Creation vs. Evolution

[adurso]

Apropos of nothing; the use of the term "kind" in regard to discussion revolving around creation v. evolution is not only unscientific, but a signal as the word is used in argumentation supplied by IDers and their fellow travelers......

 

[coachpill]

Soggy>>>>"If this is the quality of science teacher my kids end up with, I will move, or send them to private school."

Ok.

Soggy>>>>"Evolution DOES explain what we see through direct observation, genetics, the fossil record, on and on and on."

But "evolution" goes into much, much more than explaining only what we see. It pretends to explain the unobservable as well. If the discussions were only centered around what we see, variations within a kind, then I wouldn't be heard from again. But the discussions go beyond what we observe and pretend to explain how a single-celled prokaryote could change via mutations acted upon by natural selection to add information such that eventually a human (or any other example of the diversity we see today) is produced.

Soggy>>>>"You, (as a science teacher no less), can't even DEFINE "kind" and you are suggesting that it is a huge leap to go to "larger" categories?"

Again, the family level is a pretty good gauge, however not precise I will admit. The kind would have to be defined as a unique combination of non-unique traits. All mammals have hair at some point so I would not say that all mammals are of the same kind. It's the combination of the non-unique traits that separates the kinds from one another. So mess around with the traits of dogs and you will notice that their traits are not particularly unique, but they are put together in a unique way that separates them from say, the cats, who would have many of the same traits as dogs, but put together in a unique way. I guess morphology is one good gauge.

Much of the problem in definitions is that I would really like to place hybridization as a factor in defining the kind, but cannot. Nor can the evolutionists use it as a defining trait for the species. I could easily see how through mutations and variations, 2 species within a kind could no longer produce viable offspring. But they would still be of the same kind. The species term traditionally included production of fertile, viable offspring as the defining trait of a species. But that no longer works either.

How do you track the reproduction of organisms that only exist in the fossil record? How do you track the reproduction between populations of organisms that are asexual? Gene flow is an issue for the species concept as well. If species A and D are considered separate species because they do not mate, but A mates with B, and B mates with C, and C mates with D, then really some of the genes from A flowed over to D. Maybe these really are the same species? These are problems that mainstream science is dealing with.

So as you see, trying to pin down a species definition is as tough as trying to pin down a kind definition.

 

[Thalassamania]

Of course the key is pay appropriate to the field, yet that would cause screams of disparity. I could afford to teach because I have a retirement, I moved into administration because they hate seeing PhDs in the classroom; they made me an offer my wife could not resist.......

I applied for a high school teaching job, I was told that the reality is that they can get away with using someone with just a B.S. and no graduate credits for a LOT less money.

 

[Soggy]

I applied for a high school teaching job, I was told that the reality is that they can get away with using someone with just a B.S. and no graduate credits for a LOT less money.

Perhaps we have found the answer to ce4jesus' question about inaccurate textbooks? Under qualified science teachers.

 

[Thalassamania]

Unless you define it, I refuse to use it



Wow, that's a pretty broad paintbrush. Other than being in the same family, (Canidae), all of those animals are very different genus and species. Is there a particular reason why you think inter-family is the most something can evolve?

FYI: the subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" is not (IMHO) in accordance with the actual relations, and that the taxonomic classification of several canines should be disputed. Recent DNA analysis has shown, however, that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).

Currently the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, with the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) listed as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies as well.

The domestic dog is listed by some as Canis familiaris and others (including the Smithsonian Institution Mammal List and the American Society of Mammalogists as a subspecies of Canis lupus; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf may or may not be separate species; and the Dingo has been in the past variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo.

Everyone confused enough yet? I think that we're so close to dogs and dog-likes that we can see very subtle shades of variation that we miss in say ... impalas.

Apropos of nothing; the use of the term "kind" in regard to discussion revolving around creation v. evolution is not only unscientific, but a signal as the word is used in argumentation supplied by IDers and their fellow travelers......

Yes ... I know. How do you think they'll handle it when they find out that there really is not such thing as a species?

 

[Soggy]

FYI: the subdivision of Canidae into "foxes" and "true dogs" is not (IMHO) in accordance with the actual relations, and that the taxonomic classification of several canines should be disputed. Recent DNA analysis has shown, however, that Canini (dogs) and Vulpini (foxes) are valid clades. Molecular data implies a North American origin of living Canidae and an African origin of wolf-like canines (Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon).

Currently the domestic dog is listed as a subspecies of Canis lupus, C. l. familiaris, with the Dingo (also considered a domestic dog) listed as C. l. dingo, provisionally a separate subspecies from C. l. familiaris; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf are recognized as subspecies as well.

The domestic dog is listed by some as Canis familiaris and others (including the Smithsonian Institution Mammal List and the American Society of Mammalogists as a subspecies of Canis lupus; the Red Wolf, Eastern Canadian Wolf, and Indian Wolf may or may not be separate species; and the Dingo has been in the past variously classified as Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo and Canis lupus familiaris dingo.

Interesting. Thanks.

Yes ... I know. How do you think they'll handle it when they find out that there really is not such thing as a species?

By this, do you mean the fact that "species" is a somewhat arbitrary classification based on some equally arbitrary traits?

 

[Soggy]

Is there a particular reason why you think inter-family is the most something can evolve?

For the sake of clarification, I meant INTRAfamily.

 

[adurso]

How do you think they'll handle it when they find out that there really is not such thing as a species?

They cannot be bothered to learn to use the language properly to begin with, the cant will be adjusted to include argumentation such as: "biologists cannot agree on the the meaning of the word species so...blah blah blah" never realizing the specific meaning of scientific terms; the concept of genetic species v. cohesion species would cause a melt down...

 

[H2Andy]

But the discussions go beyond what we observe and pretend to explain how a single-celled prokaryote could change via mutations acted upon by natural selection to add information such that eventually a human (or any other example of the diversity we see today) is produced.

wow ... i'm blown away by this

did you say you were a science teacher? it sounds like you just don't understand science at all, and evolution even less

seriously ... dude ...

So are you saying it is possible that 2 of a dog-kind could produce the diversity of dog-kinds that we see today? Or are you saying it is not possible? Or are you remaining agnostic on this one?

let's try this one and see if you can agree:

populations can change over time.

populations can change greatly over great amounts of time.

n'est pas?

and now let's move on to this one:

we take a snapshot of a world: only marine creatures exist

we take a second snapshot of a world millions of years later, and now there are earth creatures

where did the earth creatures come from?

on this snapshot, there are no mammals

we wait millions of years and take another snapshot. now there are mammals

where did the mammals come from?

in this snapshot, there are no apes. we wait a few million years and take another snapshot. now there are apes

where did the apes come from?

we wait a few more million years and take another snapshot and find humans in the picture. where did the humans come from?

 

[Thalassamania]

Most textbooks define a species as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring. Various parts of this definition are there to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:

• Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
• Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for whatever reason.
• Animals whose offspring are normally sterile.

But then you've got ring species that knock all of that into a cocked hat. They present an interesting problem for those who have a need to divide the living world into discrete species, as well as for those who believe that evolution does not create new species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species becomes two distinct species. Talk about intermediate forms! There are an infinate number available for examination.