Is Common Descent evolution?

[Glenn]

John apparently thinks it is accurate, since he has said that common descent is evolution.

"common descent is evolution"
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/how-many-different-kinds-of-birds-are-there/#comments

Yet on Larry's blog he claims it is a "bad explanation";
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/03/how-to-define-evolution.html

But here John insists that evolution is "a change of allele frequencies in a population over time".

Hmm. Common descent...John says:

"HGT is quite common in bacteria, though not so much in single-celled eukaryotes. Even in bacteria, it doesn't disturb the pattern of common descent very much"

So HGT "disturbs the pattern", but "not very much".

So what does that do to "in a population"? Perhaps that should be modified to "mostly in a population"?

Interestingly enough, there is an article out today:

"Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for Darwinism"

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/gene-sharing-is-more-widespread-than-thought-with-implications-for-darwinism/

[Glenn]

Interestingly enough, I found this after going back through Larry's cite above:

"Note that I have described the minimal scientific definition of biological evolution. Nobody believes that this is all there is to evolution. There are other processes, such as speciation for example, that are clearly important parts of the process of evolution. [Macroevolution]"

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-is-evolution.html

So speciation is not included in the minimal scientific definition of evolution, and evolution and speciation are both "processes'.

Can we get a single clear and unambiguous definition of "species" and "speciation" now, at least in under a hundred words?

[John Harshman]

"Speciation" is easy: it's the origin of a new species.

But "species" is hard, as there are many different species concepts,
each with its own definition. Under the so-called biological species
concept, it's a set of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding
populations, separated from other populations by a genetically-based
isolating mechanism. Of course that definition applies only to sexually
reproducing, outcrossing organisms.

Is that something you didn't know?

[Glenn]

I didn't know you wouldn't provide a single clear and unambiguous definition of species and speciation.
Don't you think that without one, claiming that evolution leads to speciation is just a little vacuous?

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 21:31:44 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

You say you find Harshman's definitions 'ambiguous', but you don't
specify what you think is ambiguous about them. Some would describe
that behavior as 'vacuous'.

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

[Glenn]

Learn to read.

[RonO]

Why don't you ever want to learn anything new? You may know how to
read, but you can't do much but remain willfully ignorant.

Is there a single definition of creationist "kind"? There isn't just
one because biological evolution is a fact of nature. The same goes for
species. There are a number of ways that populations can become
isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
populations. It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
you can't make crosses. On the other extreme we have "species" that can
readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
different territories. They are geographically separated, and they
haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.

For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
pheasants. Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant

There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
ways that populations evolve. Try to learn something instead of remain
willfully ignorant.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:49:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

>>You say you find Harshman's definitions 'ambiguous', but you don't
>>specify what you think is ambiguous about them. Some would describe
>>that behavior as 'vacuous'.
>

>Learn to read.


You first. As a start, look up meanings of 'ambiguous' and 'vacuous'.

[John Harshman]

No, I don't. Tell you what is vacuous, though: most things you say,
including that just now.

[John Harshman]

Yes, there is. A "kind" is a group of organisms sharing common ancestry
within but not between groups. The problem isn't with the definition but
with its application. Nobody has been able to come up with operational
criteria for diagnosing kinds, perhaps because by any effective criteria
there is only one kind.

[Glenn]

Why do you always assume I am willfully ignorant? Perhaps I am just evil! Definitely blasphemous...

[Glenn]

Why? I did not say I found John's definitions ambiguous, nor did I say that John provided definitions.

You are vacuous if you think that John provided a single clear and unambiguous definition of species and speciation.

"For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-how-two-bacteria-of-different-species-become-one/

[John Harshman]

But I did, both.

> "For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
> “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”.
>
> https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-how-two-bacteria-of-different-species-become-one/

What was your point? (Of course you won't say.)

[jillery]

If a definition is so vague that it fails to provide even approximate
'operational criteria', I would argue said definition doesn't qualify
as a definition.

>> There isn't just
>> one because biological evolution is a fact of nature.  The same goes for
>> species.  There are a number of ways that populations can become
>> isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
>> populations.  It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
>> asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
>> you can't make crosses.  On the other extreme we have "species" that can
>> readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
>> different territories.  They are geographically separated, and they
>> haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.
>>
>> For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
>> pheasants.  Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_pheasant
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant
>>
>> There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
>> ways that populations evolve.  Try to learn something instead of remain
>> willfully ignorant.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

And I didn't say you said... But to refresh your convenient amnesia,
you *did* say...

"I didn't know you wouldn't provide a single clear and unambiguous
definition of species and speciation."

...still preserved in the quoted text above. This is just more of
your stupid word games.

>You are vacuous if you think that John provided a single clear and unambiguous definition of species and speciation.

You are vacuous if you think that you specified what you think is
ambiguous about Harshman's definitions.

So what do *you*, Glenn Sheldon, think Harshman provided? Do you
think his definitions ambiguous or not? Either way, at least one of
your expressed objections above is mindless noise, and likely both.

>"For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
>“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”.
>
>https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-how-two-bacteria-of-different-species-become-one/

Add 'arbitrary' to the list of words you need to look up.
Also, consider that the meanings of the words Darwin used have changed
since he wrote the text you quoted.

[Glenn]

Set in stone as you imagine.

> > "For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
> > “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”.
> >
> > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-how-two-bacteria-of-different-species-become-one/
> What was your point? (Of course you won't say.)

[Glenn]

Everything to you, including what you post, is silly word games, you silly person.

[John Harshman]

"Vague" and "non-operational" are orthogonal concepts. So I would
disagree. The definition of "kind" is highly specific and serves
absolutely to define what is and is not a kind. We just lack the
information necessary for that determination. But that isn't the
definition's problem.

[John Harshman]

As I predicted.

[Glenn]

You call that a prediction? How strange, indeed.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:11:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Sez the troll who likes to play "I didn't say...".

And there's nothing silly about refusing to use a dictionary.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:31:11 -0700, John Harshman

I understood your "operational" to mean a definition that provides a
way to identify what does and does not fall within a "kind". Without
that, a definition is uselessly tautological:

Q: What is a kind?
A: Whatever shares common ancestry.
Q: What shares common ancestry?
A: Whatever is the same kind.

If you want to play word games too, then you and Glenn deserve each
other.

>>>> There isn't just
>>>> one because biological evolution is a fact of nature.  The same goes for
>>>> species.  There are a number of ways that populations can become
>>>> isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
>>>> populations.  It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
>>>> asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
>>>> you can't make crosses.  On the other extreme we have "species" that can
>>>> readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
>>>> different territories.  They are geographically separated, and they
>>>> haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.
>>>>
>>>> For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
>>>> pheasants.  Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_pheasant
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
>>>> ways that populations evolve.  Try to learn something instead of remain
>>>> willfully ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Glenn]

Actually I'm the troll who likes to say "I didn't say you said" to "you said".

>
> And there's nothing silly about refusing to use a dictionary.
> --

There's nothing silly about calling a person who plays silly games a silly person.

[Ernest Major]

I took John to be rejecting the description of the definition of a kind
as vague, not the description of that definition as non-operational.

A definition can be clear and precise without offering the ability to
easily test whether something meets that definition. In mathematics it
is not uncommon for there to be proof that there exist objects matching
a definition, but no known way to construct such an object. Similarly,
and perhaps a closer analogy, normal numbers are well defined, and
nearly every real number is a normal number, but very few real numbers
have been shown to be normal; it is suspected that pi, for example, is
normal, but it hasn't been proven.

>
>>>>> There isn't just
>>>>> one because biological evolution is a fact of nature.  The same goes for
>>>>> species.  There are a number of ways that populations can become
>>>>> isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
>>>>> populations.  It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
>>>>> asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
>>>>> you can't make crosses.  On the other extreme we have "species" that can
>>>>> readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
>>>>> different territories.  They are geographically separated, and they
>>>>> haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
>>>>> pheasants.  Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_pheasant
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
>>>>> ways that populations evolve.  Try to learn something instead of remain
>>>>> willfully ignorant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


--

alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

Because of what you just did to snip and run instead of understand what
you are in denial about. Willful ignorance is dishonest and stupid when
you claim to be trying to discuss something. If you think that is evil
that is your take on the matter. It is just what you are.

REPOST:

Why don't you ever want to learn anything new? You may know how to
read, but you can't do much but remain willfully ignorant.

Is there a single definition of creationist "kind"? There isn't just
one because biological evolution is a fact of nature. The same goes for
species. There are a number of ways that populations can become
isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
populations. It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
you can't make crosses. On the other extreme we have "species" that can
readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
different territories. They are geographically separated, and they
haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.

For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
pheasants. Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant

There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
ways that populations evolve. Try to learn something instead of remain
willfully ignorant.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You're insane.

[RonO]

Projection seems to be your favorite defense mechanism along with the
guy that uses you as a fire hydrant.

REPOST what you want to stay willfully ignorant of:

Because of what you just did to snip and run instead of understand what
you are in denial about. Willful ignorance is dishonest and stupid when
you claim to be trying to discuss something. If you think that is evil
that is your take on the matter. It is just what you are.

REPOST:

Why don't you ever want to learn anything new? You may know how to
read, but you can't do much but remain willfully ignorant.

Is there a single definition of creationist "kind"? There isn't just
one because biological evolution is a fact of nature. The same goes for
species. There are a number of ways that populations can become
isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
populations. It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
you can't make crosses. On the other extreme we have "species" that can
readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
different territories. They are geographically separated, and they
haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.

For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
pheasants. Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant

There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
ways that populations evolve. Try to learn something instead of remain
willfully ignorant.
END REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You are insane.

[John Harshman]

He may be insane, but that doesn't make what he says wrong.

[Glenn]

Yes, it does.

[jillery]

What you say above is also my understanding of what Harshman meant.

>A definition can be clear and precise without offering the ability to
>easily test whether something meets that definition. In mathematics it
>is not uncommon for there to be proof that there exist objects matching
>a definition, but no known way to construct such an object. Similarly,
>and perhaps a closer analogy, normal numbers are well defined, and
>nearly every real number is a normal number, but very few real numbers
>have been shown to be normal; it is suspected that pi, for example, is
>normal, but it hasn't been proven.

I don't dispute that few real numbers have been proved to be normal
numbers. I presume that mathematicians find useful a definition of a
class whose members they can't prove fit that definition. I question
whether that class or that definition has value to non-mathematicians.
Similarly, I presume that Creationists find useful a definition of a
class of organisms whose members they can't prove fit that definition,
if only as a means of affirming their presumptions. I challenge that
such a class or its definition has value to those with different
presumptions.

An important and significant difference between the two cases is, IIUC
normal numbers can be proved in principle, while the existence of
kinds by Harshman's expressed definition can not be proved in
principle. If that is so, asserting its precision is logically
equivalent to claiming how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

>>>>>> There isn't just
>>>>>> one because biological evolution is a fact of nature.  The same goes for
>>>>>> species.  There are a number of ways that populations can become
>>>>>> isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
>>>>>> populations.  It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
>>>>>> asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
>>>>>> you can't make crosses.  On the other extreme we have "species" that can
>>>>>> readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
>>>>>> different territories.  They are geographically separated, and they
>>>>>> haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
>>>>>> pheasants.  Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_pheasant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
>>>>>> ways that populations evolve.  Try to learn something instead of remain
>>>>>> willfully ignorant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

--

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition>

[RonO]

You are the one that is doing what you consider to be insane.
Projection isn't any defense mechanisms worth doing. It has to be like
kicking yourself in the butt. Who is the one that has to snip and run
from what he can't deal with in order to remain willfully ignorant of
the junk that he puts up?

REPOST:

Projection seems to be your favorite defense mechanism along with the
guy that uses you as a fire hydrant.

REPOST what you want to stay willfully ignorant of:

Because of what you just did to snip and run instead of understand what
you are in denial about. Willful ignorance is dishonest and stupid when
you claim to be trying to discuss something. If you think that is evil
that is your take on the matter. It is just what you are.

REPOST:

Why don't you ever want to learn anything new? You may know how to
read, but you can't do much but remain willfully ignorant.

Is there a single definition of creationist "kind"? There isn't just
one because biological evolution is a fact of nature. The same goes for
species. There are a number of ways that populations can become
isolated, evolve, and become noticeably different from closely related
populations. It is just a plain and simple fact that you can't identify
asexual species by their genetic-developmental incompatibility because
you can't make crosses. On the other extreme we have "species" that can
readily interbreed when given the opportunity, but they have evolved in
different territories. They are geographically separated, and they
haven't evolved sexual incompatibility.

For birds an obvious example is Golden Pheasants and Lady of Amherst
pheasants. Hobbiests have no trouble crossing them in captivity.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Amherst%27s_pheasant

There are a lot of different concepts of species because there are many
ways that populations evolve. Try to learn something instead of remain
willfully ignorant.
END REPOST:
END REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

You are wrong about this because there are no set limits for what
constitutes common ancestry. Look at cat kind and Dog kind and then ape
kind. There isn't one definition. There never was one definition.
Maybe family, maybe genus, maybe whatever they want, because of
biological evolution there isn't one definition. The guys at Reason to
Believe even claim that the anolis lizards on various islands are
recreations even though they can still interbreed. They are recreated
to be just a little different.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

You are confused about the meaning of "definition", and seem to be
conflating it with "diagnosis". Two entirely different things. And
everything you say there refers to diagnosis.

[Glenn]

You three need to get together more often. Can I join in?

The definition of definition is by definition definition, not to be conflated with any definition of diagnosis, or by any diagnosis, or for any diagnosis. Got it.

[John Harshman]

No.

[Glenn]

I agree, though you would argue with the reason. Can the can man can a can?

[John Harshman]

One would have thought the one word, "no", would have been clear.

[Glenn]

Are you afraid that I might take your virginity by force?

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 07:54:18 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Join in???? You started it.

[Glenn]

Au contraire. I was only a twinkle in my father's eye long after it all started.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>> >You three need to get together more often. Can I join in?
>> Join in???? You started it.
>
>Au contraire. I was only a twinkle in my father's eye long after it all started.

To refresh your convenient amnesia:
*************************************
Subject: Is Common Descent evolution?
Message-ID: <e305b0d0-ab80-48a0...@googlegroups.com>
On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>John apparently thinks it is accurate, since he has said that common descent is evolution.

*************************************

[John Harshman]

Well, that's taking a dark and creepy turn. Perhaps you should cool down
off-net for a while.

[Glenn]

Perhaps you should. Especially if you think you are physically in the Net.

[Glenn]

But you say I am best ignored.

[RonO]

You need a definition to make a diagnosis or you don't know what you are
trying to figure out. They don't have one definition. If they did have
only one definition, they aren't using it.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Still confusing definition with diagnosis. You do need a definition to
make a diagnosis, but you don't need a diagnosis to make a definition.
They do indeed have only one definition. They just have no way to tell
whether a taxon fits the definition. I could suggest a few, but they
wouldn't like them, since they would diagnose kinds (holobaramins) much
larger than they would accept, exactly one kind in fact.

But that isn't the definition's fault.

Consider something similar, homology, which is defined as similarity due
to common descent. The definition doesn't tell you how to recognize
homology. It's not an operational definition, but as a definition it's
perfectly adequate. And of course we do have criteria by which homology
can be recognized, at least statistically. But those criteria are not
contained in the definition.

[RonO]

Still, the simple fact being that if creationists had a single
definition of kind they would be using it, but they obviously are not
using a single definition. So what are you trying to do with this
argument? The Reason to believe creationists believe that kinds can be
recreated so that you can't tell if they share common ancestry or not,
and YEC basically limit kinds to what could fit onto the ark.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Nope, you're not there. Creationists do have a single definition of
kind. You are again confusing the definition with the diagnosis, or not
even that, with what they imagine fits the definition even though they
have no diagnosis. The definition is clear. Did you even read my analogy
with homology?

I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.

[Glenn]

So you're a lumper.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 15:17:50 -0700, John Harshman

You define "kind" as a group sharing common
ancestry within but not between groups. I could define "UFO" as
spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrials. Lincoln liked to say he
could define a dog's tail as a leg. These definitions are similar in
that they assert incoherent and unprovable assumptions. "kind"
assumes independent ancestry, "UFO" assumes aliens, "dog's tail"
assumes some similarity to legs. That's what makes these definitions
imprecise by design.

Also, your example of homology is a false equivalence. It's
sufficient that homology refers to recognition criteria from common
descent. But "kind" refers to the same recognition criteria
inconsistently. For example, it accepts the common ancestry between
dogs and foxes, but not between chimpanzees and humans.

A definition that's imprecisely defined and arbitrarily applied is a
useless definition.

[Burkhard]

Sorry, i don't see that. The UFO example in particular - are you arguing
that we can only define things that exist? That seems to me an untenable
position - how would we ever run a research project to find out if
something exist? And how could we have non-existence proofs? It seems to
me e.g. that defining "largest natural number" is both straightforward,
and needed to demonstrate there can't be such a thing,

The Lincoln example I'd say has a different message, one that "might"
also apply to the UFO case. Of course he "can" define a dog's tail as a
leg. The obvious problem is the impediment to communication - he would
now have to add a "as defined by me" every time he wants to communicate
with someone who is using leg with the standard definition.

The problem then is not that it's not definition, it's just not a
helpful one because it deviates from common usage without good reason.
One could make the same argument about your definition of UFO, though
there I dare say it is probably closer to the way most people use it,
even though it differs from the more technical meaning

"kind"
> assumes independent ancestry, "UFO" assumes aliens, "dog's tail"
> assumes some similarity to legs. That's what makes these definitions
> imprecise by design.

Why would "non-existence" led to "imprecision? "The current queen of
Britain" did not become less precise last week, even though it lost its
referent

[Burkhard]

Is that true? I'd say we often only have diagnostic criteria, but not a
definition. "Life" is an example - there are a range of diagnostic
criteria (metabolism, growth, reproduction etc) so that if an entity
shows at least most of them we call them alive, even if there is no
agreed upon definition that states necessary and sufficient conditions.

In medicine, all "syndromes" are of that type, no?

[RonO]

Yes, we are there already. The Reason to believe creationists really
believe that current existing kinds can be hybrids of previous existing
kinds. They can share ancestry. The example is modern human kind.
They have accepted that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, but
that acceptance also means that they are going to have to accept that
this has been going on for a long time. The evidence is that the
population that became Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa half a
million to 800,000 years ago, but a previous Homo already existed there
(Homo erectus like). Neanderthal an Denisovan populations split or were
specially created, and some modern humans got out of Africa around half
a million years ago and interbred with Neanderthals making that
population more like modern humans. Neanderthal and Denisovan
populations also interbred from time to time. Denisovans interbred with
the Homo that was already in Asia when they got there. Since they have
accepted the fact that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred less
than 100,000 years ago when some modern humans left Africa they will
also have to accept that we also interbred with Denisovans, and with
that interbreeding acquired a genetic relationship with an even more
distant Homo. Kinds are not separated by not sharing ancestry. The
kinds that existed when modern human kind interbred with them were
already mixes and shared ancestry with other existing kinds. We share
ancestry with the Homo erectus type kind by interbreeding and descent
even if they believe that we did not share a common ancestor.

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/answering-scientific-questions-on-neanderthal-human-interbreeding-part-1

>
> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.

There isn't a single definition of kind. They might want there to be
one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use just one.
Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds, and that shared
ancestry can be shared with other kinds by subsequent interbreeding. We
share ancestors with the Densisovans and Neanderthals that interbred,
and the third Homo that interbred with Denisovans. The chain of shared
ancestry goes pretty far back in the creation of existing kinds, and
likely goes even further back than that because this "kind" of thing has
obviously been happening for millions of years. The kinds that we
interbred with already shared ancestry, and we share that shared
ancestry. This is true even with their notion of kinds because they
want to exclude common descent. A kind can obviously have shared
ancestry with another kind, and that shared common ancestry can stretch
back to before modern humans existed.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:26:04 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I make no reference above to non-existence, nor is my argument based
on that characteristic. Indeed, I could precisely define "unicorn" as
a horse-like creature with a single gold horn growing from its
forehead. I suppose someone could argue that my definition is
incorrect, or insufficient, or that such a creature doesn't exist, but
none of that informs the definition's precision. The definition
doesn't assume unicorns exist more than as a concept for an anime
character.

The relevant distinction here is, my previous examples assert
definitions contrary to facts. There are UFOs which are later proved
to be neither spacecraft nor piloted by extraterrestrials. Dogs'
tails and legs have different functions and anatomies. And common
ancestry/common descent excludes independent ancestry by definition.

Harshman's expressed definition of "kind" is equivalent to defining
"unicorn" as sometimes having a gold horn and sometimes not. That's
incoherent. To make the definition of "kind" coherent, it needs to at
least refer to something which describes how independent ancestry
could be determined in principle.

[John Harshman]

Bizarre and fascinating, and definitely an outlier among creationists,
who usually claim that hybridization between kinds is impossible. But
it's still the same definition of "kind": separately created group.

>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>
> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there to be
> one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use just one.
> Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds, and that shared
> ancestry can be shared with other kinds by subsequent interbreeding.

Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind", as
long as the original groups are separately created and share no original
ancestry.

> We
> share ancestors with the Densisovans and Neanderthals that interbred,
> and the third Homo that interbred with Denisovans.  The chain of shared
> ancestry goes pretty far back in the creation of existing kinds, and
> likely goes even further back than that because this "kind" of thing has
> obviously been happening for millions of years.  The kinds that we
> interbred with already shared ancestry, and we share that shared
> ancestry.  This is true even with their notion of kinds because they
> want to exclude common descent.  A kind can obviously have shared
> ancestry with another kind, and that shared common ancestry can stretch
> back to before modern humans existed.

What is the RTB definition of a kind?

[John Harshman]

Those definitions aren't imprecise at all, and the assumptions are not
incoherent. It would be easy to distinguish a spacecraft piloted by
extraterrestrials from any other phenomenon, given adequate data. As for
the dog's tail, Lincoln was wrong. If we call a dog's tail a leg, it's a
leg. Words mean what people mean by them, and the definition of "leg"
can change if the community agrees.

> Also, your example of homology is a false equivalence. It's
> sufficient that homology refers to recognition criteria from common
> descent.

No, there are no "recognition criteria" in the definition. You again
confuse definition with diagnosis.

> But "kind" refers to the same recognition criteria
> inconsistently. For example, it accepts the common ancestry between
> dogs and foxes, but not between chimpanzees and humans.

"Kind" doesn't refer to recognition criteria at all. Same confusion.

> A definition that's imprecisely defined and arbitrarily applied is a
> useless definition.

"Kind" is not imprecisely defined. And the definition would be useful if
there were in fact anything to apply it to. The problem with "kind"
isn't with the definition, it's the non-existence of real referent and
the corresponding lack of criteria by which to identify them.

>>>>>>>>> There isn't jus >>>>>>>>> one because biological evolution is a fact of nature.  The same

[RonO]

It isn't just a separately created group, it is a group that can share
ancestry with other kinds.

It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the one you
put up. Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be separately created, but
they can still interbreed. They share enough to be "recreations"
according to reason to believe. The recreations obviously are very
similar to the kind that they are supposed to be recreations of.

>
>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>
>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there to be
>> one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use just one.
>> Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds, and that
>> shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds by subsequent
>> interbreeding.
>
> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind", as
> long as the original groups are separately created and share no original
> ancestry.

Now it is no original ancestry? How many definitions are there? The
human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.

>
>> We share ancestors with the Densisovans and Neanderthals that
>> interbred, and the third Homo that interbred with Denisovans.  The
>> chain of shared ancestry goes pretty far back in the creation of
>> existing kinds, and likely goes even further back than that because
>> this "kind" of thing has obviously been happening for millions of
>> years.  The kinds that we interbred with already shared ancestry, and
>> we share that shared ancestry.  This is true even with their notion of
>> kinds because they want to exclude common descent.  A kind can
>> obviously have shared ancestry with another kind, and that shared
>> common ancestry can stretch back to before modern humans existed.
>
> What is the RTB definition of a kind?

They don't seem to want to call anything a kind. They seem to avoid the
term, but use it to talk about YEC kinds that in their view is bunch of
recreations within a kind and not descent with modification. They are
just separate creations or recreations of an existing creation.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Only subsequent to separate creation. The mixing of kinds doesn't
confuse the meaning of "kind".

> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the one you
> put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be separately created, but
> they can still interbreed.  They share enough to be "recreations"
> according to reason to believe.  The recreations obviously are very
> similar to the kind that they are supposed to be recreations of.

Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and "recreations"
are still kinds under the definition universally employed by
creationists. No problem.

>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>
>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there to be
>>> one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use just
>>> one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds, and
>>> that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds by subsequent
>>> interbreeding.
>>
>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind", as
>> long as the original groups are separately created and share no
>> original ancestry.
>
> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?  The
> human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.

That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
definition. There is one definition.

>>> We share ancestors with the Densisovans and Neanderthals that
>>> interbred, and the third Homo that interbred with Denisovans.  The
>>> chain of shared ancestry goes pretty far back in the creation of
>>> existing kinds, and likely goes even further back than that because
>>> this "kind" of thing has obviously been happening for millions of
>>> years.  The kinds that we interbred with already shared ancestry, and
>>> we share that shared ancestry.  This is true even with their notion
>>> of kinds because they want to exclude common descent.  A kind can
>>> obviously have shared ancestry with another kind, and that shared
>>> common ancestry can stretch back to before modern humans existed.
>>
>> What is the RTB definition of a kind?
>
> They don't seem to want to call anything a kind.  They seem to avoid the
> term, but use it to talk about YEC kinds that in their view is bunch of
> recreations within a kind and not descent with modification.  They are
> just separate creations or recreations of an existing creation.

You will need to support the claim that these "recreations" are within a
single kind. And I don't think you understand the RTB notion of
progressive creation. It involves separately created kinds. They can't
seem to agree among themselves what the kinds are. Hugh Ross has
sometimes stated that every species is a separate created kind. Others
put the taxonomic level of the kind considerably higher. They all agree
that humans are a separate kind from all others, though they may not
agree on what counts as human.

Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
creationists use.

[RonO]

That wasn't the definition, and the extant human kind obviously shares
ancestry with several other kinds, and likely most other extant kinds.

>
>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the one
>> you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be separately
>> created, but they can still interbreed.  They share enough to be
>> "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The recreations
>> obviously are very similar to the kind that they are supposed to be
>> recreations of.
>
> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and "recreations"
> are still kinds under the definition universally employed by
> creationists. No problem.

except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.

>
>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>
>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there to
>>>> be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use just
>>>> one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds, and
>>>> that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds by subsequent
>>>> interbreeding.
>>>
>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind",
>>> as long as the original groups are separately created and share no
>>> original ancestry.
>>
>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?  The
>> human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>
> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
> definition. There is one definition.

What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?

A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a differnt
kind of salt does it? Extant kinds are just what they are, and what is
the current human kind?

>
>>>> We share ancestors with the Densisovans and Neanderthals that
>>>> interbred, and the third Homo that interbred with Denisovans.  The
>>>> chain of shared ancestry goes pretty far back in the creation of
>>>> existing kinds, and likely goes even further back than that because
>>>> this "kind" of thing has obviously been happening for millions of
>>>> years.  The kinds that we interbred with already shared ancestry,
>>>> and we share that shared ancestry.  This is true even with their
>>>> notion of kinds because they want to exclude common descent.  A kind
>>>> can obviously have shared ancestry with another kind, and that
>>>> shared common ancestry can stretch back to before modern humans
>>>> existed.
>>>
>>> What is the RTB definition of a kind?
>>
>> They don't seem to want to call anything a kind.  They seem to avoid
>> the term, but use it to talk about YEC kinds that in their view is
>> bunch of recreations within a kind and not descent with modification.
>> They are just separate creations or recreations of an existing creation.
>
> You will need to support the claim that these "recreations" are within a
> single kind. And I don't think you understand the RTB notion of
> progressive creation. It involves separately created kinds. They can't
> seem to agree among themselves what the kinds are. Hugh Ross has
> sometimes stated that every species is a separate created kind. Others
> put the taxonomic level of the kind considerably higher. They all agree
> that humans are a separate kind from all others, though they may not
> agree on what counts as human.

You have to read their junk. You can start with the Neanderthal article
and see how they avoid calling the different hominids different kinds.

>
> Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
> creationists use.

Except that their kinds can share ancestry with other kinds.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Not sure what you mean by that. There is no extant human kind; there are
no kinds. But it isn't that the definition isn't clear; it's that the
definition has no real referents.

>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the one
>>> you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be separately
>>> created, but they can still interbreed.  They share enough to be
>>> "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The recreations
>>> obviously are very similar to the kind that they are supposed to be
>>> recreations of.
>>
>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and "recreations"
>> are still kinds under the definition universally employed by
>> creationists. No problem.
>
> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.

Not relevant to the definition.

>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there to
>>>>> be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use
>>>>> just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds,
>>>>> and that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds by
>>>>> subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>
>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind",
>>>> as long as the original groups are separately created and share no
>>>> original ancestry.
>>>
>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?  The
>>> human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>>
>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
>> definition. There is one definition.
>
> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?

What is it?

> A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a differnt
> kind of salt does it?  Extant kinds are just what they are, and what is
> the current human kind?

You seem to be using a definition of "kind" that has nothing to do with
the creationist definition. Can't help you there.

Then how is it relevant to the meaning or definition of "kind"?

>> Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
>> creationists use.
>
> Except that their kinds can share ancestry with other kinds.

You are conflating two meanings of "share ancestry". And haven't you
just denied that they're talking about kinds at all?

[RonO]

I guess you don't exist. So your first definition wasn't the only one
because there are no real kinds.

>
>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the one
>>>> you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be separately
>>>> created, but they can still interbreed.  They share enough to be
>>>> "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The recreations
>>>> obviously are very similar to the kind that they are supposed to be
>>>> recreations of.
>>>
>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>
>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>
> Not relevant to the definition.

Then why change the initial definition?

>
>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there to
>>>>>> be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not use
>>>>>> just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other kinds,
>>>>>> and that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds by
>>>>>> subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind",
>>>>> as long as the original groups are separately created and share no
>>>>> original ancestry.
>>>>
>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?
>>>> The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>>>
>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
>>> definition. There is one definition.
>>
>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>
> What is it?

You've put up two so far. My guess is that there are more because you
have IDiots like Behe that have their own reasons for having cat kind be
limited to a family of carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his
designer diddlefarted around and changed some existing lineage just
enough, far in the distant past, so that it would evolved into a
distinct family from dog family kind. It looks like the change was
pretty subtle at the time, but it was just what was needed in order for
cat kind to evolve into something different from dog kind. He doesn't
deny that dogs and cats had a common ancestor, but he claims that
something that is impossible to happen naturally occurred in order to
make cats and dogs what they are, and it obviously happened a long time ago.

>
>> A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a
>> differnt kind of salt does it?  Extant kinds are just what they are,
>> and what is the current human kind?
>
> You seem to be using a definition of "kind" that has nothing to do with
> the creationist definition. Can't help you there.

Your definition is about the creation event producing something with out
ancestry, but that doesn't mean that the creation event cannot create
the same kind that already exists. It turns out that the reason to
believe guys claim that things can be created so that they can
interbreed and develop ancestral linkages. Modern humans are linked to,
probably, Homo erectus ancestry through our interbreeding with
Denisovans who interbred with the Homo that they met in Asia. The
modern human lineage interbred with Neanderthals around half a million
years ago so that Neanderthals are more closely related to modern humans
than Denisovans, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding
from time to time when they existed on the same continent. When we
interbred most recently with the Neanderthals they already had a lot of
shared ancestry with us and other Homo.

Because they obviously have some other definition of kind than you do.

>
>>> Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
>>> creationists use.
>>
>> Except that their kinds can share ancestry with other kinds.
>
> You are conflating two meanings of "share ancestry". And haven't you
> just denied that they're talking about kinds at all?

Doesn't that mean your definition wasn't the only one if my kinds are
not your kinds? Just because the Reason to Believe kinds do not fit
your definition, doesn't mean that they aren't Biblical kinds because
that is what they are claiming. They claim that they are developing a
model consistent with their literal interpretation of the Bible. The
Bible just didn't do a very good job of describing what a kind was, so
you have a lot of different ideas about it.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Uhh...what?

>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the one
>>>>> you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be separately
>>>>> created, but they can still interbreed.  They share enough to be
>>>>> "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The recreations
>>>>> obviously are very similar to the kind that they are supposed to be
>>>>> recreations of.
>>>>
>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>
>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>
>> Not relevant to the definition.
>
> Then why change the initial definition?

Clarification.

>>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there
>>>>>>> to be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not
>>>>>>> use just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other
>>>>>>> kinds, and that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds by
>>>>>>> subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of
>>>>>> "kind", as long as the original groups are separately created and
>>>>>> share no original ancestry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?
>>>>> The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>>>>
>>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
>>>> definition. There is one definition.
>>>
>>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>>
>> What is it?
>
> You've put up two so far.

Not true. The supposed second is merely an alternative statement of the
first.

> My guess is that there are more because you
> have IDiots like Behe that have their own reasons for having cat kind be
> limited to a family of carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his
> designer diddlefarted around and changed some existing lineage just
> enough, far in the distant past, so that it would evolved into a
> distinct family from dog family kind.  It looks like the change was
> pretty subtle at the time, but it was just what was needed in order for
> cat kind to evolve into something different from dog kind.  He doesn't
> deny that dogs and cats had a common ancestor, but he claims that
> something that is impossible to happen naturally occurred in order to
> make cats and dogs what they are, and it obviously happened a long time
> ago.

Behe doesn't believe in "kinds". And I don't think he's weighed in on
whether Jesus needed to intervene in order to produce either dogs or
cats from a common carnivore ancestor.

So none of that was relevant.

>>> A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a
>>> differnt kind of salt does it?  Extant kinds are just what they are,
>>> and what is the current human kind?
>>
>> You seem to be using a definition of "kind" that has nothing to do
>> with the creationist definition. Can't help you there.
>
> Your definition is about the creation event producing something with out
> ancestry, but that doesn't mean that the creation event cannot create
> the same kind that already exists.

Yes it does. The definition of separate creation would mean that if,
say, Molothrus ater populations were created at different times and
places, the two populations would be separate kinds. If the two kinds
later merged into a single population, the merged kinds would be a
single entity of some sort, but it wouldn't be a kind.

>  It turns out that the reason to
> believe guys claim that things can be created so that they can
> interbreed and develop ancestral linkages.  Modern humans are linked to,
> probably, Homo erectus ancestry through our interbreeding with
> Denisovans who interbred with the Homo that they met in Asia.  The
> modern human lineage interbred with Neanderthals around half a million
> years ago so that Neanderthals are more closely related to modern humans
> than Denisovans, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding
> from time to time when they existed on the same continent.  When we
> interbred most recently with the Neanderthals they already had a lot of
> shared ancestry with us and other Homo.

Your point?

That's so obvious that I can't see how you get there.

>>>> Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
>>>> creationists use.
>>>
>>> Except that their kinds can share ancestry with other kinds.
>>
>> You are conflating two meanings of "share ancestry". And haven't you
>> just denied that they're talking about kinds at all?
>
> Doesn't that mean your definition wasn't the only one if my kinds are
> not your kinds?  Just because the Reason to Believe kinds do not fit
> your definition, doesn't mean that they aren't Biblical kinds because
> that is what they are claiming.  They claim that they are developing a
> model consistent with their literal interpretation of the Bible.  The
> Bible just didn't do a very good job of describing what a kind was, so
> you have a lot of different ideas about it.

No. It means you don't have any kinds, or rather that RTB in your
telling doesn't have any kinds. Anyway, what makes this RTB view (which
may not even be their official position) different from the usual
creationist view isn't their definition of "kind" but their claim that
different kinds can hybridize. That has nothing to do with the definition.

[RonO]

If there are no extant kinds, how can there be one definition for them?

>
>>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the
>>>>>> one you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be
>>>>>> separately created, but they can still interbreed.  They share
>>>>>> enough to be "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The
>>>>>> recreations obviously are very similar to the kind that they are
>>>>>> supposed to be recreations of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>>
>>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>>
>>> Not relevant to the definition.
>>
>> Then why change the initial definition?
>
> Clarification.

Redefinition. How many creationists use the first one?

>
>>>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there
>>>>>>>> to be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not
>>>>>>>> use just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other
>>>>>>>> kinds, and that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds
>>>>>>>> by subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of
>>>>>>> "kind", as long as the original groups are separately created and
>>>>>>> share no original ancestry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?
>>>>>> The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
>>>>> definition. There is one definition.
>>>>
>>>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>>>
>>> What is it?
>>
>> You've put up two so far.
>
> Not true. The supposed second is merely an alternative statement of the
> first.

Merely because the first one didn't apply to all examples, and even your
second one isn't all that is needed.

>
>> My guess is that there are more because you have IDiots like Behe that
>> have their own reasons for having cat kind be limited to a family of
>> carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his designer diddlefarted
>> around and changed some existing lineage just enough, far in the
>> distant past, so that it would evolved into a distinct family from dog
>> family kind.  It looks like the change was pretty subtle at the time,
>> but it was just what was needed in order for cat kind to evolve into
>> something different from dog kind.  He doesn't deny that dogs and cats
>> had a common ancestor, but he claims that something that is impossible
>> to happen naturally occurred in order to make cats and dogs what they
>> are, and it obviously happened a long time ago.
>
> Behe doesn't believe in "kinds". And I don't think he's weighed in on
> whether Jesus needed to intervene in order to produce either dogs or
> cats from a common carnivore ancestor.
>
> So none of that was relevant.

Except that Behe's notion of kind is different, and depends on a very
different means of creation. He doesn't know what his designer has to
do, but he believes that the designer does something to create his kinds
that can't evolve.

>
>>>> A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a
>>>> differnt kind of salt does it?  Extant kinds are just what they are,
>>>> and what is the current human kind?
>>>
>>> You seem to be using a definition of "kind" that has nothing to do
>>> with the creationist definition. Can't help you there.
>>
>> Your definition is about the creation event producing something with
>> out ancestry, but that doesn't mean that the creation event cannot
>> create the same kind that already exists.
>
> Yes it does. The definition of separate creation would mean that if,
> say, Molothrus ater populations were created at different times and
> places, the two populations would be separate kinds. If the two kinds
> later merged into a single population, the merged kinds would be a
> single entity of some sort, but it wouldn't be a kind.

No it doesn't. A de novo creation without descending from ancestors is
just what it is even if it is creating exactly the same kind as already
exists.

Your definition doesn't include the possibility that the new de novo
mutation can be the same kind as already exists, that is why the Reason
to Believe kinds can interbreed. The new creations aren't different
enough to prevent interbreeding. Creating the same exact kind would do
the same thing except you wouldn't be able to tell the hybrids.

>
>>   It turns out that the reason to believe guys claim that things can
>> be created so that they can interbreed and develop ancestral
>> linkages.  Modern humans are linked to, probably, Homo erectus
>> ancestry through our interbreeding with Denisovans who interbred with
>> the Homo that they met in Asia.  The modern human lineage interbred
>> with Neanderthals around half a million years ago so that Neanderthals
>> are more closely related to modern humans than Denisovans, and the
>> Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding from time to time when
>> they existed on the same continent.  When we interbred most recently
>> with the Neanderthals they already had a lot of shared ancestry with
>> us and other Homo.
>
> Your point?

It is why you had to change your first definition.

It was definitely different from your first definition. That you needed
to clarify in order to include what they were claiming. What about
Behe's notion of creating different kinds? They have a common ancestor,
but the creator needs to do his magic diddling in order to set the
different families on their way to becoming different families.

>
>>>>> Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
>>>>> creationists use.
>>>>
>>>> Except that their kinds can share ancestry with other kinds.
>>>
>>> You are conflating two meanings of "share ancestry". And haven't you
>>> just denied that they're talking about kinds at all?
>>
>> Doesn't that mean your definition wasn't the only one if my kinds are
>> not your kinds?  Just because the Reason to Believe kinds do not fit
>> your definition, doesn't mean that they aren't Biblical kinds because
>> that is what they are claiming.  They claim that they are developing a
>> model consistent with their literal interpretation of the Bible.  The
>> Bible just didn't do a very good job of describing what a kind was, so
>> you have a lot of different ideas about it.
>
> No. It means you don't have any kinds, or rather that RTB in your
> telling doesn't have any kinds. Anyway, what makes this RTB view (which
> may not even be their official position) different from the usual
> creationist view isn't their definition of "kind" but their claim that
> different kinds can hybridize. That has nothing to do with the definition.

So their kinds aren't kinds even though they claim a literal
interpretation of the bibilical kinds? They are talking about biblical
kinds, just not ones that fit your first single definition for kinds.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

Imaginary things are defined all the time. No problem. And of course it
isn't that there are no extant kinds. There are no kinds at all, ever.
It's creationism, remember?

>>>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the
>>>>>>> one you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be
>>>>>>> separately created, but they can still interbreed.  They share
>>>>>>> enough to be "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The
>>>>>>> recreations obviously are very similar to the kind that they are
>>>>>>> supposed to be recreations of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>>>
>>>> Not relevant to the definition.
>>>
>>> Then why change the initial definition?
>>
>> Clarification.
>
> Redefinition.  How many creationists use the first one?

Every creationist uses the same one.

>>>>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want there
>>>>>>>>> to be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely do not
>>>>>>>>> use just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry with other
>>>>>>>>> kinds, and that shared ancestry can be shared with other kinds
>>>>>>>>> by subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of
>>>>>>>> "kind", as long as the original groups are separately created
>>>>>>>> and share no original ancestry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?
>>>>>>> The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
>>>>>> definition. There is one definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>>>>
>>>> What is it?
>>>
>>> You've put up two so far.
>>
>> Not true. The supposed second is merely an alternative statement of
>> the first.
>
> Merely because the first one didn't apply to all examples, and even your
> second one isn't all that is needed.

I think we've reached the end of this and will just have to disagree.

>>> My guess is that there are more because you have IDiots like Behe
>>> that have their own reasons for having cat kind be limited to a
>>> family of carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his designer
>>> diddlefarted around and changed some existing lineage just enough,
>>> far in the distant past, so that it would evolved into a distinct
>>> family from dog family kind.  It looks like the change was pretty
>>> subtle at the time, but it was just what was needed in order for cat
>>> kind to evolve into something different from dog kind.  He doesn't
>>> deny that dogs and cats had a common ancestor, but he claims that
>>> something that is impossible to happen naturally occurred in order to
>>> make cats and dogs what they are, and it obviously happened a long
>>> time ago.
>>
>> Behe doesn't believe in "kinds". And I don't think he's weighed in on
>> whether Jesus needed to intervene in order to produce either dogs or
>> cats from a common carnivore ancestor.
>>
>> So none of that was relevant.
>
> Except that Behe's notion of kind is different, and depends on a very
> different means of creation.  He doesn't know what his designer has to
> do, but he believes that the designer does something to create his kinds
> that can't evolve.

Behe has no notion of kind.

>>>>> A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a
>>>>> differnt kind of salt does it?  Extant kinds are just what they
>>>>> are, and what is the current human kind?
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be using a definition of "kind" that has nothing to do
>>>> with the creationist definition. Can't help you there.
>>>
>>> Your definition is about the creation event producing something with
>>> out ancestry, but that doesn't mean that the creation event cannot
>>> create the same kind that already exists.
>>
>> Yes it does. The definition of separate creation would mean that if,
>> say, Molothrus ater populations were created at different times and
>> places, the two populations would be separate kinds. If the two kinds
>> later merged into a single population, the merged kinds would be a
>> single entity of some sort, but it wouldn't be a kind.
>
> No it doesn't.  A de novo creation without descending from ancestors is
> just what it is even if it is creating exactly the same kind as already
> exists.
>
> Your definition doesn't include the possibility that the new de novo
> mutation can be the same kind as already exists, that is why the Reason
> to Believe kinds can interbreed.  The new creations aren't different
> enough to prevent interbreeding.  Creating the same exact kind would do
> the same thing except you wouldn't be able to tell the hybrids.

De novo mutation??

What definition of "kind" are you using here?

>>>   It turns out that the reason to believe guys claim that things can
>>> be created so that they can interbreed and develop ancestral
>>> linkages.  Modern humans are linked to, probably, Homo erectus
>>> ancestry through our interbreeding with Denisovans who interbred with
>>> the Homo that they met in Asia.  The modern human lineage interbred
>>> with Neanderthals around half a million years ago so that
>>> Neanderthals are more closely related to modern humans than
>>> Denisovans, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding
>>> from time to time when they existed on the same continent.  When we
>>> interbred most recently with the Neanderthals they already had a lot
>>> of shared ancestry with us and other Homo.
>>
>> Your point?
>
> It is why you had to change your first definition.

Again, you're conflating two different meanings of "shared ancestry".

Behe has no notion of creating different kinds.

>>>>>> Nevertheless, the definition is clear, and it's the same one other
>>>>>> creationists use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that their kinds can share ancestry with other kinds.
>>>>
>>>> You are conflating two meanings of "share ancestry". And haven't you
>>>> just denied that they're talking about kinds at all?
>>>
>>> Doesn't that mean your definition wasn't the only one if my kinds are
>>> not your kinds?  Just because the Reason to Believe kinds do not fit
>>> your definition, doesn't mean that they aren't Biblical kinds because
>>> that is what they are claiming.  They claim that they are developing
>>> a model consistent with their literal interpretation of the Bible.
>>> The Bible just didn't do a very good job of describing what a kind
>>> was, so you have a lot of different ideas about it.
>>
>> No. It means you don't have any kinds, or rather that RTB in your
>> telling doesn't have any kinds. Anyway, what makes this RTB view
>> (which may not even be their official position) different from the
>> usual creationist view isn't their definition of "kind" but their
>> claim that different kinds can hybridize. That has nothing to do with
>> the definition.
>
> So their kinds aren't kinds even though they claim a literal
> interpretation of the bibilical kinds?  They are talking about biblical
> kinds, just not ones that fit your first single definition for kinds.

I don't believe you have any idea what RTB thinks are kinds, and you
have in fact claimed that they don't even use the term. And now you seem
to have contradicted this earlier claim. Very confused. Nor do you seem
to have read what I said just above, because you draw a conclusion from
it that bears no resemblance to what I had just said.

[RonO]

Except they don't think that they are imaginary, and we have extant
kinds according to them.

>
>>>>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the
>>>>>>>> one you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be
>>>>>>>> separately created, but they can still interbreed.  They share
>>>>>>>> enough to be "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The
>>>>>>>> recreations obviously are very similar to the kind that they are
>>>>>>>> supposed to be recreations of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not relevant to the definition.
>>>>
>>>> Then why change the initial definition?
>>>
>>> Clarification.
>>
>> Redefinition.  How many creationists use the first one?
>
> Every creationist uses the same one.

Except the ones that obviously do not.

>
>>>>>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want
>>>>>>>>>> there to be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely
>>>>>>>>>> do not use just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry
>>>>>>>>>> with other kinds, and that shared ancestry can be shared with
>>>>>>>>>> other kinds by subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of
>>>>>>>>> "kind", as long as the original groups are separately created
>>>>>>>>> and share no original ancestry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are there?
>>>>>>>> The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several other kinds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in the
>>>>>>> definition. There is one definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is it?
>>>>
>>>> You've put up two so far.
>>>
>>> Not true. The supposed second is merely an alternative statement of
>>> the first.
>>
>> Merely because the first one didn't apply to all examples, and even
>> your second one isn't all that is needed.
>
> I think we've reached the end of this and will just have to disagree.

I am not the one that changed their definition.

>
>>>> My guess is that there are more because you have IDiots like Behe
>>>> that have their own reasons for having cat kind be limited to a
>>>> family of carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his designer
>>>> diddlefarted around and changed some existing lineage just enough,
>>>> far in the distant past, so that it would evolved into a distinct
>>>> family from dog family kind.  It looks like the change was pretty
>>>> subtle at the time, but it was just what was needed in order for cat
>>>> kind to evolve into something different from dog kind.  He doesn't
>>>> deny that dogs and cats had a common ancestor, but he claims that
>>>> something that is impossible to happen naturally occurred in order
>>>> to make cats and dogs what they are, and it obviously happened a
>>>> long time ago.
>>>
>>> Behe doesn't believe in "kinds". And I don't think he's weighed in on
>>> whether Jesus needed to intervene in order to produce either dogs or
>>> cats from a common carnivore ancestor.
>>>
>>> So none of that was relevant.
>>
>> Except that Behe's notion of kind is different, and depends on a very
>> different means of creation.  He doesn't know what his designer has to
>> do, but he believes that the designer does something to create his
>> kinds that can't evolve.
>
> Behe has no notion of kind.

My guess is that you know that this is not true, so why did you make the
claim? Behe has the same notion of kind as the creationist rubes that
he sells his books too. Behe only lies about it being about the
science. You know why Behe is an IDiot, so why make the claim that you
just did. Behe's cut off at the family level was totally arbitrary.
The only reason he did it was so that the creationists that buy his junk
arguments need to fit them on the ark, and think that their notion of
kinds means anything. Like Glenn they don't care that Behe is telling
them that evolution is a fact of nature, they are only in it for the
denial and justification of what they want to believe. Scientifically
it would have been better for Behe to put the limit at the phylum level,
in terms of not ever being demonstrated to be wrong, but he didn't do
that. The reason being that he needs to sell books, and what
creationist would buy the book if everything within a phylum shared a
common ancestor?

>
>>>>>> A de novo creation of a crystal of table salt doesn't make it a
>>>>>> differnt kind of salt does it?  Extant kinds are just what they
>>>>>> are, and what is the current human kind?
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be using a definition of "kind" that has nothing to do
>>>>> with the creationist definition. Can't help you there.
>>>>
>>>> Your definition is about the creation event producing something with
>>>> out ancestry, but that doesn't mean that the creation event cannot
>>>> create the same kind that already exists.
>>>
>>> Yes it does. The definition of separate creation would mean that if,
>>> say, Molothrus ater populations were created at different times and
>>> places, the two populations would be separate kinds. If the two kinds
>>> later merged into a single population, the merged kinds would be a
>>> single entity of some sort, but it wouldn't be a kind.
>>
>> No it doesn't.  A de novo creation without descending from ancestors
>> is just what it is even if it is creating exactly the same kind as
>> already exists.
>>
>> Your definition doesn't include the possibility that the new de novo
>> mutation can be the same kind as already exists, that is why the
>> Reason to Believe kinds can interbreed.  The new creations aren't
>> different enough to prevent interbreeding.  Creating the same exact
>> kind would do the same thing except you wouldn't be able to tell the
>> hybrids.
>
> De novo mutation??

I don't know why I wrote mutation, I obvioiusly meant creation. I can't
figure out why that got written, except that I mostly use de novo to
describe mutation in my daily research.

>
> What definition of "kind" are you using here?

Creating the same kind as already exists is just creating the same kind
as already exists, no matter what the definition of kind is. There
obviously is no law claiming that the same kind can't be recreated. The
Reason to Believe creationists even call the various anolis lizards on
the various islands recreations, but the recreations are just a little
different from the ones on other islands. They are new creations even
if they can still interbreed with their neighbors.

>
>>>>   It turns out that the reason to believe guys claim that things can
>>>> be created so that they can interbreed and develop ancestral
>>>> linkages.  Modern humans are linked to, probably, Homo erectus
>>>> ancestry through our interbreeding with Denisovans who interbred
>>>> with the Homo that they met in Asia.  The modern human lineage
>>>> interbred with Neanderthals around half a million years ago so that
>>>> Neanderthals are more closely related to modern humans than
>>>> Denisovans, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding
>>>> from time to time when they existed on the same continent.  When we
>>>> interbred most recently with the Neanderthals they already had a lot
>>>> of shared ancestry with us and other Homo.
>>>
>>> Your point?
>>
>> It is why you had to change your first definition.
>
> Again, you're conflating two different meanings of "shared ancestry".

Change is change, and how many creationists use that first definition?
How many don't?

What do you think the designer did, in terms of kinds, for a creationist
like Behe? He admits to being a pious Catholic so what is the Catholic
definition of kind? It might not be your first or second definition,
since they don't exclude nor have to include biological evolution.

Well, you can read the Neanderthal article to get some idea of their
notion of created kinds. You likely should have already done that.
After you do, you can make that claim if you think that you can. You
will find that they claim separate creation for Neanderthals and modern
humans, but acknowledge that they can share ancestry through
crossbreeding, but the mixing with another kind does not change the
kindness of the creation of Adam and Eve. They still believe that
modern humans retain what they call "image of God" that separates us
from Neanderthals. We are still the created kind that their designer
made even if we have interbred with Neanderthals.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Oh yes it is.

[jillery]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 06:34:31 -0700, John Harshman

I suppose you think your academic bona fides qualify you as an expert
on definitions, but all you offer are your unqualified opinions.
Proving the above definition of "UFO" wrong would be a case of proving
a negative, requiring the examination of every single assertion of
same, an impossible task.

I agree that words mean what people mean by them, but that doesn't
justify people making up baseless definitions on a whim Humpty-Dumpty
style. Lincoln's point is, the existence of a definition of X is not
evidence that X exists. That's what my examples and your definition
of "kind" tries to do, and why they are imprecise.

>> Also, your example of homology is a false equivalence. It's
>> sufficient that homology refers to recognition criteria from common
>> descent.
>
>No, there are no "recognition criteria" in the definition. You again
>confuse definition with diagnosis.

By your own words:

"Consider something similar, homology, which is defined as similarity
due to common descent."

The definition of "homology" refers to the fact of common descent.

>> But "kind" refers to the same recognition criteria
>> inconsistently. For example, it accepts the common ancestry between
>> dogs and foxes, but not between chimpanzees and humans.
>
>"Kind" doesn't refer to recognition criteria at all. Same confusion.

By your own words:

"A "kind" is a group of organisms sharing common

ancestry."

The definition refers to the fact of common ancestry. In this
context, common ancestry is similar to common descent without the
implicit *universal* adjective.

>> A definition that's imprecisely defined and arbitrarily applied is a
>> useless definition.
>
>"Kind" is not imprecisely defined.

You're entitled to your unqualified, inexpert opinion. Stalemate.

>And the definition would be useful if
>there were in fact anything to apply it to. The problem with "kind"
>isn't with the definition, it's the non-existence of real referent and
>the corresponding lack of criteria by which to identify them.

Not sure how it's worth defending to the death definitions which lack
criteria to identify the objects they allege to identify.

[John Harshman]

Not following your reasoning here. Yes, creationists think there are
kinds. They are of course wrong about this. In either case, what does
that have to do with a definition of the term?

>>>>>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like the
>>>>>>>>> one you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be
>>>>>>>>> separately created, but they can still interbreed.  They share
>>>>>>>>> enough to be "recreations" according to reason to believe.  The
>>>>>>>>> recreations obviously are very similar to the kind that they
>>>>>>>>> are supposed to be recreations of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>>>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>>>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not relevant to the definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why change the initial definition?
>>>>
>>>> Clarification.
>>>
>>> Redefinition.  How many creationists use the first one?
>>
>> Every creationist uses the same one.
>
> Except the ones that obviously do not.

So far you have suggested no other definitions.

>>>>>>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want
>>>>>>>>>>> there to be one, but they don't have one, and they definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> do not use just one. Really, kinds can have shared ancestry
>>>>>>>>>>> with other kinds, and that shared ancestry can be shared with
>>>>>>>>>>> other kinds by subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of
>>>>>>>>>> "kind", as long as the original groups are separately created
>>>>>>>>>> and share no original ancestry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are
>>>>>>>>> there? The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several
>>>>>>>>> other kinds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in
>>>>>>>> the definition. There is one definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've put up two so far.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. The supposed second is merely an alternative statement of
>>>> the first.
>>>
>>> Merely because the first one didn't apply to all examples, and even
>>> your second one isn't all that is needed.
>>
>> I think we've reached the end of this and will just have to disagree.
>
> I am not the one that changed their definition.

True. You haven't defined anything.

>>>>> My guess is that there are more because you have IDiots like Behe
>>>>> that have their own reasons for having cat kind be limited to a
>>>>> family of carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his designer
>>>>> diddlefarted around and changed some existing lineage just enough,
>>>>> far in the distant past, so that it would evolved into a distinct
>>>>> family from dog family kind.  It looks like the change was pretty
>>>>> subtle at the time, but it was just what was needed in order for
>>>>> cat kind to evolve into something different from dog kind.  He
>>>>> doesn't deny that dogs and cats had a common ancestor, but he
>>>>> claims that something that is impossible to happen naturally
>>>>> occurred in order to make cats and dogs what they are, and it
>>>>> obviously happened a long time ago.
>>>>
>>>> Behe doesn't believe in "kinds". And I don't think he's weighed in
>>>> on whether Jesus needed to intervene in order to produce either dogs
>>>> or cats from a common carnivore ancestor.
>>>>
>>>> So none of that was relevant.
>>>
>>> Except that Behe's notion of kind is different, and depends on a very
>>> different means of creation.  He doesn't know what his designer has
>>> to do, but he believes that the designer does something to create his
>>> kinds that can't evolve.
>>
>> Behe has no notion of kind.
>
> My guess is that you know that this is not true, so why did you make the
> claim?

My guess is that you didn't actually intend to accuse me of lying.

> Behe has the same notion of kind as the creationist rubes that
> he sells his books too.  Behe only lies about it being about the
> science.  You know why Behe is an IDiot, so why make the claim that you
> just did.  Behe's cut off at the family level was totally arbitrary. The
> only reason he did it was so that the creationists that buy his junk
> arguments need to fit them on the ark, and think that their notion of
> kinds means anything.  Like Glenn they don't care that Behe is telling
> them that evolution is a fact of nature, they are only in it for the
> denial and justification of what they want to believe.  Scientifically
> it would have been better for Behe to put the limit at the phylum level,
> in terms of not ever being demonstrated to be wrong, but he didn't do
> that.  The reason being that he needs to sell books, and what
> creationist would buy the book if everything within a phylum shared a
> common ancestor?

Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?

Not responsive, and without a definition how do you know what's a kind
and what isn't?

>>>>>   It turns out that the reason to believe guys claim that things
>>>>> can be created so that they can interbreed and develop ancestral
>>>>> linkages.  Modern humans are linked to, probably, Homo erectus
>>>>> ancestry through our interbreeding with Denisovans who interbred
>>>>> with the Homo that they met in Asia.  The modern human lineage
>>>>> interbred with Neanderthals around half a million years ago so that
>>>>> Neanderthals are more closely related to modern humans than
>>>>> Denisovans, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding
>>>>> from time to time when they existed on the same continent.  When we
>>>>> interbred most recently with the Neanderthals they already had a
>>>>> lot of shared ancestry with us and other Homo.
>>>>
>>>> Your point?
>>>
>>> It is why you had to change your first definition.
>>
>> Again, you're conflating two different meanings of "shared ancestry".
>
> Change is change, and how many creationists use that first definition?
> How many don't?

There's only one definition, though it may be differently stated.

There is no Catholic definition of kind. Behe believes in universal
common descent.

You already told me the article doesn't talk about kinds.

> After you do, you can make that claim if you think that you can.  You
> will find that they claim separate creation for Neanderthals and modern
> humans, but acknowledge that they can share ancestry through
> crossbreeding, but the mixing with another kind does not change the
> kindness of the creation of Adam and Eve.

Ah, so they use the standard definition of kinds, separately created groups.

> They still believe that
> modern humans retain what they call "image of God" that separates us
> from Neanderthals. We are still the created kind that their designer
> made even if we have interbred with Neanderthals.

So, same definition of "kind" as every other creationist uses.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 22:30:46 -0700, John Harshman

To be precise, Behe *claims* to accept universal common descent.
However, unless your meaning of that phrase incorporates creation ex
nihilo of things from DNA to bacterial flagella to blood-clotting
cascades to immune systems to entire whales, his definition isn't the
same as yours.

[Glenn]

You may not know this, but Behe doesn't really give a rat's ass about the hypothesis.

Believes? You are no different from Ron, and your reasoning is irrational.

[Glenn]

That may be true, but to be precise you really need to provide evidence that he has said he "accepts" UCD.

[Burkhard]

Ah OK, what threw me was the ""UFO" assumes aliens" statement - I
(mis)read this as saying the problem is that they assume something to
exist that doesn't.

>
> The relevant distinction here is, my previous examples assert
> definitions contrary to facts. There are UFOs which are later proved
> to be neither spacecraft nor piloted by extraterrestrials.

But why would that be a problem? We have precise definitions for many
illnesses, yet sometimes a GP will misdiagnose you. Closer to TO, aren't
animals often re-classified when we learn more about them? For instance
many tried to fit Ospreys into one of the existing Accipitriformes, and
then molecular analysis showed that it merits its own Family,
Pandionidae - and even hat remains contested. But that does not mean any
of the definitions is imprecise, just tat we don;t always make the right
call or don;t always have the right information, to apply it correctly
to a given object

Dogs'
> tails and legs have different functions and anatomies. And common
> ancestry/common descent excludes independent ancestry by definition.
>
> Harshman's expressed definition of "kind" is equivalent to defining
> "unicorn" as sometimes having a gold horn and sometimes not. That's
> incoherent. To make the definition of "kind" coherent, it needs to at
> least refer to something which describes how independent ancestry
> could be determined in principle.

There are a couple of things here I'm not sure about

First, there is a certain ambiguity in your first sentence. It could
mean "by definition, all unicorns have horns, which may or may not be
golden". I don't think that is incoherent, though for the purpose of a
technical definition, it carries more information than necessary (maybe
to make sure that nobody excludes "golden horn" from the group of horns)

Or it could be meant as a way to distinguish unicorns from other
one-horned animals, such as rhinos. If it has a golden horn, it
definitely is not a rhino, or a narwhale etc. So having a golden horn is
sufficient to identify something as a unicorn. However, there may be
unicorn species whose horn is not golden, but silver, or maybe even
ordinary horn. So it is not a necessary condition. Now, that is of
course typical for a diagnostic criterion, and not incoherent. Just not
a definition. But is is John who insists on the careful distinction, and
I can't see where he commits the mistake you claim (under this reading),
i.e. where he offers as a definition something that is only a diagnostic
criterion.

A totally separate issue is the one in your final sentence, which asks
for an effective method to determine if a given candidate object falls
under a definition. 'd disagree with that. Having such a method helps,
but is not necessary for something to be a definition. Take as an
example the disagreement between Peter and John about the legitimacy of
naming a specific extinct species "ancestor" or "ancestor candidate" of
an extant one. John rejects the terminology because we can never know,
for a given fossil, whether its species was ancestral. But that does not
mean we have an incoherent definition of "ancestral species".

Definitions ultimately are abbreviations or semantic conventions. They
don't need to refer to anything outside, and also don't need an
effective mechanism to determine if something falls under them - that is
the role of diagnostic criteria.

[RonO]

It is their definition of kinds that we are talking about, so whether
they exist or not doesn't matter to their definition. They think that
they exist, and they have their own definitions of what kinds are
depending on how they interpret the bible.

>
>>>>>>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like
>>>>>>>>>> the one you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>> separately created, but they can still interbreed.  They share
>>>>>>>>>> enough to be "recreations" according to reason to believe.
>>>>>>>>>> The recreations obviously are very similar to the kind that
>>>>>>>>>> they are supposed to be recreations of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>>>>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>>>>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not relevant to the definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why change the initial definition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Clarification.
>>>>
>>>> Redefinition.  How many creationists use the first one?
>>>
>>> Every creationist uses the same one.
>>
>> Except the ones that obviously do not.
>
> So far you have suggested no other definitions.

You changed your definition to try to include the alternative that I put
up, and you still have to deal with the fact that the same kind can be
recreated again, but it would obviously be the same kind. By most
accounts there were at least two of each kind of animal created, and by
your current definition a kind would be the hybridization (shared
ancestry) between two different kinds, so you still have to further
modify the definition in order to account for what they claim happened.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I swear, sometimes you're as bad as the creationists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't a single definition of kind.  They might want
>>>>>>>>>>>> there to be one, but they don't have one, and they
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely do not use just one. Really, kinds can have
>>>>>>>>>>>> shared ancestry with other kinds, and that shared ancestry
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be shared with other kinds by subsequent interbreeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>> "kind", as long as the original groups are separately created
>>>>>>>>>>> and share no original ancestry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now it is no original ancestry?  How many definitions are
>>>>>>>>>> there? The human kind obviously shares ancestry with several
>>>>>>>>>> other kinds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a different sense of "shares ancestry" than is used in
>>>>>>>>> the definition. There is one definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is it about there being multiple definitions of kind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've put up two so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. The supposed second is merely an alternative statement of
>>>>> the first.
>>>>
>>>> Merely because the first one didn't apply to all examples, and even
>>>> your second one isn't all that is needed.
>>>
>>> I think we've reached the end of this and will just have to disagree.
>>
>> I am not the one that changed their definition.
>
> True. You haven't defined anything.

Sure, just keep believing that. My alternate definitions were examples
that your definition didn't cover. You know that they require a
different definition becuase you had to change yours to try to account
for the Reason to believe notion of kind.

>
>>>>>> My guess is that there are more because you have IDiots like Behe
>>>>>> that have their own reasons for having cat kind be limited to a
>>>>>> family of carnivora, and all he wants to claim is that his
>>>>>> designer diddlefarted around and changed some existing lineage
>>>>>> just enough, far in the distant past, so that it would evolved
>>>>>> into a distinct family from dog family kind.  It looks like the
>>>>>> change was pretty subtle at the time, but it was just what was
>>>>>> needed in order for cat kind to evolve into something different
>>>>>> from dog kind.  He doesn't deny that dogs and cats had a common
>>>>>> ancestor, but he claims that something that is impossible to
>>>>>> happen naturally occurred in order to make cats and dogs what they
>>>>>> are, and it obviously happened a long time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Behe doesn't believe in "kinds". And I don't think he's weighed in
>>>>> on whether Jesus needed to intervene in order to produce either
>>>>> dogs or cats from a common carnivore ancestor.
>>>>>
>>>>> So none of that was relevant.
>>>>
>>>> Except that Behe's notion of kind is different, and depends on a
>>>> very different means of creation.  He doesn't know what his designer
>>>> has to do, but he believes that the designer does something to
>>>> create his kinds that can't evolve.
>>>
>>> Behe has no notion of kind.
>>
>> My guess is that you know that this is not true, so why did you make
>> the claim?
>
> My guess is that you didn't actually intend to accuse me of lying.

My guess is that you know that what you wrote is not true, or at least
realize that it isn't true. You have to know that Behe has some concept
of kinds becuase he sells his junk to the creationist rubes. He has his
own notion of how the different families were created by his designer.

>
>> Behe has the same notion of kind as the creationist rubes that he
>> sells his books too.  Behe only lies about it being about the
>> science.  You know why Behe is an IDiot, so why make the claim that
>> you just did.  Behe's cut off at the family level was totally
>> arbitrary. The only reason he did it was so that the creationists that
>> buy his junk arguments need to fit them on the ark, and think that
>> their notion of kinds means anything.  Like Glenn they don't care that
>> Behe is telling them that evolution is a fact of nature, they are only
>> in it for the denial and justification of what they want to believe.
>> Scientifically it would have been better for Behe to put the limit at
>> the phylum level, in terms of not ever being demonstrated to be wrong,
>> but he didn't do that.  The reason being that he needs to sell books,
>> and what creationist would buy the book if everything within a phylum
>> shared a common ancestor?
>
> Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?

He accepts common descent, but I didn't say universal because he hasn't
said that, but he admitted to his critics at the turn of the century
that he understood biological evolution to be a fact of nature, and that
he had no issues with humans and apes sharing a common ancestor. He
claimed that this negated the claims that IC was anti-evolution. This
has all been put up on TO decades ago, and I have had to put it up,
repeatedly, since then because of the denial of Nyikos and Glenn.

A male and female of each animal kind had to be created. They are the
same kind according to the creationists even though by your definition
all the animal kinds created in this way are the hybrids of two
different kinds. You have to modify your definition again. The same
kind can obviously be recreated, and would still be the same kind in
spite of your current definition. The Reason to Believe creationists
are just hedging this obvious fact by claiming their kinds were
recreated to be different enough to be different kinds even if they can
interbreed. So interbreeding and sharing ancestry isn't the important
part of their definition. Just imagine what this means in terms of
extant kinds being related to other kinds of times past. The Reason to
Believe creationists claim that their designer has been recreating kinds
to be a little different from existing kinds for billions of years.
There has obviously been interbreeding among the animal kinds like the
human kind, and this interbreeding stretches back to the existence of
Homo erectus, and likely further back because the interbreeding was
likely occurring before that. There could be a chain of shared ancestry
going back to the common ancestor of apes and humans that Behe
understands to have existed in his creationist beliefs.

>
>>>>>>   It turns out that the reason to believe guys claim that things
>>>>>> can be created so that they can interbreed and develop ancestral
>>>>>> linkages.  Modern humans are linked to, probably, Homo erectus
>>>>>> ancestry through our interbreeding with Denisovans who interbred
>>>>>> with the Homo that they met in Asia.  The modern human lineage
>>>>>> interbred with Neanderthals around half a million years ago so
>>>>>> that Neanderthals are more closely related to modern humans than
>>>>>> Denisovans, and the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbreeding
>>>>>> from time to time when they existed on the same continent.  When
>>>>>> we interbred most recently with the Neanderthals they already had
>>>>>> a lot of shared ancestry with us and other Homo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your point?
>>>>
>>>> It is why you had to change your first definition.
>>>
>>> Again, you're conflating two different meanings of "shared ancestry".
>>
>> Change is change, and how many creationists use that first definition?
>> How many don't?
>
> There's only one definition, though it may be differently stated.

Of course keep repeating that every time it has to be differently defined.

How do you know? Some Catholics don't believe that evolution happened
and that the kinds of the Bible are real. They obviously have to have
some definition. Catholics go all the way to YEC, geocentric bibilical
literalist creationists. Pagano isn't the only geocentric,
anti-evolution Catholic creationist in existence. Even Behe has his own
beliefs about what the kinds in the Bible are, and he claims that they
were created by descent with modification, with tweeking/creation events
to get the families started.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/BFev0TB1zNM/m/tveh7uvTAAAJ

Except that it isn't what your first definition was, and your second
definition doesn't include the fact that the same kind can be recreated,
and that doesn't make it a different kind. The Reason to Believe claims
pretty much rely on the same kind being recreated, it is their new
"different" kinds that have to be altered enough in some way so that
they are called different kinds even if they can interbreed with
previously created kinds. Their new kinds can exist at the subspecies
level. They don't even have to be classified as different species (Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis). The Reason to believe article notes that
Neanderthals are classed as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, but they claim
that they are a different kind that lacks some attributes that modern
humans have. Humans were obviously created to be pretty closely related
to other Homo kinds. Just think about it. We've had creationists that
posted on TO that claimed that there were other creation events to
produce the wives and husbands for Adam and Eve's kids. It wasn't the
accepted view that they interbred with their sibs, but they didn't like
the thought of incest. Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from has
been a common creationist taunt in society and on TO, and creation in
the next county has been one of the options. It isn't mentioned in the
Bible, but that doesn't stop creationists from believing much of anything.

Ron Okimoto

>
>

[John Harshman]

Behe has never claimed any of those things, as far as I know.

[John Harshman]

Just to quibble a bit, this isn't true. Nothing merits its own family,
as taxonomic ranks are arbitrary. The only requirement is that families
must be monophyletic, and what the data show is that it's possible to
separate Pandionidae from Accipitridae while leaving them both
monophyletic, if you feel like doing that. They're both still in
Accipitriformes, along with Sagittariidae. There is nothing to contest.
Also, up until recently, families didn't really have definitions, only
assigned species.

Anyway, there would be better examples for your point.

[John Harshman]

Why are you even bringing this up? The only thing at issue is the last
part of that last sentence. I claim they have only one definition of
"kind". You claim there's more than one, but you haven't been able to
provide any of these other definitions.

>>>>>>>>>>> It may be bizarre, but there isn't a single definition like
>>>>>>>>>>> the one you put up.  Yes, kinds are obviously supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>> separately created, but they can still interbreed.  They
>>>>>>>>>>> share enough to be "recreations" according to reason to
>>>>>>>>>>> believe. The recreations obviously are very similar to the
>>>>>>>>>>> kind that they are supposed to be recreations of.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Similarity doesn't violate the definition of "kind", and
>>>>>>>>>> "recreations" are still kinds under the definition universally
>>>>>>>>>> employed by creationists. No problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> except that the recreations can interbreed and share ancestry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not relevant to the definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why change the initial definition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Redefinition.  How many creationists use the first one?
>>>>
>>>> Every creationist uses the same one.
>>>
>>> Except the ones that obviously do not.
>>
>> So far you have suggested no other definitions.
>
> You changed your definition to try to include the alternative that I put
> up, and you still have to deal with the fact that the same kind can be
> recreated again, but it would obviously be the same kind.  By most
> accounts there were at least two of each kind of animal created, and by
> your current definition a kind would be the hybridization (shared
> ancestry) between two different kinds, so you still have to further
> modify the definition in order to account for what they claim happened.

You put up no alternative. There is no fact. If the same kind can be
created again, which you have not established (or you have not
established that anyone thinks so) there must be a definition of "kind"
by which we can recognize that. What is it? And creation of a group is a
single creation event.

What definition of "kind" are you working with?

Is it possible that you think examples and definitions are the same
thing? No definition so far. What is the RTB notion of kind?

Your guess is wrong. And your understanding of Behe is wrong. It's not
necessary to have a concept of kinds in order to sell junk to the
creationist rubes. You don't have to be a young earther, you don't have
to be a flat earther; you just have to wave your hand in the direction
of God. Behe doesn't deal in kinds.

>>> Behe has the same notion of kind as the creationist rubes that he
>>> sells his books too.  Behe only lies about it being about the
>>> science.  You know why Behe is an IDiot, so why make the claim that
>>> you just did.  Behe's cut off at the family level was totally
>>> arbitrary. The only reason he did it was so that the creationists
>>> that buy his junk arguments need to fit them on the ark, and think
>>> that their notion of kinds means anything.  Like Glenn they don't
>>> care that Behe is telling them that evolution is a fact of nature,
>>> they are only in it for the denial and justification of what they
>>> want to believe. Scientifically it would have been better for Behe to
>>> put the limit at the phylum level, in terms of not ever being
>>> demonstrated to be wrong, but he didn't do that.  The reason being
>>> that he needs to sell books, and what creationist would buy the book
>>> if everything within a phylum shared a common ancestor?
>>
>> Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?
>
> He accepts common descent, but I didn't say universal because he hasn't
> said that, but he admitted to his critics at the turn of the century
> that he understood biological evolution to be a fact of nature, and that
> he had no issues with humans and apes sharing a common ancestor.  He
> claimed that this negated the claims that IC was anti-evolution.  This
> has all been put up on TO decades ago, and I have had to put it up,
> repeatedly, since then because of the denial of Nyikos and Glenn.

No, he has gone way past humans and apes. When has he ever said one word
about "kinds" or separate creation of taxa?

Still no definition. Why are you unwilling to provide any of these
different definitions you claim exist?

I took "the Catholic definition of kind" to be a claim of some official
church doctrine. Various people who are Catholics do use the term and
the concept, but Behe doesn't. How do you know Behe has beliefs about
kinds? Where are you getting this? And what is the definition of "kind"?

What is a kind?

> The Reason to Believe claims
> pretty much rely on the same kind being recreated, it is their new
> "different" kinds that have to be altered enough in some way so that
> they are called different kinds even if they can interbreed with
> previously created kinds.  Their new kinds can exist at the subspecies
> level. They don't even have to be classified as different species (Homo
> sapiens neanderthalensis). The Reason to believe article notes that
> Neanderthals are classed as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, but they claim
> that they are a different kind that lacks some attributes that modern
> humans have.  Humans were obviously created to be pretty closely related
> to other Homo kinds.

What does "related" mean in that sentence?

> Just think about it.  We've had creationists that
> posted on TO that claimed that there were other creation events to
> produce the wives and husbands for Adam and Eve's kids.  It wasn't the
> accepted view that they interbred with their sibs, but they didn't like
> the thought of incest.  Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from has
> been a common creationist taunt in society and on TO, and creation in
> the next county has been one of the options.  It isn't mentioned in the
> Bible, but that doesn't stop creationists from believing much of anything.

Usually, it's incest, not separate creation. What is a kind?

[Burkhard]

Yah, was worried about hits, as my knowledge of taxonomy is next to nil.
I just happened to follow our Osprey pair via webcam though the summer,
and at one point looked them up and was surprised to learn how different
they are

[RonO]

Because of your claims. You are the one that made up the junk about
kinds not existing, that didn't matter to what was being discussed. We
were talking about the creationist definition of kind, so it doesn't
matter if they exist or not.

If I didn't put up an alternative, why did the definition change?

No, I don't think that they are the same thing. I only point out that
the definition had to change because of the examples, so why would I
have to put up an alternative definition when you did it.

Well then, make your own conclusions of what you did.

Behe is an ID perp. He has to lie to the creationist rubes about what
he does as not being about his religious beliefs. He obviously has his
notion of kinds or he wouldn't have placed his limit on natural
evolution at the family level. Pretty much the whole ID scam is about
lying about their religious beliefs to creationist rubes.

How do you need to change your definition to account for this reality.
You have to claim that kinds do not necessarily depend on independent
creation without ancestral links.

Your first definition:
QUOTE:

Yes, there is. A "kind" is a group of organisms sharing common ancestry
within but not between groups.

END QUOTE:

Your next attempt:
QUOTE:

Subsequent interbreeding does not violate the definition of "kind", as
long as the original groups are separately created and share no original
ancestry.

END QUOTE:

These still don't account for the fact that the same kind can be
separately created and still be the same kind, and that kindness depends
on the difference between the new creations, and not whether they can
interbreed. New kinds are not differentiated by just being created
separately, and it appears that the amount of difference between new
creations matter. There has to be enough of a difference to be called
something different even between newly created groups.

I do not have to put up a definition. I only have to demonstrate that
your single definition was never adequate and obviously is not the only
definition. I am the one that is claiming that there isn't a single
definition, so why should I have one?

Behe obviously has an even more different notion of what differentiates
the kinds. I don't have to state Behe's definition because Behe is a
dishonest prevaricator and doesn't want to make any definite claims
about the issue. I only have to demonstrate that your definition isn't
adequate to account for Behe's notion of what separates the various
kinds of life on earth. Behe is just trying to be similar to other
creationists beliefs on this issue by placing the limit at the family
level. There isn't really any other reason to place the limit where he
put it. He can't even state what the limit is in any specific case.

There isn't one official definition because there is no single
definition of kind that they use within the Catholic church. So you
have creationists like Behe and YEC fundy types with their 7 day
creation notion of kinds, and they are all Catholics.

Not limited to your two definitions so far. It is a lot of things to a
lot of different creationists.

>
>> The Reason to Believe claims pretty much rely on the same kind being
>> recreated, it is their new "different" kinds that have to be altered
>> enough in some way so that they are called different kinds even if
>> they can interbreed with previously created kinds.  Their new kinds
>> can exist at the subspecies level. They don't even have to be
>> classified as different species (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). The
>> Reason to believe article notes that Neanderthals are classed as a
>> subspecies of Homo sapiens, but they claim that they are a different
>> kind that lacks some attributes that modern humans have.  Humans were
>> obviously created to be pretty closely related to other Homo kinds.
>
> What does "related" mean in that sentence?

Related by genetics and developmental biology. They are related enough
so the genetics work and segregate normally, and they are obviously
developmentally compatible.

You should check out the Adam and Eve genetics paper up at the ID perps
creationist journal site. They claim that Adam and Eve could have been
created with most of the genetic variation in the human population
already in their two genomes. This gave the human kind a head start so
that Adam and Eve could have existed within the last hundred thousand
years and all the genetic variation within the human population
(including the Neanderthal variation) could have been generated. Adam
and Eve are obviously the same kind, but very different genetically so
that the variation could segregate among their progeny.

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2019.1/BIO-C.2019.1

>
>> Just think about it.  We've had creationists that posted on TO that
>> claimed that there were other creation events to produce the wives and
>> husbands for Adam and Eve's kids.  It wasn't the accepted view that
>> they interbred with their sibs, but they didn't like the thought of
>> incest.  Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from has been a common
>> creationist taunt in society and on TO, and creation in the next
>> county has been one of the options.  It isn't mentioned in the Bible,
>> but that doesn't stop creationists from believing much of anything.
>
> Usually, it's incest, not separate creation. What is a kind?
>
>

It is still put up as an option, so you have to include it in any single
definition. I am the one that is claiming that there isn't a single
definition, so why should I have to put one up if such a single
definition doesn't exist? To incorporate this last bit you need to add
something about the separately created lifeforms have to be genetically
(and so phenotypically) different enough so that the creationists can
call them a different kind. They might still be able to interbreed with
other kinds, but the creationists think that they are different kinds.
The AIG creationists would likely disagree with such a definition. They
want genetic incompatibility between kinds, but allow a tremendous
amount of genetic variation and evolution within a kind. Their members
of the cat kind can be more than twice as genetically divergent as
chimps and humans are. Quite a bit of that genetic variation within the
family had to be present in the two cats that were on the ark.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 06:10:47 -0700, John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?
>>
>>
>> To be precise, Behe *claims* to accept universal common descent.
>> However, unless your meaning of that phrase incorporates creation ex
>> nihilo of things from DNA to bacterial flagella to blood-clotting
>> cascades to immune systems to entire whales, his definition isn't the
>> same as yours.
>
>Behe has never claimed any of those things, as far as I know.

Really? That implies you're unfamiliar with Behe's books and lectures
as well as the many topics on T.O. about ID. Such an implication is
as disturbing as the implication you accept creation ex nihilo as
compatible with universal common descent.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box>
*****************************************
In the following chapters, Behe discusses the apparent irreducible
complexity of several biological systems, including the cilium, the
bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system, and vesicular
transport.
******************************************

Behe claims all of these systems are examples of Irreducible
Complexity:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity>
*******************************************
Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological
systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to
pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no
less complex system would function.
********************************************

Behe claims IC shows these systems could not have evolved by unguided
natural processes and instead required intervention by a purposeful
intelligent agent:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xht_bqPrbWc>
*********************************************
@31:30
With irreducibly complex systems the function only appears when the
system has essentially been put together. That's a big problem for
Darwinian theory because natural selection then has nothing to select
until you finish the system.

also:
********************************************
@47:20
So let's switch over to the second point that Darwin's theory of
evolution by random mutation and natural selection, the dominant view
[in the biological community], is utterly incompatible with a theory
of purposeful intelligent design.
********************************************
.
.
If the above is what Behe actually believes, that would be "utterly"
incompatible with your claim that Behe accepts some form of
evolutionary common descent.
.
.
also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNe-syuDJBg&t=376s
****************************************
(from the flap cover of "Darwin Devolves")
@7:19
Darwin's mechanism works by a process of devolution not evolution.
(we'll discuss that). The mechanism works by breaking down genes,
which means that evolution can help make something looking act
different at least on the surface, but it doesn't have the ability to
build or create anything at the genetic level.

@7:58
It's time to acknowledge the conclusion that only an intelligent mind
could have designed life.
****************************************

The issue of Behe's opinions is a digression from the larger context
of this thread, which is why I separate my reply in this post to just
that point.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 10:13:37 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

If a definition asserts something contrary to fact, then it can and
will be used to argue said contrary fact is true by definition.

I know some people who claim a misdiagnosis is evidence of a
nonexistent disease, but I try to avoid discussing such things with
them.

Once again, the larger point here is, definitions which are based on
contrary facts are for that reason imprecise and incoherent. Such
definitions invite discussions using them to go off on tangents about
the definition itself, as has happened here, which most people find
fruitless and boring. ISTM precise definitions necessarily help to
avoid such obfuscating diversions, not encourage them.

>Closer to TO, aren't
>animals often re-classified when we learn more about them? For instance
>many tried to fit Ospreys into one of the existing Accipitriformes, and
>then molecular analysis showed that it merits its own Family,
>Pandionidae - and even hat remains contested. But that does not mean any
>of the definitions is imprecise, just tat we don;t always make the right
>call or don;t always have the right information, to apply it correctly
>to a given object

ISTM to alter conclusions based on new evidence is a Good Thing (c).
Either way, new evidence doesn't inform the precision of old
definitions.

>> Dogs'
>> tails and legs have different functions and anatomies. And common
>> ancestry/common descent excludes independent ancestry by definition.
>>
>> Harshman's expressed definition of "kind" is equivalent to defining
>> "unicorn" as sometimes having a gold horn and sometimes not. That's
>> incoherent. To make the definition of "kind" coherent, it needs to at
>> least refer to something which describes how independent ancestry
>> could be determined in principle.
>
>There are a couple of things here I'm not sure about
>
>First, there is a certain ambiguity in your first sentence. It could
>mean "by definition, all unicorns have horns, which may or may not be
>golden". I don't think that is incoherent, though for the purpose of a
>technical definition, it carries more information than necessary (maybe
>to make sure that nobody excludes "golden horn" from the group of horns)

If a definition doesn't identify X well enough to reasonably
distinguish X from non-X, that definition is insufficient and
imprecise, by definition.

In the case of my definition of "unicorn", all of its elements are
both necessary and sufficient to precisely define *my* concept (I
specified "gold" as in the element, not the color). I suppose others
could argue their definition against mine. However, since there are no
material unicorns to arbitrate such arguments, they would be cases of
dueling baseless opinions. There are times and places for such
discussions, but this topic in T.O. is not among them, IMO and YMMV.

>Or it could be meant as a way to distinguish unicorns from other
>one-horned animals, such as rhinos. If it has a golden horn, it
>definitely is not a rhino, or a narwhale etc. So having a golden horn is
>sufficient to identify something as a unicorn. However, there may be
>unicorn species whose horn is not golden, but silver, or maybe even
>ordinary horn. So it is not a necessary condition. Now, that is of
>course typical for a diagnostic criterion, and not incoherent. Just not
>a definition. But is is John who insists on the careful distinction, and
>I can't see where he commits the mistake you claim (under this reading),
>i.e. where he offers as a definition something that is only a diagnostic
>criterion.
>
>A totally separate issue is the one in your final sentence, which asks
>for an effective method to determine if a given candidate object falls
>under a definition. 'd disagree with that. Having such a method helps,
>but is not necessary for something to be a definition. Take as an
>example the disagreement between Peter and John about the legitimacy of
>naming a specific extinct species "ancestor" or "ancestor candidate" of
>an extant one. John rejects the terminology because we can never know,
>for a given fossil, whether its species was ancestral. But that does not
>mean we have an incoherent definition of "ancestral species".
>
>Definitions ultimately are abbreviations or semantic conventions. They
>don't need to refer to anything outside, and also don't need an
>effective mechanism to determine if something falls under them - that is
>the role of diagnostic criteria.

I agree that not all definitions need to be precise. That is not the
issue here. The issue here is whether Harshman's expressed definition
of "kind" is precise. I argue that it's not, because it can't be used
to distinguish kind from not-kind. Even Ken Ham doesn't apply that
definition consistently, and instead appears to lump together
different species entirely on whatever rationalization appeals to him
at the moment.

[Burkhard]

I don't understand what you mean in the context of a definition with
being "contrary to fact". And in the second sentence, you say
"nonexistent" again - but in your previous reply, you said that
"nonexistene" does not matter and it is possible to give precise
definitions for non-existing things. So I'm afraid that leaves me rather
confused.

>
> Once again, the larger point here is, definitions which are based on
> contrary facts are for that reason imprecise and incoherent. Such
> definitions invite discussions using them to go off on tangents about
> the definition itself, as has happened here, which most people find
> fruitless and boring. ISTM precise definitions necessarily help to
> avoid such obfuscating diversions, not encourage them.
>
>
>> Closer to TO, aren't
>> animals often re-classified when we learn more about them? For instance
>> many tried to fit Ospreys into one of the existing Accipitriformes, and
>> then molecular analysis showed that it merits its own Family,
>> Pandionidae - and even hat remains contested. But that does not mean any
>> of the definitions is imprecise, just tat we don;t always make the right
>> call or don;t always have the right information, to apply it correctly
>> to a given object
>
>
> ISTM to alter conclusions based on new evidence is a Good Thing (c).
> Either way, new evidence doesn't inform the precision of old
> definitions.

No. But it means that it isn't an argument against something being a
definition, or at least an imprecise definition, that we sometimes
misapply it in a concrete case. And that's how I understood you to argue
when you said "There are UFOs which are later proved to be neither

spacecraft nor piloted by extraterrestrials."


>
>

>>> Dogs'
>>> tails and legs have different functions and anatomies. And common
>>> ancestry/common descent excludes independent ancestry by definition.
>>>
>>> Harshman's expressed definition of "kind" is equivalent to defining
>>> "unicorn" as sometimes having a gold horn and sometimes not. That's
>>> incoherent. To make the definition of "kind" coherent, it needs to at
>>> least refer to something which describes how independent ancestry
>>> could be determined in principle.
>>
>> There are a couple of things here I'm not sure about
>>
>> First, there is a certain ambiguity in your first sentence. It could
>> mean "by definition, all unicorns have horns, which may or may not be
>> golden". I don't think that is incoherent, though for the purpose of a
>> technical definition, it carries more information than necessary (maybe
>> to make sure that nobody excludes "golden horn" from the group of horns)
>
>
> If a definition doesn't identify X well enough to reasonably
> distinguish X from non-X, that definition is insufficient and
> imprecise, by definition.

That depends I'd say on the reason for of that failure. Is it an
imprecise use of terms, then yes. IF it is simply because our current
tools are not good enough for a diagnostic, then no, that's an empirical
question, not one of definitions.

>
> In the case of my definition of "unicorn", all of its elements are
> both necessary and sufficient to precisely define *my* concept (I
> specified "gold" as in the element, not the color).

So your definition is: an animal is a unicorn iff it has a golden horn.
That's fine. By contrast, a definition that would say : "an animal is a
unicorn iff it has a golden horn, or iff it does not have a golden horn"
would be illegitimate. That's also true, not because an imprecision,
it's s simple logical contradiction. But I can't see John proposing a
definition that has teh same logical structure anywhere.

For me that again mixes diagnosis with definition. That is not an issue
of precision, but one of type. What a definition tells you is that IF
something falls under one side of the definition, it also falls under
the other. It need not, and often does not, tell you how to decide this
"IF". John's (rendition of creationist) definition is simply: "kind" is

a group of organisms sharing common ancestry within but not between

groups" On the right hand side, the only theoretical term is "ancestry"
If this term were unduly vague, we'd have a big problem with the ToE too
I'd say. To me that term looks very clear, on the semantic level. That
we don;t always have the tools to decide if one organism is ancestral to
another does not change that - before DNA, we could not even be sure of
fathers.

[John Harshman]

On 9/25/22 11:41 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 06:10:47 -0700, John Harshman
> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?
>>>
>>>
>>> To be precise, Behe *claims* to accept universal common descent.
>>> However, unless your meaning of that phrase incorporates creation ex
>>> nihilo of things from DNA to bacterial flagella to blood-clotting
>>> cascades to immune systems to entire whales, his definition isn't the
>>> same as yours.
>>
>> Behe has never claimed any of those things, as far as I know.
>
>
> Really? That implies you're unfamiliar with Behe's books and lectures
> as well as the many topics on T.O. about ID. Such an implication is
> as disturbing as the implication you accept creation ex nihilo as
> compatible with universal common descent.

Nothing you quote says anything about common descent or creation ex
nihilo. You seem to be confusing common descent with the causes of
mutations. Behe, problematic as his ideas are, does not.

From the Wikipedia page on The Edge of Evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

"Behe begins the book with an observation that the theory of evolution
consists of a coherent relationship of three related ideas: common
descent, natural selection, and random mutation. He continues by stating
he believes they are distinct ideas, with implications for the theory as
a whole; common descent and natural selection he accepts without
question but questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce
beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes."

and

"Behe argues strongly for common descent of all lifeforms on earth,
including that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. He states
that there is such overwhelming evidence for common ancestry that it
should not only be obvious, but "trivial"."

Is the article really completely wrong about all that?

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:08:26 -0700, John Harshman

<john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/25/22 11:41 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 06:10:47 -0700, John Harshman
>> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be precise, Behe *claims* to accept universal common descent.
>>>> However, unless your meaning of that phrase incorporates creation ex
>>>> nihilo of things from DNA to bacterial flagella to blood-clotting
>>>> cascades to immune systems to entire whales, his definition isn't the
>>>> same as yours.
>>>
>>> Behe has never claimed any of those things, as far as I know.
>>
>>
>> Really? That implies you're unfamiliar with Behe's books and lectures
>> as well as the many topics on T.O. about ID. Such an implication is
>> as disturbing as the implication you accept creation ex nihilo as
>> compatible with universal common descent.
>
>Nothing you quote says anything about common descent or creation ex
>nihilo. You seem to be confusing common descent with the causes of
>mutations. Behe, problematic as his ideas are, does not.

I presumed your "those things" referred to DNA, bacterial flagella,
blood-clotting cascade, immune system, and whales, all of which Behe
has claimed are examples of IC and/or devolution.

Everything I quoted identifies how Behe's claims are incompatible with
any reasonable meaning of universal common descent. Behe is very
careful to avoid using explicit religious phrases and references to
God, so don't expect him to use the exact words you demand above.

> From the Wikipedia page on The Edge of Evolution:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution
>
>"Behe begins the book with an observation that the theory of evolution
>consists of a coherent relationship of three related ideas: common
>descent, natural selection, and random mutation. He continues by stating
>he believes they are distinct ideas, with implications for the theory as
>a whole; common descent and natural selection he accepts without
>question but questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce
>beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes."
>
>and
>
>"Behe argues strongly for common descent of all lifeforms on earth,
>including that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. He states
>that there is such overwhelming evidence for common ancestry that it
>should not only be obvious, but "trivial"."
>
>Is the article really completely wrong about all that?

Your quotes above don't address how Behe reconciles his claims for ID
with his claims for evolution, common descent, and natural selection.
Given his expressed claim that ID is "utterly incompatible with"
rm/ns, that's essential to answering your question.

How do you, John Harshman, reconcile Behe's arguments for IC with your
understanding of common descent and natural selection, when he claims
specific IC systems are impossible without the intervention of a
purposeful intelligent agent?

[jillery]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:28:09 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I regret that my references to concepts that are incidentally
imaginary continue to confuse you. I mentioned one above only to
illustrate why I avoid discussing other people's medical misdiagnoses.
More to the point, I accepted your previous "OK" as a sincere
acknowledgement of your misreading. Given your recent "again", it
appears my acceptance was premature.

>> Once again, the larger point here is, definitions which are based on
>> contrary facts are for that reason imprecise and incoherent. Such
>> definitions invite discussions using them to go off on tangents about
>> the definition itself, as has happened here, which most people find
>> fruitless and boring. ISTM precise definitions necessarily help to
>> avoid such obfuscating diversions, not encourage them.
>>
>>
>>> Closer to TO, aren't
>>> animals often re-classified when we learn more about them? For instance
>>> many tried to fit Ospreys into one of the existing Accipitriformes, and
>>> then molecular analysis showed that it merits its own Family,
>>> Pandionidae - and even hat remains contested. But that does not mean any
>>> of the definitions is imprecise, just tat we don;t always make the right
>>> call or don;t always have the right information, to apply it correctly
>>> to a given object
>>
>>
>> ISTM to alter conclusions based on new evidence is a Good Thing (c).
>> Either way, new evidence doesn't inform the precision of old
>> definitions.
>
>No. But it means that it isn't an argument against something being a
>definition, or at least an imprecise definition, that we sometimes
>misapply it in a concrete case. And that's how I understood you to argue
>when you said "There are UFOs which are later proved to be neither
>spacecraft nor piloted by extraterrestrials."

Then allow me to clarify. My expressed definition of "UFO" presumes
the existence of spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrials, in exactly
the same way that Harshman's definition of "kind" presumes the
existence of groups with independent ancestry. A difference is, the
vast majority of claimed UFO sightings are empirically proved to be
not-UFOs by that definition. I argue that makes my definition
invalid, inaccurate, imprecise (pick your favorite adjective) by
empirical evidence.

OTOH independent ancestry can't be proved or disproved in principle,
because it's possible that a supernatural creator aka God
independently created groups to just look as if they were descended by
common ancestry (think mysterious ways). At best, independent
ancestry can be inferred false based on evidence for common ancestry,
ex. common genetic code. Harshman's definition invites those who
presume independent ancestry to handwave away such inferences as
interpretations of sinful godless Darwinists. I argue that makes
Harshman's definition invalid, inaccurate, imprecise (pick your
favorite adjective) by inference.

I argue that the differences between inferred proof and empirical
proof are insufficient to reasonably classify Harshman's definition as
"precise". However, I acknowledge that is a matter of opinion, as is
whether the difference between diagnostic criteria and definition is
worth arguing about.

[Burkhard]

Well, I thought I had simply misread you, and you seemed to agree. The
problem I have is not that the examples are incidentally imaginary, but
that this is in the above an explicit reason that you give - you say the
problem with these definitions is that they state something "contrary to
fact". I either don't understand what you mean with that, or, if the
contrary to fact is an existence claim, disagree that it matters

So we are back to existence claims, and the problem is that the
definitions "presume" that the definiendum exists? But above explicitly
that non-existence does not come into it. Definitions with other words
do not presume existence of anything, they don't carry existential
presuppositions.

A difference is, the
> vast majority of claimed UFO sightings are empirically proved to be
> not-UFOs by that definition. I argue that makes my definition
> invalid, inaccurate, imprecise (pick your favorite adjective) by
> empirical evidence.

I'd disagree with that. They are demonstrably, by your own argument,
not imprecise or inaccurate, otherwise you would not be able to say so
clearly that the object under discussion turned out to be not an UFO
after all. Nor can I see why a definition would be invalid simply
because we often find that a candidate object after all turned out to be
something else. Why would that matter? I can't think of any good
argument myself, and would think there are plenty of good
counterexamples. Take the famous catchphrase from Doctor House 'It is
not Lupus". There are a lot of rare diseases that are initially
candidates, but quickly turn out to be something else. That does not
mean that the way they were defined is illegitimate, just that a) there
are only a few, if any, of them and b) lots of things superficially
look like them.

>
> OTOH independent ancestry can't be proved or disproved in principle,
> because it's possible that a supernatural creator aka God
> independently created groups to just look as if they were descended by
> common ancestry (think mysterious ways).

But that argument works just as much for any biological concept. That's
not a problem of the definition of ancestry, or kind, that's an entirely
different issue. Once there is an omnipotent agent, we can also never
prove or disprove common ancestry either. Independent ancestry is after
all just the negation of shared ancestry, any problems we have with the
one would automatically also be problems with the other

[John Harshman]

On 9/26/22 10:26 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:08:26 -0700, John Harshman
> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/22 11:41 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 06:10:47 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Behe accepts universal common descent. How can you not know this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be precise, Behe *claims* to accept universal common descent.
>>>>> However, unless your meaning of that phrase incorporates creation ex
>>>>> nihilo of things from DNA to bacterial flagella to blood-clotting
>>>>> cascades to immune systems to entire whales, his definition isn't the
>>>>> same as yours.
>>>>
>>>> Behe has never claimed any of those things, as far as I know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? That implies you're unfamiliar with Behe's books and lectures
>>> as well as the many topics on T.O. about ID. Such an implication is
>>> as disturbing as the implication you accept creation ex nihilo as
>>> compatible with universal common descent.
>>
>> Nothing you quote says anything about common descent or creation ex
>> nihilo. You seem to be confusing common descent with the causes of
>> mutations. Behe, problematic as his ideas are, does not.
>
>
> I presumed your "those things" referred to DNA, bacterial flagella,
> blood-clotting cascade, immune system, and whales, all of which Behe
> has claimed are examples of IC and/or devolution.

No, you are wrong. "Those things" referred to creation ex nihilo of
species with those various features. IC and/or devolution have nothing
to do with separate creation of species or common descent, being
compatible with either. Behe goes with common descent.

> Everything I quoted identifies how Behe's claims are incompatible with
> any reasonable meaning of universal common descent. Behe is very
> careful to avoid using explicit religious phrases and references to
> God, so don't expect him to use the exact words you demand above.

You have not made your point. But what is this reasonable meaning of
common descent with which Behe's views are incompatible?

>> From the Wikipedia page on The Edge of Evolution:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution
>>
>> "Behe begins the book with an observation that the theory of evolution
>> consists of a coherent relationship of three related ideas: common
>> descent, natural selection, and random mutation. He continues by stating
>> he believes they are distinct ideas, with implications for the theory as
>> a whole; common descent and natural selection he accepts without
>> question but questions the scope and power of random mutation to produce
>> beneficial mutations that lead to novel, useful structures and processes."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Behe argues strongly for common descent of all lifeforms on earth,
>> including that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. He states
>> that there is such overwhelming evidence for common ancestry that it
>> should not only be obvious, but "trivial"."
>>
>> Is the article really completely wrong about all that?
>
>
> Your quotes above don't address how Behe reconciles his claims for ID
> with his claims for evolution, common descent, and natural selection.
> Given his expressed claim that ID is "utterly incompatible with"
> rm/ns, that's essential to answering your question.

No, that's irrelevant. Random mutation and natural selection are
irrelevant to common descent; they're relevant to the origins of
features and their fixation in populations, but that's not what common
descent is.

> How do you, John Harshman, reconcile Behe's arguments for IC with your
> understanding of common descent and natural selection, when he claims
> specific IC systems are impossible without the intervention of a
> purposeful intelligent agent?

Common descent and natural selection are two quite separate things.
There's no need to reconcile them, just as there's no need to reconcile
the color of an apple with its shape. Likewise, common descent and
intervention of a purposeful intelligent agent are also orthogonal.

Creationists frequently have trouble understanding this, but I'm
surprised that you do.

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 06:38:40 -0700, John Harshman

I am well aware that common descent and natural selection are two
quite separate things. More to the point, I made no claim that common
descent and natural selection are the same, nor does my argument
depend on them being the same. Unlike you, I am not at all surprised
that you raise such strawmen to distract from answering my direct
challenge to you. You almost never reply honestly to my posts. I
don't know why I thought you would do so this time. My bad.

[John Harshman]

I'm at a loss to explain what you're talking about. And I'm tired of all
the sea-lioning.

Let me reiterate: Michael Behe accepts universal common descent, using
the ordinary meaning of the term, not some special weird definition of
his own. Nothing you have said about IC or intelligent intervention is
relevant to that. There is no need to reconcile orthogonal claims,
because they are in fact orthogonal. Your direct challenge was therefore
meaningless and so unanswerable, just as would have been a challenge to
prove what kind of cheese the moon is made of.

[Glenn]

UCD is a loaded concept, and associating Behe with acceptance of the "ordinary meaning" is about as unscientific as one can get. Nor does characterizion of "some special weird definition" provide you with any purchase on what Behe accepts, or how he might understand common descent in relation to ID. The real "ordinary meaning" of UCD is trivial, and would not conflict with design, thus, no challenge to ID.

"Ramage asks Behe if he agrees with common descent. Behe explains why he finds the issue trivial and says the crucial issue is what Behe argued for in Darwin’s Black Box, namely that mindless Darwinian mechanisms lack the creative power to have generated life’s diversity, and that we have compelling positive reasons to conclude that the purposeful arrangement of parts, such as we find in mousetraps and molecular biological machines, is the work of intelligent design. Ramage urges Behe to spend more of his rhetorical energy distinguishing himself from creationists who reject evolution in toto. Behe again pushes back, saying he doesn’t care “two hoots” for the issue of common descent, and that the important thing to focus on is how the science has turned against modern Darwinism and its emphasis on random changes and natural selection."

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/michael-behe-debates-evolution-and-catholicism/

[Glenn]

> UCD is a loaded concept, and associating Behe with acceptance of the "ordinary meaning" is about as dishonest as you get. Nor does characterizion of "some special weird definition" provide you with any purchase on what Behe accepts, or how he might understand common descent in relation to ID. The real "ordinary meaning" of UCD is trivial, and does not necessarily conflict with design, thus, no challenge to ID.

>
> "Ramage asks Behe if he agrees with common descent. Behe explains why he finds the issue trivial and says the crucial issue is what Behe argued for in Darwin’s Black Box, namely that mindless Darwinian mechanisms lack the creative power to have generated life’s diversity, and that we have compelling positive reasons to conclude that the purposeful arrangement of parts, such as we find in mousetraps and molecular biological machines, is the work of intelligent design. Ramage urges Behe to spend more of his rhetorical energy distinguishing himself from creationists who reject evolution in toto. Behe again pushes back, saying he doesn’t care “two hoots” for the issue of common descent, and that the important thing to focus on is how the science has turned against modern Darwinism and its emphasis on random changes and natural selection."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/michael-behe-debates-evolution-and-catholicism/

Maybe Behe had too much to drink above. Try this "ordinary meaning":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvS7t-Buwik&t=156s

"it really doesn't explain very much it just said that there was an ancestor that had some
features and now in the present a descendant has those features but it doesn't say where the ancestor came from and it doesn't say how the descendant changed from the ancestor so just saying common descent doesn't explain the most important part of how we get from a more a plain ancestor just one with a lot of new and interesting features such as
wings or eyes and so on"

[Burkhard]

I think we had the very same discussion a few years ago. John's answer
IIRC was, and I paraphrase here a lot, that GM rice is still rice, and
shares common ancestry with unmodified rice. That is, merely some
fiddling by a chap in a lab coat and a plan does not break the common
descent chain, same as we don't consider artificial selection
problematic for CD.

I brought up at the time more radical examples of chimera, and I think
he accepted that if the intervention became too massive, at one point
one would consider the chain broken, but his preference seemed to be to
integrate them in common descent if at all possible - arguing e.g. that
a Pegasus-type animal would still be a descendant from horses, just with
wings, or, possibly (that's when it became muddier) possible both a
descendant from a horse and a bird ancestor.

But after this is seemed to be a question of the quantity of the
interference - so he seemed to accept that an entirely in-vitro creation
that combines lots of DNA from across a range of species (so that none
would have the plurality so to speak) plus copious
rewrites/manipulations by by the scientists, would eventually break the
common descent chain.

So in summary, lots and lots of interventions are possible that don't
break the chain, and nothing in Behe would commit him to go beyond the
type of things a Craig Venter does

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:32:07 -0700, John Harshman

"All the sea-lioning" is just another example of your red herrings and
handwaving.

>Let me reiterate: Michael Behe accepts universal common descent, using
>the ordinary meaning of the term, not some special weird definition of
>his own.

Cite any verifiable source where Michael Behe actually identifies
what he means by "universal common descent", as opposed to him just
parroting the phrase. Failure to do so shows your "reiterations" are
no more than your repetitive but unsupported opinions.

And instead of ignoring the entire question, explain how you, John

Harshman, reconcile Behe's arguments for IC with your understanding of

natural selection, when he claims specific IC systems are impossible

without the intervention of a purposeful intelligent agent. Failure
to do so shows your protests above are willful evasions of the issues.

>Nothing you have said about IC or intelligent intervention is
>relevant to that. There is no need to reconcile orthogonal claims,
>because they are in fact orthogonal. Your direct challenge was therefore
>meaningless and so unanswerable, just as would have been a challenge to
>prove what kind of cheese the moon is made of.

Since you insist on addressing common descent only, and assert without
basis that Behe's arguments for IC are "orthogonal" to it, I will
clarify how the two are relevant and contradict each other.

Wikipedia says:

"Common descent is a concept in evolutionary biology applicable when
one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time."

Universal common descent is a consequence of ToE and natural
selection. Wikipedia goes on to say:

"All living beings are in fact descendants of a unique ancestor
commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of
all life on Earth, according to modern evolutionary biology."

Even allowing for the possibility that life arose independently at
different times and places billions of years ago, the evidence is
overwhelming that all extant life evolved from a last universal common
ancestor:

<https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

My understanding is the above uses macroevolution and universal common
descent as synonyms. There may be other meanings relevant to other
contexts.

My understanding is Darwinian evolution associates biological
evolution and natural selection with the origin of species and
macroevolution. There may be other meanings relevant to other
contexts.

My understanding is most people in most contexts also use common
descent and common ancestry to mean universal common descent. A
special case is made for those who claim that different extant kinds
were created independently, whether recently or long ago.

My understanding is those who claim independent ancestry use
adaptation without natural selection, and claim that it's impossible
for microevolution/natural selection to cause macroevolution/universal
common descent. For those who make these claims, common ancestry and
common descent are different from universal common descent. To be
explicit, those who make this distinction accept common
descent/adaptation and reject universal common descent/macroevolution.

For those who claim independent ancestry, the challenge is to describe
objective methods which identify those independently created kinds,
and which species adapted from each of them. Such methods would
necessarily presume the features of each independently created kind
could not have adapted from other kinds, and instead were created by
non-natural means aka ex nihilo.

As my quotes below show, Behe explicitly claims that it's impossible
for IC systems to evolve naturally; that's what makes IC a challenge
to Darwinian Evolution; IC systems were created by a purposeful
intelligent agent.

If Behe's claims were true, they would make IC a good method for
identifying independently created kinds. To be explicit, "impossible
to evolve naturally" necessarily means they were created by
non-natural means and independent of prior common descent aka ex
nihilo, which would necessarily refute universal common descent.

It's possible Behe didn't mean IC as a method for identifying
independently created kinds. However, Behe's explicit claim that
Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution are "utterly incompatible"
suggests otherwise.

Feel free to feed your sea-lions more of your red herrings.

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:05:22 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I recall that past discussion, and I disagreed with Harshman's
conclusion then as I do now. If independent ancestry has any meaning,
it is that some part, however small, is provably independent of prior
ancestry.

I agree that Venter's created life is similar to Behe's IC. I agree
that parts introduced ex nihilo don't negate the common ancestry of
other parts. But just as a biologically isolated species is no longer
the same species as its ancestor, so too a species with even one part
provably ex nihilo no longer is of universal common descent, precisely
because it has a part with independent descent.

[John Harshman]

More sea-lioning below. I'll point it out when it comes.

>> Let me reiterate: Michael Behe accepts universal common descent, using
>> the ordinary meaning of the term, not some special weird definition of
>> his own.
>
>
> Cite any verifiable source where Michael Behe actually identifies
> what he means by "universal common descent", as opposed to him just
> parroting the phrase. Failure to do so shows your "reiterations" are
> no more than your repetitive but unsupported opinions.

The problem may be that you have some odd notion of what universal
common descent means and see that it doesn't fit what Behe thinks. Can
you define it?

> And instead of ignoring the entire question, explain how you, John
> Harshman, reconcile Behe's arguments for IC with your understanding of
> natural selection, when he claims specific IC systems are impossible
> without the intervention of a purposeful intelligent agent. Failure
> to do so shows your protests above are willful evasions of the issues.

There, that was the sea-lioning. Understanding of natural selection has
nothing to do with common descent. There is no need to reconcile IC with
natural selection or either of them with common descent, since they're
irrelevant. Just the sort of thing sea lions bring up and won't let go of.

>> Nothing you have said about IC or intelligent intervention is
>> relevant to that. There is no need to reconcile orthogonal claims,
>> because they are in fact orthogonal. Your direct challenge was therefore
>> meaningless and so unanswerable, just as would have been a challenge to
>> prove what kind of cheese the moon is made of.
>
> Since you insist on addressing common descent only, and assert without
> basis that Behe's arguments for IC are "orthogonal" to it, I will
> clarify how the two are relevant and contradict each other.
>
> Wikipedia says:
>
> "Common descent is a concept in evolutionary biology applicable when
> one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time."
>
> Universal common descent is a consequence of ToE and natural
> selection.

That part not in quotes was, I assume your statement and not
Wikipedia's. That part is in fact wrong. But the quote was correct.

> Wikipedia goes on to say:
>
> "All living beings are in fact descendants of a unique ancestor
> commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of
> all life on Earth, according to modern evolutionary biology."

Also correct, though some hypothesize that there is no single common
LUCA species, rather a cloud of horizontal transfer.

> Even allowing for the possibility that life arose independently at
> different times and places billions of years ago, the evidence is
> overwhelming that all extant life evolved from a last universal common
> ancestor:

Sure. Common descent.

> <https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>
> My understanding is the above uses macroevolution and universal common
> descent as synonyms. There may be other meanings relevant to other
> contexts.

I doubt that this is true, but I haven't looked.

> My understanding is Darwinian evolution associates biological
> evolution and natural selection with the origin of species and
> macroevolution. There may be other meanings relevant to other
> contexts.

Hard to say, because I don't know what that paragraph was supposed to mean.

> My understanding is most people in most contexts also use common
> descent and common ancestry to mean universal common descent. A
> special case is made for those who claim that different extant kinds
> were created independently, whether recently or long ago.

We were in fact talking about universal common descent.

> My understanding is those who claim independent ancestry use
> adaptation without natural selection, and claim that it's impossible
> for microevolution/natural selection to cause macroevolution/universal
> common descent. For those who make these claims, common ancestry and
> common descent are different from universal common descent. To be
> explicit, those who make this distinction accept common
> descent/adaptation and reject universal common descent/macroevolution.

Here's where you begin confusing and conflating various independent
concepts. True, creationists often reveal a similar confusion. But Behe
does not.

> For those who claim independent ancestry, the challenge is to describe
> objective methods which identify those independently created kinds,
> and which species adapted from each of them. Such methods would
> necessarily presume the features of each independently created kind
> could not have adapted from other kinds, and instead were created by
> non-natural means aka ex nihilo.

True. But not relevant to Behe and universal common descent.

> As my quotes below show, Behe explicitly claims that it's impossible
> for IC systems to evolve naturally; that's what makes IC a challenge
> to Darwinian Evolution; IC systems were created by a purposeful
> intelligent agent.

Also true, and also irrelevant to universal common descent.

> If Behe's claims were true, they would make IC a good method for
> identifying independently created kinds. To be explicit, "impossible
> to evolve naturally" necessarily means they were created by
> non-natural means and independent of prior common descent aka ex
> nihilo, which would necessarily refute universal common descent.

Yep, there's your confusion again. No, that doesn't mean kinds were
created independently. It just means that some features of some
organisms required a nudge from Jesus. That nudge could have been as
slight as mandating particular mutations, perhaps several simultaneously.

> It's possible Behe didn't mean IC as a method for identifying
> independently created kinds. However, Behe's explicit claim that
> Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution are "utterly incompatible"
> suggests otherwise.

Not only is it possible, it's impossible that he meant it that way,
since he explicitly endorses universal common descent. Common descent
and Darwinian Evolution are independent claims, and either could be true
without the other.

> Feel free to feed your sea-lions more of your red herrings.

You understand that you're the sea lion, right?

[John Harshman]

Isn't every mutation ex nihilo? What was once C is not T. The T is a new
thing that didn't exist before.

[Glenn]

Isn't any change in allele frequency the result of mutation?

[John Harshman]

Thanks for asking: no.

[Glenn]