Piorokrat wrote:
>
>>
>>Piorokrat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So, for me, the best definition of a kind, true to both what I have
>>>>>
> been
>
>>>>>priviledged to observe of nature as well as in the Word of God, would
>>>>>
> be
>
>>>>>"the whole population of descendents of a group of animals or plants
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>which,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>at the time of their creation, were able to breed and have offspring
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>>were fertile."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Sounds fine to me. Now how do you go about telling, in the present
>>>>world, whether two organisms belong to the same or different kinds?
>>>>Because all the evidence leads *me* to believe that there's only one
>>>>
> kind.
>
>>>>In particular, how do you tell that humans belong to a different kind
>>>>
>>>>from the African apes?
>>>
>>>Well I've given you a philosophical answer. I didn't say it would be
>>>possible to check and know for sure exactly what is in the same kind.
>>>
>>
>>Surely you have some idea of the limits, and some idea of criteria for
>>basing your decisions. I'm suspecting you think that humans and apes
>>belong to different kinds. I'm suspecting you disagree with my position,
>>which is that there is a single kind containing all life. I'm just
>>asking what basis you have for these opinions, if indeed you hold them.
>>
>
> Yes, I do believe that humans are a separate kind from apes, and the reason
> is that I cannot see with the length of the human generational cycle, even
> if we made it as short as twenty years, would be enough to enable us to go
> back a maximum of ten thousand years and therefore five hundred generations
> and get something that could have interbred with apes. I think you would
> have needed about a hundred times longer than that. And that would be a good
> million years, and this time is only notional in the mature creation view
> that I happen to hold. It never actually happened, because God cut to the
> chase.
So your argument relies on the correctness of your view that the world
is only a few thousand years old, right? Do you understand that this
view is scientifically ridiculous? I have no problem with you holding it
anyway, but you should be aware that science can't support it.
And another problem is that there is excellent evidence that such
descent with modification actually did take place, regardless of time scale.
> That and the fact that in the scriptures humans are set apart from the rest
> of creation. We can hardly not be a separate kind exegetically speaking.
If you want to take a literal interpretation of Genesis as your main
guide to reality, I have no argument with you. As long as you realize
that this is not science.
> It's quite enough that so much racial variation has been achieved in those
> say 500 generations.
You may believe what you like as long as you don't ask that science
support your belief.
>>>I can say that probably all the Corydoras are in the same kind, but for
>>>
> all
>
>>>I know there might have been more than one kind of Corydoras, or maybe
>>>
> the
>
>>>Corydoras are in one kind with the Aspidoras. I really have no way of
>>>
> being
>
>>>sure about it.
>>>
>>
>>Do you have any way of coming up with even provisional hypotheses?
>
> It would be pure guesswork.
>
> One would have to look at the current rate of change and exponent it back
> 10,000 years, taking into account the normal generational cycle of the
> animal. Flu comes up with a new variation pretty much every year, because
> the virus goes through many generational cycles in a year and it is also a
> relatively simple organism.
>
> In the case of Corydoras the avergae generational cycle is probably 2 years.
> This would give Corydoras ample time to speciate as much as I have suggested
> it has done in 10,000 years. Humanity has not speciated, we are all capable
> of interbreeding with Tierra del Fuegans, Borneo savages and Lapps, if
> indeed we are capable of reproduction at all.
Apparently your initial assumptions prevent you from thinking about many
things.
>>>But the same applies to the Linnean taxa, such as species, genus, etc.
>>>
> There
>
>>>has been to my mind, speaking really only from what I know which is
>>>ichthyology, no end of subjectivity in how these taxa are defined and
>>>applied. There are fish that have about 6 or 7 synonyms for their
>>>
> Linnean
>
>>>binomial. Have a look at Pseudorinelepis, for example. (I've got a
>>>
> female
>
>>>that is egg bound, and I'm looking for a male by the way.)
>>>
>>
>>No surprise there. One prediction of branching evolution is that there
>>will be many cases in which species boundaries are unclear. And of
>>course the ranks of higher taxa, though not the taxa themselves, are
>>entirely subjective.
>>
>>So, if Corydoras are all (probably) the same kind, I imagine (still
>>imagining, since you haven't committed yourself) you think that all
>>catfish are not one kind. Why? And why not all teleosts? All
>>vertebrates? etc.
>
> Basically for the reason I gave above. I just cannot envisage that a common
> ancestor could have speciated that far in 10,000 years, especially bearing
> in mind that most fishes have an annualised spawning pattern.
The evidence is strongly against you here. Not that events can happen so
quickly in 10,000 years, but that the events have indeed happened
whatever the time scale. Based purely on the evidence you must be wrong
either about the time scale or about the speed of evolution, or both.
Ask yourself: What, if anything, is a catfish? Or any of the many, many
taxonomic groups that you don't think there has been time to evolve in
10,000 years.
> Now the tropical areas have many insects which can go through several
> lifecycles a year, whereas in the temperate regions they go through one
> cycle a year. So if my theory is correct we would expect more speciation and
> more biodiversity in the tropical areas than in the temperate areas, and
> surprise surprise, that is exactly what we do see.
This is nonsense. In fact insects have all sorts of life cycles in both
temperate and tropical areas. Many insects in temperate areas go through
many generations in a single summer, while many insects in tropical
areas have only a single generation per year. Further, some species
actually tend to have *longer* generations in the tropics -- small
birds, for example. Your explanation is clever, but the data reject it.
> If we did know, on an objective genetic basis, where the kinds cut-offs
> were, in the code, if there were a kind of marker there, then we could work
> back the time taken to get back to a single kind, allowing for the tropical
> species to have the multiple of annual generational cycles as the temperate
> ones do, and see if they do intersect on the graph about 10,000 years ago.
But of course there is no such cutoff. What we can actually do is work
back to see the patterns of relatedness in all sorts of groups, and the
clear patterns go way past any limits you may have set for yourself.
Humans are related to African apes, other apes, monkeys, other primates,
and other mammals, as shown by clear patterns of morphological and
molecular differences.
> What do you think of it so far? I have to say I have no idea whether any
> other creationist believes it the same as me, because by and large I have
> come to my opinions on my own.
Your opinions don't fit the data. Elsewhere in response to (I think) you
I have presented some DNA sequences as evidence that humans and other
African apes are related. Did you see it? Would you like to try to
reconcile it with your worldview?
> You'll notice the earlier times I've been in here I was the only one arguing
> creationism, and until I met Jason Gastrich I thought I was the only one
> making an active case for creationism on usenet.
You aren't. There are quite a few creationists currently active on
talk.origins. However, be warned that not one of them has a reasonable,
scientific argument. If you aren't concerned with being scientific, no
problem.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
| 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|