Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

So you don't know what a "kind" is?

The problem lies in determination.
We have the positive indicator of breeding.
We can look at of what organs the organism is made up, studying genomes will also help.

And maybe i'm just not educated enough on it.
So i'm not sure exactly.

 

[lasthero]

I said, ability to breed is a positive indicator.
Maybe it's not an English term, but it means that when they can breed, it is the same kind.
When they can not breed, they still could be the same kind, but you'll have to look at other characteristics to determine it.

So breeding determines kinds...except when it doesn't.

How do you determine all lizards aren't the same kind, but say that wolves and dogs aren't the same kind as foxes? Foxes have more in common with dogs than Komodo dragons haves with chameleons, yet you say Komodo dragons and chameleons are the same kind.

Heck, a cat has more in common with a dog, really.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem lies in determination.
We have the positive indicator of breeding.

And yet you put species in the same kind even if they don't interbreed. That indicator fails.

We can look at of what organs the organism is made up, studying genomes will also help.

Chimps and humans share all the same organs, yet you put them in different kinds.

Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with other ape species, yet you don't put humans in the same kind with chimps.

Both of those criteria fail.

Want to try again?

 

[Hieronymus]

So breeding determines kinds...except when it doesn't.

I explained what a positive indicator is.

 

[Loudmouth]

I explained what a positive indicator is.

You also demonstrated that it isn't a positive indicator when you lumped species into the same kind when they couldn't interbreed.

 

[lasthero]

I explained what a positive indicator is.

But you the went on to say the positive indicator doesn't really matter - two species might not be able to breed, but could still be the same kind.

How do you determine that? Again, a cat and dog have more in common that many lizard species. Are cats and dogs the same kind?

 

[The Cadet]

Both sides do this.
We don't know everything, you see.

No, actually, we don't. In science, if you can't clearly define and explain a term, you don't get to use it! Because the point is communication. If you say "kind" and then can't tell me what you mean by "kind", you might as well be making fart noises with your mouth for all the sense it makes. When you say "we've never observed evolution between kinds", I can't give you what you're asking for because I have no idea what you're asking for. And this makes it especially dishonest that you claimed that we knew what "kind" meant. You don't know what "kind" means either!

The problem lies in determination.
We have the positive indicator of breeding.
We can look at of what organs the organism is made up, studying genomes will also help.

And maybe i'm just not educated enough on it.
So i'm not sure exactly.

Okay, what I said above wasn't fair. As said before, I think most of us have a pretty clear idea what creationists mean when they say "kind": "Some random grouping which I refuse to define more clearly, lest the evidence push me into a corner". It's not that you're not educated enough, it's that the term has never be clearly defined, and has always been nothing more than either a dishonest ploy to weasel out of evidence or a baby word used by people who have no clue what they're talking about and even less clue what what they're saying means. You think I'm wrong? Go ahead, define "kind" in such a way that there is:
A) No good evidence for speciation above the kind barrier
B) A "human" kind, which we share with no other extant or extinct species.

 

[Hieronymus]

But you the went on to say the positive indicator doesn't really matter

That's your conclusion apparently...

 

[lasthero]

That's your conclusion apparently...

A conclusion based on the words you actually said.

For instance, you said that cats are all the same kind, yet not all cats can breed. But you said that dogs are the same kind, presumably because they can interbreed. You labeled all lizards as the same kind, but there are over 6,000 distinct lizards of all shapes and sizes.

So what's the difference? If breeding need not be the definining characteristic of a kind, how do you determine when to not go by it? Why are dogs the same kind, but cats - which can't interbreed - the same kind, too? Why are lizards, which have more differences between them than cats and dogs - the same kind? When is breeding important, when is it not, and how do you figure that out?

 

[Hieronymus]

A conclusion based on the words you actually said.

For instance, you said that cats are all the same kind, yet not all cats can breed.

Most can though.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's your conclusion apparently...

"Maybe it's not an English term, but it means that when they can breed, it is the same kind.
When they can not breed, they still could be the same kind, but you'll have to look at other characteristics to determine it."--Hieronymus

Are those your words?

 

[Loudmouth]

Most can though.

Can most lizard species interbreed?

 

[lasthero]

Most can though.

No, they can't. House cats can't breed with lions, lions can't breed with hyenas (which are cats, too), et cetera.

And I can't help but notice you're ignoring a rather large chunk of my posts.

Again, I ask you how - how do you determine that dogs and cats are different kinds, but lizards are all the same kind, when two lizareds could have far more differences between them than a cat and a dog?

 

[lasthero]

Just to give you an example of the problem here, let me create a word - a muttlewump.

You ask me what a muttle whump is, and I tell you that muttlewumps are red, but they sometimes aren't red. I don't tell you when muttlewumps aren't red, or how much red a muttlewump needs in order to be claissified as a muttlewump.

With that sort of vague definition, could you ever figure out what is and isn't a muttlewump? It could literally be anything.

And that's the problem with 'kind'. You define it as two species that can interbreed, but then go on to say that this need not be the case. You don't elaborate on WHEN these exceptions are, you just say they're exceptions. With that in mind, how can anyone figure out what is and isn't a kind? It becomes totally arbitrary. You object to humans and apes being the same kind, but by your definition of kind, they very well could be.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I hope the OP doesn't mind that I'm adding a few revealing quotes from revered scientists.

Brother Guy Consolmagno, Director of the Vatican Observatory; recipient of the prestigious Carl Sagan Medal; MIT graduate:

"Creationism isn't science; it's theology. And in fact most religious people aren't creationists. That's an incredibly naïve understanding of religion."

http://scicom.ucsc.edu/publications/QandA/2008/consolmagno.html

In regards to Young Earth Creationism: "It's almost blasphemous theology." "It's certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is."

"The search for literalism, the search for absolute truth, isn't what science is about and it's not what religion is about. If you want a sound bite answer [to the reconciliation question], my religion tells me God made the universe and my science tells me how he did it."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/peop...alien-life-20141015-116nrl.html#ixzz46ImqPGWY

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health; former director of the Human Genome Project:

“In this modern era of cosmology, evolution, and the human genome, is there still the possibility of a richly satisfying harmony between the scientific and spiritual worldviews? I answer with a resounding yes! In my view, there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science. It must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul—and the mind must find a way to embrace both realms.”

“I do not believe that the God who created all the universe, and who communes with His people through prayer and spiritual insight, would expect us to deny the obvious truths of the natural world that science has revealed to us, in order to prove our love for Him.”
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

"Faith and reason are not, as many seem to be arguing today, mutually exclusive. They never have been. The letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament defines faith as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of the things not seen.”
Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. "Collins: Why this scientist believes in God"

 

[Hieronymus]

I hope the OP doesn't mind that I'm adding a few revealing quotes from revered scientists.

He's dishonest there, because as we have already established, and i quote:

These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible.
...the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
(T Dobzhansky "American Scientist" vol. 45 p. 388)

and:

...unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

So iḿ not adding it to the OP.

Because both options are views on the evidence, but we can not prove, test or repeat it.

It's not theology either, it has nothing to do with theology.
Itś only assessing if it's due to chance or a mind behind it.

Your quote only reveals that Catholicism tends to be worldly.

 

[lasthero]

...unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.

Let's looks at a fuller quote, shall we?

"The general theory of evolution] must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. Before Darwin, species were generally thought to be fixed and immutable, each with some discoverable and universal essence, like the elements or chemical compounds. Darwin explained species as temporary, local things, each with a beginning and an end depending on contingencies of history. So the general theory of evolution is a historical theory, about unique events - and unique events are, by some definitions, not part of science for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ... Yet biologists have enormous advantages over historians. First, they have a coherent, and scientific, theory of genetics, and their interpretations must be consistent with it. Second they have one basic tool, homology. And third they have the universal scientific principle of ... Occam's razor....

The general theory of evolution is thus neither fully scientific (like physics, for example) nor unscientific (like history). Although it has no laws it does have rules, and it does make general predictions about the properties of organisms. It therefore lays itself open to disproof. Darwin cited several sorts of observations which would, in his view, destroy his theory. In this he was certainly more candid than his opponents. The potential tests Darwin mentioned are:

• 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down';
• 'certain naturalists believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory';
• 'if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory'.

Darwin's potential tests may strike the reader as pretty feeble, or as tests of natural selection rather than evolution, but many discoveries, not forseen by Darwin, provide more severe tests of the theory. These include Mendelian genetics, the real age of the earth, the universality of DNA and the genetic code and (most recently and spectacularly) the evidence from DNA sequences of innumerable 'vestigial organs' at the molecular level. Evolution has survived all of these with flying colours. Darwin could not possibly have predicted that the hereditary material (of which he knew nothing) would turn out to be littered with rubbish, with 'rusting hulks' like the delta haemoglobin psuedogene found in Old World monkeys, or with meaningless repeated sequences like the shared Alu sequences in apes and humans. An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. ... Shared psuedogenes, or shared Alu sequences, may have the same significance - like shared misprints they can have come about only by shared descent."

Shame. Shame. Shame.

 

[Loudmouth]

He's dishonest there, because as we have already established, and i quote:

Why should we trust a single quote that you put on this thread? You have already been caught using dishonest quote mines before.

Added in edit: It appears you have done the very same thing with this quote. Shame.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

He's dishonest there, because as we have already established, and i quote:

These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible.
...the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
(T Dobzhansky "American Scientist" vol. 45 p. 388)

and:

...unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory [evolution has occurred] is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)

So iḿ not adding it to the OP.

Because both options are views on the evidence, but we can not prove, test or repeat it.

It's not theology either, it has nothing to do with theology.
Itś only assessing if it's due to chance or a mind behind it.

Your quote only reveals that Catholicism tends to be worldly.

Have you actually read any of the original works you're quoting from in this thread? You seem to be Frisbeeing out slivers of quotes hacked from their context, and without any comprehension of their meaning or knowledge of their authors. Your quotes do not any way compromise the integrity of the ones I posted, and it's baffling you think they do. All they do is undermine your own integrity because they demonstrate your willingness to pervert the work of others to suit your own agenda. Colin Patterson has been dead for 18 years, but during his lifetime was vocal about grievances over being deliberately misrepresented by duplicitous Creationists.

Since you're keen on quoting Theodosius Dobzhansky, here's one from him that is similar to Consolmagno's, with its original context (click "view text"):
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."
Nothing In Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
and:
"It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."

By the way - Brother Guy Consolmagno is Catholic, Dr. Francis Collins is not; he's an evangelical Protestant Christian and one of the most prominent living scientists, and his statements are in harmony with Consolmagno's. I wasn't asking you to add the quotes to your OP. What are you hoping to accomplish with this thread?

 

[Hieronymus]

Let's looks at a fuller quote, shall we?

Sure, why not.

"The general theory of evolution] must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. Before Darwin, species were generally thought to be fixed and immutable, each with some discoverable and universal essence, like the elements or chemical compounds. Darwin explained species as temporary, local things, each with a beginning and an end depending on contingencies of history. So the general theory of evolution is a historical theory, about unique events - and unique events are, by some definitions, not part of science for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ...

Interesting quote, isn't it?
It puts both ID and evolution on the same level.
Both have the same data to work with.

Yet biologists have enormous advantages over historians. First, they have a coherent, and scientific, theory of genetics, and their interpretations must be consistent with it. Second they have one basic tool, homology. And third they have the universal scientific principle of ... Occam's razor....

This doesn't mean too much i.m.o.
I mean, this is the case for both views.

The general theory of evolution

which is different from the special ToE (or rather the theory of special evolution)

is thus neither fully scientific (like physics, for example) nor unscientific (like history). Although it has no laws it does have rules, and it does make general predictions about the properties of organisms. It therefore lays itself open to disproof. Darwin cited several sorts of observations which would, in his view, destroy his theory. In this he was certainly more candid than his opponents. The potential tests Darwin mentioned are:

(break for the next quote visible in reply)

• 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down';

• Well, that's the end of Darwinism then.
  Complete (systems of) organs which are vital had to have worked form the start in order for the organism in which it is found to survive.

  [*]'certain naturalists believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory';

  Hmmm... Not too relevant i.m.o., but i don't think peacocks would not be able to survive without their beautiful tails.
  But there are also laws in beauty, like the golden section.
  But this is also a 'by product' of good design.
  None the less, we find it in organisms with no apparent purpose.

  [*]'if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory'.

  This is found in some cases.
  Specific interdependency of organisms of different kinds.
  I'll have to go search for the examples though, but i think it's called 'host specific symbiosis'.

Darwin's potential tests may strike the reader as pretty feeble, or as tests of natural selection rather than evolution, but many discoveries, not forseen by Darwin, provide more severe tests of the theory. These include Mendelian genetics, the real age of the earth, the universality of DNA and the genetic code and (most recently and spectacularly) the evidence from DNA sequences of innumerable 'vestigial organs' at the molecular level. Evolution has survived all of these with flying colours.

Only in naturalistic models.

Darwin could not possibly have predicted that the hereditary material (of which he knew nothing) would turn out to be littered with rubbish, with 'rusting hulks' like the delta haemoglobin psuedogene found in Old World monkeys, or with meaningless repeated sequences like the shared Alu sequences in apes and humans.

This is just arrogance.
It is based on assumed understanding, while we're still discovering how it works...

An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. ... Shared psuedogenes, or shared Alu sequences, may have the same significance - like shared misprints they can have come about only by shared descent.

This just proves that mutations are procreated.
And if it wasn't for the implication system's ability to compensate for data corruption, the party of life would have ended in mysery long ago.