|
gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/24/2008 12:14:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Well, ok fine. I'm not familiar with the history of the word kind,
And especially not with the fact that this is a creationist history of re-definition. Assuming your grandfather was a creationist, he was probably taught that "species" was the scientific term for "kind".
quote:
Why do you all like disagreeing with my biology professors so much? The taxonomic ranks are populated by biologists based on their philosophy of grouping animals based on similarities and dividing animals based on differences (and the desire of the biologist to have something named after him...).
Well, it is not just a free-for-all. When a biologist proposes a new taxonomic group his proposal has to be supported by objective observations of the group that warrant a distinctive name and it has to meet with the approval of an international panel of reviewers. Others can challenge the proposal.
Nor is it just a matter of totting up similarities. Only the type of similarity called a synapomorphy is relevant.
There is some truth in what your professor said, but as you have expressed it, it is not the whole truth.
quote:
I personally don't mind calling it evolution.
Good. Maybe you can get drmark to come around to the same position.
quote:
The problem is that if it goes under the umbrella term "evolution" then it is assumed to be that magic process by which new information is created to produce new functions. Cellular respiration, despite the massive myriad of mutations that would have had to have occurred to have brought it about (assuming that it is possible for it to have been brought about in this fashion), is summed up with the umbrella term, "evolved". You see what happens when we let you use that word? "Adapted" is used because it should be assumed that the information was already present somewhere in the genes of the population and was either amplified or turned on in order for the change to have occurred.
So let's talk new information. There are a number of questions to be explored here.
First, as Method asks: what does new information look like? Is it a change in a DNA sequence?
Second, as ianz asks: how did the kinds develop so rapidly into the species we see today?
To that I would add, if that was evolution within the kind, doesn't it show that evolution is capable of producing the new information required to change a single-species kind into a multiple species kind?
Why should it be assumed that adaptation means the information was already present somewhere in the genes of population?
quote:
To answer this question would send this conversation in a completely different direction. You are referring to the fossil record, which we are not talking about. Of course we have different interpretations of the fossil record. You know that, and I know that.
Not really. Except in the case of people who insist that adaptation is not evolution, it always comes back to this. Modern creationists (unlike 19th century creationists) do not have a problem with the process of evolution, with mutation and selection and species change and even speciation "within the kind". Since this is what the theory of evolution is mostly about, today's creationists basically accept 99% of what a biologist means by "evolution".
What is not accepted is the history that biologists and paleontologists have pieced together---the history that strongly suggests the common ancestry of all life. And, in particular, the evidence that humans are part of that history, not a separate and specific creation.
So basically, you want to propose what is and must be a historical process (change over time), yet deny that it has a history and has left evidence of that history.
If it was a matter of saying, "yes, of course, evolution has a history, but scientists have got it wrong" then all that would be needed is to produce the evidence that it is wrong. In fact, scientists themselves do this when they do cladistic analysis, discover new fossils, and make new genetic discoveries. You often read how our understanding of the history of evolution has been revised by new information. No one is claiming that the current standard phylogeny is totally accurate.
Now, as I see it, the history of evolution is actually the easiest aspect to accept---once one has a thorough grasp of the process and what basic predictions can be made on the basis of the process. That is why I spend time making sure that the process is set out clearly before I discuss the history.
Because modern creationists actually don't have any real objection to the process, they tend to gloss over it, and want to jump straight into the history. But the worst errors occur because one thinks one knows what one has not really studied thoroughly.
|
|
|
|