This is my last resort
Diamond Dust
here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
question.
I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
here are my questions:
1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
created in human's image?
2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
and lower plants?
To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
Wendy
Mark VandeWettering
> You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> created in human's image?
I'm not sure that science will provide a reasonable answer to a
question about the motives of an entity whose existence science
has not established.
> 2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
"Kinds" is a scientifically meaningless term.
To the best of our knowledge, all living things share a common ancestor
at some point in the past.
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
Because they are modern. They evolved later than the earlier plants.
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them.
I wonder why anyone would hate these questions. They are very
interesting questions, and unavoidable to anyone who pursues
knowledge about the living things that populate our planet.
It is a poor quest for knowledge that ends when you don't like
what you discover.
> I can't
> just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> anyone who can help me.
Even encyclopedias are reasonable sources for information at this level.
> This place is my last hope to find something to
> help me understand.
Books. Read books.
> Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
Sigh. Someone's high school education really sucked.
Mark
> Wendy
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
mel turner
Ruby...@webtv.net [Diamond Dust] wrote...
>
>I haven't gotten any answers yet and I _really_ didn't want to post
>here
It's a sometimes overly nasty free-for-all, but you might
get useful answers. Fire away...
>but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
>me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
>that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
>question.
>
>I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
>likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
>have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
>discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
But why couldn't natural evolution and common descent
have been the Creator's method for creating life's
diversity? That's a very popular view among the many
'evolutionists' who are also theists. Still, it's a separate
subject from the science of evolutionary biology...
>but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
>doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
>
>You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
>here are my questions:
>
>1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
>similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
>created in human's image?
Sure, why not, again especially if natural evolution
and common descent was part of the method of creation? There
were lots of different twigs of the human family tree; gorillas
are one of the few surviving branches.
Of course one might choose to believe that all life,
humanlike or not, is precious to God...?
Does this "God's image" thing have to be a physical
image, and not some sort of mental or spiritual similarity?
A recent creationist poster has argued suprisingly that God must
have a humanlike physical body, but that sounds like something
other than a mainstream Christian position.
>2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
>really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
>Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
>Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
>common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
Good questions! As far as the scientific evidence goes, all
known life is related by common descent. But does "kind"
in the bible really have to imply what the creationists say it
means [separate special creations of each "kind"]? Despite the
bits about "after its kind", does it really have to mean that these
"kinds" must have been created completely separately and not
by common descent from common ancestors shared with other kinds?
At any rate, as you've pointed out there are no breaks in the
taxonomic hierarchy that would correspond to clear-cut "kinds".
It's not any scientific concept.
>3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
>appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
>and lower plants?
The fossil record in general is something that creationists
can't explain, so they often deny that the evidence is real.
With regard to the angiosperm and other plant fossil record,
it's even more striking when the data from fossil pollen and
spores is included. Not only are there not fossils of angiosperms
in early layers, there are no traces of their pollen.
>To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them.
They're good questions, don't hate them.
>I can't
>just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
>other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
>anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
>help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
>college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
Some stuff you might find useful wrt "theistic evolution"
[haven't checked to see if all are still current] The point is,
many don't seem to see such a huge conflict between accepting
the evidence that biological evolution occurs and also keeping
devoutly theistic personal beliefs. The creationists may be
forcing a conflict where there needn't be one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/kevino.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
http://www.faithreason.org
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Biol410SrSemPapers97/millerl.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html#fact [par. down]
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/index.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html/
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/main_sci.html
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-faith.html
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-cp/evolution.html
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html
http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html
http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM
cheers
Bill Thomas
"Diamond Dust" <Ruby...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:3319-3B4...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
A good place to start is www.talkorigins.org for information about
evolution.
Several people have posted the question asking for a definition of
"kind". I dont recall any creationists giving an answer that makes sense.
I usually just lurk here but I did post exactly that question to see
if creationists could give a definition of exactly what was meant by the
biblical term "kind". IIRC the only answer I got from a creationist was
"semismartguy", who gave the explanation "it looks like Moses slipped up
there!". Many creationists will happily agree that all cats (from domestic
to lions) are the same kind but will go into a tizz if it is pointed out that
should mean that humans and chimps are also the same kind.
Regards Bill
Diamond Dust
about the motives of an entity whose existence science has not
established.
I say:
That's true enough! Maybe I asked that particular question in the wrong
newsgroup? When I asked anyone else, no one answered me. I was hoping
that if there are any people who do believe in God in here they might
shed some light on this. I think it's an interesting philosophical
question anyway and I don't think it's off topic because when you talk
about origins then sometimes people will talk theology and some science.
This was a theological question.
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
"Kinds" is a scientifically meaningless term. To the best of our
knowledge, all living things share a common ancestor at some point in
the past.
I say:
Either way, all living things are related. Either by a common ancestor,
or by a common creator. So regardless of how we got here people should
have respect for our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom and for
all living things from bacterium to plants etc. My question was dealing
with what the "hell" do creationists mean when they say "kind". I really
don't seem to be able to find a definition. I was curious on what they
might say.
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed in
response to my question on angiosperms:
Because they are modern. They evolved later than the earlier plants.
I say:
It would certainly seem so! There's no real reason to believe otherwise
is there? So I'm waiting for anyone to give an alternative explanation.
I think they probably evolved too. Plants are good at adapting.
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
I wonder why anyone would hate these questions. They are very
interesting questions, and unavoidable to anyone who pursues knowledge
about the living things that populate our planet. It is a poor quest for
knowledge that ends when you don't like what you discover.
I say:
I only hate the questions cause I can't rest until I know for myself
whether there are any believable explanations for them. I'm not like a
lot of other people. I can't pretend like the questions aren't there. I
REFUSE to just do that. I need to know!
Whether I like the answer or not, isn't really relevant to the questions
themselves or their answers.
Thanks for answering my post I appreciate that much. That's much more
than I've gotten so far.
I'm trying to be honest and ask a question because I refuse to just push
it aside that was my point. Some people just want me to accept things
and I REFUSE to just go on believing in an instaneous creation without
having a good answer. I tried asking various sites but as I said none of
them can answer me or they won't. I know what the answers are that you
gave I'm looking for anyone to answer this from a different perspective.
I feel much like Mulder in that "I want to believe" but right now it's
getting hard for me that's why I came to the group because NO ONE, no
one would answer me at all it's like trying to talk to a brick wall when
I'm writing to these so-called creationist people.
I don't think you had to be so sarcastic but I expect that in usenet.
*L* Have a good day. :)
Wendy
Diamond Dust
now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
A good place to start is www.talkorigins.org for information about
evolution.
I say:
Thanks for the link I will definitely check it out! I didn't know this
group had a web page. *S*
now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
Several people have posted the question asking for a definition of
"kind". I dont recall any creationists giving an answer that makes
sense.
I say:
Neither have I. That's why I said this was my last resort. *S* No one
will say "this is a kind" and "this isn't". No one will say "kinds are
up to the phyla level" or "kinds are up to the family level" etc. Or
even give anything other than very vague guidelines and to be totally
honest that pisses me off! I try to ask these questions but no one will
tell me anything specific! If they did, then would it only be their
opinion, or would they be able to say that a lot of people agreed with
them or that there was any kind of real basis for believing in that
particular definition?
now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
I usually just lurk here but I did post exactly that question to see if
creationists could give a definition of exactly what was meant by the
biblical term "kind". IIRC the only answer I got from a creationist was
"semismartguy", who gave the explanation "it looks like Moses slipped up
there!". Many creationists will happily agree that all cats (from
domestic to lions) are the same kind but will go into a tizz if it is
pointed out that should mean that humans and chimps are also the same
kind.
I say:
I guess there's little hope of my finding any real answers to that
question in this forum either. *sigh* Unless of course there simply is
no definition in which case people should be honest and come out and
say so!
Wendy
Rodjk
> Diamond Dust wrote:
>
> > You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> > here are my questions:
> >
> > 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> > similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> > created in human's image?
>
> I'm not sure that science will provide a reasonable answer to a
> question about the motives of an entity whose existence science
> has not established.
Excellent answer. This question belongs in a theology group.
>
> > 2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> > really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> > Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> > Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> > common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>
> "Kinds" is a scientifically meaningless term.
Again, a question for theology. The reason species is so hard to nail
down is evolution. Species are always in flux, so it is hard to
specify exactly where one starts and another stops.
Want to have fun, Wendy? Ask creationist to tell you what a kind is,
and then look up their info. Each will give you a different answer,
because there is no way to tell. You are a zoology student? Look up a
"ring species" and try to understand how they fit into the concept of
a "kind".
>
> To the best of our knowledge, all living things share a common ancestor
> at some point in the past.
>
> > 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> > appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> > and lower plants?
>
> Because they are modern. They evolved later than the earlier plants.
>
> > To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them.
>
> I wonder why anyone would hate these questions. They are very
> interesting questions, and unavoidable to anyone who pursues
> knowledge about the living things that populate our planet.
> It is a poor quest for knowledge that ends when you don't like
> what you discover.
I believe she hates them for the same reason that I did, and many
others in this group. She is learning that her religion not only does
not have all the answers, but that many of their answers contridicts
the evidence. That sort of shock is difficult to take.
Do you accept the evidence or blind yourself to it?
It is not an easy question.
>
> > I can't
> > just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> > other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> > anyone who can help me.
>
> Even encyclopedias are reasonable sources for information at this level.
Wendy, I think the problem is that you are not finding answers you
like, or that you were taught to expect. Unfortunatly, this will
happen throughout your college years, and hopefully long afterward.
You need to decide what is important to you. Truth and evidence, or
belief.
>
> > This place is my last hope to find something to
> > help me understand.
>
> Books. Read books.
Check out http://www.talkorigins.org
for lots of good scientific evidence and resources.
>
> > Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> > college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
>
> Sigh. Someone's high school education really sucked.
Wendy, are you in the USA? Did you wonder why you did not learn any of
this good biology in High School? I wonder what your High School
biology teacher would say?
Let us know, I am interested in your answers.
(Posted and emailed)
Rodjk #613
>
> Mark
>
> > Wendy
Sverker Johansson
>
> I haven't gotten any answers yet and I _really_ didn't want to post
> here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
> me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
> that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
> question.
>
> I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
>
> You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> created in human's image?
Well, we have overwhelming evidence that the diversity of life
came about through evolution. So, if we are created in God's image,
it then follows that God used evolution as His tool of creation.
But evolution proceeds through intermediates, and rarely produces
only a single ladder, so lots of more or less humanlike relatives
of ours are expected to exist, and do exist.
If you see us as special in God's eye, then
you can regard the gorillas as a byproduct of His chosen method
of creation.
> 2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
The evidence indicates that it goes back all the way, to a single
common ancestor of all life. You can read more at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
Because they evolved from a gymnosperm ancestor, some millions of
years later than ferns and gymnosperms first turned up.
Concerning fruit trees in the Bible, see my last paragraph below.
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
> just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
> help me understand.
As long as you ask questions, and display a willingness to
learn from the answers, you should be able to find some help
here. But beware that the tone may not always be polite - we have
many memories of people who asked questions, not
out of any interest in the answers, but with ulterior motives.
> Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> college
What are you studying in college? If you have your sights set on
zoology, I'd expect you to be studying life sciences, in which case
you should find a lot of relevant stuff in your textbooks.
> so try to explain things so I can understand them.
Like God did to Moses? No point in trying to teach a
tribe of illiterate goatherds about the subtleties of either
brane cosmology or homeobox genes, so God gave him
the kindergarten version of the story... which is
fine, as long as you don't assume that the kindergarten
version is the whole story.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message
<19960-3B...@storefull-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net>):
<fx: sarcasm set to 'minimal'>
<fx: rant-mode off>
<sfx: tone of voice: good-humoured>
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> I'm not sure that science will provide a reasonable answer to a question
> about the motives of an entity whose existence science has not
> established.
>
> I say:
> That's true enough! Maybe I asked that particular question in the wrong
> newsgroup? When I asked anyone else, no one answered me. I was hoping
> that if there are any people who do believe in God in here they might
> shed some light on this. I think it's an interesting philosophical
> question anyway and I don't think it's off topic because when you talk
> about origins then sometimes people will talk theology and some science.
> This was a theological question.
It was, and many of us would rather not appear to provide 'the' answer
to a theological question. Some because we are atheist, others because
they hold their beliefs to be private and not subject to discussion in
a public forum, others because they feel that such issues are beyond
the scope of discussion (amongst their reasons for being here, at
least), or that each person must form their view on their own but with
some help, and so on.
I think Mel Turner provided a few good questions to ponder, perhaps in
contemplating them you might see some answers to your apparent dilemma?
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> "Kinds" is a scientifically meaningless term. To the best of our
> knowledge, all living things share a common ancestor at some point in
> the past.
>
> I say:
> Either way, all living things are related. Either by a common ancestor,
> or by a common creator. So regardless of how we got here people should
> have respect for our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom and for
> all living things from bacterium to plants etc. My question was dealing
> with what the "hell" do creationists mean when they say "kind". I really
> don't seem to be able to find a definition. I was curious on what they
> might say.
I wish they'd tell us too :-(
Their narrowest distinction would mean that humans and chimps are the
same 'kind', yet this is exactly what they argue against. When this is
shown to them debate (in here at least) & definition rarely get any
further.
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed in
> response to my question on angiosperms:
> Because they are modern. They evolved later than the earlier plants.
>
> I say:
> It would certainly seem so! There's no real reason to believe otherwise
> is there? So I'm waiting for anyone to give an alternative explanation.
> I think they probably evolved too. Plants are good at adapting.
I hate to break it to you, but it is unlikely that someone with an
alternate view will come forward to explain [unless they too are new
here]. If I hadn't said that I'd offer odds of 1000:1, now that I have
I'm afraid all bets are off.
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> I wonder why anyone would hate these questions. They are very
> interesting questions, and unavoidable to anyone who pursues knowledge
> about the living things that populate our planet. It is a poor quest for
> knowledge that ends when you don't like what you discover.
>
> I say:
> I only hate the questions cause I can't rest until I know for myself
> whether there are any believable explanations for them. I'm not like a
> lot of other people. I can't pretend like the questions aren't there. I
> REFUSE to just do that. I need to know!
If you will never rest until you know one thing, then know one thing:
you will never rest.
[Now, is that original or have I pulled it from memory without a name
attached? Mangled someone else?]
From my perspective the most credible explanations are supported by
evidence.
Creationism has a book, written by numerous people, over a long period
of time, containing stories borrowed and adapted from other societies
of their time. It is unlikely to be a good reference for the
relatedness or otherwise of species on Earth. The 'evidence' when
proferred, from what I have seen, read and thought about is, at
absolute best, questionable. But who am I? From those I have asked
questions I have received silence, or nonsense (in my opinion, of
course).
Have a look through the links in Mel Turner's reply to you. If anything
seems questionable, look for references on it..
The evidence is well and truly in favour of evolution.
If you are hell bent (couldn't resist, sorry) on 'remaining a
christian' then your only options, as far as I can see are: accept
creationism and give up on zoology before you spend more money on it;
or examine the idea that zoology will help show you how goddidit
_through_ evolution.
For the sake of your mind, and some others would say your soul too,
take the latter path.
As far as people not answering your questions, that's better than
answering with lies, I guess.
> Whether I like the answer or not, isn't really relevant to the questions
> themselves or their answers.
True.
> Thanks for answering my post I appreciate that much. That's much more
> than I've gotten so far.
Well talk.origins is meant to be _the_ place for the 'my faith doesn't
agree with <scientific theory x, y, or z>'. But the only answer any of
us can give on theological points is: look, listen, think, decide for
yourself. This isn't a church, and the answers aren't from 'on high',
OK? :-)
> I'm trying to be honest and ask a question because I refuse to just push
> it aside that was my point. Some people just want me to accept things
> and I REFUSE to just go on believing in an instaneous creation without
> having a good answer. I tried asking various sites but as I said none of
No, don't 'just accept' things, ever.
The creation itself (if such it is, something I personally don't
believe, but anyway...) speaks against the doctrine of a 6 day
creation, a literal first man and woman that ate of a tree, and so on.
Perhaps Romans 1:20-23
Evolution, an old earth are _plain_, to say they are not is lie,
denial, or ignorance. To say that what is in a book supplants what the
creation _plainly_ shows is to suggest that your god is a liar, or at
least a deceiver.
> them can answer me or they won't. I know what the answers are that you
> gave I'm looking for anyone to answer this from a different perspective.
How different do you want? I can do 'full-on ranting atheist', if you
like :-)
> I feel much like Mulder in that "I want to believe" but right now it's
> getting hard for me that's why I came to the group because NO ONE, no
> one would answer me at all it's like trying to talk to a brick wall when
> I'm writing to these so-called creationist people.
Hopefully someone who holds to 'theistic evolution' might venture a
comment or two. [Dave Oldridge, Pat James, do you grep?]
> I don't think you had to be so sarcastic but I expect that in usenet.
> *L* Have a good day. :)
Many (OK, some) posters in here (myself included) usually have our
sarcasm level set to 'stun', Mark's appears to have been at 'warm
slowly'. :-) Looks more like he was in a hurry to me.
Have Fun
Martin
<fx: sarcasm set to stun>
[...]
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Thank you Bill for answering my post.
[re -- definition of a kind]
>now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
>Many creationists will happily agree that all cats (from
>domestic to lions) are the same kind but will go into a tizz if it is
>pointed out that should mean that humans and chimps are also the same
>kind.
>
>I say:
>I guess there's little hope of my finding any real answers to that
>question in this forum either. *sigh* Unless of course there simply is
>no definition in which case people should be honest and come out and
>say so!
We've been beating our heads against that same brick wall here for
years now, so believe me you have my sympathy.
I admire your honesty in asking these questions and in not being
satisfied with a flimsy answer to them. This is both a religious
virtue and, as a future zoologist, a professional one.
The best advice I have to give is that you keep on following that
honesty, both in your faith and in your school subjects. Most of the
world's Christians have no trouble reconciling their belief in God
with evolution and related ideas (a very old earth, the Big Bang, etc)
so an accommodation is certainly possible. I won't try to tell you
exactly what form that resolution should take. You're more than
capable of getting there yourself, and it will mean more that way.
There's a verse late in the old testament (Amos or somebody) which
goes, more or less: "What does the Lord require of thee, but to do
justice and love mercy and walk humbly with God and man?" Generalize
justice slightly to 'integrity' and I don't see how you can go wrong.
Louann
Wade Hines
Rodjk wrote:
>
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote in message news:<slrn9knu8...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>...
> > Diamond Dust wrote:
> >
> > > You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> > > here are my questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> > > similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> > > created in human's image?
> >
> > I'm not sure that science will provide a reasonable answer to a
> > question about the motives of an entity whose existence science
> > has not established.
>
> Excellent answer. This question belongs in a theology group.
Seems reasonable for a talk group too, especially talk.origins.
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>
>1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
>similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
>created in human's image?
>
who knows? Any answer to this would be pure speculation. If I had to
speculate, I would guess that maybe apes were created for fun and
education; or maybe they were not original creations but are a result
of some form of cross-breeding, experimental or otherwise.
In any event, the existence of primates is not a problem for my
Christianity. They do have similarities to humans, but I do not find
myself mistaking a chimp for a human, so I consider these similarities
to be interesting, but not a commentary on our ancestral relationship.
>2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
>really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
>Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
>Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
>common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>
my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
then they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context
of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
forms into specified groups.
And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
mind.
>3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
>appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
>and lower plants?
>
those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me
question the overall accurateness of the dating methods. Imo, all you
need is one anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better
interpretations of the data.
zoe
Gen2Rev
An excellent (but critical) article on the idea of the "Created Kind" is
"Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case against Creationism" by
Joel Cracraft, in the book "Scientists Confront Creationism", edited by
Laurie Godfrey (Copyright 1983)
J Forbes
snip
> I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
I think your dilemna is in this paragraph.
Being a Christian is a broad statement...it can mean
that you follow many of the teachings of the Christ
character in the Bible (this is the extent to which
I state that I am a Christian, for I am also an
atheist), or it can mean that you take every word in
the Bible as literal statement of fact....or
anywhere in between these two extremes.
I think that life is precious, but I have no reason
to believe that it was created (by other than
natural means), nor that there exists any being that
could be considered to be a creator.
If you are seriously considering becoming a
zoologist, then you will have some trouble accepting
the findings of science, which contradict your
faith. I suggest you reconsider your faith. I
don't know how to go about it, but I think it is a
necessary step. If you don't, you will probably
continue to come up against these difficult
questions.
That said, I'll give you my answers. Remember, I
don't have any faith, so you will likely find my
answers to contradict what you claim to be truth.
> You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> created in human's image?
God does whatever you say that God did. Since God
is imaginary, God does not really *do* anything;
instead, God gets credit or blame for things which
are caused by other means.
> 2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
Out of my field!
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
Why would you expect modern plants to appear before
modern times? :)
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
> just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
> help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
>
> Wendy
You do have a long time of learning ahead of you...I
figure I'm about half way through the process of
learning, and that's based on my age (40) and my
expected longevity (80). I suggest you keep asking
questions...that way, you might find answers. And
don't be afraid to question *everything*!
especially where your faith comes from, and how it
could be in error.
Jim
Victor Eijkhout
> I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist [...]
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
Your questions are only a problem for your religion if you work from
the assumption that the bible is a biology/astronomy textbook.
The lessons from the bible are true, but they are not scientific.
Any scientific looking statements in the bible are not because
God dictated them exactly like that to the author, but because God's
inspiration was of necessity filtered through a primitive understanding
of the world. The fact that we understand the world a bit better now
doesn't invalidate the inspiration that lies behind the bible.
I hope you can see that science and the bible can both be true, because
they cover different aspects of the world.
--
Victor Eijkhout
"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some
fantastic pictures." [G.W. Bush]
pantzcat
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> I'm not sure that science will provide a reasonable answer to a question
> about the motives of an entity whose existence science has not
> established.
>
> I say:
> That's true enough! Maybe I asked that particular question in the wrong
> newsgroup? When I asked anyone else, no one answered me. I was hoping
> that if there are any people who do believe in God in here they might
> shed some light on this. I think it's an interesting philosophical
> question anyway and I don't think it's off topic because when you talk
> about origins then sometimes people will talk theology and some science.
> This was a theological question.
>
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> "Kinds" is a scientifically meaningless term. To the best of our
> knowledge, all living things share a common ancestor at some point in
> the past.
>
> I say:
> Either way, all living things are related. Either by a common ancestor,
> or by a common creator. So regardless of how we got here people should
> have respect for our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom and for
> all living things from bacterium to plants etc. My question was dealing
> with what the "hell" do creationists mean when they say "kind". I really
> don't seem to be able to find a definition. I was curious on what they
> might say.
>
From what I can glean from Creationist writings I've seen before, a "kind"
is loosely speaking, a species. Kinds are allowed to 'microevolve' which
apparently means they can vary, so long as they don't "turn into something
else", like varieties of dogs. To me, it looks like the biological defn. of
species (produce fertile young) but "kinds" don't contain that definition
amongst creationists because that would make their idea testable, which is
the antithesis of creationist ideas.
Noahs ark (apparently) had all the "kinds" of animals (not much mention by
way of plants, fungi and bacteria). Bit of favouritism towards
heterotrophic eukaryotes, but that's to be expected from the god of the OT
(favouritism that is).
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed in
> response to my question on angiosperms:
> Because they are modern. They evolved later than the earlier plants.
>
> I say:
> It would certainly seem so! There's no real reason to believe otherwise
> is there? So I'm waiting for anyone to give an alternative explanation.
> I think they probably evolved too. Plants are good at adapting.
>
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> I wonder why anyone would hate these questions. They are very
> interesting questions, and unavoidable to anyone who pursues knowledge
> about the living things that populate our planet. It is a poor quest for
> knowledge that ends when you don't like what you discover.
>
> I say:
> I only hate the questions cause I can't rest until I know for myself
> whether there are any believable explanations for them. I'm not like a
> lot of other people. I can't pretend like the questions aren't there. I
> REFUSE to just do that. I need to know!
>
> Whether I like the answer or not, isn't really relevant to the questions
> themselves or their answers.
Well you're certainly asking the right questions, but you do seem to be
expecting the answers from the wrong sources. Creationists won't answer
your questions because they avoid the answers.
>
> Thanks for answering my post I appreciate that much. That's much more
> than I've gotten so far.
> I'm trying to be honest and ask a question because I refuse to just push
> it aside that was my point. Some people just want me to accept things
> and I REFUSE to just go on believing in an instaneous creation without
> having a good answer.
Why must you believe in an instantaneous creation? How long must you wait
for a "good answer" from creationists?
> I tried asking various sites but as I said none of
> them can answer me or they won't. I know what the answers are that you
> gave I'm looking for anyone to answer this from a different perspective.
>
> I feel much like Mulder in that "I want to believe" but right now it's
> getting hard for me that's why I came to the group because NO ONE, no
> one would answer me at all it's like trying to talk to a brick wall when
> I'm writing to these so-called creationist people.
Unfortunately these so-called creationists don't have the same courage you
show in questioning articles of faith, and so won't have approached the
subject as you have. Or, if they have, they have had to sacrifice their
integrity. Those who didn't sacrifice their integrity are no longer
creationists.
- pantzcat
Ronald Okimoto
Diamond Dust wrote:
I hope that you do pursue your interest in science, but you will find that
the answers that you want will not sound very appealing from the point of
view that you are approaching them. Many posters will likely give you the
best scientific explanation, but you want justification for a certain
viewpoint that in most cases cannot be justified by what we know about the
world.
Scientists are interested in obtaining the best understanding of nature
that they can. If you limit yourself to one line of reasoning you will
find that you will limit your scientific understanding of nature. Simply
stated, religion doesn't work in science and has not been shown to lead to
a better understanding of nature. Scientists have found that it is best to
park their religious beliefs at the door and concentrate on trying to
figure out what the best explanation for a given phenomena is by observing
nature and letting the data lead them to the most likely explanation.
Sometimes the best scientific explanations conflict with theology. Science
has no influence over this. All science can say is that this is the best
explanation that we have at this time. If you pursue your interest in
science you will find that if you let your religious beliefs cloud your
pursuit of an understanding of nature you will find it more difficult to
understand the basic principles that you will need to take subsequent steps
in your education. It seems that this is what may be happening in your
case.
I do not know what the best way of dealing with this is. I treat it like a
jigsaw puzzle where I've thrown away the cover of the box, and I don't have
the faintest idea of what the picture is supposed to look like. You use
what other people have inferred about puzzle pieces to put the picture
together from scratch. The creation scientists think that they can use
their interpretation of the Bible to force the pieces into the picture that
they want to create. All they end up doing is creating the wrong and
picture, and you can tell this because the pieces do not match the way that
they should.
Once you have the best explanation, you can try and reconcile these
explanations with your religious beliefs, and you may not be able to do
it. There are a lot of Christians that have done it. I look at it this
way, no matter what religious truths the Bible may have, it was written a
couple thousand years ago by people one step above nomadic goat herders.
If we want to understand the creation we have the creation, itself, to
study. There is no contest here. On the one hand you have an old book,
and on the other you have the existing creation. No matter what their
religion, scientists study the creation and not the book.
Ron Okimoto
Anti Fundies
Wendy, I'd say keep hanging around for a while, and monitor the thread
(this one you started) and hopefully more people would contribute so
you'll get to see the different perspectives. I'd suggest waiting for
those people Martin mentioned and while I'm at it I'd add in wf3h,
although an atheist, he does know his theology. Also if you like, just
lurk around and browse through the other threads, you might also gain
some insights bit by bit here and there.
And if you like to pursue deeper understanding of one's perspective,
then ask further questions. As long as you have shown yourself to be
sincere, a lot of people would answer to your questions.
>
> > I don't think you had to be so sarcastic but I expect that in usenet.
> > *L* Have a good day. :)
>
> Many (OK, some) posters in here (myself included) usually have our
> sarcasm level set to 'stun', Mark's appears to have been at 'warm
> slowly'. :-) Looks more like he was in a hurry to me.
>
Don't worry about the sarcasm, just worry about the content.
Adam Marczyk
news:3b4c4a57....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On 11 Jul 2001 02:31:37 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> >similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> >created in human's image?
> >
>
> who knows? Any answer to this would be pure speculation.
Not for someone who accepts evolution.
> If I had to
> speculate, I would guess that maybe apes were created for fun and
> education; or maybe they were not original creations but are a result
> of some form of cross-breeding, experimental or otherwise.
For "fun and education"?? Sheesh. Just try to find support for that in the
Bible. Again, evolution very easily explains something the creationists are
baffled by and can only speculate about.
> In any event, the existence of primates is not a problem for my
> Christianity. They do have similarities to humans, but I do not find
> myself mistaking a chimp for a human, so I consider these similarities
> to be interesting, but not a commentary on our ancestral relationship.
Then you should comment on the 98% genetic similarity between humans and
chimps, the non-functional pseudogenes we share with them, or the
transitional fossils that are almost human but not quite, such as these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
> >2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> >really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> >Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> >Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> >common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
> >
>
> my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
> about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
> then they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context
> of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
> multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
> interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
> forms into specified groups.
How do you handle the fact that new species have been shown to appear? What
about ring species? What about populations that are clearly separate -- such
as lions and tigers -- but can still interbreed? Humans and chimps are more
genetically similar than lions and tigers, yet by your criteria the first
two would be separate kinds while the second two would be the same kind.
> And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
> zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
> classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
> the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
> mind.
What are you proposing instead? Should we use the kindergarten biology of
"kinds" and call animals, "the cat kind," "the beetle kind", "the horse
kind", "the bacteria kind"?
> >3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> >appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> >and lower plants?
> >
>
> those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
> seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
> through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me
> question the overall accurateness of the dating methods.
Um, no. Polystrate fossils don't pass through "several geologic eras", they
pass through several strata, and _creationist_ geologists long before Darwin
had an easy explanation for them: they're trees whose roots grew through
underlying layers of deposition (you never find a polystrate tree whose
roots penetrate through, say, igneous or metamorphic layers, only soft
sedimentary ones). You're about two hundred years behind the times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
> Imo, all you
> need is one anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better
> interpretations of the data.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
news:3319-3B4...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
These are all very good questions, so don't expect a creationist to ever
give you an honest answer to any of them. Believe me, I've tried.
Creationists have a whole lot of rhetorical tricks, but no positive evidence
at all, and they'd much rather criticize evolution than defend their own
model because they're aware the latter is a virtually impossible task. But
no one's saying you have to abandon your faith to accept evolution. Many
devout Christians are also firm supporters of evolution; they simply believe
that evolution was the method God used to create, and the Book of Genesis is
nothing more than a parable. Face it, the people God dictated it to were
scientifically ignorant goatherders. Could he really have explained to them
what evolution was in a way that would have made any sense to them?
Here's a few others you might want to consider:
4. Why are there transitional fossils connecting every major group of life?
There are theropod dinosaurs with feathers and other avian characteristics,
rhipidistian fish that have recognizable legs, therapsid reptiles that have
unmistakably mammal-like traits, and most especially, hominid fossils that
are very much like humans, but also different in some significant ways.
5. Why do organisms that were "created separately" have pseudogenes that
fall into a nested hierarchical pattern?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/nikaido.html
6. Why does the geologic record utterly fail to provide any evidence for a
global flood?
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/flood.html
Rodjk
> On 11 Jul 2001 02:31:37 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> >similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> >created in human's image?
> >
>
> who knows? Any answer to this would be pure speculation.
And pure avoidence of the evidence that we are related.
>If I had to
> speculate, I would guess that maybe apes were created for fun and
> education; or maybe they were not original creations but are a result
> of some form of cross-breeding, experimental or otherwise.
Kind of puts a hole in your definition of "kinds" below, doesn't it?
>
> In any event, the existence of primates is not a problem for my
> Christianity. They do have similarities to humans, but I do not find
> myself mistaking a chimp for a human, so I consider these similarities
> to be interesting, but not a commentary on our ancestral relationship.
>
> >2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> >really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> >Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> >Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> >common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
> >
>
> my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
> about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
> then they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context
> of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
> multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
> interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
> forms into specified groups.
Wendy, did you look up "ring species" yet?
Once you do so, please tell us what it does to the above definition of
"kind".
>
> And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
> zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
> classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
> the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
> mind.
Yes, make some names that will make creationism seem sensible. You can
make a lot of money like this, you just cannot be honest. Your choice,
Wendy.
>
> >3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> >appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> >and lower plants?
> >
>
> those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
> seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
> through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me
> question the overall accurateness of the dating methods. Imo, all you
> need is one anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better
> interpretations of the data.
Yes. Maybe you could ask geologist, who have studied the issue.
That is too unreasonable for a creationist like Zoe, but you may try
it.
Start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
This may help you understand why we say creationist are bad at
science.
They only see what they want to see, they do not do research (other
than sweating it out in the quote mines).
And they repeat the same wrong info even after they have been
corrected.
Stick around T.O. for a while and watch the same polystrate claims,
the 2nd law questions, the same chance arguments be shot down time
after time.
Good luck.
Rodjk#613
>
> zoe
Derek Stevenson
> wrote:
> >1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> >similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> >created in human's image?
>
> who knows? Any answer to this would be pure speculation. If I had to
> speculate, I would guess that maybe apes were created for fun and
> education; or maybe they were not original creations but are a result
> of some form of cross-breeding, experimental or otherwise.
>
> In any event, the existence of primates is not a problem for my
> Christianity. They do have similarities to humans, but I do not find
> myself mistaking a chimp for a human, so I consider these similarities
> to be interesting, but not a commentary on our ancestral relationship.
That's a very peculiar criterion. Does this mean that if people are able to
distinguish you from Vince (Zoe's son and a former frequent poster to t.o.,
for those who came in late), you're not his mother?
> >2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> >really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> >Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> >Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> >common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>
> my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
> about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
> then they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context
> of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
> multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
> interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
> forms into specified groups.
Then there's a simple experiment that should lay to rest once and for all
the question of whether humans and other primates are members of the same
"kind".
Are you volunteering?
[snip]
Mark VandeWettering
> Thank you Bill for answering my post.
>
> now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
>
> A good place to start is www.talkorigins.org for information about
> evolution.
>
> I say:
> Thanks for the link I will definitely check it out! I didn't know this
> group had a web page. *S*
>
> now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
>
> Several people have posted the question asking for a definition of
> "kind". I dont recall any creationists giving an answer that makes
> sense.
Neither does anyone else. That is because the creationist definition
of kind isn't any more sophisticated than "some grouping of animals that
I can't describe except by calling it a kind".
> I say:
> Neither have I. That's why I said this was my last resort. *S* No one
> will say "this is a kind" and "this isn't".
Welcome to the "stick and move" world that is scientific creationism.
> No one will say "kinds are
> up to the phyla level" or "kinds are up to the family level" etc. Or
> even give anything other than very vague guidelines and to be totally
> honest that pisses me off!
Good for you. It should.
> I try to ask these questions but no one will
> tell me anything specific! If they did, then would it only be their
> opinion, or would they be able to say that a lot of people agreed with
> them or that there was any kind of real basis for believing in that
> particular definition?
If you are waiting for scientific creationists to define their terms and
defend them, I'd be prepared for a long wait.
> now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
>
> I usually just lurk here but I did post exactly that question to see if
> creationists could give a definition of exactly what was meant by the
> biblical term "kind". IIRC the only answer I got from a creationist was
> "semismartguy", who gave the explanation "it looks like Moses slipped up
> there!". Many creationists will happily agree that all cats (from
> domestic to lions) are the same kind but will go into a tizz if it is
> pointed out that should mean that humans and chimps are also the same
> kind.
>
> I say:
> I guess there's little hope of my finding any real answers to that
> question in this forum either.
There are no "real answers" to the question "what is a kind?" except the
obvious bare fact that creationists don't know how to define a kind.
> *sigh* Unless of course there simply is
> no definition in which case people should be honest and come out and
> say so!
Indeed. I agree. But scientific creationism is inherently dishonest,
so perhaps you are asking a bit much from them.
> Wendy
Mark
Andy Groves
> wrote:
<snip>
> >2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> >really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> >Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> >Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> >common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
> >
>
> my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
> about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
> then they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context
> of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
> multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
> interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
> forms into specified groups.
>
> And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
> zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
> classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
> the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
> mind.
Actually, creationists have attempted to do this by coining the term
"baramin", which I think is some sort of combination of Hebrew words
for "created" and "kind".
The line goes that organisms of one baramin can breed with each other,
but not with members of another baramin. within one baramin, however,
variation can occur. Essentially this redraws the "Tree of Life"
(whereby modern organisms can trace back to a series of progressively
older common ancestors) and replaces it with a lawn of little trees -
each one representing a baramin, and containing related animals or
plants. Some creationists even allow that "microevolution" can occur
within a baramin.
This runs into problems on a number of fronts - for example, the
hominid fossil record which suggests a line of animals stretching back
from humans that look more and more like apes (or the ancestors of
apes). Another consideration is raised by molecular biology. Given a
genome with the capacity for mutation at any point in its sequence, it
is not clear how mutation and variation would at some point be held in
check to restrict an animal to a particular baramin. It will be
particularly interesting to see, for example, the sequence of the
chimpanzee genome in comparison to humans. Baraminologists might have
a tough time reconciling those findings with their theories. We shall
see.
Andy
<snip>
Tom
<991ea4ae.01071...@posting.google.com>, gro...@cco.caltech.edu
stated...
[...snip...]
>Actually, creationists have attempted to do this by coining the term
>"baramin", which I think is some sort of combination of Hebrew words
>for "created" and "kind".
[...snip...]
I find that particular coined word, er, interesting ...
A little lesson in Hebrew.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
^^^^^^^^^^^
That part, "God created", is expressed in Hebrew as "bara elohim".
Hebrew sentences typically put the verb first ("bara"="created"),
followed by the subject ("elohim"="God").
Now, if we replace the subject of that sentence with another
subject, "min"="kind", to get "bara min" ... well, then you get a
rather heretical statement that a "kind" did the creation.
There may be a misunderstanding of English going on, too.
The past tense "created" is identical in form to the past participle
"created". (Unlike "saw" and "seen", where they are different.)
In Hebrew, a "created kind" (in the sense of a "kind (which is)
created") would be "min baru". (Once again, the word order is
different from English.)
There are some other things worth remarking on, from a
Biblical point of view. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that
God "created a kind" ("bara et min"), or refers to a "created
kind" ("min baru") or anything of the sort. And certainly not
that a "kind created" ("bara min") anything.
Not that that is of any interest to the Biblical "literalists".
They know what they want to believe.
Tom
petera
Diamond Dust <Ruby...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3319-3B4...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
> me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
> that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
> question.
>
> I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet.
Well, as you probably know, God does promise to show people the truth to those who ask
Him.
It certainly
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
Been there too.
>
> You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> created in human's image?
>
> 2. What are kinds?
http://www.projectcreation.org/Spotlights/May01.htm
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/kind.html
As Im not a scientist in any field, I cant say too much, but ive given you some links to
some search engines, from a "God created the world in 6 litteral days" perspective, which
I hope you'll find what you are looking for. These Creation search engines do have a word
search so you can find articles specifically for what you are after.
Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
>
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
> just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
> help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
>
> Wendy
http://www.trueorigins.org/index.htm
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.asp
Bill Hudson
> I haven't gotten any answers yet and I _really_ didn't want to post
> here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
> me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
> that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
> question.
>
> I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
>
> You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> created in human's image?
>
> 2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
>
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
> just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
> help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
>
> Wendy
>
>
Wendy;
If you haven't read it yet, go check out "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken
Miller at your local library.
Miller is one of the 'superstars of evolution' (according to one of the
reviews I read), and happens to be a scientist who is also christian (Roman
Catholic).
In that book he takes on all manner of creationist dogma, and then attempts
to reconcile his faith with his acceptance of science. He does a pretty
fair job of that, although that is the weakest part of the book, IMHO.
I liked it, and I think you will too.
--
Bill Hudson
Tracy P. Hamilton
"petera" <yode...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b4c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> Diamond Dust <Ruby...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:3319-3B4...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > I haven't gotten any answers yet and I _really_ didn't want to post
> > here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
> > me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
> > that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
> > question.
Kind of like petera's here?
> > I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> > likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> > have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> > discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> > but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet.
>
> Well, as you probably know, God does promise to show people the truth to
those who ask
> Him.
He did not promise a rose garden. I can appreciate the trouble Diamond
Dust is going to have - this is a *theological* problem, not a scientific
one.
> It certainly
> > doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
>
> Been there too.
> > You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> > here are my questions:
> >
> > 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> > similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> > created in human's image?
> >
> > 2. What are kinds?
> http://www.projectcreation.org/Spotlights/May01.htm
> http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/kind.html
These links are singularly unhelpful. Are you trying to give the impression
that
Christianity can't answer her questions?
"after their kind" is merely an *un*scientific statement of what any child
knows - that horses give birth to horses, etc. It says nothing about
whether speciation can take place, or whether horses can slowly change
over time. A dog giving birth to a cat - that would not be "after its kind"
and as Diamond Dust knows (not too sure about petera) that is not
part of any evolutionary theory.
> As Im not a scientist in any field, I cant say too much, but ive given you
some links to
> some search engines, from a "God created the world in 6 litteral days"
perspective, which
> I hope you'll find what you are looking for. These Creation search engines
do have a word
> search so you can find articles specifically for what you are after.
These are important questions that *you* should have asked yourself long ago
(unless you are under 18).
> Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> > really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> > Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> > Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> > common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
Waaaaayy back.
> > 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> > appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> > and lower plants?
> >
> > To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
> > just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> > other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> > anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
> > help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> > college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
Maybe a literal reading of Genesis is not the correct way. Maybe its
purpose
was for what the Jews needed thousands of years ago - to contrast with
polytheism. God did this, God did that,...
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>On 11 Jul 2001 02:31:37 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
>wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
>>similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
>>created in human's image?
>>
>
>who knows? Any answer to this would be pure speculation. If I had to
>speculate, I would guess that maybe apes were created for fun and
>education;
Whose? The Creator's?
or maybe they were not original creations but are a result
>of some form of cross-breeding, experimental or otherwise.
"Cross-breeding" of what with what? Surely you don't mean
"evolution"?
>In any event, the existence of primates is not a problem for my
>Christianity.
It'd kinda be hard for there to be any Christianity if
there were no primates to be Christians...
They do have similarities to humans, but I do not find
>myself mistaking a chimp for a human, so I consider these similarities
>to be interesting, but not a commentary on our ancestral relationship.
So, you think two species have to be so similar as to be mistaken
for one another for there to be the possibility of an evolutionary
relationship?
>>2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
>>really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
>>Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
>>Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
>>common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
>about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
>then they both belong to the same family group or "kind."
Is that to be a definition, or just a criterion for recognizing the
"kinds"? [still, good for you for offering a "kind" recognition
criterion. Creationists so rarely attempt it] Is ability to interbreed
the only criterion? What about the fact that real organisms show a
complete range of abilities to interbreed between complete fertility
to complete inability to form a zygote. What about cases where they
cross but the hybrids are sterile? What about cases where developing
embryos always abort part way through development? What about cases
where the males of one species can fertilize females of another, but
not vice-versa? What about cases where species A can cross with
species B and species B can cross with species C, but species A can't
cross with species C? What about cases where there is a whole range
of different abilities to cross within groups of evidently very
closely-related species?
The context
>of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
>multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
>interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
>forms into specified groups.
No, it only tells us about one aspect. So, how else can the "kinds"
be recognized? Surely, no one's going to go about trying all possible
hybridizations. How does one go about deciding if chimpanzees,
gorillas and humans are all one "kind" or not? Human/ape hybridization
experiments [successful or unsuccessful] seem to be completely
unreported in the literature [and seem rather likely to be frowned
upon if even proposed]; there aren't even any published studies of
gorilla/chimp crosses.
Anyway, why should the ability to form hybrids necessarily denote
"same-kindhood"? Why couldn't the Creator have simply made some
"kinds" with an ability to form hybrids with other "kinds"?
>And if you don't like the simple word "kinds,"
Only because it's commonly next to meaningless [except as a word for
"type"]
then as a potential
>zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
>classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
>the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
>mind.
Tsk. Whining about Latin names?
>>3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
>>appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
>>and lower plants?
>
>those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
>seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
>through several layers of supposed geologic eras,
Through several sediment layers, perhaps. Through different geological
periods, not at all. This is just a common creationist myth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
which made me
>question the overall accurateness of the dating methods.
It shouldn't have:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Imo, all you
>need is one anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better
>interpretations of the data.
Except that it's no anomaly.
cheers
rossum
wrote:
>I haven't gotten any answers yet and I _really_ didn't want to post
>here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
>me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
>that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
>question.
You have a lot of answers already from various regulars in the group,
and pointers to further answers. I hope some of them are what you are
looking for.
>
>I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
>likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
>have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
>discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
>but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
>doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
On the relationship between religion and science try Stephen J Gould
on teh two magisteria:
http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/interesting/gould-magisteria.html
>
>You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
>here are my questions:
>
>1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
>similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
>created in human's image?
You will have to ask God about God's actions. Your question may not
be answerable by mere humans.
You may find Hugh Ross: http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.html or
Glen Morton: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/ useful for a
non-YEC but conservative Christian perspective on evolution. I do not
agree with either of them, but they have both come to their own
resolution of the dofferences (dofferences? yes I know it's a typo,
but it really ought to mean something - a nice word) between Biblical
literalism and evolution.
FWIW many Christians think that our resemblance to God is more in the
soul than in the body.
>
>2. What are kinds?
<mode=cynicism>A "kind" is a group of species which has such good
evidence of evolution between members of the group that even YECs
cannot deny it.</mode>
Being a bit less cynical, standard neo-darwinism assigns all living
things to one kind since they all evolved from a single ancestor.
>Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
>really do believe they have a common ancestor.
You are right, they do.
> They're also carnivores. Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
Yes they do.
>Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
>common ancestor?
Yes again.
>Do all mammals?
Yes. common ancestry is the basis of taxonomy. See
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/, an excellent site.
>And how far back does it go?
To the origin of the first living proto-cell five billion years ago.
Beyond that we are out of the domain of evolution and into
abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-living precursors.
>
>3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
>appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
>and lower plants?
Because the angiosperms evolved more recently.
>
>To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them.
Don't hate the questions. If you believe that God created the world
and its creatures then all questions about the world and its creatures
are questions about examining God's work more closely.
>I can't just... not think of them.
Of course not, if you want to be a scientist then looking at the
awkward questions it part of the territiry. There are no nobel prizes
for looking at the easy questions.
>That doesn't work for me even if it does for other people.
Stick with what works for you.
>I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
>anyone who can help me.
Keep looking, those people are out there.
>This place is my last hope to find something to
>help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
>college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
I hope this has been of some help.
Good luck in your search. Don't give up too easily.
rossum
>
>Wendy
>
Cary Kittrell
<
{...}
<
<You may find Hugh Ross: http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.html or
<Glen Morton: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/ useful for a
<non-YEC but conservative Christian perspective on evolution. I do not
<agree with either of them, but they have both come to their own
<resolution of the dofferences (dofferences? yes I know it's a typo,
Well, I'd say it obviously means "a courtly and
respectful manner", being, as it is clearly the love-child
of `deference' and `doff' (as in "hat").
-0-
Andy Groves
<snip>
> >2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> >really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> >Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> >Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> >common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
> >
>
> my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
> about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
> then they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context
> of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
> multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
> interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
> forms into specified groups.
>
> And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
> zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
> classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
> the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
> mind.
In my last reply I was trying to find a reference for a creationist
interpretation of hominid fossil data. I finally found it :
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/default.html
Given that this was written by a creationist, the end of the paper has
a particularly interesting conclusion.....
"The fossil hominid crania show a gradation of morphologies between
those characteristics seen in the apes but not in humans, to those
characteristics seen in humans but not in apes. There is also a
gradation in endocranial volume. Similarly , the postcranial skeletons
of the hominids exhibit many characteristics that are intermediate, as
well as a mixture of other characteristics that are either ape-like or
human-like. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain the position that
there are no morphological intermediates between apes and man. So what
explanation for the existence of fossil intermediates can we posit
other than evolution from a common ancestor, an explanation that is
falsified by the order of appearance of various features in various
lineages? With the introduction of the phylogenetic systematic
methodology, there are no unfalsified hypotheses of human evolutionary
lineages. An explanation that is consistent with the data and with the
Biblical account of origins is that man has been engaged in exchanging
genetic material with the pongids, either in nature or in the
laboratory. The variety of forms can be attributed to some form of
reticulation wherein the original creatures outcrossed to both H.
sapiens and pongids, as well as interbreeding within their own group
(.......) That fossil hominids represent the results of hybridization
between modern humans and apes is an hypothesis that should not be
tested. And the moral implications of such an experiment are enough to
keep most rational scientists from doing so."
Andy
mel turner
Ruby...@webtv.net [Diamond Dust] wrote...[snip]
>Several people have posted the question asking for a definition of
>"kind". I dont recall any creationists giving an answer that makes
>sense.
>
>I say:
>Neither have I. That's why I said this was my last resort. *S* No one
>will say "this is a kind" and "this isn't".
Or, they will, but they often won't agree with one another,
or they can't give any clear criteria by which we all can tell
whether two species are in the same or in different kinds.
No one will say "kinds are
>up to the phyla level" or "kinds are up to the family level" etc. Or
>even give anything other than very vague guidelines and to be totally
>honest that pisses me off! I try to ask these questions but no one will
>tell me anything specific! If they did, then would it only be their
>opinion, or would they be able to say that a lot of people agreed with
>them or that there was any kind of real basis for believing in that
>particular definition?
There have been numerous past discussion here of just what "kinds"
are. They've never gotten very far, but a few like Zoe have
suggested that members of the same kind are recognized by the
ability to hybridize.
A poster now gone from t.o. used to claim that the "kind" approximated
the generic level, probably following Woodmorappe
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html> [Noah's Ark
apologists like to see "kinds" as including many species, since this
reduces the number of animal pairs that had to be cared for on the Ark.]
That former poster [Karl Crawford] made some very interesting claims
about kinds in one discussion of whether the fossil records of various
different modern cat species [fossils were believed by him to represent
pre-Flood animals buried in sediments deposited by the flood] could
contradict his stated belief that the Felidae for example would have
had only a single pair of "cat-kind" ancestors on the ark. He actually
said that the fossil records of lions, pumas, lynxes, housecat-like cats,
etc. didn't contradict his idea, since the pre-flood "microevolutionary"
radiation of the original cat-kind could simply have repeated itself
after the flood, from the single pair of feline representatives on board!
He never was able to explain why this would be so or give any
objective criteria for identifying kinds based solely on study
of the organisms.
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=64bih2%24ru2%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=79qm5b%24730%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=6p222g%24de6%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=77urnn%24crb%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=6gfj5r%247ec%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=6qtcr1%24jcf%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=6bv04p%24207%242%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=6qkpu6%24afb%241%40news.duke.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=63o69k%246so%241%40news.duke.edu
link to some of those threads
>now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
>
>I usually just lurk here but I did post exactly that question to see if
>creationists could give a definition of exactly what was meant by the
>biblical term "kind". IIRC the only answer I got from a creationist was
>"semismartguy", who gave the explanation "it looks like Moses slipped up
>there!". Many creationists will happily agree that all cats (from
>domestic to lions) are the same kind but will go into a tizz if it is
>pointed out that should mean that humans and chimps are also the same
>kind.
Right. It's subjective. Kinds may be just one species [humans],
or a genus or a family [e.g., cats], or a much higher group ["fish",
"bugs", "plants", "bacteria"] where the interest of creationist
taxonomy seems especially weak.
>I say:
>I guess there's little hope of my finding any real answers to that
>question in this forum either. *sigh* Unless of course there simply is
>no definition in which case people should be honest and come out and
>say so!
Oh, the _definition_ is simple enough: "the set of descendants
of one of the originally created types of organisms". What is
unclear is how they think this definition fits into the taxonomic
hierarchy, and how they think we can tell that this is the case.
cheers
(BigDiscusser)
splendid education in the past ( valedictorian in high school, 2 yrs
pre-nursing at Pomona College, 3 years at Stanford School of Nursing
with a major in Psychiatry (human behavior has been a lifelong interest
and study) then into the Army Nurse Corps in WW2, wife, mother, 2
good marriages ( I`ve been widowed twice).I tell you this to establish
my credibility as a person, because as a Creationist Christian, I am
regarded on this T.O. board as a nutty troll when I try to explain why
I am not an evolutionary theist--but believe in the Old and New
Testaments and try to live by them since my 40`s when I became a
Christian (very sucessfully. I might say) . In my 80 yrs of living I
have found nothing in Psychology or Psychiatry ( called science of the
mind) that equals the TRUTH of life that Jesus taught, which are the
principals for a happy sucessful passage thru life here and
later to Heaven where there are no tears, sorrow or suffering).
Worship of evolution ( which a lot seem to do on this board )is a zero
substitute, and a dead end street. Science is a gift to us, not
the whole "ball of wax" I feel obliged to say such things and
defend the solace and stability that a commonplace traditional good
Christian life has provided many ctizens of this wonderful country.
Why does the world want to crowd into America---it`s the promise and
hope of "the shining city upon a hill " embodied in our Christian
roots---a chance for anyone to have a better life. Don`t throw away
your faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for a "mess of
Pottage" God bless, Jo Jean
I am an 80 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
Mark VandeWettering
> On 11 Jul 2001 02:31:37 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>>
>>1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
>>similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
>>created in human's image?
>>
>
> who knows? Any answer to this would be pure speculation. If I had to
> speculate, I would guess that maybe apes were created for fun and
> education; or maybe they were not original creations but are a result
> of some form of cross-breeding, experimental or otherwise.
Wendy, I advise you to carefully read every word that zoe says. Zoe is
a classic example of what scientific creationism represents as an
intellectual endeavor. In response to your question, she responds
with
1. "Nobody knows". Translation: I don't know.
2. "Any answer would be pure speculation". Translation: all
possible explanations are similarly probable and meaningless.
3. "I would guess..." Translation: here is a meaningless guess
about why apes exist. A particularly absurd guess, I might
add.
Zoe pretends that all explanations of origins are similarly valuable, but
that is not true. Scientific descriptions of origins make useful predictions
about what we expect to see in nature. The theory of evolution for
example makes predictions about when we would expect to see speciation,
what the relationships between the genome of creatures who are closely
and more distantly related and so forth.
The answer to why apes look like we do is pretty much the same reason
why you look like your cousins, your second cousins, and more distantly
related people in general.
>
> In any event, the existence of primates is not a problem for my
> Christianity. They do have similarities to humans, but I do not find
> myself mistaking a chimp for a human, so I consider these similarities
> to be interesting, but not a commentary on our ancestral relationship.
Of course not. When faced with evidence that Zoe doesn't wish to face,
she discounts the evidence.
>>2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
>>really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
>>Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
>>Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
>>common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
>
> my personal definition of kinds
Which is of course, the only kind of definition that creationists ever
provide...
> (the conclusion I come to when I think
> about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species,
> then they both belong to the same family group or "kind."
The normal definition of species is the biological classification
comprising related organisms that share common characteristics and are
capable of interbreeding. Hence, Zoe really has just said that "kinds"
are species. But she doesn't really mean that, because we have
observed instances of speciation, and Zoe claims that cannot happen,
since animals must reproduce "after its kind".
> The context
> of "kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and
> multiplying -- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore,
> interfertility is an indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life
> forms into specified groups.
See?
> And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
> zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
> classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify"
> the groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific
> mind.
Yes, you could begin by providing a definition more meaningful than
that provided by Zoe.
>>3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
>>appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
>>and lower plants?
> those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo.
Go ahead Wendy, ask Zoe what she understands of the fossil records of
plants and how they are dated.
> I've
> seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
> through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me
> question the overall accurateness of the dating methods.
Wendy, go ahead and ask Zoe to provide you pointers to where you can
research this phenomena.
> Imo, all you
> need is one anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better
> interpretations of the data.
Translation: I'll use any excuse to reject that which doesn't reinforce
my ideas.
Mark
>
> zoe
Michael Painter
"Diamond Dust" <Ruby...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3319-3B4...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
> me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
> that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
> question.
>
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
>
Take some religion courses. Find out about Welhausen. Read "Who wrote the
Bible"
You will find that many christians can rationally and scientifically
approach the subject of being a christian and not lose their faith.
Mark VandeWettering
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> I'm not sure that science will provide a reasonable answer to a question
> about the motives of an entity whose existence science has not
> established.
>
> I say:
> That's true enough! Maybe I asked that particular question in the wrong
> newsgroup? When I asked anyone else, no one answered me. I was hoping
> that if there are any people who do believe in God in here they might
> shed some light on this. I think it's an interesting philosophical
> question anyway and I don't think it's off topic because when you talk
> about origins then sometimes people will talk theology and some science.
> This was a theological question.
>
> "Kinds" is a scientifically meaningless term. To the best of our
> knowledge, all living things share a common ancestor at some point in
> the past.
>
> I say:
> Either way, all living things are related. Either by a common ancestor,
> or by a common creator. So regardless of how we got here people should
> have respect for our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom and for
> all living things from bacterium to plants etc. My question was dealing
> with what the "hell" do creationists mean when they say "kind". I really
> don't seem to be able to find a definition. I was curious on what they
> might say.
We all are. Be prepared to wait, they aren't talkin'...
Well some do, but they mostly say gibberish.
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed in
> response to my question on angiosperms:
> Because they are modern. They evolved later than the earlier plants.
>
> I say:
> It would certainly seem so! There's no real reason to believe otherwise
> is there? So I'm waiting for anyone to give an alternative explanation.
> I think they probably evolved too. Plants are good at adapting.
The usual "young earth" explanation for the apparent differentiation of
living things into layers is some kind of "hydrologic sorting": in other
words things sink at different rates, and the flood of Noah washed every
thing together, and they sank at different rates.
Make sense to you? Me neither.
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) typed:
> I wonder why anyone would hate these questions. They are very
> interesting questions, and unavoidable to anyone who pursues knowledge
> about the living things that populate our planet. It is a poor quest for
> knowledge that ends when you don't like what you discover.
>
> I say:
> I only hate the questions cause I can't rest until I know for myself
> whether there are any believable explanations for them. I'm not like a
> lot of other people. I can't pretend like the questions aren't there. I
> REFUSE to just do that. I need to know!
>
> Whether I like the answer or not, isn't really relevant to the questions
> themselves or their answers.
>
> Thanks for answering my post I appreciate that much. That's much more
> than I've gotten so far.
> I'm trying to be honest and ask a question because I refuse to just push
> it aside that was my point. Some people just want me to accept things
> and I REFUSE to just go on believing in an instaneous creation without
> having a good answer. I tried asking various sites but as I said none of
> them can answer me or they won't. I know what the answers are that you
> gave I'm looking for anyone to answer this from a different perspective.
>
> I feel much like Mulder in that "I want to believe" but right now it's
> getting hard for me that's why I came to the group because NO ONE, no
> one would answer me at all it's like trying to talk to a brick wall when
> I'm writing to these so-called creationist people.
>
> I don't think you had to be so sarcastic but I expect that in usenet.
> *L* Have a good day. :)
I'm not really being sarcastic. I am sharply critical of so called
scientific creationism because ultimately it is absurd at least, and
dishonest most of the time. I don't like the fact that people lie
to promote their religion.
Mark
> Wendy
Alistair Davidson
>
> I haven't gotten any answers yet and I _really_ didn't want to post
> here but I have no choice as the people I've written to have not written
> me back and the only person that did write me back sent me some article
> that infuriated me because it didn't have _ anything_ to do with my
> question.
>
> I want to start off by saying that I am a Christian and nothing is
> likely to shake that, but I am also hoping to be a zoologist and so I
> have a particular interest in science which won't allow me to just
> discount anything. Life is precious and I still believe it was created
> but I just don't really understand how that all fits yet. It certainly
> doesn't help that no one will answer any of my questions.
I think we need to start by defining "Christian". Some hold that only
those who believe the Bible to be literal are Christians. My personal
definition is that anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was the only
son of the only God is a Christian.
What is your definition?
If your definition is literalist, then you're goinhg to have a very hard
time being a zoologist. OTOH, if your definition is a more liberal one
such as mine, then it's
important to realise that you can be a Christian and not a creationist.
> You're probably saying to me now.. "Just get on with it woman!!!" .. so
> here are my questions:
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans? If we are created in God's image, then are they
> created in human's image?
The Christian god is generally believed to be omnipotent and omniscient.
Speculating as to the to the goals of such a being is largely fruitless
IMHO.
> 2. What are kinds? Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes are similar and I
> really do believe they have a common ancestor. They're also carnivores.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
> Carnivores in that group are placentals. Do all placentals share a
> common ancestor? Do all mammals? And how far back does it go?
I have never seen a definition of "kind" that makes any sense. I'd
suggest that the sciences involved in classifying different living
things has advanced somewhat since the ancient Jews.
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
My personal answer, as a methodical naturalist and hence a believer in
evolution, is that this is because modern plants don't appear in th e
fossil record at the same time as more primitve life forms because they
evolved later.
The only theological answer I can think of is that God did it, and it is
not ours to reason why. However, that could be a strawman, you'll really
have to ask a creationist.
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them. I can't
> just... not think of them. That doesn't work for me even if it does for
> other people. I want answers badly but I haven't been able to find
> anyone who can help me. This place is my last hope to find something to
> help me understand. Also keep in mind I am only in my second year of
> college so try to explain things so I can understand them.
One of the few beliefs I hold that does not alter at least slightly from
time to time is that you should always question your belief system,
always question your basic assumptions. And belief or philosophy that is
incapable of withstanding questioning should be discarded.
--
Lord [INSERT NAME HERE]
Rick's World: http://www.altgeek.org/lord_inh/comic/index.html
Diamond Dust
Any answer to this would be pure speculation.
I say:
Thanks for being honest about it.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my second question with:
my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species, then
they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context of
"kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and multiplying
-- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore, interfertility is an
indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life forms into specified
groups.
I say:
But most different species I know of can't produce fertile offspring
together, so you're saying to me that horses and donkeys are separate
kinds because Mules are infertile?
Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
And is there any OBJECTIVE opinion on what kinds are, not just a
personal one?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) added:
And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify" the
groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific mind.
I say:
I don't know what you mean exactly by this. Things are classified
because they are similar to each other right? This doesn't stop with
species level if it did then there wouldn't be any classifications at
all.
From: zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my 3rd question:
those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me question
the overall accurateness of the dating methods. Imo, all you need is one
anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better interpretations of
the data.
I say:
That doesn't seem so strange to me. I read the answer to that one on the
talk.origins site so that one doesn't really challenge things. If you
have anything else I'm ready to listen...
Wendy
Matt Silberstein
<991ea4ae.01071...@posting.google.com> from
gro...@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves):
[snip]
Assert that this took place before the Flood, do some hand waving
about the "Sons of God", do some hand waving about how bad people were
before the Flood and you might have a vaguely consistent theology. The
Sons of God interbreed with people. People saw this and then, in their
evil corruption, bred with Apes and so God sent the Flood.
--
Matt Silberstein
Pardon me whilst I adjust my accoutrements.
D.D.
Ron Okimoto
Once we have a decent portion of the chimp, gorilla, and orangutan
genomes sequenced we may be able to test this assertion by looking for
lineage associations and sequence identities that indicate some
introgression of ape and human genomes. We won't find any in modern
humans. We'd probably have to get some H. erectus DNA to demonstrate
this conclusively. We'd probably get negative results with fossil DNA
too so it wouldn't solve anything. We'll probably never be able to
test an entire H. erectus genome so the creationist could always claim
that we were just missing the relevant parts.
There is also other biblical evidence that would indicate regression
or introgression of apes. Esau was a pretty furry guy and lost his
inheritance to his less hairy brother through deception. It could be
that the furry hominids got cheated out of their birthright by those
crafty less furry guys with bigger brains.
Ron Okimoto
Ronald Okimoto
"(BigDiscusser)" wrote:
All the things that you list above have nothing to do with whether or not
the Bible is completely accurate about what we can study in nature. If you
set yourself up with the dichotomy that the Bible is 100% correct or my
faith is worthless you have already lost your faith.
Just as one simple example; the New Testement indicates that Jesus was half
human and fallible. Even God admitted that the flood was a mistake. Most
people take these stories as alligorical, but if you take them literally
you have to admit that even if the Bible is the written word of God, God is
not infallible.
I don't know what the right answer is, but you shouldn't tell anyone that
it is either my way or the highway. It doesn't seem like a good idea to
trash what you most cherish about your religion just because you don't like
the current estimate for the age of the earth or whether life evolved on
this planet over several billion years.
Ron Okimoto
Chris Thompson
I was fortunate and cursed by 12 years of religious education.
Fortunate because in many respects it was an excellent education.
Cursed, because I was interested in biology. In all the biology I
learned, there was always something _missing_. This turned out to be
the glue that holds all biological thought together. Namely, evolution,
particularly be natural selection. Have you read Darwin? Please take
the time to do so. His writing is not in the words of a modern author,
but it is beautiful and understandable nonetheless. It is well worth
your while.
In answer to your question below, I believe I have arrived at a
pragmatic answer, after many debates with creationists.
A kind is anything a creationist needs it to be, at any given moment, in
order to attempt to refute the evidence for evolution. Note that the
definition of kind can itself evolve faster than anything it is supposed
to represent in nature.
In any case, as a student of zoology you are well aware that the levels
of classification are based on meaningful data. We try to keep taxa
monophyletic. No such effort is made by creationists. They are
searching for the impossible- something that can contain microevolution,
except that within the order Primates, and preclude macroevolution. It
is a gerrymandering of biological relationships that will only serve to
obfuscate real phylogenies.
Keep reading!
Chris
Diamond Dust wrote:
>
> now...@hotmail.com (Bill Thomas) typed:
>
> Several people have posted the question asking for a definition of
> "kind". I dont recall any creationists giving an answer that makes
> sense.
>
> I say:
> Neither have I. That's why I said this was my last resort. *S* No one
> will say "this is a kind" and "this isn't". No one will say "kinds are
> up to the phyla level" or "kinds are up to the family level" etc. Or
> even give anything other than very vague guidelines and to be totally
> honest that pisses me off! I try to ask these questions but no one will
> tell me anything specific! If they did, then would it only be their
> opinion, or would they be able to say that a lot of people agreed with
> them or that there was any kind of real basis for believing in that
> particular definition?
>
> Wendy
Chris Thompson
Noah also took all the kinds onto the ark. Let's not leave that part
out. So, Zoe, you are claiming that every species of animal was present
on the ark? Plants I can see as seed banks (BWAHAHA cough excuse me).
But after reading "The Perfect Storm" and going on to learn a little
about how waves are generated, I wonder what a fully developed sea state
would be, on a completely inundated planet. How high would the waves
get? The bible gives us the approximate dimensions of the ark. We have
a 40-day storm. I predict 300-400 foot breakers. ouch. Good thing not
a single animal died on that boat during those conditions. (Oh...maybe
the males died after inseminating the females..oh but then they would
have to be adults, and they are a lot bigger...oh my)
Chris
Ken Cope
>
>Wendy,
>
>I was fortunate and cursed by 12 years of religious education.
>Fortunate because in many respects it was an excellent education.
>Cursed, because I was interested in biology. In all the biology I
>learned, there was always something _missing_. This turned out to be
>the glue that holds all biological thought together. Namely, evolution,
>particularly be natural selection. Have you read Darwin? Please take
>the time to do so. His writing is not in the words of a modern author,
>but it is beautiful and understandable nonetheless. It is well worth
>your while.
If I may, I'd like to make an alternate recommendation; _Darwin's Ghost :
The Origin of Species Updated_ by Steve Jones. While The Origin of Species
is remarkably straightforward reading and makes its case eloquently, Darwin's
disadvantage is that he did not have at his disposal 150 years of hindsight.
What Jones has done is take the exact Chapter topics and summaries of
Darwin's 'Origin' and used them as an outline, touching on every subject
raised in that book, while also introducing information that wasn't available
to Darwin, especially, Mendelian Genetics and DNA. Written in a very
conversational and informative style, it is a page turner and eye opener.
By all means, tackle the Origin, but if Jones book is as close as you get,
you'll still have learned a lot more than it was possible for Darwin to know.
Ken Cope
Derek Stevenson
news:3B4DD925...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com...
> IIRC, not only did god create all the kinds of animals (and whatever)
> Noah also took all the kinds onto the ark. Let's not leave that part
> out. So, Zoe, you are claiming that every species of animal was present
> on the ark? Plants I can see as seed banks (BWAHAHA cough excuse me).
> But after reading "The Perfect Storm" and going on to learn a little
> about how waves are generated, I wonder what a fully developed sea state
> would be, on a completely inundated planet. How high would the waves
> get? The bible gives us the approximate dimensions of the ark. We have
> a 40-day storm. I predict 300-400 foot breakers. ouch. Good thing not
> a single animal died on that boat during those conditions. (Oh...maybe
> the males died after inseminating the females..oh but then they would
> have to be adults, and they are a lot bigger...oh my)
Zoe's version of the Flood story includes a complete makeover of the
planet's topology, as the gentle rolling hills and shallow seas of the
antediluvian world erupt into the mountains and oceans of today. So factor
in an unprecented degree of tectonic activity as well.
Alistair Davidson
>
> Dear Diamond Dust, Wendy, I am an 80 yr old creationist who has had a
> splendid education in the past ( valedictorian in high school, 2 yrs
> pre-nursing at Pomona College, 3 years at Stanford School of Nursing
> with a major in Psychiatry (human behavior has been a lifelong interest
> and study) then into the Army Nurse Corps in WW2, wife, mother, 2
> good marriages ( I`ve been widowed twice).I tell you this to establish
> my credibility as a person, because as a Creationist Christian, I am
> regarded on this T.O. board as a nutty troll
I don't consider you to be a nutty troll. I do think that your area of
knowledge (psychiatry) does not give you the ability to assess
evolutionary theory, and that your knowledge is out of date regardless
(I recall that you see homosexuality as a mental illness).
Of course, not having qualifications within an area does not preclude
you from commenting on it; but your knowledge of psychiatry does not
give your beliefs more credibility. They must stand (or fall) on their
own merits.
> when I try to explain why
> I am not an evolutionary theist--but believe in the Old and New
> Testaments and try to live by them since my 40`s when I became a
> Christian (very sucessfully. I might say) .
You can believe in the Old and New testaments wuthout being a
creationist. Also, ther are many sections of the OT that a Christian is
not required to follow or believe in- the early Christians very
specifically rejected outdated Mosaic law in favour of the new covenant
of Jesus.
> In my 80 yrs of living I
> have found nothing in Psychology or Psychiatry ( called science of the
> mind) that equals the TRUTH of life that Jesus taught, which are the
> principals for a happy sucessful passage thru life here and
> later to Heaven where there are no tears, sorrow or suffering).
I'm not a christian, but much of what Jesus said certainly made sense. I
must confess to not being quite so sure about St Paul.
I don't know whether heaven exists, but I doubt very much that it is
necessary to believe in creationism (which is either a disproven or
undisprovable theory) in order to get there. Contemporary Christian
theology agrees with me.
> Worship of evolution ( which a lot seem to do on this board )is a zero
I don't worship evolution any more than I worship Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle; both are theories that appear to be correct on
the basis of the available evidence, so I acknowledge that they are at
least true within the sphere of methodological naturalism. They may or
may not be true metaphysically, but why should this bother me? As long
as my computer works, I don't care whether the electricity powering it
has to do with electricity or magical fairies.
> substitute, and a dead end street. Science is a gift to us, not
> the whole "ball of wax"
Agreed. Science is appplied methodological naturalism, not a
metaphysical theory. It is a part of the ball of wax, but not the whole
thing. The rest is down to metaphysists, philosophers, and theologists.
> I feel obliged to say such things and
> defend the solace and stability that a commonplace traditional good
> Christian life has provided many ctizens of this wonderful country.
> Why does the world want to crowd into America---it`s the promise and
> hope of "the shining city upon a hill " embodied in our Christian
> roots---a chance for anyone to have a better life. Don`t throw away
> your faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for a "mess of
> Pottage" God bless, Jo Jean
That part looks a little trollish, I'm sorry to say. I think people
flock to America (and Canada, and Europe, and Australia) for reasons to
do with economics and asylum.
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my second question with:
>
>my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
>about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species, then
>they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context of
>"kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and multiplying
>-- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore, interfertility is an
>indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life forms into specified
>groups.
>
Wendy, maybe you're trawl/trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of
the doubt.
>I say:
>But most different species I know of can't produce fertile offspring
>together, so you're saying to me that horses and donkeys are separate
>kinds because Mules are infertile?
by the above rules, yes. Since mules are a dead-end, the
cross-breeding of the horse and donkey must be an artifical event, and
so they both belong to two different groups. Likewise, the lion and
tiger, even if they can be made to artificially breed and reproduce,
their offspring is not fertile, and so that should put the lion and
tiger in groups of their own.
there would be three essentials to determining which life forms belong
to which groups:
1. ability to mate and reproduce
2. ability of offspring to be fertile
3. any inability of offspring to reproduce must be consistent to the
mating pair.*
*In other words, you cannot count certain offspring's inability to
produce as a sign of non-interfertility of the species if members of
the same two species are able to reproduce fertile offspring at other
times and places.
It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the
rule of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind
of map for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
>Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
>
this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
succession and are expecting to find a sequence of fossils in which
the horse fossil is first in a lineup of specimens, with mules and
donkeys coming later.
you might want to examine more closely the reasons for calling certain
fossils early and others late.
Are they classified according to a preconceived notion of gradation,
or is it because they are consistently found in different layers?
What do you do with those specimens that are found out of sequence?
You might want to inquire into what layers horse fossils are found and
in what layers donkey fossils are found, and the same for mule fossils
(if you think that there are such in existence)
Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it
to the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them
according to what is thought to be less complex to more complex?
Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a
small fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I
must believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to
classify it as such.
>And is there any OBJECTIVE opinion on what kinds are, not just a
>personal one?
>
I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are
there any objective ways to measure my opinion.
Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a
"kind" is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind"
may be the same thing as a "species."
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) added:
>
>And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
>zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
>classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify" the
>groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific mind.
>
>I say:
>I don't know what you mean exactly by this. Things are classified
>because they are similar to each other right? This doesn't stop with
>species level if it did then there wouldn't be any classifications at
>all.
>
What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
does "this" refer?
I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
Classifying organisms by their similarities can be misleading, but if
you used the interfertility rule, I'm sure that, for the most part,
you'd find a parallel between phenotype/genotype and interfertility.
>From: zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my 3rd question:
>
>those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
>seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
>through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me question
>the overall accurateness of the dating methods. Imo, all you need is one
>anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better interpretations of
>the data.
>
>I say:
>That doesn't seem so strange to me. I read the answer to that one on the
>talk.origins site so that one doesn't really challenge things. If you
>have anything else I'm ready to listen...
>
It's a little disappointing that you were so easily satisfied. Were
you able to find answers to the following questions?
1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or
millions of years it took for the various layers to build up?
2. Why is the evidence treated as if only the inside of the tree
trunk rotted, whereas the external bark remained intact? Fossils are
a result of the organic matter being replaced by minerals and
sediment. The bark of the tree is organic.
3. What does the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
reptiles) within the trunk, really mean? Is it a reasonable
conclusion to say that the vertebrates also were part of the calamity
that engulfed the trees, and as the organic matter of the trees gave
place to the minerals of its surroundings, those surroundings also
included the vertebrates which then also became part of the interior
of the tree?
4. Is it possible for the layers of coal or sediment, as evidenced
around the trees, to be a result of repeated eruptions in a single
violent catastrophe, with vegetation and other organic mass being so
compressed by heat and pressure, that each eruption quickly formed
layers around standing trees?
maybe you can look at, for instance, the following link, and see if
more questions come to mind than are presently satisfactorily answered
by evolutionary theory:
http://www.drdino.com/Articles/polystrate.jsp
zoe
John Pieper
>On 12 Jul 2001 04:34:52 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my second question with:
>>
>>my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
>>about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species, then
>>they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context of
>>"kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and multiplying
>>-- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore, interfertility is an
>>indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life forms into specified
>>groups.
>>
>
>Wendy, maybe you're trawl/trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of
>the doubt.
ROTFL. An actual, sincere, questioning poster. Yeah, gotta be a troll.
We all know there ain't no such thing ;->
(Seriously: Wendy, hang in there.)
[most snipped]
>
>maybe you can look at, for instance, the following link, and see if
>more questions come to mind than are presently satisfactorily answered
>by evolutionary theory:
>
>http://www.drdino.com/Articles/polystrate.jsp
Zoe, didn't you just get done explaining that you don't use creationist
sources?
--
John Pieper |"That a man can take pleasure in marching in fours
jbp34 |to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him.
@home |He has only been given his big brain by mistake; unprotected
.com |spinal marrow was all he needed."--Albert Einstein
zoe_althrop
--
snip>
> Zoe, didn't you just get done explaining that you don't use creationist
> sources?
I don't normally, but I went on a hunt for these polystrates (I know I'd
seen a photo somewhere in the past) but the only sites where I could find
live photos were from creationist sites. Hey, I'm not against using
creationist sites if they have useful information. I just don't go there
first to do my research.
and why did you snip my response to Wendy/aka diamond dust/aka defender of
evolution, (as I've begun to notice)? Couldn't answer it yourself, could
you. :-/
Adam Marczyk
news:tku37.225266$WB1.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I think he's just given up on you as a hopeless case, which I'm close to
doing. Honest misunderstanding is one thing. Citing articles from an
outrageous liar like Kent Hovind as if they were authoritative is another.
Keep in mind this is the guy who claims he has a Ph.D. from a "university"
that's located in a split-level house.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
news:3b4e58eb....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
[snip]
> >Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
> >
>
> this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
> succession and are expecting to find a sequence of fossils in which
> the horse fossil is first in a lineup of specimens, with mules and
> donkeys coming later.
>
> you might want to examine more closely the reasons for calling certain
> fossils early and others late.
>
> Are they classified according to a preconceived notion of gradation,
> or is it because they are consistently found in different layers?
> What do you do with those specimens that are found out of sequence?
Are there any such specimens, or are you just asserting that?
> You might want to inquire into what layers horse fossils are found and
> in what layers donkey fossils are found, and the same for mule fossils
> (if you think that there are such in existence)
>
> Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it
> to the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them
> according to what is thought to be less complex to more complex?
>
> Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a
> small fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I
> must believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to
> classify it as such.
We keep coming back to this same problem, Zoe. Quite frankly, you know
little or nothing about matters like this, which would be excusable if you
didn't insist that your personal ignorance is the delimiter of everything
humans know on the topic. The reason Hyracotherium is considered to be the
ancestral horse is because there is a smooth transitional series connecting
it with things that are demonstrably and obviously horses. You can sputter
and flail about preconceptions, biases and the like as long as you want, but
nothing's going to change that. Look at the fossil record and you see the
grinding teeth developing in the jaw, the toes lessening and decreasing in
number, the snout lengthening.. I'm not going to bother describing all of
it, when it's already laid out here:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
> >And is there any OBJECTIVE opinion on what kinds are, not just a
> >personal one?
> >
>
> I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
> are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are
> there any objective ways to measure my opinion.
>
> Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
> fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a
> "kind" is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind"
> may be the same thing as a "species."
Shall we go into the problems that creates for the Ark? How in the world did
Noah manage to get every last one of the millions and millions of species
currently extant on there?
[snip]
> >From: zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my 3rd question:
> >
> >those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
> >seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
> >through several layers of supposed geologic eras, which made me question
> >the overall accurateness of the dating methods. Imo, all you need is one
> >anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better interpretations of
> >the data.
> >
> >I say:
> >That doesn't seem so strange to me. I read the answer to that one on the
> >talk.origins site so that one doesn't really challenge things. If you
> >have anything else I'm ready to listen...
> >
>
> It's a little disappointing that you were so easily satisfied. Were
> you able to find answers to the following questions?
>
> 1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or
> millions of years it took for the various layers to build up?
Unbelievable. RTFF.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
[snip]
Diamond Dust
Wendy, maybe you're trawl/trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt.
I say:
If I were a troll, the first thing I would do would be to create a
massive HTML signature with lots of animated gifs and an off key midi,
then deliberately ask every question in the FAQ, out of order, repeating
some. Then I'd start a political debate and use plenty of derogatory
terms about people who didn't agree with me. I don't plan to do any of
that though, cause I don't believe trolling is a worthy way to spend
time.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
Since mules are a dead-end, the cross-breeding of the horse and donkey
must be an artifical event, and so they both belong to two different
groups. Likewise, the lion and tiger, even if they can be made to
artificially breed and reproduce, their offspring is not fertile, and so
that should put the lion and tiger in groups of their own.
I say:
Ok. So if each species is a kind, why do modern species appear later in
the fossil record than a lot of others?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) gave the personal opinion that:
there would be three essentials to determining which life forms belong
to which groups:
1. ability to mate and reproduce
2. ability of offspring to be fertile
3. any inability of offspring to reproduce must be consistent to the
mating pair.*
I say:
Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are related according to science. I
have a hard time seeing a hybrid with zebra stripes, a tapir's nose, and
a rhino's armor. However, they are similar enough to be grouped. Clearly
any kind of grouping doesn't have to mean that the current species can
breed with each other, only that they had an ancestor species in common
that eventually branched and gave rise to them all.
Just like dogs and wolves are extremely similar and most likely had a
common ancestor.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the rule
of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind of map
for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
I say:
Most even closely related species can't make fertile offspring together,
so there would be no such thing as taxonomy or classification if that
was the case. Somehow I can't see God creating animals that have no
ability to adapt to new conditions or fill new niches. That would be
cruel cause it would mean that they would all be dead as soon as the
conditions they were originally designed for changed. Instead, animals
ARE able to adapt and even speciate like the finches on the Galapagos
because that helps them survive and take advantage of new resources. If
every modern species was alive at the beginning then they would have
all been dead by now.
I had asked:
Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
to which zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
succession
<snip (I don't expect to find what she said)>
I say:
I have no real reason to doubt the fact that things have been dated, and
that's how old they are. It would be wrong to accept it just on a word
but the truth is there is no compelling reason to think the fossil
record or the dating of it is all wrong.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it to
the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
what is thought to be less complex to more complex?
I say:
I don't think complexity has anything to do with dating them. Evolution
doesn't go "up" all the time.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a small
fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I must
believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to classify
it as such.
I say:
Do you have any good evidence to believe that it's more closely related
to foxes than horses? Does it have carnivorous teeth or herbivore teeth?
Does it's skull look more like a horse or a fox?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are there
any objective ways to measure my opinion.
Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a "kind"
is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind" may be the
same thing as a "species."
I say:
So there have never been any new species since the original creation
according to you?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
does "this" refer?
I say:
If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
no classification at all. Everything is its own animal. According to
you, A dog is just as closely related to a spider as it is to a wolf, or
a roach is just as closely related to a giraffe as it is to a
grasshopper.
This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
is to a manta ray.
Because you say each species is an original created kind. Right?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
I say:
If you call mice being just as closely related to marine iguanas as rats
being reasonable.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
Classifying organisms by their similarities can be misleading, but if
you used the interfertility rule, I'm sure that, for the most part,
you'd find a parallel between phenotype/genotype and interfertility.
I say:
Sometimes there can be completely unrelated species that are very
similar, that's right. I think it's called "convergent evolution". All
that means is that two species had to adapt to similar conditions and so
they came up with similar structures or mechanisms for survival
independent of each other.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or millions
of years it took for the various layers to build up?
I say:
I think they were living trees in the topmost layer that had their roots
grow down through the rocks. I'm sure someone else could give a better
explanation than I can though.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
2. Why is the evidence treated as if only the inside of the tree trunk
rotted, whereas the external bark remained intact? Fossils are a result
of the organic matter being replaced by minerals and sediment. The bark
of the tree is organic.
I say:
I don't know about that one but I do know that fossil bones and things
have been replaced by minerals.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
3. What does the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles)
within the trunk, really mean? Is it a reasonable conclusion to say that
the vertebrates also were part of the calamity that engulfed the trees,
and as the organic matter of the trees gave place to the minerals of its
surroundings, those surroundings also included the vertebrates which
then also became part of the interior of the tree?
I say:
Sounds like they lived in the tree and died with it.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
4. Is it possible for the layers of coal or sediment, as evidenced
around the trees, to be a result of repeated eruptions in a single
violent catastrophe, with vegetation and other organic mass being so
compressed by heat and pressure, that each eruption quickly formed
layers around standing trees?
I say:
I don't know. Maybe a geologist can answer that? I haven't taken any
geology courses yet.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
maybe you can look at, for instance, the following link, and see if more
questions come to mind than are presently satisfactorily answered by
evolutionary theory:
http://www.drdino.com/Articles/polystrate.jsp
I say:
Checking it now. I'll post after I've given it a look.
Rodjk
Good job, Wendy. Keep it up. If you research the creationist claims,
they all come out about like Zoe's fossilized tree. In light of the
evidence, their claims disapear. Stick around long enough and you will
see that claim again, because creationist tend to avoid learning. They
will repeat the same nonsense over and over. Don't believe me? Look up
the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) on google.
Rodjk #613
>
> Wendy
Louann Miller
wrote:
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
>Wendy, maybe you're trawl/trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the
>doubt.
>
>I say:
>If I were a troll, the first thing I would do would be to create a
>massive HTML signature with lots of animated gifs and an off key midi,
>then deliberately ask every question in the FAQ, out of order, repeating
>some. Then I'd start a political debate and use plenty of derogatory
>terms about people who didn't agree with me.
And I suspect you'd be better at it than our real trolls, if you did.
You're smarter than they are for a start.
John Pieper
wrote:
Because the answers are in the t.o. archives, as I knew others would
point out, and I just wanted to make those comments.
Anyway, you've not answered my last critique of your understanding of
thermodynamics in the "Evidence?" thread.
--
Alan Morgan
Diamond Dust <Ruby...@webtv.net> wrote:
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
>Since mules are a dead-end, the cross-breeding of the horse and donkey
>must be an artifical event, and so they both belong to two different
>groups. Likewise, the lion and tiger, even if they can be made to
>artificially breed and reproduce, their offspring is not fertile, and so
>that should put the lion and tiger in groups of their own.
I'm wondering - are both male and female offspring of lion/tiger
crossbreeding sterile or is it just the males? I own two cats that
are the end result of breeding Asian leopard cats with tabby cats
and, while the first couple of generations have sterile males, the
females are fertile. Is it the same with tigons/ligers?
Alan
Tom McHale
for redemption has been paid. All any of us have to do is believe. What
does belief have to do with payment?
Gen2Rev
>
> On 12 Jul 2001 04:34:52 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my second question with:
> >
> >my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
> >about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species, then
> >they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context of
> >"kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and multiplying
> >-- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore, interfertility is an
> >indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life forms into specified
> >groups.
> >
>
> Wendy, maybe you're trawl/trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of
> the doubt.
>
> >I say:
> >But most different species I know of can't produce fertile offspring
> >together, so you're saying to me that horses and donkeys are separate
> >kinds because Mules are infertile?
>
> by the above rules, yes. Since mules are a dead-end, the
> cross-breeding of the horse and donkey must be an artifical event, and
> so they both belong to two different groups. Likewise, the lion and
> tiger, even if they can be made to artificially breed and reproduce,
> their offspring is not fertile, and so that should put the lion and
> tiger in groups of their own.
Actually, a cross between a male lion and a female tiger is apparently
not fertile. However, a cross between a male tiger and a female lion is
fertile.
http://www.loadstar.prometeus.net/tiger/hybrids.html
A small fox? How so?
Diamond Dust
tree things in other posts.
This was what you gave me it just has some picture examples on it.
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
> Citing articles from an
>outrageous liar like Kent Hovind as if they were authoritative is another.
>Keep in mind this is the guy who claims he has a Ph.D. from a "university"
>that's located in a split-level house.
>
Adam, what article have I cited? I made absolutely no comment on the
URL that I gave to Wendy. All I was interested in was the actual
photos on that site that would give her a chance to judge for herself
as to what polystrate trees looked like in the real world, and give
her a chance to form her own opinions, and maybe formulate some honest
questions about what she could see with her own eyes. Call it a form
of "virtual field work."
I would have used an evolutionist site if they had had photographs,
but they all seem to have a lot of words, some drawings, and no
real-life photos of the trees. Figures.
Is this how you do science, anyway? Ignore reality and lean heavily
on what others think? Are you or are you not able to think for
yourself? You're disappointing me terribly.
zoe
zoe_althrop
>On 12 Jul 2001 23:57:10 -0400, "zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@microsoft.com>
>wrote:
snip>
>>
>>and why did you snip my response to Wendy/aka diamond dust/aka defender of
>>evolution, (as I've begun to notice)? Couldn't answer it yourself, could
>>you. :-/
>
>Because the answers are in the t.o. archives, as I knew others would
>point out, and I just wanted to make those comments.
>
awwww,,,, puppet.
>Anyway, you've not answered my last critique of your understanding of
>thermodynamics in the "Evidence?" thread.
I don't remember what your critique is now, and would have to go back
and dig it out -- my apologies. If you care to repost it, I'll
respond this time. Believe me, it's time-consuming trying to keep up
with the long and unwieldy threads on this forum. And I know I've
gotten sidetracked to other topics and threads -- as is evident in
this one....
zoe
Dave
>
> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
> similar to humans?
So that creationists would have someone they could feel superior to.
> 2. What are kinds?
A meaningless Biblical term.
> Do they share a common ancestor with other members of Carnivora?
Perhaps.
> 3. Why do modern plants like angiosperms (fruit trees included) not
> appear in the fossil record at the same time as ferns and gymnosperms
> and lower plants?
Re-read your own question.
> To be honest I hate these questions but I can't get rid of them.
Remember, any thinking that is in contradiction with Scripture is
heresy, so try not to think.
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
<snip>
>maybe you can look at, for instance, the following link, and see if more
>questions come to mind than are presently satisfactorily answered by
>evolutionary theory:
>http://www.drdino.com/Articles/polystrate.jsp
>
>I say:
>Checking it now. I'll post after I've given it a look.
You might also want to glance at the following sites, which discuss
"Dr." Hovind's claims.
<http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/2151_unmasking_the_false_prophet_of_12_30_1899.asp>
<http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/>
<http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/creationist_frauds.htm>
<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/misc.html>
<http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html>
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>Zoe, I took a look at your link I think people already explained the
exactly, Wendy, so you can observe with your own eyes what polystrate
trees look like, from real life, not from drawings.
Look at them again, and see if any questions come to mind. Don't look
for commentary, that is not why I gave the link. Look at the photos
themselves and see what you think.
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
snip>
>Since mules are a dead-end, the cross-breeding of the horse and donkey
>must be an artifical event, and so they both belong to two different
>groups. Likewise, the lion and tiger, even if they can be made to
>artificially breed and reproduce, their offspring is not fertile, and so
>that should put the lion and tiger in groups of their own.
>
>I say:
>Ok. So if each species is a kind, why do modern species appear later in
>the fossil record than a lot of others?
>
do they, really? Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas. Look at the
two-page spread of a map of the area and the work being done there.
You will find that they are finding fossils there that cover a wide
range of species, from sponges, ammonoids, conodonts, bivalves, early
vertebrates, fishes, marine reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals,
pterosaurs, plants, cephalopods, foraminifera, ostracods, brachiopods,
crocodiles, lizards, turtles, echinoderms.
And after observing the field work going on there, you should inquire
into how it is determined that all these species found in a single
area are determined to be in a certain sequence. I can bet that it's
not because they are found stacked sequentially in cores, or arranged
in layers stacked one on top the other, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that one came before or after another.
There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
memorize.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) gave the personal opinion that:
>
>there would be three essentials to determining which life forms belong
>to which groups:
>1. ability to mate and reproduce
>2. ability of offspring to be fertile
>3. any inability of offspring to reproduce must be consistent to the
>mating pair.*
>
>I say:
>Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are related according to science. I
>have a hard time seeing a hybrid with zebra stripes, a tapir's nose, and
>a rhino's armor. However, they are similar enough to be grouped.
I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
as well? Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
and zebras in another group, or what?
>Clearly
>any kind of grouping doesn't have to mean that the current species can
>breed with each other, only that they had an ancestor species in common
>that eventually branched and gave rise to them all.
>Just like dogs and wolves are extremely similar and most likely had a
>common ancestor.
>
I see what you're saying. But we're talking two worldviews now. You
were asking about the creationist worldview, which does not see the
data in the same light as the evolutionist. What I am offering is
what I consider as evidence in a reasonable creationist approach to
the data. You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the
creationist's worldview.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
>It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the rule
>of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind of map
>for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
>
>I say:
>Most even closely related species can't make fertile offspring together,
>so there would be no such thing as taxonomy or classification if that
>was the case.
I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
life forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
>Somehow I can't see God creating animals that have no
>ability to adapt to new conditions or fill new niches.
I agree with you. I can't see that, either, and that is why we see
animals indeed adapting to new conditions and/or filling new niches.
> That would be
>cruel cause it would mean that they would all be dead as soon as the
>conditions they were originally designed for changed. Instead, animals
>ARE able to adapt and even speciate like the finches on the Galapagos
>because that helps them survive and take advantage of new resources.
agreed. This observation easily fits with creation.
>If
>every modern species was alive at the beginning then they would have
>all been dead by now.
>
not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
original species, variation within the species has taken the species
into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
now extinct.
>I had asked:
>
>Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
>
>to which zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
>
>this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
>succession
><snip (I don't expect to find what she said)>
>
>I say:
>I have no real reason to doubt the fact that things have been dated, and
>that's how old they are. It would be wrong to accept it just on a word
>but the truth is there is no compelling reason to think the fossil
>record or the dating of it is all wrong.
>
well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
Christian, which implied that you had figured out your reasons for
believing in Christ and were secure in your relationship with Him. If
that were the case, then I would expect that you would be inclined to
be very critical of interpretations that undermine that relationship,
since your commitment to God has been tested and validated to your
satisfaction, and therefore, you value that experience more highly
than any seemingly contradictory data that may be interpreted in light
of a non-experience .
So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
Jesus-God is our Creator, I would imagine that you would be loyal to
your experience with God and not accept, except with super-critical
examination, the interpretations of the fossil record.
I mean, if you can find no other reasonable interpretation for the
evidence, then I could understand your dilemma, but I, for one, find
that there are interpretations of the evidence that are reasonable and
compatible with my walk with God, so I see no reason to blindly accept
the current philosophy on origins.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
>Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it to
>the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
>what is thought to be less complex to more complex?
>
>I say:
>I don't think complexity has anything to do with dating them. Evolution
>doesn't go "up" all the time.
>
okay, fine. But getting back to my actual point, which I'll repeat
differently: "Are these fossils all scattered around in the same
layer, leaving it to the classifier to arrange them ACCORDING TO WHAT
IS THOUGHT TO BE THE CORRECT ORDER?" (caps for directing attention to
a specific point, not for purpose shouting.
>the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
>what is thought to be
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
>Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a small
>fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I must
>believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to classify
>it as such.
>
>I say:
>Do you have any good evidence to believe that it's more closely related
>to foxes than horses?
none other than I see no reason to call it an early horse when it's
just as logical to see it as a species in its own right.
> Does it have carnivorous teeth or herbivore teeth?
>Does it's skull look more like a horse or a fox?
>
the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
>are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are there
>any objective ways to measure my opinion.
>Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
>fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a "kind"
>is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind" may be the
>same thing as a "species."
>
>I say:
>So there have never been any new species since the original creation
>according to you?
>
no new groups, but lots of variation within the groups that some
misinterpret as species evolving from one group to another.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
>does "this" refer?
>
>I say:
>If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
>no classification at all.
isn't that how classification is done today, dividing groups into
species? Don't they stop at the species level whenever a new group is
named?
> Everything is its own animal. According to
>you, A dog is just as closely related to a spider as it is to a wolf, or
>a roach is just as closely related to a giraffe as it is to a
>grasshopper.
absolutely not. I have said no such thing.
>This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
>is to a manta ray.
>
I think you're confusing the evolutionary view of relatedness,
including our relatedness to bacteria, with the creationist view that
species are parallel with each other, not intersecting, and therefore
not related, except in the most general sense that they have been made
by the same Creator, using a common genetic-code design.
>Because you say each species is an original created kind. Right?
>
each broad category of species, yes, but that does not say they are
related in the way you just described.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
>I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
>you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
>
>I say:
>If you call mice being just as closely related to marine iguanas as rats
>being reasonable.
>
Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats.
They are separate and parallel species, not related.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>Classifying organisms by their similarities can be misleading, but if
>you used the interfertility rule, I'm sure that, for the most part,
>you'd find a parallel between phenotype/genotype and interfertility.
>
>I say:
>
>Sometimes there can be completely unrelated species that are very
>similar, that's right. I think it's called "convergent evolution". All
>that means is that two species had to adapt to similar conditions and so
>they came up with similar structures or mechanisms for survival
>independent of each other.
>
I hope you'll continue to search and not be quickly satisfied by this
interpretation of the data. You could very well be the one who
pioneers a well-put-together scientific theory of creation.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or millions
>of years it took for the various layers to build up?
>
>I say:
>I think they were living trees in the topmost layer that had their roots
>grow down through the rocks. I'm sure someone else could give a better
>explanation than I can though.
>
look at the real-life photos of the trees and see if there are signs
of roots extended from those pieces of trunk that appear in the middle
of layers of sediment and/or coal. Consider, also, those tree trunks
that are not upright but upside down.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>2. Why is the evidence treated as if only the inside of the tree trunk
>rotted, whereas the external bark remained intact? Fossils are a result
>of the organic matter being replaced by minerals and sediment. The bark
>of the tree is organic.
>
>I say:
>I don't know about that one but I do know that fossil bones and things
>have been replaced by minerals.
>
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>3. What does the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles)
>within the trunk, really mean? Is it a reasonable conclusion to say that
>the vertebrates also were part of the calamity that engulfed the trees,
>and as the organic matter of the trees gave place to the minerals of its
>surroundings, those surroundings also included the vertebrates which
>then also became part of the interior of the tree?
>
>I say:
>Sounds like they lived in the tree and died with it.
>
come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
died?
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>4. Is it possible for the layers of coal or sediment, as evidenced
>around the trees, to be a result of repeated eruptions in a single
>violent catastrophe, with vegetation and other organic mass being so
>compressed by heat and pressure, that each eruption quickly formed
>layers around standing trees?
>
>I say:
>I don't know. Maybe a geologist can answer that? I haven't taken any
>geology courses yet.
>
why not study it out for yourself, instead of waiting for a geologist
to answer it. You can learn a lot from the geologist, but you don't
have to necessarily accept his interpretation of the evidence.
zoe
BRYCE ADAMS
On 12 Jul 2001 04:34:52 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust) wrote:
snip>
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my second question with:
my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species, then
they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context of
"kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and multiplying
-- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore, interfertility is an
indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life forms into specified
groups.
But most different species I know of can't produce fertile offspring
together, so you're saying to me that horses and donkeys are separate
kinds because Mules are infertile?
by the above rules, yes. Since mules are a dead-end, the
cross-breeding of the horse and donkey must be an artifical event, and
so they both belong to two different groups. Likewise, the lion and
tiger, even if they can be made to artificially breed and reproduce,
their offspring is not fertile, and so that should put the lion and
tiger in groups of their own.
Actually, a cross between a male lion and a female tiger is apparently
not fertile. However, a cross between a male tiger and a female lion is
fertile.
http://www.loadstar.prometeus.net/tiger/hybrids.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Acording to that site, both ligers and tigons have been fertile before,
but only the females. I recently saw a program on a sanctuary owned by
actress Tippi Hedren. She had a tigon( cub of a male tiger and a
lioness ) that lived among many other big cats. Since, like all
hybrids, tigons are said to be sterile, she didn't give it too much
thought when a male tiger started having designs on the female tigon.
Sure enough, months later the tigon gave birth to a tawny cub with
stripes.
If memory serves me correctly there are also recorded cases of
fertile mules, Does the rarity of such hybrids being fertile mean that
they are all separate kinds? How about several cases when fertile
hybrids are much more common? (ex. The Baltimore and Bullock's Orioles
interbreeding freely in areas of geographic overlap.) >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
there would be three essentials to determining which life forms belong
to which groups:
1. ability to mate and reproduce
2. ability of offspring to be fertile
3. any inability of offspring to reproduce must be consistent to the
mating pair.*
*In other words, you cannot count certain offspring's inability to
produce as a sign of non-interfertility of the species if members of the
same two species are able to reproduce fertile offspring at other times
and places.
It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the rule
of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind of map
for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
< We got you covered. When two organisms are incapable of breeding and
producing viable offspring, they are classified as separate "species."
While this works well for a majority of animals, there are gray areas in
the form of ring species and hybrids with varying degrees of
reproductive success. By #3 do you mean that viable offspring must be
produced all the time to be considered of 1 kind or what? ",,,inability
to produce as a sign of non-infertility,,," ??? I ain't never heard
nothin' like that afore. >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
succession and are expecting to find a sequence of fossils in which the
horse fossil is first in a lineup of specimens, with mules and donkeys
coming later.
you might want to examine more closely the reasons for calling certain
fossils early and others late.
Are they classified according to a preconceived notion of gradation, or
is it because they are consistently found in different layers? What do
you do with those specimens that are found out of sequence?
You might want to inquire into what layers horse fossils are found and
in what layers donkey fossils are found, and the same for mule fossils
(if you think that there are such in existence)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Horse fossils are not found in Ediacaran strata, nor are they found in
Cambrian strata, nor the Ordovician era and so on all the way to the
beginning of the Tertiary. In the Eocene, they first appear and by the
Oligocene and quickly there were numerous groups of them throughout
North America, some of which eventually migrated to South America,
Eurasia, and Africa. Since horses and asses (tee-hee) both belong to
the Equs genus, then fossils such as Hyracotherium are no more "horses"
than they are "donkeys." The common ancestor of horses and donkeys
probably lived a geological eyeblink ago.
What do you do with fossils found out of sequence? Well, I guess
paleontologists being the godless sons-of-whores that they are, they
immediately discard them and go on printing their lies about the
benefits of racism, genecide, rape, etc. (Was that a little too thick?)
Wendy, I'm the furthest thing from a guidance counselor, but I
will offer this liittle nugget of wisdom.: If you're unable to
distinguish the skull of a hyracotherium from that of a fox, switch your
major now! >>
Pat James
(in message <5591d176.01071...@posting.google.com>):
>> 1. Why would God create intelligent animals like Gorillas that look so
>> similar to humans?
>
> So that creationists would have someone they could feel superior to.
We of the Chimpanzee Anti-Defamation Society must protest on behalf of the
gorillas. They're not very bright, but they're brighter than creationists.
--
Founding member of the Chimpanzee Anti Defamation Society. Ook. Want a
banana?
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>>
>>my personal definition of kinds (the conclusion I come to when I think
>>about it) is that if a species can interbreed with another species, then
>>they both belong to the same family group or "kind." The context of
>>"kinds" in Genesis is in the context of being fruitful and multiplying
>>-- reproducing "after its kind." Therefore, interfertility is an
>>indication of "kinds" and automatically puts life forms into specified
>>groups.
>Wendy, maybe you're trawl/trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of
>the doubt.
Wendy's shown no signs of trolling.
>>I say:
>>But most different species I know of can't produce fertile offspring
>>together, so you're saying to me that horses and donkeys are separate
>>kinds because Mules are infertile?
>
>by the above rules, yes. Since mules are a dead-end, the
>cross-breeding of the horse and donkey must be an artifical event, and
>so they both belong to two different groups. Likewise, the lion and
>tiger, even if they can be made to artificially breed and reproduce,
>their offspring is not fertile, and so that should put the lion and
>tiger in groups of their own.
But both horse/donkey and lion/tiger hybrids have sometimes been
fertile. So, what about other examples of intermediate degrees of
fertility? Do we really have to attempt hybrids of all species [and
test the hybrids for fertility] in order to tell if two species are
in one "kind" or not? What does this say about humans and
chimpanzees? Same "kind" or two kinds? No attempted hybridizations
[either successful or unsuccessful] have ever been reported. Does that
mean we can't decide if we are one "kind" or not until crosses have
been tried and any hybrids tested for fertility?
>there would be three essentials to determining which life forms belong
>to which groups:
>
>1. ability to mate and reproduce
Spontaneously? What if two forms do form fully fertile hybrids, but
require artificial insemination or artificial pollination?
What about cases where A crosses with B and B crosses with C, but
A and C can't cross?
What about cases where a cross works only if a specific one of the
two forms is used as the male, and the reciprocal cross always fails?
>2. ability of offspring to be fertile
But there are whole ranges of degrees of fertility of hybrids. What
about cases where only the female hybrids are fertile? What about
cases where only a tiny proportion of the gametes formed by hybrids
are viable? What about cases where hybrids are sterile, but polyploids
derived from the hybrids are fully fertile?
>3. any inability of offspring to reproduce must be consistent to the
>mating pair.*
>
>*In other words, you cannot count certain offspring's inability to
>produce as a sign of non-interfertility of the species if members of
>the same two species are able to reproduce fertile offspring at other
>times and places.
That last would seem to mean that the rare fertile donkey/horse
crosses outweigh the many sterile ones.
>It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the
>rule of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind
>of map for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
Seems pointless, since your basic claim collapses if interfertility
is something that can easily be lost during the course of
evolutionary divergence. It is.
>>Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
Huh? The fossils of early Equidae are just as much fossils of
"early donkeys" as they are "early horses". It's looser usage,
much like saying that donkeys and zebras are species of "horse".
>this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
>succession and are expecting to find a sequence of fossils in which
>the horse fossil is first in a lineup of specimens, with mules and
>donkeys coming later.
Mules are hybrids. They won't have a fossil record. Donkeys and the
other wild 'horse' species do indeed have fossil records.
>you might want to examine more closely the reasons for calling certain
>fossils early and others late.
Or, you might not, since there's undoubtedly nothing wrong with
the reasons. Certainly nothing you'd know about.
>Are they classified according to a preconceived notion of gradation,
>or is it because they are consistently found in different layers?
Layers.
>What do you do with those specimens that are found out of sequence?
Nothing, since they don't exist. The claim that they do is a
frequent creationist falsehood.
>You might want to inquire into what layers horse fossils are found and
>in what layers donkey fossils are found, and the same for mule fossils
>(if you think that there are such in existence)
Horses and donkeys are both modern species of Equus. They're only in
recent layers.
>Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it
>to the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them
>according to what is thought to be less complex to more complex?
No. They're in different layers, and their classification has
nothing at all to do with "more complex" versus "less complex".
There are specific traits and characteristic changes. You could
try to learn about it sometime.
>Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a
>small fox?
Huh? Where'd you get this weird idea it looks anything like a fox?
[Did you mutate the "fox terrier-sized" meme?] It's called "a horse"
because it's a near-basal member of the clade Equidae.
>I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I
>must believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to
>classify it as such.
That's very silly. You can believe it's a marshmallow if you feel
like it, but nobody's going to be very impressed by uninformed
kneejerk skepticism. What evidence do you have that the scientists
are all wrong about Hyracotherium?
>>And is there any OBJECTIVE opinion on what kinds are, not just a
>>personal one?
>I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
>are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are
>there any objective ways to measure my opinion.
>Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
>fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a
>"kind" is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind"
>may be the same thing as a "species."
But why does your odd definition of "kind" have anything to do with
the usual creationists' concept of "created kind"? It seems to me
that you're essentially claiming that the descendants of a common
ancestral form can never lose the ability to be completely
interfertile with any other group of descendants of that ancestor.
Why should that be the case?
>>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) added:
>>And if you don't like the simple word "kinds," then as a potential
>>zoologist, you could do some scholarly pioneering in the world of
>>classifications, and attach lengthy Latin names that would "dignify" the
>>groups and cause them to be more acceptable to the scientific mind.
>>
>>I say:
>>I don't know what you mean exactly by this. Things are classified
>>because they are similar to each other right? This doesn't stop with
>>species level if it did then there wouldn't be any classifications at
>>all.
>What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
>does "this" refer?
The nested hierarchy of groups of similar organisms. There are groups
of similar "related" things far above the ability of things to breed
and produce fertile offspring. There are no breaks in the hierarchy of
"similar things" that would correspond to any "kind" level.
>I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
>you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
No, you'd only have one level in the classification.
No system at all.
Also, we don't have experimental hybridization data for
most organisms. We might confidently assume without testing that
humans can't cross with oak trees, but what about chimpanzees and
gorillas? Do we really have to try to cross all pairs of similar
species in order to classify things?
>Classifying organisms by their similarities can be misleading, but if
>you used the interfertility rule, I'm sure that, for the most part,
>you'd find a parallel between phenotype/genotype and interfertility.
Yes, only reasonably closely related things can be crossed. That
doesn't translate into vice-versa. Some _very_ closely related things
won't cross. For example, iploid and tetraploid forms of a "single
species" won't form fertile hybrids.
>>From: zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) answered my 3rd question:
>>
>>those timelines are not all they are cracked up to be, imo. I've
>>seen, for instance, photos of a fossilized tree trunk that passed
>>through several layers of supposed geologic eras,
Supposed only by creationists.
which made me question
>>the overall accurateness of the dating methods. Imo, all you need is one
>>anomaly like that to send you on a quest for better interpretations of
>>the data.
>>
>>I say:
>>That doesn't seem so strange to me. I read the answer to that one on the
>>talk.origins site so that one doesn't really challenge things. If you
>>have anything else I'm ready to listen...
>It's a little disappointing that you were so easily satisfied.
It's more disappointing that you were fooled by such creationist
disinformation.
Were
>you able to find answers to the following questions?
>
>1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or
>millions of years it took for the various layers to build up?
Wrong premise. Who says it took "thousands or millions of
years", not a few weeks or years or a decade or two?
>2. Why is the evidence treated as if only the inside of the tree
>trunk rotted, whereas the external bark remained intact?
If it happens that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it.
Trees sometimes get fossilized that way.
>Fossils are
>a result of the organic matter being replaced by minerals and
>sediment.
No, fossils form in many different ways.
>The bark of the tree is organic.
?? Maybe, maybe not.
>3. What does the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small
>reptiles) within the trunk, really mean?
It means that half-buried hollow trunks can form traps
for small animals, or that they were homes to such animals
that sometimes died there.
Is it a reasonable
>conclusion to say that the vertebrates also were part of the calamity
>that engulfed the trees,
What "calamity"? Life and death, and eventually getting
buried in sediments?
and as the organic matter of the trees gave
>place to the minerals of its surroundings, those surroundings also
>included the vertebrates which then also became part of the interior
>of the tree?
Huh? You're making no sense. The vertebrates couldn't get into
the hollow trees unless the stumps were already hollow.
>4. Is it possible for the layers of coal or sediment, as evidenced
>around the trees, to be a result of repeated eruptions in a single
>violent catastrophe, with vegetation and other organic mass being so
>compressed by heat and pressure, that each eruption quickly formed
>layers around standing trees?
Huh? What "catastrophe"? Why not trees and peat-swamp vegetation
getting buried in the usual non-catastrophic ways over a few
years or decades?
>maybe you can look at, for instance, the following link, and see if
>more questions come to mind than are presently satisfactorily answered
>by evolutionary theory:
>
>http://www.drdino.com/Articles/polystrate.jsp
Hovind. Sheesh. You're really scraping bottom.
[You should probably be embarrassed to be citing him.]
Instead, try:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html
cheers
Gen2Rev
<Comment about Science articles snipped>
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) gave the personal opinion that:
> >
> >there would be three essentials to determining which life forms belong
> >to which groups:
> >1. ability to mate and reproduce
> >2. ability of offspring to be fertile
> >3. any inability of offspring to reproduce must be consistent to the
> >mating pair.*
> >
> >I say:
> >Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are related according to science. I
> >have a hard time seeing a hybrid with zebra stripes, a tapir's nose, and
> >a rhino's armor. However, they are similar enough to be grouped.
>
> I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
> species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
> as well? Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
> and zebras in another group, or what?
She's saying that all these animals have common characteristics that
seems to suggest an affinity to each other.
> >Clearly
> >any kind of grouping doesn't have to mean that the current species can
> >breed with each other, only that they had an ancestor species in common
> >that eventually branched and gave rise to them all.
> >Just like dogs and wolves are extremely similar and most likely had a
> >common ancestor.
> >
>
> I see what you're saying. But we're talking two worldviews now. You
> were asking about the creationist worldview, which does not see the
> data in the same light as the evolutionist. What I am offering is
> what I consider as evidence in a reasonable creationist approach to
> the data. You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the
> creationist's worldview.
I suspect that Wendy realizes that similarities between these animals,
and wonders why such a large number of similarities exist.
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >
> >It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the rule
> >of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind of map
> >for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
> >
> >I say:
> >Most even closely related species can't make fertile offspring together,
> >so there would be no such thing as taxonomy or classification if that
> >was the case.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
> life forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
If that was the case, we wouldn't have groupings such as "mammals", or
"birds"
> >Somehow I can't see God creating animals that have no
> >ability to adapt to new conditions or fill new niches.
>
> I agree with you. I can't see that, either, and that is why we see
> animals indeed adapting to new conditions and/or filling new niches.
>
> > That would be
> >cruel cause it would mean that they would all be dead as soon as the
> >conditions they were originally designed for changed. Instead, animals
> >ARE able to adapt and even speciate like the finches on the Galapagos
> >because that helps them survive and take advantage of new resources.
>
> agreed. This observation easily fits with creation.
So you're stating that all the finches of the Galapagos have a common
ancestor???
> >If
> >every modern species was alive at the beginning then they would have
> >all been dead by now.
> >
>
> not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
> original species, variation within the species has taken the species
> into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
> interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
> now extinct.
But they could interbreed if they were in the same location and had the
same habits?
So rather than accept the evidence in God's creation, accept someone's
interpretation of the Bible.
But what about creatures that can no longer breed because they're
extinct? How does one classify in these situations?
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
> >are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are there
> >any objective ways to measure my opinion.
> >Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
> >fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a "kind"
> >is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind" may be the
> >same thing as a "species."
> >
> >I say:
> >So there have never been any new species since the original creation
> >according to you?
> >
>
> no new groups, but lots of variation within the groups that some
> misinterpret as species evolving from one group to another.
But what about lions and tigers? Male Lions and female tigers produce
infertile offspring, but female lions and male tigers produce fertile
offspring. Are lions and tigers different 'kinds'?
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
> >does "this" refer?
> >
> >I say:
> >If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
> >no classification at all.
>
> isn't that how classification is done today, dividing groups into
> species? Don't they stop at the species level whenever a new group is
> named?
What about the group 'mammals'? Why is there such a group at all?
> > Everything is its own animal. According to
> >you, A dog is just as closely related to a spider as it is to a wolf, or
> >a roach is just as closely related to a giraffe as it is to a
> >grasshopper.
>
> absolutely not. I have said no such thing.
>
> >This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
> >is to a manta ray.
> >
>
> I think you're confusing the evolutionary view of relatedness,
> including our relatedness to bacteria, with the creationist view that
> species are parallel with each other, not intersecting, and therefore
> not related, except in the most general sense that they have been made
> by the same Creator, using a common genetic-code design.
>
> >Because you say each species is an original created kind. Right?
> >
>
> each broad category of species, yes, but that does not say they are
> related in the way you just described.
But such relationships would seem to be implied in the larger groupings
that suggest themselves. Why do only birds have feathers, for instance?
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >
> >I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
> >you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
> >
> >I say:
> >If you call mice being just as closely related to marine iguanas as rats
> >being reasonable.
> >
>
> Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats.
> They are separate and parallel species, not related.
>
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >Classifying organisms by their similarities can be misleading, but if
> >you used the interfertility rule, I'm sure that, for the most part,
> >you'd find a parallel between phenotype/genotype and interfertility.
> >
> >I say:
> >
> >Sometimes there can be completely unrelated species that are very
> >similar, that's right. I think it's called "convergent evolution". All
> >that means is that two species had to adapt to similar conditions and so
> >they came up with similar structures or mechanisms for survival
> >independent of each other.
> >
>
> I hope you'll continue to search and not be quickly satisfied by this
> interpretation of the data. You could very well be the one who
> pioneers a well-put-together scientific theory of creation.
<Tree trunk stuff snipped>
Andrew Glasgow
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
> Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a
> small fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I
> must believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to
> classify it as such.
Because it doesn't look like a small fox if you are actually familiar
with mammalian anatomy.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>On 13 Jul 2001 06:48:31 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
>wrote:
>>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>>Ok. So if each species is a kind, why do modern species appear later in
>>the fossil record than a lot of others?
>do they, really?
Yes, they do.
>Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
>the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
>all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas.
"The same plateau and surrounding areas" can easily include a vast
array of very different geological strata.
Look at the
>two-page spread of a map of the area and the work being done there.
>You will find that they are finding fossils there that cover a wide
>range of species, from sponges, ammonoids, conodonts, bivalves, early
>vertebrates, fishes, marine reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals,
>pterosaurs, plants, cephalopods, foraminifera, ostracods, brachiopods,
>crocodiles, lizards, turtles, echinoderms.
So? Good for them.
>And after observing the field work going on there, you should inquire
>into how it is determined that all these species found in a single
>area are determined to be in a certain sequence.
It's called "stratigraphy".
>I can bet that it's
>not because they are found stacked sequentially in cores, or arranged
>in layers stacked one on top the other, leading to the inescapable
>conclusion that one came before or after another.
What leads you to this "bet"? A gut feeling that they must all be
wrong somehow, even though you don't know why? Prejudice? Or actual
knowledge of some real evidence against their specific geological
interpretations that you can show us?
>There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here.
Yes it seems there are. Yours.
>Count on
>it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
>neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
>memorize.
And you'd know about "the actual field work evidence" how?
[snip]
>>I say:
>>Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are related according to science. I
>>have a hard time seeing a hybrid with zebra stripes, a tapir's nose, and
>>a rhino's armor. However, they are similar enough to be grouped.
>
>I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
>species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
>as well?
Yes, they're all related.
Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
>and zebras in another group, or what?
That too. The two groups are related [actually, there are several
living tapir species, and several genera and species of rhinos, as
well as the various living Equus species]. There are also several
other entirely extinct families of perissodactyls related to all of
them.
>>Clearly
>>any kind of grouping doesn't have to mean that the current species can
>>breed with each other, only that they had an ancestor species in common
>>that eventually branched and gave rise to them all.
>>Just like dogs and wolves are extremely similar and most likely had a
>>common ancestor.
>I see what you're saying. But we're talking two worldviews now. You
>were asking about the creationist worldview, which does not see the
>data in the same light as the evolutionist. What I am offering is
>what I consider as evidence in a reasonable creationist approach to
>the data. You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the
>creationist's worldview.
Nor can you use the creationist's worldview to explain the biological
world?
[snip]
>not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
>original species, variation within the species has taken the species
>into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
>interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
>now extinct.
So, then now you say it _is_ possible for members of a "kind" to lose
the ability to interbreed? Doesn't that completely ruin your sole
criterion for same-kindhood? Do you have any other ways to determine
if two species are in the same or different "kinds" other than hybrid
fertility?
[snip]
>>I have no real reason to doubt the fact that things have been dated, and
>>that's how old they are. It would be wrong to accept it just on a word
>>but the truth is there is no compelling reason to think the fossil
>>record or the dating of it is all wrong.
>well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
>Christian, which implied that you had figured out your reasons for
>believing in Christ and were secure in your relationship with Him. If
>that were the case, then I would expect that you would be inclined to
>be very critical of interpretations that undermine that relationship,
There seems to be a whole load of assumptions crammed into that
last bit. Who says that the chronology of the fossil record would
at all 'undermine the relationship of a committed Christian' to his
or her God? Theistic evolutionists and old-earthers alike would
seem to disagree with the idea that it would.
>since your commitment to God has been tested and validated to your
>satisfaction, and therefore, you value that experience more highly
>than any seemingly contradictory data that may be interpreted in light
>of a non-experience .
>So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
>interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
>self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
>Jesus-God is our Creator,
Nowhere does it claim anything of the sort. You're perhaps
forcing a conflict where there needn't be one.
>I would imagine that you would be loyal to
>your experience with God and not accept, except with super-critical
>examination, the interpretations of the fossil record.
Yeesh. These paragraphs do seem to illuminate your own approach
to t.o. discussions.
>I mean, if you can find no other reasonable interpretation for the
>evidence, then I could understand your dilemma, but I, for one, find
>that there are interpretations of the evidence that are reasonable and
>compatible with my walk with God, so I see no reason to blindly accept
>the current philosophy on origins.
Right, instead you'll blindly reject them.
[snip]
>>I say:
>>I don't think complexity has anything to do with dating them. Evolution
>>doesn't go "up" all the time.
>okay, fine. But getting back to my actual point, which I'll repeat
>differently: "Are these fossils all scattered around in the same
>layer, leaving it to the classifier to arrange them ACCORDING TO WHAT
>IS THOUGHT TO BE THE CORRECT ORDER?" (caps for directing attention to
>a specific point, not for purpose shouting.
No, they aren't. They do correlate with the stratigraphy.
[snip]
>>Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a small
>>fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I must
>>believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to classify
>>it as such.
>>
>>I say:
>>Do you have any good evidence to believe that it's more closely related
>>to foxes than horses?
>
>none other than I see no reason to call it an early horse when it's
>just as logical to see it as a species in its own right.
Of course it's a species in its own right [actually there are
several different named species of Hyracotherium]. It's also a
very primitive early member of the horse family.
>> Does it have carnivorous teeth or herbivore teeth?
>>Does it's skull look more like a horse or a fox?
>the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
>shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
Then you must like it a lot? ;-) Of course, classifications
are based on much more careful, detailed comparisons than
"looks like". Hyracotherium is identifiable as an early
horse relative. It doesn't look at all like a fox.
>Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
>genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
Except that interfertility is readily lost during evolutionary
divergence.
[snip]
>>I say:
>>So there have never been any new species since the original creation
>>according to you?
>no new groups, but lots of variation within the groups that some
>misinterpret as species evolving from one group to another.
And your evidence they're wrong is what?
>>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>>What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
>>does "this" refer?
>>
>>I say:
>>If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
>>no classification at all.
>
>isn't that how classification is done today, dividing groups into
>species? Don't they stop at the species level whenever a new group is
>named?
No. Species are in groups within groups within groups [sections,
subgenera, genera, subfamilies, families, orders...]What do you
think classification means? The point is there are clear groupings
far above the species [or ability-to-form-fertile-hybrids] level. If
the creationists were right, why are there any groups at all above
the "kind"? It seems to me there's no reason at all to expect any
recognizable above-kind groups.
>> Everything is its own animal. According to
>>you, A dog is just as closely related to a spider as it is to a wolf, or
>>a roach is just as closely related to a giraffe as it is to a
>>grasshopper.
>
>absolutely not. I have said no such thing.
Yes, you do. You've been saying the only level where there are any
true genealogical relationships is the "kind" [essentially the
species]. Any other similarities are not due to relationships. A dog
is just as closely related to a spider [i.e., not at all] as it is to
a fox or a cat or to any other mammal with which it can't form
fertile hybrids. ["Wolf" was presumably a mistaken choice, since they
are the same species as a dog]
>>This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
>>is to a manta ray.
>I think you're confusing the evolutionary view of relatedness,
>including our relatedness to bacteria, with the creationist view that
>species are parallel with each other, not intersecting, and therefore
>not related, except in the most general sense that they have been made
>by the same Creator, using a common genetic-code design.
No. You say that things are related by common descent only within
kinds. Two different mammal "kinds" really aren't any more related
to one another than are a mammal and a spider or a plant. They're
all fully separate creations, right? So why is "Mammalia" such a
clear-cut grouping of "kinds"? Why are there any clear-cut high-level
groups at all? Why do they form nested hierarchies suggesting common
descent instead of some crazy mish-mash of reticulated groups?
>>Because you say each species is an original created kind. Right?
>
>each broad category of species,
What "broad category"? You're restricting it to extremely narrow
groups that form fully fertile hybrids.
yes, but that does not say they are
>related in the way you just described.
She described then as completely unrelated, just like you claim.
>>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>>
>>I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
>>you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
>>
>>I say:
>>If you call mice being just as closely related to marine iguanas as rats
>>being reasonable.
>Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats.
>They are separate and parallel species, not related.
Yes, you do. You're saying they're all equally related [i.e., not
related at all]. How can you base a classification on that?
[snip]
>I hope you'll continue to search and not be quickly satisfied by this
>interpretation of the data. You could very well be the one who
>pioneers a well-put-together scientific theory of creation.
If so she'd be the first.
>>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>>1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or millions
>>of years it took for the various layers to build up?
>>
>>I say:
>>I think they were living trees in the topmost layer that had their roots
>>grow down through the rocks. I'm sure someone else could give a better
>>explanation than I can though.
>
>look at the real-life photos of the trees and see if there are signs
>of roots extended from those pieces of trunk that appear in the middle
>of layers of sediment and/or coal. Consider, also, those tree trunks
>that are not upright but upside down.
Dead trees can fall over. Sediment layers can get tilted or even
turned over.
[snip]
>>I say:
>>Sounds like they lived in the tree and died with it.
>
>come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
>reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
>died?
Come on, yourself. Small animals live and die in tree hollows all
the time. Still, if these are the fossils I think you're talking
about, it's thought that the hollow, partly buried, partly rotted-out
stumps formed natural traps that occasionally caught small early
reptiles that fell in and couldn't escape.
[snip]
cheers
Adam Marczyk
> On 13 Jul 2001 06:48:31 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
> wrote:
>
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>
> snip>
>
> >Since mules are a dead-end, the cross-breeding of the horse and donkey
> >must be an artifical event, and so they both belong to two different
> >groups. Likewise, the lion and tiger, even if they can be made to
> >artificially breed and reproduce, their offspring is not fertile, and so
> >that should put the lion and tiger in groups of their own.
> >
> >I say:
> >Ok. So if each species is a kind, why do modern species appear later in
> >the fossil record than a lot of others?
> >
>
> do they, really?
Yes.
> Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
> the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
> all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas. Look at the
> two-page spread of a map of the area and the work being done there.
> You will find that they are finding fossils there that cover a wide
> range of species, from sponges, ammonoids, conodonts, bivalves, early
> vertebrates,
Hey, wait a minute. "Early" vertebrates? Since when do you believe in such a
thing?
> fishes, marine reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals,
> pterosaurs, plants, cephalopods, foraminifera, ostracods, brachiopods,
> crocodiles, lizards, turtles, echinoderms.
And are these fossils identical to what's alive today? I sure don't see any
dinosaurs around nowadays. Do you? How about trilobites or mammalian
megafauna? How about creatures like Hyracotherium? Archaeopteryx? The
therapsid reptiles? All these things are extinct; they've been replaced by
creatures that resemble them, but are different in substantial ways and do
not appear earlier in the fossil record. _Families_ like crocodiles and
lizards have persisted, but individual species have died off and been
replaced by others over time. This is clearly evident from the geological
record..
> And after observing the field work going on there, you should inquire
> into how it is determined that all these species found in a single
> area are determined to be in a certain sequence. I can bet that it's
> not because they are found stacked sequentially in cores, or arranged
> in layers stacked one on top the other, leading to the inescapable
> conclusion that one came before or after another.
I would be very surprised as well if every fossil we found was stacked in
neat, sequential, undisturbed layers. A lot of geologists would be out of a
job if it was always that easy. Now how this is relevant to the wide variety
of stratigraphic, radiometric and other dating methods which can be
accurately used to determine the age of fossils, I really don't know.
> There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
> it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
> neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
> memorize.
But nor is it the jumble you seem to think it is; there are clearly defined
sequences. People who _have_ done actual field work have told you as much in
the past.
And you can't use the creationist's worldview to explain _anything_. Why
does all life fall into a nested hierarchy? Well, that's just the way the
Creator wanted it. Why are there vestigial and poorly designed structures in
nature? God has a plan, and who are you to question him? What is the
mechanism by which the Intelligent Designer creates? It must have been a
miracle. And so on.
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >
> >It would be interesting to try classify life forms according to the rule
> >of interfertility, (and interfertility only), and see what kind of map
> >for life forms is produced. Care to take on that task?
> >
> >I say:
> >Most even closely related species can't make fertile offspring together,
> >so there would be no such thing as taxonomy or classification if that
> >was the case.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
> life forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
>
> >Somehow I can't see God creating animals that have no
> >ability to adapt to new conditions or fill new niches.
>
> I agree with you. I can't see that, either, and that is why we see
> animals indeed adapting to new conditions and/or filling new niches.
But as hard as you try to draw a line there, evolution goes beyond that very
easily. Just look at all the new genes, new structures, new ways of living
that are seen in nature and the lab all the time. There is no basis on which
to conclude that there is any limit to change.
> > That would be
> >cruel cause it would mean that they would all be dead as soon as the
> >conditions they were originally designed for changed. Instead, animals
> >ARE able to adapt and even speciate like the finches on the Galapagos
> >because that helps them survive and take advantage of new resources.
>
> agreed. This observation easily fits with creation.
So you accept both speciation and adaptation? What's left to reject?
> >If
> >every modern species was alive at the beginning then they would have
> >all been dead by now.
> >
>
> not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
> original species, variation within the species has taken the species
> into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
> interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
> now extinct.
So tell us, is there a "dinosaur kind" and a "bird kind"? If so, how do you
explain the existence of intermediates like Archaeopteryx that possess
features from both?
> >I had asked:
> >
> >Why are the fossils of early horses not mules and donkeys then?
> >
> >to which zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
> >
> >this question seems to imply that you have already accepted the fossil
> >succession
> ><snip (I don't expect to find what she said)>
> >
> >I say:
> >I have no real reason to doubt the fact that things have been dated, and
> >that's how old they are. It would be wrong to accept it just on a word
> >but the truth is there is no compelling reason to think the fossil
> >record or the dating of it is all wrong.
>
> well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
> Christian,
And now you think she's not, because she accepts evolution? How typically
arrogant of a creationist, to question the faith of anyone who doesn't see
things their way. Creationists like Henry Morris only state it a little more
explicitly when they insist that anyone who disagrees with their
interpretation of the Bible in any way cannot be a Christian.
> which implied that you had figured out your reasons for
> believing in Christ and were secure in your relationship with Him.
I'm sure she is, which is why she's not threatened by scientific facts such
as evolution. Creationists, on the other hand, are weak in their faith and
constantly seek to twist the facts to make them conform to their
preconceived notions of the way God
"should" work.
> If
> that were the case, then I would expect that you would be inclined to
> be very critical of interpretations that undermine that relationship,
> since your commitment to God has been tested and validated to your
> satisfaction, and therefore, you value that experience more highly
> than any seemingly contradictory data that may be interpreted in light
> of a non-experience .
Evolution only contradicts a narrow-minded and clearly erroneous
interpretation of a small section of scripture, not religion itself. That
would be why most major Christian denominations have no problem with it.
> So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
> interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
> self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
> Jesus-God is our Creator,
"Rather"? Why do you persist in trying to create such an obvious false
dichotomy? Who are you to tell God what methods he could have used to
create?
> I would imagine that you would be loyal to
> your experience with God and not accept, except with super-critical
> examination, the interpretations of the fossil record.
Or, as another committed Christian once put it:
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." --Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615,
during the trial of Galileo
Doubtless if Cardinal Bellarmine were alive today, he would castigate you,
Zoe, in very similar words to the ones you just used, for so uncritically
accepting a philosophy like heliocentrism, which clearly undermines faith
and seeks to deny the power of God.
> I mean, if you can find no other reasonable interpretation for the
> evidence, then I could understand your dilemma, but I, for one, find
> that there are interpretations of the evidence that are reasonable and
> compatible with my walk with God, so I see no reason to blindly accept
> the current philosophy on origins.
To be frank, you only find these alternative interpretations "reasonable"
because of massive ignorance. Example: If you think polystrate fossils are
the result of a global flood, why are the trees often found upright and
still rooted? Is a flood that scours continents and carves out Grand Canyons
not going to be able to push over a few puny trees?
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >
> >Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it to
> >the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
> >what is thought to be less complex to more complex?
> >
> >I say:
> >I don't think complexity has anything to do with dating them. Evolution
> >doesn't go "up" all the time.
> >
>
> okay, fine. But getting back to my actual point, which I'll repeat
> differently: "Are these fossils all scattered around in the same
> layer, leaving it to the classifier to arrange them ACCORDING TO WHAT
> IS THOUGHT TO BE THE CORRECT ORDER?" (caps for directing attention to
> a specific point, not for purpose shouting.
No.
> >the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
> >what is thought to be
>
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >
> >Why is the Hyracotherium called a horse when it looks more like a small
> >fox? I mean, I, personally, don't want somebody telling me I must
> >believe this creature is an early horse when I see no reason to classify
> >it as such.
> >
> >I say:
> >Do you have any good evidence to believe that it's more closely related
> >to foxes than horses?
>
> none other than I see no reason to call it an early horse when it's
> just as logical to see it as a species in its own right.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether it's an ancestor to
modern horse species. A continuous chain of transitionals gives us good
reason to think that this is so.
> > Does it have carnivorous teeth or herbivore teeth?
> >Does it's skull look more like a horse or a fox?
> >
>
> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
But considerably less useful in a world where 99% of everything that has
ever lived is now dead. And her original critique was valid: if
interfertility is your only criterion, then we're just as closely related to
houseflies as we are to chimpanzees.
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >I don't think there is such a thing as an objective opinion. Opinions
> >are always subjective and personal. I think what you mean is, are there
> >any objective ways to measure my opinion.
> >Yes, there are. The criteria of "ability to interbreed AND produce
> >fertile offspring" makes an objective rule for determining what a "kind"
> >is. Actually, I think, based on that standard, that a "kind" may be the
> >same thing as a "species."
> >
> >I say:
> >So there have never been any new species since the original creation
> >according to you?
>
> no new groups, but lots of variation within the groups that some
> misinterpret as species evolving from one group to another.
So which "kind" does Archaeopteryx belong to again? Dinosaurs or birds? (And
why?)
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >What do you mean by "This doesn't stop with species level"? To what
> >does "this" refer?
> >
> >I say:
> >If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
> >no classification at all.
>
> isn't that how classification is done today, dividing groups into
> species? Don't they stop at the species level whenever a new group is
> named?
>
> > Everything is its own animal. According to
> >you, A dog is just as closely related to a spider as it is to a wolf, or
> >a roach is just as closely related to a giraffe as it is to a
> >grasshopper.
>
> absolutely not. I have said no such thing.
>
> >This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
> >is to a manta ray.
> >
>
> I think you're confusing the evolutionary view of relatedness,
> including our relatedness to bacteria, with the creationist view that
> species are parallel with each other, not intersecting, and therefore
> not related, except in the most general sense that they have been made
> by the same Creator, using a common genetic-code design.
That sound you hear is the sound of hedging. Zoe wants it both ways: a model
that both adequately explains the many genetic similarities common to all
life, including nested hierarchies of shared pseudogenes (such as this one:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/nikaido.html), and argues that
different "kinds" are not at all related.
> >Because you say each species is an original created kind. Right?
> >
>
> each broad category of species, yes, but that does not say they are
> related in the way you just described.
What's a "broad category?" Are rats and mice in the same "kind"? Then why
not humans and chimps? We're more like them than rats are like mice.
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >
> >I mean, if you classify organisms only by their ability to interbreed,
> >you would have a reasonable classification system in place.
> >
> >I say:
> >If you call mice being just as closely related to marine iguanas as rats
> >being reasonable.
> >
>
> Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats.
> They are separate and parallel species, not related.
In which case, mice are just as closely related to iguanas as they are to
rats (i.e., not at all).
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >Classifying organisms by their similarities can be misleading, but if
> >you used the interfertility rule, I'm sure that, for the most part,
> >you'd find a parallel between phenotype/genotype and interfertility.
> >
> >I say:
> >
> >Sometimes there can be completely unrelated species that are very
> >similar, that's right. I think it's called "convergent evolution". All
> >that means is that two species had to adapt to similar conditions and so
> >they came up with similar structures or mechanisms for survival
> >independent of each other.
> >
>
> I hope you'll continue to search and not be quickly satisfied by this
> interpretation of the data. You could very well be the one who
> pioneers a well-put-together scientific theory of creation.
I certainly would hope so, if I were you, since all those well-funded
creationist institutes and qualified creation scientists haven't managed to
get around to it yet for some reason.
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >1. Why didn't these dead trees rot away over the thousands or millions
> >of years it took for the various layers to build up?
> >
> >I say:
> >I think they were living trees in the topmost layer that had their roots
> >grow down through the rocks. I'm sure someone else could give a better
> >explanation than I can though.
> >
>
> look at the real-life photos of the trees and see if there are signs
> of roots extended from those pieces of trunk that appear in the middle
> of layers of sediment and/or coal. Consider, also, those tree trunks
> that are not upright but upside down.
Consider the ones that _are_ upright. I can explain them easily; can you?
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >2. Why is the evidence treated as if only the inside of the tree trunk
> >rotted, whereas the external bark remained intact? Fossils are a result
> >of the organic matter being replaced by minerals and sediment. The bark
> >of the tree is organic.
> >
> >I say:
> >I don't know about that one but I do know that fossil bones and things
> >have been replaced by minerals.
> >
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >3. What does the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles)
> >within the trunk, really mean? Is it a reasonable conclusion to say that
> >the vertebrates also were part of the calamity that engulfed the trees,
> >and as the organic matter of the trees gave place to the minerals of its
> >surroundings, those surroundings also included the vertebrates which
> >then also became part of the interior of the tree?
> >
> >I say:
> >Sounds like they lived in the tree and died with it.
> >
>
> come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
> reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
> died?
Is there a problem with this? I certainly don't see one. (What's your
explanation? Did the Flood drive reptiles into tree trunks like nails?)
> >zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> >4. Is it possible for the layers of coal or sediment, as evidenced
> >around the trees, to be a result of repeated eruptions in a single
> >violent catastrophe, with vegetation and other organic mass being so
> >compressed by heat and pressure, that each eruption quickly formed
> >layers around standing trees?
> >
> >I say:
> >I don't know. Maybe a geologist can answer that? I haven't taken any
> >geology courses yet.
>
> why not study it out for yourself, instead of waiting for a geologist
> to answer it. You can learn a lot from the geologist, but you don't
> have to necessarily accept his interpretation of the evidence.
And unlike the creationists, who frequently seek to force their views to be
taught and legislate creationism into public schools, evolutionists are not
in the habit of forcing anyone to accept their interpretations as valid
science. We prefer to let the evidence speak for itself.
H,R.Gruemm
> On 13 Jul 2001 06:48:31 -0400, Ruby...@webtv.net (Diamond Dust)
> wrote:
>
> >I say:
> >Ok. So if each species is a kind, why do modern species appear later in
> >the fossil record than a lot of others?
> >
>
> do they, really?
Yes, they do.
Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
> the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
> all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas. Look at the
> two-page spread of a map of the area and the work being done there.
> You will find that they are finding fossils there that cover a wide
> range of species, from sponges, ammonoids, conodonts, bivalves, early
> vertebrates, fishes, marine reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals,
> pterosaurs, plants, cephalopods, foraminifera, ostracods, brachiopods,
> crocodiles, lizards, turtles, echinoderms.
Probably because the terrain cuts through a large number of geologic
layers.
> And after observing the field work going on there, you should inquire
> into how it is determined that all these species found in a single
> area are determined to be in a certain sequence. I can bet that it's
> not because they are found stacked sequentially in cores, or arranged
> in layers stacked one on top the other,
But they *are* arranged in stacked layers, as geologists and
paleontologists already recognized before Darwin.
leading to the inescapable
> conclusion that one came before or after another.
>
> There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
> it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
> neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
> memorize.
Do you have any evidence for this vicious slander of a whole
scientific discipline, except "If it conflicts with my worldview, it
cannot have happened" *) ?
I ask those who are better versed in Christian ethics than I am
(paging Dave Oldridge ...):
Does a wholly unsupported slander which the slanderer personally
believes to be true fall under the injunction against "bearing false
witness" ?
HRG.
"Weil, so schloss er messerscharf,
nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf" - C. Morgenstern.
("As he concluded cannily,
that what may not be, cannot be")
<snip rest>
Diamond Dust
the fossil record than a lot of others?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
do they, really? Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291, the
article on paleontology in China.<snip for brevity>
I say:
Just because they found them all in the same area doesn't mean they all
came from the same time. If they did, then it's only reasonable they
would find a lot of sea life that is still around even now. I think the
main thing would be if there were legitimate "out of order" fossils
found, that were not doctored or false, then that would be exciting!
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to memorize.
I say:
Since I'm not able to do actual science research yet then I can't say
that's wrong because I haven't seen it for myself, however what are the
textbooks based on if they aren't based on real science? Did someone
find a fossil of a Triassic giraffe and write down that it was a
dinosaur? If they did such a thing would the other people criticize them
for not representing what they really found?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
as well? Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
and zebras in another group, or what?
I say:
Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are ALL related to each other
according to science. Just like manatee, mammoth, and african and asian
elephants.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the creationist's
worldview.
I say:
By saying that do you mean that nothing in mainstream science can be
accepted by someone who chooses to believe in special creation? The
thing that bothers me about that is that science is a direct observation
of the creation. I guess it really does come down to interpreting what
we find there as supporting one world view or the other. My whole
purpose in coming to this group was to see if anyone could answer my
questions about the FACTS of nature in a way that could make sense
within the creationist world view as you put it. Sadly for me, the only
people who have said anything convincing have been on the other side of
the coin.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify life
forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
I say:
Current infertility doesn't mean they didn't have a common ancestor.
I previously stated:
Somehow I can't see God creating animals that have no ability to adapt
to new conditions or fill new niches.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
I agree with you. I can't see that, either, and that is why we see
animals indeed adapting to new conditions and/or filling new niches.
I say:
But if they do that, they will branch into different species or their
species will change in some way over time. What you say you agree with
sounds startlingly similar to "descent with modification"
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
original species, variation within the species has taken the species
into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are now
extinct.
I say:
That makes sense to me, but I thought before that the original created
"kinds" _according to you_ were individual species including modern
ones.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant in my first posting. In Genesis God
tells all the life forms to reproduce after their own kind. This raises
the question for those who would believe the text to be true, "what were
those kinds?". According to a creationist, all species would have had to
originated from those original created kinds.
My question was meant to mean, "According to a creationist model, what
are the different kinds included in the original creation of life?"
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
Christian, which implied that you had figured out your reasons for
believing in Christ and were secure in your relationship with Him.
I say:
I am. I have questions about science, that's all. Questions that no
creationist would or could answer for me. Note the title of this thread.
I think I already stated that trying to get an answer from anyone has
been like talking to a brick wall. I believe in creation. I believe in
evolution too. I think the only real difference between the two comes at
a point when you have to ask yourself, "Do I believe living things
evolved by natural means , or did they evolve from an original group of
created life forms?"
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
<snip>I would imagine that you would be loyal to your experience with
God and not accept, except with super-critical examination, the
interpretations of the fossil record.
I say:
I found no other reasonable interpretations for the evidence, yet.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I mean, if you can find no other reasonable interpretation for the
evidence, then I could understand your dilemma, but I, for one, find
that there are interpretations of the evidence that are reasonable and
compatible with my walk with God, so I see no reason to blindly accept
the current philosophy on origins.
I say:
I'm happy that you've been able to find this resolution within yourself.
I tend to really want facts though, so it's a little bit harder for me
to just throw it all up in the air and deliberately forget what I've
learned. In fact, I can't do that. If there is a way to resolve the
apparent conflicts, I want to find it, but I haven't yet.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
"Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it
to the classifier to arrange them ACCORDING TO WHAT IS THOUGHT TO BE THE
CORRECT ORDER?" (caps for directing attention to a specific point, not
for purpose shouting.
the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
what is thought to be
I say:
Why is it they think it's the correct order? Did they do some doodles
one day in a mead notebook and come up with the geologic column on a
whim or do they have good reason for thinking that's the right order?
Can anyone give me a history? I really think there has to be something
to it or they wouldn't use it!
I previously stated:
If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
no classification at all.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
isn't that how classification is done today, dividing groups into
species? Don't they stop at the species level whenever a new group is
named?
I say:
I'm pretty sure that when a new species is found, they ask certain
questions about it. Say that you were a modern scientist and you found a
brand new animal (let's just use the dog as an example).
The dog is warm blooded, the females produce milk, and dogs have fur as
opposed to scales or feathers. Therefore what group do you think it
might belong to? Is it one of the known types of animals? For example it
might be one of these:
A. Reptile
B. Fish
C. Bird
D. Mammal
According to the evidence you've just found, it fits most closely in the
mammal group.
Ok you know it's a mammal now! So what kind of mammal might it be? Does
it lay eggs like a platypus (monotreme), does it nurture a not yet fully
formed infant in a pouch? (marsupial), or does it give birth to fully
formed young animals and have a placenta?
After scientific observation, you find out that dogs give birth to fully
formed young and have a placenta.
Is a dog:
A. A monotreme
B. A marsupial
C. A placental
It's only natural to group it in with the placentals.
This goes on but my point is you don't just deal with individual species
when you're dealing with classification.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats. They
are separate and parallel species, not related.
I say:
My whole point was that if everything in existence is a parallel and
original creation then everything is just as original as everything
else. And therefore you would be saying that mice and rats are paralell
just like mice and iguanas are parallel.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I hope you'll continue to search and not be quickly satisfied by this
interpretation of the data. You could very well be the one who pioneers
a well-put-together scientific theory of creation.
I say:
Once I cut through all the tripe and nonsense I intend to find out if
there can be such a thing. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for all
the polystrate tree claims and such that get in the way.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
died?
I say:
I dont' know. Do lizards live in trees today? Do you think maybe the
same catastrophe that buried the tree might have buried its inhabitants
as well?
Wendy
Diamond Dust
the fossil record than a lot of others?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
do they, really? Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291, the
article on paleontology in China.<snip for brevity>
I say:
Just because they found them all in the same area doesn't mean they all
came from the same time. If they did, then it's only reasonable they
would find a lot of sea life that is still around even now. I think the
main thing would be if there were legitimate "out of order" fossils
found, that were not doctored or false, then that would be exciting!
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to memorize.
I say:
Since I'm not able to do actual science research yet then I can't say
that's wrong because I haven't seen it for myself, however what are the
textbooks based on if they aren't based on real science? Did someone
find a fossil of a Triassic giraffe and write down that it was a
dinosaur? If they did such a thing would the other people criticize them
for not representing what they really found?
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
as well? Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
and zebras in another group, or what?
I say:
Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are ALL related to each other
according to science. Just like manatee, mammoth, and african and asian
elephants.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the creationist's
worldview.
I say:
By saying that do you mean that nothing in mainstream science can be
accepted by someone who chooses to believe in special creation? The
thing that bothers me about that is that science is a direct observation
of the creation. I guess it really does come down to interpreting what
we find there as supporting one world view or the other. My whole
purpose in coming to this group was to see if anyone could answer my
questions about the FACTS of nature in a way that could make sense
within the creationist world view as you put it. Sadly for me, the only
people who have said anything convincing have been on the other side of
the coin.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify life
forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
I say:
Current infertility doesn't mean they didn't have a common ancestor.
I previously stated:
Somehow I can't see God creating animals that have no ability to adapt
to new conditions or fill new niches.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) replied:
I agree with you. I can't see that, either, and that is why we see
animals indeed adapting to new conditions and/or filling new niches.
I say:
But if they do that, they will branch into different species or their
species will change in some way over time. What you say you agree with
sounds startlingly similar to "descent with modification"
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
original species, variation within the species has taken the species
into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are now
extinct.
I say:
That makes sense to me, but I thought before that the original created
"kinds" _according to you_ were individual species including modern
ones.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant in my first posting. In Genesis God
tells all the life forms to reproduce after their own kind. This raises
the question for those who would believe the text to be true, "what were
those kinds?". According to a creationist, all species would have had to
originated from those original created kinds.
My question was meant to mean, "According to a creationist model, what
are the different kinds included in the original creation of life?"
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
Christian, which implied that you had figured out your reasons for
believing in Christ and were secure in your relationship with Him.
I say:
I am. I have questions about science, that's all. Questions that no
creationist would or could answer for me. Note the title of this thread.
I think I already stated that trying to get an answer from anyone has
been like talking to a brick wall. I believe in creation. I believe in
evolution too. I think the only real difference between the two comes at
a point when you have to ask yourself, "Do I believe living things
evolved by natural means , or did they evolve from an original group of
created life forms?"
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
<snip>I would imagine that you would be loyal to your experience with
God and not accept, except with super-critical examination, the
interpretations of the fossil record.
I say:
I found no other reasonable interpretations for the evidence, yet.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I mean, if you can find no other reasonable interpretation for the
evidence, then I could understand your dilemma, but I, for one, find
that there are interpretations of the evidence that are reasonable and
compatible with my walk with God, so I see no reason to blindly accept
the current philosophy on origins.
I say:
I'm happy that you've been able to find this resolution within yourself.
I tend to really want facts though, so it's a little bit harder for me
to just throw it all up in the air and deliberately forget what I've
learned. In fact, I can't do that. If there is a way to resolve the
apparent conflicts, I want to find it, but I haven't yet.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
"Are these fossils all scattered around in the same layer, leaving it
to the classifier to arrange them ACCORDING TO WHAT IS THOUGHT TO BE THE
CORRECT ORDER?" (caps for directing attention to a specific point, not
for purpose shouting.
the preconceived standard of the classifier to arrange them according to
what is thought to be
I say:
Why is it they think it's the correct order? Did they do some doodles
one day in a mead notebook and come up with the geologic column on a
whim or do they have good reason for thinking that's the right order?
Can anyone give me a history? I really think there has to be something
to it or they wouldn't use it!
I previously stated:
If you only classify things stopping at the species level then there is
no classification at all.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
isn't that how classification is done today, dividing groups into
species? Don't they stop at the species level whenever a new group is
named?
I say:
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats. They
are separate and parallel species, not related.
I say:
My whole point was that if everything in existence is a parallel and
original creation then everything is just as original as everything
else. And therefore you would be saying that mice and rats are paralell
just like mice and iguanas are parallel.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
I hope you'll continue to search and not be quickly satisfied by this
interpretation of the data. You could very well be the one who pioneers
a well-put-together scientific theory of creation.
I say:
Once I cut through all the tripe and nonsense I intend to find out if
there can be such a thing. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for all
the polystrate tree claims and such that get in the way.
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
died?
I say:
Diamond Dust
possible that if the layers were soft enough as they were being laid
down, that a rock-like petrified tree might have shifted within them,
even turned upside down? Are there any other fossils that are out of
order (not from Texas). Cause if they're only trees, then that doesn't
necessarily change things for the whole fossil record it just means that
trees themselves have a way of shifting around.
Diamond Dust
Wendy, I'm the furthest thing from a
guidance counselor, but I will offer this liittle nugget of wisdom.: If
you're unable to distinguish the skull of a hyracotherium from that of a
fox, switch your major now! >>
I say:
It's not ME that said that! It's Zoe! I just can't smallify text like a
computer user does so have to quote a little bit differently. I've
heard that the way WebTV users smallify text doesn't show up the same on
computers, so I just use the same kind of "quoting" that I used in this
message.
I never said that hyracotherium looked anything like a fox. That was
Zoe's idea.
mel turner
Ruby...@webtv.net [Diamond Dust] wrote...
>corv...@webtv.net (BRYCE ADAMS) said:
> Wendy, I'm the furthest thing from a
>guidance counselor, but I will offer this liittle nugget of wisdom.: If
>you're unable to distinguish the skull of a hyracotherium from that of a
>fox, switch your major now! >>
>I say:
>It's not ME that said that! It's Zoe! I just can't smallify text like a
>computer user does so have to quote a little bit differently. I've
>heard that the way WebTV users smallify text
They display text in reduced size?
doesn't show up the same on
>computers, so I just use the same kind of "quoting" that I used in this
>message.
It's a bit awkward, but it's not unclear who said what.
>I never said that hyracotherium looked anything like a fox. That was
>Zoe's idea.
I wondered if maybe Zoe was confused by the [in]famous
comparison that Eohippus was "fox terrier sized".
cheers
Kenn Angell
>
> zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
> 4. Is it possible for the layers of coal or sediment, as evidenced
> around the trees, to be a result of repeated eruptions in a single
> violent catastrophe, with vegetation and other organic mass being so
> compressed by heat and pressure, that each eruption quickly formed
> layers around standing trees?
>
> I say:
> I don't know. Maybe a geologist can answer that? I haven't taken any
> geology courses yet.
>
I'm not a geologist nor any other "kind" of scientist, (aside: were
geologists and biologists created separately?), but I wouldn't expect
any one particular tree to remain in tact while all other "vegetation
and other organic mass" around it was compressed into coal.
Adam Marczyk
news:2568-3B...@storefull-248.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
There's nothing about polystrate fossils that conventional geology can't
explain; in fact, geologists knew the answer long before Darwin. Polystrate
fossils are either a) what forms when tree roots grow through underlying
layers of sediment or b) when sediment layers are rapidly deposited around
trees as the result of a catastrophic event, such as a volcanic eruption or
mudslide. Zoe keeps beating around the bush on this, but I think she wants
to be able to say that polystrate trees are evidence for Noah's flood. In
which case, she would need to explain why they're often found still upright
and rooted. Any flood that could carve out the Grand Canyon could certainly
uproot a few trees.
BRYCE ADAMS
you're unable to distinguish the skull of a hyracotherium from that of a
fox, switch your major now! >>
I say:
It's not ME that said that! It's Zoe! I just can't smallify text like a
computer user does so have to quote a little bit differently. I've heard
that the way WebTV users smallify text doesn't show up the same on
computers, so I just use the same kind of "quoting" that I used in this
message.
I never said that hyracotherium looked anything like a fox. That was
Zoe's idea.
Yes, I know it wasn't you who said that. The comment was more
directed to Zoe. Sorry I probably should have included a ;). Zoe is
notorious on TO for starting threads about why evolution is false. When
it is pointed out to her how her knowledge on the subject is less than
complete she either starts asking for science 101 instruction or she
responds with a witty retort like "Oooo! You read that from your
textbook all by your self!" Information is often concealed in books.
Just ask George W. how much knowledge he gained from his favorite book
"The Very Hungry Caterpillar."
zoe_althrop
>zoe_althrop wrote:
snip>
>> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
>> life forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
>
>If that was the case, we wouldn't have groupings such as "mammals", or
>"birds"
>
and why not, Gen2Rev? It is useful to have broad categories -- plant
kingdom, animal kingdom, mineral kingdom -- consisting of
subcategories bearing certain characteristics that identify them as
belonging to that category. So, for instance, the animal kingdom
divides into mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and
invertebrates -- did I leave out any?
And there are boundaries between these categories -- the mammals
cannot interbreed with birds, or amphibians with reptiles, etc. And
within the subcategories of these main categories, there are further
boundaries between the species, so that the kangaroo is not going to
interbreed with the wolf, even though they are both considered
mammals.
snip>
>> not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
>> original species, variation within the species has taken the species
>> into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
>> interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
>> now extinct.
>
>But they could interbreed if they were in the same location and had the
>same habits?
>
yes, if their habits became similar once again over a period of time,
imo, they should be able to interbreed. The gull ring species
consists of birds that eventually do not interbreed because they live
in different habitats, have formed different habits, and thus have no
inclination to breed -- not because they are physically or genetically
unequipped to breed.
snip>
>> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
>> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
>> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
>> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
>
>But what about creatures that can no longer breed because they're
>extinct? How does one classify in these situations?
>
guesswork -- as occurs regularly with the fossil record. No one knows
for sure, but a standard has been set up for what we think looks like
the correct category for the extinct creature.
snip>
>But what about lions and tigers? Male Lions and female tigers produce
>infertile offspring, but female lions and male tigers produce fertile
>offspring. Are lions and tigers different 'kinds'?
>
"Ligers"? Do the offspring of female lions and male tigers continue
to produce for generations? Are "ligers" a common and viable species
found in the world today? If not, then they are not evidence of
fertility. Interfertility means, imo, the ability to be fruitful and
multiply -- for generations, not just one time in a lab setting.
snip>
><Tree trunk stuff snipped>
>
any particular reason why the tree trunk stuff was snipped?
zoe
Adam Marczyk
> On 13 Jul 2001 22:09:45 -0400, Gen2Rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
> >> life forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
> >
> >If that was the case, we wouldn't have groupings such as "mammals", or
> >"birds"
> >
>
> and why not, Gen2Rev? It is useful to have broad categories -- plant
> kingdom, animal kingdom, mineral kingdom -- consisting of
> subcategories bearing certain characteristics that identify them as
> belonging to that category. So, for instance, the animal kingdom
> divides into mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and
> invertebrates -- did I leave out any?
Um, did you forget what you just wrote?
> >> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
> >> life forms according to the _interfertility-only rule._
You also added:
> >> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
> >> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
So which is it? Do we qualify life forms according only to interfertility,
in which case humans are as close to houseflies as they are to chimps, or do
we allow other considerations like the shallow and superficial "looks like"
consideration to allow for classifications such as birds, mammals, etc.?
[snip]
> >> not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
> >> original species, variation within the species has taken the species
> >> into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
> >> interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
> >> now extinct.
> >
> >But they could interbreed if they were in the same location and had the
> >same habits?
> >
>
> yes, if their habits became similar once again over a period of time,
> imo, they should be able to interbreed. The gull ring species
> consists of birds that eventually do not interbreed because they live
> in different habitats, have formed different habits, and thus have no
> inclination to breed -- not because they are physically or genetically
> unequipped to breed.
Where do you think their inclination or lack of same to breed comes from, if
not their genes?
[snip]
> >> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
> >> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
> >> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
> >> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
> >
> >But what about creatures that can no longer breed because they're
> >extinct? How does one classify in these situations?
>
> guesswork -- as occurs regularly with the fossil record. No one knows
> for sure, but a standard has been set up for what we think looks like
> the correct category for the extinct creature.
We _have_ done this. It produces a pattern called a nested hierarchy. Your
argument is entirely inconsistent.
[snip]
zoe_althrop
turner) wrote:
>In article <3b4f8969...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_a...@msn.com
>[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>snip>
>
>>Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
>>the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
>>all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas.
>
>"The same plateau and surrounding areas" can easily include a vast
>array of very different geological strata.
>
Why are cretaceous fossils found in the same level as jurassic-type
fossils? I asked this question on another thread and was told by one
scientist that erosion would reveal older layers. My next question
was, why would just specific portions of a territory erode away and
right next door there was no erosion so that you could find "younger"
fossils in it? I'm waiting for a satisfactory answer.
snip>
>>Count on
>>it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
>>neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
>>memorize.
>
>And you'd know about "the actual field work evidence" how?
>
go back and look at some of the articles in Science and Nature. You
will find actual photographs of the fossil, and along with the photo
is a drawing of what the photograph is supposed to represent. The
drawing is clear-cut and indisputable; the photograph is fuzzy and
questionable. I am not about to deliver my mind over to the
paleontologist for programming, just because he says he has had a
Ph.D. in geology and thus is better equipped to decide that fuzzy
shadows are proto-feathers -- especially when the drawing that
accompanies the fuzzy photo is so vastly different than the reality.
>[snip]
>
>>>I say:
>>>Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are related according to science. I
>>>have a hard time seeing a hybrid with zebra stripes, a tapir's nose, and
>>>a rhino's armor. However, they are similar enough to be grouped.
>>
>>I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
>>species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
>>as well?
>
>Yes, they're all related.
>
>Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
>>and zebras in another group, or what?
>
>That too. The two groups are related [actually, there are several
>living tapir species, and several genera and species of rhinos, as
>well as the various living Equus species]. There are also several
>other entirely extinct families of perissodactyls related to all of
>them.
>
and this is the end result of a superficial categorizing of similar
parts looking like other similar parts -- you lose sight of the forest
for the trees and begin to think that the horse and the rhino look a
lot like each other and must be related.
snip>
>>I see what you're saying. But we're talking two worldviews now. You
>>were asking about the creationist worldview, which does not see the
>>data in the same light as the evolutionist. What I am offering is
>>what I consider as evidence in a reasonable creationist approach to
>>the data. You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the
>>creationist's worldview.
>
>Nor can you use the creationist's worldview to explain the biological
>world?
>
I said, you can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the
creationist worldview. The opposite of that would be neither can you
use the creationist worldview to explain the evolutionary worldview.
On what grounds do you twist the comparison?
Both the evolutionary worldview AND the creationist worldview attempt
to explain the biological world. Neither view can be used to explain
the other.
>[snip]
>
>>not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
>>original species, variation within the species has taken the species
>>into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
>>interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
>>now extinct.
>
>So, then now you say it _is_ possible for members of a "kind" to lose
>the ability to interbreed? Doesn't that completely ruin your sole
>criterion for same-kindhood?
not if the reason for inability to interbreed has to do with changed
lifestyles or habits, rather than a change in genetic makeup.
Once again, the pygmy/Swede comparison. You don't say that humans are
a ring species, morphing into new species, just because at one end of
the spectrum you have the human pygmy whose lifestyle and habits are
so different that he refuses to interbreed with a blonde Swedish model
(or vice versa). If they should somehow manage to bridge their
differences of culture, the pygmy and the six-foot Swedish model would
still be able to be fertile. The fact that they do not mate does not
make them into different species. Same for gulls.
>Do you have any other ways to determine
>if two species are in the same or different "kinds" other than hybrid
>fertility?
>
no.
>[snip]
>Who says that the chronology of the fossil record would
>at all 'undermine the relationship of a committed Christian' to his
>or her God? Theistic evolutionists and old-earthers alike would
>seem to disagree with the idea that it would.
>
the conclusion drawn from a fossil record interpreted to mean that
life on earth has been a progession from cyanobacteria to human being
contradicts the Christian understanding that we are God's creation,
made in His image.
>>since your commitment to God has been tested and validated to your
>>satisfaction, and therefore, you value that experience more highly
>>than any seemingly contradictory data that may be interpreted in light
>>of a non-experience .
>
>>So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
>>interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
>>self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
>>Jesus-God is our Creator,
>
>Nowhere does it claim anything of the sort. You're perhaps
>forcing a conflict where there needn't be one.
>
does the fossil record say that we self-assembled and evolved from
cyanobacteria, or not?
does the Christian belief say that God is our creator, made in His
image, or not?
>>I would imagine that you would be loyal to
>>your experience with God and not accept, except with super-critical
>>examination, the interpretations of the fossil record.
>
>Yeesh. These paragraphs do seem to illuminate your own approach
>to t.o. discussions.
>
exactly.
>>I mean, if you can find no other reasonable interpretation for the
>>evidence, then I could understand your dilemma, but I, for one, find
>>that there are interpretations of the evidence that are reasonable and
>>compatible with my walk with God, so I see no reason to blindly accept
>>the current philosophy on origins.
>
>Right, instead you'll blindly reject them.
>
no, I'll examine them carefully, as I am doing here, and reject them
if they are unreasonable to me.
snip>
>>Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
>>genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
>
>Except that interfertility is readily lost during evolutionary
>divergence.
>
or it was never there in the first place, and we'd like to think that
it was lost? Or it really isn't lost but just not happening due to
change of habits, culture, lifestyle?
>[snip]
>
>>>I say:
>>>So there have never been any new species since the original creation
>>>according to you?
>
>>no new groups, but lots of variation within the groups that some
>>misinterpret as species evolving from one group to another.
>
>And your evidence they're wrong is what?
>
non-interfertility.
snip>
>No. Species are in groups within groups within groups [sections,
>subgenera, genera, subfamilies, families, orders...]What do you
>think classification means? The point is there are clear groupings
>far above the species [or ability-to-form-fertile-hybrids] level. If
>the creationists were right, why are there any groups at all above
>the "kind"? It seems to me there's no reason at all to expect any
>recognizable above-kind groups.
>
what do you mean by "above-kind" groups?
>>> Everything is its own animal. According to
>>>you, A dog is just as closely related to a spider as it is to a wolf, or
>>>a roach is just as closely related to a giraffe as it is to a
>>>grasshopper.
>>
>>absolutely not. I have said no such thing.
>
>Yes, you do. You've been saying the only level where there are any
>true genealogical relationships is the "kind" [essentially the
>species]. Any other similarities are not due to relationships. A dog
>is just as closely related to a spider [i.e., not at all]
not at all means NOT closely related. You're trying to make it mean
closely related.
>as it is to
>a fox or a cat or to any other mammal with which it can't form
>fertile hybrids. ["Wolf" was presumably a mistaken choice, since they
>are the same species as a dog]
>
>>>This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
>>>is to a manta ray.
>
>>I think you're confusing the evolutionary view of relatedness,
>>including our relatedness to bacteria, with the creationist view that
>>species are parallel with each other, not intersecting, and therefore
>>not related, except in the most general sense that they have been made
>>by the same Creator, using a common genetic-code design.
>
>No. You say that things are related by common descent only within
>kinds. Two different mammal "kinds" really aren't any more related
>to one another than are a mammal and a spider or a plant. They're
>all fully separate creations, right? So why is "Mammalia" such a
>clear-cut grouping of "kinds"? Why are there any clear-cut high-level
>groups at all? Why do they form nested hierarchies suggesting common
>descent instead of some crazy mish-mash of reticulated groups?
>
the broader categories represent the way the natural world is. We
classify by what we see in the real world. We see three main
categories of kingdoms, plant, animal, mineral (am I leaving out
any?), so the classification starts there. Why shouldn't it?
>>>Because you say each species is an original created kind. Right?
>>
>>each broad category of species,
>
>What "broad category"? You're restricting it to extremely narrow
>groups that form fully fertile hybrids.
>
there are groups within groups, interfertility being the standard for
which creatures belong in which group. Once the interfertility groups
are established, then they can be categorized into broader categories
that have other characteristics besides interfertility.
snip>
>
>>Wendy, I do NOT say mice are as closely related to iguanas as rats.
>>They are separate and parallel species, not related.
>
>Yes, you do. You're saying they're all equally related [i.e., not
>related at all]. How can you base a classification on that?
>
"equally related" has a different connotation than "not related at
all." Why get them confused to mean the same thing?
snip>
>>look at the real-life photos of the trees and see if there are signs
>>of roots extended from those pieces of trunk that appear in the middle
>>of layers of sediment and/or coal. Consider, also, those tree trunks
>>that are not upright but upside down.
>
>Dead trees can fall over. Sediment layers can get tilted or even
>turned over.
>
these dead trees that are fossils do not fall over. They are
surrounded and kept in place by the catastrophe that surrounded them
in the first place, causing them to fossilize. If there is an
upside-down tree, it was thrown there by some catastrophe, and quickly
surrounded by mud or clay, and fossilized.
>[snip]
>
>>>I say:
>>>Sounds like they lived in the tree and died with it.
>>
>>come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
>>reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
>>died?
>
>Come on, yourself. Small animals live and die in tree hollows all
>the time.
these are not tree hollows. They were living trees that died in a
catastrophe and became fossilized. Small animals do not live inside
of living trees.
> Still, if these are the fossils I think you're talking
>about, it's thought that the hollow, partly buried, partly rotted-out
>stumps formed natural traps that occasionally caught small early
>reptiles that fell in and couldn't escape.
>
I see we're again viewing things from two perspectives. You are
seeing a tree that is hollow, rotted, standing in place for many many
years, and in which small reptiles choose to live. I see a tree that
was once living and was killed in a sudden catastrophe that fossilized
it (fossils do not form standing out free in open air; they have to be
surrounded, is how I understand it).
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@msn.com> wrote in message
snip>
>> Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
>> the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
>> all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas. Look at the
>> two-page spread of a map of the area and the work being done there.
>> You will find that they are finding fossils there that cover a wide
>> range of species, from sponges, ammonoids, conodonts, bivalves, early
>> vertebrates,
>
>Hey, wait a minute. "Early" vertebrates? Since when do you believe in such a
>thing?
>
I'm using your language. You claim to have found early vertebrates in
this area. My point is not whether there are early vertebrates or
not. My point is that you find a conglomeration of species in the
same area. Since you want to give them succession, how do you decide
which came first, since layering is not apparent?
>> fishes, marine reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals,
>> pterosaurs, plants, cephalopods, foraminifera, ostracods, brachiopods,
>> crocodiles, lizards, turtles, echinoderms.
>
>And are these fossils identical to what's alive today? I sure don't see any
>dinosaurs around nowadays. Do you? How about trilobites or mammalian
>megafauna? How about creatures like Hyracotherium? Archaeopteryx? The
>therapsid reptiles? All these things are extinct; they've been replaced by
>creatures that resemble them, but are different in substantial ways and do
>not appear earlier in the fossil record. _Families_ like crocodiles and
>lizards have persisted, but individual species have died off and been
>replaced by others over time. This is clearly evident from the geological
>record..
>
you missed my point entirely. I am saying that you find all of these
creatures in the same area. Extinct or not, on what grounds do you
decide their succession? There must be a preconceived notion as to
what should come first, since you do not have them neatly laid out in
layers from early to late.
>> And after observing the field work going on there, you should inquire
>> into how it is determined that all these species found in a single
>> area are determined to be in a certain sequence. I can bet that it's
>> not because they are found stacked sequentially in cores, or arranged
>> in layers stacked one on top the other, leading to the inescapable
>> conclusion that one came before or after another.
>
>I would be very surprised as well if every fossil we found was stacked in
>neat, sequential, undisturbed layers. A lot of geologists would be out of a
>job if it was always that easy. Now how this is relevant to the wide variety
>of stratigraphic, radiometric and other dating methods which can be
>accurately used to determine the age of fossils, I really don't know.
>
it is relevant in that it appears that the fossils are used to
determine the layer they are found in, even more often than the layer
is used to determine the age of the fossil. It doesn't matter if
fossils of varying types are found in the same surface area, if has
been decided that this is supposed to be an earlier fossil, then the
sediment in which it was found is called Jurassic or Cambrian or
whatever preconceived standard was set up. And the explanation for
why it is so near the surface is that erosion or tilting brought it to
the surface. I don't buy that.
>> There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
>> it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
>> neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
>> memorize.
>
>But nor is it the jumble you seem to think it is; there are clearly defined
>sequences. People who _have_ done actual field work have told you as much in
>the past.
>
I don't want to be told. I want to see for myself. Look again at the
article in Science and see the location for the digs. There are no
clearly defined sequences in that area, that I can see. Can you?
snip>
>And you can't use the creationist's worldview to explain _anything_. Why
>does all life fall into a nested hierarchy? Well, that's just the way the
>Creator wanted it. Why are there vestigial and poorly designed structures in
>nature? God has a plan, and who are you to question him? What is the
>mechanism by which the Intelligent Designer creates? It must have been a
>miracle. And so on.
>
Have you ever heard me use those answers, Adam? Or are you in parrot
mode?
snip>
>> > That would be
>> >cruel cause it would mean that they would all be dead as soon as the
>> >conditions they were originally designed for changed. Instead, animals
>> >ARE able to adapt and even speciate like the finches on the Galapagos
>> >because that helps them survive and take advantage of new resources.
>>
>> agreed. This observation easily fits with creation.
>
>So you accept both speciation and adaptation? What's left to reject?
>
cross-speciation.
snip>
>
>So tell us, is there a "dinosaur kind" and a "bird kind"? If so, how do you
>explain the existence of intermediates like Archaeopteryx that possess
>features from both?
>
three possibilities: Archaeopteryx was a species or kind separate and
apart from other birds. Or it was a hoax (the history of the first
two of seven finds lends credence to this possibility). Or it was a
small dinosaur that got thrown together with a bird when catastrophe
overtook it, superimposing one upon the other, which would of course
mean that dinosaurs and birds coexisted.
snip>
>>
>> well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
>> Christian,
>
>And now you think she's not, because she accepts evolution?
I don't think the two are compatible. You can be a theist and an
evolutionist easily. But to be a Christian, it means accepting Jesus
as God, Creator of heaven and earth, and creator of humans in His
image.
>How typically
>arrogant of a creationist, to question the faith of anyone who doesn't see
>things their way.
I question on what grounds her faith is based. She can answer for
herself.
> Creationists like Henry Morris only state it a little more
>explicitly when they insist that anyone who disagrees with their
>interpretation of the Bible in any way cannot be a Christian.
>
there is no interpretation to the direct words from Jesus that He is
the same God of the Old Testament.
snip>
>
>> So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
>> interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
>> self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
>> Jesus-God is our Creator,
>
>"Rather"? Why do you persist in trying to create such an obvious false
>dichotomy? Who are you to tell God what methods he could have used to
>create?
>
I am not telling God what methods He used. God is telling us what
methods He used -- that is, if you're going to accept the Biblical
God. If you are not, I have no argument with you.
snip>
>
>To be frank, you only find these alternative interpretations "reasonable"
>because of massive ignorance. Example: If you think polystrate fossils are
>the result of a global flood, why are the trees often found upright and
>still rooted?
depends on which forces meet which trees.
> Is a flood that scours continents and carves out Grand Canyons
>not going to be able to push over a few puny trees?
>
yes, but if a volcanic eruption suddenly engulfs a tree, that tree
fossil can be found still standing upright, totally surrounded by
hardened mud.
snip>
>> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
>> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
>> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
>> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
>
>But considerably less useful in a world where 99% of everything that has
>ever lived is now dead. And her original critique was valid: if
>interfertility is your only criterion, then we're just as closely related to
>houseflies as we are to chimpanzees.
>
which, according to Mel, means not at all.
snip>
>So which "kind" does Archaeopteryx belong to again? Dinosaurs or birds? (And
>why?)
>
it may be a species in its own right. Or it may be a hoax. Or it may
be a composition of two creatures, one superimposed upon another.
There may even be a fourth possibility. Let me think......
snip>
>> each broad category of species, yes, but that does not say they are
>> related in the way you just described.
>
>What's a "broad category?" Are rats and mice in the same "kind"? Then why
>not humans and chimps? We're more like them than rats are like mice.
>
not by the standards of interfertility.
snip>
>> look at the real-life photos of the trees and see if there are signs
>> of roots extended from those pieces of trunk that appear in the middle
>> of layers of sediment and/or coal. Consider, also, those tree trunks
>> that are not upright but upside down.
>
>Consider the ones that _are_ upright. I can explain them easily; can you?
>
yes.
snip>
>> come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
>> reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
>> died?
>
>Is there a problem with this? I certainly don't see one. (What's your
>explanation? Did the Flood drive reptiles into tree trunks like nails?)
>
fossilization, in which the organic part of the tree was replaced by
minerals, which included the fossils of small reptiles.
snip>
>
>And unlike the creationists, who frequently seek to force their views to be
>taught and legislate creationism into public schools, evolutionists are not
>in the habit of forcing anyone to accept their interpretations as valid
>science. We prefer to let the evidence speak for itself.
>
evolutionists have forced themselves upon the classrooms by taking
over the textbooks and carrying only their philosophy on origins in
these textbooks. And then they want to accuse creationists of trying
to force their way into the textbooks? You're already there, forcing
your own peculiar views upon the hapless student who has been given no
alternative choices for origins.
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>> There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
>> it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
>> neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
>> memorize.
>
>Do you have any evidence for this vicious slander of a whole
>scientific discipline, except "If it conflicts with my worldview, it
>cannot have happened" *) ?
>
no slander. Look at the scientific magazines and you will see that
this is the truth.
zoe
Adam Marczyk
> On 13 Jul 2001 23:44:16 -0400, mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel
> turner) wrote:
>
> >In article <3b4f8969...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
zoe_a...@msn.com
> >[zoe_althrop] wrote...
> >snip>
> >
> >>Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
> >>the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
> >>all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas.
> >
> >"The same plateau and surrounding areas" can easily include a vast
> >array of very different geological strata.
> >
>
> Why are cretaceous fossils found in the same level as jurassic-type
> fossils? I asked this question on another thread and was told by one
> scientist that erosion would reveal older layers. My next question
> was, why would just specific portions of a territory erode away and
> right next door there was no erosion so that you could find "younger"
> fossils in it? I'm waiting for a satisfactory answer.
This may come as a shock to you, but organisms that were alive during the
Cretaceous may also have been alive during the Jurassic. As an alternative
possibility, one layer may have been composed of some softer kind of rock
that erodes away easily, while the next may have been something hard and
resistant to wear.
> snip>
>
> >>Count on
> >>it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
> >>neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
> >>memorize.
> >
> >And you'd know about "the actual field work evidence" how?
> >
>
> go back and look at some of the articles in Science and Nature. You
> will find actual photographs of the fossil, and along with the photo
> is a drawing of what the photograph is supposed to represent. The
> drawing is clear-cut and indisputable; the photograph is fuzzy and
> questionable. I am not about to deliver my mind over to the
> paleontologist for programming, just because he says he has had a
> Ph.D. in geology and thus is better equipped to decide that fuzzy
> shadows are proto-feathers -- especially when the drawing that
> accompanies the fuzzy photo is so vastly different than the reality.
The experts you deride have done microscopic examinations and other types of
studies on these fossils. What is your basis for rejecting their
conclusions -- because you don't like the implications they have? Didn't you
say elsewhere that a shallow "what it looks like" comparison (in this case,
to you these structures don't look like feathers) is generally invalid?
[snip]
> >That too. The two groups are related [actually, there are several
> >living tapir species, and several genera and species of rhinos, as
> >well as the various living Equus species]. There are also several
> >other entirely extinct families of perissodactyls related to all of
> >them.
> >
>
> and this is the end result of a superficial categorizing of similar
> parts looking like other similar parts -- you lose sight of the forest
> for the trees and begin to think that the horse and the rhino look a
> lot like each other and must be related.
This is pure handwaving with no effect on the validity of the conclusion.
[snip]
> >>not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
> >>original species, variation within the species has taken the species
> >>into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
> >>interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
> >>now extinct.
> >
> >So, then now you say it _is_ possible for members of a "kind" to lose
> >the ability to interbreed? Doesn't that completely ruin your sole
> >criterion for same-kindhood?
>
> not if the reason for inability to interbreed has to do with changed
> lifestyles or habits, rather than a change in genetic makeup.
And where do non-human animals' lifestyles and habits come from, if not from
their genetic makeup?
> Once again, the pygmy/Swede comparison. You don't say that humans are
> a ring species, morphing into new species, just because at one end of
> the spectrum you have the human pygmy whose lifestyle and habits are
> so different that he refuses to interbreed with a blonde Swedish model
> (or vice versa). If they should somehow manage to bridge their
> differences of culture, the pygmy and the six-foot Swedish model would
> still be able to be fertile. The fact that they do not mate does not
> make them into different species. Same for gulls.
How do you know the gull ring species are interfertile?
[snip]
> >Who says that the chronology of the fossil record would
> >at all 'undermine the relationship of a committed Christian' to his
> >or her God? Theistic evolutionists and old-earthers alike would
> >seem to disagree with the idea that it would.
>
> the conclusion drawn from a fossil record interpreted to mean that
> life on earth has been a progession from cyanobacteria to human being
> contradicts the Christian understanding that we are God's creation,
> made in His image.
What's that supposed to mean? We're not in God's image because we evolved?
Does being "made in God's image" mean that there is a _physical_ resemblance
between us and God? Does God have eyes and ears, hands and feet -- or does
it mean that the resemblance between us and God is emotional or spiritual
(as the Catholic church holds), in which case physical resemblance is
irrelevant?
> >>since your commitment to God has been tested and validated to your
> >>satisfaction, and therefore, you value that experience more highly
> >>than any seemingly contradictory data that may be interpreted in light
> >>of a non-experience .
> >
> >>So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
> >>interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
> >>self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
> >>Jesus-God is our Creator,
> >
> >Nowhere does it claim anything of the sort. You're perhaps
> >forcing a conflict where there needn't be one.
> >
>
> does the fossil record say that we self-assembled and evolved from
> cyanobacteria, or not?
>
> does the Christian belief say that God is our creator, made in His
> image, or not?
Answering "yes" to both of those questions is a perfectly consistent
position.
[snip]
> >>Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
> >>genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
> >
> >Except that interfertility is readily lost during evolutionary
> >divergence.
>
> or it was never there in the first place, and we'd like to think that
> it was lost? Or it really isn't lost but just not happening due to
> change of habits, culture, lifestyle?
No, it really is lost.
[snip]
> >as it is to
> >a fox or a cat or to any other mammal with which it can't form
> >fertile hybrids. ["Wolf" was presumably a mistaken choice, since they
> >are the same species as a dog]
> >
> >>>This is like saying a shark is as closely related to an orangutan as it
> >>>is to a manta ray.
> >
> >>I think you're confusing the evolutionary view of relatedness,
> >>including our relatedness to bacteria, with the creationist view that
> >>species are parallel with each other, not intersecting, and therefore
> >>not related, except in the most general sense that they have been made
> >>by the same Creator, using a common genetic-code design.
> >
> >No. You say that things are related by common descent only within
> >kinds. Two different mammal "kinds" really aren't any more related
> >to one another than are a mammal and a spider or a plant. They're
> >all fully separate creations, right? So why is "Mammalia" such a
> >clear-cut grouping of "kinds"? Why are there any clear-cut high-level
> >groups at all? Why do they form nested hierarchies suggesting common
> >descent instead of some crazy mish-mash of reticulated groups?
> >
>
> the broader categories represent the way the natural world is. We
> classify by what we see in the real world. We see three main
> categories of kingdoms, plant, animal, mineral (am I leaving out
> any?), so the classification starts there. Why shouldn't it?
So in other words, "God did it that way for his own ineffable reasons." How
do _you_ explain nested hierarchies, especially those constructed by shared
pseudogenes?
[snip]
> >>>I say:
> >>>Sounds like they lived in the tree and died with it.
> >>
> >>come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
> >>reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
> >>died?
> >
> >Come on, yourself. Small animals live and die in tree hollows all
> >the time.
>
> these are not tree hollows. They were living trees that died in a
> catastrophe and became fossilized. Small animals do not live inside
> of living trees.
To ask the obvious question, how do you know the tree was alive while things
were living in it?
> > Still, if these are the fossils I think you're talking
> >about, it's thought that the hollow, partly buried, partly rotted-out
> >stumps formed natural traps that occasionally caught small early
> >reptiles that fell in and couldn't escape.
> >
>
> I see we're again viewing things from two perspectives. You are
> seeing a tree that is hollow, rotted, standing in place for many many
> years, and in which small reptiles choose to live. I see a tree that
> was once living and was killed in a sudden catastrophe that fossilized
> it (fossils do not form standing out free in open air; they have to be
> surrounded, is how I understand it).
Then how do you explain the animals fossilized inside it? As you just said,
animals do not live inside living trees. Am I missing something or are you
just being inconsistent?
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>
>I say:
>Just because they found them all in the same area doesn't mean they all
>came from the same time. If they did, then it's only reasonable they
>would find a lot of sea life that is still around even now. I think the
>main thing would be if there were legitimate "out of order" fossils
>found, that were not doctored or false, then that would be exciting!
>
there ARE legitimate "out of order" fossils found there. Marine
fossils, for instance, when marine fossils are not supposed to be up
there. You ought to read the article in Science for yourself.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
>it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
>neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to memorize.
>
>I say:
>Since I'm not able to do actual science research yet then I can't say
>that's wrong because I haven't seen it for myself, however what are the
>textbooks based on if they aren't based on real science? Did someone
>find a fossil of a Triassic giraffe and write down that it was a
>dinosaur? If they did such a thing would the other people criticize them
>for not representing what they really found?
>
I saw no criticism of the representation made of Microraptor from
reality to drawing. The photo of the actual specimen was nothing like
the clarity of the drawn version.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>I'm not clear on your listing up there. Are you saying that all four
>species are related, the rhino to the horse, as to the tapir and zebra
>as well? Or are you putting tapirs and rhinos in one group and horses
>and zebras in another group, or what?
>
>I say:
>Tapirs, Rhinos, Horses, and Zebra are ALL related to each other
>according to science. Just like manatee, mammoth, and african and asian
>elephants.
>
and so it goes.......the student continues to accept, unquestioningly,
the dictates of science. Wendy, you need to think for yourself, ask
questions, be not so easily satisfied. While in class, you're going
to have to give the answers that the teacher wants, if you're going to
make good grades, but that does not mean you have to accept what the
textbooks say, without question, when it comes to your own personal
philosophy on life.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>You can't use the evolutionary worldview to explain the creationist's
>worldview.
>
>I say:
>By saying that do you mean that nothing in mainstream science can be
>accepted by someone who chooses to believe in special creation?
the data should be accepted. The data is good. The interpretation of
the data is another matter altogether. You should feel free to
understand and interpret the data as your intelligence and ability to
reason dictates.
>The
>thing that bothers me about that is that science is a direct observation
>of the creation. I guess it really does come down to interpreting what
>we find there as supporting one world view or the other. My whole
>purpose in coming to this group was to see if anyone could answer my
>questions about the FACTS of nature in a way that could make sense
>within the creationist world view as you put it. Sadly for me, the only
>people who have said anything convincing have been on the other side of
>the coin.
then if you are so convinced, you should follow your convictions. I
guess that means I can move on then.
>
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify life
>forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
>
>I say:
>Current infertility doesn't mean they didn't have a common ancestor.
>
okay. Your mind is made up then. Discussion over.
snip>
>Maybe you misunderstood what I meant in my first posting. In Genesis God
>tells all the life forms to reproduce after their own kind. This raises
>the question for those who would believe the text to be true, "what were
>those kinds?". According to a creationist, all species would have had to
>originated from those original created kinds.
>
>My question was meant to mean, "According to a creationist model, what
>are the different kinds included in the original creation of life?"
>
you'd find them by studying the interfertility of life forms, imo, and
extrapolating backwards. Since no one today was present at the
original creation, we can only extrapolate, not say for sure.
>zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) said:
>well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
>Christian, which implied that you had figured out your reasons for
>believing in Christ and were secure in your relationship with Him.
>
>I say:
>I am. I have questions about science, that's all. Questions that no
>creationist would or could answer for me.
I wonder about that when there are creationist websites and
creationists books and creationists scientists out there who are quite
verbal about these questions. And here, again, in this thread, you
have another creationist attempting to answer your questions. So how
about not whining anymore.
> Note the title of this thread.
>I think I already stated that trying to get an answer from anyone has
>been like talking to a brick wall. I believe in creation. I believe in
>evolution too. I think the only real difference between the two comes at
>a point when you have to ask yourself, "Do I believe living things
>evolved by natural means , or did they evolve from an original group of
>created life forms?"
>
you could possibly settle the conflict by being a theistic
evolutionist.
snip>
>I say:
>I'm happy that you've been able to find this resolution within yourself.
>I tend to really want facts though,
I gave you facts, I gave you real-life photos to judge for yourself,
and gave you sources.
> so it's a little bit harder for me
>to just throw it all up in the air and deliberately forget what I've
>learned. In fact, I can't do that. If there is a way to resolve the
>apparent conflicts, I want to find it, but I haven't yet.
>
I wish you well on your search for truth. If you are persistent and
not easily impressed, you should get there sooner or later.
I wonder why you think I would do any different when it comes to the
broader categories? I'm surprised that you would leave out something
as obvious and critical as interfertility, though.
snip>
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>Zoe, I gave your link a second look. It was interesting, but is it
>possible that if the layers were soft enough as they were being laid
>down, that a rock-like petrified tree might have shifted within them,
>even turned upside down?
well, both the tree and the surrounding sediment would fossilize at
the same time. You don't find a fossilized tree sitting around in
open air.
>Are there any other fossils that are out of
>order (not from Texas). Cause if they're only trees, then that doesn't
>necessarily change things for the whole fossil record it just means that
>trees themselves have a way of shifting around.
>
yes, there are fossils out of order. Do a search. And trees that go
through different layers of "geological time" are indeed out of order.
zoe
mel turner
[zoe_althrop] wrote...
>On 13 Jul 2001 22:09:45 -0400, Gen2Rev <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>snip>
>
>>> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
>>> life forms according to the interfertility-only rule.
>>
>>If that was the case, we wouldn't have groupings such as "mammals", or
>>"birds"
>
>and why not, Gen2Rev?
Because there's no reason to expect there would be any such
recognizable groups. Certainly you'd have no explanation for
their existence, let alone any way to predict that there
would be consistent groupings for different traits or genes.
>It is useful to have broad categories -- plant
>kingdom, animal kingdom, mineral kingdom --
"Mineral kingdom"? [What about earth, air, fire and water?]
>consisting of
>subcategories bearing certain characteristics that identify them as
>belonging to that category. So, for instance, the animal kingdom
>divides into mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and
>invertebrates -- did I leave out any?
Yes, many, many. "Invertebrates" aren't a group at all. It's
just a word for "those animals that aren't vertebrates".
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/animals.html
>And there are boundaries between these categories -- the mammals
>cannot interbreed with birds,
And most mammals can't breed with most other mammals either.
Nor any birds with any other "kind" of birds. Remember? The
question here was why/how we can recognize any clear groups
_above_ your ability-to-breed-defined "kinds". See? It's there
up at the top...
>or amphibians with reptiles, etc. And
>within the subcategories of these main categories,
Why are there any main categories at all? What explains
their existence and recognizability, besides evolutionary
common descent?
there are further
>boundaries between the species, so that the kangaroo is not going to
>interbreed with the wolf, even though they are both considered
>mammals.
You seem to have completely lost sight of the topic. It was:
what about groupings far _above_ your [still] able-to-interbreed
level? If you believe "dogs" and "cats" are "kinds", then what
is Carnivora? What is Mammalia? What is Vertebrata? Are they all
just imaginary chance resemblances like shapes people see in
clouds? Do they have any reality or meaning at all?
>snip>
>
>>> not every modern species was alive at the beginning, imo. From the
>>> original species, variation within the species has taken the species
>>> into quite a diversity of life forms, some of which can no longer
>>> interbreed as a result of location or habits, and some of which are
>>> now extinct.
>>
>>But they could interbreed if they were in the same location and had the
>>same habits?
>yes, if their habits became similar once again over a period of time,
>imo, they should be able to interbreed.
Why do you think no species can ever lose the ability to
interbreed? The implicit claim that they can't seems central
to your position on "kinds". Where's it coming from?
The gull ring species
>consists of birds that eventually do not interbreed because they live
>in different habitats, have formed different habits, and thus have no
>inclination to breed -- not because they are physically or genetically
>unequipped to breed.
And you know about this how? You seem to assert this claim
without any valid reason why anyone else should believe you.
Biologists know there are indeed species clines that do involve
physical, genetic inabilities of the end forms to successfully
breed with one another.
[So, it seems you're evidently claiming that the "different
habits" of the two end forms lack any genetic basis. Is that
right?]
>snip>
>
>>> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
>>> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
>>> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
>>> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
More accurate for what? More accurate in telling us about the
limits to interfertility, certainly. But what if anything does
that tell us about the history of the organisms?
>>But what about creatures that can no longer breed because they're
>>extinct? How does one classify in these situations?
>guesswork -- as occurs regularly with the fossil record. No one knows
>for sure, but a standard has been set up for what we think looks like
>the correct category for the extinct creature.
Yeah, right, and "guesswork" must also be good enough for most
living species as well. There isn't any extensive database on
experimental crosses between all known forms of organisms. For
example, how do we apply your sole criterion to hominids without
unethical attempts at breeding human/ape hybrids [for several
generations!]?
>snip>
>
>>But what about lions and tigers? Male Lions and female tigers produce
>>infertile offspring, but female lions and male tigers produce fertile
>>offspring. Are lions and tigers different 'kinds'?
>
>"Ligers"? Do the offspring of female lions and male tigers continue
>to produce for generations?
Probably. Why not? Do you have any good reasons to doubt they
could?
>Are "ligers" a common and viable species
>found in the world today?
Whoosh! [Was that a moving goalpost that just went by?] Since
when was "hybrid actually exists in the wild as a 'common and
viable species'" ever any part of your criterion for interfertility
of the parental forms?
>If not, then they are not evidence of
>fertility.
Yes they are. After all, it's just different "habits" that keep
them from breeding in the wild. ;-)
In captivity they do breed and at least some of the offspring
are fertile. [There's no mechanism I know of to cause
complete sterility to arise only in later-generation backcrosses].
>Interfertility means, imo, the ability to be fruitful and
>multiply -- for generations, not just one time in a lab setting.
You seem to have lost the thread of the question again. Lions
and tigers can and do form hybrids, and the hybrids can be fertile.
Nobody was asking if wild tiger X lion crosses were common and
established in the wild as a species in their own right. They
clearly aren't. The question remains, what does the ability to
form some fertile hybrids tell us, if anything, about the "kind"
relationships of lions and tigers?
>snip>
>
>><Tree trunk stuff snipped>
>
>any particular reason why the tree trunk stuff was snipped?
Maybe because it's so pointless, and has already been
adequately answered by others?
cheers
Andrew Glasgow
zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
Zoe, understanding the methods of a discipline requires much more than
just "looking at the scientific magazines", a phrase pregnant with
ignorance.
Chris Porter
(zoe_althrop) wrote:
>>Zoe, I gave your link a second look. It was interesting, but is it
>>possible that if the layers were soft enough as they were being laid
>>down, that a rock-like petrified tree might have shifted within them,
>>even turned upside down?
>
> well, both the tree and the surrounding sediment would fossilize at
> the same time. You don't find a fossilized tree sitting around in
> open air.
At the Petrified Forest in Arizona, USA, many fossilized
trees are sitting around in open air. Why did you make the
statement they are not?
Are these polystrate fossil trees younger than the
surrounding rock, or older, or the same age?
(snip)
-- Cheers, Chris
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a
profound truth may well be another profound truth.- Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
John Pieper
>On 13 Jul 2001 10:09:45 -0400, jb...@home.com (John Pieper) wrote:
>
>>On 12 Jul 2001 23:57:10 -0400, "zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@microsoft.com>
>>wrote:
>snip>
>>>
>>>and why did you snip my response to Wendy/aka diamond dust/aka defender of
>>>evolution, (as I've begun to notice)? Couldn't answer it yourself, could
>>>you. :-/
>>
>>Because the answers are in the t.o. archives, as I knew others would
>>point out, and I just wanted to make those comments.
>>
>
>awwww,,,, puppet.
Really, Zoe, that's uncalled for. What do you expect me to do, make up my
own answer out of whole cloth? The very reason t.o. has a FAQ is so we
can point to answers to those FA questions from an _admittedly_ mainstream
scientific viewpoint. If I or anyone else points to one of those answers,
does it mean that we accept that answer on blind faith (as you clearly
imply)? No. I may not be a geologist, for instance, but I do understand
the basic principles of geology, and the process by which real science is
done, well enough to give informed consent to that answer. We have
standards for accepting scientific statements. Here are mine:
-It must be understandable.
-It must make sense within the context of the field of study.
-It must satisfactorily explain the observations or experiments which it
addresses.
-It must not obviously contradict any other observed facts.
-It must be based on sound scholarship.
>
>>Anyway, you've not answered my last critique of your understanding of
>>thermodynamics in the "Evidence?" thread.
>
>I don't remember what your critique is now, and would have to go back
>and dig it out -- my apologies. If you care to repost it, I'll
>respond this time. Believe me, it's time-consuming trying to keep up
>with the long and unwieldy threads on this forum. And I know I've
>gotten sidetracked to other topics and threads -- as is evident in
>this one....
OK, I've reposted it in the original thread.
--
John Pieper |"That a man can take pleasure in marching in fours
jbp34 |to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him.
@home |He has only been given his big brain by mistake; unprotected
.com |spinal marrow was all he needed."--Albert Einstein
zoe_althrop
>On 13 Jul 2001 18:32:00 -0400, zoe_a...@msn.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>and why did you snip my response to Wendy/aka diamond dust/aka defender of
>>>>evolution, (as I've begun to notice)? Couldn't answer it yourself, could
>>>>you. :-/
>>>
>>>Because the answers are in the t.o. archives, as I knew others would
>>>point out, and I just wanted to make those comments.
>>>
>>
>>awwww,,,, puppet.
>
>Really, Zoe, that's uncalled for. What do you expect me to do, make up my
>own answer out of whole cloth?
no, that is not what I expected of you. I was looking for an answer
based on your own personal understanding of the T.O. FAQ. I mean, I
guess I could read the FAQ, and I could refrain from ever bringing a
question to you here on the forum, but that seems to defeat the
purpose of a forum, doesn't it? I still had questions after reading
the FAQ, and I wanted to hear your understanding of the problem, not a
FAQ repeat. And I wasn't expecting an article-length answer, either
-- just a brief summation of how you personally solved the
polystrate-tree question.
>The very reason t.o. has a FAQ is so we
>can point to answers to those FA questions from an _admittedly_ mainstream
>scientific viewpoint. If I or anyone else points to one of those answers,
>does it mean that we accept that answer on blind faith (as you clearly
>imply)?
that really was not my implication. My implication was that you were
allowing the FAQs to speak for you, rather than you speaking for
yourself. And if the FAQs say exactly what you would say, then I'd
say that your answer was a lazy one. It would be like if you asked me
some problematic question pertaining to the Bible, and instead of
answering with my own understanding, I directed you to go read the
Bible yourself, and you would find the answer.
Of course, I highly recommend that you do go read the Bible, just on a
general basis, but at a point where you'd ask me a direct question,
I'd hope I'd try to answer with my own understanding, after which I
could suggest that you study the Bible for yourself, to determine
whether it really says what I said it said, or not.
> No. I may not be a geologist, for instance, but I do understand
>the basic principles of geology, and the process by which real science is
>done, well enough to give informed consent to that answer. We have
>standards for accepting scientific statements. Here are mine:
>
>-It must be understandable.
oh, yes!
>-It must make sense within the context of the field of study.
okay.
>-It must satisfactorily explain the observations or experiments which it
> addresses.
of course, there's the usual problem of who is satisfied with what.
One person's satisfaction is another person's dissatisfaction. This
seems to be a rather subjective standard, doesn't it?
>-It must not obviously contradict any other observed facts.
okay.
>-It must be based on sound scholarship.
agreed.
>>
>>>Anyway, you've not answered my last critique of your understanding of
>>>thermodynamics in the "Evidence?" thread.
>>
>>I don't remember what your critique is now, and would have to go back
>>and dig it out -- my apologies. If you care to repost it, I'll
>>respond this time. Believe me, it's time-consuming trying to keep up
>>with the long and unwieldy threads on this forum. And I know I've
>>gotten sidetracked to other topics and threads -- as is evident in
>>this one....
>
>OK, I've reposted it in the original thread.
I'll try to get over there in a bit......
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>Um, did you forget what you just wrote?
>
>> >> I wouldn't be so sure of that until an attempt was made to classify
>> >> life forms according to the _interfertility-only rule._
>
>You also added:
>
>> >> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
>> >> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
>
>So which is it? Do we qualify life forms according only to interfertility,
>in which case humans are as close to houseflies as they are to chimps,
meaning, not close at all.
> or do
>we allow other considerations like the shallow and superficial "looks like"
>consideration to allow for classifications such as birds, mammals, etc.?
>
I would imagine that the broader categorization can use other
standards besides non-interfertility. At categories above the species
levels, the "looks like" or "functions like" standards would be useful
for categorizing life forms above the species level. But why couldn't
the non-interfertility standard be applied first before testing for
the broader, more superficial categories that would include or exclude
species based on other determinants.
For instance, the Ursus arctos middendorffi (Kodiak) bear may be able
to interbreed with the Ursus arctos arctos, or with the Ursus
americanus (Black bear) or maybe even the Ursus maritimus (Polar bear)
(lifestyles and habits permitting) but these three may be unable to
interbreed with the Ailuropoda melanoleuca (Giant Panda). If this is
the case, you would categorize the first three as belonging to the
same species, and the Panda not. But on a higher level, you would
put the Panda into the same category as the others, that of
carnivorous Ursidae, based on similarities of phenotype and function.
And above this level, I suppose you would group them all as mammals,
or some such.
>[snip]
> The gull ring species
>> consists of birds that eventually do not interbreed because they live
>> in different habitats, have formed different habits, and thus have no
>> inclination to breed -- not because they are physically or genetically
>> unequipped to breed.
>
>Where do you think their inclination or lack of same to breed comes from, if
>not their genes?
>
if you were to develop the habit of going to sleep at sundown because
you have to be up at 3 a.m. to work, and you get together with someone
who sleeps all day and wakes up at sundown because their work begins
at 9:00 p.m., do you consider these habits genetic? No. They are a
result of lifestyle.
Similarly, the time difference in one part of the world could be a
factor in forming certain habits in one group of gulls, so that if
they were to get together with gulls from another time zone (call it
gull jet lag), the habits and lifestyles would prevent the two birds
from mating because when one is awake, the other is going to sleep,
and vice versa.
>[snip]
>
>> >> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
>> >> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
>> >> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
>> >> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
>> >
>> >But what about creatures that can no longer breed because they're
>> >extinct? How does one classify in these situations?
>>
>> guesswork -- as occurs regularly with the fossil record. No one knows
>> for sure, but a standard has been set up for what we think looks like
>> the correct category for the extinct creature.
>
>We _have_ done this. It produces a pattern called a nested hierarchy. Your
>argument is entirely inconsistent.
>
methinks your standards for nested hierarchy are not stringent enough.
If it took into account the differences, you would have a different,
more rigorous grouping of hierarchies.
zoe
zoe_althrop
<chrisporter...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <3b5107d0....@news-server.cfl.rr.com> , zoe_a...@msn.com
>(zoe_althrop) wrote:
>
>>>Zoe, I gave your link a second look. It was interesting, but is it
>>>possible that if the layers were soft enough as they were being laid
>>>down, that a rock-like petrified tree might have shifted within them,
>>>even turned upside down?
>>
>> well, both the tree and the surrounding sediment would fossilize at
>> the same time. You don't find a fossilized tree sitting around in
>> open air.
>
>At the Petrified Forest in Arizona, USA, many fossilized
>trees are sitting around in open air. Why did you make the
>statement they are not?
>
I should have been more specific. Trees do not fossilize while
sitting around in open air.
>Are these polystrate fossil trees younger than the
>surrounding rock, or older, or the same age?
>
same age, imo.
zoe
lenny
> > The gull ring species
> >> consists of birds that eventually do not interbreed because they live
> >> in different habitats, have formed different habits, and thus have no
> >> inclination to breed -- not because they are physically or genetically
> >> unequipped to breed.
> >
> >Where do you think their inclination or lack of same to breed comes from,
if
> >not their genes?
> >
>
> if you were to develop the habit of going to sleep at sundown because
> you have to be up at 3 a.m. to work, and you get together with someone
> who sleeps all day and wakes up at sundown because their work begins
> at 9:00 p.m., do you consider these habits genetic? No. They are a
> result of lifestyle.
>
> Similarly, the time difference in one part of the world could be a
> factor in forming certain habits in one group of gulls, so that if
> they were to get together with gulls from another time zone (call it
> gull jet lag), the habits and lifestyles would prevent the two birds
> from mating because when one is awake, the other is going to sleep,
> and vice versa.
You *still* don't know what a ring species is!
I wonder what the record is for you blathering on about something without
having any idea what you are talking about.
A Rassenkreis is a group of subspecies connected by clines, where some of
the subspecies may be sexually or genetically isolated from each other. A
*Ring Species* is a Rassenkreis with non-interbreeding *but geographically
overlapping* forms that interbreed with other forms. In the case of the
gulls, we are talking about the herring gull (Larus argentatus) and the
lesser black-backed gull (Larus graellsii), which live in the *same area* in
northern Europe. Perhaps you would like to tell us what differences in
lifestyle and habit are keeping these very similar birds living in the same
area from interbreeding, and what changes would result in them interbreeding
in the future.
Adam Marczyk
It _is_ applied first. Cripes.
> For instance, the Ursus arctos middendorffi (Kodiak) bear may be able
> to interbreed with the Ursus arctos arctos, or with the Ursus
> americanus (Black bear) or maybe even the Ursus maritimus (Polar bear)
> (lifestyles and habits permitting) but these three may be unable to
> interbreed with the Ailuropoda melanoleuca (Giant Panda). If this is
> the case, you would categorize the first three as belonging to the
> same species, and the Panda not. But on a higher level, you would
> put the Panda into the same category as the others, that of
> carnivorous Ursidae, based on similarities of phenotype and function.
> And above this level, I suppose you would group them all as mammals,
> or some such.
Yes. Again, this is called a nested hierarchy. It's the pattern produced by
evolution.
> >[snip]
>
> > The gull ring species
> >> consists of birds that eventually do not interbreed because they live
> >> in different habitats, have formed different habits, and thus have no
> >> inclination to breed -- not because they are physically or genetically
> >> unequipped to breed.
> >
> >Where do you think their inclination or lack of same to breed comes from,
if
> >not their genes?
>
> if you were to develop the habit of going to sleep at sundown because
> you have to be up at 3 a.m. to work, and you get together with someone
> who sleeps all day and wakes up at sundown because their work begins
> at 9:00 p.m., do you consider these habits genetic? No. They are a
> result of lifestyle.
Human lifestyles are not dictated by instinct. Surely even you see how
ridiculous your argument is.
> Similarly, the time difference in one part of the world could be a
> factor in forming certain habits in one group of gulls, so that if
> they were to get together with gulls from another time zone (call it
> gull jet lag), the habits and lifestyles would prevent the two birds
> from mating because when one is awake, the other is going to sleep,
> and vice versa.
Or maybe not. Sheesh. Do you have any idea how absurd you're being?
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion,
a
> >> >> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which
group.
> >> >> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
> >> >> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
> >> >
> >> >But what about creatures that can no longer breed because they're
> >> >extinct? How does one classify in these situations?
> >>
> >> guesswork -- as occurs regularly with the fossil record. No one knows
> >> for sure, but a standard has been set up for what we think looks like
> >> the correct category for the extinct creature.
> >
> >We _have_ done this. It produces a pattern called a nested hierarchy.
Your
> >argument is entirely inconsistent.
> >
>
> methinks your standards for nested hierarchy are not stringent enough.
> If it took into account the differences, you would have a different,
> more rigorous grouping of hierarchies.
What differences?
Adam Marczyk
> On 14 Jul 2001 00:44:22 -0400, "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@msn.com> wrote in message
> snip>
> >> Take a look at Science, January 12, 2001, Vol. 291,
> >> the article on paleontology in China. You will note that the digs are
> >> all in the same Tibetan plateau and surrounding areas. Look at the
> >> two-page spread of a map of the area and the work being done there.
> >> You will find that they are finding fossils there that cover a wide
> >> range of species, from sponges, ammonoids, conodonts, bivalves, early
> >> vertebrates,
> >
> >Hey, wait a minute. "Early" vertebrates? Since when do you believe in
such a
> >thing?
> >
>
> I'm using your language. You claim to have found early vertebrates in
> this area. My point is not whether there are early vertebrates or
> not. My point is that you find a conglomeration of species in the
> same area. Since you want to give them succession, how do you decide
> which came first, since layering is not apparent?
How do you know it isn't? Does the article say that?
[snip]
> >> And after observing the field work going on there, you should inquire
> >> into how it is determined that all these species found in a single
> >> area are determined to be in a certain sequence. I can bet that it's
> >> not because they are found stacked sequentially in cores, or arranged
> >> in layers stacked one on top the other, leading to the inescapable
> >> conclusion that one came before or after another.
> >
> >I would be very surprised as well if every fossil we found was stacked in
> >neat, sequential, undisturbed layers. A lot of geologists would be out of
a
> >job if it was always that easy. Now how this is relevant to the wide
variety
> >of stratigraphic, radiometric and other dating methods which can be
> >accurately used to determine the age of fossils, I really don't know.
> >
>
> it is relevant in that it appears that the fossils are used to
> determine the layer they are found in, even more often than the layer
> is used to determine the age of the fossil. It doesn't matter if
> fossils of varying types are found in the same surface area, if has
> been decided that this is supposed to be an earlier fossil, then the
> sediment in which it was found is called Jurassic or Cambrian or
> whatever preconceived standard was set up. And the explanation for
> why it is so near the surface is that erosion or tilting brought it to
> the surface. I don't buy that.
Do tell. Because you have reasons backed by evidence or because you don't
like their conclusion?
> >> There are some preconceived notions governing sequence here. Count on
> >> it. The actual field work evidence looks nothing like the textbook's
> >> neat ascending order of species printed out for the student to
> >> memorize.
> >
> >But nor is it the jumble you seem to think it is; there are clearly
defined
> >sequences. People who _have_ done actual field work have told you as much
in
> >the past.
> >
>
> I don't want to be told. I want to see for myself. Look again at the
> article in Science and see the location for the digs. There are no
> clearly defined sequences in that area, that I can see. Can you?
I don't have the article available.
> snip>
> >And you can't use the creationist's worldview to explain _anything_. Why
> >does all life fall into a nested hierarchy? Well, that's just the way the
> >Creator wanted it. Why are there vestigial and poorly designed structures
in
> >nature? God has a plan, and who are you to question him? What is the
> >mechanism by which the Intelligent Designer creates? It must have been a
> >miracle. And so on.
> >
>
> Have you ever heard me use those answers, Adam? Or are you in parrot
> mode?
If you have more substantial answers, feel free to present them. (Note:
"Because of original sin" is not a more substantial answer for the existence
of vestigial structures than the one given above.)
> snip>
>
> >> > That would be
> >> >cruel cause it would mean that they would all be dead as soon as the
> >> >conditions they were originally designed for changed. Instead, animals
> >> >ARE able to adapt and even speciate like the finches on the Galapagos
> >> >because that helps them survive and take advantage of new resources.
> >>
> >> agreed. This observation easily fits with creation.
> >
> >So you accept both speciation and adaptation? What's left to reject?
> >
>
> cross-speciation.
And what is that?
> snip>
> >
> >So tell us, is there a "dinosaur kind" and a "bird kind"? If so, how do
you
> >explain the existence of intermediates like Archaeopteryx that possess
> >features from both?
> >
>
> three possibilities: Archaeopteryx was a species or kind separate and
> apart from other birds.
Then why does it have features from two kinds (i.e., features that bridge
the "kind" gap)?
> Or it was a hoax (the history of the first
> two of seven finds lends credence to this possibility). Or it was a
> small dinosaur that got thrown together with a bird when catastrophe
> overtook it, superimposing one upon the other, which would of course
> mean that dinosaurs and birds coexisted.
"Got thrown together with a bird"? Heh. Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I
suppose the bird's bones lined up perfectly with the dinosaur's bones and
fused with them, right? And then this happened -- oh, what, five or six more
times? (You are aware that there is more than one specimen of Archaeopteryx,
right? Yeah, I see that you are.)
> snip>
> >>
> >> well, I thought you were coming from the perspective of a committed
> >> Christian,
> >
> >And now you think she's not, because she accepts evolution?
>
> I don't think the two are compatible. You can be a theist and an
> evolutionist easily. But to be a Christian, it means accepting Jesus
> as God, Creator of heaven and earth, and creator of humans in His
> image.
And evolution interferes with that idea how, again?
[snip]
> >> So if, then, you find yourself faced with a philosophy that, by its
> >> interpretation of the fossil record, claims that this is proof that we
> >> self-assembled and evolved from algae or bacteria, rather than that
> >> Jesus-God is our Creator,
> >
> >"Rather"? Why do you persist in trying to create such an obvious false
> >dichotomy? Who are you to tell God what methods he could have used to
> >create?
> >
>
> I am not telling God what methods He used. God is telling us what
> methods He used -- that is, if you're going to accept the Biblical
> God. If you are not, I have no argument with you.
Let's try a thought exercise here. Imagine that God used evolution as his
creative method, and wanted to say so to the people to whom he dictated
Genesis. How would he explain it to them? Bear in mind that these people
have no knowledge of genetics or heredity and no comprehension of the time
spans involved. (Does Ancient Hebrew even have a _word_ for "billion"? I
would be very surprised if it did.)
> snip>
> >
> >To be frank, you only find these alternative interpretations "reasonable"
> >because of massive ignorance. Example: If you think polystrate fossils
are
> >the result of a global flood, why are the trees often found upright and
> >still rooted?
>
> depends on which forces meet which trees.
>
> > Is a flood that scours continents and carves out Grand Canyons
> >not going to be able to push over a few puny trees?
> >
>
> yes, but if a volcanic eruption suddenly engulfs a tree, that tree
> fossil can be found still standing upright, totally surrounded by
> hardened mud.
I agree. That is in fact the standard explanation for most polystrate
fossils.
> snip>
>
> >> the "looks like" manner of interpreting evidence is, in my opinion, a
> >> shallow and superficial way to determine what belongs to which group.
> >> Interfertility, which is inescapably tied to the boundaries of the
> >> genetic code, imo, is more accurate.
> >
> >But considerably less useful in a world where 99% of everything that has
> >ever lived is now dead. And her original critique was valid: if
> >interfertility is your only criterion, then we're just as closely related
to
> >houseflies as we are to chimpanzees.
>
> which, according to Mel, means not at all.
Correct. _If_ interfertility is your only criterion. Other ones, such as
shared pseudogenes, morphological and cognitive similarities, and fossil
ancestors should also be considered, though.
> snip>
>
> >So which "kind" does Archaeopteryx belong to again? Dinosaurs or birds?
(And
> >why?)
> >
>
> it may be a species in its own right.
Why, then, does it have a combination of features from various "kinds"?
> Or it may be a hoax.
All seven specimens? Despite rigorous microscopic examination? (IIRC,
fossilized _bacteria_ have been found on one studied specimen, using
electron microscopy. That would be utterly impossible to fake with the
technology of the time -- it would probably be impossible to fake with
_today's_ technology.)
> Or it may
> be a composition of two creatures, one superimposed upon another.
I can't help laughing when I read this. ;) Did the bird's bones get
perfectly lined up with the dinosaur's and somehow fuse into them? Did the
force of impact obliterate the bird entirely except for its feathers, which
again were perfectly lined up with the dinosaur's body (which was not at all
damaged by said impact)?
> There may even be a fourth possibility. Let me think......
>
> snip>
>
> >> each broad category of species, yes, but that does not say they are
> >> related in the way you just described.
> >
> >What's a "broad category?" Are rats and mice in the same "kind"? Then why
> >not humans and chimps? We're more like them than rats are like mice.
>
> not by the standards of interfertility.
Rats and mice aren't interfertile that I'm aware of.
[snip]
> >> come on, try that one again, Wendy. Do you really think that small
> >> reptiles lived inside of living trees before both they and the tree
> >> died?
> >
> >Is there a problem with this? I certainly don't see one. (What's your
> >explanation? Did the Flood drive reptiles into tree trunks like nails?)
>
> fossilization, in which the organic part of the tree was replaced by
> minerals, which included the fossils of small reptiles.
You seem to have a severely muddled understanding of how this process works.
Fossilization typically occurs when mineral-rich water percolates through a
specimen and eventually replaces the calcium (or wood or whatever) with
depositions of said minerals. Entire smaller fossils don't get carried up
into the specimen along with the water. That's just wrong in so many ways I
don't even know where to begin.
> snip>
> >
> >And unlike the creationists, who frequently seek to force their views to
be
> >taught and legislate creationism into public schools, evolutionists are
not
> >in the habit of forcing anyone to accept their interpretations as valid
> >science. We prefer to let the evidence speak for itself.
> >
>
> evolutionists have forced themselves upon the classrooms by taking
> over the textbooks and carrying only their philosophy on origins in
> these textbooks.
Where are there laws that require the teaching of evolution?
> And then they want to accuse creationists of trying
> to force their way into the textbooks? You're already there, forcing
> your own peculiar views upon the hapless student who has been given no
> alternative choices for origins.
There are no alternative choices -- at least, no scientific ones. If the
parents want to teach their kids about creationism at home or in church,
that's their business. Again I repeat: The teaching of evolution is _not
mandated_ in public schools (unlike creationism, whose proponents seek to
pass laws that would force it to be taught). Evolution is taught because it
is scientific and because it explains the evidence the best.