Freethought & Rationalism Archive

monkenstick · 01-13-2003, 04:27 PM

Does that mean my love handles are vestigial?

Arrowman · 01-13-2003, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monkenstick
Does that mean my love handles are vestigial?

Only if they're not being used for their original purpose

Gregg · 01-13-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I suspect that creationists are attempting to use a species of "common sense" to place the kind barriers. That is, the barrier seperating cats from another "kind", is the property of "cattiness". This might seem quite obvious to you if you did not understand evolution. After all, how can a cat lose its cattiness? To them, "losing the property of catiness" would mean "becoming a dog". I can see how this might seem like common sense to someone who does not understand evolution.

Here's something to ask: "If you were from another planet where everything looked like purple blobs (including you), and you visited Earth, and were shown a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, would you immediately think they were of the same species?"

Gregg

Doubting Didymus · 01-13-2003, 08:25 PM

Ah, But I highly doubt that any creationist equates species with kind, do they? That would require a LOT of post - flood speciation. Besides, the 'common sense' thing still stands. Both chuahuahuahuas and danes have a recognisable 'dogginess' that would look workable as a 'kind' definition to a creationist.

Again, this requires that you do not understand evolution.

Gregg · 01-13-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Ah, But I highly doubt that any creationist equates species with kind, do they? That would require a LOT of post - flood speciation. Besides, the 'common sense' thing still stands. Both chuahuahuahuas and danes have a recognisable 'dogginess' that would look workable as a 'kind' definition to a creationist.

Again, this requires that you do not understand evolution.

OK, ask them if they'd immediately think they were of the same "kind." But my point was, if they tried to imagine themselves coming from a planet where everything looked like purple blobs, would they have any frame of reference from which to recognize the "dogginess" of both Danes and Chihuahuas?

But it might be far too much to expect a creationist to be able to imagine himself in such a hypothetical situation.

Gregg

Doubting Didymus · 01-13-2003, 08:52 PM

I dont know that I see your point. To play devils advocate, wouldn't the creationist simply say that kinds being theoretically unrecognisable does not change the fact that they are, in fact, kinds?

What the chihuahua/dane example DOES demonstrate is the power of evolution to make drastic alterations to a species.

RBH · 01-13-2003, 09:01 PM

Jack wrote

Quote:

I've even encountered one old-Earth creationist who accepted the development of modern multicellular organisms from microbes, but "because mutations cannot increase information", the Earth was initially populated (by God) with a number of superbugs with huge genomes containing all the genetic information needed for their descendants! (...more than one is needed, because "obviously one couldn't contain all the information")

That's actually pretty close to what Behe speculates might have happened in DBB:

Quote:

Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on.") (pp227-228)

RBH

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 01-13-2003, 10:13 PM

For Behe:
:boohoo: :banghead:
Christ. Al. Mighty.
If that's the case, then why bother with the inital lifeforms? Just skip the first FOUR FUCKING BILLION years of development and right to the main course of eyes and penises?
:boohoo:

Albion · 01-13-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

To play devils advocate, wouldn't the creationist simply say that kinds being theoretically unrecognisable does not change the fact that they are, in fact, kinds?

They'd say whatever it took. But the trouble is that they say that sort of thing, and they also say that "kinds" don't necessarily have biological equivalents but that the whole concept is more philosophical, and in the next breath they insist that "kinds" are legitimate science and should be taught as such in school. There's this one creationist I know who's home-schooling her kids and is teaching them biological classification via baraminology - whose first basis is that classification must accord with scripture and that every other consideration is subordinate. Sometimes my support for free speech and lack of censorship is very sorely tested. I can't help feeling that teaching this stuff to youngsters while calling it science should be illegal.

Doubting Didymus · 01-13-2003, 10:36 PM

My desire to play devils advocate any further has just crumbled to dust like so much creationist brain matter.

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

01-13-2003, 04:27 PM	#21
monkenstick Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 214	Does that mean my love handles are vestigial?

01-13-2003, 08:25 PM	#24
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Ah, But I highly doubt that any creationist equates species with kind, do they? That would require a LOT of post - flood speciation. Besides, the 'common sense' thing still stands. Both chuahuahuahuas and danes have a recognisable 'dogginess' that would look workable as a 'kind' definition to a creationist. Again, this requires that you do not understand evolution.

01-13-2003, 08:52 PM	#26
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I dont know that I see your point. To play devils advocate, wouldn't the creationist simply say that kinds being theoretically unrecognisable does not change the fact that they are, in fact, kinds? What the chihuahua/dane example DOES demonstrate is the power of evolution to make drastic alterations to a species.

01-13-2003, 10:13 PM	#28
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	For Behe: :boohoo: :banghead: Christ. Al. Mighty. If that's the case, then why bother with the inital lifeforms? Just skip the first FOUR FUCKING BILLION years of development and right to the main course of eyes and penises? :boohoo:

01-13-2003, 10:36 PM	#30
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	My desire to play devils advocate any further has just crumbled to dust like so much creationist brain matter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.