|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 20, 2015 3:15:17 GMT 5
From what I understood, he only believes in microevolution (stupid term, but let's call it evolution within one "kind"), while creationists mostly only deny "macroevolution". But you are right that 6000 years are ridiculous even when it comes to evolution within one "kind". Also funny how he doesn't realize that he tried to disprove a comedy video.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 20, 2015 3:36:10 GMT 5
From what I understood, he only believes in microevolution (stupid term, but let's call it evolution within one "kind"), while creationists mostly only deny "macroevolution". But you are right that 6000 years are ridiculous even when it comes to evolution within one "kind". Also funny how he doesn't realize that he tried to disprove a comedy video. It's just like with politicians: really sad if satire is actually to be taken more seriously than the thing it parodises… |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 20, 2015 12:22:29 GMT 5
Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution, nothing more. We share a common ancestor with every living organism on this planet. All eukarya share one common ancestor with archae, and we both share a common ancestor with bacteria.  I recall how in a trailer for his DVD - Evolution vs God - the legendary banana-man Ray Comfort commented on how evolution in between bacteria does not prove macroevolution because it is "bacteria changing into other bacteria, and they are still the same kind". This shows just how clueless creationists are on biological classification. Bacteria is a MUCH broader group of living organisms than animalia. Bacteria is an entire domain of life, animalia is just one kingdom in eukarya.  Creationists will thrown the word "kind" around to describe anything from a species to an entire domain, it's hilarious how uneducated they are on even the basics of biology. If you were to show a creationist like Ray Comfort or VenomfangX evidence which supports the theory that cyanobacteria evolved from proteobacteria, they'd probably counter with something like: "that's microevolution, they are the same kind, no different to a brown bears and polar bears". They believe that all bacteria are "one kind" in the same way that all bears are "one kind". Yes, they are that stupid. In an interview with Thunderf00t, Comfort himself admitted that he did not understand evolution, or even know what speciation was; but then he proceeded to write an entire book about the topic, full of ad-hominem attacks towards a man who's been dead for over 150 years (Charles Darwin). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 20, 2015 18:50:09 GMT 5
However "domain" is essentially affected by the same problem as "kind", or any other ranked taxon for that matter (except for species, arguably, because they have very specific ecological meaning): they have no proper scientific definition, one can basically make them up based on feeling (and that’s what creationists do all the time, because they haven’t yet noticed that scientists now use cladistics which makes taxa similar to their "kinds" a completely obsolete and irrelevant concept).
Simply put, when birds evolved, animals did not change from one "kind" or "class" (e.g. reptile or dinosaur) into another (birds) either, because such kinds only exist in peoples’ imagination anyway.
Still, bacteria is a huge clade, even tough there are only very vague estimates as to how many species there are. Saying one bacterium evolving into another doesn’t prove evolution is on a similar level of ludicorusness as saying one animal evolving into another doesn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 20, 2015 19:06:28 GMT 5
True, even though I don't think genus and family are as problematic as some of the other ranks. I don't quite remember it, but there is a definition for the term genus (I think it was different species that can produce infertile offspring, even though this one is not perfect because it is sometimes possible within one subfamily).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 20, 2015 21:41:21 GMT 5
However "domain" is essentially affected by the same problem as "kind", or any other ranked taxon for that matter (except for species, arguably, because they have very specific ecological meaning): they have no proper scientific definition, one can basically make them up based on feeling (and that’s what creationists do all the time, because they haven’t yet noticed that scientists now use cladistics which makes taxa similar to their "kinds" a completely obsolete and irrelevant concept). Perhaps there is no objective definition to the taxon "domain" (I was taught that the three domains of life are bacteria, eukarya, and archaea), but according to most biologists, a domain it is still considered a far larger clade of life than what creationists refer to as "kind". When creationists throw around the word "kind", they typically mean either a family or genus of animals, eg. the polar bear is one "kind" of bear. To apply the same logic to bacteria is insanity. Bacteria is a humongous clade, far larger than any genus, family or even order of animals. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 21, 2015 2:16:26 GMT 5
creature386: Yeah, usually. Maybe that justifies the terms family and genus. In the end tough, bottlenose dolphins (genus Tursiops) can produce fertile offspring with false killer whales (genus Pseudorca), which sorts of makes all of that collapse anyway. Vodmeister: Well there’s the problem? What does a creationist refer to as a kind? I know what scientists mean when they say domain, afaik it’s used exclusively to refer to these three major clades of life, but is a "kind" supposed to be a vast collection of organisms (as implied by VenomFangX’ assumptions about breeding all of animalia from a few thousand species each representing a "kind"), or a relatively small one? As usual, tiny creationist brains are unable to cope with that and produce contradiction after contradiction. After all, I’m fully agreed, saying bacteria can evolve into other bacteria as long as they remain bacteria (cladistics say that they always will, even if they become multi-cellular and start talking  ), while animals can not develop into other animals is hypocrisy, a prime example of creationist ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 21, 2015 2:44:05 GMT 5
creature386: Yeah, usually. Maybe that justifies the terms family and genus. In the end tough, bottlenose dolphins (genus Tursiops) can produce fertile offspring with false killer whales (genus Pseudorca), which sorts of makes all of that collapse anyway. I don't remember the exact definitions, only that they exist. Anyway, let's say that the question "Do A and B belong to the same genus/family?" falls within the responsibility of the researchers dealing with A and B. Even though the significance of such a classification is debatable, I believe the (super/sub)family concept is justified because it makes the whole cladistic stuff a lot easier. I mean, it is better if scientists can name some of the clusters they found in their phylogenetic trees with -oidea, -idae or inae suffixes instead of "Unnamed clade 1, 2, 3…". The same logic can be used for orders. As for their significance, they can at least be useful within one group because "A and B share a family, A and C only share an order" gives useful information. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 21, 2015 12:08:12 GMT 5
theropodUsually, when creationists talk about "kind", they can mean either one suborder or one family of animals. Felines are one kind. Bears are one kind. Canids are one kind. Crocodilians are one kind. Snakes are one kind. Etc... At the same time, they will lump all bacteria into one "kind" of group, while claiming that there are thousands of "kinds" of animals. This only shows just how clueless they are about life in general. They have the understanding on biology of an elementary graduate. All members the kingdom of animalia are arguably closer related to one another than cyanobacteria are related to protobacteria. Hence, to deny evolution between animals yet not see a problem with evolution between bacteria is simply ignorance on a pedastal. With that being said, on the bright side, thundef00t does make an excellent point about the value of the internet. Where people are connected on a global scale, ridiculous ideas like Young Earth Creationism come to die.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 21, 2015 16:04:31 GMT 5
creature386: Yeah, usually. Maybe that justifies the terms family and genus. In the end tough, bottlenose dolphins (genus Tursiops) can produce fertile offspring with false killer whales (genus Pseudorca), which sorts of makes all of that collapse anyway. I don't remember the exact definitions, only that they exist. Anyway, let's say that the question "Do A and B belong to the same genus/family?" falls within the responsibility of the researchers dealing with A and B. Even though the significance of such a classification is debatable, I believe the (super/sub)family concept is justified because it makes the whole cladistic stuff a lot easier. I mean, it is better if scientists can name some of the clusters they found in their phylogenetic trees with -oidea, -idae or inae suffixes instead of "Unnamed clade 1, 2, 3…". The same logic can be used for orders. As for their significance, they can at least be useful within one group because "A and B share a family, A and C only share an order" gives useful information. I’m not opposed to using these suffixes, they just don’t have meaning besides besides designating rank in a series of clades of which one contains the other. Obviously, Abelisauroidea is of a higher rank than Abelisauridae, because the former contains the latter. In that case, the meaning of the endings are clear. But that way of labeling falls apart as soon as you compare clades where one is not part of the other, e.g. there’s no point in trying to rank carcharodontosauridae and tyrannosauroidea and say the first is a family, while the second is a superfamily or something like that–it’s arbitrary, because nobody can count the evolutionary steps and compare them directly (because evolution is a gradual process and there are a near infinite number of branchings). Vodmeister: The less they know about something, the more overgeneralized assumptions are involved. Snakes for example are a far more diverse, speciose and long-lived clade than canids. It’s not really possible to objectively rank the two because there’s an uncountable number of steps between them, but if "kind" is supposed to have some relevance it would have to refer to taxa that are somehow equivalent to each other in these regards (after all it’s the unit within which creationists fantasize evolution can happen without actually proving that evolution is true…). One does get to hear the term "kind" very often considering it has no real meaning, only the meaning that is convenient to the creationist using it at any given moment. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 21, 2015 20:53:57 GMT 5
I don't remember the exact definitions, only that they exist. Anyway, let's say that the question "Do A and B belong to the same genus/family?" falls within the responsibility of the researchers dealing with A and B. Even though the significance of such a classification is debatable, I believe the (super/sub)family concept is justified because it makes the whole cladistic stuff a lot easier. I mean, it is better if scientists can name some of the clusters they found in their phylogenetic trees with -oidea, -idae or inae suffixes instead of "Unnamed clade 1, 2, 3…". The same logic can be used for orders. As for their significance, they can at least be useful within one group because "A and B share a family, A and C only share an order" gives useful information. I’m not opposed to using these suffixes, they just don’t have meaning besides besides designating rank in a series of clades of which one contains the other. Obviously, Abelisauroidea is of a higher rank than Abelisauridae, because the former contains the latter. In that case, the meaning of the endings are clear. But that way of labeling falls apart as soon as you compare clades where one is not part of the other, e.g. there’s no point in trying to rank carcharodontosauridae and tyrannosauroidea and say the first is a family, while the second is a superfamily or something like that–it’s arbitrary, because nobody can count the evolutionary steps and compare them directly (because evolution is a gradual process and there are a near infinite number of branchings)- I see the problem, but I believe this could be said about any kind of classification (e.g. stratigraphy), not just about taxonomy. This is more of a critique of common usage than of the system itself. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 21, 2015 21:50:08 GMT 5
It’s not a problem of classification, it’s a problem of the very human need to assign ranks to something that’s not actually suited for that.
You mean terms like group, formation and member? Yup, essentially the same problem, but it is easier to find an objective definition than it is with animal groups, e.g. based on age range or geographical area, or the origin of the rocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 21, 2015 22:34:53 GMT 5
I was actually thinking of the geologic time scale (era, epoch, period), but your examples of course work as well. P.S. I think we talked more about taxonomy than about creationism here.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 21, 2015 23:11:47 GMT 5
theropodThere are about 3,400 different species of snakes. I don't know the number of subspecies (which also take time to evolve), but let's just stick with the 3,400 members of suborder serpentes we do know of. According to the creationist timeline of historical events, the flood happened 4,000 years ago. According to the creationist's theory, Noah took one "kind" of snake on the arc, which then went on to propagate every new species alive today. In other words, they believe that every 1.2 years, one new species of serprent becomes evolutionarily distinctive enough to be a completely different species. "To get from 7,000 species in 4,000 years to 16 million species today, we'd need to find 11 new species every day. Not every year, and not 11 individual animals! Eleven new species would need to be identified every single day."Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation (pg. 13) - Bill Nye Hence, not only do members of the YEC movement believe in evolution, they believe it occurs at a rate much faster and more efficiently than us evolutionists ourselves do! The amount of evolution that has been going on since the flood puts the Cambrian explosion to shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 21, 2015 23:58:11 GMT 5
Oh no, the pain from the irony's coming...
|
|
), while animals can not develop into other animals is hypocrisy, a prime example of creationist ignorance. 
