Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bluefugue · 12-08-2001, 12:51 PM

Morpho,

I think some creationists argue that some evolution (restricted within the bounds of those immutable "kinds," natch) occurred in the post-Ark populations. This postulation is necessary in order to bring down the number of animals that Noah would have had to carry, since there wouldn't have been room on the Ark for all the species that currently exist. IIRC, Woodmorappe argues that genetic diversity was stored within the animals' junk DNA and they re-diversified after the flood. Maybe I'm building a strawman here, or inaccurately reporting what Woodmorappe said, but to me it seems like one of the most desperate ad hoc arguments I've ever heard of, actually postulating accelerated evolution in order to argue against evolution -- and then conveniently drawing the line at "kinds" to keep everything kosher.

Oh God, what I hate most about Creationists is the way they make us discuss the utterly absurd in reasoned & measured tones.

"Well, clearly if the Cyclops that Odysseus killed was far larger than a normal human, then elementary physics would indicate he must have had bones of particularly high density to sustain his weight. I argue that a rare calcium compound can account for this discrepancy..."

theyeti · 12-08-2001, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
theyeti: Maybe I’m getting confused. I thought the Creationist premise was that God or the IPU or whatever had created all the “kinds” in one fell swoop.

Within exactly six days in fact. This is why the definition of "kinds" in paramount, because any observed evolution of a "kind" would disprove this. If kinds are defined as species, then it is disproven.

Quote:

Fossils are merely unclean “kinds” that didn’t make it into the Ark, or were touched by original sin, or allowed to die out for some other humanly-unfathomable and utterly diety-like reason.

The bible says that all animals were put on the ark, and the bible is never wrong, remember? So all fossils must have had a representative (or two, or seven) on the Ark, including giant dinosaurs, as ridiculous as it sounds. Ironically, the bible is one of the biggest obstacles to the flood, because it clearly specifies certain conditions that are impossible to meet. From the talkorigins <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#gathering" target="_blank">Problems with a Global Flood</a>:

Quote:

What kinds were aboard the ark?

Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

...

Were the animals aboard the ark mature?

Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

It would be much easier to prove Noah's flood without that pesky bible.

Quote:

All the million+ species alive today HAD to be in the Ark, ‘cause a “kind” can only reproduce the same “kind”, although there is apparently some allowance for variation within a “kind”. Douglas seems to be indicating that the variations in, fr’ instance, Felinidae, are merely variations in “cat kind” (although it's not really consistent since he's saying tigers and lions are different kinds - but he's already "adjusting" the definition), sort of like different breeds of dogs, I guess. But he's changing the terminology already.“Kind” now seems to lie somewhere around family, not down at the species level, depending on what critter we're talking about.

I'll need to read Douglas' reply again, but earlier he was clearly defining "kind" as biologists define species. Like I said, this is a bit unusual for "standard" YEC for two reasons: a) there are observed instances of speciation which disprove this and b) a major problem trying to fit that many animals on the Ark.

Most YECs change the definition to suit their needs. "Kinds" is often taken at the faimily level, which is completely arbitrary, for the purposes of Ark stuffing. But elsewhere, when pushed for a functional definition, they will fall back on reproductive barriers, which denote species.

Quote:

IF scigirl wants to nail him on barriers to macroevolution, which is what the whole debate is supposed to be about, someone’s gonna have to pin him to the floor at a particular taxonomic level where he delimits what defines the different “kinds”. After all, we’re saying that macroevolution is change in higher taxa over very long periods of time, using roughly the same mechanisms as microevolution. We’ve already gotten away from reproductive success as a criteria, I think, if I understand his last post. And we’re moving up the scale already with lions and tigers (and bears, oh my). If it isn’t defined, we risk eventually getting to the “vertebrate kind” or some such, and the whole argument really does turn into a “specious quibble” like HJ was complaining about.

What there needs to be is a clear and consitence definition of "kinds" as well as an explanation as to why "kinds" is a barrier to evolution. Remember, the fuzzy defintion of species does not pose a problem for evolution because evolution, unlike creationism, predicts that there is no clear "barrier" between them. I don't think that arguing the definition of species is a quibble at all, because the difficulty in doing so points out the flaw in the creationist's insistance on "kinds" being separated by some uncrossable barrier. And if the creationist defines it as something other than species, then it's totally arbitrary.

theyeti

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: theyeti ]

theyeti · 12-08-2001, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IesusDomini:

"Well, clearly if the Cyclops that Odysseus killed was far larger than a normal human, then elementary physics would indicate he must have had bones of particularly high density to sustain his weight. I argue that a rare calcium compound can account for this discrepancy..."

ROTHFLMAO!!!!!!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: theyeti ]

MrDarwin · 12-08-2001, 01:17 PM

The idea of "kind" breaks down entirely when it comes to plants (which creationists always seem to overlook).

It's not at all uncommon for closely related plant species to be able to intercross and produce fertile offspring, but for a variety of reasons they rarely, if ever, do in nature. In some cases, these species may look entirely different, but can still produce highly fertile offspring (just talk to orchid hybridizers).

In general, closely related plant species can intercross easily and produce highly fertile offspring. As you cross progressively less closely related species (as classified on the basis of morphology and other classical criteria for relationship), the hybrids become progressively less fertile, until you finally reach a point where the hybrids are completely sterile.

But these sterile hybrids (which are often produced between related species with different chromosome numbers, e.g., n=12 and n=13) can have their chromosome number doubled artificially, in which case they become fertile and true-breeding (i.e., the hybrid would have n=25). That is, they will reproduce their own "kind" without reverting to either parent; in fact, they are unable to cross with either parent. This chromosomal doubling can be induced artificially, but it sometimes happens spontaneously. And there are several well-documented instances of this kind of new species arising in the wild.

So we have the following cases:

2 species, very similar, can interbreed and produce highly fertile offspring.

2 species, very dissimilar, can interbreed and produce highly fertile offspring.

2 species, similar or not, can interbreed, producing weakly fertile offspring.

2 species, similar or not, can interbreed, producing sterile offspring (but which can become fertile by either artificial or natural means).

2 species, similar or not, cannot interbreed under any circumstances (although there are many tricks breeders can use to induce hybrids in even the most intractable cases).

Now, at what point are we talking about the parental species being different "kinds"?

Dr Rick · 12-08-2001, 04:17 PM

Douglas,

You deserve recognition for making the effort to reply courteously to the "peanut gallery;" all the more admirable as you're addressing an audience that is overtly hostile to your beliefs.

Rick

Richiyaado · 12-08-2001, 04:55 PM

Hello all,

Like rbochnermd, I agree that Douglas deserves to be commended for his civility and courtesy (which is more than I can say for some of the secularists who have posted in this thread.

) I would add, speaking only for myself, that while I strongly disagree with much of what he says, I don't really feel hostile toward his beliefs. Within the context of his faith, I can respect them without recognizing that he is speaking authoritatively.

To Douglas: I'd like to ask you again, as I did near the top of this thread, whether you are putting forward the 'curse of sin' as a statement of personal religious belief, or do you regard it as a viable scientific hypothesis? If the former, is it your position that this religious doctrine simply trumps any scientific theory you believe to be in contradiction to it, irrespective of any evidence in support of the theory? If the latter, how would we go about testing a 'curse of sin' hypothesis using scientific methodology? Thanks.

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]

bluefugue · 12-08-2001, 05:46 PM

While I can't say I share such a tolerant attitude toward Douglas' beliefs (though of course I'll always acknowledge his right to hold them), I will join in the general chorus praising him for his civility. It's not easy to make an argument on hostile ground.

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]

Richiyaado · 12-08-2001, 08:09 PM

Hello IesusDomini,

Tolerance of people's various religious beliefs is easy and not a problem. The problem comes when people act upon their beliefs in ways that unjustly coerce, discriminate, maim, kill and generally wreak havoc upon the lives of other people who don't happen to share them.

three4jump · 12-08-2001, 09:46 PM

This is a pointless debate since no one involved will ever change his or her mind about firmly held convictions. Douglas will eventually lose, and he will go on believing in God's creation regardless of what is proven here. It's like watching wrestling: no matter how good scigirl's moves are, the outcome is predetermined.

The Lone Ranger · 12-08-2001, 11:04 PM

Regarding Douglas' request that scigirl show him evidence for the existence of a series of transitional fossils . . .

Ironically (or appropriately, depending on how you look at it), human evolution gives some of the clearest demonstrations of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Paleoanthropologists are forever arguing over whether a particular fossil should be classified as Homo erectus or Homo sapiens. The line that separates late H. erectus from early H. sapiens is very fuzzy indeed.

Cheers,

Michael

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]

12-08-2001, 04:55 PM	#36
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Hello all, Like rbochnermd, I agree that Douglas deserves to be commended for his civility and courtesy (which is more than I can say for some of the secularists who have posted in this thread. ) I would add, speaking only for myself, that while I strongly disagree with much of what he says, I don't really feel hostile toward his beliefs. Within the context of his faith, I can respect them without recognizing that he is speaking authoritatively. To Douglas: I'd like to ask you again, as I did near the top of this thread, whether you are putting forward the 'curse of sin' as a statement of personal religious belief, or do you regard it as a viable scientific hypothesis? If the former, is it your position that this religious doctrine simply trumps any scientific theory you believe to be in contradiction to it, irrespective of any evidence in support of the theory? If the latter, how would we go about testing a 'curse of sin' hypothesis using scientific methodology? Thanks. [ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

12-08-2001, 05:46 PM	#37
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	While I can't say I share such a tolerant attitude toward Douglas' beliefs (though of course I'll always acknowledge his right to hold them), I will join in the general chorus praising him for his civility. It's not easy to make an argument on hostile ground. [ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

12-08-2001, 11:04 PM	#40
The Lone Ranger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 1,230	Regarding Douglas' request that scigirl show him evidence for the existence of a series of transitional fossils . . . Ironically (or appropriately, depending on how you look at it), human evolution gives some of the clearest demonstrations of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Paleoanthropologists are forever arguing over whether a particular fossil should be classified as Homo erectus or Homo sapiens. The line that separates late H. erectus from early H. sapiens is very fuzzy indeed. Cheers, Michael [ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ] [ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>

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

12-08-2001, 12:51 PM	#31
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	Morpho, I think some creationists argue that some evolution (restricted within the bounds of those immutable "kinds," natch) occurred in the post-Ark populations. This postulation is necessary in order to bring down the number of animals that Noah would have had to carry, since there wouldn't have been room on the Ark for all the species that currently exist. IIRC, Woodmorappe argues that genetic diversity was stored within the animals' junk DNA and they re-diversified after the flood. Maybe I'm building a strawman here, or inaccurately reporting what Woodmorappe said, but to me it seems like one of the most desperate ad hoc arguments I've ever heard of, actually postulating accelerated evolution in order to argue against evolution -- and then conveniently drawing the line at "kinds" to keep everything kosher. Oh God, what I hate most about Creationists is the way they make us discuss the utterly absurd in reasoned & measured tones. "Well, clearly if the Cyclops that Odysseus killed was far larger than a normal human, then elementary physics would indicate he must have had bones of particularly high density to sustain his weight. I argue that a rare calcium compound can account for this discrepancy..."

12-08-2001, 01:17 PM	#34
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	The idea of "kind" breaks down entirely when it comes to plants (which creationists always seem to overlook). It's not at all uncommon for closely related plant species to be able to intercross and produce fertile offspring, but for a variety of reasons they rarely, if ever, do in nature. In some cases, these species may look entirely different, but can still produce highly fertile offspring (just talk to orchid hybridizers). In general, closely related plant species can intercross easily and produce highly fertile offspring. As you cross progressively less closely related species (as classified on the basis of morphology and other classical criteria for relationship), the hybrids become progressively less fertile, until you finally reach a point where the hybrids are completely sterile. But these sterile hybrids (which are often produced between related species with different chromosome numbers, e.g., n=12 and n=13) can have their chromosome number doubled artificially, in which case they become fertile and true-breeding (i.e., the hybrid would have n=25). That is, they will reproduce their own "kind" without reverting to either parent; in fact, they are unable to cross with either parent. This chromosomal doubling can be induced artificially, but it sometimes happens spontaneously. And there are several well-documented instances of this kind of new species arising in the wild. So we have the following cases: 2 species, very similar, can interbreed and produce highly fertile offspring. 2 species, very dissimilar, can interbreed and produce highly fertile offspring. 2 species, similar or not, can interbreed, producing weakly fertile offspring. 2 species, similar or not, can interbreed, producing sterile offspring (but which can become fertile by either artificial or natural means). 2 species, similar or not, cannot interbreed under any circumstances (although there are many tricks breeders can use to induce hybrids in even the most intractable cases). Now, at what point are we talking about the parental species being different "kinds"?

12-08-2001, 04:17 PM	#35
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Douglas, You deserve recognition for making the effort to reply courteously to the "peanut gallery;" all the more admirable as you're addressing an audience that is overtly hostile to your beliefs. Rick

12-08-2001, 08:09 PM	#38
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Hello IesusDomini, Tolerance of people's various religious beliefs is easy and not a problem. The problem comes when people act upon their beliefs in ways that unjustly coerce, discriminate, maim, kill and generally wreak havoc upon the lives of other people who don't happen to share them.

12-08-2001, 09:46 PM	#39
three4jump Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Useless Bay Posts: 1,434	This is a pointless debate since no one involved will ever change his or her mind about firmly held convictions. Douglas will eventually lose, and he will go on believing in God's creation regardless of what is proven here. It's like watching wrestling: no matter how good scigirl's moves are, the outcome is predetermined.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.