The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[CrazyScientist]

FL2, I must question your reasoning regarding a point you made earlier.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you claim that finches are a kind, but individual species of finches are not kinds. This reasoning brings to mind two questions.
1) If all finches are one kind, why then are all small, flying birds not a kind? They all share very similar morphological, genetic & phenotypic characteristics. It could be argued that the differences, even between a finch and an ostrich, are differences entirely of degree, not of kind. A few genetic changes causing certain finch tissues to marinate in certain finch morphogens for a slightly
different amount of time during development, and you could get a creature that very closely resembled an ostrich.
2) Keep in mind that there is far more genetic diversity within the finch family than there is, for example, between humans and chimpanzees. If all finches are a kind, can I then take it from your reasoning that humans and chimps are of the same kind?

I submit that they are not the same kind, but that nor are the entirety of the finch family a single kind, and
the reason lies in the properties of biological species. One property of species is that some force of cohesion prevents any one population from diverging very far genetically from the rest, such that there is more similarity within a species, than between species. In most macro-organisms, that force of cohesion is genetic exchange (in microorganisms and other mostly asexual taxa there are other forces of cohesion, which I will not go into unless asked). Two populations of the same species that are exchanging genes can retain their genetic similarity despite divergent selection pressures. The key is in the balance between the intensity of selection for divergence and the rate of gene flow. If genetic exchange is rare, and selection is strong, then the two populations will diverge quickly. If genetic exchange is common, and there is no selection or only weak selection favoring divergence, then the two populations will remain similar. If for whatever reason (geographic, physiological, genetic) the two populations lose the ability to interbreed, then they are free to diverge without bound, because all genetic change within each population will be at the mercy of either genetic drift, or of the different selection pressures of their respective environments. They are also irreversibly seperate once this occurs. If brought back into sympatry, one of the two new species could outcompete the other to extinction (assuming the two are still ecologically similar) but they will never be the same species again. For this reason, it makes no biological sense to use any unit other than the species to describe a "kind". Being a seperate species is all it takes to result in irreversible separation, and given time, divergence without bound. After all, all of the higher taxonomic clades began with a single speciation event, resulting in the common ancestor of that clade. They are much more arbitrary and man-made than species are. Therefore the only reasonable alternative to assuming that "kinds" are species, is to accept that all living organisms are a single kind.
To me, using species makes more sense, but I admit that I am not a religious person. I do not happen to believe in God or the bible, therefore it does not bother me that species as kinds can give rise to different kinds in direct contradiction to biblical statements. However, if God was an essential element of my world view, here is how I think I would interpret the bible's statement about all things "reproducing after their own kind" in view of the evidence available.
I would assume that God meant that all living organisms are of a kind. I admit I have not read genesis in its entirety. Perhaps there is a specific definition of "kind" somewhere in there that precludes the possiblilty of such reasoning. I don't claim to have any knowledge in that regard. Isn't it just possible though, that one could interpret that statement as God giving human beings a hint about evolution, and the descent of all living things from a single cell, reproducing after their own kind (the living organism kind), to result in the whole biosphere of diversity we see today?
If I'm not mistaken, the bible says the world was created in six days 6000 years ago. I know that you do not believe this to be true, because I have seen you state in this and other threads that this must be a symbolic time period, that the "days" of God are different from the days of humans. In light of the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth this is the only interpretation that makes sense if one believes that the bible is the word of God, because we assume that God would neither allow a mistake to be made in His word, nor would he lie to His followers.
However, by the same token, could it not be argued that in light of the scientific evidence available, God must have meant that all living things were of a kind, and was clueing the faithul in about macro-evolution? To me this seems a smaller leap than accepting that 6 days means 4 billion years, but that's just me. I would not presume to try to influence your personal beliefs, I just thought I'd throw that hypothesis out there for your consideration and perhaps some good debate.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[carlosMM]

And here is this again. This subtle assault on the concept of species in itself. The ToE can't prove a significant morphological change is possible via the ToE, so it seeks to tear down the concept of species so that speciation becomes irrelevant. Is this supposed to make descent with modification easier to accept as the cause of branching from common ancestry?

I read this, I read your previous posts where you claim there is no definition of species, only of kind, which, (may I remind you of your claim in the flood thread long ago?) have a far slammer number than species (so they fit on the arch) - and I get confused: what is it now?
does the ToE use the (as you claim false) concept of species and you'd rahter use 'kinds'?
if so, what are 'kinds'? I am still waiting for an answer to the language problem in your definition
and if not - if you say the ToE tears down the concept of speciation - could you please explain how this is so?

I am getting the distinct suspicion, that you simply cannot explain the mechanics of evolution as you simply do not understand them...... my challange stands. I want you to explain in biochemical detail how the ToE says a speciation can occur!


btw. what's the difference between 'descent with modification' and 'branching from common ancestry'?
from your above post I take it you claim the ToE wants the former which is NOT the same as the latter

Kinds are taxonomical abstractions (TAs hereafter), yes, but they are neccessary ones, lest we be forced to call every creature on earth 'animal' and every plant 'plant'.

aha! but you attacked the species for exactly that: being an abstraction!

That said, these TAs are also to at least some extent, extant in reality also.

So are species - it just depends on how large a view you take!

While the members of a kind vary greatly in coloration, diet, et al, their base morphology does not change.

the same may be true of species! Actually, it is a logical follow-on of the definition

Felines retain the base characteristics of felines, ferns those of ferns.

So? this is as said a logical follow-on of the definition of species![/quote] If these TAs do not exist, then apparently all life on earth shares the same conceit as He who coined the term kind, because they all seem to be staying within their own, even in the fossil record we see that to be true.[/QUOTE]ah, this is one of the nicest non sequiturs I have ever encountered!

 

[carlosMM]

How about this one?

Observation
Hypothesis/Prediction
***Experimentation *** (AKA Falsification)
Conclusion and evaluation
Repetition

No experimentation = no science.

nicely said. Now we get to the point where you have to show that the ToE doesn't fit this pattern!

 

[carlosMM]

Allow me to snort a Conan's-wizard-buddy snort. Hah!

Half of my problem with the ToE is that none of its adherents will stick with a given definition of anything long enough to pin anything down. I'll say this much, the theory itself sure as heck evolves...

let's see - who here was changing a definition within one pforum page to conform to the exact thing he first denied was sensible?






hm, I seem to recall we were busy trying to extract a useful definition of 'kind' from you for a long while........

 

[carlosMM]

well, FL2, I have taken a few more points from your previous posts. I want answers, then I will address your latest. Just this much now:

NONE of your one-sentence replies to CrazyScientist are actually answers to what he says - except for your retreat on 'finches'. Would you please bother to
a) DO write down how evolution works, from the biochemical level up to the fossil record?
b) DO answer the points CS made?
c) DO answer the points I made?

 

[The Last Conformist]

We've still not got a satisfying explanation of the concept of 'kinds' either; are they objective, Platonic classes? in either case, how are they defined and delineated against each other?

Do we interpret you silence on astrophysics, gravity, and prediction that you concede the points?

 

[CrazyScientist]

I was not aware of just how many different types of birds are categorized as finches. I doubt there is much similarity between a cardinal and a Galapoagos finch of any variety. I would have to agree that 'finch' is probably too general to be a kind.

As stated, I agree. But if a finch is not a kind, then what is? The only delineation that makes any biological sense is a species.

See, herein lies the problem. The Biological Species Concept works fine on existing creatures, because they can be examined at the level required to make the differentiations needed, microscopically. Fossils can't, so the Morphological SC is used for them. Measurement is a crucial part of the scientific method, just as falsification via experimentation is. If objects being compared can't be measured on the same yardstick, what useful data can be obtained by the comparision?

I don't think that I quite understand the issue here. There really is no Morpholgical Species Concept. In some rare cases, it may not be possible to tell whether fossilized animals could reproduce, and so paleontologists are forced to make a judgement on whether two fossils belong different species based on morphology. But this is not a species concept, it is a protocol for delineating specific examples of organisms into species groups. The reason there is no contradiction here is that this method is broader than the biological species concept. Two biological species could be morphologically indistinguishable, but organisms with consistantly variant morphology as distinguishable by fossils are extremely unlikely to be the same biological species. I'm not saying that it is impossible that any single designation of fossil species could be incorrect, but any error that does occur in the rare instance when using morphology would even be necessary is far more likely to result in species boundaries that are too broad rather than too narrow.

The BSC is great for 'proving' microevolution (a false concept, since the creatures are the same kind), but useless for macroevolution. The arbitrary differences used to declare microevolution are usually not even detectable to the naked eye. The ones that are visible are generally meaningless distinctions, like the light and dark pepper moths. The idea that these ephemeral changes will someday add up to a major change in phenotype is not in evidence in the fossil record. It sounds logical, but it just doesn't fit the facts. Fossils of one kind show up in a strata for a long period with minimal in-kind variation, and then bam, a new kind out of nowhere.

I'll make three points that I think address most of your points in the above paragraph.
1) A change need not be visually detectable to be important evolutionarily or ecologically. A shift in the structure of some obscure digestive enzyme could allow a change in diet that could drastically alter the ecology of an organism and put it on a seperate evolutionary path. There is strong evidence that the hypocone of the tooth was a key innovation in the radiation of mammals.
2) Microevolution results in small genetic changes to a population. But small genetic changes can result in big phenotypic changes. A chimp is 98% human genetically, but nobody would look at a chimp and claim it was 98% a person in appearance. A human has not one single bone, muscle, gland, organ, or gene that a chimp does not have. Of 30,000 odd genes in the genome, only around 30 (don't quote me on this number because it's from memory but it's around 30, I can find you the paper if you're interested) are different between the two species, mostly genes involved in hearing and limb development. Small genetic changes can equal big, obvious, phenotypic changes.
3) Fossilization is a rare event. Only a relatively successful and long-lasting species stands any reasonable chance of leaving any fossil record of itself. Many species are rare, others are ephemeral. Some are both. The amazing part is that we have as much as we do from the fossil record, and that it all suggests the same patterns of macro-ecvolution. Besides, genetic sequence data is much more convincing. How do you account for the fact that an independant source of information leads to the same conclusions about species and speciation?

Since it does bother me, I can't use species as kinds, especially given how arbitrarily the lines between species are drawn.

I accept that you can't use species as kinds. However, much of the point of my last post wass that the lines between species are not arbitrary. Species are biologically real phenotypic, ecological, and genetic clusters of organisms. It is any higher taxonomic classification that is somewhat arbitrary.

You're phrasing this politely, yet I still feel insulted when I read it. Such a broad definition is not only useless, it is wildly at variance with God's Word.

It was not my intention to insult or offend. I apologize for having done so.

Genesis mentions specific types of animals reproducing after their own kind.

Ah. My ignorance of the text was the culprit here. Again, my apologies.

You are. The Bible says that Creation was finished about 6,000 years ago, and that it took place in six stages, each lasting for a sufficiently long enough period of time that God performed work for Him equivalent to what a man would consider a hard day out in the fields, a 'day'. In later books, a 'day' for the Lord is compared to 'a thousand years' ("...a thousand years are as a day to God..."). Still in Genesis however, we are told of Methusaleh, the longest-lived man, who died at age 969. Since that is less than 1,000 years, saying that "...a thousand years are as a day to God..." means that one of God's days is a longer period of time than any man has ever known. There's no reason at all the Six Days could not have lasted 18 billion years, or even that they were of the same length.

I believe I mentioned this. I'm aware that you don't accept the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis as a literal 24 hour day. It was part of my argument. You may want to take another look if you're interested.

Since carlosmm is too scared to answer the question, what is your position on de-evolution? Why don't creatures revert to previous successful stages in their evolution when the opportunity arises?

I don't think I understand what you mean by de-evolution. Evolution can lead to phenotypically similar but genetically different means of approaching the same ecological problem. For example, a dolphin's pectoral fin is genetically much more similar to a human arm than it is to a shark's pectoral fin, yet it looks like a shark fin and serves the same purpose in the dolphin's environment. Is this the type of thing you're referring to?

 

[carlosMM]

FL2: I actually didn't see your post on de-evolution. Care to tell me what that is supposed to be? Most probably I will be happy to blow it outta the water

 

[The Last Conformist]

The "morphological species concept" refers primarily to organisms that do not reproduce sexually.

 

[CrazyScientist]

The "morphological species concept" refers primarily to organisms that do not reproduce sexually.

True, but IMHO it is not a useful theory-based concept of species, and does lend itself to some (not all) of the criticisms mentioned by FL2. There are better concepts that encompass both sexual and asexual species.
The one I alluded to in my first post is the cohesion species concept, first proposed by a fellow named Templeton sometime in the 80's. It is more inclusive because it allows multiple possible cohesive forces for species, including gene exchange for most macro-organisms or, for example, the genetic cohesion provided by periodic selective sweeps in micro-organisms.
de Quieroz's general lineage concept of species is also pretty good, but to my mind, more complicated than necessary (read, I don't really understand it that well ).

 

[The Last Conformist]

I wasn't defending the morphological species concept.

 

[carlosMM]

@FL2: you've been busy posting in lotsa other threads yesterday. Can we get replies here?

 

[Perfection]

Applicable to living things only, and useless for fossils. But that’s okay, because there’s a handy-dandy second definition to make them fit too. Of course, it doesn’t work on living things, but this is the song that never ends…

How does the fact that they apply a second definition when they cannot use the first give any credence to creationism, or detract for evolution.

Because under the naturalistic definition of reality that you and all evolutionists unnecessarily adhere to; God is an extraneous bit of nonsense. It’s funny that not a single other branch of science requires such a caveat be installed and accepted for any of its theories to work.

Umm, we're discussing evolution, not naturalism. Naturalism is a non-scientific athiestic philosophy (which I don't adhere to). Evolution is a scientific non-religious theory. There are many evolutionists with religious faith. While there is certainly a correlation with naturalism and evolution they are two distinct entities. You want to make a thread about it be my guest. Evolution does not deny god.

To the last, I scoff: you bring intelligent design into the mix and demand that I do what you refuse to? Puh. Leeze. Fossils perfectly support reproduction within a kind: we have a long period of status quo with minimal in-kind variation, and then a sudden arrival of a new phenotype. DNA analyses… I suppose you refer to genes being present in earlier life forms that are present in modern ones? If that is what you refer to, then I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I have no problem with the concept, and have mentioned it myself several times, of God using the old version of a species to birth the new version, after tweaking a gene or fifty to produce the next generation terraformer. Surrogate motherhood is a common practice in both human and animal fertility medicine. Some of that pesky ‘applied science’ I’m always droning on and on about, doncha know...

Okay, what evidence do you have that god messed with the genes instead of evolution? And how does explain the branching nature of the species instead of an intermixed look.

How can I possibly prove something to a person who denies any possibility of it being true? Further, how can I prove the existence of God, when God requires faith, and faith precludes proof? You asked the impossible, and I shrugged and walked away.

You can't use evidence to back up the existance of god, therefore you cannot claim it is sceintific and validiting one of my points that creationism and derivitives are not valid scientific theories.

I could ask you to prove abiogenesis or give up, but I’m not intellectually dishonest.

There is plenty of proof (by proof I mean evidence, as complete proof is impossible) such as Miller-Urey and subsequent expirmanents.

My point exactly! You KNOW (and without anything that looked like evidence at all you’d still KNOW) that there is no God, so evolution MUST be right. Anything that doesn’t fit that paradigm is faulty data and discarded, and anything that remotely supports it is inherently right. You KNOW that the jigsaw puzzle (speciation by evolution) will be completed, because there is NO possible alternative.

Reliances on an omnipotent god are inherently unscientific.

You have yet to make any useful predictions. Your ‘fact’ is not in evidence. And knowledge that has no value is not worth pursuing; else we’d have a Theory of Where Socks Eaten by the Dryer Go.

See my psot on the first page for useful predictions

More-a-comin'

 

[Perfection]

Evolution:
1) slow change from one form to another
2) sudden change from one form to another

Nope, it's always been slow, punctuated equilibrium merely claims that it's an inconstanct rate of change. The "sudden" change is only sudden on geologic scales not on human.

3) a religion started by Charles Darwin

Where's the gods? Where's the worshiping? Where's any of that? And it wasn't started by Charles Darwin, others such as Lamarck and Wallace deserve credit as well, Darwin (Partially with Wallace) just gave it a mechanism and claimed it could account for biodiversity.

4) a confidence game played by ‘scientists’ (IE intellectual elitist snobs) to bilk wealthy elitist snobs out of their money

Stephen Jay Gould did not write the Deeply researched 1000+ page "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" over the course of 20 years while battling Lung Cancer just to bilk people out of money.

Evolution, if you ask a typical believer like carlosmm or Perfection, is the mechanism by which life on earth branched out from a single common organism. Er, no wait; it’s a change in frequency of an allele in a population. Um, no, that’s not it, it’s natural selection that causes one sub-type of a kind to out-breed the other sub-types and become dominant. Actually, it’s a lot of different things all at once.

Indeed there are lots and lots of facets to it, however the main ideas of Darwinian Evolutionary Theories (Including hierarchal and punctuated equilibirum variations) are best argued by Stephen Jay Gould as these three ideas about natural selection: Agency (that natural selection works)
Efficacy (that natural selection can create new fetures, as well as eleminate fetures and change them)
Scope (that it by and large accounts for all biodiversity)

It pretends to be a scientific theory, but it’s neither a theory, nor scientific. The Theory of Gravity states that two bodies in space will exert an attraction on each other, and as a result of that attraction, all kinds of momentum-based phenomena can be quantified and predicted. It works very well on a macro-atomic scale, but at the point where you start dealing with electrons and protons, it starts to break down because of the other forces exerting so much more influence that they tend to cancel it out. The ToG makes testable predictions about the behavior of objects in space, and these predictions can be falsified.

It is a theory because as noted above it makes statements about the nature of our world, and it is testible and it does make predictions.

The ToE states… well it doesn’t really come out and say anything intelligible. Allelles change in frequency in a population over time. Well, yeah. If a creature dies, then its alleles leave the population. If a creature is born, its alleles enter. Put enough births and deaths together, and you’ve got a cha-cha going. Although they don’t actually say it, I guess you can assume they’re speaking of dynamic equilibrium in a kind’s gene pool, that although individuals are entering and leaving all the time, in the short term, a kind’s gene pool is relatively static. When something happens to upset the kind’s reproduction, like a new predator or disease, the genes that allow for survival of that problem increase in appearance as competitors are eaten or die off from disease. This happens all the time, and it leads to what sensible folks call variation within a kind ; IE the names change, but the game remains the same. The population might have changed color ratios, or the members that didn’t have resistance to a particular drug are gone, but the creatures themselves are not different creatures. Same creatures, different ratios of variants. The frequency of an allele has changed.

This is how variation can spread from a single organism to many, so a single mutant we can show how many will arise. The spread of variation is important and genetics accounts for it. Note that this is a small fraction of evolution and was not understood until after evolution was started

Now, for some reason that no one has ever provided evidence to support, it is believed that if these changes within a kind occur long enough, it will eventually spawn a new kind. Gregor Mendel showed that traits can be recessive or dominant, and that generations can pass while recessive genes are passed on and then they resurface, which means that change can definitely be horizontal (within a kind). To date, no one has demonstrated that this change can also be vertical (reverting to a past kind or becoming a new kind). Further, no explanation is given for why evolutionists completely discard out of hand the idea of devolution. I’ve never heard of any claim that a kind reverted to a prior kind, which you’d think would have to happen from time to time if all the genes are there…

Actually the have demonstrated it by showing the power of mutations in such things as oligonylon-eating bacteria.

As for rversion back muations have certainly been shown to occur, however reversion back to a previous species is highly unlikely as it must undo most mutations with new mutations. A good illustration would be say having a an array of 1000 colored blocks, each one has 6 colors on it. We'll define an array as being within the same "kind" if it has 990 blocks similar to the other array. If we draw a number 1-1000 out of a hat (we replace the numbers back in te hat) and "mutate" the block shown by randonmly picking one of the 5 sides not shown 15 times, it is likely that the new array will be of a different kind. If we do 15 it will be much more likely to produce a new "kind" then revert back to the old. That is why evolutionists do not search for reversions to previous froms, because while it is possible, it is highly unlikely.

 

[Perfection]

See, herein lies the problem. The Biological Species Concept works fine on existing creatures, because they can be examined at the level required to make the differentiations needed, microscopically. Fossils can't, so the Morphological SC is used for them. Measurement is a crucial part of the scientific method, just as falsification via experimentation is. If objects being compared can't be measured on the same yardstick, what useful data can be obtained by the comparision?

Just because there is much difficulty in that measurement, they still can be compared to one another, just not for all purposes.

The BSC is great for 'proving' microevolution (a false concept, since the creatures are the same kind), but useless for macroevolution. The arbitrary differences used to declare microevolution are usually not even detectable to the naked eye. The ones that are visible are generally meaningless distinctions, like the light and dark pepper moths. The idea that these ephemeral changes will someday add up to a major change in phenotype is not in evidence in the fossil record. It sounds logical, but it just doesn't fit the facts. Fossils of one kind show up in a strata for a long period with minimal in-kind variation, and then bam, a new kind out of nowhere.

Well, for many hox genes provides information on how it would be possible, expiriments show that major changes can be induced by hox genes. As for minor changes adding up to major, consider therapsid-mammeliam evolution, there is a clear line of progression from one form to another to another.

 

[bigmeat]

i believe in both

 

[Birdjaguar]

Both what? (go for 100)

 

[bigmeat]

creationism and evolution

 

[Perfection]

We are refering to anti-evolutionary creationism in this thread.

Here's our operating definition of creationism as I denoted in post #6

"Creationism as in god creating the animals directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism."

Also we are discussing it on scientific grounds rather than philosophical/religious grounds.