Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.

Page 3 of 11 [ 176 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Jul 2010, 8:13 pm

LKL wrote:

Ok, so you're saying that horses and asses are the same 'kind' but managed to evolve enough differences in 6000 years (or probably significantly less time than even that) to be counted in modern biology as different species? That's pretty darn fast.

And also that separate descriptions in the bible does not necessarily mean that the two organisms are different 'kinds.'

Speciation does occur rapidly anyhow due to the nature of the criteria for species in current taxonomy. The amount of changes necessary to have the ancestor of the Equidae diversify into donkeys, horses, and zebras is certainly not as great as that necessary to have a supposed ancestor of both Equidae and Tapiridae.

Also, please notice the chronological data presented in the same book of Genesis which you have referenced. Your quotations are during the lifespans of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, not during that of Adam or Noah.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Jul 2010, 7:46 pm

What does it matter when the quotes were from? The point was that the bible listed horses and asses separately, strongly implying that the writer(s) of the bible thought of them as different types of animals. The other point was not that speciation was a stretch; my point was that speciation, to that degree, in less than 6000 years was a stretch.

Look, the original topic of this thread was fascinating and I shouldn't have used it to make a tangential point. I'm not going to argue about horses and asses any more; please get back to talking about birds, 'cause I want to see what you do with the actual data.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 12:16 am

LKL wrote:

I'm not going to argue about horses and asses any more; please get back to talking about birds, 'cause I want to see what you do with the actual data.

Oh certainly, you make one last stab and then say "let's not talk about this anymore, we're off topic"....

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

15 Jul 2010, 6:00 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

LKL wrote:

I'm not going to argue about horses and asses any more; please get back to talking about birds, 'cause I want to see what you do with the actual data.

Oh certainly, you make one last stab and then say "let's not talk about this anymore, we're off topic"....

Which last stab? all I saw was a clarification of what she said earlier, I don't see nothing new added.

Now the "cause I want to see what you do with the actual data." I actually expect what it will be, so likely the experiment, if it takes place eventually, may be more beneficial to third parties (the rest of us) than anything else. I mean, would you change your mind after witnessing empirical data that conflicts with your belief if that happens? very likely no, and I know why. Would you give up supporting creationism in the PPR forum? I think that's quite possible, at least.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Jul 2010, 7:06 am

How many "kinds" would fit on a keel-less vessel such as described in the Book of Genesis. How did the male and female kangaroo get all the way from Australia to the Middle East where Noach lived? And what about the antarctic penguin.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 11:08 am

greenblue wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

LKL wrote:

I'm not going to argue about horses and asses any more; please get back to talking about birds, 'cause I want to see what you do with the actual data.

Oh certainly, you make one last stab and then say "let's not talk about this anymore, we're off topic"....

And if none of the cladograms make sense or correlate within each other, then what? You assume only one possibility greenblue.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 11:33 am

ruveyn wrote:

How many "kinds" would fit on a keel-less vessel such as described in the Book of Genesis?How did the male and female kangaroo get all the way from Australia to the Middle East where Noach lived?And what about the antarctic penguin?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jul 2010, 11:55 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

greenblue wrote:

Now the "cause I want to see what you do with the actual data." I actually expect what it will be, so likely the experiment, if it takes place eventually, may be more beneficial to third parties (the rest of us) than anything else. I mean, would you change your mind after witnessing empirical data that conflicts with your belief if that happens? very likely no, and I know why. Would you give up supporting creationism in the PPR forum? I think that's quite possible, at least.

And if none of the cladograms make sense or correlate within each other, then what? You assume only one possibility greenblue.

That would indeed be a very interesting result. More interesting, actually, then the result I (and greenblue) expect.

I am curious, however, to know what your response would be if this little experiment comes out against barminology and in favor of evolutionary biology. What then?

I am still trawling through databases to find our data. Progress might be a bit slow, but I will keep working on it.

UPDATE: I have thus far been unable to obtain an account on the supercomputing cluster, which means Bayesian analysis with MrBayes and similar programs might be difficult. However, we still have the maximum parsimony analysis with Garli that can be produced fairly readily, and in my experience Garli is more reliable than MrBayes anyways. I believe there are some public-access clusters where I can submit jobs to PAUP* for maximum likelihood analysis, but I will have to find them.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 12:12 pm

Orwell wrote:

I am curious, however, to know what your response would be if this little experiment comes out against barminology and in favor of evolutionary biology. What then?

Then it does.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jul 2010, 12:24 pm

That doesn't really answer my question. Would you change your stance in the face of the evidence? Would you find some excuse to reject the evidence? Would you claim that I somehow rigged the results? Would you simply back off from defending young-Earth creationism here, but continue to believe it in spite of the evidence?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 1:58 pm

Orwell wrote:

Answer these questions in regard to yourself as well. Would you change your stance in the face of the evidence? Would you find some excuse to reject the evidence? Would you claim that the data was flawed? Would you simply back off from defending Theistic evolutionism here, but continue to believe it in spite of the evidence?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jul 2010, 2:06 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

If the cladograms I get do not make sense or are internally inconsistent, then evolution is false. I cannot continue to support false beliefs.

Now, your answer?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 2:20 pm

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

If the cladograms I get do not make sense or are internally inconsistent, then evolution is false. I cannot continue to support false beliefs.

Now, your answer?

Would you like me to answer with the one you expect or respond reciprocally? When Miller offers a "If one thing goes against evolution, then it is false" and then presents supportive data and says that "see, nothing goes against it". However, I am willing to bet that you have more integrity then that sham artist, so I'm willing to place trust in you that you'll handle the data honestly. I also cannot support false beliefs either, whether it be evolution from a single ancestor for all life or from multiple individually created ancestors archaebaramin.

So, in the event that the data doesn't match up with evolutionism, would organisms of closer relatedness be tested so that they have a common ancestor? Conversely, if the data doesn't match up with baraminology, then would organism of more morphological dissimilarity be tested until the cladograms are inconsistent with common ancestry?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jul 2010, 3:13 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Would you like me to answer with the one you expect or respond reciprocally?

I'd like you to answer honestly.

Quote:

When Miller offers a "If one thing goes against evolution, then it is false" and then presents supportive data and says that "see, nothing goes against it". However, I am willing to bet that you have more integrity then that sham artist, so I'm willing to place trust in you that you'll handle the data honestly.

Well, in this case we are talking about a very concrete test where we can state hypotheticals before performing the test. If it comes out one way, then you are right and I am wrong. If it comes out another way, then I am right and you are wrong. If we both agree that the test is legitimate, then it is harder for either of us to back out and allow confirmation bias to take over.

Quote:

I also cannot support false beliefs either, whether it be evolution from a single ancestor for all life or from multiple individually created ancestors archaebaramin.

Do you think this test does a good job of testing whether either of those beliefs is false?

Quote:

So, in the event that the data doesn't match up with evolutionism, would organisms of closer relatedness be tested so that they have a common ancestor? Conversely, if the data doesn't match up with baraminology, then would organism of more morphological dissimilarity be tested until the cladograms are inconsistent with common ancestry?

They could be, but it would be a lot of work. I'm more interested in just ascertaining which explanation makes more sense given the range of species we agreed on—all within class Aves, but of several different orders. Of course, it is possible for a shifting goalpost from baraminology where they might say "Well, perhaps all birds are related, but birds and reptiles are not related." With evolution, such a shift is harder: the stance is that all life is related, and the only way around it is to posit multiple independent origins of life. That kind of explanation would be very strained.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

15 Jul 2010, 3:39 pm

Orwell wrote:

Quote:

Well, no, not all birds are related. If you notice from Genesis 1: 20-23

Quote:

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

The pronoun "its" may be singular possessive, but in using "every", in English at least, it would be like saying "each day" or "every day" which is to say that there are multiple kinds, or archaebaramin, which were created according to their kinds. So, its not just "all birds, but not reptiles" but rather that there are many families of birds which do not have a common genealogy.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jul 2010, 3:55 pm

OK, so that sounds like a promise to leave the goalpost where it is. I'm still waiting for an answer, though.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 3 of 11 [ 176 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11 Next

Jump to:

Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown. Post Reply New Topic

Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.