>>And then divide the multicellular organisms by whether they have
>>spinal cords or not and work your way down to finer and finer
>>distinctions.
>>
>>Of course that would defeat your purpose
>
>do you know what my purpose is? I have none to speak of, really.
Then no doubt you're being very successful.
>Certainly, it is NOT to engage in the impossible task of classifying
>life forms that weren't meant to be classified beyond the broadest
>categories.
If organism types were separately created, what meaning is
there to these broad categories?
It is to accept nature as I see it -- WYSIWYG.
>
>>because then there would
>>be no way to make the human/chimpanzee split seem any more special
>>then the differance between any other pair of closely related
>>organisms.
>>
>>But that reflects reality, by any nonsuperficial comparison we are
>>more similar to chimps then they are to any other organisms.
>
>don't forget the mouse while you're trying to find relatives beyond
>the human field.
Mice are indeed our fairly close relatives, just not nearly as close
relatives as are chimps and the other apes, and all other primates.
cheers
mel turner
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:02:49 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>
>snip>
>>> just off the cuff, I would say that if photosynthesis is used as the
>>> criteria for identifying plants, then fungal life forms would not
>>> qualify as plants.
>>
>>That's your problem. All of this is off the cuff, and consequently makes
>>little sense. There are many plants (parasites of other plants) -- or at
>>least we usually call them plants -- that don't use photosynthesis. Are
>>they plants under your classification?
>
>not if plants are identified by their ability to photosynthesize.
Should plants be identified as "life that is able to photosynthesize"?
Then many orchids [for example] are not "plants", but many bacteria
are. If photosynthesis by proxy counts, then giant clams and lichens
are "plants".
>>>>Where does seaweed fit in? The plant life form, the bacterial life form,
or
>>>>the water life form?
>>>
>>> since seaweeds use photosynthesis, they should be classified as plant
>>> life forms.
>>But lots of bacteria use photosynthesis,
>
>bacteria have other characteristics that plants do not, so
>photosynthesis alone will not pull them into that category.
Then plants aren't identified [just] by their ability to
photosynthesize, after all. It's also those other characteristics
of plants. [which are?]
>>and in fact some bacteria --
>>the so-called "blue-green algae" are among the things called "seaweed".
>
>if blue-green algae is recognized as seaweed, then it cannot be
>bacteria, can it?
"Blue green algae" are bacteria [Cyanobacteria].
>>Are some bacteria plants?
>
>not according to the characteristics of plants, photosynthesis being
>just one of those characteristics.
What about the plants that lost the ability to photosynthesize
but kept the other plant characteristics like flowers and seeds, etc.?
>>Interestingly, the chloroplasts that are
>>inside all the traditional plants are genetically related to these
>>blue-green algae.
>
>I would expect genetic similarities between all life forms since the
>genetic code is the common mechanism used to create all varieties of
>life forms.
Not an answer. The point is, it's not "all life forms", but just
the chloroplasts that are part of the blue-green bacterial group.
>> Are chloroplasts plants? One could argue that only
>>chloroplasts are plants by your definition, because they're the only
>>entity inside a plant that does photosynthesis; the rest of the plant is
>>not involved.
>
>chloroplasts are part of the plant cell. Why have you picked the
>plant apart?
Because chloroplasts are understood to have arisen as symbiotic
"blue-green algae" that began living inside other cells. How do you
explain the observations?
>>> Once they have been categorized as plants, their being
>>> found in water does not turn them into a water life form, per se.
>>> They are still plants.
>>
>>Why? Why does being a plant take precedence over being a water life form?
>
>it doesn't take precedence. It is separated out by virtue of its
>characteristics.
Which? Living in water, or being plant-like?
If the life form falls into the category of
>characteristics that describe a plant, then it is first a plant and
>secondly described by its location -- water or land.
Okay, that's an improvement. So, you have water plants and land plants,
and water animals and land animals? Perhaps that should be water
arthropods and land arthropods, and water vertebrates and land
vertebrates, or water tetrapods and land tetrapods, or water birds
and land birds? Or maybe water isopod crustaceans and land isopod
crustaceans, and water arctoid Carnivora and land arctoid Carnivora?
>>>>Are ostriches in the winged life form group, or the land life form group?
>>>>Ditto penguins, vis. the water life form group.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where to place these exceptions. It would seem that
>>> wherever is their most regular habitat would qualify them for that
>>> group. If penguins spend more time in water than on land, then they
>>> could be categorized as water life forms. If ostriches spend more
>>> time on the ground than in the air, then even though they have
>>> rudimentary wings, they could be categorized as land life forms.
>>
>>
>>Ostriches spend zero time in the air. So they must be land life forms.
>>Now here's another question. Is the Guam rail a land life form? It can't
>>fly, so it must be. Yet other rails are winged life forms, since they
>>can fly. So your classification splits very similar-looking members of
>>the same family.
>
>this is exactly what would be predicted by creation theory
What creation theory? How can we tell what it would predict?
-- that
>life forms are created over a broad spectrum.
Why predict such a thing?
>Evolution would predict
>that life forms gained the ability to fly over millions of years, and
>the Guam rail, I suppose, could be used to show a link between birds
>that are ground nesters and birds that truly fly.
No. The Guam rail would be descended from flying ancestors.
Yet there is no
>evidence of such a linkage.
How do you know what evidence there is or isn't?
Instead, the Guam rail is more reasonably
>evidence of separate creation simply because there is no link between
>the rail, the emu, or the birds that can fly.
Of course there are clear links. What makes you think there aren't any?
>> But I can do better than that. There are three or four
>>species of steamer ducks (genus Tachyeres). All but one of them can fly.
>>So you would say that most steamer ducks are in the "winged life form"
>>category, but the aptly named flightless steamer duck is in the "land
>>life form" or perhaps "water life form" category. Right? But it's
>>actually worse than that.
>
>this is good. "Worse than that" is exactly what creation theory would
>expect as opposed to evolutionary theory.
Wrong. Creationism wouldn't seem to "expect" anything in particular,
but evolutionary theory would indeed predict lots of interesting
intermediates between "broad categories".
Creation theory says that
>you CAN'T categorize these myriads of life forms.
Then what was the point to your list of categories? And why isn't
"creation theory" refuted by the nested hierarchies of related groups
that were recognized early on by even "creationist" scientists?
They defy
>classification except in the broadest terms.
Especially if you don't even try to look at the biology of the
organisms beyond those broadest terms.
So your examples that
>claim that things are "worse than that" play right into my worldview.
>Thank you.
Wrong, but that's okay.
>>In one species of steamer duck, smaller
>>individuals can fly but larger ones can't. How many categories in that
>>species?
>
>I would expect the vast cross section of varieties
What's a "cross section of varieties"?
to defy the
>supposed progression of evolution from water life to land life to air
>life. This would be further evidence of separate creation.
Wrong, but that's okay.
>>>>If there is a water life form group and a land life form group, why isn't
>>>>there an air life form group? Or is that the winged life forms?
>>>
>>> right. That would be the air life form group, I guess.
>>>
>>>>Why did you
>>>>alter your naming convention?
>>>
>>> because some winged life forms really don't spend much time in the
>>> air. That might answer my hesitation as to where to place ostriches,
>>> emus and the like.
>>
>>The fact that you have no idea where to put flightless birds suggests
>>that your categories may not be so good as you first imagined.
>
>my categories were not given to show how good they were. They were
>given to show that classification cannot be done except on the
>broadest level.
At least, not by you. Biologists seem to do a bit better:
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/tol/
And at this level, questions arise, such as: How did
>the plant life forms evolve into chordates, if evolution is to be
>believed?
And what leads you to imagine that chordates were supposed to have
evolved from plants? [You're really just fishing for more "chez watt"
nominations, right?]
>Or why is there such a spread of similar types of life
>forms throughout all categories?
You'll have to explain this intriguingly vague claim. What spread of
similar types of life forms throughout all categories? Are you talking
about your own artificial categories, and how there are winged mammals,
land mammals and marine mammals?
>Maybe, for starters, you might want to answer that first question:
>How did plant life forms evolve into chordates, since you are bent on
>establishing common descent relationships?
Again, you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody but
you supposes that "plant life forms evolved into chordates". Plants
and all metazoan animals [not just chordates] evolved from early
common ancestors, but fungi are closer kin to animals than plants are.
>>>>You could have called it the "finned life
>>>>forms" etc.
>>>
>>> true, but there are more life forms under water than just finned life
>>> forms, and since I was starting with the broadest, most general
>>> categories, I left it at water life forms.
>>
>>
>>I think we can now see that these broad, general categories make no
>>sense.
>
>they were not meant to make relational sense, other than to trigger
>some questions about origins.
How might they do that? [At first glance I read the above as "not
meant to make rational sense"].
>> They put whales with corals instead of with other mammals, and
>>some stick insects with pigeons while others go with ostriches. They
>>split up all sorts of natural groups for no other reason than to fit
>>your reading of some little bit of Genesis.
>
>the inability of taxonomists to properly and consistently classify all
>life forms
They do "properly and consistently classify" life forms. Their
consistent classifications just are nothing like with yours.
-- pigeonhole them, if you will -- is evidence that these
>life forms were separately created.
Are you saying that the fact that taxonomists will all disagree with
you and your "classification" is somehow to be evidence that you are
right?
They do not answer to the
>evolutionary progression, especially the supposed progression of the
>fossil record.
Huh?
cheers
Howard Hershey
muz...@aol.com wrote on 6/16/03 1:45 AM:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:03:38 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>> Why, zoe, did you organize a classification of organisms that wasn't based
>> on the inherent properties of the organisms (except for plants), but on the
>> environments in which the organisms are found? Why do you think that this
>> would tell us anything useful about the relationships between animals?
>
> First, I am not organizing to classify. Nor am I trying to establish
> relationships between types of life forms. I am simply organizing an
> observation of environments and the kinds of life forms contained
> within those environments.
But you are not even doing that consistently, zoe. It is impossible to tell
exactly what you are doing that differs from organizing nature on the
principles of the Bible, which is NOT, as you point out, a science manual.
>
> The usefulness of this observation is that it provides a foundation
> for reasonable questions about the origins of life forms.
Exactly how is it going to do this? The categories you place organisms into
have no internal consistency. They seem to be nothing more than arbitrary
placements designed to look like Genesis.
> The question
> about relationships and common descent gets answered in the negative.
It would be more logical to just have two groups, then. Humans and not
humans.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
>>>>>The seven categories of life forms that can be observed in nature
>>>>>today give rise to the following observations:
>>>>>
>>>>>-bacterial life forms.
>>>>>-fungal life forms.
>>>>>-Plant life forms.
Notice that the above three are groupings that are, like standard groupings,
based on morphological similarities among the organisms. These are
groupings based on very broad morphological similarities, and, in fact,
constitute 3 of the five kingdoms in the five kingdom classification system
in common useage even today. [An observant reader would remember that the
first two were late additions of organisms that the Bible did not mention.]
>>>>>-Water life forms.
>>>>>-Winged life forms.
>>>>>-land life forms.
Notice that the above three groupings, unlike the first three, have nothing
to do with grouping the organisms on the basis of morphological similarities
among them. It is a grouping that is based on a feature of the external
environment. No explanation is given as to why one did not continue with
the groupings based on morphological similarities (like you did for plants,
fungi, and bacteria) or why you did not simply extend the ecological
groupings to plants, fungi, and bacteria. Since grouping on the basis of
ecological setting has only a limited correlation with basic morphology, it
is hard to call this a really fundamental classification of organisms into
natural categories.
>>>>>-human life forms.
And the last, unlike all the rest, which are broad-scale categorizations, is
a single species, a small scale categorization. That is, a population with
a unique set of morphological features which can interbreed. None of the
other categories is composed of either a single species or a single kind (by
zoe's definition of kind, there is no significant difference between species
and kind).
That is, zoe's categories are internally inconsistent. There is no common
standard in these categories. Even the stupidest alien would try to apply a
consistent standard across all of biota, *even* if he (she, it, they) were
to apply a completely ecological standard and were unable to distinguish
between a starfish and a jellyfish and a sunflower.
Human biologists, including creationists like Linnaeus, of course, can make
such distinctions and since Linnaeus have consistently used groupings that
are consistently based on degrees of morphological (and now genetic, as
well) similarity.
John Wilkins
> That is, zoe's categories are internally inconsistent. There is no common
> standard in these categories. Even the stupidest alien would try to apply a
> consistent standard across all of biota, *even* if he (she, it, they) were
> to apply a completely ecological standard and were unable to distinguish
> between a starfish and a jellyfish and a sunflower.
Which was the point, perhaps lost, of my librarian example in debate
with her. She cannot see that classifying one lot of books by author and
another by subject causes inconsistencies in her classification.
And I know she will say that she is not classifying organisms (now, at
any rate) but it remains a fact this is what she is doing.
John Drayton
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:44:44 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>
> it's not meant to be a classification system. The broad categories
> serve only to raise certain questions about what the life forms within
> these categories reflect about how they came into existence.
So let me understand this ...
You are proposing a "categorisation" system, not a
"classification" system.
Can you explain how categorising differs from classifying?
> >that places
> >penguins in the same category as fish and whales and starfish makes more
> >fundamental sense related to the form of the organisms (we are talking about
> >categorization based on the form of the organisms, are we not?)
>
> no. I am saying that separate creation defies categorization beyond
> the broadest levels.
So seperate creation implies that lifeforms are not
categorisable beyond a system that describes where
they live?
> >than one
> >that considers penguins to be birds more closely related to (more similar
> >to) hawks and sparrows than they are to trout and porpoises and starfish?
>
> that's your problem.
>
> I am not trying to establish relationships between species that would
> prove common descent. You are
I thought that the idea was to establish if a particular
theory was supported by the available evidence. Science
doesn't deal with proof, if you can remember anything
you learnt in any of the myriad of isochron threads.
> >That would really, really, really, indicate a level of ignorance about
> >biological structure that is astounding, even for you.
>
> as if correlating biological structures to force fit them into
> relationships is the answer to the mysteries of life. It won't work.
Which "mystery of life" are you talking about?
Are you seeking some spiritual revelation from a
scientific theory? Why would you expect this?
Do you think fitting life forms into groupings such as
animal, vertebrate, mammal requires a force fit?
> ----
> zoe
--
John Drayton
Eric Rowley
FR> "zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
<snip>
FR> > do you know what my purpose is? I have none to speak of,
FR> >really. Certainly, it is NOT to engage in the impossible task
FR> >of classifying life forms that weren't meant to be classified
FR> >beyond the broadest categories.
FR> And your basis for the latter conclusion is what?
Her categorising scheme doesn't work so "obviously" ours must be
broken as well, otherwise we wouldn't have a "level playing field".
She did the same thing on the isochron threads, when we showed that
the isochron method gave the same results as the generic method in
cases where the generic method was applicable she invented her own
method and spent a lot of time demonstrating that _her_ method gave
the wrong result rather then saying anything relevant about the
_real_ isochron method.
Eric
Ketil Malde
> It's just as likely that this unbiased observer, without any earthly
> education, would observe that the dogs and cats have successfully tamed
> a hairless ape to provide for all their needs. It would be obvious that
> dogs and cats live a life of ease and luxury while the hairless apes,
> even those not honored to live with a dog or cat, slave to provide all
> the necessary infrastructure to support the lifestyles of dogs and cats.
The alien would probably be delighted to appear at such an interesting
time, when the dominant life forms are being supplanted, and the slave
bipeds hijacked, by a relative new one: the computer.
-kzm (not having a dog)
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Eric Rowley
> snip>
> >Zoe, you really ought to put more effort into trying to
> >understand what people have written, or did you _really_ want
> >to say that it's a reasonable observation that your
> >classification scheme isn't very good?
> I heard what he said. And I clarified to him that he was trying
> to classify life forms at a narrower level than I was.
> >> instead of the half-cracked classifications of those TO >>
> technicians (on this thread) who have an agenda. >
> >> However, I haven't gotten as far as you have yet, kzm. I'm
> still >> painting the broadest, most general categories of life
> forms, at >> a sweeping glance. >
> >Except for arbitrarily seperating humans from the other land
> >organisms.
> if you think that humans, either genetically
Err... do you remember the 98% genetic similarity?
(or has that been downgraded a couple of percent%)
> or morphologically
We have all the same pieces as chimps (and mice) don't we?
Some of them aren't quite the same size or shape but they are
all recognizably the same bits and pieces.
As far as I am aware compared to chimps we are (mostly) taller,
we have longer legs, flatter less flexable feet, longer fingers,
smaller hairs on most of our bodies and longer on our heads, our
heads and legs attach to our bodies at a different angle and bits
of our brains and penises are larger. Have I left out anything
important?
Insignificant differences compared to the differences between chimps
and most of the other animals you have them lumped together with,
mice, cows, lizards, snails, ants etc.
> or intellectually, behave like any other life form,
Yes, we have more intellect then chimps which gives us a wider range
of intellectual behaviour, so what? Chimps are better at climbing
trees then we are and elefants can pick up treetrunks with their
noses.
> then something's wrong with your ability to discern.
Oh, I can discern the differences all right I just think they are
superficial compared to the fundamental similarities that you seem
to ignore in your classification.
> >And picking categories that say almost nothing about the
> >organisms themselves and there differances and simularities with
> >orginisms in other categories.
> those categories demonstrate that no kind of life form can be
> truly categorized as belonging only to one category and one
> category only.
No they don't.
They just demonstrate that _your_ catagories don't work.
That says nothing about whether or not scientific taxonomy works!
> >> Is there any reason to say my broad categories
> >> do not represent reality?
> >
> >No, no they represent reality,
> >they just don't seem to do so in a very useful way.
> of what use is YOUR painstaking and constantly changing
It's nowhere near as fluid as you are implying, sure the details may
change but that is only to be expected in a world of imperfect data
and fuzzy transitions, the basics are constant.
> classification of life forms?
Very useful, since the catagories are based on the characteristics of
the organisms knowing how the organism is categorized tells you a lot
about the organism. For instance when describing mammals one doesn't
have to go in to all the details about bearing live young, producing
milk, or the properties of fur for each and every animal.
Knowing that an animal is a mammal one takes it for granted that it
has fur and bears live young that are fed milk and one can go
directly to the details of fur length and colouration or exceptions
(possibly whales and/or naked molerats) , number young and so forth.
> Other than to fulfil your agenda of common descent?
That is a conclusion from the data, not an assumtion.
> >Do you really think that whales are more similar to lobsters
> >then they are to cows?
> they are not related to either through common descent.
The evidence speaks otherwise.
> If I paint
> several canvases --some landscapes, some portraits, and some
> abstract art --the fact that oil paints are the medium in all
> canvases, or that a similar style is used for all canvases does
> not mean that the landscapes are related to the portraits to the
> abstract art by common descent. This is what evolutionists are
> doing. They look at similarities in dissimilar life forms and
> conclude that these similarities (or differences)
Not similarities OR differences, _patterns_ of similarities AND
differences. It's like medieval monks hand copying books, one monk
makes a copying error and the monks who copy that book copy that
error and make their own errors, by comparing the text of the books
one can trace the errors and determine (with some level of
uncertainty) who copied who.
> mean common
> descent. That is an unwarranted and unjustified assumption.
It's the only reasonable explaination for the nested hierarchies of
life, especially when the transitional fossils fit the same pattern,
unless you consider a god who mimics common descent a reasonable
explanation.
It wouldn't neccessarily have to be a deception,
your idea of "conceptual advancement" could work with a little
modification. It can't be purely conceptual because we have the
(fossils of the) prototypes. But it would have to be a god who
never made any sweeping changes, never added bold inovations or
transplanted parts from one project to another but always worked
by gently tweeking his designs, always creating new creatures that
were very much like his previous designs both genetically and
morphologically. And personally I think calling that anything
other than common descent would be semantic quibbling.
> >And do scorpions have more in common with cows
> >then with lobsters?
> nothing in common other than their genetic codes and certain
> superficial similarities
Then wouldn't it be more reasonable to group them with lobsters
with which they have much greater similarities?
> that get misinterpreted.
Be that as it may, the similarities are obviously a result of their
origins (whether by separate creation OR common descent) and ought to
be considered in any classification scheme intended to throw light on
the properties of these origins.
> >If you want broad categories that actually group organisms
> >according to there simularities you'd be better off starting
> >with splitting them into unicellular and multicellular
> >organisms.
> on casual observation, an alien would not first see unicellular
Thats true :-)
> and multicellular.
Not from orbit, no. :-)
> What would be seen would be the categories
> that I have described.
On a very very casual observation perhaps, or perhaps it might divide
organisms by colour or size. I really don't think that casual
observations are much of a basis for a reasonable categorization.
> >Though actually that would be a more superficial split then
> >dividing them by type of cell, eucariotes
> I guess it's time to look up the spelling of eukaryotes?
I did!
The post escaped in the meantime. :-(
Eric
Eric Rowley
> >muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
> news:3eeb855d.338244810@news->server.cfl.rr.com: >
> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:22:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> >> <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote: >>
> >> snip>
> >>
> >>>Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the
> >>>same, or different, kinds?
> >> I thought that was made clear by my statements. Okay, just for
> >> you, Dave: Chimps and humans are NOT the same kind. They are
> >> different kinds.
> >Ok, yet they have inherited from their ancestors the remains of
> >identical genetic accidents, not once but many, many times. What
> >do you suppose the chances are of that happening to two
> >different ancestral lines?
> you are deep into your assumption,
Conclusion!
> an assumption that has not
> been justified.
Has so!
> That assumption is that certain genetic
> similarities are accidents,
Mutations and viral insertions are observed to happen accidently now.
> and that such similarities arose from a single common ancestor.
They are observed to be passed down by common descent.
(I'm talking micro common descent here, not macro.) :-)
> You need to justify that assumption
> independently before you apply it to the data.
It's reasonable to conclude that similar traces in the genome
occurred by similar means. Especially when the fossil record
fits the same story.
Eric
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
> >observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
>
> an unbiased observer, without any earthly education, would observe
> that there are life forms that dwell in the water, others that dwell
> on land, yet others that belong to the air,
This would be the very first impression, yes, perhaps. But looking
even a little bit closer, he/she/it would see that there are no sharp
boundaries between these categories, and hence that this grouping
makes no sense.
> plants that look like none
> of these and therefore have their own category, AND humans that behave
> and act like none of the other life forms.
Zoe, how long do you plan to miss the point? *EVERY* form of life
behaves, acts and looks like none of the other life forms!!! If a life
form behaved, acted and looked exactly like another life form, it
wouldn't be a life form on its own!!!
So why do you keep singling out humans with the argument "they behave
and act like none of the other life forms", although this applies to
*all* life forms?
> This is what an unbiased observer would see.
An unbiased observer would group humans with the land life forms,
because that's what humans in general do - live on land.
> He is free of any agenda to establish
> relationships, and therefore he tells it as he sees it.
Something who is free of any agenda to establish relationsships would
still group humans with the land life forms - because *HUMANS LIVE ON
LAND*. Why don't you understand this simple point?
> And remember, I am talking about someone who has not yet had a closer
> look at the life forms within these obvious categories, or had a
> chance to observe the differences in the life forms within those
> categories.
Nice. This excuses why he doesn't recognize that the boundaries
between the categories are so fuzzy that this makes this
categorization useless. But this does *not* excuse putting humans into
an extra category!
> But when such an observer looks closer, he is bound to
> draw some conclusions that are contrary to evolutionary notions.
Why?
> Someone asked about the usefulness of such general categories, and
> I'll tell you what the main use is: To ask questions about WHY, on
> closer inspection, there is such a cross section of ALL life forms
> across the board.
what do you mean by "cross section" here?
> You don't find just plantae under water or on land.
> They are in both environments.
And you think this is a problem for evolution? If yes, why? Or do you
think this is a prediction of "creation theory"? If yes, why?
> You don't find fungi just underwater
> or on land. They are everywhere.
Same question.
> You don't find bacteria only
> underwater or on land or in the air. They cross all boundaries.
Same question.
> And you don't find vertebrates only in water, land, or air. They are
> found across the board. What could this mean?
That evolution leads to vast diversification, I would say.
What does this mean to you?
> This kind of intermingling across the board flies in the face of an
> evolutionary theory
Why?
> that says that life forms evolved from a single bacterium,
Zoe, you have been told lots of times that the first life form wasn't
a bacterium. So why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
> moving out of the oceans, onto land, and into the air over
> a period of billions of years.
That's, as usual, not what the theory of evolution really says, but
only a caricature of it.
> If this were the case, you should not
> find this mixture of life forms across the board.
Try to learn what the theory of evolution *really* says instead of
attacking such ridiculous straw men.
> Creation theory, however, predicts exactly this kind of intermingling.
Why?
> >> Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
> >> theory are about as "bright" as the above.
> >
> >
> >Can you back that up with anything?
>
> check the efforts of taxonomists to classify life forms.
They constructed a consistent tree of life, which shows a nice
twin-nested hierarchy.
> Their classifications change constantly,
That's wrong. Where do you get this from?
> and when they try to fit them into
> relationships, you get groupings that include, for instance, sharks,
> frogs, snakes, pheasants, kangaroos and humans, all in the category of
> chordata.
And what's your problem with this?
> Of what earthly use is this kind of categorization other
> than to say that there is a broad cross-section of life forms that
> fall into the category of vertebrates?
First, taxonomical classifications aren't based on what this is useful
for - the taxonomists simply look what there is in nature, and
classify it. Second, there *are* useful conclusions which can be
derived from this - for example, evolutionary relationsships: life
forms which are in the same category are likely to come from a common
ancestor.
Bye,
Bjoern
Eric Rowley
> >On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 20:27:49 +0000 (UTC),
> >zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:22:14 +0000 (UTC), Dave Oldridge
> >><doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote: >>
> >> snip>
> >>>Never mind all the obfuscation. Are chimps and humans the
> >>>same, or different, kinds?
> >> I thought that was made clear by my statements. Okay, just for
> >>you, Dave: Chimps and humans are NOT the same kind. They are
> >>different kinds.
>>Why?
> they cannot and do not interbreed.
But if our ancestors 5-10 million years ago could and did interbreed
that would make us the same kind would it not? (or can kinds split?)
How can you tell that didn't happen?
Eric
Eric Rowley
> snip>
> >So you are actually saying that *your* classification system
> it's not meant to be a classification system. The broad
> categories serve only to raise certain questions about what the
> life forms within these categories reflect about how they came
> into existence.
So why do you think an organisms current enviroment has anything
inportant to tell about it's origin?
If two similar organisms live in different enviroments I would
think one should start thinking about the possibility that they
both originated in the same place and then one of them moved
rather then assuming they must have originated separately.
> >that places
> >penguins in the same category as fish and whales and starfish
> >makes more fundamental sense related to the form of the
> >organisms (we are talking about categorization based on the form
> >of the organisms, are we not?)
> no. I am saying that separate creation defies categorization
> beyond the broadest levels.
I agree (assuming you mean created _kinds_ defy categorization,
it goes without saying that organisms can be categorized into kinds)
But what then are felines, canines, rodents, primates, ants, spiders,
etc, etc, etc?
They look to me very much like narrower categories (but too wide to
be kinds), can you give any reason why these categories should be
considered problematical?
Can you name any animals that defy categorizing at these levels?
> >than one
> >that considers penguins to be birds more closely related to
> >(more similar to) hawks and sparrows than they are to trout and
> >porpoises and starfish?
> that's your problem.
Why?
It's only a problem if one trys to use _your_ cataloging scheme,
we are quite content to use the standard scientific taxonomy until
someone comes along with something better.
> I am not trying to establish relationships between species that
> would prove common descent.
Neither were the people who laid the foundation for scientific
taxonomy. And yet when the ideas of evolution and common descent
came along they fit right in.
> You are
No we're not, but the relationships that exist do strongly indicate
common descent.
> >That would really, really, really, indicate a level of ignorance
> >about biological structure that is astounding, even for you.
> as if correlating biological structures to force fit them into
> relationships is the answer to the mysteries of life.
Where is any force neccessary?
Take mammals for instance.
Live born young, milk and hair, if you've got those you've
got a mammal and in most cases if you've got a mammal you've got
live born young, milk and hair, I'm not sure about whales and naked
mole rats but I suspect they have a few hairs.
And that's not just a circular definition, look at the skeletons and
you find they are more similar to other mammal skeletons then to
reptiles or birds or fish. Mammals form a natural group.
> It won't work.
It has and does.
Eric
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 15:02:49 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >>
> >> just off the cuff, I would say that if photosynthesis is used as the
> >> criteria for identifying plants, then fungal life forms would not
> >> qualify as plants.
> >
> >
> >That's your problem. All of this is off the cuff, and consequently makes
> >little sense. There are many plants (parasites of other plants) -- or at
> >least we usually call them plants -- that don't use photosynthesis. Are
> >they plants under your classification?
>
> not if plants are identified by their ability to photosynthesize.
Right. But why should one do this?
> >>>Where does seaweed fit in? The plant life form, the bacterial life form,
> >>>or the water life form?
> >>
> >> since seaweeds use photosynthesis, they should be classified as plant
> >> life forms.
> >
> >
> >But lots of bacteria use photosynthesis,
>
> bacteria have other characteristics that plants do not, so
> photosynthesis alone will not pull them into that category.
So, what characteristics must a life form have so that you call it a
plant, beside photosynthesis?
[snip]
> >Interestingly, the chloroplasts that are
> >inside all the traditional plants are genetically related to these
> >blue-green algae.
>
> I would expect genetic similarities between all life forms since the
> genetic code is the common mechanism used to create all varieties of
> life forms.
Why would you expect a common genetic code for all life forms from
creation theory? You pointed out that you expect a broad spectrum of
life forms from creation theory. Why isn't this spectrum so broad that
it includes other forms of genetic code?
[snip]
> >> Once they have been categorized as plants, their being
> >> found in water does not turn them into a water life form, per se.
> >> They are still plants.
> >
> >
> >Why? Why does being a plant take precedence over being a water life form?
>
> it doesn't take precedence. It is separated out by virtue of its
> characteristics. If the life form falls into the category of
> characteristics that describe a plant, then it is first a plant and
> secondly described by its location -- water or land.
Why use this order, and not the reverse? First look if it lives on
land or in water, and afterwards if it is a plant or not?
> >>>Are ostriches in the winged life form group, or the land life form group?
> >>>Ditto penguins, vis. the water life form group.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure where to place these exceptions. It would seem that
> >> wherever is their most regular habitat would qualify them for that
> >> group. If penguins spend more time in water than on land, then they
> >> could be categorized as water life forms. If ostriches spend more
> >> time on the ground than in the air, then even though they have
> >> rudimentary wings, they could be categorized as land life forms.
> >
> >
> >Ostriches spend zero time in the air. So they must be land life forms.
> >Now here's another question. Is the Guam rail a land life form? It can't
> >fly, so it must be. Yet other rails are winged life forms, since they
> >can fly. So your classification splits very similar-looking members of
> >the same family.
>
> this is exactly what would be predicted by creation theory -- that
> life forms are created over a broad spectrum.
Why does creation theory predict this?
And why does it even predict that two closely related life forms (or
do you claim that different types of rails aren't related to each
other?) fall into two different categories?
> Evolution would predict
> that life forms gained the ability to fly over millions of years,
Vaguely right.
> and the Guam rail, I suppose, could be used to show a link between birds
> that are ground nesters and birds that truly fly.
Perhaps. So what?
> Yet there is no evidence of such a linkage.
Why do you think so?
> Instead, the Guam rail is more reasonably
> evidence of separate creation simply because there is no link between
> the rail, the emu, or the birds that can fly.
Err, Zoe, as John pointed out, there are different types of rails,
some of them can fly, some can't. How does your creation theory
explain that different types of the same animal have to be put into
two different categories?
> > But I can do better than that. There are three or four
> >species of steamer ducks (genus Tachyeres). All but one of them can fly.
> >So you would say that most steamer ducks are in the "winged life form"
> >category, but the aptly named flightless steamer duck is in the "land
> >life form" or perhaps "water life form" category. Right? But it's
> >actually worse than that.
>
> this is good. "Worse than that" is exactly what creation theory would
> expect as opposed to evolutionary theory.
Why?
> Creation theory says that
> you CAN'T categorize these myriads of life forms.
Why does it say that?
> They defy
> classification except in the broadest terms.
Err, Zoe, the example that John gave defies classification *even* in
your "broadest" terms.
> So your examples that
> claim that things are "worse than that" play right into my worldview.
> Thank you.
Could you please explain why creation theory predicts that different
types of steamer ducks have to be put into two different categories?
Why does creation theory predict that two closely related life forms
can be members of different categories, although the categories were
chosen so broad?
> >In one species of steamer duck, smaller
> >individuals can fly but larger ones can't. How many categories in that
> >species?
>
> I would expect the vast cross section of varieties to defy the
> supposed progression of evolution from water life to land life to air
> life.
What supposed progression? Zoe, evolution predicts a bush or a tree,
not a ladder.
> This would be further evidence of separate creation.
Why?
[snip]
> >The fact that you have no idea where to put flightless birds suggests
> >that your categories may not be so good as you first imagined.
>
> my categories were not given to show how good they were. They were
> given to show that classification cannot be done except on the
> broadest level.
But, Zoe, even these "broadest levels" don't work, as John has shown
above. So do you claim now that classification is altogether
impossible or what?
And how do you explain that the type of classification used by
taxonomists (you know, all this stuff with vertebraes, mammals and so
on) *does* work?
> And at this level, questions arise, such as: How did
> the plant life forms evolve into chordates, if evolution is to be
> believed?
No one claims that plants evolved into chordates. Where did you get
this nonsense from>
> Or why is there such a spread of similar types of life
> forms throughout all categories?
Err, because of evolution?
> Maybe, for starters, you might want to answer that first question:
> How did plant life forms evolve into chordates, since you are bent on
> establishing common descent relationships?
They didn't. They have a common ancestor.
> >>>You could have called it the "finned life
> >>>forms" etc.
> >>
> >> true, but there are more life forms under water than just finned life
> >> forms, and since I was starting with the broadest, most general
> >> categories, I left it at water life forms.
> >
> >
> >I think we can now see that these broad, general categories make no
> >sense.
>
> they were not meant to make relational sense, other than to trigger
> some questions about origins.
It was clearly demonstrated that your categories do not work. On the
other hand, the standard classification scheme *does* work.
> >They put whales with corals instead of with other mammals, and
> >some stick insects with pigeons while others go with ostriches. They
> >split up all sorts of natural groups for no other reason than to fit
> >your reading of some little bit of Genesis.
>
> the inability of taxonomists to properly and consistently classify all
> life forms -- pigeonhole them, if you will -- is evidence that these
> life forms were separately created.
What inability are you talking about? The classification works just
fine, thank you.
> They do not answer to the
> evolutionary progression, especially the supposed progression of the
> fossil record.
Zoe, there is no progression supposed.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> >> However, I haven't gotten as far as you have yet, kzm. I'm still
> >> painting the broadest, most general categories of life forms, at
> >> a sweeping glance.
> >
> >Except for arbitrarily seperating humans from the other land
> >organisms.
>
> if you think that humans, either genetically or morphologically or
> intellectually, behave like any other life form, then something's
> wrong with your ability to discern.
No, Zoe, we don't think that.
But we also don't think that, say, for example, dogs behave like any
other life form, either genetically or morphologically or
intellectually. Hence why didn't you make up an extra group for dogs?
Zoe, *EVERY* life form has unique characteristics - if it hadn't, it
wouldn't be a life form on its own! So "humans have unique
characteristics" is *NOT* a valid point for putting them into their
own category!!!
Did you understand it this time?
> >And picking categories that say almost nothing about the organisms
> >themselves and there differances and simularities with orginisms in
> >other categories.
>
> those categories demonstrate that no kind of life form can be truly
> categorized as belonging only to one category and one category only.
No. The only demonstrate that no life form can be categorized as
belonging only to one of *THESE* categories and one of *THESE*
categories only.
It does *not* demonstrate that it isn't possible to develop some
*over* categories in a way so that then, every life form can be truly
categorized as belonging only to one of these *new* categories and one
of these *new* categories only. (hint: that's exactly what the
standard taxonomical classification scheme achieved; further hint:
this scheme was developed before the ToE was discovered)
> >> Is there any reason to say my broad categories
> >> do not represent reality?
> >
> >No, no they represent reality,
> >they just don't seem to do so in a very useful way.
>
> of what use is YOUR painstaking and constantly changing classification
> of life forms?
1) There are no ambiguities - every life form is neatly sorted.
2) It gives hints for common descent.
> Other than to fulfil your agenda of common descent?
Zoe, the standard classification system was invented *before* the ToE
was discovered. Hence it can't be based on such an agenda.
> >Do you really think that whales are more similar to lobsters then
> >they are to cows?
>
> they are not related to either through common descent.
That wasn't the question here. The question was similarity, not
relationship. Don't evade the question, answer it!
> If I paint
> several canvases -- some landscapes, some portraits, and some abstract
> art -- the fact that oil paints are the medium in all canvases, or
> that a similar style is used for all canvases does not mean that the
> landscapes are related to the portraits to the abstract art by common
> descent.
Hint: canvases don't reproduce, hence they obviously can't be related
by common descent.
Further hint: living organism can be consistently classified into a
nested hierarchy. Non-living things can't. How do you explain that?
> This is what evolutionists are doing.
No, that's your usual straw man.
> They look at
> similarities in dissimilar life forms and conclude that these
> similarities (or differences) mean common descent.
Wrong. They look at the *PATTERN* of similarities, the nested
hierarchy. They look at the fossil record. They look at ERVs, which
are known to insert themselves randomly (no, Zoe, that's not an
assumption, that's an experimental observation!). And so on. Stop
attacking your straw men!
> That is an unwarranted and unjustified assumption.
No problem, since this isn't what scientists do.
> >And do scorpions have more in common with cows
> >then with lobsters?
>
> nothing in common other than their genetic codes and certain
> superficial similarities that get misinterpreted.
The question was not if scorpions have something in common with
lobsters. The question was if they have *MORE* in common with lobsters
than with cows!!!
Care to answer this question instead of evading it?
> >If you want broad categories that actually group organisms according
> >to there simularities you'd be better off starting with splitting
> >them into unicellular and multicellular organisms.
>
> on casual observation, an alien would not first see unicellular and
> multicellular. What would be seen would be the categories that I have
> described.
And why do you think that casual observation is useful for biology?
[snip rest]
Bye,
Bjoern
John Harshman
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC), John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>Are you being deliberately obtuse, Zoe? The point is that no unbiased
>>observer would categorize life this way, or the way you did.
>>
>
> an unbiased observer, without any earthly education, would observe
> that there are life forms that dwell in the water, others that dwell
> on land, yet others that belong to the air, plants that look like none
> of these and therefore have their own category, AND humans that behave
> and act like none of the other life forms. This is what an unbiased
> observer would see. He is free of any agenda to establish
> relationships, and therefore he tells it as he sees it.
I wasn't commenting on the validity of your claims (at least not then).
I was just pointing out that you had entirely failed to understand the
previous poster's point.
I deny that the unbiased observer would form any such categories. He
would certainly notice that certain organisms live in certain places,
but he wouldnt' base a classification on that, even with a superficial
look. It's obvious, for example, to the most casual observation, that
sea otters and other mustelids are very similar, and nobody would put
them into separate categories (except of course you). Whales might take
a little longer to connect to the otters instead of the fish, but it
would be done after only a little more observation.
> And remember, I am talking about someone who has not yet had a closer
> look at the life forms within these obvious categories, or had a
> chance to observe the differences in the life forms within those
> categories. But when such an observer looks closer, he is bound to
> draw some conclusions that are contrary to evolutionary notions.
Yes? Which conclusions would those be? And why?
> Someone asked about the usefulness of such general categories, and
> I'll tell you what the main use is: To ask questions about WHY, on
> closer inspection, there is such a cross section of ALL life forms
> across the board. You don't find just plantae underwater or on land.
> They are in both environments. You don't find fungi just underwater
> or on land. They are everywhere.
Actually, I'm not sure about this. Are there aquatic fungi?
> You don't find bacteria only
> underwater or on land or in the air. They cross all boundaries. And
> you don't find vertebrates only in water, land, or air. They are
> found across the board. What could this mean?
>
> This kind of intermingling across the board flies in the face of an
> evolutionary theory that says that life forms evolved from a single
> bacterium, moving out of the oceans, onto land, and into the air over
> a period of billions of years. If this were the case, you should not
> find this mixture of life forms across the board.
I am at a complete loss to explain why you think this. Perhaps you will
explain.
> Creation theory, however, predicts exactly this kind of intermingling.
It does? How?
>>>Come to think of it, though, the classifications in evolutionary
>>>theory are about as "bright" as the above.
>>
>>Can you back that up with anything?
>
> check the efforts of taxonomists to classify life forms.
I do that frequently. Zoe, I am a taxonomist. (Well, I call myself a
systematist, but that's what you mean.)
> Their
> classifications change constantly,
Not so much as you might think. And less and less as time goes by, and
as we learn more. And the funny thing is that different data sets tend
to produce the same sets of relationships. Why?
> and when they try to fit them into
> relationships, you get groupings that include, for instance, sharks,
> frogs, snakes, pheasants, kangaroos and humans, all in the category of
> chordata. Of what earthly use is this kind of categorization other
> than to say that there is a broad cross-section of life forms that
> fall into the category of vertebrates?
It describes the relationships among species. There is only one such set
that makes sense. Vertebrates cut across your little classification
because your little classification makes no sense. Trying to use that
cross-cutting to show that standard classifications don't work is ironic
to say the least, when you appear to have members of the same species in
different categories.
Howard Hershey
jharshman....@pacbell.net wrote on 6/16/03 1:38 PM:
[snip]
> Actually, I'm not sure about this. Are there aquatic fungi?
Yes. There are common fungal infections in fish (particularly the eyes).
Howard Hershey
hers...@indiana.edu wrote on 6/16/03 4:51 AM:
> in article 3eed2039....@news-server.cfl.rr.com, zoe_althrop at
> muz...@aol.com wrote on 6/16/03 1:45 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:03:38 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
>> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
[snip]
Below is zoe's inconsistent categories, using inconsistent bases for
categorizations.
If you were to be consistent in basing your categories, they could read like
this (if you use morphology as a primary decider and location as a secondary
decider):
>>>>>> -bacterial life forms.
subdivided into water bacterial life forms, land bacterial forms, and
bacterial forms that spend as much time in the air as birds do. There would
be serious problems in implementing this, since many bacteria spend time in
quite different environments at different stages of their life.
>>>>>> -fungal life forms.
subdivided into water fungal life forms, land fungal forms, and fungal forms
that spend as much time in the air as birds do (e.g., histoplasmosis).
There would be serious problems in implementing this, since many fungi spend
time in quite different environments at different stages of their life.
>>>>>> -Plant life forms.
subdivided into water plant life forms, land plant forms, and plant forms
that spend as much time in the air (or trees) as birds do. There would be
serious problems in implementing this.
and now a new "life form" (I would also add a fifth group of protozooans,
but won't complain too much if you lump them in with 'animals')
Animal life forms
which is subdivided into
>>>>>> -Water life forms.
>>>>>> -Winged life forms.
>>>>>> -land life forms.
There are, as has been mentioned a number of times, difficulty in clearly
placing some organisms in only one of these groups, since some are quite
amphibian (so to speak). But so be it.
Humans (the species H. sapiens), of course, would be a "kind" which is
located as a subdivision of all the 'land life forms', just like the species
H. erectus and the species P. paniscus and all the species/kinds of land
animals.
Or, of course, you could reverse the order and consider location as primary,
with secondary division into groups based on morphology but both systems
would still produce truly strange results whereby animals that are clearly
very similar both morphologically and genetically wind up in quite different
groups based on their usual location. Neither *consistent* system would
arbitrarily put humans into a separate top level group rather than put them
into the subgroup of land animals. Certainly no intelligent alien would do
that. Only a myth-besotted human would think that a reasonable procedure.
Not even the creationist biologists immediately before Darwin did that.
That, of course, is why biologists categorize organisms strictly by
morphological criteria, and specifically by features that are held in common
and often by features that are not "necessary" for functional utility, but
are retained primitive traits.
Richard McBane
>
> Richard McBane <rmc...@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > It's just as likely that this unbiased observer, without any earthly
> > education, would observe that the dogs and cats have successfully tamed
> > a hairless ape to provide for all their needs. It would be obvious that
> > dogs and cats live a life of ease and luxury while the hairless apes,
> > even those not honored to live with a dog or cat, slave to provide all
> > the necessary infrastructure to support the lifestyles of dogs and cats.
>
> The alien would probably be delighted to appear at such an interesting
> time, when the dominant life forms are being supplanted, and the slave
> bipeds hijacked, by a relative new one: the computer.
And of course they would find it interesting to observe the evolution of
operating systems and wonder if survival of the fittest will eventually
prove true.
--
Richard McBane