In The Zone

[Subduction Zone]

Haha. High school was a few years ago for me. Do I get to call you a geezer yet?

I don't know. How many of these can you do:

I refuse to go down without a fight!

EDIT: Twenty in a row is where I stand at now for a record, and every birthday I have to do my age over the day. This year it was not 62 all at once. I did 15, 16, 15, 10 and at least 6.

 

[ChristineM]

@Subduction Zone very recently suggested I watch a discussion between Aron Ra and Kent Hovind. I'm going to invite Subduction, or The Zone as I like to call him, to discuss this video as I listen to it and bring up topics discussed therein. And of course Subduction Zone can introduce topics as well.

Spoiler: Kent Hovind And Aron Ra

First off we can skip their introduction, their position statements and their disagreement on religion. The former because I don't care who they are I'm more interested in what they have to say, and the later because this is a discussion on evolution rather than religion. If that is agreeable, lets move on.

The first thing I noted right of the bat is that there was a disagreement, not surprisingly, on the definition of Evolution as a religion, which I admit is not relevant to the discussion as such, but a pretty good indicator that this is going to be a bumpy ride. Setting that aside the first point.

How is an elephant and a pine tree related and do they teach that in school? It's the sort of thing that I was taught and dismissed evolution from the start. Let's discuss that, and I think that this is another problem with classification and definition.

How would the Bible classify them? Not as producing each the other. I'm thinking that if I asked an eighth grader which made more sense of the following statements:

1. Elephants and pine trees are not related as is evident from their not producing each the other, i.e. elephants don't produce pine trees and pine trees don't produce elephants.

Or . . .

2. Elephants and pine trees are related (perhaps you could say why, but I would assume that it's because they are classified by science as such. The question is with what basis?)

Which one would they laugh at and reject - that is had they not been indoctrinated into religious belief or scientific theory.

I am not sure if you can get receive it somehow but every year at the end of December in the UK is a 3 part special TV program, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures.

Started in 1825 by Michael Faraday it is now something of a tradition.

Each year a world leading scientist imparts knowledge on a
different scientific topic. This year the theme is "who am I" introduced by biological anthropologist, Professor Alice Roberts aided by Professor Aoife McLysaght, the famouse geneticist.

If you can manage to watch it, the programs explain the biological and genetic links from the first single cell, through various evolutionary stages and offshoots (which includes plants and elephants)

 

[Salvador]

Everybody does agree all species from any of these 3 domains share a common ancestor. Right?

 

[Earthling]

I am not sure if you can get receive it somehow but every year at the end of December in the UK is a 3 part special TV program, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures.

Started in 1825 by Michael Faraday it is now something of a tradition.

Each year a world leading scientist imparts knowledge on a
different scientific topic. This year the theme is "who am I" introduced by biological anthropologist, Professor Alice Roberts aided by Professor Aoife McLysaght, the famouse geneticist.

If you can manage to watch it, the programs explain the biological and genetic links from the first single cell, through various evolutionary stages and offshoots (which includes plants and elephants)

No, I couldn't receive that. We have BBC America which, unfortunately, only ever plays dumb *** American programs with the exception of, Graham Norton and maybe Dr. Who. Though Dr. Who might be on PBS. No Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, Father Ted, Absolutely Fabulous, Vicar Of Dibley, Keeping Up Appearances, French & Saunders, Laurie & Fry, The IT Crowd, Waiting For God, To The Manor Born, Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Young Ones . . . .

[Sigh]

 

[Duke_Leto]

I don't know. How many of these can you do:

I refuse to go down without a fight!

EDIT: Twenty in a row is where I stand at now for a record, and every birthday I have to do my age over the day. This year it was not 62 all at once. I did 15, 16, 15, 10 and at least 6.

Oh lord. I’m but a skinny young’n!

Before he got in a car accident and lost most of his muscle mass in the hospital, my grandfather used to challenge younger men to pushup contests. Given the similarity between these circumstances, I’m forced to conclude you’re naught but an old guy!

 

[ChristineM]

No, I couldn't receive that. We have BBC America which, unfortunately, only ever plays dumb *** American programs with the exception of, Graham Norton and maybe Dr. Who. Though Dr. Who might be on PBS. No Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, Father Ted, Absolutely Fabulous, Vicar Of Dibley, Keeping Up Appearances, French & Saunders, Laurie & Fry, The IT Crowd, Waiting For God, To The Manor Born, Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Young Ones . . . .

[Sigh]

Shame

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shame

I found this site, but I could not get the download of the episode to work.

 

[ChristineM]

I found this site, but I could not get the download of the episode to work.

I was going to post what was probably the same site but had the same problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was going to post what was probably the same site but had the same problem.

Some sources know if you are in a particular country or not, that might be the problem. Outside of Great Britain it might not allow downloads.

 

[ChristineM]

Some sources know if you are in a particular country or not, that might be the problem. Outside of Great Britain it might not allow downloads.

Im in france but use a british IP. I think he problem is the site not us

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Sure. At your leisure. The publishers tend to have those removed if they see a copyright infringement that may cost them revenue, but if you haven't the time and it doesn't absorb your attention that's just the way it goes.

By the way, tomorrow I will go over the Wikipedia links you gave on clade and Eukaryote (three different spellings have been given now, by the way). I'm having heart surgery on the 2nd of January so I need to get more sleep than I've been getting, but the threads aren't going anywhere. Hopefully I'm not as well.

I don't think you answered my question of whether or not those two classifications were taught in school?

Best of luck with the surgery.

@Subduction Zone
.......
How is an elephant and a pine tree related and do they teach that in school? It's the sort of thing that I was taught and dismissed evolution from the start. Let's discuss that, and I think that this is another problem with classification and definition.

How would the Bible classify them? Not as producing each the other. I'm thinking that if I asked an eighth grader which made more sense of the following statements:

1. Elephants and pine trees are not related as is evident from their not producing each the other, i.e. elephants don't produce pine trees and pine trees don't produce elephants.

Or . . .

2. Elephants and pine trees are related (perhaps you could say why, but I would assume that it's because they are classified by science as such. The question is with what basis?)

Which one would they laugh at and reject - that is had they not been indoctrinated into religious belief or scientific theory.

To your last point regarding whether an 8th grader could be reasonably taught the differences between elephants and pine trees; I would be careful to note as others have, that first,
whether something is true or not does NOT depend upon an 8th grader‘s capability of understanding. But also, very important to how an eighth grader receives the information, depends greatly upon the skill of the teacher, how the statements are couched, and how much the child is surrounded by either religion and superstitions, or by science and the logical examination and interpretation of evidence, in their everyday familial life.

Science is a many-layered thing, skipping over the definition of eukaryote as ‘unimportant’ or ‘it doesn’t matter’ can come back to bite you later on when trying to see how the evolutionary ‘tree of life’ has so many interconnections and also where the branches do Not connect.


BTW - The defining features of Eukaryotes is that they have nuclei with nuclear membranes. They also have other membrane-bound items floating around in their cytoplasm like mitochondria, golgi appuratus, and possibly even chloroplasts. (But that last one is part of the separation between pines and pachyderms).

 

[Earthling]

Best of luck with the surgery.

Very kind of you, thank you, I appreciate it.

To your last point regarding whether an 8th grader could be reasonably taught the differences between elephants and pine trees; I would be careful to note as others have, that first,
whether something is true or not does NOT depend upon an 8th grader‘s capability of understanding. But also, very important to how an eighth grader receives the information, depends greatly upon the skill of the teacher, how the statements are couched, and how much the child is surrounded by either religion and superstitions, or by science and the logical examination and interpretation of evidence, in their everyday familial life.

Science is a many-layered thing, skipping over the definition of eukaryote as ‘unimportant’ or ‘it doesn’t matter’ can come back to bite you later on when trying to see how the evolutionary ‘tree of life’ has so many interconnections and also where the branches do Not connect.


BTW - The defining features of Eukaryotes is that they have nuclei with nuclear membranes. They also have other membrane-bound items floating around in their cytoplasm like mitochondria, golgi appuratus, and possibly even chloroplasts. (But that last one is part of the separation between pines and pachyderms).

I don't think that I implied that an 8th grader couldn't be taught, but, rather, if they hadn't been taught either creation or science a child would find elephants giving birth to pine trees or pine trees growing elephants was funny. It is funny.

I also don't believe I said that the definition of eukaryote doesn't matter, I quoted Hovind as saying that it didn't matter whether pine trees and elephants were eukaryotes. He admitted they were but said it didn't matter. He didn't comment on the definition of eukaryotes, at least not during the brief time I have listened to the video so far.

As far as myself, I wouldn't know a eukaryotes if it bit me on the ***, but I'm trying to wrap my mind around that as we speak. First, though. . .

Clades . . .

Coming up.

 

[Earthling]

I want to discuss Hovind's position of biblical kinds and clades, which Zone brought up.

Relation

Earlier I gave the Biblical definition of kinds as ""The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”"

Do you object to this and if so, why?

We all understand this concept, we have never seen any deviation from it. We understand what it means to be related. Father, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, grandparents. In a Biblical sense, all of us coming from Adam and Eve, we are all related.

Do you object to this and if so, why?

Clade

From what I've read, on Wikipedia, mind you, is that cladistics, or a monophyletic transcends this classification due to some similarities in various Biblical kinds. I'm just learning what a clade is, but from what I've read the problem I have with it doing that is that, while those similarities are no doubt there and observed I see no reason to deviate from the Biblical classifications of kinds, which we all know and understand.

Put simply, to me it would be the same as determining something as meaningless as all of these organisms have eyes so they are related. These over here have fur, so they are related and those have scales, so they are related. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The cellular and DNA level of organisms is where modern evolutionary studies have taken us.

Clade - a group of organisms believed to evolved from a common ancestor based upon “Cladistics”. Which is to say distinguishing between groups of plants or animals based upon their physical characteristics.
Unfortunately the branches of the evolutionary tree split, but then weave closely back together again.
Hyenas for example...

look a lot like dogs and wolves etc....

so using the Cladistic or Clade system, we can lump hyenas in with the dogs/wolves/canines group. Which we had done for many years.

But it turns out that canines and hyena split branches a long time ago. Some proto-bear-marsupial had some offspring with longer jaws, great endurance, and pointier ears (dog forbearer), while others were born with with greater dexterity, rounded ears, and sharper claws (cat forbearers).
Many different breedings and interbreedings occurred over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, with many different results.
Some on each branch (cat branch vs dog branch) look completely different from each other, like comparing wolves with cheetahs. But other breedings along the cat branch led to animals that had cat ancestors, yet looked more like dogs in some ways. Like the hyenas (above) and fossa (here).

Both the fossa and hyenas are actually closer on the genetic/ancestral tree to tigers than to wolves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to discuss Hovind's position of biblical kinds and clades, which Zone brought up.

Relation

Earlier I gave the Biblical definition of kinds as ""The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”"

Do you object to this and if so, why?

We all understand this concept, we have never seen any deviation from it. We understand what it means to be related. Father, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, grandparents. In a Biblical sense, all of us coming from Adam and Eve, we are all related.

Do you object to this and if so, why?

Clade

From what I've read, on Wikipedia, mind you, is that cladistics, or a monophyletic transcends this classification due to some similarities in various Biblical kinds. I'm just learning what a clade is, but from what I've read the problem I have with it doing that is that, while those similarities are no doubt there and observed I see no reason to deviate from the Biblical classifications of kinds, which we all know and understand.

Put simply, to me it would be the same as determining something as meaningless as all of these organisms have eyes so they are related. These over here have fur, so they are related and those have scales, so they are related. It doesn't make any sense.

As to "kinds" we can observe evolution occurring to the point where two different species can no longer breed together successfully. By Hovind's definition they are different 'kinds'. And as to the word "species" the definition of species is fuzzy due to the fact that life evolves. There are no hard boundaries between species. Hovind copies one definition of species, to an extent, in his 'kinds' Ernst Mayr came up with the breeding concept of species. If two different groups could breed fertile offspring they were the same species. But since some species are closely related they may be able to breed and produce offspring, but those offspring are of greatly reduced fertility. For example donkeys and horses can interbreed and produce mules. Mules are almost always sterile. I know of there has been at least one female mule that was not quite sterile. But the males always are sterile. They are a different species by Mayr. Lions and tigers are slightly more closely related. Some of their offspring have a low fertility, but those seem to die out too after that generation.

The problem for creationists is to find a "kind" on top of a clade. Clade's would still work within kinds. That is Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge, one that creationists have never been able to meet.

As to clases there are different levels of clades, different degrees of relatedness. For example your grandfather begins a clade that include you and your brothers and sisters and your cousins and any offspring of that group. The grandfather of another group of unrelated people from their own clade.

So though reptiles have scales, birds have feathers, and mammals have fur they all belong to smaller clades that are part of a larger one. They are all tetrapods, they all have four limbs. They are all vertebrates, having an internal skeleton and specifically a back bone. A biologist could do a better job. But picking out where they are not related is the same as you picking out how other human beings are not related to you and your close relatives. You still all share a common ancestor.

 

[Earthling]

The cellular and DNA level of organisms is where modern evolutionary studies have taken us.

Clade - a group of organisms believed to evolved from a common ancestor based upon “Cladistics”. Which is to say distinguishing between groups of plants or animals based upon their physical characteristics.

Believed to have evolved . . . based upon their physical characteristics. That's really problematic in my opinion. Very vague and insubstantial.

Unfortunately the branches of the evolutionary tree split, but then weave closely back together again.
Hyenas for example...look a lot like dogs and wolves etc....so using the Cladistic or Clade system, we can lump hyenas in with the dogs/wolves/canines group. Which we had done for many years.

From the National Geographic VCR tapes I watched years ago I thought that hyenas were more of the feline.

But it turns out that canines and hyena split branches a long time ago. Some proto-bear-marsupial had some offspring with longer jaws, great endurance, and pointier ears (dog forbearer), while others were born with with greater dexterity, rounded ears, and sharper claws (cat forbearers).

Some offspring did . . . again . . . problematic. How do they know this? How do they know that the Biblical definition of kinds doesn't fit here more realistically? That hyenas came from felines or were always just as they have appeared probably throughout recorded history?

Many different breedings and interbreedings occurred over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, with many different results.
Some on each branch (cat branch vs dog branch) look completely different from each other, like comparing wolves with cheetahs. But other breedings along the cat branch led to animals that had cat ancestors, yet looked more like dogs in some ways. Like the hyenas (above) and fossa (here).

Both the fossa and hyenas are actually closer on the genetic/ancestral tree to tigers than to wolves.

What is this information based upon? How is it determined? Can it be wrong just as our thinking was once wrong on hyenas being canine instead of feline?

P.S. Nice images, I liked those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believed to have evolved . . . based upon their physical characteristics. That's really problematic in my opinion. Very vague and insubstantial.



From the National Geographic VCR tapes I watched years ago I thought that hyenas were more of the feline.



Some offspring did . . . again . . . problematic. How do they know this? How do they know that the Biblical definition of kinds doesn't fit here more realistically? That hyenas came from felines or were always just as they have appeared probably throughout recorded history?



What is this information based upon? How is it determined? Can it be wrong just as our thinking was once wrong on hyenas being canine instead of feline?

P.S. Nice images, I liked those.

Correction, known to have evolved as demonstrated by almost endless evidence.

And though early cladistics was based largely on appearances modern cladistics relies much more heavily on DNA. The and science that says "You ARE the father!!" also straightens out questions of how different groups of animals are related.

And there is no clear Bible definition of "kinds". Tell me how would You determine if two different groups were of the same kind or not.

 

[Earthling]

As to "kinds" we can observe evolution occurring to the point where two different species can no longer breed together successfully.

Why say that we can observe evolution occurring when describing the Biblical kinds? It seems highly suspect to me, like what we can and do observe is the Biblical kinds and you tack on "observe evolution" as an Ockham's Razor or an attempt to promote evolution when in fact we can observe nothing of the kind.

By Hovind's definition they are different 'kinds'.

In the video? Perhaps later than I am in the video recorded discussion? Or elsewhere? And what are "they"? What are different kinds?

And as to the word "species" the definition of species is fuzzy due to the fact that life evolves.

Rather than the definition of species is fuzzy because we don't know much about it it is fuzzy due to the "fact" that life evolves. Again, Ockham's Razor and highly suspect.

There are no hard boundaries between species. Hovind copies one definition of species, to an extent, in his 'kinds'.

Again, later in the video than I currently am? Elsewhere? I don't want to jump ahead, yet you seem to be making a point. The quote directly above doesn't seem to be contrary to my given definition or does it? According to the Biblical kind there can be several species in a kind. There are many species of dog, for example. Again, this is something we all take for granted. We know this.

Ernst Mayr came up with the breeding concept of species. If two different groups could breed fertile offspring they were the same species. But since some species are closely related they may be able to breed and produce offspring, but those offspring are of greatly reduced fertility. For example donkeys and horses can interbreed and produce mules. Mules are almost always sterile.

This is what I was taught to believe after becoming a believer, in the Watchtower Creation Vs. Evolution book. (Link)

I know of there has been at least one female mule that was not quite sterile.

Really? Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't the term "not quite sterile" be like "almost pregnant?"

But the males always are sterile. They are a different species by Mayr. Lions and tigers are slightly more closely related. Some of their offspring have a low fertility, but those seem to die out too after that generation.

Interesting. Why do you think that is? Species are fuzzy?

The problem for creationists is to find a "kind" on top of a clade. Clade's would still work within kinds. That is Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge, one that creationists have never been able to meet.

To me it seems the terms "related" and "clade" might be compatible with the common term "family." That's probably not the case as such, but they do bring the term family to my mind. Of what significance is Aron Ra's challenge?

the big question for me is how is a common ancestor established? By it's appearance? By it's possession of shared characteristics?

As to clases there are different levels of clades, different degrees of relatedness. For example your grandfather begins a clade that include you and your brothers and sisters and your cousins and any offspring of that group. The grandfather of another group of unrelated people from their own clade.

Again, the word family comes to mind. The final sentence in the quote directly above seems disjointed from rest of it. What about the grandfather of another group of unrelated people from their own clade?

So though reptiles have scales, birds have feathers, and mammals have fur they all belong to smaller clades that are part of a larger one.

Again seems like to me classifications based upon similarities, and ever still compatible to the Biblical term kind I gave. I can't comment on Hovind's definition kind as I haven't heard it in this video as of yet. Its been years since I've watched any of his videos.

They are all tetrapods, they all have four limbs. They are all vertebrates, having an internal skeleton and specifically a back bone. A biologist could do a better job.

Oh, we have a bunch of them hanging around, surely one or two will turn up.

But picking out where they are not related is the same as you picking out how other human beings are not related to you and your close relatives. You still all share a common ancestor.

And that ancestor, in my case, would always be human?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why say that we can observe evolution occurring when describing the Biblical kinds? It seems highly suspect to me, like what we can and do observe is the Biblical kinds and you tack on "observe evolution" as an Ockham's Razor or an attempt to promote evolution when in fact we can observe nothing of the kind.

First of all you should not use nonsense terms. I said that we can and have observed evolution to the "bring forth" definition that Hovind loves to use. But until you can come up with a working definution, something that Hovind failed to do, I would suggest that you avoid the ter.

In the video? Perhaps later than I am in the video recorded discussion? Or elsewhere? And what are "they"? What are different kinds?

Hard to say. Creationists cannot define the term.

Rather than the definition of species is fuzzy because we don't know much about it it is fuzzy due to the "fact" that life evolves. Again, Ockham's Razor and highly suspect.

Please don't bring up Occam's Razor. You do not seem to know how to apply it. And yes, we do know that life evolves. The low level of macroevolution needed for speciation has been directly observed countless times.

Again, later in the video than I currently am? Elsewhere? I don't want to jump ahead, yet you seem to be making a point. The quote directly above doesn't seem to be contrary to my given definition or does it? According to the Biblical kind there can be several species in a kind. There are many species of dog, for example. Again, this is something we all take for granted. We know this.

I am not sure where you are in the video, but the "dogs only have dogs" idiocy of Hovind's only proves that he does not even have a high school level of understanding of evolution. Please try to remember that "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman using a term that creationists cannot define. There is no change of kind in evolution.

This is what I was taught to believe after becoming a believer, in the Watchtower Creation Vs. Evolution book. (Link)

Why use a source written by either liars or idiots? Why don't you try to use valid sources?

Fix your quotes and I can finish my response.

 

[Twilight Hue]

......

As far as myself, I wouldn't know a eukaryotes if it bit me on the ***, but I'm trying to wrap my mind around that as we speak. First, though. . .

Clades . . .

Coming up.

Basically we have and share the same type of cell structure where the nucleus of the cell is enclosed in a membrane called eukaryotes by which elephants and pine cones are established in fact as being related, and had sprung up from a common ancestor. Same as we are.

Cladistics notes physical and molecular similarities (like genes and DNA) among various organisms and categorizes those with shared traits into a more accurate lineage that can be traced back to its original known ancestors.