At 08:37 AM 11/10/98 -0800, Bonnie Stout wrote:

>>Quick, educate me: just WHAT is a "kind" as spoken of in the bible? Order?
>>Family? Genus? Species? Subspecies?

>Couldn't tell you - wasn't there was I?

This is crap. The whole thesis is that God told us, and that history is
literally recorded in the Bible. This removes the need to be there.

>What is a species? Any bioligist will tell you that's a sticky question
>and we are stuck with working definitions because life doesn't fall into
>neat little categories all the time.

Yes, exactly. The lack of barriers and walls that makes a simplistic
definition of species difficult is a result of evolution (indeed, a
predictable result of evolution). This makes our descriptive task
of organizing life into a taxonomy difficult.

The creationist has a far more difficult time with this problem, though,
because picking a point on the continuum that delineates "kind", i.e.
the level of taxa that divides macro and micro evolution, is impossible.

Creationist attempts to do so can only be supported by statements of faith.
"we don't believe the fossil record". "that's not REALLY a species".

>>Tell me where in the bible the distinction is made.

>I don't think it is!

If it's not then so-called "scientific" creationists are not only lying
about biology but about the Bible. For it is the biblical concept of
"kind" that forces them to wrestle with it. They know it is the level
of taxa that separates so-called micro- and macro-evolution, and that
a definable "kind" must exist in the world because the bible says so.

The problem they have is that their attempts to define "kind" are
subject to counter-example, and such counter-examples can only be
rejected by statements of faith that boil down to crying "you're
wrong! you're wrong!" over and over again.

That's OK if the creationist declares his disbelief to be a matter
of faith.

Where's it's not OK is when so-called "scientific" creationists begin
to lie about biology in order to build an pseudo-scientific artifice
that can then be taught as "science" in public schools.

Which is the whole point of formal efforts to defined "scientific"
creationism.

>My
>opinions about the likelyhood of a reptile evolving into a bird via small
>evolutionary changes (DNA substitutions and the like) can stand
>independently of any opinion I have about the Bible.

Is it now time for me to teach you something of probability theory? I
do have an undergraduate math degree, after all.

I'm not sure why I should do this, especially for free. The answer to
the above question is easy for one who understands basic probability
theory.

This is a polite way of telling you that your opinion is based on
ignorance of yet another technical subject.

Of course, if the world's only 6,000 years old the odds change dramatically.

>>Tell me EXACTLY where the distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution
>>lies.

>Check with Steven Gould - I don't know!

He doesn't, either. That's rather the point, the terms as used by so-called
"scientific" creationists are meaningless. Deborah's "bigger or smaller
than a human" answer is as useful (and as deniable) as any proposed by
the lying scum of the ICR.

> Give me a precise definition of
>species so I know what speciation is!

That's easy - since taxonomy is a human invention, a species is whatever
we say it is. Now, we've tried to make our taxonomy as accurate a
description of the world as we can, and in doing so different proposals
for the most useful (to scientists) definition of species have arisen,
for instance the biological species concept. But, there is no pretense
that no matter how hard we try to make that taxonomy a 100% accurate
description of the world, that we have or will succeed. Our taxonomic
system is arbitrary, in the very limited meaning of that word, i.e. the
decision to classify organisms as we do is an arbitrary one, chosen because
it is the system most useful to biologists.

If photographers were in charge of inventing taxonomy, a different system
would undoubtably arise. First, we'd just lump a bunch of look-alikes
because identifying stuff like bugs is a pain in the ass for those who
sell photographs. Then, of course, above the species level we'd really
wreak havoc. For instance, instead of classes like Aves or Mammalia,
we'd have classes based on size and approachability. "Class
sixhundredmillimeteres" and "Class macrolensia", for instance. Far
more useful to us shooters...

The web page address I provided earlier, which I
presume you haven't visited since you can find answers to all these
questions there rather than waste my time, has a large list of
speciation events which have been observed. I suspect the maintainer
of that list would be more than glad to share with you the criteria
for making the list (i.e. the definition of species).

> All I know is that getting 2 or 3 species
>(depending on the definition of species!) of warblers where we once had 1,
>due to changes in breeding range, plumage, song, whatever, seems rather
>plausible to me - and we can observe these kinds of changes. Does that
>mean that since we see changes in plumage and song that if we add lots of
>time we will change a reptile into a bird? As I said before - maybe, maybe
>not!

It is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record. Either scientists are
out-and-out liars (and a common so-called "scientific" creationist trick
is to declare that Archie is a fraud, since that's the easiest way out
of the dilema posed by this reptilian-like bird-like creature), or God
went to great effort to lie to us by planting fossils of creatures that
never lived.

>>You didn't read my statement about the THEORY of gravity, did you?

>Actually, I did - excuse me for being so beneath your intellect.
>Yes, gravity is a fact and Newton, et al. proposed theories to explain it.
>Yes, evolution occurs, is a fact

This is very different than your previous post. Pardon me for believing
that you really meant what you wrote. I won't make that mistake twice...

>and many people have proposed theories to
>explain it. But some of these ideas about what happened in the past cannot
>be tested or observed. These should not be treated as fact, beyond debate.

Science doesn't treat such things as facts. Indeed, science without debate
would cease to exist.

The lie behind your statement is in the implication that evolution is based
on ideas that can't be tested.

>Regarding the age of the earth: I don't know what the age of the earth is
>and don't really care. I never argued for a young earth, only for the
>right of people to give their opinion.

I've never said that folks can't state their opinion.

And when that opinion makes it clear they're ignorant, we have the right
to point this out. An honest ignorance, i.e. a lack of knowledge combined
with a willingness to learn, is nothing to be ashamed of.

However, willful ignorance - a refusal to learn - is.

> Finally, who is the ICR and why do
>I care? (I know who they are)

OBVIOUSLY you know who they are. The first couple of posts you made were
informal transcriptions of their dogma. While not word-for-word plagarism,
they consisted of the same tired bullshit they've espoused for years. You,
like many others, trotted out that crap thinking that real information, stuff
we'd not seen before, stuff that scientists or interested layfolk like myself
can't refute.

Despite the fact that refutation is simple, and has been repeated hundreds or
thousands of times before.

If folks who know a little science appear short on patience with this crap,
it's because folks like you could EASILY find the refutations to these lies
youselves.

> Obviously your bitterness toward these
>people has made it impossible for you to talk about the subject with anyone
>else without labeling them.

I'll let you label yourself. Are you willfully ignorant, or just lazy?



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net