[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[Barbarian]

Semantics guys... semantics.

Barbarian makes a distinction between "design" and "creation" where design implies an imperfect plan and elevates what God did in His act of creation to more than simple design (flaws included) to that of a divine act.

I don't mind "design" in the lesser meaning of "intent." The problem is, in America, the Unification Church has construed it to mean a lesser god figuring things out, in the strict definition of "design." They do it to support the claims of Rev. Moon, who says he's an improvement on Jesus. A leader of the Unification Church (Jonathan Wells) is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, and has made "design" a key element in that movement.

"Creation" nicely describes what God does. As IDer Phillip Johnson says, the "designer" might be a "space alien." I'd like to keep a distinction between God and that sort of thing.

 

[Sparkey]

"Kind" is a religious idea. Speciation is all that really happens in evolution. Reproductive isolation means that particular population is separated reproductively and will most likely diverge farther and farther. The higher taxa are just convenient categories, and if we include fossil examples, it becomes very hard to maintain them; Archaeopteryx, for example, is mostly a dinosaur, but has many avian characteristics as well. Hard to say where it belongs.



Grass, of course, did not give rise to trees, but we can demonstrate a common ancestor. Evolution of higher taxa takes considerably longer than speciation. But as in the evolution of horses, we can trace that process, showing much greater changes.

Granted, the term "Kind" does have its orgins in religion but we are not in court here trying to get "intelligent design" introduced into the classroom. That already happened in the federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District Pennsylvania back in 2004. There is no seperation between church and state mandated in the Terms of Service agreement of this site. Quite the contrary, this is a Christian site and as such, your objection to the use of "religious" terms is out of line.

Do we have evidence to support cross-kind evolution of horses then? I'm familiar with some of the discussion and would like to ask you to continue the discussion along this line of reasoning. I'm especially interested in anything that will support the allegation that there are no boundaries between kinds (and their seed) as it will cause me to re-think my position.

 

[Barbarian]

Do we have evidence to support cross-kind evolution of horses then?

How much change do you need to make it "cross-kind?" Is this:

The same kind as this:

If so, the majority of mammals are the same "kind."

I'm familiar with some of the discussion and would like to ask you to continue the discussion along this line of reasoning. I'm especially interested in anything that will support the allegation that there are no boundaries between kinds (and their seed) as it will cause me to re-think my position.

I see no boundary anywhere, other than functional retraints, such as humans growing wings (we are far too bulky to fly, or even glide, and a new set of limbs would violate intrinsic genetic limitiations).

Granted, the term "Kind" does have its orgins in religion but we are not in court here trying to get "intelligent design" introduced into the classroom. That already happened in the federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District Pennsylvania back in 2004. There is no seperation between church and state mandated in the Terms of Service agreement of this site. Quite the contrary, this is a Christian site and as such, your objection to the use of "religious" terms is out of line.

Not an objection. Just pointing out that "kind" is meaningless in biology. It's a religious belief, not a testable hypothesis.

 

[Sparkey]

Although your first image doesn't link well, I will assume that yours is a fair question. The problem that I encounter (often) when using the Bible as a source for scientific discussion is well known. Simply stated, the Bible makes no attempt to explain things in a scientific manner. That being said, I still would maintain that the decision to relegate the authority of the Word of God to primitive attempts at explanation of the unknown eliminates the Bible as a great source of knowledge.

The Bible was written about 1400 years before the birth of Christ. I can only marvel at how the statements supposedly made by "primitive" man have stood the scrutiny of modern science so well.

 

[zeke]

Grass, of course, did not give rise to trees, but we can demonstrate a common ancestor.

Are you descended from grass?

 

[zeke]

Just pointing out that "kind" is meaningless in biology.

Can you define "cross-kind" scientifically?

 

[Sparkey]

Not an objection. Just pointing out that "kind" is meaningless in biology. It's a religious belief, not a testable hypothesis.

The definition of "kind", although having origin in religion, could indeed be expanded. If you truly wish it, I could go back to Geneis and do this myself. So could you. This would result in the generation of a list of "kinds" -- which in turn might be expanded further by examination of Leviticus where distinctions are made between various "kinds" of birds, insects, mammals, and fish.

But instead of all that effort, let me just ask, do you know of any example of known reproduction of one "kind" coming from another? If you do, my hypothesis is not only testable (for I have provided the test) but also falsifiable.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Are you descended from grass?

Nope, Humans and all other animals are in the kingdom Animalia, plants are in their own kingdom. So no, humans are not descended from grass.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Can you define "cross-kind" scientifically?

I think you already have your answer. If biology dosen't recognize the term "kind", then it won't recognize the term "cross-kind". Its kind of like going into a store that says it dosen't take board game money and trying to ask if the store takes Monopoly money.

 

[MarbleShooter]

The definition of "kind", although having origin in religion, could indeed be expanded. If you truly wish it, I could go back to Geneis and do this myself. So could you. This would result in the generation of a list of "kinds" -- which in turn might be expanded further by examination of Leviticus where distinctions are made between various "kinds" of birds, insects, mammals, and fish.

But instead of all that effort, let me just ask, do you know of any example of known reproduction of one "kind" coming from another? If you do, my hypothesis is not only testable (for I have provided the test) but also falsifiable.

Your hypothesis is already falsified because a Kind isn't a recognized classification in biology. Linnaean taxonomy replaced the concept of kinds. Groups of living creatures where separated into taxa and then into clades. So stating kinds becoming other kinds dosen't have much of a foot to stand on when its shown to be a discarded classification system. Now, do we new groups and subgroups spreading off in taxonomy? Yes, especially with genetics. Such as new breeds of dogs, frogs, flies etc. With genetics we see how closely these clades are related and where the breeds and species of animals/plants, fungus, etc diverge. So technically we don't see new kinds, because biology dosen't see even see kinds.

 

[zeke]

Nope, Humans and all other animals are in the kingdom Animalia, plants are in their own kingdom. So no, humans are not descended from grass.

But doesn't Darwinism teach that all life arose from non-life via blind chance in Darwin's "warm little pond" - i.e., goo-to-you evolution? The only question - what came first man, grass or dinos morphing into birds?

 

[Sparkey]

Your hypothesis is already falsified because a Kind isn't a recognized classification in biology. Linnaean taxonomy replaced the concept of kinds. Groups of living creatures where separated into taxa and then into clades. So stating kinds becoming other kinds dosen't have much of a foot to stand on when its shown to be a discarded classification system. Now, do we new groups and subgroups spreading off in taxonomy? Yes, especially with genetics. Such as new breeds of dogs, frogs, flies etc. With genetics we see how closely these clades are related and where the breeds and species of animals/plants, fungus, etc diverge. So technically we don't see new kinds, because biology dosen't see even see kinds.

You see no difference between "no longer recognized" and "falsified" then?

Kindly refer to my post #199 and the issue previously discussed regarding "semantics". Or, if you insist, I don't mind withdrawing my observation from the discussion -- There really is no need for me to try to defend what God has said, it stands regardless.

 

[zeke]

I think you already have your answer. If biology dosen't recognize the term "kind", then it won't recognize the term "cross-kind". Its kind of like going into a store that says it dosen't take board game money and trying to ask if the store takes Monopoly money.

Does biology recognize goo-to-you evolution or is the concept as fake as Monopoly money?

 

[zeke]

So technically we don't see new kinds, because biology dosen't see even see kinds.

And we do not see (technically/biologically) theropods evolving into birds. That only happens in Darwinland.

 

[MarbleShooter]

But doesn't Darwinism teach that all life arose from non-life via blind chance in Darwin's "warm little pond" - i.e., goo-to-you evolution? The only question - what came first man, grass or dinos morphing into birds?

Nope. Darwin suggested that possibility that all life had a single ancestor, but with the study of phylogenetic, we have discovered that that at the single cellular level, that gene transfer dosen't necesarily fallow the same rules of natural selection. This has been known for quite some time. There was also never a gooey pond in Darwin's theory, and no serious theory that ever showed that example.

 

[MarbleShooter]

And we do not see (technically/biologically) theropods evolving into birds. That only happens in Darwinland.

Actually we do in phylogenetic and taxonomy. You can shout that you don't accept it or believe it. That's fine. You can even make assertions that a creator did it. Until you have a working theory that can be falsifiable, tested, referenced, and works with collaborating evidence, then you won't be taken seriously by biology. You can keep twisting words, spinning statements, being dishonest, etc. But at the end of the day, if you can't back up your assertions, then its just your opinion based on your faith, and science has no obligation to accept or teach your view.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Does biology recognize goo-to-you evolution or is the concept as fake as Monopoly money?

Biology dose not accept goo-to-you. There is no theory in biology that says we were an Undefined goo.

 

[MarbleShooter]

You see no difference between "no longer recognized" and "falsified" then?

Kindly refer to my post #199 and the issue previously discussed regarding "semantics". Or, if you insist, I don't mind withdrawing my observation from the discussion -- There really is no need for me to try to defend what God has said, it stands regardless.

The whole argument is boiled down to as, Kinds are an outdated classifacation system, and taxonomy explains more then kind. If you wish to back out and if this dosen't change your mind, then that is ok. I will respect your withdrawal. Thank you for the civil discussion.

 

[Sparkey]

The whole argument is boiled down to as, Kinds are an outdated classifacation system, and taxonomy explains more then kind. If you wish to back out and if this dosen't change your mind, then that is ok. I will respect your withdrawal. Thank you for the civil discussion.

You're welcome and I also appreciate "civil discussion" as well as the respect that it signifies.

It's okay for you to disagree with me, I don't mind. Still, my point that recognition does not equate to proof and its corollary, failure to recognize does not constitute falsification of an hypothesis stands. With regard to my "backing out" of the conversation, I will reserve my right to continue to post.

I can appreciate the fact that biologists find the science of taxonomy useful but can not agree that all alternate classification methods are thereby false.

 

[Barbarian]

But doesn't Darwinism teach that all life arose from non-life via blind chance

No. Evolution is not about the way life began, and of course, Darwin's discovery was that evolution is not by chance.