Oolon Colluphid

So what, exactly, are you disputing? On 20 Feb you told us that a kind was a species:

The point is, the taxonomic group ‘species’ is not a reliable guide to what a ‘kind’ is, because hybrids between species are not uncommon, and are not always infertile. Yet you “personally think that the “kinds” of animals were created separately”. (19/2/02) Evolution, of course, says that every living thing shares a common ancestor.

Thus we need to know where lies this magic boundary that means that one kind cannot turn into another. You think there is one; evolution says there isn’t.

So you need a better definition of ‘kind’. Species isn’t it; nor is genus, for the South American camelids are separate genera. The New World garter snakes and water snakes (family Natricinae) are placed in separate genera, Thamnophis and Nerodia. But there is a spectrum of semiaquatic species, differing slightly in almost every possible respect, connecting them, such as the crayfish snakes (four species of Regina) and the Black Swampsnake Seminatrix pygaea.

Maybe it’s Family, then? But are, dolphins, porpoises and river dolphins, all separate families, really different ‘kinds’? How about civets and genets? Dugongs and manatees? Cobras are put in a family of their own (Elapidae), but the fangs and poison glands that distinguish them are developed to varying degrees in a range of other snakes.

Or Order, perhaps? But within the Order Squamata, snakes as a group are distinguished from lizards by their lack of legs and certain features of their teeth and jawbones, yet among lizards there are many species with diminutive legs or none at all, and others with snake-like jaws (eg the 143 species of Amphisbaenians, skinks Scincidae, whiptails Teiidae, and flap-footed lizards Pygopodidae). Many ‘primitive’ snakes have remnants of a pelvic girdle and hind limbs, eg pythons and boas. One group of snakes, the blind snakes (Scolecophidia), are classed on the basis of some features as lizards by some taxonomists. Bridging between blind snakes and the Alethinophidia (literally 'true snakes') are two species of Indian dwarf pipesnakes (Anomochilus).

Modern reptiles are easily distinguished from amphibians by their skeletons, but Permian fossils such as Seymouria cannot be classified unambiguously as either reptilian or amphibian.

It is not even always possible to tell a plant from an animal.
Of course not. But reptiles, birds and mammals are different <a href="http://wwwmc.nhmccd.edu/students/learn/library/learning_resource_center/chordata.html" target="_blank">Classes</a>! The fossils tell us that mammals last shared a common ancestor with either of those at least two hundred million years ago (the <a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm" target="_blank">cynodont therapsids</a>), so it’s not exactly surprising that they can no longer interbreed. The point is that it’s also no surprise to evolution that closely related things may be able to interbreed, since they shared a recent common ancestor and the isolating mechanisms may therefore be less than totally impermeable. So where is the magic line that cannot be crossed? If inviability of hybrids is what counts, then the northern and southern leopard frogs I mentioned are different kinds. (And how inviable does the hybrid have to be?) Is the boundary at their species level, at the genus Rana, or are all of the family Ranidae one kind? What about tropical frogs (Leptodactylidae) and the toad family Bufonidae? One kind or three, and why?

What, like putting them together in a zoo? Just how ‘unnatural’ is putting them in with each other? More to the point, why did this interbreeding work at all?

Oh really? What mechanism is that? Go to that cynodont therapsid link above. What this sequence of fossils shows is the development of mammals from reptilian ancestors. The therapsids show, amongst other things, the gradual development of mammalian ear bones from reptilian jaw joints (note that modern snakes ‘hear’ with their jaws); improved dental occlusion and a move to fewer teeth replacement cycles; and the rearrangement of jaw muscles to allow chewing; a substantial growth in brain volume and a more upright limb posture. This is change from one class to another, not mere families such as Canidae and Felidae. Are <a href="http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm" target="_blank">whales</a> a different kind from any land animal? Just how broad is this ‘kind’ category?

How ‘general’ do you mean? Deer are family <a href="http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/icapb/collection/museum/SF-MUS97/text/ruminantia.html#cervidae" target="_blank">Cervidae</a>, and goats are <a href="http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/icapb/collection/museum/SF-MUS97/text/ruminantia.html#bovidae" target="_blank">Bovidae</a>.

Are these



and these



the same kind then? I’m pretty sure they can’t interbreed, yet they are Bovids.

Here’s a cervid:



But what of the musk deer (family Moschidae) and the pronghorn (family Antilocapridae)? If deer and goats are the same kind, then you must mean the suborder Ruminantia, which means they are the same kind as this:


(Family Giraffidae)

Yet they share a number of features with other Arteriodactyls:[*]the feet are either 2 or 4-toed.[*]their feet are paraxonic: the line of symmetry passes between digits 3 and 4.[*]the astralagus has a so-called 'double pulley' whereby both the connecting surfaces allow a rolling action giving greater freedom of movement in the ankle. Other ungulates lack this arrangement.[*]the pre-molars are less molarised than in most perissodactyls. They are thus similar to pigs, peccaries, hippos, llamas and camels.

Well we can start by defining ‘kind’...

... and ignored the main point, about the skulls...

I thought that that was obvious. So? Actually, I didn’t challenge you, I stated that you clearly don’t know much about chimps. I still suspect that regarding their biology you don’t. Of course they’re not human. But they are very very like humans, as you should know. Now answer the bloody skulls question! Which are apes and which are humans?



Of course not. But what they have is, as I said, a matter of quantitative difference, not qualitative difference. In other words, given our human intelligence, we would expect that something with which we share a recent-ish common ancestor would exhibit some degree of intelligence too. And so we do: not on our level, but way ahead of other mammals. If we are in the intelligence first place, we should expect our nearest relatives to be amongst the next most intelligent, and so we do, in second place. And they are different by degree not substance.

Dolphins may be intelligent, but that’s irrelevant since no-one thinks they’re particularly closely related to us. Oddly enough, whales are pretty intelligent too, as we’d expect if they’re related. Are they the same kind as dolphins?

Ref biblical ‘science’, bats etc, don’t you think that there would be no room for such disagreement if the bible were a science textbook? We both agree it’s not. Yet you still try and reconcile it with science. Why not just take myth as myth? Why is the Hebrew myth special? Why are the Maori or Inuit tales to be discounted, yet yours believed?

Oddly enough, I can. Those things you listed are among the characteristics, but the principle one is replication, and a consequent descent with modification. All the rest is how things go about getting replicated.

The reason it is a fair question is that you are the one who thinks the supernatural is involved in life’s formation, so we need to be clear as to what life is. And the reason it is a relevant question is that there are a variety of ways in which such replicators could form without supernatural intervention. I gave you rather a lot of links on that.

Well I’ve seen creationists use out-of-context quotes loads of times, but never had it happen to me before. The rest of my paragraph continued:

Which part of that do you not understand?

&lt;sigh&gt; <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Let me say this for a third time: NOTHING is ever proven in science. Proof is a luxury of mathematics, where you are defining the universe you're operating in to start with. With science, we are trying to find out what sort of universe we're operating in, so we have to make do with merely all the evidence there is and any more we can gather. Of course not all the evidence is in -- an awful lot of scientists would be out of a job if it were. But the chances of evidence coming in that means we have to go back to a previously thoroughly refuted paradigm are rather miniscule, because the old idea was refuted.

TTFN, Oolon

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

hyzer

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

Great posts, as usual Oolon.

Bait

Oolon,
I'll try to answer the "ape question (I haven't had a chance to get to the rest of your post yet though).

It's difficult to determine ape from human skulls without seeing the size (as an example), and having a closer look at teeth, etc. However, at first blush it appears that A. looks a bit like a Gibbon, B. could be australopithecus..it has the general shape anyway, G. is also probably ape. I. one can see the incisors, so I would guess it to be ape as well, though other features seem to indicate human. J. the skull indicates a u-shaped dental arcade, which would also indicate an ape., perhaps a baby chimp (without an indication of size). Actually one could argue the entire top row (A - F)each having brow lines similar to apes, but I cannot tell for sure from these pictures. The rest are probably human, but L definately is human.

You'll probably come back now and tell me they are all human though (trick question?)

In general (never 100%) the average cranial capacity of a modern human skull is about 1,350cc for women, 1,500 cc. for men with a range of 830 cc to 2800 cc. Modern ape, as an example has an average cranial capacity of about 500 - 550 cc, with gorilla's having as much as 700cc and chimps as little as 300 - 400 cc. I cannot tell from the pictures the size of the cranial skulls, which puts me at a disadvantage.

But to determine ape from human (in general):

Men have (in general) small brow ridges, dome shaped skulls, eye sockets are broad and spaced far apart, and parabolic dental arcade (u-shaped for apes). Apes usually ahve large ridge lines, ridged skulls, smaller, closer spaced eye sockets, and u-shaped dental arcades with prominent incisors.

How'd I do???
Ron

Bait

Hi Kosh,
So basically your buddies agree with what I said. God has no time limits, therefore the 7 days of creation COULD be days as they are to God (like a thousand years), not necessarily 24 hour days. Even if you go to the first passage (see Tomije below)…it says the same thing. Therefore, there is NOT NECESSARILY a disagreement between the Bible and science as to the age of the earth. And since the Bible does not specifically say HOW God created the earth, sun, moon, plants, animals, etc…then the Bible does not necessarily disagree with the theory of natural selection either. Scientist then by logic have just explained HOW the creation happened (or in Christian faith, how God went about it). You use the absence of empirical evidence of the flood to support your argument, by citing items like the Green River varves. I say that since the Bible does not say exactly when the flood was, and it could have been much earlier than most date it to, then the varves are not relevant to the argument since they probably formed after the flood (yes, yes, if there was one). There are almost as many scientific theories studying how a world flood COULD have happened, as there are theories that try to show it did not.

Removing those arguments leaves only one left as to the Genesis account, and that would be “Was God the catalyst that caused this creation?” You say no, because you believe there is no such thing as a diety. I say yes, because I believe there is a God. Neither of us really has any empirical evidence to support our views, you cannot prove there is no God, I cannot prove there is. I’m not trying to convert anyone here…that’s not my purpose, but I am trying to show that there are other ways of looking at things.

I admit that geology is not one of my strong suits, which is probably why I’m getting clobbered here (I have a feeling a couple of you are geologists). Ps418, as an example has gone way over my head, as an example (especially the algai bioherms).

As your buddies say:

From Tomije:

"Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You turn us back to dust and say, 'Turn back, you mortals.'
For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past,
or like a watch in the night."

The author is saying, "Hey God, you are such a Bad-Ass, that one day to us puny humans is like a 1000 years to you.


From Paradisedream2

That verse is difficult to explain. The majority of Christians think it applies literally to a Reign that took place place already. They believe a "day" with God is a thousand years and so they keep waiting for something that already took place and don't know what that verse is speaking about. A thousand years can be seen as A DAY. but they think a day to God is a thousand years and so they tarry awaiting a big "event" that will never happen.


From Worlds Youngest Atheist

The author is saying, "Hey God, you are such a Bad-Ass, that one day to us puny humans is like a 1000 years to you. That's how cool you are, God. Please don't crush us" or as the same author put it in Psalm 90 Verse 9:

I did my homework. I went to <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net" target="_blank">http://bible.gospelcom.net</a> read the entire passage, and came to the same conclusion as you.

From HelenSL

Anyway I always thought that was another way of the author saying God knows the future before it's happened (in our time). I.e. he knows it as well as if it had already happened.

In Isaiah there's a verse saying "I know the end from the beginning" which I'd say is a similar thought; in Psalm 139 it says "You knew all my days before any of them came to be" (I think).

From Nogo

I am with Helen on this one. What gives it away is the "once it is past". Why does the day need to be past? For us humans when it is past it all becomes known and obvious. So 1000 years in the future to God is as clear as yesterday to humans.
I did think about the "2 Peter" connection.

Bait

Hi Kosh,
(chuckle) (wink) Gotcha thinking though. Really, if there wasn't any possibility geologically that there was a flood, then why do so many "good scientist" in other fields spend so much time researching the possibilities. There are scientist that have built scale models of the "ark"...and after testing the models discovering how stable it is, there are those proposing and calculating whether the earth had a dome of water around it, and if it would be enough to cause a flood of that proportion, there are those that are studying the movements of the earths mantle, continents, etc., also to find out if it is possible that way, there are those studying (a putting forth theories) of whether there may have been a layer of water just below the earths crust. I did not make these theories, scientist did. Why? Especially if geology has already discounted, and proven that a flood could not have occurred?
I'll buy into the dragons arguments put forth, dragons could have come from any number of sources. Many Chinese dragons have short front legs, long back ones, as do the european ones. Both European and Chinese indicates (at times) fire breathing, and I agree with the assessment as to what a bite feels like. Lets see, big tail, big back legs, small front legs, huge body, big teeth....t-rex? Before you jump, that was a joke - ok? As to Job's description, I really have never heard of anyone translating the "tail" of the behemouth as anything other than a tail...not a sexual member. Honestly, where can I find that reference?

As to going to another thread concerning geology, I'm not opposed, but I'll say up front that it is not my area of expertise...though I think it is for some of you. So the idea is to get me right up front on unequal ground?[code] </pre>[/quote]

As to aligning with modern science, I really don't think it's that much out of alignment. I don't want to believe the Bible, I DO believe it. But if you don't...you don't. Doesn't make me your enemy, nor you mine. Yes, there are apparent problems, ones I cannot explain (for one I'm not well versed enough in geology). But that by itself does not prove or disprove the Bible. Is that not what science is proportedly about? If you do not have all of the answers, then find the answers...don't disgard the questions. But do you realise that even when I do give logical reasons for my belief, you never acknowledge that you can see where I am coming from, or how I came to that conclusion (right or wrong)? My "thousand year" theory as an example...although I said right up front that I don't necessarily believe the YEC position, instead I believe that the earth COULD be much older because of this theory, instead of exploring the supposition then that the Bible would then align with much of what science has been arguing about (in essence we agree), instead you attacked my theory, still trying to cram me into the YEC position (as well as others with the green river argument).
So you also participate in a bit of "semantic limbo" yourself, even when YOUR OWN buddies on another list in essence agreed with my assessment of the "thousand years" meaning.
Ah, that's what surrounding yourself with smart friends who disagree with you is all about.[code] </pre>[/quote]
Bests,
Ron


&gt;&gt;&gt;This unfortunately, sums up Rons approach to things. He WANTS to believe the bible, and wants
deparately to align it with modern science, so
he uses this this kind of (dare I call it)
"semantic limbo" to convince himself there
aren't any problems.

Kosh

Hey Ron, thought you'd just become our latest
RTOW (Random Theist Of the Week).


As for the day age thing, there a couple others
on that thread who did not lend support to your
theory. But overall all I'm a litle frustrated
with the lack of opinions on it! But let's take
that argument over there if you want....

Well, small scale models of it may have been
stable in the water (yes, I've seen that experiment) - and assuming that they got the shape
right (the Bible doesn't really say). BUT, the
reality is that if that ship were built to
full scale, it would leak like a seive and break
up on the first wave it crested! See other threads
here in the archive for a full treatise on the
[in]feasibility of a wooden ship that size.


BTW, as to he proliferation of Dragon myths,
I tend to believe that there was cross continent
contamination long before even the Vikings came
over. There is good evidence of the Chinese
coming over here (stone anchors off the coast
of California, drawings of a large ship being
launched in China). And the similarities between
the Mayans serpent god and a Chinese dragon have
noted. Probably the most convincing though is
the "Cocaine" mummies... yes, Egyption mummies
with traces of Cocaine on them. Cocaine only grows
in S. America!

That's because that's not what happened. As shown
in that thread, the Hebrew word meaning "penis" was
translated into "tail" for modesty. See the
thread I linked you to earlier. I think I also
included the text with a book reference as well.


Well, if you're gong to question the science,
you have to back it up. You can't just say "I
don't know anything about, and it doesn't make
sense to me, so I think you're wrong". Did I
ever tell you my space shuttle analogy? Yeap,
I don't understand how it works, but that doesn't
keep it from going up.


Hmm. DIdn't realize I was ignoring your stuff.
Some of it I just quit going on about because after we show the reasoning, you still come back
and keep saying the same thing. So it's not like
we're going to concede to you based on repetition!

Well, as you can see from the other thread, I'm
still tring to get a straight answer on that.
I realize you're not a YEC (it is easy to forget
that though!) But realize that my approach is
to disprove your day age theory. The day age
theory is simply a way to switch from Biblical
literilasm to an allegorical interpretation. It's
weaseling IMHO. Quite simply, it's much easier
to dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis
than an allegorical one (although the allegorical
one doesnt line up either - see previous posts
in this thread). But... it's easier to kill a weed
before it gets too big. Hence I will argue, and
I do believe this, that the Genesis day age
theory holds no water and was not the intent of
the authors.

Bait

Oolon,
DUH!!!I'm agreeing with you dude...nothing is proven in science, by it's very definition. But then you turn around and say the Genesis account is totally incorrect because science has "proven" that animals all come from the same common ancestor. My point is that science has NOT proven a common ancestor, in fact fossil evidence indicates quite the opposite.

According to Jonathan Wells, Phd : (In part)

The Cambrian Period (or better the Vendian)seems to indicate a sudden explosion of life. You sound like you may have some background in biology. If so, then you know that animals are classified (by man, btw) into a hierachy of groups: species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla. I cannot answer as to how each of those animals groups you list are defined as to "kind", but modern representitives of the five phyla include snails, insects, starfish, earthworms, and mammels, respectively. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammels are sub classes of the Chordate phylum. Representatives of all five of these phyla, as well as most of the other phyla (major groups) were represented during the cambrian explosion, with no fossil evidence of a "common ancestor".

He goes on to quote "Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues wrote in 1991 that the Cambrian explosion “was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned” and gives the impression that animal evolution “has by and large proceeded from the ‘top down’.”

Even science to date has to keep refining it's definition of "kinds" and "species". I cannot presume to know for sure what was meant in the Genesis account as to "kind", and neither can you.
But even scientific study indicates that there was a "sudden" life explosion, of several "kinds" at one time (by modern definition)...NOT all from one ancestor.

Oolon, you keep reiterating that science does not "prove" anything...only mathematics do. But then biology texts such as "Evolutionary Biology (3rd edition, 1998) states "Decent with modification from common ancestors is a scientific FACT, that is, a hypothesis so well supported by evidence that we take it to be true."

Other times on here,this list, many of you have said basically the same thing, citing "emperical evidence". But using your own arguments, science does not "prove" anything. And the "empirical evidence" of biology indicates just the opposite of the "one ancestor" theory of Darwin. We can look at geological evidences, but like all other sciences, is it not at least in part, dependant on (whomevers)interpretation?

I have no problem with the hypothesis/theory that life changes by natural selection, or that new species appear (actually all the time). I cannot personally see enough hard evidence though, of man coming from ape. The cranial size, as an example, of Neanderthal man (who, btw, is now classified as Homo Sapien) is actually larger than that of modern man. ALL APES have smaller cranial sizes, not even close to those of man (on average). In the 50,000 years (generally agreed by scientists)of "man's" existance, why has not the "apes" evolved to a higher intellegence level? Why has mans cranial capacity seemed to have got smaller, yet we have got smarter? (supposedly). It's not the size of the brain, but how it is layed out (made, sequenced, can't find the right word here).

I said the Genesis account just says he made (whatever animal)after it's kind, and that in itself does NOT disagree with science, except where science says we all came from the same common ancestor. Even then, I was willing to give even a portion of that to you, because the Bible, not being a science book, does not say HOW. I believe though, it has pretty accurate historical accounts, and I have no reason to disbelieve the Genesis account and relegate it as a "myth".
Ron

Bait

John,
I would prefer Archealogy, and would probably get in waaaay over my head in geology (already have as a matter of fact), but as Kosh will attest, I'm game, if that is what everyone else here wants to do. Forgive me though if at times I tend to put my size 10's firmly into my mouth. It will be due to my inexperience with the subject.
Patrick kind of blew me away with his (long_ post.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> [code] </pre>[/quote]
Ron

hezekiah jones

So where does the word "prove" appear in your citation from the textbook?

If you're trying to prove a contradiction between what Oolon has been telling you and what you've found in the textbook, at least the terminology should be parallel, don't you think? Otherwise, your citation simply makes Oolon's point.

John Solum

Hi Ron,

I can't speak for Patrick (but I bet he agrees), but a new thread on geology sounds good to me. I just finished a response to a couple of your oold posts, and I'll use them to start the new thread.


John