Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
[[Then you will, no doubt tell us what the precise definition of Kind is,]]
Or else what JS- You know full well the concept of kinds is perfectly ligit, and that it more closely follows species classifications than does phyologeny- but since it doesn’t have an exact definition- you apaprently htink it isn’t ligit? Go play that game elsewhere- Yuo can find far more precise scientific classifications in baraminology than you can phylogeny
[[and what it tells us to expect in yet to be found fossils.]]
You know full well what it predicts- discontinuity- and that’s exactly what we find- You and yours can play htis little symantics game all day long if you like- but the bottom line is biology, the fossil records and experimentations show there are parameters and that species DISCONTINUE, that there are NO continuities without massive assumptions and far reaching assertions that aren’t backed up by hte fossil records, and that the bariminological classifications are exactly what we see in nature.
Baraminology has several classifications which are precise enough to disclose htis FACT- whether you feel it does or not has no relevence to hte actual observable, testable and predictable evidneces.
I guess when you got nothign better to throw, you resort to excusing your own hyptohesis’ shortcomings and htne turning around and placing an arbitrary demand that you KNOW fukll well is problematic for both sides as though that moot problem somehow invalidates the scientific practice when it does not- and intimating that it does is intellectually dishonest and you know it
You have written a lot of text, but you haven’t defined Kind or explained what the barrier is to speciation.
Kind is perfectly explained in Baraminology- it is a valid description that precisely describes what we know in biology and species.
Not that you’ll even read or concider anyhtign here- and will just come back with the petty ‘You haven’t precisely defined it’ argument as though it somehow invalidates Baraminology altogether, when it does no such hting- but...
The fact is Baraminology shows quite clearly that species are infact subject to discontinuity, but htose who seek to hide htis scientific fact have to resort to tryign to attack the science (I guess that makes them anti-science- hmmm- itneresting) in order to keep the public unaware of what the actual science actually shows.
“It is important to emphasize that the strictly empirical component of baraminology is discontinuity systematics which can be utilized by itself without any reference to religious literature. In fact, most of the sections in this present paper, including the figures, actually are based on discontinuities as observed in nature. ReMine (2000) has pointed out that discontinuity systematics
is intentionally designed to be a neutral, scientific method for studying some of nature’s patterns. We do not begin by assuming discontinuity; rather we follow the data to identify the discontinuities, wherever they may be. This systematic method is an empirical, scientific enterprise—moved by the data, not by theoretical presuppositions.”
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm
The KINDS are seperated from other species by obserbavle genetic gaps that can NOT be explained away by simply stating ‘those gaps were ‘filled in’ sometime in the past- we just don’t know when, where, or how”, nor can htose gaps be closed by pointing to two dissimiliar kinds and simply stating ‘they were related’ without giving ANY genetic evidnece that they were. Do scientists really htink we are just all a bunch of guillible sponges that simply absorb what we’re told without questioning the validity of those statements? Baraminology catelogues the species kinds, notes the genetic gaps, and stops AT THE EVIDENCE instead of goign WAY beyond hte evidence and proposing biologically impossible leaps from one dissimiliar kind to another dissimiliar kind like phylogeny does.
I can however udnerstand your need to denigrade the term, as in order for macroevolution to be true, the following must be done appologetically:
Microevolution has to be extrapolated to = Macroevolution, even though the two are entirely different biological process, one with plenty of scientific evidence to prove, the other without a shred of evidnece to prove
Adaption via Genetic change has to be extrapolated to = the creation of new non species specific information resulting in significant morphological change, again, for which there is no evidence
homological similarities have to be extrapolated to = genetic continuance and again, creation of new non species specific information
Speciation has to be extrapolated to = ‘New Species’
[[or explained what the barrier is to speciation.]]
There’s a barrier to speciation? Species can and most certainly do degrade genetically to the point of dead end speciation- they however are still gulls, still lizards, still fish of hteir own kind- to suggest otherwsie is silly, and to suggest it ‘leads to macroevolution’ or is ‘an example of macroeovlution’ is equally silly.
You know full well the definition of kinds is precie enough to form a perceftly ligitimate hypothesis of Baraminology, but somehow, you think attacking the definition of kind, and demanding an exact definition without any problems associated with it invalidates the definition when it is far more precise than your own phylogentic definitions, and doesn’t have nearly the serious problems associated with classifications that phylogeny does. What few problems exist with the definitions from baraminology are insignificant, and oyu know full well that niether phylogeny nor baraminology is a 100% precise theory- so if you’re goign to play your silly little word definition game, then you are goign to have to admit that since baraminology apparently can’t be conciddered science, then phylogeny too must be thrown out and that hte whole theory of common descent is not then valid.
For those interested in Baraminology, and how it looks at the actual scientific evidnece instead of going WAY beyond the actual science and basing itself on a priori pressumed and unsupported, biologically impossible assumptions:
Holobaramin
Holobaramin (holo, from the Greek “holos” for “whole”) is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah’s ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of “baramin” above and is the primary term in baraminology.
Monobaramin
Monobaramin (mono, from the Greek for “single” or “one”) is defined by Walter ReMine (1993, p. 444) as: a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof). It is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negros are a monobaramin, as are any group of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
Apobaramin
Apobaramin (apo, from the Greek for “away from”) is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin. It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramin, “but it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it.” (Kurt Wise, 1999–2000). A groups consisting of both Humans and Canines are apobaraminic since both members are holobaramins. The term apobaramin is a term useful especially during evaluations of two types of organisms (pairwise comparisons).
Polybaramin
A polybaramin (poly, from Greek for “many”) is defined as a group consisting of part of at least two holobaramins. It may be any of numerous mixtures which could contain holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and individual specimens. It is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least two of the members must be unrelated. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.
http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
If you had said "surely you know" or "you must know" it would have been o.k.
Religion moderator- I said that because I KNOW I have told him this MANY MANY times here on FR- I am NOT reading his mind- I am stating FACT- You sir/maam have presumed to read MY mind and have presmed ot make htis personal against ME! JS KNOWS these things, but refuses to acknowledge them or address them preferring to constantly fiegn ignorance! I have explained these positions to him personally many many times, as well as several other posters here on FR EVERY TIME they bring their ‘counter=-arguments’ to hte table- so don’t infer that I am doing somethign i am NOT
This conversation is goign along quite civilly, and htere is no need for it being itnerrupted by a moderator accusing me of somethign I am not doing. JS PRESSUMED to read my intentions, yet you remained silent on the occassion? Yet you felt you needed to step in when I stated a FACT that JS knows full well what I posted Because I have told him this many many times? I am NOT inferrign anythign that is untrue like JS did to me, and hwich you conveniently ignored apparently for fear of offending those that think evolution is fact, but I note you’re not averse to offending htose that beleive in Creationism by trumping up a false charge agasianst them? When you have evidnece that I have pressumed ot unfairly ‘read someone’s mind’ by makign claims that aren’t true- then you let me know- till then, how about not jumping in and making false accusations? I stated a FACT- He DOES know full well because I PERSONALLY have told him this many times! How about looking for ligitimate things to gripe about instead of inventing some?
Do you have a scriptural citation for this, or some objective way of determining common descent?
About how long would it take for a pair of canids to diverge into wolves, coyotes, jackals and dogs?
I have trouble knowing anything about what you say or believe.
The last time you copied and pasted the definition of Baraminology -- the one that includes the bit about all canids descending from two on Noah's Ark - I asked you if that didn't represent some remarkably rapid evolution at the biological Family level.
This comes after you deny that evolution can produce new species.
It's all very confusing, and I don't know what you really believe.
Previous conversations between Freepers are irrelevant. The same guideline applies to all posts on the Religion Forum.
Reading minds and attributing motives are "making it personal."
Also, making a thread "about" individual Freepers is a form of making it personal.
For more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page.
Leave the thread.
You may have the last word. This topic was a thread hijacking anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.