Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-20-2002, 08:22 PM

Here is a snippet for those of you too lazy to read it, but nonetheless want to denigrate the article. By the way, pseudo-man, the wholphin is fertile, but current fertility is not the issue. The ability to have offspring is suggestive of a prior ancestor, the created kind.

"In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) — (see box about the world's only Wholphin.7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind."

This passage is quite interesting on several points. One, the fact that 2 "species" thought to be in different genera and have major differences in appearance are actually not seperate species. I wonder if the fossils of one were found, and it was thought to be extinct, would it be considered transitional, or something along those lines. Just a side-note, but it raises interesting questions when the same species is classified in 2 seperate genera.
Another interesting aspect is the fact the wholphin can breed, and presumably breed another type of dolphin, which in appearance though not reality could seem to be another species. I think this illustrates the idea of how the descendants of a created kind can form.
As far as point to the whole article, I think it illustrates and discusses the idea of "kind" fairly well.

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 08:24 PM

I say we take up a collection (only about 30 bucks) and buy
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674006135/qid=1016688059/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/103-3053895-3902243" target="_blank">The Structure of Evolutionary Theory</a>

for randman. It's nearly 1500 pages, so it should give him something better to do for awhile than waste the atheists' bandwidth linking to crap that everyone has seen already.

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
3 posts full of BS name-calling, Is this ya'll's ideas of ripping the article to shreds?
LOL.
Why am I not surprised?

Randman, have you not got the sense to realize that the vagueness with which your book of fairy tales, contradictions, lies and violence (Bible) allows one to make any sort of interpretation?

How many of these inter-"kind" matings are are fertile, randman?

Can you say evolutionary dead-end after one generation? That is precisely why the article is horsecrap and precisely why Batten's silly-arsed appeal to emotion re: infertile human couples not being human was a bunch of ridiculous tripe.

No, I suppose you wouldn't.

Why, pray tell if these were such astounding "proofs" of kinds did this astounding "research" not site primary literature concerning the viability of the hybrids?

RufusAtticus · 03-20-2002, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp</a>

Do you have anything to say? Any idiot can post a link. Do you have any thoughts of your own?

By the way, you still haven't answered my challenge about kinds. I figure, since this is not posted in that thread, it's not meant to be a response. It really doesn't matter anyways, since AIG doesn't answer my questions either.

-RvFvS

-RvFvS

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

randman · 03-20-2002, 08:29 PM

"As well, the correct definition of a "species" wasn't presented."
That's false as the following statement from the article shows.
"Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2"

It is abundantly clear the author knows what he is talking about, but some of you do not. By the way, the article is not a refutation of evolution on it's own, but an example of research on the concept of "kind", the original parent species for each type of creature.
By the way, that is a definition of kind, and it is presented pretty clearly.

notto · 03-20-2002, 08:31 PM

From a previous Randman post:

"What I key on here is the lack of evolutionary change within the lifespan of a species. You don't see it. You see stasis according to Gould. Now, he assumes that since later down the road you see "fully formed" species that look like they must have evolved from one another, that these are transtions, but once again, you don't see species exhibiting change. They exhibit stasis."

So randman, does the fossil record show the changes in kind from the possible 3 cat kinds the article suggests, or do the various cat species we see today appear fully formed?

Do you concider the information in the link provided to be the Creation Model that you are always talking about? If so, how is the fossil record more representative of this model than evolution? Wouldn't they both show the same thing?

You seem to be posting links that contradict what you have been saying since you started posting here. The link you provided suggests that the original kinds were created at a single point in time and then mutation created the different organisms we see today. This is contradictory to your model of organisims appearing fully formed at different times through special creation.

Which model do you adhear to?

Happy Wonderer · 03-20-2002, 08:34 PM

Cool! The long sought-after definition of "kind".

Quote:

[QB]
If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!

In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind � whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological �species�. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new �species� was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.

[QB]

So if they hybridize, they are the same "Kind." Fair enough. But if they don't hybridize, they may still be the same "kind." So how do you tell? How to you test the hypothesis of independently created kinds with this definition?

The third paragraph is no help, in his example of fruit flys, there is no mention of a secondary pair of species that the offspring hybridize to...

This definition would seem to say there is no reason to believe that chimps and humans are not the same "kind." Or am I missing something?

HW

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
By the way, the article is not a refutation of evolution on it's own, but an example of research on the concept of "kind", the original parent species for each type of creature.

Oh. As in, evidence of the "common ancestor" of both Pseudorca crassidens and Tursiops truncatus? Or is Batten forbidden by scripture to use that term?

Quote:

By the way, that is a definition of kind, and it is presented pretty clearly.

Kind = common ancestor?

randman · 03-20-2002, 08:38 PM

"Kind' refers to the original parent species that theoritically was created according to creationist articles. It is a workable idea. Why someone would oppose the idea itself is beyond me unless they have no other way to present their case except via false claims that "kind" is not defined when it clearly is.
I also see a double-standard by evolutionists. They will throw out a vague term much less defiend than "kind" such as transitional, and yet offer not real definition. Heck, everything is transitional for the evolutionist.

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"Kind" refers to the original parent species that theoretically was created according to creationist articles [aka the bible].

Give an example. You may cite the fossil record, including extinct organisms.

Quote:

Heck, everything is transitional for the evolutionist.

How is that a problem?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2002, 08:22 PM	#11
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Here is a snippet for those of you too lazy to read it, but nonetheless want to denigrate the article. By the way, pseudo-man, the wholphin is fertile, but current fertility is not the issue. The ability to have offspring is suggestive of a prior ancestor, the created kind. "In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) — (see box about the world's only Wholphin.7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind." This passage is quite interesting on several points. One, the fact that 2 "species" thought to be in different genera and have major differences in appearance are actually not seperate species. I wonder if the fossils of one were found, and it was thought to be extinct, would it be considered transitional, or something along those lines. Just a side-note, but it raises interesting questions when the same species is classified in 2 seperate genera. Another interesting aspect is the fact the wholphin can breed, and presumably breed another type of dolphin, which in appearance though not reality could seem to be another species. I think this illustrates the idea of how the descendants of a created kind can form. As far as point to the whole article, I think it illustrates and discusses the idea of "kind" fairly well.

03-20-2002, 08:24 PM	#12
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	I say we take up a collection (only about 30 bucks) and buy <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674006135/qid=1016688059/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/103-3053895-3902243" target="_blank">The Structure of Evolutionary Theory</a> for randman. It's nearly 1500 pages, so it should give him something better to do for awhile than waste the atheists' bandwidth linking to crap that everyone has seen already.

03-20-2002, 08:29 PM	#15
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"As well, the correct definition of a "species" wasn't presented." That's false as the following statement from the article shows. "Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2" It is abundantly clear the author knows what he is talking about, but some of you do not. By the way, the article is not a refutation of evolution on it's own, but an example of research on the concept of "kind", the original parent species for each type of creature. By the way, that is a definition of kind, and it is presented pretty clearly.

03-20-2002, 08:31 PM	#16
notto Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Minneapolis, MN US Posts: 133	From a previous Randman post: "What I key on here is the lack of evolutionary change within the lifespan of a species. You don't see it. You see stasis according to Gould. Now, he assumes that since later down the road you see "fully formed" species that look like they must have evolved from one another, that these are transtions, but once again, you don't see species exhibiting change. They exhibit stasis." So randman, does the fossil record show the changes in kind from the possible 3 cat kinds the article suggests, or do the various cat species we see today appear fully formed? Do you concider the information in the link provided to be the Creation Model that you are always talking about? If so, how is the fossil record more representative of this model than evolution? Wouldn't they both show the same thing? You seem to be posting links that contradict what you have been saying since you started posting here. The link you provided suggests that the original kinds were created at a single point in time and then mutation created the different organisms we see today. This is contradictory to your model of organisims appearing fully formed at different times through special creation. Which model do you adhear to?

03-20-2002, 08:38 PM	#19
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Kind' refers to the original parent species that theoritically was created according to creationist articles. It is a workable idea. Why someone would oppose the idea itself is beyond me unless they have no other way to present their case except via false claims that "kind" is not defined when it clearly is. I also see a double-standard by evolutionists. They will throw out a vague term much less defiend than "kind" such as transitional, and yet offer not real definition. Heck, everything is transitional for the evolutionist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.