theyeti

Hello ex-robot. The real problem with "Kind" is not it's vagueness per se. It's that creationists specifically state that one "kind cannot evolve into another. There is no clear deliniation of what this barrier is or why it should exist, it is just asserted so. From our perspective, if we want to assess the validity of that claim, we have to have a precise definition of "kind" to work with and to find counter-examples for. Otherwise, the creationist just modifies it to suit his needs.

Example: "What about the evolution of this new species of X?" Creationist: "But it's still an X. It didn't evolve into anything different than an X, it's still the same kind." Obviously this is just a semantic word game. It doesn't matter what you're talking about, the same argument could be used against any ammount of evolution. To wit, "But it's still a eukaryote. It didn't evolve into anything other than a eukaryote. Your evidence for the evolution of man from unicellular organisms doesn't impress me. It's still the eukaryote kind." See why it makes you want to pull your hair out?

The only definition of "kind" that I've ever seen in the creationist <ahem> "technical" journals, what they usually call "baramin", is, "all oraganisms that are related by common descent." But of course it is circular to claim that new kinds can't evolve when they are defined that way. This just begs the question as to whether or not more than one "kind" exists.

theyeti

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

Not having access to the original Hebrew, I will accept his statement that:

<strong>Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly... The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around.</strong>

So "fowls" are "things with wings." This still leaves a problem: "Certain insects" are mentioned as belonging to this broad category but not which ones they are.

Then Leviticus 11:22 specifically mentions flying insects using the same word which is "fowls" in the KJV: Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. They are indicated as having "four feet" as pointed out, which they don't.

Are these part of the "wing owner" insects that the apologist mentioned? If so, then why did they get a separate mention? If not, then which insects did he mean by "certain insects"? Not all beetles have wings, yet they are included in 11:22 under the same word which the apologist says is a "wing owner."

I guess we'll be seeing another apologist tract where the Hebrew for "beetles" is mentioned, which indicates that they shouldn't have wings.

I didn't like the ending of the tract either which indicated that people who note that the meaning of the words have changed over time and that meanings have been lost are "acting like spoiled children" and failed to note that even if the translation was to blame, that the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions (and there is an apologist tract for every one, I am sure.)

If the definitions of its terminology are even admitted by apologists to have been lost to the centuries and are so broad and meaningless as to place insects, birds and bats into the same category, then it is certainly inadequate as a science textbook even of the bad science that it proposes, because science demands precise and unwavering definitions (which is exactly what fuzzy words like "kind" seek to avoid.)

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

ex-robot

I couldn't believe his ending either. He is acting like a spoiled child because people question the bible! It is too be expected according to the bible itself. He should answer the critics and leave the rest for a tract, Why People who Dare Question the Bible Continually are Spoiled Children and So Forth.

xr

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

Asha'man

I had a conversation with a friend the other day, and found out (rather dissapointingly) that he seems to be a creationist. However, he is intelligent and logical, so the discussion was more interesting than I thought it would be.

To get back onto the topic, his definition of "kind" had at least one testable point: the number of chromosones a creature has. He stated that Apes (with 46 chromosomes) could not be related to Humans (with 47). Please forgive my lack of basic biology (I'm a physics and astronomy guy), but I didn't have a good reply to that. My friend accepted the idea of microevolution, but felt that it couldn't cross certain barriers, which turn out to be the ones that define "kinds."

I pointed out a "factioid" that I recalled, saying that chimps and humans share 99% of their DNA, but he rejected that claim. This brought up a second issue. I read mainstream scientific articles and papers, and generally believe what I read. My friend appears to read crackpot scientific articles and papers, and also generally believes what he reads. He said that we both have some amount of "faith" in the scientists we are reading. Even when evaluating a scientific claim by examining the evidence presented, you still have to work with the "common assumptions" within that field of science, and those assumptions may be wrong.

So how do I prove that my scientists are better than his scientists?

scigirl

Hello Asha'man,

You came to the right place!
<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">Here's</a> a site from the <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">evidence evolution page</a> that explains how this could have occured.

First to correct an error--chimps have 48 chromosomes, not 47. They have one extra pair than us in their somatic cells. So in thier sex cells, they have only one more chromosome 24 verses 23.



Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes. H=human, C=chimp, G=gorilla, O=orangutan.

The black lines are where the chromosomes have similar G-banding patterns.

Why the different numbers of chromosomes if we did evolve from chimp-like ancestors?
So while both creationists and evolutionists could use the similar chromosomes as evidence for their theory, only evolutionary theory makes very detailed predictions. Do these predictions come true?
The answer--yes, the predictions that evolutionary theory made did indeed come true.

I would ask any creationist to come up with a better explanation as to why these specific similiarities and differences occur in the chromosomes. If humans and chimps were 'created separately,' why the incredible coincidence of what looks like chromosome fusion? Why would a creator put evidence of telomeres in the middle of the human chromomsome? Why don't chimps have, say 32 chromosomes with their genes in a different order?
Well, you could have him compare genes himself at <a href="http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/" target="_blank">BLAST</a>. This is a database of genes that have been sequenced by various labs around the world. You can compare two or more sequences and see how similar they are to each other. It takes some time to learn the program, but it might help convince him (if he sees the alignments with his own eyes).

This is true. I think it's important to not glorify scientists (even though we are pretty damn cool! ). But rather illustrate that the process of scientific discovery is what works the best. The only reason we know that "common assumptions" have been wrong in the past was not because of some religious text, but rather the careful critique and study of scientists! It doesn't so much matter that we can't conclusively prove evolution true. It matters more that the predictions the theory makes come true (like above), and therefore is a very useful theory to explain our origins.

scigirl

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Sauron

Keep in mind that this is from tekton, which is Robert Turkel, the real name of James Patrick Holding. He's a notoriously one-sided apologist who thrives on abuse and one-liners.

In past debates with Jeff Lowder, Farrell Till, etc., he's consistently refused to link to the original debate - thus depriving the reader of the full text of the opponent's view. Instead, he cuts and pastes the parts he wants his 'adoring audience' to see.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Asha'man

scigirl, you are a gem! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Ok, lets take this one step further. A pre-human ancestor with 48 chromosomes give birth to a mutant with 47, with the fusion happening as you posted above. This mutant now has to mate and produce offspring. However, all the available mates are pre-mutation, and have 48 chromosomes. Does this work? Or do there have to be two similar mutations at once for this line to continue? Evidence?

I seem to recall some cases in humans where instead of a simple XY or XX chromosome, they end up with XXX or XYY or other strange combinations. Are these people fertile?
(Never mind, google pointed me to an answer<a href="http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.)

liquid

Nice post scigirl, but overkill to an extent!

Your friend defines a kind through supposedly immutable chromosome numbers?

Perhaps it would be wise to inform your friend that chromosome numbers have been observed changing in all sorts of species. Both in the lab and in the wild.

Indeed, the wheat that makes his bread is most likely polyploid! If you would like some referenced examples, I would be happy.

On a side note, hello everyone! I'm a long-time lurker and feel like posting a little. You should see my intro pop up in the next few days.

[Edited for clarity]

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: liquid ]</p>

Viti

scigirl...I have learned so much from your posts. You have a knack for explaining things in a very clear way that even those without a science background can understand. I also appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject...keep it up!

Darwin's Finch

Scigirl:
I agree with LadyShea entirely. If medical school doesn't work out for you, I hope you will consider teaching at the University level. We need more like you. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />