[_ Old Earth _] The Problem of Defining Species

[Barbarian]

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
Finally, varieties cannot be distinguished from species-except, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms; and secondly , by a certain indefinite amount of indifference between them; for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that they cannot be closely connected; but the amount of indifference considered necessary to give any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined.

Darwin did not consider species to be a real entity as creationists imagine; he saw species as a mental construct with no absolutes. His prediction has been repeatedly verified. There are all sorts of intermediate grades between species which are often very difficult or impossible to classify precisely. This contrasts with the doctrine of special creationism, which claims that God created each kind separately ex nihilo, and denies the possibility of such intermediate forms.

Some scientists, like Mayr, suggested that species do have an objective existence, but the accumulating evidence indicates otherwise. They shift and change over time, and their borders are impossible to discern in many cases.

How do creationists deal with this problem? The first and most common among the rank and file is merely denial, insisting that if someone would properly define the term, the problem would go away. Unfortunately, there seems no way to do that. Darwin's statement remains as valid today as it was when he wrote it.

Other creationists are willing to allow some speciation. It has the collateral benefit of explaining how all those animals were able to fit into the Ark; a few basic "kinds" were collected, and all the species we see today evolved from those by some sort of hyperfast evolution in a few thousand years, after which it stopped.

This is an attractive idea for many, but no one seems to be able to show anyone noticing that new species were appearing on a monthly basis. And while species-to-species transitionals are not common in the fossil record, they are, as Stephen Gould wrote, abundant at higher taxa. So the denial of evolution beyond the level of family is precisely where creationism is most at odds with the evidence.

It looks like an impossible dilemma. How do creationists reconcile these facts with their religion?

 

[Barbarian]

I'm guessing no one realized it was a problem.

 

[TOG]

This has already been discussed in a different thread. You lost that debate. (I originally claimed that evolutionists could not defend their theory if they were required to apply the same definition consistently to all species that fulfill the same criteria, and you admitted that doing so would only be possible if God had created all life by special creation.) Do you think starting a new thread is going to change anything? The problem is not with the definition, as you claim. We can make a definition for the word. That's no problem at all. But if the theory of evolution is true, there should be organisms which don't fit neatly into the definition. If creationism is true, then all life forms should fit neatly into the definition. But we cannot determine which is the case, as long as we don't have a fixed definition, but rather one that keeps changing, depending on what suits evolutionists. But like I said in the other thread, evolutionists will never agree to such a definition, because the could not then support their theory.

I stated in the other thread that, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. I proved my point (that evolutionists can't support their views with a fixed definition, which is applied objectively). I'm not going to continue the discussion here.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

This has already been discussed in a different thread. You lost that debate.

If I did, you wouldn't be trying to convince us that I did. Declaring victory is always an admission of defeat.

(I originally claimed that evolutionists could not defend their theory if they were required to apply the same definition consistently to all species that fulfill the same criteria,

The claim was false. Evolutionary theory does not depend on a universally-applicable definition for "species." I pointed out that Darwin correctly predicted that such a definition would not be possible in many cases. And I showed that it would be possible only if creationism were true. My question is, "how do creationists address this problem?"

Do you think starting a new thread is going to change anything? The problem is not with the definition, as you claim. We can make a definition for the word. That's no problem at all.

The problem for creationists, is that the evidence from living populations does not fit their beliefs. Instead, it matches Darwin's prediction:
Finally, varieties cannot be distinguished from species-except, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms; and secondly , by a certain indefinite amount of indifference between them; for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that they cannot be closely connected; but the amount of indifference considered necessary to give any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined.

I know the way some creationists deal with it, by allowing that some taxa do evolve, but they have the problem that there are many more transitionals between the higher taxa that they claim can't evolve. How do you think this can be resolved in a way that can be consistent with creationism?

Barbarian observes:
But if the theory of evolution is true, there should be organisms which don't fit neatly into the definition. If creationism is true, then all life forms should fit neatly into the definition.

But we cannot determine which is the case, as long as we don't have a fixed definition

That's just another verified prediction of evolutionary theory. The question here is, how do creationists explain this contradiction to their beliefs?

But like I said in the other thread, evolutionists will never agree to such a definition, because the could not then support their theory.

You have it backwards. Darwin predicted, as part of his theory, that such a definition would not be possible if new species evolved from old ones. A lack of intermediate cases would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory, just as the presence of such cases is a huge problem for creationism.

I proved my point (that evolutionists can't support their views with a fixed definition, which is applied objectively).

As you learned, the lack of a fixed definition is part of evolutionary theory. And a huge problem for creationism, which must have such a definition if species were individually created without evolution.

I'm not going to continue the discussion here.

That's the usual creationist response.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I stated in the other thread that, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. I proved my point (that evolutionists can't support their views with a fixed definition, which is applied objectively). I'm not going to continue the discussion here.

The TOG​

You also don't seem to want to continue the discussion in the other thread. The only point you have gotten across to me is that you only care about the definition of the word species and if you can't get a solid definition, you will claim the theory of Evolution is false. The problem is that the definition of species doesn't effect the ToE at all.


Your made up criteria does not disprove the theory, nor make it a religion. With a few acceptions, I've never met anyone so quick to misconstrue the facts.

 

[Sparkey]

Other creationists are willing to allow some speciation. It has the collateral benefit of explaining how all those animals were able to fit into the Ark; a few basic "kinds" were collected, and all the species we see today evolved from those by some sort of hyperfast evolution in a few thousand years, after which it stopped.

Genesis 7:14 speaks of "kinds" and specifically mentions beasts, cattle, creeping things and fowl that were taken onto the ark "after their kind". Barbarian? How do you define "kind"? In Hebrew the word is מִין or miyn.

I don't see a word that can be translated "species" unless we concede that its modern (scientific) definition was not in use at that time.

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis 7:14 speaks of "kinds" and specifically mentions beasts, cattle, creeping things and fowl that were taken onto the ark "after their kind". Barbarian? How do you define "kind"?

If all "creeping" things are a "kind" then "kind" would most closely translate to the English concept of "animal." Obviously, nothing that relates to any sort of scientific taxonomy. I don't see how you can possibly take this as anything but a very general and vague description.

In Hebrew the word is מִין or miyn.

Hence "baramin" proposed by Frank Marsh a long time ago for "created kind." Supposedly, it should be "barumin." "Baramin" so I'm told, means "he created a kind."

I don't see a word that can be translated "species" unless we concede that its modern (scientific) definition was not in use at that time.

Since the OT classifies bats and birds as a kind, and insects as four-footed, and rabbits as cud-chewers, it's clear that they meant something other than a scientific taxonomy. Just as valid, in it's own way, but not useful as far as defining created kinds.

 

[Sparkey]

The word carries the meaning of portioning out. Certain distinction was made (no matter how 'vague'). There is difference and contrast. This difference is established and set by God.

Oh, and by the way, my point is that man's method of classifying has no bearing, no relation or relevance on the Bible or what God has done. You asked, "How do creationists reconcile these facts with their religion?"

I would reply, "Why should they need to?" It is enough to believe on the one whom God has sent.

 

[Barbarian]

The word carries the meaning of portioning out. Certain distinction was made (no matter how 'vague'). There is difference and contrast. This difference is established and set by God.

I don't see that it is. This has the same sort of relevance as Jesus saying that a mustard seed is the smallest of seeds. It's not, but that wasn't the point. If He had used orchid seeds as an example, no one would have gotten His point, which was more important than the technical details which He didn't get literally true. The mustard seed was the smallest seed most people of that place and time would know. So it was the right choice of words for His message.

Oh, and by the way, my point is that man's method of classifying has no bearing, no relation or relevance on the Bible or what God has done.

True, it doesn't. Unless it's presented as being relevant to science.

You asked, "How do creationists reconcile these facts with their religion?"

Creationism, that is. The new doctrine that God created "kinds" ex nihilo, instead of using natural things, as the Bible says.

I would reply, "Why should they need to?"

Because it's contrary to God's testimony in scripture, and in His testimony in Creation (Romans 1:20). I realize that it's not a salvation issue. You can be wrong about a lot of things regarding God and scripture without endangering your salvation. Unless you start adding or subtracting things from scripture, that is.

It is enough to believe on the one whom God has sent.

We can agree on that.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

The Creation Research Society was an exellent resource when I did a paper in the past. It is a conglomerate of scientists who are creationists, Dwane Gish among them. Dwane wrote "The Fossils Say No!" among other books. Not only is he a palientologist but I think has two other PhD degrees in science. I think Dr. Gish addressed this issue of "kinds."

 

[Barbarian]

Dwane Gish among them. Dwane wrote "The Fossils Say No!" among other books. Not only is he a palientologist but I think has two other PhD degrees in science.

Gish has no degree in paleontology. He was, late in his life, quite an embarrassment to creationists, particularly for his infamous "bullfrog story."

Gish is formidable against an ill-prepared or inarticulate debate opponent;
Kitcher was neither. Needless to say, Gish did not fare well at the debate.
Gish spoke first, ostensibly for the affirmative, yet as usual he offered
no creation model. Instead, his "affirmative" presentation consisted of his
usual negative statements against evolution.

On the other hand, Kitcher spoke both for evolution and against
creationism. He countered Gish's denial of the existence of transitional forms
by presenting those transitional forms, contrasted Flood Geology with
conventional geology and demonstrated the former's inadequacies and
absurdities, and talked about Gish's bullfrog and chicken proteins. Of course,
Gish refused to defend Flood Geology (as he always does), launched into his
usual description of the reptile-mammal transition requiring the jaw to unhinge
and then much later hinge itself again so that the mammal-like reptiles
couldn't "chew and hear at the same time" (which Kitcher countered by citing
the many Jurassic mammals with "reptilian" jaws and the transitional forms with
double jaw joints; this was obviously lost on Gish, but not on the audience),
and ignored the references to his protein claims.

Then at the end of the debate, things started to come to a head. From
Schadewald's report of the debate:

"In his final remarks, Kitcher demanded that Gish either produce
references for the chicken and bullfrog proteins or admit that they do
not exist. Gish ignored the challenge, which apparently disappointed
many in the audience who had read my editorial, for Gish's final remarks
were punctuated with sporadic cries of 'Bullfrog!'"
http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/bullfrog.html

I think Dr. Gish addressed this issue of "kinds."

And frogs, too. But not very well, or even very honestly.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

One can go the source you quoted against Dr. Gish and very quickly see that this author is extremely biased (esp if you go to the contact or email him link and read all of his warnings.) A very unlikely souce to present for a disqualification of credibility. But you follow the pattern to which I have already referred.

But you are right about no palientology dgree. His PhD was in Biochemistry. It has been almost 40 yrs since I read the book and I apologize. I researched his biography and discovered that he died last March at a very ripe old age. I am sure that the Lord is making him feel very welcome. It appears that there are no other degrees, either. I apologize. I must have gotten his credentials mixed up with one of my other sources.

As for the credibility of what this extremely biased person you reference says I cannot say but I do see that Dr. Gish would have been in his late 60's at the time of this incident to which he refers . I am 59 and struggle terribly at times with my memory and a quick cognitive thought process. That doesn't necessarily discredit the content of what I have already researched and established; only my current ability to present and respond to it. Dr. Gish conducted a magnitude of very demanding successfull and victorious debates with evolutionists all around the world for most of his life. He acquired quite a magnitude of very hostile, poor losers, who openly displayed their hostilities with all sorts of evil comments during the debates; I am sure this hostile fallout precipitated your source's comments. In response, Dr. Gish admirably remained a professional, objective debater time after time after time. He was a man of peace and clear thinking. I am also sure that Dr. Gish was worn, very worn by his late 60's and going by what your source accussed Dr. Gish of, that is all it could have been. Instead of making an accurate asessment of the situation, cause for delay or no response, as bieng age-related or merely that Dr. Gish had clearly become aware of the fruitlessness of continuing the debate he pounced upon the opportunity to try to discredit Dr. Gish and pronounced his delays or no responses as being his inability to come up with a valid answer; a response I am very familiar with myself. Just becasue I refuse to argue with someone and walk down their road of contention they pronounce my invalidity; knowing that they will have the last word uncontested. You see, I believe Dr. Gish's intention was as mine is, NOT to boost our ego/pride by winning an intellectual debate but rather to to win a person(s) for the Lord towards the glory and honor of the Lord. The intellectual "victory" then becomes insignificant in comparison to winning souls in spite of its guaranteed success. As I believe, Jesus' instruction, as I referred to before from Matt 10, to leave that place, not debating the issues, and shake the very dust off their feet as they left (akin to cursing the place.) And Jesus said it would be better for Sodom and Gamorrah than for those.

 

[Barbarian]

One can go the source you quoted against Dr. Gish and very quickly see that this author is extremely biased (esp if you go to the contact or email him link and read all of his warnings.)

It is a fact that Gish told the audience during a debate that there are frog proteins more like human proteins than chimp proteins are like those of humans. It is also a fact that he continued to use that story, while refusing to provide any evidence for the claim. Note that even some creationists asked him to provide substantiation.

But you are right about no palientology dgree.

Didn't stop him from pretending that he knew more about it than real paleontologists, though.

As for the credibility of what this extremely biased person you reference says I cannot say but I do see that Dr. Gish would have been in his late 60's at the time of this incident to which he refers . I am 59 and struggle terribly at times with my memory and a quick cognitive thought process.

I'm 66. If you keep learning, and challenging your brain, it will keep going for a very long time. My mother died in her late 80s, and she was working as a tax consultant up to the last month of her life. You don't have to let it go bad.

That doesn't necessarily discredit the content of what I have already researched and established; only my current ability to present and respond to it.

So far, no content. Just vague claims from you. What do you have?

Dr. Gish conducted a magnitude of very demanding successfull and victorious debates with evolutionists all around the world for most of his life.

He didn't do so well with someone who was knowledgable and a good speaker, did he?

He acquired quite a magnitude of very hostile, poor losers, who openly displayed their hostilities with all sorts of evil comments during the debates; I am sure this hostile fallout precipitated your source's comments.

The facts are what they are; he made a claim that was false, and refused to support it or admit he was wrong. Even when he admitted being wrong about other things, he continued to spread the false stories he knew to be wrong.

In 1982, at a high school in Lion's Head, Ontario, Gish debated Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto. A member of the audience, Jay Ingram, (former host of the national Canadian radio program Quirks and Quarks), heard Gish's Lucy story, which clearly implied that Zuckerman had studied Lucy herself and concluded that she, along with other Australopithecines, did not walk upright. Knowing this was not true, Ingram asked Gish in the question and answer period why he had misled the audience. A show of hands indicated that about 90% of the audience had assumed from what Gish had said that Zuckerman had studied Lucy. Gish became very upset, lost his temper, and railed that he wasn't responsible for people misinterpreting his remarks (Ingram 1992).


Gish has never bothered to change his misleading story; in fact, he went on to increase its inaccuracy. In a 1991 debate with biologist Fred Parrish, Gish stated outright that Zuckerman had examined the Lucy skeleton itself: "For 15 years...[Zuckerman] studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2 million years younger than Lucy [sic]" (see Debates-Parrish 1991).
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

You see, I believe Dr. Gish's intention was as mine is, NOT to boost our ego/pride by winning an intellectual debate but rather to to win a person(s) for the Lord towards the glory and honor of the Lord.

Martin Luther wrote that God wouldn't mind a lie, if it was useful to His service. I don't believe that at all. Sorry. You can't serve God by dishonesty. And it's puzzling as to why you think that downgrading God's creation would bring glory and honor to Him. Fact is, creationism is a strong force keeping people away from God.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

I will continue to pray for the Truth to be revealed to you, Barbarian.

Here is some eveidence for you to consider, if you are really being objective/scientific about things;
<http://www.icr.org/article/6778> and www.icr.org/article/7073

 

[Barbarian]

I will continue to pray for the Truth to be revealed to you, Barbarian.

Thanks. I love it when He reveals the truth to me. I'll be praying for you, too.

Here is some eveidence for you to consider, if you are really being objective/scientific about things;

Great. Let's see what it says... ah...

ICR Pontificates on what a "bad creator" would do:
As a matter of logic, a perfect Creator wouldn’t put parts into our bodies that we don’t need.

I'm a male, always have been. So why did He equip me with nipples? Explain to us the purpose of perfectly-formed wings on certain beetles, which are permanently locked under fused elytra. What do they do? What is the function of tiny muscles at the base of each hair, to raise them when I'm cold or feeling strong emotions? In animals with heavier coats of hair, they increase insulation, and cause the animal to look larger and more formidable when threatened. But it does nothing for us. Let's go on...

And later science eventually proved the evolutionist tonsil-bashers wrong.

But it was evolutionists who showed that tonsils were useful. Your ICR fairy tailor also has the whole idea wrong. "Vestigial" doesn't mean "useless." Never did. Even Darwin pointed out that such organs might continue to have a function. Let's go a bit farther...

And how's this for a closing statement?
Don’t be caught “without excuse”—prepare for the test (cf. Hebrews 11:3, 6). Thankfully, life is an open Bible exam.

Ironically, his quote is from Paul explaining that we can find HIs power and majesty in the evidence of the world around us, apart from the things scripture tells us. Jim doesn't seem to be very up on the Bible, either.

Let's take a look at the other one...

Um, not very good. Jim got a bit distracted, forgot about evolution and wandered off into the Big Bang, the Oort Cloud, and so on. BTW, we very easily know from where the long-period comets come. You see, when they get close to the Sun, we can see them, track their orbits, and from those observations, Newton's theory of Gravitation, and Kepler's laws, we can know from where they came. We know it's a cloud and not a belt of comets like the Kuiper Belt, because they come in at all angles. The comets from the Kuiper Belt come in at the plane of the Solar System.

As Robert Heinlein once remarked, there are two errors in thinking about experts. One to assume experts are always right. The other is to assume that anyone's opinion is equally trustworthy. Jim made the category 2 error.