Clade

[juvenissun]

Then why did you make such a foolish and incorrect post in the first place?

Just to show that satan made a fatal mistake, so he only gets people like you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to show that satan made a fatal mistake, so he only gets people like you.

How can a mythical being make a mistake?

 

[lifepsyop]

You explained it well.

This is why I think the Biblical term "kind" CAN also be elaborated into a system comparable to the cladistic system, but only with a more "practical" criteria. I really like to see that Christian biologists would develop such a system. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen. If I were a biologist and give me 20 more years, I WILL do it.

Cladistics is Typology, which is essentially Kinds. Most organisms group very neatly within discontinuous groups. Common ancestors are virtually non-existent, as are any semblance of gradations between cladistic types. Evolution is just a magic show of trying to make you believe the imaginary nodes are real.

There have been some rigorous work done on Baraminology (kinds) classification recently, if you search around for it.

Don't expect much intelligent discussion on the subject here. Most members are absolutely desperate to trash anything related to the Bible, and they don't care if their points make any sense or not, just as long as they're flinging some mud at the Word of God. Just look at one of the last comments "'Kinds' doesn't work because we can transplant pig organs to humans." That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.

 

[OllieFranz]

Cladistics is Typology, which is essentially Kinds. Most organisms group very neatly within discontinuous groups. Common ancestors are virtually non-existent, as are any semblance of gradations between cladistic types. Evolution is just a magic show of trying to make you believe the imaginary nodes are real.

There have been some rigorous work done on Baraminology (kinds) classification recently, if you search around for it.

Don't expect much intelligent discussion on the subject here. Most members are absolutely desperate to trash anything related to the Bible, and they don't care if their points make any sense or not, just as long as they're flinging some mud at the Word of God. Just look at one of the last comments "'Kinds' doesn't work because we can transplant pig organs to humans." That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.

Yes, cladistics and baraminology do closely mesh, if you accept the Last Thursdayism of YEC. But where do you place the root species? And what of the speciies that apparently went extinct long before Last Thursday?

Are all felines the same kind, or are the great cats a separate kind from the lesser cats? Are smilodons great cats, lesser cats, or a hoax planted to create conflict between science and the Bible?

Are all canines in the same kind? Are bears in that kind also? If not, where do dog-bears fit in? Are they dog-kind, bear-kind, or their own kind? And what of the older carnivores that appear to be ancestral to both cats and bear-dogs?

And these are just some of the easier questions.

 

[lifepsyop]

See what I mean? Since their own theory is bankrupt, evolutionists have to resort to jumping around screaming "oh yea? what kind is this?!?! what kind is this??!" as if Creationists need to know every single classification of every single animal that lived and died on Earth or Kinds are bust. Silly, isn't it?

 

[Dizredux]

clade thread

For example:

1. We want to treat these animals this way because their common ancestor was this.

2. Because the common ancestor of these life forms was this, so they are unique in providing this material for this purpose.

etc.

I think I understand. Cladistics would not necessarily be needed for this as for most cases Linnaean and Cladistics probably would produce adequate results. Keep in mind that dogs and humans have the same organs as far as I know. In other words, show a human organ that a dog does not have or the other way around. There are variations on the organs but the basics are the same (example: color vision in dogs and humans).

But to respond your questions as best I can, (This is rapidly getting out of my range.)

"1. We want to treat these animals this way because their common ancestor was this."

This is done a lot with animal studies in medicine. For the most part, the more closely related the species the more likely the reactions to medications will be similar. Another example, a broad one, would be treating all mammal reproductive systems as similar due to common ancestry.


"2. Because the common ancestor of these life forms was this, so they are unique in providing this material for this purpose."

I am not sure just what you mean by this but I will give one possible example. Xenotransplantation (learned a new word-cool) , the transplantation of organs from animals to humans is an active field of research. The cladistic relations appear to be very important to this as genetic similarities would be very relevant here.

I think the big thing though is that like the periodic table was developed primarily for use of scientists but is used in a number of ways so is biological classification. Linnaean taxonomy was good but cladistics appears to give us a more accurate way of determining genetic relationships where Linnaean taxonomy could not.

If I am off on any of this, could someone with better knowledge correct me?

Both the table of elements and cladistics as well as Linnaean taxonomy were developed for primarily scientific purposes and practical aspects are a bonus.


What I like about conversations like this is that it gets me to do research I might not have done otherwise.

Dizredux

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Because satan controls this world.

Is that what they teach you in your 'spiritual geology' classes?

 

[OllieFranz]

See what I mean? Since their own theory is bankrupt, evolutionists have to resort to jumping around screaming "oh yea? what kind is this?!?! what kind is this??!" as if Creationists need to know every single classification of every single animal that lived and died on Earth or Kinds are bust. Silly, isn't it?

Wrong. We ask to show that if, instead of insisting on the Last Thursdayism of YEC, we simply examine the evidence, we see no discernable difference in the relationship between two species that divurged from a common ancestor after Last Thursday from the relationship between two related (or, if you prefer, similar) species that were already separate on Last Thursday.

In addition, the fossil record, the DNA profiles, and every other indicator we have gives the same common ancestors and time of separation. Why would a god who created the world Last Thursday go to such lengths to ensure that no matter how we investigated we would find that apprently the world is older than Last Thursday, and that life has been evolving in exactly the same way, and paced by exactly the same factors, so there is not only no scientific way of dating Last Thursday, but no evidence at alll that there even was any "Last Thursday"?

 

[lifepsyop]

This is done a lot with animal studies in medicine. For the most part, the more closely related the species the more likely the reactions to medications will be similar. Another example, a broad one, would be treating all mammal reproductive systems as similar due to common ancestry.

The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.

 

[Dizredux]

The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.

Errrr O.K. if you say so.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

I am really looking for ward to hearing of "Biblical Creation and it's real arguments".

Me too, me too!


Dizredux

 

[OllieFranz]

The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.
[Color added by OllieFranz to highlight text]

We have a hard time separating our philosophy (or, more specifically, philosophy of science) from empirical science because our philosophy of science is that science should be empirical science, not empirical science with scientifically unjustifiable assumptions added. There is no scientific justification of any Last Thursdayism assumption, not even one derived from a "literal" reading of Genesis, which was never intended to be understood as scientific or "literal."

Again, where is the boundary between baramins? What can you point to scientifically that says that a and b are related (both descended from c) but A (at a higher taxonomic level) is not and never was related to B when the similarities are of the same order as those between a and b, and there is a viable candidate C to be their common ancestor (or a close sibling thereof)?

I can appreciate an answer that you don't have all the details. We don't have all the details, either, But surely you have some scientific evidence that the boundary exists, and just what features such a boundary should include....

 

[juvenissun]

Cladistics is Typology, which is essentially Kinds. Most organisms group very neatly within discontinuous groups. Common ancestors are virtually non-existent, as are any semblance of gradations between cladistic types. Evolution is just a magic show of trying to make you believe the imaginary nodes are real.

There have been some rigorous work done on Baraminology (kinds) classification recently, if you search around for it.

Don't expect much intelligent discussion on the subject here. Most members are absolutely desperate to trash anything related to the Bible, and they don't care if their points make any sense or not, just as long as they're flinging some mud at the Word of God. Just look at one of the last comments "'Kinds' doesn't work because we can transplant pig organs to humans." That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.

Well, I did not expect much at the beginning. But, I found YOU!
Thanks and God bless.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, cladistics and baraminology do closely mesh, if you accept the Last Thursdayism of YEC. But where do you place the root species? And what of the speciies that apparently went extinct long before Last Thursday?

Are all felines the same kind, or are the great cats a separate kind from the lesser cats? Are smilodons great cats, lesser cats, or a hoax planted to create conflict between science and the Bible?

Are all canines in the same kind? Are bears in that kind also? If not, where do dog-bears fit in? Are they dog-kind, bear-kind, or their own kind? And what of the older carnivores that appear to be ancestral to both cats and bear-dogs?

And these are just some of the easier questions.

(I have not check what the baraminology is yet) All your questions are legitimate concerns. But I believe they can be answered by good criteria chosen in the classification. I like to suggest that there should be a purpose set before the classification even begins. For example, human is important. So I won't put human into any kind shared by any other animals. Therefore, the criteria chosen for human need to be very special, so a chimp would have no way to be mixed with human.

 

[juvenissun]

clade thread

I think I understand. Cladistics would not necessarily be needed for this as for most cases Linnaean and Cladistics probably would produce adequate results. Keep in mind that dogs and humans have the same organs as far as I know. In other words, show a human organ that a dog does not have or the other way around. There are variations on the organs but the basics are the same (example: color vision in dogs and humans).

But to respond your questions as best I can, (This is rapidly getting out of my range.)

"1. We want to treat these animals this way because their common ancestor was this."

This is done a lot with animal studies in medicine. For the most part, the more closely related the species the more likely the reactions to medications will be similar. Another example, a broad one, would be treating all mammal reproductive systems as similar due to common ancestry.


"2. Because the common ancestor of these life forms was this, so they are unique in providing this material for this purpose."

I am not sure just what you mean by this but I will give one possible example. Xenotransplantation (learned a new word-cool) , the transplantation of organs from animals to humans is an active field of research. The cladistic relations appear to be very important to this as genetic similarities would be very relevant here.

I think the big thing though is that like the periodic table was developed primarily for use of scientists but is used in a number of ways so is biological classification. Linnaean taxonomy was good but cladistics appears to give us a more accurate way of determining genetic relationships where Linnaean taxonomy could not.

If I am off on any of this, could someone with better knowledge correct me?

Both the table of elements and cladistics as well as Linnaean taxonomy were developed for primarily scientific purposes and practical aspects are a bonus.


What I like about conversations like this is that it gets me to do research I might not have done otherwise.

Dizredux

Good argument. Thank you.

Use organ transplant as an example. If I like to transplant the liver of a cat, then I will first try livers of other cats. The next, I would probably try livers from other cat "kind". Here, important criteria would include shape and size of the animal.

In the above example, I do not need the knowledge of common ancestor. Livers of ions and tigers are excluded simply because they are too big. On the other hand, the liver of a raccoon or possum could be considered. The common ancestor idea is not useful here. As long as animals are classified according to a scheme, suitable candidates for the liver transplant will not be in short.

 

[juvenissun]

Wrong. We ask to show that if, instead of insisting on the Last Thursdayism of YEC, we simply examine the evidence, we see no discernable difference in the relationship between two species that divurged from a common ancestor after Last Thursday from the relationship between two related (or, if you prefer, similar) species that were already separate on Last Thursday.

In addition, the fossil record, the DNA profiles, and every other indicator we have gives the same common ancestors and time of separation. Why would a god who created the world Last Thursday go to such lengths to ensure that no matter how we investigated we would find that apprently the world is older than Last Thursday, and that life has been evolving in exactly the same way, and paced by exactly the same factors, so there is not only no scientific way of dating Last Thursday, but no evidence at alll that there even was any "Last Thursday"?

If you forget the Last Thursday argument and assume the earth has a longer history, would you argument still hold?

 

[juvenissun]

The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.

 

[juvenissun]

Again, where is the boundary between baramins? What can you point to scientifically that says that a and b are related (both descended from c) but A (at a higher taxonomic level) is not and never was related to B when the similarities are of the same order as those between a and b, and there is a viable candidate C to be their common ancestor (or a close sibling thereof)?

I like to make this a little clear:

1. a and b are related: physical
2. c was the common ancestor of a and b: ideological
3. A is classified at a higher lever of a (So is B to b): physical
4. A is similar to B just as a is similar to b: physical
5. Is A related to B?
6. Was C the common ancestor of A and B?: ideological

I think items 2 and 6 could be temporarily deleted from the argument. And the question is on item 5.

I really don't know how to answer this. The major problem is on the criteria of "higher lever".

And, I can imagine, the idea of "higher level" is very critical. Again, the criteria must be carefully chosen. And I think it should be chosen according to a purpose in the classification system. Once that is set, then I probably can answer item 5.

If:

a = dogs
b = cats
Is there any way that item 1 could be true?

Or is there a better assignment for a and b?

 

[OllieFranz]

If you forget the Last Thursday argument and assume the earth has a longer history, would you argument still hold?

It is not necessary to assume that the earth has a longer history. As I said once before, there is no [lb]logical[/b] reason that a Last Thursday scenario is not true, but, at the same time, there is no empirical, scientific, evidence that there was a first day Last Thursday or when that Last Thursday would have been.

There are reasons that we say that scientific theories are never proven. They are built inductively rather than deductively, which means that they can always be improved on. They are not guarenteed to to perfectly match reality, but they follow the evidence as closely as possible without extra assumptions. Since there is no empirical evidence of a Last Thursday, assuming one is an extra assumption, and therefore not a part of an elegant scientific theory.

 

[juvenissun]

It is not necessary to assume that the earth has a longer history. As I said once before, there is no [lb]logical[/b] reason that a Last Thursday scenario is not true, but, at the same time, there is no empirical, scientific, evidence that there was a first day Last Thursday or when that Last Thursday would have been.

There are reasons that we say that scientific theories are never proven. They are built inductively rather than deductively, which means that they can always be improved on. They are not guarenteed to to perfectly match reality, but they follow the evidence as closely as possible without extra assumptions. Since there is no empirical evidence of a Last Thursday, assuming one is an extra assumption, and therefore not a part of an elegant scientific theory.

Alright, earth HAS a long history. Then what?