Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 03-07-2002, 04:21 AM

There seem to be multiple debates about kinds occuring right now, so I'm going to start a thread devoted to it.

Questions to creationists, such as Randman:

What is a kind?

How many kinds are in existance?

How can you determine if genetic similarity is due to having a common ancestor or due to having similar creations? If this cannot be determined, then I see no way for the "kind" hypothesis to be valid.

Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?

Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion?

Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion?

If I were to present you with two organisms, a poe and a moe, how would you evaluate whether or not they belong to the same kind?

How many species belong to the horse kind? If kind is so well established to trump evolutionary concepts, then this should be easy to answer. Also, what genetic evidence allows you to identify this?

Please identify the barrier that limits evolution to only occuring within kinds. In other words, what molecular mechanism would prevent a terrestial predator, related to cows, from evolving into a whale? What limits novelty?

Commentary:

Novel features, or derived traits, are characteristics of an organism or populaion that did not exist in the ancestral populaion. The issue with creationists is that "kinds" must limit derived traits or they won't be immutable anymore. In other words, the descendents of a dog must always remain dogs, and they must only have ancestors that were also dogs. If creationists acknowledge that it is possible for the descendents of a dog to loose or gain diagnostic features, such that they no longer appear to be dogs, then there is no possible way for the "kind" hypotheisis to rule out that dogs and cats, or even dogs and trees, do not have a common ancestor. The concept of novelity is clearly damaging to the typical creationist view of biology.

-RvFvS

Peez · 03-07-2002, 06:34 AM

bump

Quetzal · 03-07-2002, 09:42 AM

Rufus: You've obviously not been keeping up with the latest in creation science. There are only 13 kinds - all created slightly before the "Big Bang" of the Cambrian Explosion. Creationist researchers have proven that all modern geologists and paleontologists (who are believed to be part of the Vast Evolutionist Conspiracy pat.pend.) have been deliberately hiding the fact that they misplaced a decimal: the Cambrian Explosion actually occurred 6000 years ago, not the ~600 million claimed.

This research is borne out by the fact that chordates are still chordates, cnidaria are still cnidaria, etc. Because of variation within kinds, we now observe 1.5-11 million species. Praise Jeebus.

Coragyps · 03-07-2002, 10:01 AM

Morpho - 14 kinds! You evil heretic conspirator!

RufusAtticus · 03-07-2002, 10:26 AM

bump

Coragyps · 03-07-2002, 01:38 PM

Bump. Randman, where art thou?

Kosh · 03-07-2002, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:
<strong>Bump. Randman, where art thou?</strong>

I'll see your bump, and raise you two
beetle kinds....

RufusAtticus · 03-07-2002, 04:22 PM

bump

Come on, there has to be a beleiver out there willing to tackle my questions.

Arrowman · 03-07-2002, 05:36 PM

Baraminology (which, I believe, is the pseudoscience of "kinds") has only been around for about 50 years. It's a work in progress. We don't have all the answers yet.

Seriously - this is effectively what I have been told (by the late unlamented John Paul, among others).

Of course, the fact that baraminology has been around during the period of the most exciting advances in genetic, and yet has been quite unable to take advantage of any of those advances in knowledge, is interesting....

RufusAtticus · 03-07-2002, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:
<strong>Baraminology (which, I believe, is the pseudoscience of "kinds") has only been around for about 50 years. It's a work in progress. We don't have all the answers yet.</strong>

Geocentry has been around for 6000 years. It's a work in progress. We don't have all the answers yet. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

-RvFvS

03-07-2002, 04:21 AM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Challenge to those who beleive in Kinds. There seem to be multiple debates about kinds occuring right now, so I'm going to start a thread devoted to it. Questions to creationists, such as Randman: What is a kind? How many kinds are in existance? How can you determine if genetic similarity is due to having a common ancestor or due to having similar creations? If this cannot be determined, then I see no way for the "kind" hypothesis to be valid. Do dogs and cats belong to the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion? Are cows and dogs in the same kind? Again, what leads you to this conclusion? Are humans and chimps in the same kind? What in biology leads you to your conclusion? If I were to present you with two organisms, a poe and a moe, how would you evaluate whether or not they belong to the same kind? How many species belong to the horse kind? If kind is so well established to trump evolutionary concepts, then this should be easy to answer. Also, what genetic evidence allows you to identify this? Please identify the barrier that limits evolution to only occuring within kinds. In other words, what molecular mechanism would prevent a terrestial predator, related to cows, from evolving into a whale? What limits novelty? Commentary: Novel features, or derived traits, are characteristics of an organism or populaion that did not exist in the ancestral populaion. The issue with creationists is that "kinds" must limit derived traits or they won't be immutable anymore. In other words, the descendents of a dog must always remain dogs, and they must only have ancestors that were also dogs. If creationists acknowledge that it is possible for the descendents of a dog to loose or gain diagnostic features, such that they no longer appear to be dogs, then there is no possible way for the "kind" hypotheisis to rule out that dogs and cats, or even dogs and trees, do not have a common ancestor. The concept of novelity is clearly damaging to the typical creationist view of biology. -RvFvS

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

03-07-2002, 06:34 AM	#2
Peez Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 5,504	bump

03-07-2002, 09:42 AM	#3
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Rufus: You've obviously not been keeping up with the latest in creation science. There are only 13 kinds - all created slightly before the "Big Bang" of the Cambrian Explosion. Creationist researchers have proven that all modern geologists and paleontologists (who are believed to be part of the Vast Evolutionist Conspiracy pat.pend.) have been deliberately hiding the fact that they misplaced a decimal: the Cambrian Explosion actually occurred 6000 years ago, not the ~600 million claimed. This research is borne out by the fact that chordates are still chordates, cnidaria are still cnidaria, etc. Because of variation within kinds, we now observe 1.5-11 million species. Praise Jeebus.

03-07-2002, 10:01 AM	#4
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Morpho - 14 kinds! You evil heretic conspirator!

03-07-2002, 10:26 AM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	bump

03-07-2002, 01:38 PM	#6
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Bump. Randman, where art thou?

03-07-2002, 04:22 PM	#8
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	bump Come on, there has to be a beleiver out there willing to tackle my questions.

03-07-2002, 05:36 PM	#9
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Baraminology (which, I believe, is the pseudoscience of "kinds") has only been around for about 50 years. It's a work in progress. We don't have all the answers yet. Seriously - this is effectively what I have been told (by the late unlamented John Paul, among others). Of course, the fact that baraminology has been around during the period of the most exciting advances in genetic, and yet has been quite unable to take advantage of any of those advances in knowledge, is interesting....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.