What is a "Kind"?
SJAB1958
their own "kind".
But what is a "kind"?
Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
Cyde Weys
Weys says:
A kind is a group which within microevolution can occur but between
which macroevolution cannot.
SJAB1958
And what is the difference between macro- and micro- evolution?
Richard Forrest
>From CreationWiki
"It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with species.
Even though two animals (dog and wolf) might be considered different
taxonomic species, they are still the same "kind" of animal. The
created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family"
level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in
mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level."
Basically, it means that a "kind" is any taxonomic ranking you care to
chose (and the choice is determined by the ignorance of the observer
rather than any objective assesment) provided that, no matter what the
evidence says to the contrary man and apes are NOT of the same kind.
RF
Kleuskes & Moos
SJAB1958 schreef:
> So how does that answer my question?
It does not. The question has a long history of not being answered in
any usefull way by the genesis-is-literally-true-crowd. Cyde Ways
summed up the gist of it pretty succinctly.
> And what is the difference between macro- and micro- evolution?
One occurs withing a "kind" the other one does not. AFAIK, the
criterion used is "speciation" but what practical use the distiction
has, apart from propping up creationist arguments, escapes me.
Cyde Weys
SJAB1958 wrote:
> CydeWeys wrote:
> > SJAB1958 wrote:
> > > In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> > > their own "kind".
> > >
> > > But what is a "kind"?
> > > Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
> > >
> > > Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
> > >
> > > Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
> >
> > which macroevolution cannot.
>
Weys says:
Microevolution is evolution within a kind, which has been observed and
nobody is arguing against, while macroevolution is evolution between
kinds, which has never been observed and is clearly impossible.
SJAB1958
different "kinds", but then so could cats and dogs.
Which sadly still doesnt give me a clear answer to my original inquiry.
Any creationist/bible literalist want to clear it up for me?
shane
> So how does that answer my question?
> And what is the difference between macro- and micro- evolution?
It is far more of an answer that you will get from someone who defends
the term in support of creationist arguments.
Micro-evolution - change within a species
Macro-evolution - development of a new species
To explain, to the best of my understanding.
Some creationists will allow that some form of evolution has occured.
This is generally because of the problem of the numbers of animals that
would need to be on the ark if they had to include everything we label
as a species today. So they say we don't need 300 breeds of dogs, on the
ark, we just need one pair of the dog "kind." To then get over the
problem of where all todays different dogs came from, they say that
evolution within the "kind" occurs, by the normally postulated
evolutionary means, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. This is what
they term micro-evolution.
What the absolutely refuse of confront is the affect of millions of
years of micro-evolution on a population that may become separated from
its parent population and so be subject to different selection criteria.
Evolutionary theory suggests that these populations will eventually be
so different that they are separate species, this they would term macro
evolution
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
SJAB1958
And I would like to point out a flaw in your reasoning. You say
"macro-evolution has never been observed, and is clearly impossible".
Does that mean that anything that has not been observed is impossible
too?
Frank Sullivan
Different species of beetle are obviously of the same kind. This allows
for the possibility that Noah took only one species of beetle aboard
the Ark, and micro-evolution serves as an explanation for why there are
so many different varieties (species) of beetle.
But Hyracotherium and Parahippus are considered to be the same "kind"
for no other reason than the fact that their evolution is so evident in
the fossil record. They evolved, therefore they must be of the same
"kind", because evolution outside of a "kind" is not permitted by their
religious beliefs.
But then when it comes to humans and chimps, the meaning of "kind" is
restricted again. Although humans and chimps are arguably no more
different than the aforementioned horse genera, their belief system
does not permit anything but a special "ex Nihilo" creation of humans.
The "kind" label slides up and down the taxanomic ladder as needed by
the Creationist doing the arguing.
In a way, though, evolution doesn't seem to contradict what the Bible
says concerning "kinds." The Bible says that everything multiplies
"after its own kind." Evolution says the same thing. Each organism is
born of parents of their same kind. In fact, no organism is very much
different from its parents than you are from yours. It's just that
these infinitesimal changes accumulate over many, many generations to
produce something that is dramatically different than the original
organisms.
In fact, if we were to witness any organism giving birth to an organism
of a different kind, i.e. a cat giving birth to an octopus, then that
would definitely require a mechanism above and beyond what evolution
can explain. Such a thing would not be compatible with evolution at
all.
But that is never what happens. With evolution, every organism gives
birth to a similar organism. Even when evolution rates of a population
of guppies fly at around 45,000 darwins (Kenneth R. Miller, Finding
Darwin's God, p. 110), each guppy gives birth to-- you guessed it-- a
guppy. Sure, in 100,000 years you might find that this same population
resembles a herd of cycloptic flying cows, but it's not as though a
guppy ever gave birth to one of them directly.
Frank Sullivan
He's being sarcastic. Kinda. That actually is a pretty good
representation of the Creationist argument, and you are right to point
out the holes in it. However, he doesn't actually subscribe to that
point of view himself. He's just making fun of it.
If he did subscribe to that point of view himself, he would probably
try to throw in a bunch of irrelevant, obfuscating statements to
better-hide the fact that the whole "kinds" argument is patently
ridiculous.
Richard Forrest
Reasoning! Don't confuse the issue by using that nasty atheist habit of
reason!
Getting a clear answer out of a creationist is rather less likely than
getting blood out of a stone.
Of course, if you want to get really confused, try reading this:
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf
It presents itself as a scientific paper. Trying to read it is a bit
like being struck on the head repeatedly with a sockfull of damp sand
(so they've got the resemblance to some scientific papers at least
pretty accurate (not mine, of course)), but by the time I finished, I
was even more confused about the nature of a baramin than I was before
I started.
RF
John Wilkins
who knew very little about the natural world and really didn't care about it -
their focus was on the underlying mythologies necessary to build a nation.
So "kind" here is entirely a colloquial term - it just means what "kind" means
when I talk about a kind of car, or kind of meal, or kind of furniture. It was
an agrarian society so of course they knew that birds gave birth to the same
kind; so too they knew that grass grew and cattle reproduced.
It is therefore futile to try to match the Genesis "kind" (or indeed the use
of the same terms in Latin or Greek writers, etc.) to modern taxonomic groups
like "mammals" or "reptiles" (which is any way a now-abandoned class). This is
to completely misconstrue the point of the narrative - that once God had
created the organisms, they went off and did what organisms do as part of the
divine order of things.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
SJAB1958
situation, and therefore somewhat without any solid foundation of
reasoning and logic to it.
DougC
SJAB1958 wrote:
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
Genesis was written weeks ago by an ignorant flat-earther, and his
wisdom has been translated and re-translated by cloistered monks and
other religious drones to finally arrive at an English version. The
word "kind" means what it commonly means in English, with nothing
whatsoever to do with disciplined taxonomy. Don't strain yourself
trying to make something significant of it.
Doug Chandler
Frank Sullivan
Yup. At least, in the manner that Creationists use it when arguing
against Evolution. As John Wilkins indicates, it was probably never
meant to be used that way by the original authors of the Bible. It's
just that science eventually revealed that the number of species on
Earth is absurdly larger than what could possibly fit on an Ark, which
seems to indicate that the author of Genesis was simply an ancient
human who accidently allowed their ignorance of biological life show
through. To combat this, Creationists have made note of the author's
use of the word "kind" and suggested that perhaps it would allow for
some small amount of evolution, maybe even speciation, as long as the
organism and all of its descendents can reasonably be considered of the
same "kind." This is a sort of magic word for Creationists, because you
can't pin it to any specific taxanomic ranking, it makes the Noah's Ark
story a bit more believable, and it allows them to accept some form of
evolution, i.e. the degree of divergence that one can observe within a
normal human lifetime, all the while confident that they will never
live to see change in the highest taxanomic levels, where not even Ray
Martinez could argue that the resulting organisms are of the same
"kind."
Thompson
'Microevolution is evolution within a kind, which has been observed and
nobody is arguing against, while macroevolution is evolution between
kinds, which has never been observed and is clearly impossible.'
T asks:
So how do I tell which is which? The objective criteria, I mean.
Suppose I am doing research in genetics. I discover that two species
have 95% of their DNA in common. What should I conclude?
Do these creatures belong to the same kind? Does their 95% identity
mean microevolution has taken place and an ancestral relationship 'has
been observed'? Or do they belong to different kinds because the 5%
variation makes any shared ancestry 'clearly impossible'?
It's important that I get this right. I don't want to draw the wrong
conclusion and be thought an atheist. I need you to tell me: how I am
to measure the difference between micro and macro evolution? What are
the ratios?
You say the difference is clear. It will be easy for you, then, to say
what it is.
Thanks in advance for your prompt reply.
T
Bobby D. Bryant
It's a category inclusive enough to allow several of each 'kind'
to fit on Noah's ark, but exclusive enough to ensure that Noah
and his family weren't related to anything else aboard.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
Bobby D. Bryant
> SJAB1958 wrote:
>> So the definiton of a "kind" is a kind of sliding scale to suit the
>> situation, and therefore somewhat without any solid foundation of
>> reasoning and logic to it.
>
> Yup. At least, in the manner that Creationists use it when arguing
> against Evolution. As John Wilkins indicates, it was probably never
> meant to be used that way by the original authors of the Bible. It's
> just that science eventually revealed that the number of species on
> Earth is absurdly larger than what could possibly fit on an Ark, which
> seems to indicate that the author of Genesis was simply an ancient
> human who accidently allowed their ignorance of biological life show
> through.
You can probably get a pretty good idea of what 'kind' means by
asking a preschooler to name all the different animals s/he can
think of.
The list produced in the Bronze Age levant would of course vary
in detail from what a child in a modern industrialized country
would produce, but it would probably incorporate the same
concept of 'kind'.
Ron O
About the only consistent thing about creationist kinds is that the
farther away from humans you get the more inclusive are the
definitions. Gish claimed that there was a worm kind where if you
limited worms to something like nematodes where you have over half a
million species, with some species probably more divergent at the
genetic level than molluscs and humans you know you have a kind
definition problem. In the same statement the ant kind was mentioned
where you have ant taxa that diverged when dinos walked the planet
before the major mammalian radiation after the dino extinction. These
lineages are so ancient and their DNA so different that it is laughable
to call them the same kind. Humans and chimps are about as different
at the molecular level as horses and donkeys. So if they want to lump
horses and donkeys into the same kind, why can't they lump chimps and
humans into the same kind? If all ants are the same kind then mammals
including whales would be the same kind based on DNA similarity.
The major problem with creationist kind is that if they have too many
they can't fit them all on the Ark. There are millions of extant
species, and they claim that extinct species like various dinos were on
the Ark. Somehow they got the number of kinds down to less than 20,000
as some type of reasonable number that could live on the Ark for a year
during the flood. These 20,000 kinds spawned all the millions of
existing species in the last couple thousand years (The flood was
supposed to have happened only 2500 years ago. I think that it was
Karl Crawford that used to try and defend that.) less the kinds that
went extinct after the flood like the dinos, the other various
megafauna, mammal like reptiles etc.. It is macro evolution on such a
massive scale and at such a rate as to make you wonder why they object
to the current scientific view.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<dj2enb$2kn3$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>SJAB1958 wrote:
>> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
>> their own "kind".
>>
>> But what is a "kind"?
>>
>> Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
>>
>> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>>
>> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
>>
>Genesis relates a folk taxonomy of those who were largely urbanised agrarians,
>who knew very little about the natural world and really didn't care about it -
>their focus was on the underlying mythologies necessary to build a nation.
>
>So "kind" here is entirely a colloquial term - it just means what "kind" means
>when I talk about a kind of car, or kind of meal, or kind of furniture. It was
>an agrarian society so of course they knew that birds gave birth to the same
>kind; so too they knew that grass grew and cattle reproduced.
>
>It is therefore futile to try to match the Genesis "kind" (or indeed the use
>of the same terms in Latin or Greek writers, etc.) to modern taxonomic groups
>like "mammals" or "reptiles" (which is any way a now-abandoned class). This is
>to completely misconstrue the point of the narrative - that once God had
>created the organisms, they went off and did what organisms do as part of the
>divine order of things.
>
I would like to hear from an expert on Hebrew about the use of
the word "min" (that is, "kind") in Genesis.
Because I am not convinced that the above statement is true:
>> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
>> their own "kind".
It does seem that the word "kind" is not used as a substantive,
but only in a qualifying phrase "according to its kind", which might
very well be used somewhat like "all kinds of" would be used in
English, with no suggestion of reification of the abstraction "kind".
I find it rather difficult to believe that the author of Genesis
1 was describing an event where an abstract "kind" arose - rather
than simply something like all sorts of animals came out of the
waters and the earth. To reiterate my suggestion, to say that
"all sorts of animals came out" does *not* mean that "sorts" came out -
what it does mean is that "animals" came out, in variety. And I
don't see anything there that would say that the "kinds" - even if
we can admit the reification - are fixed.
But I am not a linguist, so do not make more of this than
just a question.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
John Wilkins
with two exceptions I'll get to in a minute - that I have encountered in folk
writings indicate that there is no real clarity to be had here. But one thing
I have also noted (and again, not in the context of 7thC BCE Judaism) is that
everyone - *everyone* - knows that kinds of animals and most know that kinds
of plants reproduce themselves. That is to say, like is generated from like.
So I expect it will be true here too.
There's no need for reification as you say. A "kind" is just the recognition
that there is a generative power involved. I call it the generative conception
of species.
The two exceptions are the use of genos-eidos and genus-species in formal
logic prior to the end of the 19thC - this had metaphysical implications of
essence and substance, and was not something that could be applied to living
things with any ease or by non-specialists. The other was the application of
genus-species to living things in the mid-17thC. Neither of these are folk
taxonomies, and both involve some sort of reification.
Bruce
news:dj2lo0$4co$7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Sure, a typical 5 year old today is *far* more educated in the past and
present diversity of life on earth than the Bronze Age goat herders. I'd say
that a typical 1st grader in our modern industrialized society would be
considered to have godlike knowledge if they were teleported to 2000 BC. My
son could program a VCR at 5, something some of us can't even accomplish at
50+.
SeppoP
By Jove, I think you've got it!
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
chris.li...@gmail.com
SJAB1958 wrote:
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
A kind is anything a creationist needs it to be, at any given moment,
in order to try to refute evolution. Note that while kinds themselves
are immutable, the definition of 'kind' is capable of endlessly
morphing into ever-receding goalposts.
Chris
Richard Clayton
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
Good luck on this one. I have never been able to get a testable answer
from any creationist.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
TomS
<dj2oho$2vit$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
For the moment, let's assume that the author of Genesis 1 had
this folk belief. My primary question is whether he wrote that
folk belief into Genesis 1. This is what I am questioning about:
>>>>In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
>>>>their own "kind".
I doubt that it says this in Genesis 1. I am guessing that all
that the author is saying is that animals, in all their variety,
arose from the earth and waters; and that "in all their variety"
is just like "according to their kinds", not meant as a statement
about *kinds*, but about *animals*.
Secondly, I question whether the folk belief is all that
solid. I think that every observer soon comes to realize that a
an animal can give rise to a totally different sort of animal.
A caterpillar gives rise to butterfly. A dead horse, to
maggots. An egg, to a chicken.
Doesn't Genesis 1 really reflect the idea of spontaneous
generation, where these various animals arise out of the earth
and the waters? Not from others of the same "kind".
>
>There's no need for reification as you say. A "kind" is just the recognition
>that there is a generative power involved. I call it the generative conception
>of species.
>
>The two exceptions are the use of genos-eidos and genus-species in formal
>logic prior to the end of the 19thC - this had metaphysical implications of
>essence and substance, and was not something that could be applied to living
>things with any ease or by non-specialists. The other was the application of
>genus-species to living things in the mid-17thC. Neither of these are folk
>taxonomies, and both involve some sort of reification.
>
--
John Wilkins
Probably not, but I think it is behind it; that is, it's the default view
everyone has who hasn't studied living things in detail.
> This is what I am questioning about:
>
>
>>>>>In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
>>>>>their own "kind".
>
>
> I doubt that it says this in Genesis 1. I am guessing that all
> that the author is saying is that animals, in all their variety,
> arose from the earth and waters; and that "in all their variety"
> is just like "according to their kinds", not meant as a statement
> about *kinds*, but about *animals*.
The introduction by the poster above of the "only of" is reading into the
text. Genesis says only that they *do* bring forth after their kind. And that
is so vague as to allow almost any variation (which of course an agrarian
society would know occurs).
So we agree, I think.
>
> Secondly, I question whether the folk belief is all that
> solid. I think that every observer soon comes to realize that a
> an animal can give rise to a totally different sort of animal.
> A caterpillar gives rise to butterfly. A dead horse, to
> maggots. An egg, to a chicken.
>
> Doesn't Genesis 1 really reflect the idea of spontaneous
> generation, where these various animals arise out of the earth
> and the waters? Not from others of the same "kind".
No. Spontaneous generation (heterogeny) is implied by the bees coming from a
lions head in, I think, Judges, but not here. This isn't spontaneous, after all.
It's a myth that before Linnaeus people expected that species/kinds could
arise from anything. Even the so-called mutability cases like the Barnacle
goose arising from worms which arose from rotting timbers is a kind of
postulated life cycle, or generation process. The myth comes from Conway
Zirkle's 1959 essay "Species before Darwin", which is based on a simple
mistake of taking the word "species" prior to Ray to mean biological species.
>
>
>>There's no need for reification as you say. A "kind" is just the recognition
>>that there is a generative power involved. I call it the generative conception
>>of species.
>>
>>The two exceptions are the use of genos-eidos and genus-species in formal
>>logic prior to the end of the 19thC - this had metaphysical implications of
>>essence and substance, and was not something that could be applied to living
>>things with any ease or by non-specialists. The other was the application of
>>genus-species to living things in the mid-17thC. Neither of these are folk
>>taxonomies, and both involve some sort of reification.
>>
>
>
>
--
SJAB1958
SeppoP
> But surely it isnt wrong to try and get a testable answer from one?
>
*Only* the creationists think it is wrong and unfair to require a testable
answer from them, not to mention - a blasphemy! :)
Richard Clayton
> But surely it isnt wrong to try and get a testable answer from one?
Not at all. In fact, I hope you succeed. I just don't *expect* you
will. (^_^)
John Harshman
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
> Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
>
No problem. A kind is a group of organisms all of whose members are
related by common descent, and are unrelated by common descent to any
organism not in that kind.
Applying this definition to your questions, the answers are "no" and "no".
Glad to help.
John Harshman
No problem. Yes, they are the same kind if their DNA is 95% similar,
unless one of the species is Homo sapiens, in which case they are not.
> Thanks in advance for your prompt reply.
Again, no problem.
Ferrous Patella
> So how does that answer my question?
>
> And what is the difference between macro- and micro- evolution?
>
Macro-evoultion would be between humans and chimps, where micro-evolution
would be between house cats and lions.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Cat, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked
when things go wrong in the domestic circle.
Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
TomS
<dj2scr$17ar$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>TomS wrote:
>> "On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:07:22 +1000, in article
>> <dj2oho$2vit$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>> Secondly, I question whether the folk belief is all that
>> solid. I think that every observer soon comes to realize that a
>> an animal can give rise to a totally different sort of animal.
>> A caterpillar gives rise to butterfly. A dead horse, to
>> maggots. An egg, to a chicken.
>>
>> Doesn't Genesis 1 really reflect the idea of spontaneous
>> generation, where these various animals arise out of the earth
>> and the waters? Not from others of the same "kind".
>
>No. Spontaneous generation (heterogeny) is implied by the bees coming from a
>lions head in, I think, Judges, but not here. This isn't spontaneous, after all.
(Samson's riddle "out of the strong came sweetness" in Judges 14.)
Isn't the distinction involving "spontaneous" a rather more modern
idea?
>
>It's a myth that before Linnaeus people expected that species/kinds could
>arise from anything. Even the so-called mutability cases like the Barnacle
>goose arising from worms which arose from rotting timbers is a kind of
>postulated life cycle, or generation process. The myth comes from Conway
>Zirkle's 1959 essay "Species before Darwin", which is based on a simple
>mistake of taking the word "species" prior to Ray to mean biological species.
[...snip...]
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> But what is a "kind"?
Judging from my own experience, the cretinist "kind" is exactly what the
cretinists need it to be at the moment to seemingly argue against
science. ;)
In other words, it's everything and nothing.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Darrell Stec
bal...@hotmail.com wrote:
Of course there is a solid foundation of reasoning and logic to it. Just
not the kind that normal, thinking individuals might use.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
SJAB1958
Mark Isaak
(1) Noah took a pair of mammoths aboard the ark. He took juvenile
mammoths to save space.
(2) During the flood, there was a lot of geological activity,
resulting in the sinking of the ocean basin (so the flood waters could
sink therein) and the building of mountains (so the flood would not
need to have been miles high before then) and -- the important point
here -- the eruption of tens of thousands of volcanoes.
(3) Noah lands, the animals disembark.
(4) The mammoths grow to adulthood.
(5) The mammoths reproduce; their offspring grow and reproduce; etc.,
producing a very large population.
(6) The mammoths evolve (microevolution, that is), producing several
different species of mammoths (and mastadons?) from the original
mammoth kind.
(7) The ash and smoke produced by the volcanoes during the flood cause
a rapid ice age, bringing sudden death to the mammoths.
Now, let us ignore all the other problems with this scenario for now
and focus on just one. Most of the ash from the volcanoes would not
stayed in the atmosphere for long. If it caused an ice age, that ice
age would have come immediately, or in a few years at most. Could
someone please explain how the mammoths could have produced dozens if
not hundreds of generations and multiple species during the five years
or so before they were frozen?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Dave Oldridge
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
> Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
It depends on who you ask. Personally, I think the author meant very much
what we mean now by "species." But latter-day young-earth creationists
have made it a flexible taxon that is used to distinguish any two groups
which cannot be SHOWN to have a common ancestor. The weakness in this
tactic, though is that they wish to use it to differentiate apes from
humans IN SPITE of the hard evidence of a common ancestor.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Andrew Arensburger
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
> But what is a "kind"?
You may want to read my favorite t.o POTM:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan03.html
in which our heroine talks about her experiences honestly seeking an
answer to this very question.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
I can't stop thinking like this.
Andrew Arensburger
> You can probably get a pretty good idea of what 'kind' means by
> asking a preschooler to name all the different animals s/he can
> think of.
From the Caldecott winner, "Baraminology for Children":
Is that my kind?
It goes baa!
It is a sheep!
No, that's not my kind.
Is that my kind?
It goes moo!
It is a cow!
No, that's not my kind.
Is that my kind?
It goes ook!
It is a librarian!
No, that's not my kind.
Is that my kind?
It has a supraorbital torus across the forehead and no sulcus,
as well as a squared off, rather than round, maxilla!
It is an Australopithecus rudolfensis!
No, that is not my kind.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Don't start comparing yourself to me. It'll just make you crazy.
John Harshman
You aren't supposed to think about all those things at once.
Creationists only try to explain one isolated fact at a time, and then
only in the vaguest terms compatible with giving them a warm glow of
being scientific. It doesn't matter if one explanation contradicts the
next. What matters is that warm glow.
Bobby D. Bryant
Also, why would God make The Noahs feed and shovel a pair of huge
animals that were soon to go extinct anyway?
Wasn't the notion of extinction as unknown to the ancients as speciation?
Alexander
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:3enal192p3dloke90...@4ax.com...
> According to young-earth creationists, here's what happened:
>
> (1) Noah took a pair of mammoths aboard the ark. He took juvenile
> mammoths to save space.
>
> (2) During the flood, there was a lot of geological activity,
> resulting in the sinking of the ocean basin (so the flood waters could
> sink therein) and the building of mountains (so the flood would not
> need to have been miles high before then) and -- the important point
> here -- the eruption of tens of thousands of volcanoes.
>
> (3) Noah lands, the animals disembark.
>
> (4) The mammoths grow to adulthood.
>
> (5) The mammoths reproduce; their offspring grow and reproduce; etc.,
> producing a very large population.
>
> (6) The mammoths evolve (microevolution, that is), producing several
> different species of mammoths (and mastadons?) from the original
> mammoth kind.
>
> (7) The ash and smoke produced by the volcanoes during the flood cause
> a rapid ice age, bringing sudden death to the mammoths.
>
> Now, let us ignore all the other problems with this scenario for now
> and focus on just one. Most of the ash from the volcanoes would not
> stayed in the atmosphere for long. If it caused an ice age, that ice
> age would have come immediately, or in a few years at most. Could
> someone please explain how the mammoths could have produced dozens if
> not hundreds of generations and multiple species during the five years
> or so before they were frozen?
Oh ... I saw the title and jsut imagined some sort of Disne-esque
Ice-capades thing going on with mammoths.
I'm so dissapointed
marks...@yahoo.com
of animal that can successfully interbreed.
Therefore Dog and cat are different kinds.
Bobby D. Bryant
> In talk.origins SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
>> their own "kind".
>
>> But what is a "kind"?
>
> You may want to read my favorite t.o POTM:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan03.html
>
> in which our heroine talks about her experiences honestly seeking an
> answer to this very question.
Is Ruby*s still around? I don't recall seeing her "name" lately.
Cyde Weys
John Harshman wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > Now, let us ignore all the other problems with this scenario for now
> > and focus on just one. Most of the ash from the volcanoes would not
> > stayed in the atmosphere for long. If it caused an ice age, that ice
> > age would have come immediately, or in a few years at most. Could
> > someone please explain how the mammoths could have produced dozens if
> > not hundreds of generations and multiple species during the five years
> > or so before they were frozen?
>
> You aren't supposed to think about all those things at once.
> Creationists only try to explain one isolated fact at a time, and then
> only in the vaguest terms compatible with giving them a warm glow of
> being scientific. It doesn't matter if one explanation contradicts the
> next. What matters is that warm glow.
Cyde says:
You bring up a very important point that often goes unnoticed by the
creationists. Evolution, geology, archeology et al present a single
coherent scientific history of events. It all just "fits" together.
The creationist explanations (Great Flood, hydrologic sorting,
microevolution, descendent from Noah and his crew) possibly make some
sense in isolation, but you can't put it all together and get any sort
of coherence. It simply doesn't fit together. It's like going to a
junkyard, picking 100 parts at random, and trying to assemble a working
automobile. One of the best tests of a scientific theory is if it fits
the evidence (maybe this is "duh" to you and I, but not to all).
Evolution, archeology, geology, et al fit the evidence and agree with
each other.
Harlequin
news:Uyd5f.4745$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
Yeah. Creationists almost always have a problem context, even context
in there own ideas.
This particular case is not all that different from the population
problems of the Ark. Sure it theoretically possible to get a population
that exists today in 5000 years starting from the 8 surivors in the ark.
However, the creationist extrapolations from 5000 years ago to the
present would leave to very tiny populations for the population of
Egypt when the pyramids were made. (And that is ignoring that many
versions of YECism have the Flood after the known historical age
of the pyramids.)
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet@sdc." with "harlequin2@"
"So easily are men the dupes of their own prejudice."
-- Percival Lowell, _Mars as the Abode of Life_.
1908. pp. 153-154.
John Wilkins
> In talk.origins Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>You can probably get a pretty good idea of what 'kind' means by
>>asking a preschooler to name all the different animals s/he can
>>think of.
>
>
> From the Caldecott winner, "Baraminology for Children":
>
> Is that my kind?
> It goes baa!
> It is a sheep!
> No, that's not my kind.
>
> Is that my kind?
> It goes moo!
> It is a cow!
> No, that's not my kind.
>
> Is that my kind?
> It goes ook!
> It is a librarian!
> No, that's not my kind.
>
> Is that my kind?
> It has a supraorbital torus across the forehead and no sulcus,
> as well as a squared off, rather than round, maxilla!
> It is an Australopithecus rudolfensis!
> No, that is not my kind.
>
John Wilkins
> "On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:13:03 +1000, in article
> <dj2scr$17ar$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>>TomS wrote:
>>
>>>"On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:07:22 +1000, in article
>>><dj2oho$2vit$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
> [...snip...]
>
>>> Secondly, I question whether the folk belief is all that
>>>solid. I think that every observer soon comes to realize that a
>>>an animal can give rise to a totally different sort of animal.
>>>A caterpillar gives rise to butterfly. A dead horse, to
>>>maggots. An egg, to a chicken.
>>>
>>> Doesn't Genesis 1 really reflect the idea of spontaneous
>>>generation, where these various animals arise out of the earth
>>>and the waters? Not from others of the same "kind".
>>
>>No. Spontaneous generation (heterogeny) is implied by the bees coming from a
>>lions head in, I think, Judges, but not here. This isn't spontaneous, after all.
>
>
> (Samson's riddle "out of the strong came sweetness" in Judges 14.)
>
> Isn't the distinction involving "spontaneous" a rather more modern
> idea?
Perhaps. It gets messy trying to apply modern or derived conceptual
distinctions to ancient or primitive sources. But I do believe there was an
understanding that in the normal course of things some generative power caused
reproduction of like, in almost every case, which is one reason why the
Creation accounts in various sources are etiologies at all (if anything could
come from anything without direct intervention, you wouldn't *need* etiologies).
...
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>
>>>Now, let us ignore all the other problems with this scenario for now
>>>and focus on just one. Most of the ash from the volcanoes would not
>>>stayed in the atmosphere for long. If it caused an ice age, that ice
>>>age would have come immediately, or in a few years at most. Could
>>>someone please explain how the mammoths could have produced dozens if
>>>not hundreds of generations and multiple species during the five years
>>>or so before they were frozen?
>>
>>You aren't supposed to think about all those things at once.
>>Creationists only try to explain one isolated fact at a time, and then
>>only in the vaguest terms compatible with giving them a warm glow of
>>being scientific. It doesn't matter if one explanation contradicts the
>>next. What matters is that warm glow.
>
>
> Cyde says:
>
> You bring up a very important point that often goes unnoticed by the
> creationists. Evolution, geology, archeology et al present a single
> coherent scientific history of events. It all just "fits" together.
> The creationist explanations (Great Flood, hydrologic sorting,
> microevolution, descendent from Noah and his crew) possibly make some
> sense in isolation,
Not really, but go on.
> but you can't put it all together and get any sort
> of coherence. It simply doesn't fit together. It's like going to a
> junkyard, picking 100 parts at random, and trying to assemble a working
> automobile.
You need to let a tornado do the work for you. Then you get a 747.
Pastor Dave
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> spake thusly:
A nice attempt at insults. Now please show us where what
you call scientists have explained everything there is to
explain, in one writing.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give you as a Light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.
- Israel 49:6
Darrell Stec
eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next wrote:
They will just put that explanation on ice for a while.
Robert Weldon
"Pastor Dave" <1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ku1bl11bg84akohrd...@4ax.com...
No, actually a nice summary of creationist behaviour, and as explained by
the late Mr. Adams: "42". Hope this helps.
Reel Mckoi
> According to young-earth creationists, here's what happened:
>
> (1) Noah took a pair of mammoths aboard the ark. He took juvenile
> mammoths to save space.
Do you sit around all day ti figure these things out?
Cracklin'
JABRIOL IMPERSONATING "Reel Mckoi" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
message news:7Gf5f.127$DE1.8...@news.sisna.com...
B Richardson
How *does* one explain only the proliferation of the wooly mammoths
in a short time frame? There's what, about half a million tons
worth of mammoth tusks in northern Siberia[1]? In addition there
should be an ash layer with lots of pachyderm bones nearby.
[1] N. Newell, Creation and Evolution, 1982, Columbia U. Press, p. 62
bob young
SJAB1958 wrote:
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
> Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
'Their own kind' means a person that belongs to the same club.
Religions are human clubs that simply use an imaginary god as cement to
bind the myth together.
Of course, if you are 'not one of our kind' in the religious sense, you
are, in their opinion only - inferior.
SJAB1958
Tim K.
"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129625018....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Microevolution is evolution within a kind, which has been observed and
> nobody is arguing against, while macroevolution is evolution between
> kinds, which has never been observed and is clearly impossible.
So what you're saying is that you have no good scientific definition of
"kind". Well, I won't hammer you for that because biology has no good
scientific definition of species either.
Tim K.
"Ferrous Patella" <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96F353796E450...@199.45.49.11...
> Macro-evoultion would be between humans and chimps, where micro-evolution
> would be between house cats and lions.
heh, you're kidding right?
Richard Forrest
Frank Sullivan wrote:
<snipped> This allows
> for the possibility that Noah took only one species of beetle aboard
> the Ark, and micro-evolution serves as an explanation for why there are
> so many different varieties (species) of beetle.
Surely the bombardier beetle must be a created kind?
Is the bombardier beetle one kind, and all other beetles a different
kind?
RF
> <snipped>
TomS
<dj3vbi$v0d$4...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
Not by way of disputing what you have to say, but I thought
that this might be interesting.
In the story of the plagues of Egypt, beginning with Exodus 7,
there are the various episodes about such-and-such turning into
something-or-other. First of all, there is Aaron turning his
staff into a snake - and then the Egyptian magicians doing the same
thing. One could argue that these stories are, much like the
bees in the lion's carcass in the Samson story, about spontaneous
generation. Snakes from staffs, flies from dust, and the rest.
Moreover, these transformation episodes occur in the P
text, the same tradition as Genesis 1.
And this also gives me the occasion to call our readers'
attention to the Wikipedia article on the Documentary Hypothesis,
which has a KJV Pentateuch translation, color-coded to the
various sources - "olive yellow" for P -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis#Highlighted_source_text_at_Wikisource>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Ferrous Patella
Me? Yes. Creationists? No.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Witticism, n. A sharp and clever remark, usually quoted, and seldom noted;
what the Philistine is pleased to call a "joke."
Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Steven J.
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1129719888.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
lineages lost information after the Flood (you know how things get lost when
you're moving), and lost some or all of their bombadier abilities. Since
there was no predation before the Fall, bombardier beetles, er, originally
used their abilities for fireworks displays, or, ah, to impress girl
beetles, or, uh, were a retrofit to creation after the Fall, when predation
emerged as part of the Curse on creation. More work needs to be done on
this problem.
>
> RF
>
>> <snipped>
>
-- Steven J.
Richard Forrest
Where do I apply for a grant?
RF
Andrew Arensburger
> I love this!
Feel free to distribute with attribution.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Rules? What rules?
Bobby D. Bryant
> All members of the beetle kind were bombardier beetles originally,
> but most lineages lost information after the Flood
That also explains the sorting in the fossil record. The conservation
of information means that all the information lost by beetles during
the flood was stored as layering in the resulting sediments.
ric...@plesiosaur.com
Of course the creator paid special attention to beetles, which explains
how they could diversify so extensively. He is reputed as being
inordinately fond of them.
RF
John Harshman
Here:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php
$40-50K/year. Pretty good.
an...@sci.sci
> nobody is arguing against, while macroevolution is evolution between
> kinds, which has never been observed and is clearly impossible.
There is no such thing as evolution that converts one species into some
other pre-existing species. What happens is that evolution proceeds
down the lines of descent, and there are cases where the ancestors of
two individuals were able to mate and in fact both individuals descend
(and evolve) from both ancestors, but the two individuals are unable to
mate with each other and there is no chain of mating that could
possibly connect these two individual in the present or future. So
lines of descent and of evolution are totally disjoint between those
two individuals from this time forward, even though they intersected in
the past. So any concept of a fixed-for-all-time "kind" is contrary to
the way things really are. At best we have "kinds" which vary with
time, whereby mega-speciation events cause "kinds" to split, and major
extinction events cause "kinds" to cease existance.
With "kinds" not static, micro-evolution is sufficient to explain the
entire evolutionary history of life on Earth from pre-Cambrian onward,
including common ancestry of most or all kinds of life. At the moment,
humans and chimpanzees are not of the same kind, but ancestors of
humans and chimpanzees about ten million years ago were of a single
kind, before the kind-split event occurred. At present, mammals and
birds comprise a very large number of kinds, with no kind that
presently includes both mammals and birds. But 300 million years ago
some ancestors of mammals and birds were of the same kind, before lots
of kind-splits happened.
In a time-reversed sense it's rather like the way pebbles wash
downstream. Pebbles never jump from one stream to another. They always
wash down the same stream they started in. But upstream there are many
different small streams whereas downstream there are just a few major
rivers, so different pebbles that are each washing down separate tiny
streams at the moment might in the future be washing down one single
large river, just as begatting chains that are each constrained to
single narrow "kinds" today might have in the distant past flowed
through a single all-encompassing kind. Horizontal pebble transfer,
whereby a pebble jumps from one stream to a completely different
stream, does occur, but only very rarely, except where canals have been
dug connecting different streams, or where humans have manually picked
up pebbles from one stream then dropped them into another.
Can some Bible expert please tell me whether there's any place in the
Bible that specifically says that kind-splits have never occurred?
.
an...@sci.sci
> Macro-evolution - development of a new species
There's not really any such thing as a new species. Instead, there are
two different species, which descend from two populations which were
not quite different species but not quite a single species either,
which descend from two populations that were definitely within a single
species but which were somehow isolated from eacher, which descend from
a single population of that one original species. Neither of the
current species is "new". Each descends from the single original
species in an unbroken chain. Suppose we use a time-reversed analogy:
There's water flowing down two streams, which merge into one. Which of
those two upper streams is "new" compared to the single lower stream?
I say the whole idea of declaring one or the other is "new" is
nonsense. Anyone disagree?
Suppose we could observe rivers only at a few isolated spots. We saw a
river in the MidWest, and we called it the "Mississippi" river. We saw
a river flowing through New Orleans, and we called it the "Orleans"
river. We did some tests on water quality and determined that the
Orleans river descended from the Mississippi river, but we continued to
call them by different names, claiming they are not the same river,
that the Mississippi river evolves to the Orleans river, that a change
of river has occurred, a case of river macroevolution. Does that make
sense? It's what's happened with Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. We talk
as if they were different species, despite believing there's an
unbroken chain of bebatting that connects them. If we found enough
fossils to connect them so tightly there's no doubt they are the same
species as it evolves over time, I bet there'd still be people arguing
over whether a particular fossil belongs to one or the other distinct
species instead of scrapping the whole two-different-species naming
tradition and renaming all Homo erectus specimins to be termed Homo
sapiens, just like arguing whether a newly-discovered section of the
river midway between the Orleans river and the Mississippi river should
be classified as part of the Orleans river or as part of the
Mississippi river.
Where exactly is the boundary between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean?
Does anybody care??
Is there a difference between micro-currents, within a single ocean,
and macro-currents, which jump from one ocean to another, across
artificial naming boundaries we've created in our minds?
At what exact point does a molecule of water in a river cease being
part of the river and become part of the ocean? Does anybody care?
What's all this fuss about "kinds", which were created in humans minds
as an artificial contrivance to make it possible to assign names to
things in a way that similar things have identical names, so that we
can learn a fixed set of names and then apply them to an unlimited set
of individuals?
.
Ernest Major
writes
>
>There's not really any such thing as a new species. Instead, there are
>two different species, which descend from two populations which were
>not quite different species but not quite a single species either,
>which descend from two populations that were definitely within a single
>species but which were somehow isolated from eacher, which descend from
>a single population of that one original species. Neither of the
>current species is "new". Each descends from the single original
>species in an unbroken chain. Suppose we use a time-reversed analogy:
>There's water flowing down two streams, which merge into one. Which of
>those two upper streams is "new" compared to the single lower stream? I
>say the whole idea of declaring one or the other is "new" is nonsense.
>Anyone disagree?
>
probably one of them. In the case of autopolyploid speciation one
species (the polyploid) is arguably new. In the case of allopolyploid
speciation there are 3 species involved, one of which (the polyploid) is
arguably new.
In the cases of allopatric speciation sensu strictu and parapatric
speciation I agree that picking out one of the resulting species are new
is invalid; it's not so clear that this is the case for peripatric
speciation. For example species A invades an island group, and due to
drift, founder effect, and a change of environment, rapidly (in
geological terms) changes in species B, while at the same time species A
continues more or less unchanged in its original range.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005
Tim K.
<an...@sci.sci> wrote in message
news:a6719$4356c637$c690c02a$13...@TSOFT.COM...
>> Micro-evolution - change within a species
>> Macro-evolution - development of a new species
>
> There's not really any such thing as a new species. Instead, there are
> two different species, which descend from two populations which were
> not quite different species but not quite a single species either,
> which descend from two populations that were definitely within a single
> species but which were somehow isolated from eacher, which descend from
> a single population of that one original species. Neither of the
> current species is "new". Each descends from the single original
> species in an unbroken chain. Suppose we use a time-reversed analogy:
> There's water flowing down two streams, which merge into one. Which of
> those two upper streams is "new" compared to the single lower stream?
> I say the whole idea of declaring one or the other is "new" is
> nonsense. Anyone disagree?
Yes, vehemently.
an...@sci.sci
> on Earth is absurdly larger than what could possibly fit on an Ark,
> which seems to indicate that the author of Genesis was simply an
> ancient human who accidently allowed their ignorance of biological life
> show through.
That's just about the best explanation I've seen so-far.
I.e. whoever contrived the Noah/Ark story must have known about a
hundred species of life, only ten or so of them which were larger than
pet dogs, and estimated maybe there were another twenty or thirty
unnknown species, so adding them all up, how large a boat would be
needed to cram them all in, with no thought as to food supply or waste
disposal (oops!). For the time, nobody caught the naked emperor, but
thousands of years later with tens of millions of species known to
exist, it's clear to anyone except literal Christians that the emperor
had no clothes, the story is just that, a fictional story, nothing
more.
> To combat this, Creationists have made note of the author's use of
> the word "kind" and suggested that perhaps it would allow for some
> small amount of evolution, maybe even speciation, as long as the
> organism and all of its descendents can reasonably be considered of the
> same "kind."
Two words come to mind, "spit" and "wind".
Or maybe eyes closed and ears muffed.
Or maybe they lost the ignition key for their brains.
The sad thing is that anyone listens to them with any respect.
Two major problems with the Noah/Ark story:
Not enough room for all the kinds of living things we now know exist.
No appropriately thick layer of silt left behind at any single time
(lasting a few months or years at most).
By comparison, Darwin's theory has no significant flaws.
.
an...@sci.sci
> to fit on Noah's ark, but exclusive enough to ensure that Noah
> and his family weren't related to anything else aboard.
Those requirements are mutually contradictory.
.
John Wilkins
>>Micro-evolution - change within a species
>>Macro-evolution - development of a new species
>
>
> There's not really any such thing as a new species. Instead, there are
> two different species, which descend from two populations which were
> not quite different species but not quite a single species either,
> which descend from two populations that were definitely within a single
> species but which were somehow isolated from eacher, which descend from
> a single population of that one original species. Neither of the
> current species is "new". Each descends from the single original
> species in an unbroken chain. Suppose we use a time-reversed analogy:
> There's water flowing down two streams, which merge into one. Which of
> those two upper streams is "new" compared to the single lower stream?
> I say the whole idea of declaring one or the other is "new" is
> nonsense. Anyone disagree?
Me. What you give here is regarded as the Hennig Convention, but if one of the
species after the split has all the traits of the prior species, than all that
is saved by your manoeuvre is reference of names. IOW, it's about words not
the world.
> ..
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Ray Martinez
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> SJAB1958 wrote:
> > In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> > their own "kind".
> >
> > But what is a "kind"?
>
> in order to try to refute evolution. Note that while kinds themselves
> are immutable, the definition of 'kind' is capable of endlessly
> morphing into ever-receding goalposts.
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
> >
> > Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
> >
> > Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
Rick Heeke
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
>
knowledge of Mesopotamian nomads who later became known as ebiru. They
did not have an understanding of speciation.
--
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.
to email me, concatenate the following:
nom de plume of Jay, Madison, Hamilton-The Federalist
(new, in Latin) at (this planet) dot net
Friar Broccoli
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You may want to read my favorite t.o POTM:
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan03.html
> >
> > in which our heroine talks about her experiences honestly seeking an
> > answer to this very question.
>
> Is Ruby*s still around? I don't recall seeing her "name" lately.
Last Post I could find was for January 2003
ash...@hotmail.com
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
> Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
A "Kind" is a set of goalposts with wheels and a V8 engine.
Ashley
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129763842.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
clear that up for you." As the article itself states:
"Macroevolution describes the development of taxonomic groups above the
species level which are created through a series of microevolution events.
Evolutionists know macroevolution happens primarily due to the evolution of
the Biblical kinds into all these new genera of new species we find today.
However, God also created groups of similar organisms at the beginning. He
created a group of birds, mammals, reptiles, etc which are more similar to
each other than the other groups. Because God and evolution both create
groupings, it is difficult to determine which groups are original and which
are new. The evolutionary process which creates these natural groupings is
being credited for higher taxonomic levels than is appropriate, but
macroevolution does occur none the less."
Gradual common descent (evolution) predicts a consistent nested hierarchy,
and this site agrees that species that really *are* related by common
descent fall into such consistent nested hierarchies. On the other hand, it
asserts that God specially and separately created "kinds" in a nested
hierarchy that looks like the result of evolution, but was not. Therefore,
there is no scientific test which can determine whether two species belong
to the same or different "kinds."
Now, an evolutionist might assume that iff, e.g. rodents belong to the same
"kind," (as the article suggestgs), then the Hominoidea (including humans
and gibbons), which is less genetically diverse than Rodentia, ought equally
to be a "kind." But then, the article merely notes that rodents *might*
belong to the same "kind." Also, they seem to subscribe to some fairly ...
deranged notions of how genetics works, so they wouldn't accept this line of
reasoning anyway.
Note, by the way, that the article suggests that hyenas might belong to the
same "kind" as dogs, but does not seem to suggest a single "kind" for all
carnivores. But taxonomists are unanimous in grouping hyeneas with cats,
not with dogs, within the carnivores; a "dog kind" that includes hyenas
ought logically include cats, weasels, bears, and so forth.
>
-- Steven J.
an...@sci.sci
> is arguably new.
If you call that a new species (which seems to be common practice in
botany), then you have a possible violation of another fact of
evolution: Evolution never re-creates a new species that existed
before. But if the number of chromosomes doubles, and you call the
result a new species, then later from that new species the number of
chromosomes cuts in half, you have re-created the original species.
Are you willing to allow that no-recreate-old-species rule to be violated?
If you call the new species a different (Biblical) "kind", then you
violate the rule that like begats like per Biblical "kind". Are you
willing to make the Bible untrue in that claim?
I'd be willing to define "kind" whereby all the different numbers of
chromosomes are considered the same "kind", even if they are different
species.
But when two totally different kinds of plants cross-breed to create a
viable hybrid, then clearly the Biblical like-begats-like rule is shown
to be false, right? Even if you claim the result is of the same "kind"
as one of the parents, still it's not the same kind as the other
parent, so that parent violated the like-begat-like rule.
I don't think there's any way to define "kind" as used in the Bible to
make the like-begats-like rule always hold true. Genesis lies!
(If Genesis is the WORD of the Creator, then it's a deliberate lie. If
Genesis is merely the word of some scribes claiming only to have
accurately transcribed some former word-of-mouth myths, and there's no
claim to the myths themselves as being fact, then the whole of
fundamentalism crumbles. The alleged Creator of Genesis is either a
liar, who deserves scorn rather than worship, or non-existant.)
> species A invades an island group, and due to drift, founder effect,
> and a change of environment, rapidly (in geological terms) changes in
> species B, while at the same time species A continues more or less
> unchanged in its original range.
OK, to make the notation simple, let's say this happens in five
generations. A is the original species. An individual mating couple I1
lands on the island and breeds successive generations I2 I3 I4 I5 and
I6. You claim I6 is of species B which is a different species from A,
while I1 is of species A, right? So at what point in the sequence I1 I2
I3 I4 I5 I6 do you draw the line and say a child is of species B while
its parents are of species A? Would you ask for a cross-mating test?
Ok, here are the results of the test: I3 can mate with A, but I4 can't
mate with A. So would you claim I4 is of a new species whereas I3 is of
the same species? We can't do a direct mating test between I3 and I4,
because by the time I4 reaches puberty, I3 is too old to be fertile.
But there's an uncle U who was born during a different year, midway
between the I3 and I4 generations, old enough to mate with
still-fertile I3 when U first reaches puberty, but young enough to mate
with I4 later when I4 finally reaches puberty and U is still fertile,
and in fact mating-compatible with both. Thus:
A can-mate-with I3 can-mate-with U can-mate-with I4.
A cannot-mate-with I4.
So if I3 is of species A, while I4 is of species B, what species is U,
which can mate with both species??
This is similar to a "ring species", except displaced in time. There's
a chain of pairwise mating compatibilities, but end-to-end they can't
mate. Do they all count as the same species, or do you draw the line
somewhere and thereby violate the defintion of species because you have
two individuals of different species which can nevertheless mate with
each other? You seem to want to draw the line somewhere, but how is
that reasonble? If you don't want to draw the line anywhere, then tell
me what species you would say each of I2 I3 U I4 I5 and I6 are??
I would say that there's no new species in this process. Just a single
clade from the original species that diverged from A due to high
selective pressure, and another clade that stayed pretty much the same,
and neither is a new species. I was walking through the woods, and I
came to a fork in the road, and I wondered which of the two branches is
the "new" road and which is still the "old" road I was already on. Then
I realized I had fallen into a mental trap of trying to answer a
meaningless question, and I stopped pondering that question and instead
asked myself "which is the path least traveled by", and I took that
branch of the road, and the rest is history/literature.
The founder took a path (to the island) that had always been there,
just that by chance no animal took that path before. Many paths are
never taken, but for any path that is taken there has to be a first
traveler.
OT: Hmm, in the case of the poet's branching path, there wouldn't be a
path in the first place unless somebody had already traveled it. A path
by definition requires prior travelers to trample the ground and mark
the path. It's possible to tread a new path, being the very first
person ever to walk that trajectory. But how many travelers does it
take before a path exists?
Back to topic: Somebody posted that there's no precise meaning to
"kind" ("min") as used in the Bible. It's just a sloppy informal usage
as if you ask a pre-school child to name all the kinds of animals
he/she can think of. I'd agree with that, in which case the
like-begats-like ("each according to its kind") cannot possibly have
any scientifically useful meaning.
.
david ford
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
the word "species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402022042.2584c45e%40posting.google.com
Gould on the notion of species as 'natural kinds'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309061149130.1109-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
body structure is the basis for calling something of one "kind" versus
another
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990118235404.100720A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
with a followup at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990124234421.577677C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Ward and Ehrlich & Holm on the word "species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990112233000.17813A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Ehrlich & Ehrlich on present-day non-appearance of new animal kinds
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910252319240.1435666-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Ernest Major
writes
>> In the case of autopolyploid speciation one species (the polyploid)
>> is arguably new.
>
>If you call that a new species (which seems to be common practice in
>botany), then you have a possible violation of another fact of
>evolution: Evolution never re-creates a new species that existed
>before. But if the number of chromosomes doubles, and you call the
>result a new species, then later from that new species the number of
>chromosomes cuts in half, you have re-created the original species.
>Are you willing to allow that no-recreate-old-species rule to be violated?
Yes. Recurrent polyploidy is known to have occurred with some
allopolyploids.
[Actually botanists often don't give species rank to autopolyploids. I
think that they're wrong in at least most cases. (I accept the
possibility of a population polymorphic for ploidy level in some group
with an odd genetic system.)]
>
>If you call the new species a different (Biblical) "kind", then you
>violate the rule that like begats like per Biblical "kind". Are you
>willing to make the Bible untrue in that claim?
Since my opinion is that the bible is false and/or allegorical I'm not
hung up on the literal meaning.
>
>I'd be willing to define "kind" whereby all the different numbers of
>chromosomes are considered the same "kind", even if they are different
>species.
>
>But when two totally different kinds of plants cross-breed to create a
>viable hybrid, then clearly the Biblical like-begats-like rule is shown
>to be false, right? Even if you claim the result is of the same "kind"
>as one of the parents, still it's not the same kind as the other
>parent, so that parent violated the like-begat-like rule.
>
>I don't think there's any way to define "kind" as used in the Bible to
>make the like-begats-like rule always hold true. Genesis lies!
>(If Genesis is the WORD of the Creator, then it's a deliberate lie. If
>Genesis is merely the word of some scribes claiming only to have
>accurately transcribed some former word-of-mouth myths, and there's no
>claim to the myths themselves as being fact, then the whole of
>fundamentalism crumbles. The alleged Creator of Genesis is either a
>liar, who deserves scorn rather than worship, or non-existant.)
Creationists sometimes claim that kind roughly corresponds to the
taxonomic rank of family. I've only heard of one case of an
interfamilial hybrid, and, as far as I know, it's unpublished. So those
creationists are unlikely to be phased by the existence of hybrids. Nor
were earlier Christians disturbed by the existence of mules.
Ray Martinez
The article embarks upon a difficult task: re-define macroevolution
away from the understood meaning that nature was "not the work of God".
[Mayr, "One Long Argument", page 99]
My only concern is Biblical veracity, that is the crediting of God as
Creator as the Bible requires. This is called God-sense and Chris
Ashcraft has it - as you Steven should.
Ray
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping
>
> The article embarks upon a difficult task: re-define macroevolution
> away from the understood meaning that nature was "not the work of God".
> [Mayr, "One Long Argument", page 99]
Misquoting Mayr does not mean that science claims that nature "was not
the work of God". Also, as Steven pointed out, the article does not
answer the question.
>
> My only concern is Biblical veracity, that is the crediting of God as
> Creator as the Bible requires. This is called God-sense and Chris
> Ashcraft has it - as you Steven should.
Many devoulty religious scientists have no trouble giving God the
credit as Creator,via evolution. After all this time to keep denying
that is sheer folly.
DJT
SJAB1958
warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE
GREAT FIRST CAUSE (his capitals not mine) endued with animality, with
the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities ...
and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own
inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by
generation to its posterity".
Thus acknowledging the Creator's work in evolution. QED
Tracy Hamilton
Translation: No, I can't either.
Tracy P. Hamilton
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Can you tell us how, starting with simply non-living matter, how life
could come from non-life?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
Frank J
SJAB1958 wrote:
> In Genesis it says that all living things should bring forth only of
> their own "kind".
>
> But what is a "kind"?
>
> Are mammals one "kind" and reptiles another?
>
> Or is a dog one "kind" and a cat another?
>
> Can anyone clear this one up for me please?
That's a good question for anti-evolutionists, because they are the
only ones who use that term. Ask many varieties of anti-evolutionists
(YECs, OECs, IDers). Separately. Then compare notes. Pay special
attention to evasion.
Frank J
But he can change the subject from evolution to abiogenesis, as I see
from the reply below.
John Wilkins
>>In the case of autopolyploid speciation one species (the polyploid)
>>is arguably new.
>
>
> If you call that a new species (which seems to be common practice in
> botany), then you have a possible violation of another fact of
> evolution: Evolution never re-creates a new species that existed
> before. But if the number of chromosomes doubles, and you call the
> result a new species, then later from that new species the number of
> chromosomes cuts in half, you have re-created the original species.
> Are you willing to allow that no-recreate-old-species rule to be violated?
I am. Respeciation has been observed in both plants and fishes (the latter by
ecological adaptation, it seems).
But what seems to be going on is that there are some moves sufficient to cause
speciation that are "easy" to make (that is, either they are small in terms of
the genetic changes, or there are consistent causal processes that repeatedly
generate the same outcomes, or near enough for the results to interbreed.
The rule in biology is: whenever there is a rule that says something doesn't
happen in biology, one or more cases will. That rule also applies to itself.
...
> Back to topic: Somebody posted that there's no precise meaning to
> "kind" ("min") as used in the Bible. It's just a sloppy informal usage
> as if you ask a pre-school child to name all the kinds of animals
> he/she can think of. I'd agree with that, in which case the
> like-begats-like ("each according to its kind") cannot possibly have
> any scientifically useful meaning.
> ..
>
Agreed. [That was me, by the way, and it's not just the Bible but *all*
pre-scientific uses of the term in any culture.]
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> Can you tell us how, starting with simply non-living matter, how life
> could come from non-life?
Read the title of the thread again and tell us: What does your babbling have
to do with it?
Attempt at evasion noted and ignored.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>
> > Can you tell us how, starting with simply non-living matter, how life
> > could come from non-life?
>
> Read the title of the thread again and tell us: What does your babbling have
> to do with it?
> Attempt at evasion noted and ignored.
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. On 4, a sentence and
two paragraphs:
The early fifties were a high point of optimism. .... The
optimism persists in many elementary textbooks. There
is even, sometimes, a certain boredom with the question;
as if it was now merely difficult because of an obscurity
of view, a difficulty of knowing now the details of
distant historical events.
What a pity if the problem had really become like that!
Fortunately it hasn't. It remains a singular case
(Sherlock Holmes' favourite kind): far from there being
a million ways in detail in which evolution could have
got under way, there seems now to have been no
obvious way at all. The singular feature is in the gap
between the simplest conceivable version of organisms
as we know them, and components that the Earth might
reasonably have been able to generate. This gap can be
seen more clearly now. It is enormous.
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
Dyson, Freeman. 1999. _Origins of Life_, revised edition
(Cambridge University Press), 100pp. On 25-26:
And finally, the correctly formed nucleotides are
unstable in solution and tend to hydrolyze back into
their components. We cannot assume that nucleotides
continued to accumulate in primitive ponds for
thousands of years. The rate of synthesis of nucleotides
must be high to keep pace with the rate of hydrolysis.
The nucleotides in our bodies are stable only because
they are packaged in double helices that protect them
from hydrolysis. The nucleotides on the primitive earth
would have been rare birds, difficult to synthesize and
easy to dissociate. Nobody has yet discovered a way to
make them out of their components rapidly enough so
that they would have a reasonable chance of finding
each other and combining into stable helices before they
hydrolyzed.
The results of thirty years of intensive chemical
experimentation have shown that the prebiotic synthesis
of amino acids is easy to simulate in a reducing
environment, but the prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides
is difficult in all environments. We cannot say that the
prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides is impossible. We
know only that, if it happened, it happened by some
process that none of [our? I hole-punched a short word
out] chemists has been clever enough to reproduce.
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>My only concern is Biblical veracity, that is the crediting of God as
>Creator as the Bible requires.
Then you *must* reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. If the
Bible is literal, it cannot be true. There are far too many
contradictions in it. Evolution is compatible with the Bible.
Creationism is not.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ray Martinez
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2005 12:07:24 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >My only concern is Biblical veracity, that is the crediting of God as
> >Creator as the Bible requires.
>
> Then you *must* reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. If the
> Bible is literal, it cannot be true. There are far too many
> contradictions in it. Evolution is compatible with the Bible.
> Creationism is not.
>
No where can the Bible be twisted to support hominid evolution. Either
the Bible is wrong or right with nothing in between.
Genesis says God created Adam (not man) the word is "dm" in the Hebrew
and not "ishi" which is man in general, and it goes on to say He
created Adam from the dust of the ground "in His image".
This, of course is special sudden creation, which I believe you are
calling "literal". Sudden creation is true based on three facts:
1) Face value observation that we were obviously designed and slow
evolutionary development is obscene quackery intentionally masked in
legitimizing enterprises called Darwinian science of which is built
upon atheist philosophy - not facts.
2) The textual evidence of the Bible corresponding with reality with no
exceptions. Based on these facts objective persons conclude sudden
creation must be true, that is, for example; 999 claims evidenced to be
true we then assume the 1000th (sudden creation) true because God earns
the right based on the previous.
3) No evidence exists for hominid evolution except via assumptions
packaged as evidence. Fossils are a paucity not commensurate with the
extraordinary claim because the claim is not true. Also they have no
clear independant objective value and nothing can ease a worried mind
that the fossils are as claimed since the veracity of the worldview
making the determination is at stake.
I'll add a 4th) Similarity proves one Almighty Designer and His m.o.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2005 12:07:24 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My only concern is Biblical veracity, that is the crediting of God as
>> >Creator as the Bible requires.
>>
>> Then you *must* reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. If the
>> Bible is literal, it cannot be true. There are far too many
>> contradictions in it. Evolution is compatible with the Bible.
>> Creationism is not.
>>
>
> No where can the Bible be twisted to support hominid evolution.
The scientific theory of evolution does not require Biblical support.
> Either
> the Bible is wrong or right with nothing in between.
Of course Ray ignores the possibility that the Bible is not a scientific
work, and is not required to be scientifically accurate to hold truth.
>
> Genesis says God created Adam (not man) the word is "dm" in the Hebrew
> and not "ishi" which is man in general, and it goes on to say He
> created Adam from the dust of the ground "in His image".
Does it say how long God took to accomplish this? Also, the word in Hebrew
is transliterated into English as adam, which means a human being.
>
> This, of course is special sudden creation, which I believe you are
> calling "literal". Sudden creation is true based on three facts:
>
> 1) Face value observation that we were obviously designed and slow
> evolutionary development is obscene quackery intentionally masked in
> legitimizing enterprises called Darwinian science of which is built
> upon atheist philosophy - not facts.
Ray, this is not a "fact" but your personal opinion. Evolution is
supported by physical evidence in the form of fossils, genetic comparisons,
molecular evidence, biochemical evidence, and biogeographical evidence.
Your denial of this evidence does not make it go away.
>
> 2) The textual evidence of the Bible corresponding with reality with no
> exceptions.
Except that the "textual" evidence does not correspond with reality.
> Based on these facts objective persons conclude sudden
> creation must be true, that is, for example; 999 claims evidenced to be
> true we then assume the 1000th (sudden creation) true because God earns
> the right based on the previous.
Sorry, even if 999 claims of the Bible were found to be correct, (and they
are not) you don't get a free pass on the next one.
>
> 3) No evidence exists for hominid evolution except via assumptions
> packaged as evidence.
False claim, and already covered in #1. There is a great deal of evidence
for hominid evoluiton. You choose to ignore it.
> Fossils are a paucity not commensurate with the
> extraordinary claim because the claim is not true.
The fossils are, while not abundant, certianly do exist, and demonstrate
clearly that humans have evolved. Again, perhaps Ray can explain why
KMN-WT 15000 is not evidence for hominid evolution. Once done with that,
he can explain why the hundreds of other fossil specimens are not evidence.
> Also they have no
> clear independant objective value
a bizarre claim. Why would an example of a fossil having features common
to humans and other apes not have "clear indepenent objective value"?
> and nothing can ease a worried mind
> that the fossils are as claimed since the veracity of the worldview
> making the determination is at stake.
I don't know what "worried mind" Ray is imagining here. There are hundreds
of specimens of fossil hominids currenlty known. These fossils are
corraborated by genetic evidence, biochemcial evidence, molecular evidence,
biogeographical evidence, and behavioral evidence that supports the theory
of evolution. Scientists are not the least bit "worried" about the
veracity of evolution.
>
> I'll add a 4th) Similarity proves one Almighty Designer and His m.o.
Why did the Almighty give humans and other apes the same broken gene for
Vitamin-C synthesis?
DJT