The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Danmac]

Sorry, that was no better. Like the rest of your posts, this one was just drivel, and a waste of good, usable bandwidth.

I was a bit concerned that it was a bit over your head. I will have to consult with my grandson, and see if he can help me break it down into a bit more of an elementary level. We may just have to wait a few more years.

 

[Danmac]

"This definition provides a very basic framework for research into a potential scientific definition for 'kind', but it is far too general to be of any use by itself. It certainly does not provide a definition that could be used to generate a robust and testable description of the delineation between kinds, and could not alone be used to definitively distinguish whether two organisms belong to the same kind."

The above from DanMan's link. Actually the following paragraph.

Does anyone else get the impression that our devout friend is W-A-A-A-Y over his head when the subject is science and how research is done?

Like he has NO IDEA. He doesn't even READ what he cites. He just goggle's and copies w/o having any idea of what he is saying.

I think this kind of thing is spelled i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t.​

Are you appealing to the audience in hopes that they will validate your post. Are you afraid that it cannot stand on its own two legs without audience support. It may be a subconscious need for affirmation on your part.

 

[Autodidact]

kind n.

the created “kind” (from the Hebrew word baramin) refers to the originally created populations of various forms of life from which all other forms have arisen. It does not deny variation or mutation, but says that instead of one unicellular organism being the proginator of all life on earth through all time, there were a number of originally created populations whose individuals cannot vary or speciate across the discontinuities which separate each kind from every other kind. The concept of baramin is related to the concept of discontinuities that exist between groups of organisms. For instance, the dog, the wolf, the coyote, are clearly in the same baramin. And there is a definite discontinuity between this baramin and the bovine baramin, although both are mammals. Baramins can be partially identified by successful (live birth) hybrids, but probably go way beyond what hybridization can do today. Genetic studies may help determine discontinuities. The fossil record is also a help.​

The Definition of Kinds​

Unfortunately, this definition is circular.

The key question is, is there any criteria for determining whether two organisms are the same kind or a different kind?
​

genetic information

I hope you don't need me to tell you that a definition that contains the term you're trying to define is not helpful.

 

[Autodidact]

I was a bit concerned that it was a bit over your head. I will have to consult with my grandson, and see if he can help me break it down into a bit more of an elementary level. We may just have to wait a few more years.

Danmac: I don't think someone who has needed the same simple concept explained to him at least 20 times is in any position to mock someone else's powers of comprehension. Yours seem so impaired it has caused me to wonder if you suffer from some form of brain damage.

 

[Autodidact]

What we're looking for, Danmac, is a definition we can do science with. One that is specific and sets forth criteria. For example, a definition of kind that will help you figure out whether there is a single beetle kind, or >450,000 beetle kinds.

 

[Wotan]

And what is "genetic information"?

wa:do

What they mean is the instructions in the DNA. They are actually on to something interesting here but they muck it up so badly the real question gets lost.

Here is the argument and a rebuttal.

[youtube]v1wyG64Xd8E[/youtube]
YouTube - Internet arguments: Information theory

Start about 5 min or so.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I was a bit concerned that it was a bit over your head. I will have to consult with my grandson, and see if he can help me break it down into a bit more of an elementary level. We may just have to wait a few more years.

By all means, talk to him. It's obvious that none of the adults on this site are getting through to you, but maybe he is at the level on which you operate.

I wouldn't limit it to a "few years", though. If your posts on here are any indication, it's going to be a lot longer than that for you.

 

[Wotan]

Are you appealing to the audience in hopes that they will validate your post. Are you afraid that it cannot stand on its own two legs without audience support. It may be a subconscious need for affirmation on your part.

The paragraph following your quoted section INVALIDATES your quote. You cited something that shows you have NO definition of kinds and your link did not provide one.

Now feel free to call me dumb country lawyer but I always thought that a cite was supposed to support your argument - not defeat it.

But then maybe you just go about things differently than the rest of us.

VERY differently.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Are you appealing to the audience in hopes that they will validate your post. Are you afraid that it cannot stand on its own two legs without audience support.

We've all pretty much given up on reaching you, so we've just started addressing each other. At least this way, there is someone on the other end of the conversation that can give an honest answer, without having to copy and paste from Answers in Genesis.

It may be a subconscious need for affirmation on your part.

I guess you could appeal to the other willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest fundamentalists in the thread. You certainly don't appeal to the rest of us.

 

[fantome profane]

The Definition of Kinds

​

Great link, I really enjoyed reading that page. I suggest that you try reading the page you linked to (the entire page that is) although I suspect you will not enjoy it as much as I did. Still you might find it educational- especially this part.

An Unpleasant Dilemma for Creationists

It is interesting to note that the definition of 'kind' as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding places creationists in a rather unpleasant dilemma. The essay 'Apes, Apemen and Men' by creationist Lee Spencer discusses the fossil evidence for the hominid lineage and concludes that:​

The fossil hominid crania show a gradation of morphologies between those characteristics seen in the apes but not in humans, to those characteristics seen in humans but not in apes. There is also a gradation in endocranial volume. Similarly , the postcranial skeletons of the hominids exhibit many characteristics that are intermediate, as well as a mixture of other characteristics that are either ape-like or human-like. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain the position that there are no morphological intermediates between apes and man.​

Spencer is obviously unwilling to conclude that these results are due to an evolutionary sequence between ape-like ancestors and modern humans, and is thus forced to adopt a rather unfortunate position to avoid this possibility:​

The only explanation that is consistent with the data and with the Biblical account of origins, is the outrageous proposal that man has been engaged in the sordid enterprise of exchanging genetic material with the pongids, either in nature or in the laboratory.​

Of course, in doing so Spencer commits a grave error. By claiming that humans and pongids (anthropoid apes) have interbred to produce fertile offspring, Spencer has satisfied the criteria for placing humans and pongids in the same kind! Creationists are thus torn between claiming interbreeding to explain the existence of seeming transitionals in the hominid fossil record, and needing to avoid this explanation as it places humans and pongids in the same baramin. This is a dilemma that is generally ignored by creationists rather than being addressed in any substantive way.​

But I suspect that the last sentence in this section is correct any you will simply ignore this dilemma.

 

[Orias]

Great link, I really enjoyed reading that page. I suggest that you try reading the page you linked to (the entire page that is) although I suspect you will not enjoy it as much as I did. Still you might find it educational- especially this part. But I suspect that the last sentence in this section is correct any you will simply ignore this dilemma.

"This is a dilemma that is generally ignored by creationists rather than being addressed in any substantive way."-Danmac's evidence of 'kinds'

:biglaugh:

 

[tumbleweed41]

kind n.

the created “kind” (from the Hebrew word baramin) refers to the originally created populations of various forms of life from which all other forms have arisen. It does not deny variation or mutation, but says that instead of one unicellular organism being the proginator of all life on earth through all time, there were a number of originally created populations whose individuals cannot vary or speciate across the discontinuities which separate each kind from every other kind. The concept of baramin is related to the concept of discontinuities that exist between groups of organisms. For instance, the dog, the wolf, the coyote, are clearly in the same baramin. And there is a definite discontinuity between this baramin and the bovine baramin, although both are mammals. Baramins can be partially identified by successful (live birth) hybrids, but probably go way beyond what hybridization can do today. Genetic studies may help determine discontinuities. The fossil record is also a help.​

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...Ll2bUE&usg=AFQjCNF0xkM7ysOEuTrqQFuPWAmmieN3mQ

​

genetic information

I was a bit concerned that it was a bit over your head. I will have to consult with my grandson, and see if he can help me break it down into a bit more of an elementary level. We may just have to wait a few more years.

This is just hilarious considering you did not even read the entire article you linked too.
From your link...
"This is a dilemma that is generally ignored by creationists rather than being addressed in any substantive way."

 

[Orias]

This is just hilarious considering you did not even read the entire article you linked too.
From your link...
"This is a dilemma that is generally ignored by creationists rather than being addressed in any substantive way."

Danmac sounds a little confused...this may help.

kind 1 (k

nd)
adj. kind·er, kind·est 1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature.
2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word.
3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals.
4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke.
5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise.
6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.

kind 2 (k

nd) n. 1. a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.

2. Archaic a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.

kind1
adj 1. having a friendly or generous nature or attitude
2. helpful to others or to another a kind deed
3. considerate or humane
4. cordial; courteous (esp in the phrase kind regards)
5. pleasant; agreeable; mild a kind climate
6. Informal beneficial or not harmful a detergent that is kind to the hands
7. Archaic loving [Old English gecynde natural, native; see kind2]





kind2 n 1. a class or group having characteristics in common; sort; type two of a kind what kind of creature?
2. an instance or example of a class or group, esp a rudimentary one heating of a kind
3. essential nature or character the difference is one of kind rather than degree
4. Archaic gender or sex
5. Archaic nature; the natural order
in kind
a. (of payment) in goods or produce rather than in money
b. with something of the same sort to return an insult in kind

kind of (adverb) Informal somewhat; rather kind of tired [Old English gecynd nature; compare Old English cyn kin, Gothic kuni race, Old High German kikunt, Latin gens]
Usage: The mixture of plural and singular constructions, although often used informally with kind and sort, should be avoided in serious writing: children enjoy those kinds (not those kind) of stories; these sorts (not these sort) of distinctions are becoming blurred

kind - definition of kind by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Obviously I don't search the internet for hours looking for a bs link that fantasizes literal meanings.

See how this has to do with the term 'kind(s)'? I don't go around the main point, is that good?

Uhm...now what exactly does this word have to do with evolution or creation?

 

[Commoner]

Just...wow...

Danmac, you truly are one of the greatest.

 

[painted wolf]

What they mean is the instructions in the DNA. They are actually on to something interesting here but they muck it up so badly the real question gets lost.

Except that "instructions" is a terrible way of labeling it. Do they mean every gene, or just regulatory genes... just exons or do introns count too? What about ERVs, non-coding or non-functional genes?....

"genetic information" is an empty and thus meaningless term, just as "kind" is.

wa:do

ps. interesting video

 

[Dunemeister]

Except that "instructions" is a terrible way of labeling it. Do they mean every gene, or just regulatory genes... just exons or do introns count too? What about ERVs, non-coding or non-functional genes?....

"genetic information" is an empty and thus meaningless term, just as "kind" is.

wa:do

ps. interesting video

I've seen the word used a lot metaphorically, particularly when teaching the concepts involved. But even apart from that, it's hard to get away from information-ish language. After all the genes "encode" the "instructions" used by "regulatory" genes for replicating the DNA molecule of which it is a part and thence the organism. If it helps, you can think of this language as a very powerful metaphor without committing to the notion that information implies a sender, and hence intelligence (although that argument can be made non-trivially).

 

[painted wolf]

Except I know to much about genetics for the metaphor to mean anything to me.

Regulatory genes actually control (under certain limited situations) what genes get turned on and off.. and thus your statement:

After all the genes "encode" the "instructions" used by "regulatory" genes for replicating the DNA molecule of which it is a part and thence the organism.

is incorrect.

Many other things control the turning on and off of genes... such as conditions of certain things like glucose inside the cell.

wa;do

 

[Dunemeister]

Except I know to much about genetics for the metaphor to mean anything to me.

Regulatory genes actually control (under certain limited situations) what genes get turned on and off.. and thus your statement:

is incorrect.

Many other things control the turning on and off of genes... such as conditions of certain things like glucose inside the cell.

wa;do

I'm no geneticist obviously, so if you are I take your word for it. But as far as I've read, recent genetics work has benefitted a lot from information theory, so at least some people who know a lot about genetics find the metaphor helpful for at least some purposes. In my case, it helped me as a nonspecialist get a handle on some of the ideas. If the metaphor can be dropped when you've become more familiar with the concepts, that doesn't render the metaphor useless writ large, but I can see why it may have little appeal to you.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm no geneticist obviously, so if you are I take your word for it. But as far as I've read, recent genetics work has benefitted a lot from information theory, so at least some people who know a lot about genetics find the metaphor helpful for at least some purposes. In my case, it helped me as a nonspecialist get a handle on some of the ideas. If the metaphor can be dropped when you've become more familiar with the concepts, that doesn't render the metaphor useless writ large, but I can see why it may have little appeal to you.

While Information Theory can be applied to languages, it is quite a stretch to make any connection between languages and genetic coding.
Information Theory is also used in electrical engineering, but you would be hard pressed find an electrical engineer who compared the interactions between electrons and a potentiometer as "language".

 

[newhope101]

Danman, I hope you are not taking the put downs to heart. I got shot down in a thread someone having cited the fruit fly was an example of evolution. My comment being that there is no evidence. Not making myself to be something I am not I went and researched it. In actual fact the fruit fly began as such and ended as a fruit fly with more wings.. which is adaptation. It never became a new species. In fact if anything, the accelerated evolution produced mostly inferior fruit flys. So it was the misinformed tryng to argue with the misinformed.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?" is Copyright 1998, by Keith Swenson shows how 10 year old lava was dated at millions of years old. Yet it is the basis of scientific data.

The more I read about genetics the more I see a bunch of confused scientists going around in circles. Sure poking holes in evolutionary theory does not make creation right. However poking holes in creationist ideas does not make evolution a fact either. I enjoyed your posts and understood the points you were making.