In a Way, I Feel Like Apologizing to those who Follow my Blog Regularly and to whom I Visit their Blogs on Occasion. I haven't been Around Visiting a lot of the Blogs Lately because I've had Limited Computer Time and have Mainly been Focusing on Radar's Blog. Though his Posts are Usually Long, they are Absolutely Excellent.
I've been Thinking that I need to Post again, though, so Perhaps I'll Take something Again from the Comment Section of Radar's Blog. This Time it is from the Comment Thread below his Post, Just Over a Year Ago, I Introduced Ian Juby and Now it's Time to Add on... This Post is Excellent, if you want to Take the Time to Read it. It shows Experiments and Evidence of how the Grand Canyon could have been Created by the Great Flood. If not, another Approach would be to just Read the Comments and this may Actually Help you Decide what Parts of the Post you want to Read, though that is Long also. So Far, there are 65 Comments.
The Linked Post is about Experiments that were done that show evidence that the Formations within the Grand Canyon and Other Canyons could have been formed by Water, therefore by the Great Flood of Noah. The Later Part of the Post is About the Dating of Rocks. I Found the Post Quite Interesting.
What I want to Share with you Now, though, is another Side Issue that came up in the Comment Section, which is the Subject of Speciation. I have been a Little Confused Lately about what they call the "Speciation" Debate, for the Word Species has Changed and here is a Link that Shows how...
Fixity of Species
Here is the Comment that I Wrote about it, Only Slightly Edited and some Bold Print was Added...
Lista said...
In the Article I just gave a Link to, we see that the Word "Species" Originally Meant the Biblical Kind. I Guess the Definition Change Took Place in the Mid-to-Late 1700s, when the Word Species was Used in Scientific Circles, as part of a Biological Classification System, yet this Definition is Still being Debated to this Day.
Basically the Change is this. What used to be a Dog Species (or Dog Kind), became many Dog "Species" within the "Genus" of Dog.
When a Creationist says, though, that there is no Evidence of Natural Selection or Evolution "between Species", he does not Mean that there has been no Evolution between Breeds of Dog or Cat. He means that no Matter how Hard you Try in your Breeding, a Dog will always be a Dog and a Cat will always be a Cat. If that is Called "Genus" now, rather than "Species", then we are no Longer Talking the Same Language when Debating "Speciation" and Macro-Evolution.
It Appears that there have been Some who have been Slow at Letting Go of the Original Definition, and those in the Church Continue to Understand the Word Species in Relation to Biblical Kinds.
Since there are Two Definitions, it Makes Talking about these Subjects Difficult and yet, if the Word Species does not Relate to the Original Biblical Kind, then this Whole Concept no Longer has any Meaning or Relevance to the Actual Limits within Natural Selection and Evolution between Kinds. In Actuality, this Change in Definition does little more than Confuse the Issue.
The Only Macro-Evolution Debate that Matters is that which Relates to Kinds, not Species, and Quite Often the "Kind" is more in Line with the the Scientific Category "Genus", rather than "Species".
Be Assured, though, that Evolutionists are not Going to Win this Debate by Changing the Meaning of a Word.
If we Must, then perhaps we should just Accept the New Definition and instead of Arguing against "Speciation", simply Say, "The idea of one KIND changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED." This is Exactly the Same Argument as before, Except the Word "Species", that was Originally Used, has been Replaced in the Sentence with the Word Kind.
At the End of the Linked Article, Other Definition Changes are Discussed such as the Definition of Science itself and also the Definition of Conception. I guess you’ll have to Read it, if you want to Know what I Mean.
If you Are Wondering where the Word "Kind" comes from, it is a Biblical Word, taken from Genesis...
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.'" (Genesis 1:11, KJV)
and
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:21, KJV)
and
"And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so." (Genesis 1:24, KJV)
The Point Being Made here is that there is no Scientific Evidence that Disproves the Biblical Account of how the World was Created.
I guess I could Add just One more Thing. It Seems that the Definition of Evolution gets Confused at Times too. If Evolution means Natural Selection and Facilitated Variation within Kinds, then I Guess there is Evidence for that, yet if Evolution Means that we Evolved from Monkeys, well, that has not been Proved, for "The idea of one Kind changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that NO SUCH CHANGE HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Species is just a taxonomical term; that
subset of life which is capable of interbreeding.
There is just one species of 'canine'-domestic dogs,
wolves & coyotes, because they are capable of interbreeding successfully.
Again, taxonomically speaking, there are many
'breeds' of domestic dogs.
In fact, some taxonomists
define them as a 'subs-species' -caninis familiaris. Even the wolf
is broken down into sub-species, for example canis
lupus (timber wolf) is related to canis simensis
(ethiopian wolf), canis
lupus lupus (eurasian wolf)
etc. Taxonomically and biologically very similar,
their size, appearance and habitat vary.
As far as being descended from monkeys, the
evolutionary theorist posits that the monkey
(genus pan) and the human
(genus homo), likely shared a common ancestor
about 6 million years ago.
Paleoanthropology and related sciences use
cladistics
to sort through what was formerly Linnaen taxonomy.
So, according the current
state of biological science, no-we are not descended from monkeys..
I guess, biblically we are descended from mud, and you gals from a rib or something? So, while
speciation has never been observed (voila, my dog
gave birth to a new species!), the divine
creation of the first
human species has not been
observed either. We can
only peer into the distant past with those two human
characteristics..curiosity, faith or both.
Oh, I just remembered: there are conspiracy theorists that think we
are descended from ancient
outerspace aliens..I'm not
real keen on that. :)
Huh? Could it be that People Get the Concept of Species and Sub-Species Mixed Up while Debating Things such a Speciation? And are there Fossil Remains for this Common Ancestor, BB?
"I guess, biblically we are descended from mud."
Yep!
"The divine creation of the first human species has not been observed either."
That's Right and that is why Macro-Evolution and Creationism are in the Same Boat. Both are just Theories. Neither has been Observed.
"I just remembered; there are conspiracy theorists that think we
are descended from ancient outerspace aliens."
Hey!! Now you May have Something there. Why didn't I Think of that? lol.
Here is a Good Example of the Species, Sub-Species, Confusion that has come Straight from the Wikipedia.
The Liger
You see, if Tigers and Lions can Breed, than they are NOT Two Separate Species, or at the Very Least, they are NOT Two Separate Kinds, in the Biblical sense of the Word, yet the Wikipedia Clearly Calls them Separate Species and says that the Wild Cat Group is a Genus.
As we Argue over these Words, the Evolutionists can Use these as Examples of Speciation and/or Macro-Evolution and this is Deceptive, because that is NOT what this is.
"I guess, biblically we are descended from mud."
"Yep"...that seems sort of
where biologists think life arose as well. hmmm.
Interesting about the Liger. Wonder if that is like the mule being part
horse and part donkey?
Interspecies breeding reminds me of a joke (of course)...
Fishermen like the koho
salmon, but it is restricted to colder waters. So they crossbred the Koho with a walleye.
Fishermen thought it tasted great, but was not much of a fighter on the end of the line. So they
bred the koho/wallye with
the muskie. Wonderful fish- they named it the Kowalski. But being a Polish fish..it drowned!
Did I insult several species and a nationality,
or what?!
RE: And are there Fossil Remains for this Common Ancestor? In 2002, a skull
was found in Africa, thought to be about 7 million years old. It was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Some paleoathropologists have placed it on the hominid cladogram tree as
a common precurser. This
is conjectural of course:
typically, the skull experts must agree with
the DNA regressive study
folks...and that chemical
is not real long-lived..although interestingly, they have
recovered DNA from the extinct wooly mammoth and the extinct neanderthal...
two species which I believe
did NOT interbreed!!
The Hebrew word for kind is "Baramin" and so the modern scientists who are revising the classification system are known as Baraminologists.
Linnaeus was simply trying to classify kinds and their ancestors who had speciated. He believed that God had created and the Flood had taken place and that probably all organisms could be traced back to a few beginning pairs of vertebrates walking off of the Ark plus the non-land-dwelling vertebrates who were left to fend for themselves during the Flood.
Darwinists accuse YEC Baraminologists of trying to ruin or change Linnaean classifications but in fact they are simply trying to make them as correct as possible. As Lista rightly points out, Ligers and Wholphins and other mixed offspring tell us that the current system is not accurate.
Linnaeus had no clue how many organisms there are and how complex they are and in fact we are still learning to this day. But I am willing to say without pause that no kind of organism has changed into another kind, there has only been variation within kind and extinction.
"Interspecies breeding"
Now BB,
If you are Saying that Breeding a Tiger and a Lion is "Interspecies Breeding", then this Confirms that the Definition has Changed because Biblical Kinds can not Breed. You may have Insulted Several Species, but you have Only Insulted One Kind.
As to the Bones of Our So-Called Ancestor, Once again, the Words, "Thought to be", Express Uncertainty and you have Admitted that this is "Conjectural".
Thanks Radar,
And as the Linked Article Points Out, the Linnaeus System is a Change from the Original Definition of Species as was Held by the Church, Prior to Darwin. Keeping this in Mind, the "Baraminologists" are not Trying to Ruin anything, they are Trying to Restore what Once was and was Lost.
What I'm Finding Interesting too is how Sometimes these "Hybrids" Either Die soon after Birth, or are Abandoned by their Mothers, as is Stated in the Wikipedia, in Relation to a Wholphin Named "Pohaikealoha" and her Earlier Sibling. And Here is a Link to some Liger Cubs of which, Two Died and the Other Two were Abandoned, which may Explain why these Hybrids are not as Common in the Wild, as the Non-Hybrids.
For Some Reason, Nature Rejects some of them, so that they do not Thrive as a New Species (or I Prefer to say Sub-Species).
Oh and BTW, BB, I did Laugh at your Speciation Joke and then I Read it to my Husband and he Laughed too. He Actually Hears me Chuckle at Times when I'm on the Computer.
RE: "As to the Bones of Our So-Called Ancestor, Once again, the Words, "Thought to be", Express Uncertainty and you have Admitted that this is "Conjectural".
Yep, it takes quite some time after discovery of some new fossil to come up with a name, hypothesis, etc. As I noted, there are
scientists who specialize in paleological anatomy, others specializing in
radio-dating methodology,
chemical genetics, etc.
All involved disciplines
need converge to agreement and that can take awhile.
Consider: Evangelicals,
Jews, Catholics, Orthodox
Mormons and Jehova Witnesses
agreeing on
on something! If we look at these folks, who all claim biblical adherence, we find that their views
on evolution vary-for example, the percent of
those agreeing that evolutionary theory best
explains human origins:
Jews-77%
Catholic-58%
Orthodox-54%
Evangelical-24%
Mormon-22%
J. Witnesses-8%
..which while itself is
an interesting topic, explains that 'uncertainty-conjecture' is not soley
confined to the sciences.
As you likely know, among
scientists, the percentage
agreeing with evolutionary theory is 99.86% ...and
no, I have no data on how many scientists are Jehovah Witnesses (but then again, how many times has a pair of scientists come to your house asking to discuss Darwin!)
..not certain, just conjecturing here..:)
BB,
"Which while itself is an interesting topic, explains that 'uncertainty-conjecture' is not solely confined to the sciences."
Careful, BB, you don't want to Come Across as Implying that both Science and Religion are Based on Faith. Even though in Reality a lot of the Softer Sciences are indeed Based a lot more on Faith then Scientists are Willing to Admit.
The Historical Sciences, such as Anthropology, Geology and yes, Evolution are Soft Sciences, because a lot is Assumed and not Everything that is Assumed can Actually be Observed, because these Things Happened in the Past, rather than in the Present. When what is Assumed, can not be Observed, then it can not be Empirically Proved. These Sciences are Based a lot on Uncertainty and Conjecture, as well as Faith.
So, Yes, your Comparison of Religion to Science is a Valid Comparison, not to Mention that there is also the Presence of Naturalism within Evolution and Naturalism is a Religion all it's Own.
"As you likely know, among scientists, the percentage agreeing with evolutionary theory is 99.86%"
No, BB, I do not Know that and also do not Trust that, cause I am Absolutely Certain that those Numbers are Biased. What's more, the Last Time that you Brought that Up, Z-man Reminded us that Albert Eistein was Among those who do not believe in Evolution.
Well, as far as numbers being biased, recall an earlier post on 'bias blind spot'. The number I quote is pretty old-
"According to Newsweek in 1987:
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
"That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%" I don't recall
Z-man's Einstein viewpoint, but typically
creationists like "God doesn't play dice". I would interpet that as
the homogeniety of the laws of physics, others like the homage to God,
others yet would say
determinism. What else
did Einstein say?:
"“the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
On a mutal cognitive note,
will you agree with me that more scientists support evolutionary theory than the 8% of
Jehovah Witnesses?
Naturalism? We might suppose that science occupies itself with that:
attempting to understand
nature and its phenomena,
finding those which fit
laws of predictibility, attempting to explain
what we observe in nature.
Science would tend to disagree with scripture
(Leviticus..eating of shrimp, lobster pork is an
abomination) or more likely interpet it differently...age of earth,
the flood, miracles, getting turned into a salt pillar etc.
..which I guess, in some
folks makes it an enemy, hence it must be replaced
with some sort of 'religious science'.
Kind of like back in the
day of Gallileo....
..at any rate, I need be off to another blog where
I am more familiar with the
science...some guy wondering about launching
space flights from a 5 mile
tunnel cannon, Yikes!
Thanks for your Comment, BB. Got to Run.
First, the idea that 98.6 per cent of scientists "believe in evolution" is quite misleading because some think variation within kind is a kind of evolution and because this is from a very old unscientific poll. Furthermore, many scientists just give lip service to the concept to avoid making waves so they can get their tenure and their grants and further their careers. You buck the ruling paradigm, they try to ruin you. Even people with great reputations and awards can get fired or censured or shut out of peer review just for expressing doubt about Darwin.
Pretty Medieval, huh? Or as the blogger word check says, ratism!
"The number I quote is pretty old-"
You Mean Out Dated? Oh I see. Why don’t you give me a more Up to Date Statistic?
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
Were all 480,000 of these Scientists Interviewed and Asked whether or not they believe in Creation-Science, or are the 700 Scientists Mentioned Actually the Ones who Emphasize it, rather than just Believing in it, or are they just the Ones who are Willing to Come Out of the Closet, In Spite of the Prejudice and Discrimination?
When Ever I hear the Word Determinism Brought Up, I always call it a Change of Subject because that is not the Central Focus of Creationism and Leads into a Predestination Debate. There Very Well may be such a Thing as Natural Selection within Kinds that has some Small Element of Chance in it. Maybe so, Maybe not, yet that is not the Subject that we are Debating here.
"Science would tend to disagree with scripture (Leviticus..eating of shrimp, lobster pork is an abomination)"
Keep in Mind that the Children of Israel were in the Dessert and had Limited Means to Appropriately and Safely Prepare their Food.
More for BB,
I Wonder how Much of Radar's Article you Read. It is Quite Scientific, in my Opinion, and Provides Evidence in Support of Rock Formations within Canyons, Being Created by Water in the form of Floods.
The Bias of the Status Quo is our Enemy, not Science.
Evolution is also a "Religious Science". It is Based on Naturalism, which also has it's Roots in Atheism.
Thanks Radar,
For Helping me with BB. BB is a Really Nice and Likeable Guy; Always Courteous and Polite, but he is also an Atheist.
Apparently, Atheists in General, have a Really Hard Time Believing that there is Bias to the Point of Prejudice and Discrimination Among them.
Here is the Quote from Z-man about Albert Einstein...
"Z-man said...
But, BB, going back to an earlier comment you made that 99% of scientists are skeptical of ID, Albert Einstein himself said, 'God does not play dice with the universe.'"
November 4, 2010, 11:13 AM
Guess we are back to definitions again...
"It is Based on Naturalism, which also has it's Roots in Atheism."
Does 'naturalism' relate to 'nature'? For nature has always surrounded us.
Ever wonder why the US
Declaration refers to
'Nature and nature's God'
....rather than 'God and God's Nature'?
...keep working on me, guys...I will reject evolutionary theory....and become a Jehovah's Witness!
Then I would be on your side..and on your doorstep every other month. :)
I'm Sort of Hoping that Radar will Address the Naturalism Issue. This also has to do with the Definition of Science itself, yet I'm not sure if I have Actually Heard the Entire Argument in Detail.
The Main Concern, though, is whether or not Science Contradicts the Biblical Idea of Kinds, which Places a Definite Limitation on Evolution.
You're so Funny. I don't want you to become a Jehovah Witness, BB. They have Flaws in their Thinking as well.
PS,
"The US Declaration refers to 'Nature and nature's God'....rather than 'God and God's Nature'?"
Apparently, the Founding Fathers were already Watering Down their Actual Beliefs for the Sake of Atheists. The Declaration, though, was Never Meant to be a Declaration of all Truth, Only of Man's Desire and Right to be Free.
Also, as to Jewish Practices relating to the Bible, Pork has to be Cooked Really Well, or it is not Safe to Eat. This is also True of Things such as Catfish, also Forbidden to the Jews.
Circumcision turned out to be so Medically Beneficial, that Hospitals Automatically do it now to Infants when they are Born.
I Wish there was a Way to Persuade my Readers to Read the Comment Thread below Radar's Post. Unfortunately, it is Currently 92 Comments Long. If you Click on the Link in my Post, though, where is says 10:30 PM, this will Take you Directly to the 42nd Comment in the Thread. Perhaps that will be a Place to Start. Or you can just Read the Last 15 to 20 Comments that are there at the Time of your Visit.
Please do come and Join us. The Conversation has been Interesting. Just Click on one of the Two Links in the Second Paragraph on my Post, on the 10:30 PM Link, or my Last Set of Comments is Here, which is Comment #89.
Well now, "Careful, BB, you don't want to Come Across as Implying that both Science and Religion are Based on Faith."
..makes me think of an old joke (naturally, huh?)
The new zoo keeper was fascinated to find the old orangutan chewing on lettuce and studying two
books he had spread open on the floor. He rushed back to inform the head
zookeeper. "What is old
Solomon reading now?" the
head zookeeper asked. "Well he had the Bible and Darwin's Origin of the Species" the excited novice zookeeper replied. The senior guy
told the new fellow to just go ask the old Orangutan. He dashed back
to Solomon's cage where the old orangutan was turning pages with a prehensile foot while munching a slice of watermelon. "Say, old
Solomon..why are you reading the Bible and Darwin's book?" The old orangutan looked up, pondered and offered, "Well...I'm just trying to figure out whether I am my brother's keeper...or my keeper's brother"....
Hey BB,
You're Back. I Wondered if you were Still Out there. Cute Joke. Welcome Back.
Post a Comment