What is your definition of a species?

[Washington]

Re: The Biblical "kind"


From AiG

"There is a fair amount of research into the definition of the various Genesis kinds, called baramins. This subfield of study within creationism is called baraminology. It is obvious that the human species is one Genesis kind or baramin, but when it comes to animals and plants, it is often difficult to classify them into baramins. Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class. "
source

So, there we have it. A "kind" can be a species, a genus, a family, or possibly even an order or class. All depending on what a Christian needs to shore up his argument. If only science was so loosy-goosy in its nomenclature, it could make all kinds of idiotic clams and back them up with the argument like, "Hey, that's not what I meant by the word "inch." "When I use "inch" here, I mean approximately 15,226 miles."

Ah, the wishy washy world of creationism. "Stop trying to make us explain ourselves! It only forces us to make up things, and we're not all that good at it."

 

[juvenissun]

Re: The Biblical "kind"


From AiG


So, there we have it. A "kind" can be a species, a genus, a family, or possibly even an order or class. All depending on what a Christian needs to shore up his argument. If only science was so loosy-goosy in its nomenclature, it could make all kinds of idiotic clams and back them up with the argument like, "Hey, that's not what I meant by the word "inch." "When I use "inch" here, I mean approximately 15,226 miles."

Ah, the wishy washy world of creationism. "Stop trying to make us explain ourselves! It only forces us to make up things, and we're not all that good at it."

What you said could be true only if the terms species, genus, etc. are well defined and have no problem. Now, if species had problem, then all the terms used in higher levels may ALL have problems.

Otherwise, logically, kind might just be a better term to take care of all confusions currently found in the definition from species to kingdom.

So, again, instead of attacking the term kind, some house cleaning work should first be done to make the meaning of species clearly understood. Why do you try to avoid the specified question of the OP and shift the target to an undefined term used in the Bible?

 

[juvenissun]

1. both of those statements are wrong.
2. "if it aint broke dont fix it" happens in evolution. crocodilians are an excellent example of this.
3. there are countless types of bacteria that have adapted to just about every environment.
4. not all bacteria are bacteria. there are two distinct kingdoms of "bacteria".
5. accumulation of mutations over time WILL eventually lead to genetic change, even if it is not outwardly obvious. Eventually this change will be significant enough to warrant a new classification.

What I said may not be all correct. But what you listed, in fact, illustrated where the problems really are in trying to define the term "species".

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

baraminology, flood geology, irreducible complexity, intelligent design. a sign that an alternative isnt a science is when it has to come up with secondary alternatives in order to justify itself. creationism is not an alternative to evolution it is an alternative to science. if you think the earth and universe are 10kyo or younger than you have actively rejected the ENTIRE FIELDS of biology, geology, and astronomy. you are off by 5-7 orders of magnitude without a shred of positive physical evidence to support your claim.

this is how science works: if you had conclusive incontrovertible evidence that the earth and/or universe were 10kyo or less then you have definitvely demonstrated that the earth/universe cannot be billions of years old. give us a shred of young earth evidence, dont just say you are right because we are wrong. if you can show you are right then we have to be wrong. if creationism is at all a science then bring it! show us the goods!

 

[juvenissun]

baraminology, flood geology, irreducible complexity, intelligent design. a sign that an alternative isnt a science is when it has to come up with secondary alternatives in order to justify itself. creationism is not an alternative to evolution it is an alternative to science. if you think the earth and universe are 10kyo or younger than you have actively rejected the ENTIRE FIELDS of biology, geology, and astronomy. you are off by 5-7 orders of magnitude without a shred of positive physical evidence to support your claim.

this is how science works: if you had conclusive incontrovertible evidence that the earth and/or universe were 10kyo or less then you have definitvely demonstrated that the earth/universe cannot be billions of years old. give us a shred of young earth evidence, dont just say you are right because we are wrong. if you can show you are right then we have to be wrong. if creationism is at all a science then bring it! show us the goods!

Your problem is that the objective of your argument is wrong.

Creationism is NOT an alternative to science. Creationism INCLUDES science.

And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else.

 

[Washington]

What you said could be true only if the terms species, genus, etc. are well defined and have no problem. Now, if species had problem, then all the terms used in higher levels may ALL have problems.

It doesn't work that way. For one thing, "species" is well defined, although there are several such definitions. So if absolutely necessary, all that's needed is to understand how the speaker defines the term and then go on from there. As for the higher ranks, their taxons are simply individual constructs each with its own defining requirements. So once these are understood it's quite easy to assemble those organisms that meet the definition particular to that taxon. Take the rank of family. Those definitions that regulate inclusion of members of the family taxon Felidae are quite unlike those of the family taxon Alligatoridae. And neither depends on the regulating definitions of the genera they encompasse or that of their species. They are not subject to the "Corruption at the bottom begets corruption at the top" sort of relationship you seem to envisage.
The ranks from domain down to and including genus do not depend on the definition of "species" for their requirements for inclusion. Even the rank of genus is independent of the defining characteristics that separate those species constituting each genus. The higher ranks are simply levels of assembly and have no particular definition other than something like; "a group of genera" or "one or more orders" (definitions taken, by the way, from E. O. Wilson's The Diversity of Life.)

Why do you try to avoid the specified question of the OP and shift the target to an undefined term used in the Bible?

Well, the question of the OP was, "So what do you think." Do YOU think I have failed to express what I think? If so, please note that of the first ten post made in the thread four were expressions of what I thought.
As for your poor, beleaguered "kind," which you evidently feel is being unjustly taken to task, Tough Cookies. Corvus corax, a theist of some sort; [serious], of another religion; and you, a Christian; all addressed the term before I did, and I did only in response to YOUR use of it. If you don't want to talk about a subject I suggest you don't bring it up or add to its use.

 

[corvus_corax]

And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else.

The most honest Creationist Ive ever met!
Im TOTALLY using your statement EVERY SINGLE TIME a Creationist lies about Creation "Science" or the goal of ID, or "teaching the controversy".


Thank you thank you thank you for finally being the ONE creationist who has come forward with a blatantly truthful mandate from the Creationist side of this idiotic "debate".

 

[Washington]

Creationism is NOT an alternative to science. Creationism INCLUDES science.

Well I suppose in the sense that it includes scientific terms in some of its statements, it could be said to "INCLUDE science." But it hardly uses the findings of science in a legitimate way to support its contentions. The purposely misconstrued science of others simply doesn't count. And it's certainly not doing anything in the way of peer-reviewed science itself; although, a couple of papers, one quite infamous, have squeaked through the cracks. The simple truth is that creationism has nothing to offer science other than "god did it," and ain't that a help!

 

[TheGnome]

Your problem is that the objective of your argument is wrong.

Creationism is NOT an alternative to science. Creationism INCLUDES science.

And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else.

This is cute. It's like those studying politics and claiming to use science, "It's science, you see! Political science! It's there right in the name!"

The interesting part is that people started with a conclusion first, the events in the Bible are literally true, and found out that their conclusions based on the Bible were completely unfounded when their observations didn't match the doctrine! That's amazing! People with biases overcame them when they acquired compelling evidence!

Creationism is antiscientific because the only evidence that matters are the evidence that supports their conclusions. That's certainly not the scientific method, and it's no wonder why the only career a creationist will ever have is authoring books to the choir and teaching at a religious college.

 

[29apples]

If this were true you should be able to list hundreds of examples

Donkey/horse hybrids are afaik not fertile.

Look I am not looking up tons of hybrids. The number was speculation and hearsay from people who are paid to research this stuff. Unless you have experiments testing the ability of a species to hybridize, there is no way to know. Care to explain the orioles and stream darters then? or did you just choose to ignore those? Also I would bet there has been a fertile mule at one point, try researching a little bit before trying to contribute (ie try wikipedia )

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't work that way. For one thing, "species" is well defined, although there are several such definitions. So if absolutely necessary, all that's needed is to understand how the speaker defines the term and then go on from there. As for the higher ranks, their taxons are simply individual constructs each with its own defining requirements. So once these are understood it's quite easy to assemble those organisms that meet the definition particular to that taxon.

If so, why didn't evolutionist change or limit the use of the word species? It is obviously a BIG flaw in the structure of evolution theory. And the confusion HAS to extend to the terms used higher ranks. For example, how do you define the "family" of bacteria? Is there such definition exist? More over, if one critical term could mean a few things, then the process involved, which is evolution, could also have a few different meanings. Then I can only see a mess in this "well-established" model.

 

[juvenissun]

The most honest Creationist Ive ever met!
Im TOTALLY using your statement EVERY SINGLE TIME a Creationist lies about Creation "Science" or the goal of ID, or "teaching the controversy".


Thank you thank you thank you for finally being the ONE creationist who has come forward with a blatantly truthful mandate from the Creationist side of this idiotic "debate".

Don't thank me so fast. I actually simplified the argument and only spelled out half of the sentence. Other creationists are simply more explicit than me. There is no use to quote me in any sense because of the hidden argument.

My bet is on: if evolution failed, there will be no other substitute but only creation. It is a simple logic -A so B situation.

Also, I know that I (for sure), and others, now and in the future, probably could not "disprove" evolution. So, I am satisfied if I could simply push evolutionist with questions that force them to admit: "I don't know". (The most likely reaction is to turn around and start to attack creation. That is what may of you are doing.) As long as evolutionist admits that evolution is only a scientific model, I am happy.

 

[juvenissun]

This is cute. It's like those studying politics and claiming to use science, "It's science, you see! Political science! It's there right in the name!"

Exactly. In this thread, I am only arguing at that level.

So, if you are capable, focus your attention to debate with 29apples, rather than on me. My argument has only frame, but no content.

 

[corvus_corax]

Don't thank me so fast. I actually simplified the argument and only spelled out half of the sentence.

Actually, you explained both sides of the creationist argument (or is that just one side?) quite well
Thanks again

Other creationists are simply more explicit than me. There is no use to quote me in any sense because of the hidden argument.

Actually, "other creationists" have publicly disagree with you (and will probably continue to do so)
I thank you for your refreshing honesty

My bet is on: if evolution failed, there will be no other substitute but only creation. It is a simple logic -A so B situation.

But that's not what you said.
Read your statement in my sig, again

Also, I know that I (for sure), and others, now and in the future, probably could not "disprove" evolution.

But, that is the point of Creationism
You said it yourself
Thanks for being honest

So, I am satisfied if I could simply push evolutionist with questions that force them to admit: "I don't know". (The most likely reaction is to turn around and start to attack creation. That is what may of you are doing.) As long as evolutionist admits that evolution is only a scientific model, I am happy.

Well then here you go-
The theory of evolution is the current best model that explains the current diversity of species on this planet.
There you go.
I have yet to see any (ANY) evolutionist and/or actual biological scientist on these forums disagree with that statement.
Happy now?
If you are, you can quit debating


Of course, I doubt you will be happy with that, even if every single "evolutionist" on this subforum came right out and said the same exact thing.

Are you happy now?
Really?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Creationism is NOT an alternative to science. Creationism INCLUDES science.

in what way? in order to legitimize itself it has to propose it's own biological classification, propose its own flood-based explanation for geologic features, deny DNA as an indicator of inheritance, deny every biological indicator of inheritance, deny every dating method for fossils and geology and archaeology, deny every astronomical indicator of the age of the universe, and there is far more that i am leaving out. so preciesely what science is included?

And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else.

thats not true because as i stated above in your drive to do so you deny copias science. the methods of creationists are wholly unscientific and are infact antithetical and even hostile to the scientific method itself. so dont try to pass yourself off as a legitimate scientific endevor.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If so, why didn't evolutionist change or limit the use of the word species? It is obviously a BIG flaw in the structure of evolution theory. And the confusion HAS to extend to the terms used higher ranks. For example, how do you define the "family" of bacteria? Is there such definition exist? More over, if one critical term could mean a few things, then the process involved, which is evolution, could also have a few different meanings. Then I can only see a mess in this "well-established" model.

gray areas always plague men's definitions of natural phenomena. look at planets, even something as supposedly basic as gender has grey areas. it is in no way a threat to the structure of evolutionary theory because whereever you place the boundary is not as relevant as the acknowledgement that there comes a point where a population has changed enough to be considered distinct. evolutionary theory holds that dogs and cats shared a common ancestor. at one point they was a single population, now the descendents of that population includes many hundreds if not thousands of "species". the distinction is now very clear between a wolf and a cheetah, but it all started with a single population which had splits and those splits became unique over time.

 

[corvus_corax]

thats not true because as i stated above in your drive to do so you deny copias science. the methods of creationists are wholly unscientific and are infact antithetical and even hostile to the scientific method itself. so dont try to pass yourself off as a legitimate scientific endevor.

Well, of course, but at least he's admitted the actual point (as hopeless as it is) of Creationism.
Quite frankly, I appreciate such blatant honesty from Creationists (even if their methods are questionable)

 

[Washington]

If so, why didn't evolutionist change or limit the use of the word species?

Because biology is an ever-growing branch of science wherein new information sometimes demands revisions of its concepts and the approaches it takes to its investigations. These in turn can then lead to a redefinition of its terms so as to suit the new requirements. This may seem a drawback, but as long as it's in the furtherance of knowledge no one is complaining. If we knew everything there is to know about biology then a single definition would probably surface, but until then biologist have to adapt, and do so quite willingly.

It is obviously a BIG flaw in the structure of evolution theory.

As is probably evident by now, this is hardly the case. "Evolutionary theory"---actually it's the theories of evolution---welcome whatever changes it needs in order to become more precise and useful.

And the confusion HAS to extend to the terms used higher ranks.

*Sigh*

For example, how do you define the "family" of bacteria? Is there such definition exist?

First, there is no single "family of bacteria." Bacteria constitute many families, each with its own definition. You seem to be confusing the definition of a taxon (whatever particular family you may have in mind) with the definition of a rank: family.

More over, if one critical term could mean a few things, then the process involved, which is evolution, could also have a few different meanings. Then I can only see a mess in this "well-established" model.

Well, you'd have to attempt to show this to be true before I would care to refute it. It just isn't worth my time to bother with more unsubstantiated claims.

 

[juvenissun]

But that's not what you said.
Read your statement in my sig, again

Thanks. But I am puzzled on why do you like it.

I have yet to see any (ANY) evolutionist and/or actual biological scientist on these forums disagree with that statement.
Happy now?
If you are, you can quit debating

I am always happy.
If you admitted that evolution is only a model, then I am more interested in debating you regards to the model. In this forum, I seldom promote creation explicitly. My goal is to defeat evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

in what way? in order to legitimize itself it has to propose it's own biological classification, propose its own flood-based explanation for geologic features, deny DNA as an indicator of inheritance, deny every biological indicator of inheritance, deny every dating method for fossils and geology and archaeology, deny every astronomical indicator of the age of the universe, and there is far more that i am leaving out. so preciesely what science is included?


thats not true because as i stated above in your drive to do so you deny copias science. the methods of creationists are wholly unscientific and are infact antithetical and even hostile to the scientific method itself. so dont try to pass yourself off as a legitimate scientific endevor.

In such a way that I could force you to admit your ignorance on evolution. Of course, it has to be done in a scientific way.