The Real Science Radio Caveman Show

[Stripe]

No, Flipper's reference makes sense in context. Modern popular culture has a great definition of unicorns. The point being, you can define something that doesn't actually exist quite well. Unfortunately nothing like them exists or has ever existed

So in comparing this definition to my definition for "Kind" he was trying to do, what? Say that it's possible each organism cannot be descended from an ancestor population? :chuckle:

:mock: Evolutionists.

 

[Alate_One]

Modern paleontologists aren't the only ones in history to go around investigating and pondering the meanings of ancient bones. Stone age and bronze age man probably found tyranosaurus rex bones and inferred a dragon. Similarly, they probably dug up the beast pictured here and imagined a much frailer looking animal called a unicorn.

Except the Elasmotherium lived alongside humans and some of the stories of unicorns more closely resemble Elasmotherium. It would also be hard to use Elasmotherium bones to deduce a horn since rhino horns are not preserved (they are made of the same substance as hair and nails). Only comparative anatomy allowed scientists to reconstruct the horn.

 

[Flipper]

What argument?

The fact is that "Kind" is clear and well defined.

And fictional. The term "kind" is not represented in reality.

The fact is that "Species" is vague and malleable.

And yet still has utility in the real-world...

There is no argument.

I agree. So pick up the pieces and try not to suck as hard next time. You're welcome.

That you atheists are arguing with me betrays your blind devotion to evolutionism.

The fact is, we're making fun of you.

 

[Stripe]

And fictional. The term "kind" is not represented in reality.

:rotfl:

You think organisms did not descend from their ancestors?

:mock: Flopper.

And yet still has utility in the real-world...

So we might talk sensibly about different coloured birds. It has no place in a debate about origins except to evolutionists who need malleable and vague definitions.

The fact is, we're making fun of you.

That works a lot better when you've something I've said that's wrong.

Like I have on you. :chuckle:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, Flipper's reference makes sense in context.

Maybe if you're playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Modern popular culture has a great definition of unicorns.

So does the Monster Manual. But we're using the Biblical definition.

 

[Yorzhik]

I said SUBspecies are much more subjective than species.

Here you say that species is more sure than subspecies. And yet, here: "Why should species be straightforward? If evolution is true, all organisms are constantly in flux. A species is simply a population that happens to be distinct from some other populations at a particular point in time. Biology is not straightforward," you infer that despite the difference in surety, it doesn't mean much.

The problem with Stripe is he's asserting that "kind" is less subjective and arbitrary than species, when all he's done is assert that over and over. He's not been able to actually use his definition AT ALL. Something that is useful but occasionally fuzzy is better than something that's totally useless, don't you think? lain:

It might be better in the beginning to use something, primarily, that is fuzzy and has more utility. But after you learn more you will want to move to something less subjective.

Therefore, I don't think your argument is with the definitions. Your argument is with the orchard model or the single ultimate common ancestor model. Why not move on and say, "despite the definition being less fuzzy, the orchard model is scientifically wrong." and provide your evidence?

 

[Lighthouse]

Sidenote: The hebrew word found in the old testament, re’em sometimes translated as "Unicorn", probably referred to aurochs, the wild progenitors of modern cattle based on a similar word in Assyrian.

I know. Thus the reason for my argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, "barminologists" (creationist "kinds" enthusiasts) put humans and Australopithecine species in the same "kind" (specfically A. sediba).

Previous research in hominid baraminology has been sharply criticized by other creationists, especially concerning the proposal to include A. sediba in the human holobaramin. \
http://www.bryancore.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/3/8

;

;

But sediba and chimps are more alike in their skulls then humans and sediba are alike. (granted that as in any transitional form, A. sediba has some elements of each, but it's more ape than human in the featured of its skull) The brain capacities of chimps and sediba are closer, too.

Looks like things aren't as clear-cut as Stipe supposed.

 

[Alate_One]

So does the Monster Manual. But we're using the Biblical definition.

We were? The Biblical definition of kinds or unicorns? Oops, the Bible doesn't give a definition of either.

:dizzy:

 

[Alate_One]

Why not move on and say, "despite the definition being less fuzzy, the orchard model is scientifically wrong." and provide your evidence?

Why, with the "orchard model" are there clear evolutionary links between the trees that should be separated if they were indeed separately created? We know from the genetic code that even identical proteins have an incredibly large number of possible coding sequences. Therefore higher similarity to one group vs. another does not make sense with an orchard model vs. a single tree.

For example, hoofed mammals and whales.

Whales are more similar at the DNA level to even toed hoofed mammals (artiodactyls) than any other group of mammals.

The branching pattern is obvious with DNA analysis.

Cut out the strips in the above, count up the differences and you'll see patterns of groups.

Whales also retain the remnants of legs, fossil whales have them and they're unsurprisingly like those of hoofed mammals (artiodactyls).

Specifically the ankle bone which is diagnostic for artiodactyls is a "Double pulley" in fossil whales and artiodactlys.

 

[voltaire]

Why, with the "orchard model" are there clear evolutionary links between the trees that should be separated if they were indeed separately created. We know from the genetic code that even identical proteins have an incredibly large number of possible coding sequences. Therefore higher similarity to one group vs. another does not make sense with an orchard model vs. a single tree.

To me, the ultimate test of evolution would be to take known molecular data and the phylogenetic tree built upon it and compare it with known proteins in existing species. It would be better to compare proteins of ancient species, but that data is not available. Current species are a given a distance to other species by way of molecular data as far as I can tell. If that distance is a reflection of actual evolutionary relationships, then there should be a relationship in types of protein found in species according to their molecular derived distance. In plain english, species that are closer related to each other should have more common proteins than species who are more distantly related.

 

[Stripe]

Why, with the "orchard model" are there clear evolutionary links between the trees that should be separated if they were indeed separately created? We know from the genetic code that even identical proteins have an incredibly large number of possible coding sequences. Therefore higher similarity to one group vs. another does not make sense with an orchard model vs. a single tree.

Every single time you ignore the perfectly rational explanation for similarity without common descent.

Your argument from similarity for common descent is worthless without hiding the assumption of common descent. You have to provide a rational set of reasons. :up:

And have you now finally conceded the point? "Kind" is well defined and "Species" is vague and malleable".

 

[The Barbarian]

It would be better to compare proteins of ancient species, but that data is not available.

Sometimes, it is. For example, a small amount of heme (protein subunit of hemoglobin) was found in T. rex bone. It turned out to be most similar to that of birds, and less similar to that of modern reptiles. Which is what evolutionary theory predicts.

So your idea has some merit. Here's one from a small molecule called cytochrome C:

Remember, this happens only due to random changes in the non-conserved portions of the molecule. Not bad, um?

 

[Alate_One]

Every single time you ignore the perfectly rational explanation for similarity without common descent.

Except that it doesn't explain the evidence. WHY are whales much more similar to hippos, cows and deer than rhinos, pigs or camels? What similarity do they have that would explain that data?

If they were all created at about the same time from totally separate common ancestors, we'd expect the level of similarity between say the "cow kind" to be similar to that of the "deer kind" and that of the "camel kind" but they're not. Instead there's a pattern and anyone that can count DNA differences can find it.

And have you now finally conceded the point? "Kind" is well defined and "Species" is vague and malleable".

Your "point" has no point. Your "kind" definition relies on another definition "common ancestor". You have a preconceived idea of what that common ancestor could look like. But you've not been able to give any rules or use your definition to show us how we know what that common ancestor would be like (in your definition). So basing your definition on something you can't define does not make it "well defined".

Plus we have the problem of evidence showing common ancestry between organisms you would assert do not share a common ancestor. Rendering "kinds" completely and utterly useless.

 

[Alate_One]

To me, the ultimate test of evolution would be to take known molecular data and the phylogenetic tree built upon it and compare it with known proteins in existing species.

I'm not sure you have any idea how much computing power that would take given the sheer volume of data that keeps coming in. However there was a recent phylogeny done with whole genome sequences for mammals only.

a, A phylogenetic tree of all 29 mammals used in this analysis based on the substitution rates in the MultiZ alignments. Organisms with finished genome sequences are indicated in blue, high quality drafts in green and 2× assemblies in black. Substitutions per 100 bp are given for each branch; branches with ≥10 substitutions are coloured red, blue indicates <10 substitutions. b, At 10% FDR, 3.6 million constrained elements can be detected encompassing 4.2% of the genome, including a substantial fraction of newly detected bases (blue) compared to the union of the HMRD 50-bp + Siepel vertebrate elements17 (see Supplementary Fig. 4b for comparison to HMRD elements only). The largest fraction of constraint can be seen in coding exons, introns and intergenic regions. For unique counts, the analysis was performed hierarchically: coding exons, 5′ UTRs, 3′ UTRs, promoters, pseudogenes, non-coding RNAs, introns, intergenic. The constrained bases are particularly enriched in coding transcripts and their promoters (Supplementary Fig. 4c).

The results are fairly predictable if you've been following evolutionary science. But the purpose of the paper wasn't to demonstrate that evolution has occurred but instead to look for non-coding regions of DNA that are important. If they are conserved over long evolutionary distances they are likely to be very important, if not they may be what makes a species different, or just random changes that were accumulated.

Note that Humans are far more similar to chimpanzees and rhesus macaques than rats and mice are to one another. And dolphins and cows are about the same level of similarity to one another as mice are to rats. If anyone can explain how that fits the "orchard model" I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Stripe]

Except that it doesn't explain the evidence. WHY are whales much more similar to hippos, cows and deer than rhinos, pigs or camels? What similarity do they have that would explain that data?

How about you dredge through your memory banks and tell us exactly the explanation you've been given numerous times?

If they were all created at about the same time from totally separate common ancestors, we'd expect the level of similarity between say the "cow kind" to be similar to that of the "deer kind" and that of the "camel kind" but they're not.

:AMR:

Like if someone made a boat and a car the day after each other they'd have to be the same?

Instead there's a pattern and anyone that can count DNA differences can find it.

And anyone who has assumed the truth of evolution will be blinded to any other explanation.

Your "point" has no point.

:dizzy:

Your "kind" definition relies on another definition "common ancestor".

Uh, yeah. In order to understand a definition, you have to understand the words that build it. :chuckle:

You have a preconceived idea of what that common ancestor could look like.

:AMR:

But you've not been able to give any rules or use your definition to show us how we know what that common ancestor would be like (in your definition).

Pays not to repeat stuff that has been shown so obviously wrong.

So basing your definition on something you can't define does not make it "well defined".

A "Kind" is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

Plus we have the problem of evidence showing common ancestry between organisms you would assert do not share a common ancestor. Rendering "kinds" completely and utterly useless.

Oh, so now you are able to understand and apply the definition? Make up your mind, please. :up:

The results are fairly predictable if you've been following evolutionary science. But the purpose of the paper wasn't to demonstrate that evolution has occurred but instead to look for non-coding regions of DNA that are important. If they are conserved over long evolutionary distances they are likely to be very important, if not they may be what makes a species different, or just random changes that were accumulated. Note that Humans are far more similar to chimpanzees and rhesus macaques than rats and mice are to one another. And dolphins and cows are about the same level of similarity to one another as mice are to rats. If anyone can explain how that fits the "orchard model" I'd be interested to hear it.

Note that this work is only ever done from the presupposition of evolutionary dogma.

 

[Alate_One]

Like if someone made a boat and a car the day after each other they'd have to be the same?

No. You're a moron apparently. Boats and cars don't reproduce. They don't descend from ancestors. And they can't change over time. :dizzy:

If all creatures were created at the same time, they'd all start changing from that point on. If they were all created separately (as your interpretation of "kinds" says), one should be no more similar to the other since they've all been changing for the same period of time and they were all created separately.

For example, if you assume mice and rats are the same "kind", why are they more genetically different from one another than humans are from apes/monkeys which by your assumptions are different kinds from one another?

Why are whales and cows about as close to one another as rats are to mice? It makes no sense for whales and cows to have any relationship at all from a YEC perspective.

It would make more sense if rats and mice had been created longer ago and have been changing for longer and humans and apes perhaps monkeys as well were all the same "kind". But of course that would be hugely problematic for you. But that's what the data indicates.

A "Kind" is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

Give us an example. A word should not only have a definition, but be easily applicable to real world situations.

Note that this work is only ever done from the presupposition of evolutionary dogma.

No it isn't it's a simple comparison. The algorithm draws the lines but the similarities are there, regardless of "preconceptions". You can claim bias till you're blue in the face but it has no basis in reality. As I said you can do the comparison yourself using the file I linked.

 

[Stripe]

No. You're a moron apparently.

Good argument. :thumb:

Boats and cars don't reproduce. They don't descend from ancestors. And they can't change over time.

Try to come to grips with what it is you are trying to argue against before rattling off any more nonsense predictions. :thumb:

If all creatures were created at the same time, they'd all start changing from that point on. If they were all created separately (as your interpretation of "kinds" says), one should be no more similar to the other since they've all been changing for the same period of time and they were all created separately.

:dizzy:

Now they all have to be different?

For example, if you assume mice and rats are the same "kind", why are they more genetically different from one another than humans are from apes/monkeys which by your assumptions are different kinds from one another?

:idunno:

But it looks like you've finally come to grips with what a "Kind" is and how easy it is to apply. :thumb:

Why are whales and cows about as close to one another as rats are to mice? It makes no sense for whales and cows to have any relationship at all from a YEC perspective.

They don't. :idunno:

Apart from having the same Maker.

Give us an example. A word should not only have a definition, but be easily applicable to real world situations.

You don't know of any organisms that all descended from a single ancestor population?

 

[Alate_One]

Now they all have to be different?

It would make sense for them to either all be the same or all be different. But we find neither, there's a pattern of similarities and differences that work out to a tree shape.

They don't.

WHY are they so similar Stripe? Why are whales closer to cows than any other mammal in that listing of creatures?

Apart from having the same Maker.

Not a scientific argument. You have specific ideas about HOW God created. Saying "God just did it that way" is a total cop out. You're then saying God made it look like evolution without actually creating through evolution.

You don't know of any organisms that all descended from a single ancestor population?

You mean all of them? I'm asking for YOU to use YOUR definition. I can give you examples of species, and why they are defined as such all day. If "kind" is so simple and obvious, you should have no trouble giving us examples ad nauseum.

All you've done in this entire thread is assert, obfuscate and dodge. You're a total waste of time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe is still confusing analogies with homologies. And Stipe, what about those YE creationists who put some apes ( A. sediba ) into the same kind as humans?

Do you endorse that baramin? If so, doesn't that completely refute what you've been telling us? If not, why not?